Dear All,

For those of us living in countries which celebrate it perhaps our thoughts are
already directed towards the Christmas holidays. I think, however, that the
debate we have been having is important and I would like to add a few more
considerations. This is in view of the likelihood that the debate - in various
forms and in different venues - will stay with us in the future.

- I agree that working groups have a great level of independence and that it
would be wrong for ICAZ to tell them what to do or not to do. However, if an
affiliation exists it must have some significance, and therefore what the
working groups do is, to some extent, also the responsibility of ICAZ.

- I would like to reiterate the fact that we must be careful in avoiding
confusion between nationality and ethnicity. Discrimination towards a
nationality may be iniquitous but discrimination towards an ethnic or religious
group is worse - it is racist.

- the problem, as we have heard from various voices, is hardly specific to the
Middle East, though this is a particularly sensitive geographic area. Any
solution must consider that this is a worldwide issue. 

- Danny and Guy are absolutely right in clarifying that academic boycott is
quite a different thing and this is not what we are discussing now (but see
below).

- Yes, we are a group of friends and collagues happy to get together and to
create bridges between different nations and traditions. This is indeed what we
should do and what we like to do, but the problem that we are facing simply
shows that we cannot so easily stay away from politics. The frequent abuses
occurring in the world will inevitably force us to take sides and to dirt our
hands in the torbid world of politics. I'm afraid we have a social as well as
an academic responsibility - not simply as citizens but also as professionals
and cultural creators.

- Archaeology cannot always steer away from political choices. There are many
cases, but a very famous one is represented by the boycott of academic
delegates from the then apartheid Southafrica at the first World Archaeological
Congress in 1986. People still debate today whether that was or not the right
choice, but what is clear is that one way or the other any choice on that issue
would have been 'political'.

- What can we do? I think that Richard is right in suggesting that a
diversification of locations does not solve the problem but goes some way
towards addressing it. If the main problem for access to UAE is with Israeli
nationals, we should perhaps encourage Israel as a hosting country for one of
the next meetings. People who will find that country either inaccessible or
unwelcoming will not go, in the same way as the UAE does not seem to be a
location for everybody. Hardly ideal but this is the world in which we live.

- With access to visa becoming increasingly difficult for many of us this is a
problem that we will have to tackle over and over again, and which I believe
requires a robust effort from the research community. We need to make sure that
the bridge building efforts in which we are involved are not entirely
undermined by discriminations orchestrated by various national governments and
other political entities. Diana is absolutely right, a letter of invitation is
no longer enough and we'll better be prepared.

Happy Xmas to you all - whether it means anything or not in the country where
you live.

Umberto   




-- 
Umberto Albarella
Department of Archaeology
University of Sheffield
Northgate House
West Street
Sheffield S1 4ET
United Kingdom
Telephone: (+) 44 (0) 114 22 22 943 
Fax: (+) 44 (0) 114 27 22 563 
http://www.shef.ac.uk/archaeology/staff/albarella.html
For Archaeologists for Global Justice (AGJ) see:
http://www.shef.ac.uk/archaeology/global-justice.html

"There is no way to peace. Peace IS the way".