Interrogating archaeological ethics in conflict zones:cultural heritage work in Cyprus
Much affected by viewing the Yugoslav Wars’ ruins, I resolved to study archaeology in conflict. I wanted to explore archaeology’s role in conflict and archaeologists’ responsibilities in conflict zones; but unable to conduct such work in Kosova/Kosovo, I went to Cyprus. Drawing together professional documentation and public education, professional and community interactions and interviews, and 
cultural heritage site visits, I researched the destruction of community places, the looting of cultural heritage, and the coping strategies of archaeologists. The key questions of this thesis are: is it legal and ethical to conduct archaeological work in occupied and secessionist territories? How is public knowledge of cultural heritage 
looting and destruction constructed? What are cultural heritage professionals’ responsibilities for knowledge production during conflict? How ought cultural 
heritage professionals to combat the looting and illicit trading of antiquities? I have addressed these questions by concentrating upon cultural heritage workers’ narratives of looting and destruction from 1955 until the present in 
professional discussion and mass education. First, I argue that archaeologists have misinterpreted international law, and through boycotting and blacklisting of rescue 
archaeology in northern Cyprus, harmed both the profession and the cultural heritage. Second, I argue that cultural heritage workers have been unwillingly coopted, or actively complicit in the conflict, in the production of nationalist histories, and thus nationalist communities, therefore in the reproduction of nationalist conflict. Third, I argue that cultural heritage workers have knowingly contributed 
to the conflict and its destruction, through their nationalist policies on the paramilitary-dominated illicit antiquities trade. My conclusions are: that an ethical 
antiquities policy would cut funding to and thereby reduce conflict-fuelling extremist activity; and that, where they have the freedom to practice it, professional and ethical archaeologies of destruction would promote intracommunal and 
intercommunal peace.
The Archaeology of Slavery and Plantation Life
Contributors. Preface. Acknowledgements. T.A. Singleton,Introduction. Research Strategies: F.W. Lange and J.S. Handler , The Ethnohistorical Approach to Slavery. Settlement: K.E. Lewis , Plantation Layout and Function in the south Carolina Lowcountry. C.E. Orser, Jr., and A.M. Nekola , Plantation Settlement from Slavery to Tenancy: An Example from a Piedmont Plantation in South Carolina. Artifact Patterns: F.W. Lange and S.B. Carlson , Distributions of European Earthenwares on Plantations on Barbados, West Indies. L.G. Lewis , The Planter Class: the Archaeological Record at Drayton Hall. S.M. Moore , Social and Economical Status on the Coastal Plantation: An Archaeological Perspective. Foodways: E.J. Reitz, T. Gibbs, and T.A. Rathbun , Archaeological Evidence for Subsistence on Coastal Plantations. Afro-American Traditions: S.L. Jones , The African-American Tradition in Vernacular Architecture. A. Friedlander , Establishing Historical Probabilities for Archaeological Interpretations: Slave Demography of Two Plantations in the South Carolina Lowcountry, 1740-1820. T.R. Wheaton and P.H. Garrow , Acculturation and the Archaeological Record in the Carolina Lowcountry. D.V. Armstrong , An Afro-Jamaican Slave Settlement: Archaeological Investigation at Drax Hall. Transformation: T.A. Singleton , Archaeological Implications for Changing Labor Conditions. W.H. Adams and S.D. Smith , Historical Perspectives on Black Tenant Farmer Material Culture: The Henry C. Long General Store Ledger at Waverly Plantation, Mississippi. Index.
The Tree, the Tower and the Shaman
This paper, 'The tree, the Tower and the Shaman', is a bricolage of comment, analysis, critique, oral testimony and myth, the 'subject' of which is the material culture of one specific urban landscape - Claremont Road. My text explores the ways in which a study of material culture offers us an insight into the cultures of resistance that inhabited this particular space in protest against the British National Roads Programme, and similarly, the impli cations of these findings for subsequent critiques of museology, space and 'everyday life'. Claremont Road, whilst functioning as a critique of the 'auto'-(mobile) culture, also functioned as an auto-critique of both the domi nant museum culture and of 'traditional' definitions of material culture. I posit that the culture of resistance created at Claremont, the people who inhabited the space and the rituals performed here functioned as an 'auto' critic of everyday life, and that the art, the artefacts and the landscape itself were purposefully (re)-created to 'display' and to confront this potential. Thus the Claremont Road experience offers an insight, a clarity: a parody, an inversion and a subversion of 'ordinary' perspectives; with this co existed/co-exists alternative visions. What emerges from this study are the various, often competing, ways of seeing and experiencing the urban environment, materiality, democracy, partisan politics, social identities, ritual performance, time, place and everyday life. The 'common ground' or praxis is located in the transforming potential of 'contact'.