Reconstructing narratives: The politics of heritage in contemporary Syria

Abstract

It is predominantly known that history is written by winners. However, this statement is true when a conflict has a symmetric tendency. In the case of Syria, where the conflict has been widely considered asymmetric, history is being written by a regime/government that won the war by not losing it. This article investigates the interconnection between heritage and politics in Syria by scrutinizing heritage practices, uses, and abuses since the colonial period. First, this article examines regime/government-led post-conflict reconstruction projects in the aftermath of Syria’s current conflict. Then the article moves on and explores the creation of war narratives and the selective memorialization of Syria’s recent conflict by looking at the portrayal of contested war memories in the media and the production of oral history. I argue that heritage practices, uses, presentation, and promotion in Syria since the colonial period have produced a politicized, one-sided (hi)story influenced by political agendas. This history includes highly politicized, ongoing tangible and intangible heritage reconstruction works, freighted with cultural meaning and primarily intended to bolster the power and authority of the ruling regime.

Knowing Palmyra: Mandatory production of archaeological knowledge

“…This comparison should be used with caution, but it nonetheless draws attention to the fact that we cannot only look ahead at what we might believe the site should be or become after, hopefully, the end of the devastating conflict in Syria. The structural inequalities continue in innumerable ways (see Almohamad, 2022; Munawar, 2022; Sabrine 2022). It is necessary to account for the harm done by archaeology or in its name: dispossessing people of their homes, erasing their names from the objects they found and evading their place in the writing of the archaeological past.…”

Time to decolonise: ‘If not now’, then when?

“…All this has ultimately resulted in placing funds for cultural heritage research at the bottom of the national priority list, if it is even on that list. As I have argued (Munawar, 2022), the idea that the state or the ruling regime is the sole curator of the nation's heritage, memory and cultural identity has facilitated and also reinforced the emergence of elitism in the heritage discourse. By granting the right to select elements of the past (tangible or intangible) to be preserved, presented and represented as a national identity-and to be reconstructed or rehabilitated in post-conflict or post-disaster contexts-heritage elitism has, in one way or another, deepened a gap between the public and cultural heritage.…”

“…However, this should not distract us from the fact that cultural heritage, archaeology and, most importantly, knowledge produced about the past are deeply tied to and embedded in the introduction and expansion of colonialism in the Arab region and beyond. The academic literature is filled with arguments demonstrating the profound relationship between archaeology and colonialism (see, for instance, Munawar, 2022; Hamilakis, 2009; Said, 2003; Meskell, 2002). The ugly truth is that the colonial frame of archaeology has had a far greater impact on colonised societies in the post-colonial period.…”

A mixed city or an ancient historical city? The malleability of heritage in rebranding Lydd

“…The malleability of narratives through heritage continues to be gleaned through contemporary discussions of heritage construction and reconstruction by governments. In Syria, the regime prioritizes reconstructing heritage sites decimated by the civil war based on their utility to the regime's image, profitability to the elites, and capacity to reward loyalists (Munawar, 2022). As Nadia Abu el-Haj articulates through her detailed analysis of archeology as a field and its use within Israel, the field's association with scientific rationality lends credibility to particular historical narratives constructed around the collection of artifacts and what they are said to represent, enabling the use of archaeology as a tool in service of Israeli nationalism and colonialism (Abu el-Haj, 2001).…”