Collaboration, Collaborators, and Conflict: Archaeology and Peacebuilding in Northern Ireland

Archaeologies pp 1–22 | Cite as Collaboration, Collaborators, and Conflict: Archaeology and Peacebuilding in Northern Ireland AuthorsAuthors and affiliations Audrey Horning Open Access Research First Online: 21 September 2019 72 Downloads Abstract Collaboration in contemporary archaeological parlance principally refers to active engagement with one or more selected groups of stakeholders and co-producers of knowledge. Yet to be a “collaborator” in conflict settings implies an allegiance, often deceitful, to one cause or another. When embedding archaeology in conflict transformation activities, being seen as a “collaborator”, or partisan, can therefore actively work against the aims of peacebuilding. Drawing upon experience in conflict transformation within post-Troubles Northern Ireland, issues of ethics and positionality are considered, and an alternative terminology for embedding archaeology in peacebuilding activity is posited. Key WordsCollaboration Conflict Northern Ireland Peacebuilding  Résumé La collaboration dans le jargon archéologique contemporain fait essentiellement référence à un engagement actif auprès d’un ou de plusieurs groupes désignés de parties prenantes et de co-créateurs de savoirs. Cependant, être un « collaborateur » dans une zone de conflit implique une allégeance, souvent trompeuse, envers une cause ou une autre. Lors de l’intégration de l’archéologie aux activités de transformation d’un conflit, être vu comme un « collaborateur » ou un partisan, est par conséquent susceptible de nuire activement aux objectifs des efforts de consolidation de la paix. S’inspirant d’une expérience en matière de transformation de conflit en Irlande du Nord après les troubles, des questions d’éthique et de positionnalité sont examinées et une terminologie alternative pour l’intégration de l’archéologie dans une activité de consolidation de la paix est proposée. Resumen La colaboración en el lenguaje arqueológico contemporáneo se refiere principalmente al compromiso activo con uno o más grupos seleccionados de partes interesadas y coproductores de conocimiento. Sin embargo, ser un “colaborador” en situaciones de conflicto implica una lealtad, a menudo engañosa, a una causa u otra. Al incorporar la arqueología en las actividades de transformación de conflictos, ser visto como “colaborador” o partidista, por lo tanto, puede tener el impacto de socavar los objetivos de la construcción de la paz. Basándose en la experiencia en la transformación de conflictos en Irlanda del Norte después de los problemas, se consideran cuestiones de ética y de posición, y se plantea una terminología alternativa para integrar la arqueología en la actividad de la consolidación de la paz. Introduction: Troubling Terms Collaboration in contemporary archaeological parlance principally refers to active engagement with one or more selected groups of stakeholders and co-producers of knowledge. The vast majority of collaborative projects rest upon a model whereby archaeologists actively engage with marginalised groups and work towards adjusting the asymmetries of power and voice, often—consciously or not—in acts of atonement for the many sins of our discipline. In other words, it is usually easy to see with which group an archaeologist should side, particularly when it comes to addressing colonial legacies and the need to incorporate different forms of knowledge-making (see for example discussions in Atalay 2012; Colwell-Chanthaphonh and Ferguson 2008; Martindale and Nicholas 2014; Nicholas 2010; Silliman 2008). Archaeologists can be rightly proud of a growing social consciousness and of making positive contributions to the wellbeing of disenfranchised groups in the present, and to restoring the validity of overlooked stories from the past, as ably demonstrated by many of the contributions in this special issue. But positionality—choosing sides—in conflict and post-conflict settings is not always so straightforward, and nor should it be. Knowledge is always produced for a purpose. To be a “collaborator” in conflict settings implies an allegiance, often deceitful, to one cause or another, and by intent or by default, contributing to or prolonging conflict and violence. Language, in these settings, must be chosen very carefully. In questioning the use of the term collaboration, my intention is not to introduce some unhelpful, esoteric semantic diatribe as some form of egotistical insertion of self into archaeological debate. I raise this concern and caution from a practice-based standpoint, working actively in an effort to embed archaeology in conflict transformation in Northern Ireland. Being seen as a “collaborator”, or partisan, would actively work against these aims of peacebuilding in the Northern Irish context, a context with clear parallels with other post-conflict settings. The peculiarities of Northern Irish society, where neither community (Catholic/Nationalist/Republican and Protestant/Unionist/Loyalist) holds a demographic majority, demand a pragmatic approach that engages across the divide. Orienting heritage practice towards conflict transformation requires engagement with the widest possible range of individuals including perpetrators of violence as well as those who suffered violence (as discussed further below). This form of practice should not be confused with the neoliberal multivocality that has recently been the object of scorn by commentators such as González-Ruibal (2018, 2019) and La Salle and Hutchings (2018), nor as any tacit support for violence in the past, present, or future. In the context of post-Troubles Northern Ireland, pragmatism emerges as the most effective paradigm for a future-oriented, epistemologically honest, and ethically grounded archaeology (Horning 2019 for pragmatic orientations in archaeology; see also Mrozowski 2011; Preucel and Mrozowski 2010; and Preucel and Bauer 2001). Background: The Troubles The sectarian conflict in Northern Ireland, known as the Troubles, lasted for 30 years (1968–1998), and was marked by intermittent violence that killed over 3500 and injured more than 50,000 (Sutton 2001). First sparked by demands for Civil Rights by an expanding Catholic community, traditionally disenfranchised in what had been a majority Protestant land since the 1922 partition of Ireland into the independent Free State (now Republic of Ireland) and Northern Ireland (as part of the United Kingdom), the conflict devolved into sectarian violence. Key events of the Troubles are well-known: Bloody Sunday on 30 January 1972 when British Army officers opened fire on unarmed protesters in the Bogside neighbourhood of the city of Derry/Londonderry, killing 14 Catholic civilians; the Hunger Strikes by Republican (Catholic) prisoners in 1980–1981 protesting their treatment as criminals rather than as political prisoners; the 1987 killing of ten Protestant civilians at a Remembrance Day ceremony in Enniskillen by an Irish Repub (...truncated)