ABSTRACT

Archival material from archaeological fieldwork contained in private and public collections has long been the object of study within various archaeological contexts. Often, however, such material is used as a backdrop or as anecdotal information and not as a point of departure. In this special issue, contributions focus on a variety of ways in which archival material and other kinds of legacy data can usefully be integrated into or provide the ground for archaeological projects and archaeological research, including preparations of new projects or for gaining a deeper understanding of ongoing projects or past projects. Modern developments, conflicts, wars, and the recent pandemic, have all accentuated the need for the curation of archival material and legacy data to an even higher degree than hitherto suspected and revealed that such material often holds information just as crucial to the project as archaeological raw data directly from the ground.

This issue of the Journal of Eastern Mediterranean Archaeology and Heritage Studies turns to archival studies, studies of material evidence that often has come into existence because of reflections on primary evidence. The contributions to this issue pertain to archaeological evidence from the MENA (Middle East and North Africa) region more specifically and address archival studies in numerous but not all of their facets. Archival material is both powerful and effective in addressing questions about raw data and has great potential as a field of study. It has received more attention over the last decades, but it still has much to offer to the disciplines of archaeology, history, and historiographical research, and all too often it is not integrated as much as it should be into these fields of study. The contributions to the current issue do not pretend to cover all possible views and aspects, but they should be understood as focused case studies of a wide range of material embedded into a variety of scenarios over a range of time.

Recent years have been a challenge for field research and fieldwork in the MENA region. First and foremost, various countries in the region are experiencing the worst humanitarian crises seen since World War II. In numerous places it is not possible to undertake fieldwork at all, nor would it be prudent to attempt it even if it were possible, due to the war in Syria and the current situation in Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza. Wars, internal and across borders, have impacted what, to a certain extent, used to be stable regions where scholars were able to conduct fieldwork on a regular basis. In fact, some of the richest archaeological datasets have come from fieldwork carried out in the region (Cunliffe, Muhesen, and Lostal 2016; Dingwall McCafferty 2023; Jackson et al. 2021; Lostal 2017). The recent pandemic also underscored how fast the world can change and how fast access to data in and from the field can be disrupted (Geser 2021 for a comprehensive overview; see also Brody and Raja 2022: 56; Raja 2023b). Numerous fieldwork and research projects suffered because project participants were unable to carry out work on the ground or to access already available data in storage facilities and archives. In addition, natural disasters and the impact of climate change have left an immense footprint in the region over the last years (Sesana et al. 2021). The major 2023 earthquakes that hit extensive regions in Syria and Turkey hard, as well as the earthquake in Morocco, have badly affected cultural heritage in these regions both in the field and in collections, public museums and private alike (regarding earthquake damage, see Türkiye Earthquakes Recovery and Reconstruction Assessment 2023). Illicit trade in antiquities from the region has increased immensely as a result of all these disasters, and the black market is flourishing to an extent hitherto unknown. Complete data on the scope of the black market is hard to find, but a few insights can be obtained from those cases where objects have been seized and repatriated (Brodie et al. 2021; Kersel and Gerstenblith 2023; Raja 2016). While we are only able to sketch out recent traumatic developments, the numbers of these incidents appear to exceed those prior to and after World War II.

Because of this we have the responsibility, when working with archival material from the region, to pay attention to all of the information recovered and not focus on a site or material from a specific period. We need to motivate ourselves to contextualize our findings—to leave our comfort zone and venture into unknown territory—something that is often easier for researchers in a collaborative environment. Ottoman rule in the Near East, the transition to the Mandate period, the time before World War I, and the period between the two great wars were also periods of upheaval and unrest, of foreign control over local populations, and displacement of many communities. Nevertheless, in some cases, these were also periods of opportunities. The Ottoman Empire’s influence on the region that is today Syria is often overlooked by archaeologists of the region since most large-scale organized archaeological fieldwork only began during the Mandate period. However, numerous large projects were conducted during the Ottoman period, projects that often were heavily influenced by European imperial powers or even undertaken by them (for archaeology in the Ottoman empire, see Bahrani, Çelik, and Eldem 2011; Çelik 2016; Eldem 2017; Willert 2021). Of course, much research has been done on the influence of the Ottoman Empire on the region. Nevertheless, more can and should be done with respect to the archaeology of this period and the ways in which it shaped our perspective on Greater Syria and that of the local population. Today, the more recent past has left its mark on Syria’s many identities as well as on the ways in which Syrians view involvement from parties outside of the country’s modern boundaries. These are all bleak statements on the current situation in the region, which of course first and foremost afflicts the people who live in these countries and with whom many of us have worked in various constellations over the years.

Naturally, archaeological fieldwork and research cannot take center stage under these circumstances, but the current situation should result in making us think harder about archaeological practice in general. It might also provide food for thought about how to improve best practices, work with existing data in archives and other repositories, and how to make that data available to others (Beck 2013; Costa et al. 2014; Kansa 2012; Marwick et al. 2017; Wilson and Edwards 2015). While crises often separate people and lead to less sharing of information because of distrust and uncertainties, they can also lead to increased knowledge sharing. The discipline of archaeology should be one that takes the lead in increasing the sharing of knowledge across national borders, across projects, and across institutions. There are plenty of projects that already practice knowledge sharing either through open access to data, through (open access) publication, through the archiving of data in online repositories, or through making images and digitized materials available on websites in various forms (see, as an example, the Journal of Open Archaeological Data that offers a platform for researchers to share information). Often such knowledge is spread by word of mouth and will circulate within groups interested in specific kinds of data, periods, regions, or materials.

The Nature of Archiving and the Challenge of Organizing

Archival material, not just “archives,” is very often not organized—in one place, by one person, or by anyone at all. Nevertheless, it is among the best sources to bring to the forefront historiographies about regions that have experienced extreme and, all too often, repetitive trauma, sometimes so often that trauma has become normalized, as an embedded, though almost intolerable part of everyday life. So, in some ways, working with archival material provides an opening for the discussion of these aspects while remaining aware that the material is incomplete and that it also has been written, compiled, saved, and organized by people who did not work and travel there long enough to really get to know the local communities, people who may have been part of occupying forces or who represented colonial authorities (Baird and McFadyen 2014; Baird, Kamash, and Raja 2023).

Digitization is often used as a buzzword to describe many kinds of initiatives. The European Union, for example, has a wide-ranging digitization strategy. Furthermore, numerous funding bodies and research councils today also demand that applicants submit a digitization strategy. Digitization, however, can mean a range of different things and to be digitized does not necessarily mean living up to, for example, the FAIR (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, Reproducible) standard (see Go FAIR Initiative, https://www.go-fair.org/fair-principles/; Khodiyar 2021; Nicholson et al. 2023; Wilkinson et al. 2016). In the humanities, however, and in archaeology specifically, the FAIR principles are crucial to keep in mind when working with data, curating data, and making data accessible and available to a broader audience (Kelly and Mason 2018). Due to the current instability in parts of the Middle East and also due to the pressure—both political and societal—that the humanities are undergoing, we are in many ways standing at a threshold of what might become the “third dimension” of the humanities; a dimension that transcends the hard data and takes it further by combining it in entirely new ways—not to be confused with the rapidly growing use of artificial intelligence. Yet, we have to grasp the opportunities and position ourselves at the forefront of the debates and take the lead on formulating programs for FAIR data curation within archaeology.

However, one of archaeology’s challenges in going digital remains that of dealing with the amount and range of data. Archaeological data encompasses all of the products of human existence on earth: from pottery sherds to monumental building features to entire cities and regions; from landscape archaeology to archaeological observations made through satellite imagery; from natural-science results embedded in our culture-historical interpretations to the study of art-historical and stylistic developments (see Raja 2023a for just a small sample of the range of data that need to be made available). There is no one-size-fits-all model available for the curation of archaeological data. While this issue of JEMAHS does not claim to solve archaeology’s most pressing problems and challenges, it will, hopefully, bring to the forefront for readers ways of thinking about data use and data curation, with accessibility to data being very much at the center of the contributions included here as well as a focus on the special challenges when working with data from the MENA region. These contributions are in no way claimed to be representative of the entire field. They relate to a small but significant field of research that crosscuts archaeology, historiographic and archival research, and digitalization projects—now known as archive archaeology.

Archives and legacy data, though previously underutilized and undervalued in archaeological scholarship, are important sources of information on ancient cultures and on archaeological practices in general, including those implemented in the MENA region (Baird and McFadyen 2014). As the archival turn gains traction in the field of archaeology, it is also increasingly becoming the responsibility of scholars to understand nineteenth- and twentieth-century historiography and acknowledge the inherent bias of archival and legacy data. Research on various aspects of such issues has already been published over the last decades and is currently also the focus in a number of countries (Baird, Kamash, and Raja 2023; Bobou, Miranda, and Raja 2022a with further references; Raja 2023a with further references). Much of archaeology’s history has been shaped by early colonialist attitudes that are now being challenged across the humanities, as work to decolonize history and to disentangle the narratives of the last century has taken hold (Baird, Kamash, and Raja 2023; Kamash 2021; McBryde 1985; Mickel 2021). While archives and legacy data have been shaped and curated, the human element of such information should be further accounted for in the present day. For example, giving voice to underrepresented groups such as women, minorities, nonelites, or non-Western populations deserves amplification (Figs. 13). When the modern shape of archaeological practice was being formed, colonialism was a reality (Fig. 4). Even following both World War I and World War II, global policies such as the formation of the League of Nations or the French Mandate of Syria and Lebanon, for example, had implications for archaeology and cultural heritage preservation that are still very much felt in the present. These resonances not only need to be acknowledged by archaeologists. Rather, they must be confronted head-on. Current scholars need to reread primary source data through a new lens. Such a lens will give voice to underrepresented and hitherto overheard groups, who have the potential to reshape parts at least of our current narratives of ancient and modern history writing. A rereading may also aid in restitution efforts and heritage preservation, both tangible and intangible (Kersel 2010, 2020; Raja, Schnädelbach, and Steding 2022 [for the map of Palmyra’s southwest necropolis discussed in the latter publication, see also https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.c.5696872.v1]). This means that working with archaeological archives and legacy data in new ways may aid in postconflict cultural healing (Baird and Kamash 2019; Baird, Kamash, and Raja 2023; Bobou, Miranda, and Raja 2021; Bobou, Miranda, and Raja 2022b). Although such an agenda may appear, at first glance, outside the scope of the core of archaeology, the question of ethical responsibility in past and current archaeological practices is worthy to address and also represents a rapidly growing string in archaeological historiographic research. Archaeology is by nature not an objective discipline, even less so than many other disciplines in the humanities, due to its embeddedness in the ground, both literally and figuratively. In the regions in question, it has often been a ground on which archaeologists carrying out the work were not born, a ground that they have no strong ties to, and, sometimes, a ground with inhabitants whose culture and language are unknown to them.

FIG. 1

Young worker with finds from the Hama excavations. The worker’s name is not recorded, and it is possible that he was photographed together with the objects as a “human scale.” Undated photograph taken by Harald Ingholt.

(© Palmyra Portrait Project and R. Raja; courtesy of Yale Babylonian collection, Yale University.)

FIG. 1

Young worker with finds from the Hama excavations. The worker’s name is not recorded, and it is possible that he was photographed together with the objects as a “human scale.” Undated photograph taken by Harald Ingholt.

(© Palmyra Portrait Project and R. Raja; courtesy of Yale Babylonian collection, Yale University.)

Close modal
FIG. 2

Photograph of workers from one of Ingholt’s excavation teams. Their names are, in this case, mentioned on the backside of the photograph: Siddout, Sarawi, Bušdar, Bukandūr, 'Alak, and Sanūn

(© Palmyra Portrait Project and R. Raja; courtesy of M. Ebba Underdown.)

FIG. 2

Photograph of workers from one of Ingholt’s excavation teams. Their names are, in this case, mentioned on the backside of the photograph: Siddout, Sarawi, Bušdar, Bukandūr, 'Alak, and Sanūn

(© Palmyra Portrait Project and R. Raja; courtesy of M. Ebba Underdown.)

Close modal
FIG. 3

Ingholt recruited his workers among the men who lived in the village of Palmyra. That they were illiterate and perhaps also belonged to the lower strata of their local society is shown by the use of fingerprints in lieu of signatures.

(© Palmyra Portrait Project and R. Raja; courtesy of Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek.)

FIG. 3

Ingholt recruited his workers among the men who lived in the village of Palmyra. That they were illiterate and perhaps also belonged to the lower strata of their local society is shown by the use of fingerprints in lieu of signatures.

(© Palmyra Portrait Project and R. Raja; courtesy of Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek.)

Close modal
FIG. 4

In this picture where the two local workers take center stage, the handwritten note on the sheet only mentions the presence of the French archaeologist Maurice Dunand but not the workers’ names, an unconscious colonial bias on behalf of Ingholt. Note also the difference in dress. Undated photograph, possibly from 1924–1928, photographer unknown.

(© Palmyra Portrait Project and R. Raja; courtesy of Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek.)

FIG. 4

In this picture where the two local workers take center stage, the handwritten note on the sheet only mentions the presence of the French archaeologist Maurice Dunand but not the workers’ names, an unconscious colonial bias on behalf of Ingholt. Note also the difference in dress. Undated photograph, possibly from 1924–1928, photographer unknown.

(© Palmyra Portrait Project and R. Raja; courtesy of Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek.)

Close modal

Crafting the Conference “Between the Lines” and the Archive Archaeology Project behind It

The articles in this issue have come out of a conference held in June 2022 within the project “Archive Archaeology: Preserving and Sharing Palmyra’s Cultural Heritage through Harald Ingholt’s Digital Archives” (henceforth the Archive Archaeology project) based at Aarhus University. Over the last years, the project has tackled an immense amount of legacy data relating to early twentieth-century fieldwork in the oasis city of Palmyra in the Syrian desert (https://projects.au.dk/archivearcheology; Bobou et al. 2023; Bobou, Miranda, and Raja 2021, 2022b; Miranda and Raja 2021; Raja and Steding 2021, 2022; Raja, Steding, and Yon 2021). However, throughout the project, focus has also been on reaching out and including research on archaeological archives in general, on fieldwork accounts, on object archives as well as on history of research, geopolitics, and military history. The activities of the project have, until now, resulted in four major monographs and edited volumes, including the four-volume publication of the Ingholt Archive, as well as a string of articles and book contributions. Furthermore, an international book series carrying part of the name of the project, “Archive Archaeology,” has been well published (Spencer 2022; Bobou et al. 2023; Bobou, Miranda, and Raja 2022a; Raja 2023a).

The conference papers turned into articles for this issue of JEMAHS do not all concern Palmyra but broadly address the ethical responsibility of scholars in their use of archival material and legacy data and the obligation to decolonize history by reading between the lines—which, subsequently, became the title of the conference. The authors use primarily case studies from their own fields within archaeology to exemplify in which ways such research can be framed.

The contributions foreground a variety of avenues of in-depth exploration. First of all, archives or archival material need to be opened in order to be studied at all and in that process also to be decolonized. In connection with this project, the pivotal Ottoman records, mostly held in Istanbul and open to the public, hold great promise for exploration and have in recent years begun to be studied. While this data is not the focus of this issue, these records must be acknowledged as material on which much more work should be done and which needs to be more closely integrated with the work on the nineteenth and twentieth century in the Near East. However, collaboration in working with these archives is necessary in terms of research interests and language skillsets, as well as in terms of providing cultural insights and a historical overview of various parts of the region involved and the period covered.

Palmyra, the Mandate Period in Syria, and the Ingholt Archive

The conflict in Syria has destroyed much of the rich Syrian cultural heritage, preserved now only as memories or intangible heritage and in archives (tangible heritage). While intangible heritage is complex to document and make accessible, tangible heritage connected to Syria informs us directly—but in a manner not without its own complications—about the culture of the country (Kamash 2018, 2019; Kamash et al. 2017). In the 1920s and 1930s during the French Mandate, several archaeological missions worked at Palmyra in the Syrian Desert, an important trade city in the Roman period and a site known from sources reaching back to the second millennium BC. While many of these expeditions—and those of earlier travelers to Palmyra—have been published (Figs. 56), the fieldwork and documentation relating to the Palmyrene funerary portraits undertaken by the Danish Near Eastern archaeologist Harald Ingholt (1896–1985) remains largely unknown to the international community (Baird, Kamash, and Raja 2023; Bobou, Miranda, and Raja 2022b) (Fig. 7). Today, the legacy data of Ingholt is spread out in a number of places: The main archive has, since the 1980s, been located at the Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek and has only recently been published (Bobou et al. 2023), the fieldwork diaries of Ingholt are also kept at the museum (Raja, Steding, and Yon 2021), whereas a number of other files, including images and photographs, are held at Yale University in the Babylonian Collection (a gift to the museum from Ingholt’s family to a former curator), and some material is still in the possession of family members. Furthermore, some squeezes have recently come to light in Paris at the Cabinet du Corpus des inscriptions sémitiques of the Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres, where Professor Maria Gorea and a team of others are in charge of digitizing them.

FIG. 5

James Wood and Robert Dawkins were two of the earliest explorers of Palmyra and the first to leave ample documentation of their visit at the site.

(Heidelberg University Library, https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.4569#0045.)

FIG. 5

James Wood and Robert Dawkins were two of the earliest explorers of Palmyra and the first to leave ample documentation of their visit at the site.

(Heidelberg University Library, https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.4569#0045.)

Close modal
FIG. 6

Other travelers also took pictures of Palmyra’s ruins. Photograph from 1874, unknown photographer.

(J. Paul Getty Museum, Los Angeles, 84.XA.823.8.140; image available under Getty’s Open Content Program.)

FIG. 6

Other travelers also took pictures of Palmyra’s ruins. Photograph from 1874, unknown photographer.

(J. Paul Getty Museum, Los Angeles, 84.XA.823.8.140; image available under Getty’s Open Content Program.)

Close modal
FIG. 7

Harald Ingholt at the entrance of the tomb of Malkû, Palmyra. Ingholt unconsciously adopts an open, assertive pose, as if claiming the monument for himself. Undated photograph, either from 1924, more likely from 1937, and taken by Douglas Cruikshank.

(© Palmyra Portrait Project and R. Raja; courtesy of M. Ebba Underdown.)

FIG. 7

Harald Ingholt at the entrance of the tomb of Malkû, Palmyra. Ingholt unconsciously adopts an open, assertive pose, as if claiming the monument for himself. Undated photograph, either from 1924, more likely from 1937, and taken by Douglas Cruikshank.

(© Palmyra Portrait Project and R. Raja; courtesy of M. Ebba Underdown.)

Close modal

Ingholt himself did not view his material as one archive, or indeed as an archive at all, that would be made accessible to coming generations. If any part of the material might have been labeled as an archive, it was Inholt’s sculptural material archive, the now so-called Ingholt Archive. This was his research resource, which he had initiated in the early 1920s and kept updating until the 1970s or early 1980s. He then donated it to the Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek—and intended for it to be used by others there. However, as far as we know, he did not make any wishes known about how he wanted it to be kept or curated. Thus, it was reorganized by Gunhild Ploug during the years that she worked on the Palmyrene funerary sculpture (Fig. 8). So, while it might in fact be disingenuous to speak about the collected legacy data or archive of Harald Ingholt, it has emerged that much of the material now spread over various parts of the world indeed relates to each other in a variety of ways. This has been one of the foci of the project, namely, to bring these interrelations to the forefront and explore the knowledge that they unleash (Bobou et al. 2023; Bobou, Miranda, and Raja 2021, 2022b; Bobou, Mortensen, and Raja 2023; Miranda and Raja 2021). The objective of the Archive Archaeology project was to make the entirety of the available archival material accessible and searchable online. Due to the war in Syria and the massive destruction of the heritage of Palmyra, this has gained an urgency like never before. Another objective was to assess damages and losses on the basis of the documentation available in the archival material and to use the material as the basis for the reconstruction of lost and damaged assemblages, including sculpture and architectural monuments (primarily graves) (Bobou et al. 2020; Miranda and Raja 2021; Raja and Sørensen 2015a; Raja, Schnädelbach, and Steding 2022).

FIG. 8

One of the archive boxes in the Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek, as reorganized by Gunhild Ploug. We do not know in what kind of boxes the archive arrived at the Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek.

(© R. Raja.)

FIG. 8

One of the archive boxes in the Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek, as reorganized by Gunhild Ploug. We do not know in what kind of boxes the archive arrived at the Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek.

(© R. Raja.)

Close modal

Harald Ingholt was one of the most prominent scholars of Palmyrene sculpture in the twentieth century (see Raja 2019a, 2019b, 2021a; Raja and Sørensen 2015b for Ingholt, his life, career, work on the Palmyrene sculpture, and connection to the Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek). From the beginning of his career in the 1920s to his death in 1985, he collected information on and cataloged all the Palmyrene sculptures known to him. He donated his archives to the Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek in 1983. Since 2012, the material as well as his excavation diaries have been under publication (Fig. 9). A basic digitalization of the material was undertaken in 2012 in order to preserve the material. However, the full potential of the archive and the excavation diaries as a research tool and as knowledge-sharing material has not been realized, since the focus of the Palmyra Portrait Project has been to collect a corpus of the almost 4,000 Palmyrene funerary portraits still in existence (Fig. 10). With the Palmyrene funerary portrait corpus being completed at the end of 2023, it was important to move on to the details of the archival material of Ingholt, which further might contextualize not only many of the 4,000 portraits collected in the project but also further objects and locations in Palmyra. Therefore, the objective of the Archive Archaeology project was threefold: (1) to publish and make the digital archives accessible online to the public in a searchable form and to publish the excavation diaries including a full assessment of the graves documented in these, (2) to assess damage and losses of Palmyrene cultural heritage based on the primary evidence collected in the unpublished archives and the diaries, and (3) to reconstruct lost and damaged contexts based on the evidence collected in the archives. The archives and diaries have been digitized and have recently also been made accessible and searchable as a corpus. The information on the archive sheets has also been transcribed, evaluated in a systematic manner, and used to enrich scholarship. By making the archives and diaries accessible, all this wealth of information has now become available to the academic community as well as the broader public. Furthermore, the raw data has been made openly available and accessible online (Raja 2021b; Raja 2021c).

FIG. 9

First pages of Ingholt’s field diary from 1924.

(© Palmyra Portrait Project and R. Raja; courtesy of Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek.)

FIG. 9

First pages of Ingholt’s field diary from 1924.

(© Palmyra Portrait Project and R. Raja; courtesy of Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek.)

Close modal
FIG. 10

One of the earliest portraits documented by Ingholt is that of a priest, now in the Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek, Copenhagen, inv. no. 1159.

(© Palmyra Portrait Project and R. Raja; courtesy of Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek.)

FIG. 10

One of the earliest portraits documented by Ingholt is that of a priest, now in the Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek, Copenhagen, inv. no. 1159.

(© Palmyra Portrait Project and R. Raja; courtesy of Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek.)

Close modal

Harald Ingholt excavated in Palmyra for a few years only but studied Palmyrene art all his life. His photographic archive has proven to be a rich source of information, containing documentary images and notes on objects while his diaries offer precise information about his excavations and his finds (Figs. 1112). Furthermore, the project has helped identify and trace looted antiquities. The context of damaged and destroyed antiquities can be reconstructed and situated within the framework of Palmyrene archaeology. In addition, object biographies of some of the objects held in various collections around the world have been reconstructed and relocated within the framework of the fieldwork done by Ingholt, and particular attention has been given to his relations with the local population in Palmyra (Baird, Kamash, and Raja 2023) (Fig. 13). This work has given access to some of the now lost heritage (Figs. 1415) and might in the future help reconstruction and redisplay efforts at Palmyra. Since the material has now been made searchable and open access, it is possible for everyone interested to research it further. Documentation, data, and links to relevant sites and repositories can be found on the project website (https://projects.au.dk/palmyraportrait). The work on the legacy data has confronted us with lacunae and made us aware of our lack of knowledge of the exact context in which it came into being. Sometimes connections can only be made through coincidences, when one stumbles on a piece of paper or letter in a different archive. Archive archaeology is always in process, which is one of the big challenges—also when deciding on publication strategies. In this way, archive archaeology does in fact resemble field archaeology: the field archaeologist must be able to think out of the box, to adapt and adjust quickly, and to accept that not all lacunae will ever be filled—the same goes for the archive archaeologist. Just as importantly, while thinking out of the box, it is also crucial not to overinterpret the evidence available. This is also why the current issue of JEMAHS pulls together quite a wide variety of contributions spanning targeted case studies pulled from larger archives, historiographic approaches, legacy data, and current community engagement initiatives.

FIG. 11

While Ingholt took a few images of his workers during excavations, none of these were published during his lifetime. He also rarely recorded their names; these workers remain anonymous to us because of Ingholt’s choices. Workers at the tomb of Malkû, undated photograph probably from 1937, photographer unknown.

(© Palmyra Portrait Project and R. Raja; courtesy of Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek.)

FIG. 11

While Ingholt took a few images of his workers during excavations, none of these were published during his lifetime. He also rarely recorded their names; these workers remain anonymous to us because of Ingholt’s choices. Workers at the tomb of Malkû, undated photograph probably from 1937, photographer unknown.

(© Palmyra Portrait Project and R. Raja; courtesy of Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek.)

Close modal
FIG. 12

Photographs taken by Ingholt during his excavation campaigns, documenting the life and the monuments around him. These were also not published during his lifetime and remained with his family.

(© Palmyra Portrait Project and R. Raja; courtesy of M. Ebba Underdown.)

FIG. 12

Photographs taken by Ingholt during his excavation campaigns, documenting the life and the monuments around him. These were also not published during his lifetime and remained with his family.

(© Palmyra Portrait Project and R. Raja; courtesy of M. Ebba Underdown.)

Close modal
FIG. 13

Photograph of a local man, possibly taken by Ingholt. His name is not recorded, nor is his relationship to Ingholt (worker, local villager, etc.).

(© Palmyra Portrait Project and R. Raja; courtesy of the Yale Babylonian collection, Yale University.)

FIG. 13

Photograph of a local man, possibly taken by Ingholt. His name is not recorded, nor is his relationship to Ingholt (worker, local villager, etc.).

(© Palmyra Portrait Project and R. Raja; courtesy of the Yale Babylonian collection, Yale University.)

Close modal
FIG. 14

Photograph of the Great Colonnade and the Temple of Bel in the background. The picture preserves the state of the temple in the early twentieth century, lost during the clearing of the temple. Thus it provides useful documentation for the Ottoman phases of the building.

(© Palmyra Portrait Project and R. Raja; courtesy of the Yale Babylonian collection, Yale University.)

FIG. 14

Photograph of the Great Colonnade and the Temple of Bel in the background. The picture preserves the state of the temple in the early twentieth century, lost during the clearing of the temple. Thus it provides useful documentation for the Ottoman phases of the building.

(© Palmyra Portrait Project and R. Raja; courtesy of the Yale Babylonian collection, Yale University.)

Close modal
FIG. 15

Sarcophagus from the hypogeum of Malkû, now damaged by ISIS. Palmyra Museum, Palmyra, inv. no. A 910/10.

(© Palmyra Portrait Project and R. Raja; courtesy of Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek.)

FIG. 15

Sarcophagus from the hypogeum of Malkû, now damaged by ISIS. Palmyra Museum, Palmyra, inv. no. A 910/10.

(© Palmyra Portrait Project and R. Raja; courtesy of Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek.)

Close modal

The conference “Between the Lines” included a wide range of papers on issues concerning archival material, colonization, and decolonization of archival material and the practices in place, under development, or needed for us in order to push forward the field of archival studies focusing on the eastern Mediterranean. For this issue, five papers were prepared for publication. They represent various aspects of the field ranging from the materiality of the notebooks that field archaeologists wrote, to projects working with digitization of archives, and to community-engagement projects in conflict-stricken Syria. They offer insight into the vast field of possibilities with which archives and archival practices present us and also engage us to think harder about the processes around constructing archives—both those constructed in the past and those being constructed as we write and document.

The Contributions in This Issue

J. A. Baird’s contribution, entitled “Reading Field Diaries against the Grain: The Notable and the Absent in Syrian Archaeology,” delves into the materiality of field diaries, in particular those of Clarke Hopkins and Harald Ingholt, both scholars working in Syria during the early Mandate period. These diaries have been made available in different ways to a broader community, and Baird engages with both these processes as well as with the concerns about what the publication of material originally written in one format and published in another does to the materiality of the original. How can we remember to put focus on the original format of the diaries when they are published either digitally or on new paper, so to speak? Baird engages with examples of writings of both scholars and unpacks what meaning the unwritten—the unseen meanings between the lines—holds in these field diaries and how we can engage meaningfully with these absences and intended or unintended lacunae. For a journal issue on archival practices, this is an essential theme to bring to the forefront since academics who work with archives and writing from the past must remind themselves of the actual primary situation in which the writing took place. It is, in a manner of speaking, archival archaeology taking place on a mental level by thinking through actual day-to-day situations, weather conditions, geographic location, the location where the writing actually took place: in short, a mental stratigraphy must be (re)constructed.

Patrick M. Michel turns to the archive of the Swiss archaeologist Paul Collart, who worked with a team in Palmyra in the middle of the twentieth century. The archive, which is curated at the University of Lausanne today, holds important information on the Temple of Baalshamin in Palmyra, one of the most famous monuments of the city, which was destroyed entirely in the bombings in 2015. Michel has studied the Collart archives with an eye toward understanding the excavation processes of the Swiss team and their agenda during their restoration of the temple and its surrounding structures to their Roman-period heyday. Through detailed 3D modeling it has been possible to better understand both modern and ancient processes of spoliation, reuse, and recycling of materials. The work with the archive has also brought to the forefront just how much information about past reuse and recycling processes is in danger of getting lost if archives either do not exist or are not taken into consideration in the study of monuments and their afterlives.

Sarah Irving’s contribution focuses on post-earthquake tackling of cultural heritage in Nablus. The earthquake, which hit the region in 1927, was deeply damaging to a wide range of structures, not least in Nablus where the Old City was profoundly affected. The earthquake took place after implementation of the British Mandate in the region, at a time of colonialism, the effects of which we are struggling with to this day. Irving turns to the work of Gastón Gordillo on the afterlife of earthquake-destroyed places and structures, delves into his differentiation between ruins and rubble, and applies these to archival material from the post-earthquake time in Nablus. Through this approach, Irving vividly disentangles the underlying trends and voices that tell us about agendas that were colonially driven, about power structures, and about oppression of local communities and opinions. She looks in particular at Nablus’s Samaritan Quarter and the Crusader wall of the Great Mosque in the city, and she sensitively speaks about the fine lines between ruins and rubble in a period in which what was to be considered cultural heritage was defined by the colonial power rather than by the local communities.

Gertjan F. J. Plets and Nour Allah Munawar’s contribution, “Russia in Palmyra: Contextualizing the Kremlin’s Postconflict Heritage Rehabilitation Efforts,” dissects Russia’s engagement in the reconstruction of the damaged world-heritage site of Palmyra. While archaeology always has a political side to it through its integration with material culture—and will always be closely connected to national or international identities or at least seen to be, whether we like it or not—it is sometimes more obvious than at other times. Furthermore, it is not always as straightforward as we think to begin to disentangle the agendas that nation states might have, and that might be multifold and varying depending on the various agents involved, when they engage in reconstruction processes. In their contribution, Munawar and Plets analyze various of the activities initiated by the Russians in Palmyra and discuss them both in their national Russian context as well as their international context in order to flesh out how cultural heritage is used to position both nation states and individuals in a world where global attention is given to conflict regions.

Isber Sabrine, Yousef Awad, Hassan Ali, and Ginerva Rollo are engaged in projects in the MENA region that connect local communities with international scholars and aid workers in an attempt to keep, protect, regain, and reinstitute knowledge about local crafts and practices, about work processes, and underlying reasons for these. In conflict regions, regions in war, as well as regions where immense amounts of people are displaced from their homes, the danger is high that craft traditions get lost because people are dispersed, hit by disaster, and in the worst case die as victims of the conflict. In their contribution, they turn to the Palmyrene Voices Initiative and explain what this important community-driven project brings to the fore about Palmyra’s ancient and modern cultural heritage and what we might learn from local people’s knowledge—also as scholars working on the MENA in past periods.

Widening the Horizon of Archive Archaeology

Over the last century and a half, field archaeology has undergone a remarkable evolution from not being regarded as a discipline in its own right to being a defined field with a corpus of best practices and methods to obtain new data and results. The focus in the past was not always on the processes of excavation and documentation. Today, handling and management of data in archaeology is beholden, for the most part, to well-defined and tested procedures, and most projects will adhere to these to the extent that they are relevant (Carver, Gaydarska, and Montón-Subías 2015; Smith 2020). The challenge remains, nonetheless, that much of this data stays with the excavators and in the excavation files. The significant amount of data generated by archaeological fieldwork, academic research on museum collections, or object provenance form vast archives of physical material, which ideally can be digitized and made publicly available. Currently, undigitized physical resources often go untouched for years, if not generations, despite holding critical information. Yet, past and present crises—the Syrian civil war or recent events in Afghanistan, for example—have alerted researchers to the fact that resources are often fragile and, in many cases, not accessible to all (see Raja 2023b).

Does digitization offer solutions for preserving and sharing information? Digital archives take shape dependent upon a variety of factors such as the type of data they contain or the platform that hosts the data. When contrasted with the problems of gaining access to physical archives (e.g., geographic location or institutional permission), the digital archive offers many opportunities and possibilities worth exploring. With a focus on archaeological sites in the MENA region, some of which are located in modern conflict zones, this issue of JEMAHS offers a dialogue on best practices for the dissemination and synthetization of knowledge from archives and ways in which to make these broadly accessible. Hopefully that can be an inspiration for future research on archives.

Note

Acknowledgement: This research was undertaken with support by grants from the Danish National Research Foundation (grant: DNRF119), the Carlsberg Foundation as well as the ALIPH Foundation. The Open Access fee is financed by the DNRF grant. All grants are held by Rubina Raja.

References

Bahrani, Z., Z. Çelik, and E. Eldem, eds.
2011
.
Scramble for the Past: A Story of Archaeology in the Ottoman Empire, 1753–1914
.
Istanbul
:
SALT
.
Baird, J., and Z. Kamash.
2019
.
Remembering Roman Syria: Valuing Tadmor-Palmyra, from “Discovery” to Destruction
.
Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies
62
(
1
):
1
29
. https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-5370.12090.
Baird, J., Z. Kamash, and R. Raja.
2023
.
Knowing Palmyra: Mandatory Production of Archaeological Knowledge
.
Journal of Social Archaeology
23
:
76
98
. https://doi.org/10.1177/14696053221144013.
Baird, J. A., and L. McFadyen.
2014
.
Towards an Archaeology of Archaeological Archives
.
Archaeological Review from Cambridge
29
(
2
):
14
32
.
Beck, A.
2013
. Opening Access to Heritage Resources—Risk, Opportunity or Paradigm Shift? In
Archäologie und Informationssysteme: Vom Umgang mit archäologischen Fachdaten in Denkmalpflege und Forschung
, ed. S. Winghardt,
40
47
.
Hameln, Germany
:
Niemeyer
.
Bobou, O., N. B. Kristensen, S. McAvoy, and R. Raja.
2020
.
Archive Archaeology in Palmyra, Syria: A New 3D Reconstruction of the Tomb of Ḥairan
.
Digital Applications in Archaeology and Cultural Heritage
19
:
e00164
. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.daach.2020.e00164.
Bobou, O., A. Miranda, and R. Raja.
2021
.
The Ingholt Archive: Data from the Project “Archive Archaeology: Preserving and Sharing Palmyra’s Cultural Heritage through Harald Ingholt’s Digital Archives.”
Journal of Open Archaeology Data
9
:
6
. http://doi.org/10.5334/joad.78.
_______, eds.
2022a
.
Archival Historiographies: The Impact of Twentieth-Century Legacy Data on Archaeological Investigations
.
Archive Archaeology 3
.
Turnhout
:
Brepols
.
_______.
2022b
.
Harald Ingholt’s Twentieth-Century Archive of Palmyrene Sculptures: “Unleashing” Archived Archaeological Material of Modern Conflict Zones
.
Journal of Eastern Mediterranean Archaeology and Heritage Studies
10
:
74
101
. https://doi.org/10.5325/jeasmedarcherstu.10.1.0074.
Bobou, O., A. Miranda, R. Raja, and J.-B. Yon.
2023
.
The Ingholt Archive: The Palmyrene Material
.
Archive Archaeology 2
.
4
vols.
Turnhout
:
Brepols
.
Bobou, O., E. Mortensen, and R. Raja.
2023
.
Unboxing Palmyra: The Archive of Harald Ingholt
.
Current World Archaeology
118
:
38
41
.
Brodie, N., M. Kersel, S. Mackenzie, I. Sabrine, E. Smith, and D. Yates.
2021
.
Why There Is Still an Illicit Trade in Cultural Objects and What We Can Do about It
.
Journal of Field Archaeology
47
:
117
30
. https://doi.org/10.1080/00934690.2021.1996979.
Brody, L., and R. Raja.
2022
. The Gerasa Archives at the Yale University Art Gallery: Exploring the Archives of the Anglo-American Excavations of 1928–1930 and 1930–1934. In
Archival Historiographies: The Impact of Twentieth-Century Legacy Data on Archaeological Investigations
, ed. O. Bobou, A. C. Miranda, and R. Raja,
55
81
.
Archive Archaeology 3
.
Turnhout
:
Brepols
.
Carver, M., B. Gaydarska, and S. Montón-Subías, eds.
2015
.
Field Archaeology from around the World: Ideas and Approaches
.
Cham, Switzerland
:
Springer International
.
Çelik, Z.
2016
.
About Antiquities: Politics of Archaeology in the Ottoman Empire
.
Austin
:
University of Texas Press
.
Costa, S., A. R. Beck, A. Bevan, and J. Ogden.
2014
. Defining and Advocating Open Data in Archaeology. In
Archaeology in the Digital Era: Papers from the 40th Annual Conference of Computer Applications and Quantitative Methods in Archaeology (CAA)
, Southampton, 26–30 March 2012, ed. G. Earl, T. Sly, A. Chrysanthi, P. Murrieta-Flores, C. Papadopoulos, I. Romanowska, and D. Wheatley,
449
56
.
Amsterdam
:
Amsterdam University Press
.
Cunliffe, E., N. Muhesen, and M. Lostal.
2016
.
The Destruction of Cultural Property in the Syrian Conflict: Legal Implications and Obligations
.
International Journal of Cultural Property
23
:
1
31
.
Dingwall McCafferty, J.
2023
.
UNESCO, Cultural Heritage and Conflict in Yemen, Syria and Iraq
.
Cham, Switzerland
:
Springer International
.
Eldem, E.
2017
.
Early Ottoman Archaeology: Rediscovering the Finds of Ascalon (Ashkelon), 1847
.
Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research
378
:
25
53
.
Geser, G.
2021
.
Impact of COVID-19 on Archaeology and Cultural Heritage
.
ARIADNE Research Infrastructure AISBL
.
October
29
,
2021
. https://ariadne-infrastructure.eu/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/COVID-19_impact-archaeology-and-cultural-heritage_29Oct2021.pdf.
Jackson, H., A. Jamieson, A. Robinson, and S. Russell, eds.
2021
.
Heritage in Conflict—Proceedings of Two Meetings: “Heritage in Conflict: A Review of the Situation in Syria and Iraq,” Workshop Held at the 63rd Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale, Marburg, Germany, 24–25 July 2017, and “Syria: Ancient History—Modern Conflict,” Symposium Held at the School of Historical and Philosophical Studies, University of Melbourne, Australia
, 11–13 August 2017.
Leuven
:
Peeters
.
Kamash, Z.
2018
.
“Sweet and Delicious, He Who Tastes It Will Go Back to It”: Food, Memory and Religion in the Roman Middle East
.
Theoretical Roman Archaeology Journal
1:7. https://doi.org/10.16995/traj.146.
_______.
2019
. Crafting, Heritage and Well-Being: Lessons from Two Public Engagement Projects. In
Historic Landscapes and Mental Well-Being
, ed. T. Darvill, K. Barrass, L. Drysdale, V. Heaslip, and Y. Staelens,
266
79
.
Oxford
:
Archaeopress
.
_______.
2021
.
Rebalancing Roman Archaeology: From Disciplinary Inertia to Decolonial and Inclusive Action
.
Theoretical Roman Archaeology Journal
4
:
4
. https://doi.org/10.16995/traj.4330.
Kamash, Z., H. Abd el Gawad, P. Banks, A. Bell, F. Charteris, E. Sarah, Z. Glen, et al.
2017
.
Remembering the Romans in the Middle East and North Africa: Memories and Reflections from a Museum-Based Public Engagement Project
.
Epoiesen: Journal for Creative Engagement in History and Archaeology
. https://doi.org/10.22215/epoiesen/2017.9.
Kansa, E.
2012
.
Openness and Archaeology’s Information Ecosystem
.
World Archaeology
44
:
498
520
.
Kelly, J., and E. Mason.
2018
. Digital Preservation Projects: Some Brief Case Studies. In
Digital Preservation
, ed. M. Deegan and S. Tanner,
166
218
.
London
:
Facet
.
Kersel, M. M.
2010
.
Antiquities under Siege: Cultural Heritage Protection after the Iraq War
.
International Journal of Heritage Studies
16
:
242
44
.
_______.
2020
.
Engaging with Demand and Destruction
.
Antiquity
94
(
376
):
1074
76
.
Kersel, M. M., and P. Gerstenblith.
2023
.
Disrupting the Trade: A Legal Approach to Countering Trafficking in Archaeological Artifacts in the MENA Region
.
Journal of Art Crime
29
:
3
15
.
Khodiyar, V.
2021
.
Better Research for Better Data: How FAIR is Driving Open Research Forwards
.
Springboard blog
.
Springer Nature
,
May
25
,
2021
. https://www.springernature.com/gp/advancing-discovery/springboard/blog/blogposts-open-research/how-fair-is-driving-open-research-forwards/19189878.
Lostal, M.
2017
.
International Cultural Heritage Law in Armed Conflict
.
Cambridge
:
Cambridge University Press
.
Marwick, B., J. d’Alpoim Guedes, C. M. Barton, L. A. Bates, M. Baxter, A. Bevan, E. A. Bollwerk, et al.
2017
.
Open Science in Archaeology
.
SAA Archaeological Record
17
(
4
):
8
14
. http://onlinedigeditions.com/publication/?i=440506.
McBryde, I., ed.
1985
.
Who Owns the Past? Papers from the Annual Symposium of the Australian Academy of the Humanities
.
Melbourne
:
Oxford University Press
.
Mickel, A.
2021
.
Why Those Who Shovel Are Silent: A History of Local Archaeological Knowledge and Labor
.
Louisville
:
University Press of Colorado
.
Miranda, A., and R. Raja.
2021
.
Archive Archaeology: Preserving and Sharing Palmyra’s Cultural Heritage through Harald Ingholt’s Digital Archives: A Case Study in the Accessibility and Potential of Archives
.
Antiquity
96
(
385
):
229
37
. https://doi.org/10.15184/aqy.2021.165.
Nicholson, C., S. Kansa, N. Gupta, and R. Fernandez.
2023
.
Will It Ever Be FAIR?
Advances in Archaeological Practice
11
:
63
75
. https://doi.org/10.1017/aap.2022.40.
Raja, R.
2016
.
Illegal Trade and Export of Cultural Goods: The Case of the Palmyrene Funerary Portraiture
. In
Fighting the Looting of Syria’s Cultural Heritage, Report from the Sofia Conference, 16 September 2015: “Initiatives to Stop Illicit Antiquities Trade Financing the Syrian Conflict—Awareness Rising
, ed.
Norwegian Institute for Cultural Heritage Research
,
11
12
. https://pure.au.dk/ws/files/98457295/Sofiareport_2016.pdf.
_______.
2019a
. Harald Ingholt—og Palmyra, oasen i den syriske ørken. In
Store danske arkæologer: På jagt efter fortidens byer
, ed. E. Mortensen and R. Raja,
105
31
.
Aarhus
:
Aarhus University Press
.
_______.
2019b
. Harald Ingholt and Palmyra. In
The Road to Palmyra
, ed. A. M. Nielsen and R. Raja,
41
64
.
Copenhagen
:
Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek
.
_______.
2021a
. Harald Ingholt and Palmyrene Sculpture: Continuing a Lifelong Relationship a Century Later. In
Studies on Palmyrene Sculpture: A Translation of Harald Ingholt’s Studier over Palmyrensk Skulptur, Edited and with Commentary
, ed. O. Bobou, N. B. Kristensen, J. V. Jensen, R. Raja, and R. R. Thomsen,
1
27
.
Studies in Palmyrene Archaeology and History 1
.
Turnhout
:
Brepols
.
_______.
2021b
.
Harald Ingholt’s Diaries
. Figshare.
Collection
. https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.c.5442765.v1.
_______.
2021c
.
Ingholt Archive
. Figshare.
Collection
. https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.c.5509725.v1.
_______, ed.
2023a
.
Shaping Archaeological Archives: Dialogues between Fieldwork, Museum Collections, and Private Archives
.
Archive Archaeology 4
.
Turnhout
:
Brepols
.
_______.
2023b
. Shaping Archaeological Archives: Fieldwork, Collections, and Private Archives—Issues of Curation and Accessibility. In
Shaping Archaeological Archives: Dialogues between Fieldwork, Museum Collections, and Private Archives
, ed. R. Raja,
1
7
.
Archive Archaeology 4
.
Turnhout
:
Brepols
.
Raja, R., K. Schnädelbach, and J. Steding.
2022
.
A New Map of Palmyra’s Southwest Necropolis Based on the Excavation Diaries of Harald Ingholt
.
Zeitschrift für Orient-Archäologie
14
:
230
73
.
Raja, R., and A. H. Sørensen.
2015a
.
The “Beauty of Palmyra” and Qasr Abjad (Palmyra): New Discoveries in the Archive of Harald Ingholt
.
Journal of Roman Archaeology
28
:
439
50
.
_______.
2015b
.
Harald Ingholt & Palmyra
.
Aarhus
:
Antikmuseet Aarhus Universitet
.
Raja, R., and J. Steding.
2021
.
Harald Ingholt’s Excavation Diaries from His Fieldwork in Palmyra—an Open Data Online Resource
.
Journal of Open Archaeology Data
9
:
8
. http://doi.org/10.5334/joad.84.
_______.
2022
. Harald Ingholt’s Fieldwork Diaries: Legacy Data of the Early 20th Century. In
Archival Historiographies: The Impact of Twentieth-Century Legacy Data on Archaeological Investigations
, ed. O. Bobou, A. C. Miranda, and R. Raja,
83
100
.
Archive Archaeology 3
.
Turnhout
:
Brepols
.
Raja, R., J. Steding, and J.-B. Yon, eds.
2021
.
Excavating Palmyra: Harald Ingholt’s Excavation Diaries; A Transcript, Translation, and Commentary
.
2 vols
.
Studies in Palmyrene Archaeology and History 4
.
Turnhout
:
Brepols
.
Sesana, E., A. S. Gagnon, C. Ciantelli, J. Cassar, and J. J. Hughes.
2021
.
Climate Change Impacts on Cultural Heritage: A Literature Review
.
WIREs Climate Change
12
:
e710
. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.710.
Smith, C.
2020
.
Ethics and Best Practices for Mapping Archaeological Sites
.
Advances in Archaeological Practice
8
:
162
73
.
Spencer, C.
2022
.
Shifting Horizons: Observations from a Ride through the Syrian Desert and Asia Minor; A Translation of Johannes Elith Østrup’s “Skiftende
horizonter.
Archive Archaeology 1
.
Turnhout
:
Brepols
.
Türkiye Earthquakes Recovery and Reconstruction Assessment
.
2023
.
Government of Türkiye
.
Accessed November 22, 2023
. https://www.sbb.gov.tr/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/Turkiye-Recovery-and-Reconstruction-Assessment.pdf.
Wilkinson, M. D., M. Dumontier, I. J. Aalbersberg, G. Appleton, M. Axton, A. Baak, N. Blomberg, et al.
2016
.
The FAIR Guiding Principles for Scientific Data Management and Stewardship
.
Scientific Data
3
:
160018
. http://doi.org/10.1038/sdata.2016.18.
Willert, S.
2021
. “Hamdi hat hier gewütet & da gewühlt”: Perspektiven deutscher Forschungsreisender auf die Anfänge der osmanischen Archäologie, 1881–1892. In
Türken- und Türkeibilder im 19. und 20. Jahrhundert: Pädagogik, Bildungspolitik, Kulturtransfer
, ed. I. Lohmann and J. Böttcher,
249
74
.
Bad Heilbrunn, Germany
:
Klinkhardt
. https://doi.org/10.35468/5874-11.
Wilson, A. T., and B. Edwards, eds.
2015
.
Open Source Archaeology
.
Warsaw
:
De Gruyter Open Poland
. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110440171.
This content is made open access by the publisher.