Cultural Heritage Management in Post-colonial Polities: not the heritage of the other

Ebel es‐Saqi, a village in the southern hills of Lebanon, emerged from 22 years of Israeli occupation in May 2000. In the ensuing years, several development projects took place in the region with the aim of reviving local economies through tourism, enhancing attachment to the land through employment and spreading environmental awareness. One of these projects, the Ecological Park Project of Ebel es‐Saqi, is the subject of this paper. Through examining local perceptions and reactions to the Ebel es‐Saqi project, this paper explores how local conceptions of landscape evolve in response to political, economic, and social change. The findings of the study, based on in‐depth semi‐structured interviews, suggest that the village landscape is an enabling medium through which traditional culture is preserved, local identities constructed and rural heritage acknowledged. This paper unfolds a conception of landscape based on the day‐to‐day lifestyles of the village community, inherited traditional agricultural practices, valued rural heritage and shared village identity.     

Darwinian Evolutionism Is Applicable to Historical Archaeology

Over the past decade or so, an increasing number of archaeologists have begun to show interest in employing Darwinian evolutionary theory to explain variations in the material record. Epistemological and methodological issues surrounding the implementation of Darwinian evolutionism in archaeology are numerous, the most basic of which is that Darwinism embodies a materialist perspective, whereas archaeology traditionally has maintained an essentialist outlook. Stemming from this dichotomy are fundamental differences in such things as how units are created and how they are used to measure change. As archaeologists grapple with these issues, specific examples of how Darwinian evolutionism can be used to build historical narratives and create historical explanations are appearing with more frequency, but with few exceptions, proponents have focused specifically on the prehistoric record. This gives the impression that Darwinian evolutionism is not applicable to the more-recent material record, which is decidedly not the case. The kind of evolutionism proposed here transcends the age of the record under investigation.