| Ref ID: | 37200 |
|---|---|
| Ref Type: | Book Section |
| Authors: | Stark, Miriam T. Heng, Piphal |
| Title: | After Angkor: an archaeological perspective on heritage and capacity-building in Cambodia |
| Date: | 2017 |
| Source: | Post-conflict Archaeology and Cultural Heritage: Rebuilding Knowledge, Memory and Community from War-damaged Material Culture |
| Place of Publication: | New York |
| Publisher: | Routledge Taylor & Francis Group |
| Abstract: |
Cambodia was already reeling from a decade of civil war by the time that the United States launched its multi-year secret carpet-bombing campaign in Kampong Cham Province on March 18, 1969. By 1973, approximately 500,000 tons of US bombs had fallen on Cambodia, killing up to half a million Cambodian civilians (High et al. 2013, 90–1). The United States viewed bombing in Cambodia as collateral damage to the war in Vietnam. For Cambodians, this bombing campaign shattered an already-fragile government and opened the door for the communist Khmer Rouge guerrillas. From their entry into Phnom Penh in April 1975 to their downfall in 1979 through Vietnam’s 1979 “invasion,” at least 1.7 million Cambodians lost their lives. Civil war continued into the early 1990s, when the United Nations brokered a peace agreement, sponsored democratic elections, and began a protracted and costly process of post-conflict reconstruction that continues to the present (Öjendal and Lilja 2009). Post-conflict countries like Cambodia grapple with myriad forms of trauma: to their people (e.g. Arensen 2016, 24–5); their wildlife (e.g. Loucks et al. 2009); and their cultural heritage. Global conflict routinely ravages archaeological landscapes through bombing and land mines; heritage sites can be specific targets of aggression; and immovable heritage is at great risk (e.g. Higueras 2013; Kane 2015; Newson and Young 2015; Siehr 2014). Risk to Cambodia’s archaeological heritage was severe from direct warfare and looting (Davis and Mackenzie 2014, 292–3), but its impact on human resources was more profound: just two trained conservation architects and four archaeologists (only one with technical field experience) survived Cambodia’s civil war to begin the slow process of rebuilding its archaeological heritage in the mid-1990s. Cambodia’s unique archaeological heritage exerts a powerful centripetal force on Cambodia’s heritage management world for economic and also political reasons. In fact, the UNESCO World Heritage Center listed Angkor as a “best practice” case study in heritage management for several reasons, including its international coordination committee, community-based development, and community learning centers (ICC-Angkor 2013, 63). This chapter focuses on Cambodia’s archaeological heritage and nearly 25 years of post-conflict capacity-building efforts. What lessons can we learn from Cambodia’s experience with post-conflict archaeology and cultural heritage? The next section of our chapter offers an historical perspective on heritage training in Cambodia through the colonial, post-colonial, and current eras. We conclude our chapter by discussing some “best practices” for archaeological heritage and capacity-building in Cambodia. The term “capacity-building” emerged in the international development vocabulary of the 1990s, when Cambodia was emerging from three decades of conflict. Capacity-building in archaeology and heritage management takes many forms, from conventional teaching (in workshops, at conferences, through in-country classrooms, and now more remotely) to domestic and international post-baccalaureate internships in archaeology, museums, or international heritage management. Capacity-building can also take place at the institutional level: through consultation in the construction of new heritage management organizational structures, drafting of new environmental protection legislation that includes cultural resources management and protection, and in supporting country-to-country initiatives to prevent looting and trafficking in illicit antiquities. Both co-authors have been involved in all of these activities in Cambodia, but here we focus on explicitly archaeological practices, including long-term investment in archaeological training (classroom, field, laboratory), collaboration to develop country-wide site inventories, and ongoing collaboration in both research programs and also heritage management initiatives. |
| Date Available: | 2017 |
| Editors: | Newson, Paul Young, Ruth |
| Page Start: | 195 |
| Page End: | 216 |