Contemporary Communities and Archaeology

Archaeologies: Journal of the World Archaeological Congress (© 2013)
DOI 10.1007/s11759-013-9244-1
One Landscape, Many Tenants: Uncovering
RESEARCH
Multiple Claims, Visions and Meanings
on the Theban Necropolis
Gemma Tully, Saffron Walden Museum, Museum Street,
Saffron Walden, Essex CB10 1JL, UK; 41 Hemingford Road,
Cambridge CB1 3BY, UK
E-mail: gemmatully@hotmail.com
Monica Hanna, Cairo, Egypt
E-mail: monica_h@aucegypt.edu
ABSTRACT
________________________________________________________________
The archaeology of the Theban Necropolis is well documented. Under

represented in the literature are the studies which deal with the meaning of
the site to the multitude of contemporary users who interact with the
heritage landscape and with each other in the designated archaeological
zone. This article will investigate how different stakeholders engage with
the heritage ‘space’ and invest it with multiple meanings. By exploring the
areas of agreement, difference and contradiction, we hope to show how
contemporary experiences and future visions for the management of global
heritage at the Theban Necropolis can be analogous and simultaneously
worlds apart.
________________________________________________________________
Résumé: L’archéologie de la nécropole thébaine est bien documentée.

Toutefois, certains aspects sont sous-représentés dans la littérature. C’est le
cas des études traitant de la signification du site pour la multitude de ses
usagers contemporains, qui interagissent entre eux et avec le paysage
patrimonial dans la zone archéologique désignée. Cet article étudie
comment les différentes parties prenantes investissent « l’espace »
patrimonial et lui attribuent de multiples significations. En explorant les
points de consensus, de désaccord et de contradiction, nous espérons
montrer comment les expériences contemporaines et les visions d’avenir
ARCHAEOLOGIES
concernant la gestion du patrimoine mondial de la nécropole thébaine

peuvent être simultanément analogues et diamétralement opposées.
________________________________________________________________
Resumen: La arqueologı́a de la Necrópolis tebana está bien documentada.

En el material publicado, están infra-representados los estudios que tratan
© 2013 World Archaeological Congress

GEMMA TULLY, MONICA HANNA
del significado del emplazamiento para la multitud de usuarios

contemporáneos que interactúan con el paisaje patrimonial y entre sı́ en la
zona arqueológica designada. El presente documento investigará cómo
diferentes partes interesadas se implican con el ‘‘espacio’’ de patrimonio y
lo invisten con múltiples significados. Mediante la exploración de áreas de
acuerdo, diferencia y contradicción, esperamos mostrar cómo las
experiencias contemporáneas y las visiones futuras para la gestión del
patrimonio mundial en la Necrópolis tebana pueden ser análogas y
simultáneamente mundos separados.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
KEY WORDS
Heritage, Stakeholders, Theban Necropolis, Intercultural dialogue

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Introduction
I never knew that Egyptians like us visited the monuments in the Theban
Necropolis.
(Resident of al-Ramaseyon)
This quote sets the tone for this article in which we will explore the complex
web of human interactions and relationships, which surround the use and
understanding of the heritage ‘space’ of the World Heritage site of Ancient
Thebes with its Necropolis. One of the most famous and highly contested
archaeological landscapes in the world, the site straddles the Nile at modern
day Luxor, approximately 500 km south of Cairo and has been inscribed on
the World Heritage List since 1979. UNESCO talks about Thebes as a ‘strik-
ing testimony to Egyptian civilisation at its height’ and outlines the seemingly
tidy division between ‘the Thebes of the Living’, embodied by the temples of
Luxor and Karnak on the east bank of the Nile, and ‘the Thebes of the Dead’,
identified by the tombs and mortuary temples on the Theban hills, beyond
the cultivated land of the west bank.1 While ancient Egypt is very much ‘all
dead’ in the temporal sense, it is ironic that heritage practices and the tourist
experience enable the ancient culture to ‘live on’ and continue to gain inter-
national recognition far surpassing the attention given to living Egyptians
and their diverse culture. Even since the 25 January 2011 revolution, many of
the dominant international (predominantly western) debates surrounding
Egypt’s new push for democracy have centred on the threats to cultural heri-
tage, tourism, foreign investment and access to archaeological research (e.g.
Awad and Saleh 2011; Shenker 2011; RT (Not-For-Profit) 2011; Kotb 2012).
This privileging of foreign interests in the past reflects a pattern evident in
One Landscape Many Tenants
many developing countries which have recently gained their independence

(Agnew and Bridgland 2006). In Egypt, the situation exposes the longstand-
ing process of cultural production, appropriation and consumption of the
country’s ancient cultural resources by the West since the late eighteenth cen-
tury (Mitchell 1991, 2001; Reid 2002; Colla 2007). The role of Thebes in the
foundation of modern Egyptological research, excavation and heritage tour-
ism is therefore well documented (e.g. Denon 1802; Wilkinson 1835, 1843,
1847; Lane 1836; Petrie 1909; Porter and Moss 1960; Meskell 2002; Reid
2002). Lesser known are the highly integrated cultural narratives of those
working, visiting and living in the vicinity of archaeological sites, which
incorporate aspects of the past at the heart of modern economies and identi-
ties (Mitchell 1990; Reid 1997; Hassan 1998a; Moser et al. 2002). This unbal-
anced representation is due in part to traditional hierarchies, headed by the
Egyptian government and foreign investors/researchers, which continue to
manifest in the on-going power struggles between different stakeholders’
interests surrounding the use of the heritage space.
Stakeholders are groups, individuals, businesses, agencies, professional
organisations, or institutions that, whatever their location—local, national,
international—have a specific interest in the way any given resource (in
this case cultural heritage) is managed (Egloff 2006:85). Focusing specifi-
cally on the west bank of Thebes—the Necropolis—this research aims to
access a range of stakeholders—Egyptian and international, resident and
visiting—at the site to explore contemporary uses, perceptions and interac-
tions in and around the designated archaeological zone. While our study
cannot democratise decision making on the future treatment of the site
and its less-powerful stakeholders, it can expand the growing body of
research which aims to make heritage discourse more inclusive by repre-
senting a wider range of voices concerned with heritage spaces and by
uncovering the connection between ‘dead’ sites and today’s social milieu
(e.g. Moser et al. 2002; Peers and Brown 2003; Agnew and Bridgland 2006;
Fairclough et al. 2007).
The analysis of the heritage ‘space’ cannot be conceived simply as the
deconstruction of a static or topographical entity, but represents an
attempt to engage with a socially constructed environment which differs
between individuals, cultures and social groups. The archaeological site
provides the context for human experiences which are constructed in the
movements, memories, encounters and associations of its users (Tilley
1994:15), and thus the space changes, expands and contracts with varia-
tions in use and knowledge over time. As such, we accept the subjective
nature of the project which has to contend with personal interests and
multiple biases at every stage of research and analysis. However, through
the cross-cultural partnership between the two lead researchers (Egyptian
and English), and the constant negotiation of a dynamic, responsive
methodology, the analysis presents valuable insights into the range of

stakeholders and interests in this specific heritage ‘space’. Such insights are
essential if a more holistic approach to cultural resource management
(CRM) is to be developed in the future to create a space which preserves
multiple values, interpretations and uses of the site rather than acting sim-
ply as an ‘outdoor museum’ which valorises an ancient narrative at the
expense of all others (Demas and Agnew 2006:64–72).2
History: The Many Gates of Thebes
The area known as ancient Thebes/modern Luxor has been the site of con-
tinuous inhabitation, re-use and re-negotiation dating back 250,000 years
(Theban Mapping Project 2004). Rock carvings and a number of archaeo-
logical finds provide confirmation of human activity in the specific locale
of the Theban Necropolis from the Upper Palaeolithic (ca. 30,000 BC)
(Boleslaw et al. 1979) and there are a wealth of Predynastic and Old King-
dom sites (Saleh 1977; Boleslaw and Kozlowski 1984; Seidlmayer 1990; Bo-
leslaw and Kammerer-Grothaus 1998; Soliman 2009). However, it was the
intensive use of the site for tomb building and mortuary temples from the
Middle Kingdom (11th Dynasty) to the Third Intermediate Period (21st–
25th Dynasties), which helped delimit what is now the UNESCO World
Heritage area and which also provides the source of its fame (Winlock
1915; Assmann et al. 1995; Strudwick and Taylor 2003).
The Necropolis extends approximately 10 km from north to south and
encompasses ‘thousands of tombs, scores of temples, and a multitude of
houses, villages, shrines, monasteries, and work stations’ (Theban Mapping
Project 2004:27). While the world may see the area as Ancient Egyptian in
focus, there are eight inhabited villages which skirt its fringes: al-Seyoul, al-
Mena al-Jadida, al-Tarif, Nag’ al-Sawalem, al-Qurna, al-Ramaseyon
(Ramasseum), al-Bo’airat and al-Jazeera. The site also incorporates the
remains of other phases of use and occupation, from the demise of Ancient
Egypt to the modern day, e.g. mortuary sites from the Graeco-Roman Per-
iod (Strudwick and Taylor 2003:167–188), Christian churches, monasteries
and hermitages (Theban Mapping Project 2004:29), and settlement—ini-
tially seasonal and later permanent—by Arab, Bedouin and Berber people
(Simpson 2003:244).
After the eleventh century AD, there is scant documentary evidence on
life at the Theban Necropolis. However, small local communities were in
the vicinity at the time of the European ‘rediscovery’ as documented on
maps at the close of the eighteenth century (Description de l‘Égypte 1826:
Folio 5). Recent anthropological, architectural and archaeological evidences
suggest that these groups represent a logical continuity of occupation in an
area which combines rich agricultural land, good building materials, exist-
ing shelter (i.e. tomb structures) and ongoing magico-religious significance
(Simpson 2003:244; van der Spek 2004, 2011).
The dominant settlement in the area is known as al-Qurna. From the
Arabic al-Qurn meaning ‘the horn’, after the mountain at the feet of which
the population grew, al-Qurna is the collective name for the neighbour-
hood where a conglomerate of five villages once spanned the eastern flank
of the Theban Necropolis. Al-Qurna was built by the al-Hurabat (‫)ﺍﻟﺤﻮﺭﺑﺎﺕ‬
tribe who has inhabited the vicinity of the Necropolis as far back as the
thirteenth century (van der Spek 2011:62). The original village was located
in and around the temple of Seti I towards the edge of the agricultural
zone in the northern area of the Necropolis (Simpson 2003:244). But in
the early nineteenth century, due to a surge of European interest in the
area of the Tombs of the Nobles, the al-Hurabat, alongside other incoming
tribes, namely the al-Hassassna (‫)ﺍﻟﺤﺴﺴﻨﺔ‬, Atiyat (‫)ﻋﻄﻴﺎﺕ‬, Ghabat (‫)ﻏﺎﺑﺎﺕ‬,
and Batlanin (‫)ﺑﻄﻠﻨﻴﻦ‬, began to relocate south to the area of Hatshepsut’s
causeway, Sheikh ‘Abd al-Qurna, al-Khokha and the Saff tombs in Dra‘Abu
el-Naga (Figure 1). The new settlements, which regularly incorporated the
ancient Egyptian tombs into new mudbrick structures, enabled residents to
aid foreign excavations, procure and sell antiquities, act as guides and pro-
vide accommodation for visitors inside mudbrick houses and modified
tombs (van der Spek 2004:80–125). The interest and interaction with out-
siders created a whole new set of complex social dynamics surrounding the
role of the ancient landscape in Qurnawi daily life. On the one hand, there
were significant social and economic benefits through employment on
excavations and in tourist industries; on the other hand, as foreign mis-
sions and government officials began to covert the site for its research and
leisure value, the community fell target to accusations of looting, the pro-
duction of fakes, and the destruction of archaeological relics by building
and the disposal of domestic waste (Fakhry 1947a; van der Spek 2011).
While not all of these allegations were unfounded, Qurnawi defence of
their positions led many to identify themselves even more closely with the
heritage landscape. In the 1940s, an escalation in clashing perspectives on
the appropriate use of the Theban Necropolis led to the first official gov-
ernment relocation plan for its inhabitants (Fakhry 1947b).
The globally renowned Egyptian architect Hassan Fathy was commis-
sioned to build an ‘idealised village’ to enable the ‘tomb dwellers’ to relo-
cate towards the Nile, away from the archaeological site (Fathy 1963, 1973;
Steele 1997). The project gained international recognition, but failed to
tempt residents away from the Necropolis because the new village did not
cater for many of their needs (Mitchell 2002:184–205). Eventually, more
pressing political issues saved the community from forced relocation in the
Figure 1. Location of nineteenth century villages and their proximity to archaeological

sites (Map Ralf Miltenberger, Claudia Näser)
mid-twentieth century (Mitchell 1990). The 25 January 2011 revolution

came too late to protect them from this fate for a second time.
In 2000, the plan to relocate the residents of the Theban Necropolis, a
population estimated at 20,000 (World Monuments Fund 2011:6), found
new life as part of a United Nations and Egyptian governmental cultural
heritage management plan (Abraham et al. 2000; Barsum 2000). By 2030,
the plan aimed to make much of the east and west bank of Luxor into an
open-air museum dedicated to tourism, thus focusing on the ancient past.
This process would involve the removal of communities living in the vicin-
ity of the archaeological sites. Thus, anything that was not ancient Egyptian
was excluded;3 even buildings of historical significance would be removed
with disregard for Egyptian historical building laws. To date, the result has
been the destruction of multiple properties on the Avenue of the Sphinxes,
which once linked the temples of Luxor and Karnak on the east bank, and
the clearance of all but one of the five villages4 which made up al-Qurna
(Figures 2, 3). On both banks, residents have been forcibly relocated, often
to a significant distance away from their original homes. In the case of the
Qurna villages, the majority of residents now live in the purpose-built site
of New Qurna, Qurna al-Jadida, some 5 km away from their historical
home and the potential income sources of tourism and archaeological
excavations (Figure 4).
Figure 2. The Theban Necropolis after the destruction of the villages of al-Qurna
(Photo Claudia Näser)
The development plan was assisted by the power of the Ancient Egypt
‘brand’, which has, since the early nineteenth century (Reid 2002), pro-
moted the ‘cradle of civilisation’ narrative of Ancient Egypt over the rest of
the Egyptian historical timeline. As a result, even for the well-informed,
the story of Western civilisation begins with Ancient Egypt, and progresses
through the Graeco-Roman period—when it enters Europe—to later spark
the Renaissance and modern Western culture as we know it. The early Isla-
mic period and its role in the transmission of knowledge to the West is
largely absent from the story (Slyomvics 1989:139). This ‘missing link’ was
part of an ideological ‘denial of coevalness’ between ancient and modern
Egypt promoted by Western intellectuals (van der Spek 2011:36) through
the first forays into colonialism, orientalism, tourism and archaeology, and
perpetuated further by Egyptian officials through early forms of Egyptian
Nationalism (Gershoni and Jankowski 1986; Mitchell 1991). In Luxor, this
conceptual divide, which refused the sharing of present time between his-
torical sites and living communities (van der Spek 2011:35), finally became
concrete through the intended ‘Disneyfication/Disneyization’ (Bryman
2004) of Luxor 2030, which viewed the recent history of the Egyptian peo-
ple as of little value compared to the potential economic benefits of mass/
theme park tourism. Thus, the situation at the Theban Necropolis presents
Figure 3. Houses on the Theban Necropolis before the destruction of the villages of
al-Qurna (Photo Michael Bode-Wohlfahrtstätter)
a highly poignant example of the wider issues of cultural desertification

and divorce between living communities and ancient heritage. The case
also reveals a global heritagisation process, intimately connected with the
growth of heritage tourism (Agnew 2006), which is creating a barrier
between living Egyptians, local businesses and international visitors by iso-
lating descendant communities away from tourist zones.
The Theban Necropolis and wider Luxor are not unique examples of
this form of ‘space governance’ in Egypt. In fact, the trend for ‘walling in/
keeping out/relocating’ extends to the majority of Egypt’s archaeological
sites5 and is becoming part of standard heritage practices across the globe
(see Agnew and Bridgland 2006; Young et al. 2009:76). By devaluing con-
temporary relationships with sites and site visitors, and severing the role of
local communities in site protection, a significant part of the personal and
intercultural dialogue surrounding the role of the past in modern life is
Figure 4. The village of New Qurna (Photo Claudia Näser)
being lost. This begs the question—who are we saving heritage for (Hassan
1998b; Mackay 2006:131–135; cf. Näser and Kleinitz 2012)? Hence, we now
turn to the methodology through which we aimed to access aspects of
interconnectivity, disjuncture and contradiction surrounding the use of the
heritage space and the production of meaning by multiple stakeholders at
the Theban Necropolis.
Methodology
This article represents part of a much wider project which aimed to unlock
a more integrated understanding of the Theban Necropolis by weaving
together three mains aspects: firstly, the history of archaeological interven-
tion, tourism and Egyptian settlement, to place the contemporary situation
in its historical context; secondly, the perceptions of both Egyptian and
international archaeologists, tourists/travellers/visitors, artists, ex-pats, offi-
cials, tourist/leisure industry employees and others visiting and working in
the Theban Necropolis, concerning their personal relationships with the
archaeological site, the local community and other non-resident stakehold-
ers; and thirdly, local community perspectives on interactions and percep-
tions of other stakeholder groups at the Theban Necropolis, and the role
of the archaeological sites in contemporary social, economic and cultural
life.
Fieldwork, in the form of interviews and participant observation, took

place in 4 months during the winter of 2011/12, spanning the first anniver-
sary of the 25 January 2011 revolution, in the liminal period before
Mohamed Morsi’s election. Based on our previous experiences working
with other communities in Egypt (Tully 2005, 2007, 2010; Hanna et al.
2013) and building on the cross-disciplinary, transcultural ethos of archae-
ological ethnography6 (Hamilakis and Anagnostopoulos 2009; Hamilakis
2011), collaborative archaeology7 (Moser et al. 2002; Peers and Brown
2003; Tully 2007) and meshwork theory8 (Escobar 2008), we started build-
ing links with different stakeholder groups. First explaining our aims, we
were able to carry out, as appropriate, formal and informal interviews (see
also Abu-Lughod 1986, 1991; Jones 2008) to draw out how each group saw
their relationship with other stakeholders and how this rested alongside
their personal use of, and relationship with, the Theban Necropolis.
The central methodological aim was to use the data collected to escape
the authorial style of presentation by scientists, politicians and researchers
that has dominated the representation of other peoples and heritage sites
in the past (Egyptian examples include: Wilkinson 1835; Lane 1836; Lehner
2004; Hawass and Vannini 2009) and to offer an alternative view by
reflecting the plurality of perspectives. This is a difficult task due to the
complexity of relationships, dialogues and uses of a space that has been a
World Heritage site for over 30 years. The ‘global’ heritage status of the
necropolis, plus the backstory of imperial intervention and the impossibil-
ity of defining explicit categories of users, means that we cannot do justice
to all stakeholders. While we cannot interrogate the bias of every partici-
pant or analyse each quote, we can look at the ambiguity of perceptions of
‘space’ from a methodological perspective to try to do justice to the multi-
ple stakeholders’ situations without presenting a definitive view or ‘answer’.
This can be achieved by firstly collecting the stories/experiences of stake-
holders within the heritage space as outline above; secondly, by treating
each conversation seriously/equally; and thirdly, by attempting to represent
the variety and extremes of views through the words of the stakeholders
(i.e. direct quotations) by breaking discussions down into three area: agree-
ments, disagreement and contradictions (see contributions to Agnew and
Bridgland 2006 for other examples). Within each of the areas raised for
debate, our analysis will ask whether the issues addressed effect the archae-
ological site directly, what evidence there is to support such claims, and if
the impact is global or reflected purely onto the personal world of individ-
ual/group users of the site. Only with this range of views in place can we
begin to ask whether the Theban Necropolis represents multiculturalist glo-
bal heritage, or whether users, while inhabiting the same physical space,
are simply ‘worlds apart’. Due to the short timescale of the fieldwork, the
research offers a ‘snap-shot’ of inter-relationships at the Theban Necropolis
during a specific moment in Egypt’s history, which we hope to extend in

the future.
Agreement: The Uniqueness of the Heritage Space and its

Ability to Inspire
While reading through the hundreds of interviews with different stakehold-

ers,9 it became apparent that there are few areas of consensus surrounding
the use, meaning and management of the Theban Necropolis. However,
while the different types of users often struggle to understand each other
and have different needs from the site, the following quotes reveal general
agreement on the elements which make the site special.
The first time I came here I felt a special relation with the Theban mountain.
Now she (the mountain) demands I visit her every year. I’m very interested
in the landscape and the story of the mountain, what it has seen […] all the
people from all periods of history who died and were buried inside the
mountain – it is a very special place. (Excavation director)
I didn’t expect to get so attached to the landscape. One of my favourite
expressions is when the Egyptians say ‘welcome back’ and ‘welcome home’.
It does feel a bit like that as it seems ancient and the source of all humanity.
(Backpacker/traveller)
When I used to feel upset, I went for a walk in the temple. Now the police
and guards stop me from going there. (Egyptian resident of al-Ramaseyon)
I felt as if the people here now were the same people who had made the
place, the tombs, the houses, it all looks part of the same thing. (Artist and
repeat visitor)
When we left, we realised how beautiful the place we lived in was. (Relocated
resident)
Here in west Thebes it was the daily life element that stunned me, the rela-
tion between daily life scenes in tombs and life around me. (Backpacker)
One of the [Egyptian] workers said yesterday, ‘you know, I am standing here
and feel that if I just turned my head I would actually see Pharaonic people.’
This is exactly what I feel and many others too. (Excavation co-director)
The selection of quotes reveals the ‘essence’ of the space where natural
beauty, history and contemporary worlds meet (Figure 5). These features
highlight the key qualities of a global heritage site which justify its ‘out-
standing universal value’ (UNESCO 1972:3): the ability to inspire and to
provide a space for reflection on the personal and the global, past, present
and future. In the case of the Theban Necropolis, it is impossible to say
whether this power emanates innately from the space or is something
absorbed subconsciously by users from the increasingly global influence of
Figure 5. The Theban Necropolis, a natural, historical and social space (authors’ pho-
tograph)
the UNESCO World Heritage ‘ideology’. Either way, this seemingly univer-
sal ‘respect’ for the uniqueness of the Theban Necropolis is the only issue
upon which stakeholders from all backgrounds appear to agree. Once we
begin to deconstruct perspectives on appropriate use of the site, arising
from shared respect and acknowledgment of its universal value, it quickly
becomes clear that opinions differ greatly and have tangible, physical con-
sequences on the heritage space and the experiences of its users.
Disagreement: Respect Through the Management of the

Heritage Space
Notions of responsible use and management of the necropolis differ

according to whether the site is viewed primarily as a professional, social,
leisure or artistic space (see contributions to Agnew and Bridgland 2006).
The destruction of the villages of al-Qurna and the increasing segregation
of the landscape into areas designated either ‘ancient’ or ‘modern’ repre-
sent the most controversial acts of ‘respect’ within recent CRM and illus-
trate how decision making lies ultimately with the State. While the
Egyptian authorities are willing to take advice from powerful economic
or intellectual investors, namely leisure/tourism developers and archaeo-

logical missions, assumptions are made about the needs of those stake-
holders without an influential voice, namely local communities and
visitors. It is therefore unsurprising that the removal of living communi-
ties from the World Heritage context and the restrictions in access—the
most significant changes to the physical and social nature of the site in
modern history—represent the most poignant examples of disagreement
between stakeholders on the priority function and management of the
Theban Necropolis.
For archaeologists, Egyptologists and heritage professionals, the preser-
vation of the site for current and future generations of scholars is their
prime concern. This manifests physically at the necropolis through the
removal of non-ancient signs of use, the imposition of designated walk-
ways, limited access to visitors in excavation areas and so on (Figure 6).
These ‘intellectual’ stakeholders have negotiating power within local gov-
ernment to instigate such changes through their role in providing employ-
ment and enhancing Egypt’s international relations, as well as through
their monopoly on new knowledge. In the case of al-Qurna, archaeologists
also aid the Egyptian state because their work ‘produces’ the site and their
presences confirms its ‘archaeological nature’, i.e. lends strength to the
argument that the necropolis is an archaeological site and not a place to
live. While those working in archaeology and heritage were not directly
responsible for the removal of the villages at al-Qurna, as one excavator
put it, ‘we are glad to have a clean, uncontaminated site’. This view was
expressed by a number of Egyptian and non-Egyptian researchers alike but
does not mean that many from within heritage-related professions do not
simultaneously mourn the loss of local interactions within the World Heri-
tage landscape as demonstrated in the following quotes.
The dynamic between the people, the archaeology and the natural landscape
is something very different and special. (Junior Egyptologist)
The new experience is different. It is like a movie set, a film, and it is wrong
to look at this place as clean and untouched as it is not real. (Excavation
director)
This personal conflict reveals the outcome of having to negotiate a lack of

time for fieldwork and a greater vested interest in the past of which heritage
professionals, such as this European excavation director, are well aware:
Some of the archaeologists keep their distance from the people. They don’t
want to get too close because it can be hard once you get involved with fam-
ilies and their lives. If you are here for six weeks it seems better to just do
your work and leave.
Figure 6. Egyptian workers on an archaeological excavation, behind fences (authors’

photograph)
Those outside the circle of ‘experts’ are also conscious of conflicting inter-
ests, which contribute to disagreements over the appropriate management
of the heritage space. As one western artist and repeat visitor to the
necropolis explained in relation to the village of al-Ramaseyon (Ramesse-
um), which still remains on the eastern fringe of the necropolis:
The [archaeological] work on the Ramesseum has led to the lowering of the
groundwater so the mudbrick village houses nearby are all cracking. They
will have to go/fall down, and the archaeologists also want to expand their
excavation. Therefore, developing a relationship between archaeology and the
people doesn’t work.
The Supreme Council of Antiquities (SCA) and the Egyptian state also
struggle to reconcile their site management agenda with local needs. They
have administered the site since the 1952 revolution, gradually instating a
process of ‘walling out/removing’ local communities while prioritising
international business investments, tourist visits and archaeological work
within the heritage space. The economic benefits and international prestige
of such partnerships explain the reluctance to listen to residents’ concerns
for the site or to consider alternatives to the ‘mass tourism’ model.10 In
relation to the destruction of the villages of Qurna, Egyptian officials said
at the time, ‘they would finish the task because science and decency are on
their side. They are preserving priceless antiquities and moving the villagers to
a community with running water that they lacked in Gurna [Qurna]’ (cited
in Slackman 2007).
Revealing the unequal treatment of local communities compared to
‘income-generating’ stakeholders, an ex-pat living in the area reported on 25
November 2008, ‘the authorities, without warning, cut off electricity to the
inhabitants of the hills of Gurna [Qurna] and removed supply cables […] even
though these villagers had been paying their electricity bills. Only archeologists
and tourism sites continue to receive electricity’ (Arabist 2008). With this
undemocratic system of discrimination in place, it is no surprise that multi-
ple conflictive versions of ‘respectful treatment’ of the heritage space arise.
Feeding from the orders of the State, the Luxor Governorate is directly
involved with development plans concerning tourism and the heritage
landscape. This group deals with the day-to-day issues of archaeological
missions, local communities, security, tourism and business and would be
best placed to bring together diverse stakeholders’ interests in future
CRM.11 However, following directions from the top, which request show-
casing Egypt’s great past to the world, results in the segregation of users,
the prioritisation of financial gains over social cohesion and the detach-
ment of the heritage asset from the ‘damage’ inflicted upon it by the mod-
ern world. As local government officials stated, ‘the old houses [of al-
Qurna] with their garbage was deemed visual pollution’ and, ‘These people
did not deserve to live on such expensive monuments; their sewage destroyed
master pieces’.
While domestic waste from al-Qurna indeed did cause problems at the
site, the lack of negotiation with local communities in terms of the
management agenda of the necropolis enhanced tensions. As Samir Farag,
former governor of Luxor stated at the time, ‘It was very difficult to con-
vince the people that this master plan (Luxor 2030) is for the sake of them’
(quoted in Hauslohner 2010). Many local residents would disagree that
decision making occurs with living communities in mind, ‘For the govern-
ment, the most important are the antiquities and not us’ (resident of Qurna
al-Jadida). This clash of opinion reflects the on-going battle between the
authorised ‘preservation of the ancient space’ view held by many archaeol-
ogists and officials as described above, and the unauthorised desire for
‘social and historical mixing’ within the heritage space as voiced by many
local communities and visiting users. For these latter groups of stakehold-
ers, respect for the necropolis involves allowing the bond between the heri-
tage site, its visitors, modern inhabitants and their cultural practices to
diversify rather than stagnate as reflected in the following quotes:
I liked being able to walk out and interact. Even though I could not speak
much Arabic and they could not speak much English, we could still commu-
nicate a little. (Repeat visitor)
We want buses to stop at the ferry and for tourists to be free to wander and
walk wherever they wish, and not be controlled by the companies and police.
(Local bazaar owner)
My favourite site is Hatshepsut, because that’s where I used to play as a
young child. I also love Deir el-Medina because the tombs are beautiful.
When we lived there, we went to the temple anytime we wanted to play and
see friends, and sell souvenirs to the tourists, but now if I go, the police
arrest me. (Resident of Qurna al-Jadida)
I am very sad about the changing face of the mountain. […] There are
enough tombs that are interesting and beautiful, what difference does it make
having a few more. […] What is more important is what is happening today.
(Artist and repeat visitor)
Before they built New Qurna it was better. It is not like it was when the peo-
ple were there – now it is just the tombs and temples. Tourists just take a
look at the tombs and don’t have a connection. They [the local government]
want to turn the place into a big Disneyland. They didn’t like the people and
the tourists coming together in the old system. (Repeat visitor)
It has been noted elsewhere that interventions for conservation purposes, such
as security walls and the removal of structures from eras outside to the author-
ised heritage narrative, ‘significantly affect the contextual meaning and associa-
tive aesthetic values’ of a site and can impact on the ‘spirit’ of the heritage space
(Matero 2006:59). This is clearly the case for many visitor and community stake-
holders and demonstrates how the ‘outstanding universal value’ of the Theban
Necropolis has been diminished in the eyes of many users through its reduction
to a single story—a resting place for the ancient dead. It is not just the changing
physical structures which impinge on these groups of users but the resulting
emotive loss of intercultural, cross-temporal experiences which were connected
to the overlying histories in earlier incarnations of the heritage space. The com-
ments above reveal the need for CRM to address the phenomenological, ecologi-
cal and aesthetic repercussions of changes to the heritage space alongside the
functional and economic significance of the site. Our research also highlights
widespread awareness of the ‘undemocratic’ nature of the current system, insti-
gated by previous Egyptian governmental regimes, which ‘emptied’ archaeologi-
cal spaces, prioritising tourist numbers and foreign interests over local socio-
economic factors (Hanna 2003). Gaetano Palumbo (2006:35–39) categorises this
divide as the difference between heritage exploitation for predominantly eco-
nomic motives, and heritage use which incorporates social needs. Government
officials argue that this is not that case and that social conditions have improved
for the Qurnawi community since their relocation:
People now are under control, families are better off now, they have proper
toilets, water and electricity. Students have the schools close by and they will
soon have a library. (Official from Luxor Governor’s office)
However, the use of the word ‘control’ in the above quote reveals the top-
down management strategy, which has not considered the role communi-
ties could play in sustainable tourism or site preservation (for examples see
Agnew and Bridgland 2006). Neglect of this facet leads to further disagree-
ments as many community members do not believe that better facilities
compensate for the loss of 200 years of communal cultural memory that
was embedded in village life among the monuments, visitors and natural
landscape of the necropolis (van der Spek 2011; Simpson 2003, 2010) and
for the loss of their economic basis in dealings with the visitors to the
necropolis.
Heritage theorists argue that societies view objects and spaces as aids to
remembering the past and to passing on communal identity (Pollock and
Bernbeck 1996:138; Harrison 1994:135). In Qurna, there were visual
reminders of the history of the community in the mudbrick extensions to
houses—added on as families grew–, the scenes of Hajj12 painted on exter-
nal walls, and the physicality of residing partly above ground and partly
below in ancient tombs. Annual festivals and other intangible heritage
practices also developed connected to community life within the ancient
site, such as the August mulid (religious celebration) of Sheikh’Abd al-Qur-
na (see van der Spek 2011:289–291), which cannot be transplanted easily
to New Qurna. The necropolis was also the site for multicultural interac-
tions: acting simultaneously as a playground for local children; contact
zone with tourists and archaeologists; workshop and market place for sou-
venirs, muse for artists and photographers; and battle ground between local
communities, police and the government. Through both these tangible and
intangible elements, the World Heritage site shaped the local sense of place
through the daily practices or ‘habitus’ (Bourdieu 1985; Hiller and Rook-
sby 2005) of the community. This made Qurnawi culture distinct from
other villages of the west bank and created a unique heritage context for
visitors and researchers (van der Spek 2011). For the community, without
access to the cultural reminders represented through the ‘memoryscape’, i.
e. landscape, sites, movements, structures and associated practices which
shaped daily life at the necropolis, the memories and identities built
through association begin to fade. Contemporary heritage ethics acknowl-
edge this issue and promote bringing ‘the goals of the living and the dead
together’ (Sadler and Matsuda 2010:427) to encompass various forms of
reuse of the historical landscape, including current forms of expression, as
a central part of the value of the heritage space (van der Spek 2011:23).
Due to the complex history of the site and a lack of consultation, the
inhabitants of Qurna were not awarded this consideration and are acutely
aware of the consequences. This is evident from the following quotes and
the image below (Figure 7).
My children will never know how we lived, got water on the donkey, and the
names of the places. I keep telling my son the stories, so he will tell his chil-
dren. […]We lost our history, and all we have now is what our limited
brains can remember. (Resident of Qurna al-Jadida)
I am very sad about my house, not my things. I do not mind about the loss
of my things, but my house, my Qurna, my town! (Resident of Qurna al-Ja-
dida)
Previously we had agriculture and could keep some animals in a barn near
the house, but now we are completely forbidden to plant anything or have
any animals, and so we are left in the desert here with no greenery. (Resident
of Qurna al-Jadida)
In the old Qurna, we lived close, but with enough private space between
houses. Now we are so close that if one sneezes their neighbour hears him.
(Resident of Qurna al-Jadida)
In New Qurna, there is nothing to do, just TV, but here [the necropolis] we
had a window to the world around us. (Resident of Qurna al-Jadida)
Figure 7. Graffiti which reads ‘this house was a home’ on one of the empty houses
in Qurnet Murai (authors’ photograph)
Because families are separate now [in Qurna al-Jadida], women do not learn
from their mother in-laws etc. – traditional skills are being lost. It is also
making people more selfish because there is less communal living. (Excava-
tion director)
Home is precious. We had more space and more health. (Resident of Qurna
al-Jadida)
In the past, I talked a lot to people from the hillside. They blamed Mubarak
for the changes.
People had a real feeling of belonging to that place and they feel they don’t
belong to the new place. (Repeat visitor)
Conservation, heritage and tourism professionals suggest that heritage

management strategies which neglect local socio-cultural needs, such as
those described above, to maximise profit from tourism revenues, result in
a negative chain of events which often leads to the degradation of the site
and in turn a reduction in visitors in the long-term (Palumbo 2006:35–39;
Yunis 2006a:148–151). The destruction of al-Qurna cannot be undone, but
other communities on the fringes of the necropolis, such as al-Ramaseyon
and Medinat Habu, could be spared the same fate through collaboration
between different stakeholders to develop more sensitive and sustainable
long-term stewardship of the site. However, for some, the removal of the
villages represents just the tip of the iceberg and suggestions that all mod-
ern ‘threats’ should be removed from the heritage space were also raised by
a small number of participants:
It was good that they moved the people from the village. What is worse now is
the remaining alabaster factories, the water from the German dig house,13 the
police station and the mosque which still remain on parts of the necropolis. All
these things should also be destroyed. (Egyptian tour guide from Cairo)
The above approach would bring an element of consistency to the CRM pro-
cess and complete the physical transformation of the space into a fully
‘ancient’ landscape (aside from modern walls and tourist facilities). This
would rectify governmental hypocrisy through what appears to be the special
treatment of structures associated with more powerful stakeholders. How-
ever, there are many other issues upon which ‘critical judgements’ have been
made in terms of the future direction of the heritage space which have
resulted not only in disagreement but highly contradictory views.
Contradiction: Actions and Reactions in the Heritage Space
One of the most frequently cited issues surrounding the management of

the heritage space concerns looting. On top of claims of damage to the
heritage site through domestic waste, the community at al-Qurna have had
to deal with a reputation for looting and illicit antiquities dealing. For over
one century, Egyptologists and travel writers alike have suggested that the
Qurnawis may descend from the same tomb-robbers documented in court
proceedings from the necropolis in the New Kingdom (van der Spek
2011:140–145). These historical claims, suggesting a Qurnawi legacy of
looting, arose only after the discovery by the Abd-al Rasul family of the
cache of Royal mummies near Deir-al Bahari in 1871. The incident became
notorious as the Rasuls are said to have ‘mined’ the cache for a decade
before being discovered by the French authorities (Maspero 1881; Jankow-
ski and Gershoni 1997:139). The claim is interesting in itself because, on
the one hand, many opponents of al-Qurna village argue that the commu-
nity are recent interlopers and do not belong.
Qurna shouldn’t have been there in the first place. It only grew up because
of the western archaeologists. […]Being part of the culture and society, my
eyes are no longer shut to this. People made more money from looting than
we could dream of. (Researcher and ex-pat)
At the same time, other critics provide them with 3,000 years of ancestry
at the site, all be it through a ‘criminal’ link.
For over three thousand years the Qurnawis have made their living […]
among the ancient burial grounds […] the Qurnawis have been in business
as long as the source of their supply has existed. (Roberts 1993:93–94, cited
in van der Spek 2011:141)
Descendants of ancient looting communities or not, the stereotype of the

Qurnawis as lawbreakers who exploit the site for personal gain provided a
powerful platform from which to justify further the removal of their homes
(van der Spek 2011:23). As one local government official stated, ‘The necropo-
lis is more secure for research and tourism now’. However, there are no data to
support the validity of these claims, either from local research or the interna-
tional art market, and we cannot be sure whether illegal excavation and
black-market sales have reduced or increased since the community’s reloca-
tion. While we know that looting increases at times of economic hardship, as
evidenced by the current crisis at ancient sites since the 25 January 2011 revo-
lution (Halime 2012), many local people argue that ‘looting was mostly by
outsiders and is increasing now that we are not there to look after the tombs’
(resident of Qurna al-Jadida). This view is supported by the actions of the
Qurnawis who say the police abandoned the site during the turmoil of 2011.
All the Qurna people went to protect the site even though they now don’t
benefit anything from the monuments. (Resident of Qurna al-Jadida)
We stood out here on the road to protect the Tombs of the Nobles, Rames-
seum and Valley of the Kings with our sticks. […]Those who had guns
brought them, too. We made patrolling watches and made sure that no
stranger could enter. This is our heritage and we could not allow anyone to
attack it. (Resident of al-Ramaseyon)
The claims of local residents are supported by comments from expatriates

who witnessed the community in this task:
During the revolution, gangs came from Armant to raid the magazine,
destroy tombs, and destroy the Ramesseum at Qurna. The villagers sent out
young men on motorbikes armed only with sticks and knives to go and meet
them. The people from al-Qurna and al-Jazeera came together to do this.
The morning after the raid on the magazine at the colossi all the local Egyp-
tians got together to get things back and they did eventually. In this life and
death situation, it restored a little of our faith in Egypt, or at least in the
people here. The true colours show when push comes to shove – they
defended our house and the sites here while the SCA, police, Germans,
Americans and Egyptians all pulled out and were not prepared to help.
(Researcher and ex-pat living on the west bank)
Until hard data exist, it is impossible to say whether the removal of the
Qurnawis has led to a reduction in this form of damage to the necropolis.
While we know from the community that looting was also part of life at
the site—‘People in Qurna lived on the hope that they will one day discover
the treasure under their house and become rich’ (resident of Qurna al-Jadi-
da)–, residents’ sense of belonging and desire to protect ‘their heritage’
may have sheltered the site from more wide-spread raids, as seen during
the recent revolution. Future CRM in the area perhaps then needs to weigh
up the potential of this guardianship role for communities.
General trends at heritage sites in developing nations reveal that quality
of life often reduces for local people as sites become more structured and
attract more visitors (Garcia 2006:122). This negative relationship is due to
the formalisation of business structures, which channel economic benefits
to large-scale government and external investors. Combined with reduced
access to familiar social landscapes and their associated practices, as well as
unexpected cultural influences from foreign tourists, it is unsurprising that
communal relations with sites suffer a spiral of decline towards increased
looting, crime and cultural tensions as tourism increases. However, if exist-
ing feelings of communal ownership were built on, as opposed to ignored,
through humanistic visions of the necropolis which reproduce multiple
identities and spread socio-economic gains in an atmosphere of respect, a
positive social landscape could be developed as seen at other sites in parts
of the developing world (Akrawi 2006; Wurster 2006).
Similar to the case of the view on looting, the current lack of dialogue
between stakeholders and the resultant misunderstandings by officials of
less-powerful users (namely visitors and communities) simply leads to fur-
ther contradictions between the government’s vision for Luxor 2030 as an
open air museum and the needs of the majority of users. The selection of
quotes below highlights a range of the contradictory perspectives raised
during the interview process.
If the changes were for the tourists, well, they come for such a short time to
see the big sites […] they are never going to see all of the tombs here, they’ll
just get straight back on the bus and go to their boat, or back to Hurghada.
(Ex-pat living on the west bank)
I think maybe this [the removal of Qurna] is of more benefit to the archaeol-
ogists, but not to the people or the tourists. (Artist and repeat visitor)
People who come to the hotel ask me where and why the houses and people
have gone from the hill. I tell them, because this is better for you. They tell
me – NO – this is not better, this is not what we want. I say the government
did it for you, just like around Luxor temple. The tourists look confused or
sad, because it is not really what they want. (Egyptian hotel employee on the
fringe of the necropolis)
Now that the houses are gone, it is like being alone in the desert. Before,
there were houses and lights and people on the hill. Now, there are new
lights put there by the government but it is not the same now that the
houses and people are gone. The feeling is not the same – now it is so quiet,
it is no longer alive. (Resident of al-Ramaseyon)
The views represent a general feeling of bafflement at the rapidly changing

face of the heritage site which does not cater to the needs of majority
users—residents and visitors—because, in the current system, they are not
majority power holders. This imbalance could be addressed through greater
collaboration to ensure the sustainability of the site. To bring the argument
full circle, it is therefore interesting to note that from within these dis-
agreements and contradictions surrounding the current management of the
heritage space and the increase in socio-cultural tensions created by height-
ened access restrictions to the physical space, some shared visions for the
future emerge. A philosophy of communication, diversification and
co-operation, as opposed to the current strategy of segregation and special-
isation, is promoted. This quote from an Egyptian excavator epitomises
this view:
I want everyone to come, tourists to come back to stay, drink tea, see fami-
lies. The people love the tourists and want to be friendly with them, not just
for business. […] We also want Arab people to come and see the people,
and for people from Alexandria and Cairo to come to Luxor as many people
don’t know what temples we have. […] We need to keep excavating and to
work with Europeans. I want UNESCO and everyone to work together. […]
I don’t like to see the tombs like this. (Egyptian excavator)
The comment revolves around the integration of sustainable tourism,

addressing the full social landscape—the past and the present—and archae-
ological research. In terms of the community, public interactions in the
heritage space and the potential for local people to access historical infor-
mation and define their own relationships with visitors and sites are of pri-
mary concern. As one Egyptology student put it, ‘The problem is that the
community are not getting enough out of their relationship with the past—
they are not allowed to. If the links and ownership were more entrenched,
things would be different’ (Egyptology student). ‘Ownership’ will only be
fostered if the site is able to provide cultural sustenance for the community
(Cabeza 2006:127), but even with the return of access to local people, this
relationship will not become entrenched if the community is, ‘lacking in
education and don’t know what is going on’ (archaeological excavator). Visi-
tors aware of this dynamic suggest that archaeologists are in the perfect
position to ‘build a bridge to help communities’ by sharing skills and knowl-
edge (artist and repeat visitor). Government Officials appear to share this
view as they want to ‘encourage more projects between the archaeologists and
the people, particularly to make jobs for the youth’. While these sorts of part-
nerships may be a start, they are still archaeology-centred and create new
dependencies on international archaeologists, as opposed to building long-
term, local sustainability from grass roots level. However, the exchange of
culture and ideas cannot take place in the current system which does not
foster ‘relations between the SCA, communities and tourism. This is part of
the reason why ancient Egypt and modern Egypt don’t relate. It explains why
people can’t identify with the past and are not aware of connections’ (archae-
ological photographer).
Tourism, with guidance from archaeologists and community groups,
perhaps provides the key to interconnecting multiple Egyptian histories
and developing a sustainable management plan which considers the full
spectrum of meanings within the heritage space. As one repeat visitor to
the area suggested:
I am not opposed to mass tourism, but it falls down because there aren’t
enough options, such as a niche for eco-tourism. There is little experience of
Egyptian society. If there were more initiatives to encourage local operators
to involve people more, this would help. The current system mimics colonial
attitudes in an Egyptian Disneyland. You get what you expect! Stereotypes
are formed on both sides, tourists of Egyptians and hassle, and Egyptians of
tourists buying scarves, taking photos, having the token experience. […]
Neither life the other group sees is reality.’
Presenting the ‘reality’ of the heritage space is no simple task. As this

research has shown, there is no single vision of a site, no single use, and
the space is continually invested with new meanings depending on the
intellectual and physical access of its users. Numerous heritage profession-
als have proposed diversifying the tourist offer as the key to sustainability
through the presentation of multiple realities. This is particularly important
as global tourist figures are predicted to continue to grow over the coming
decade (Yunis 2006b:175–176). Increasing the variety of experiences and
experience-providers, over a wider geographical area, can reduce the envi-
ronmental pressures of high visitor numbers, enhance cultural mixing and
spread economic benefits more equally (see contributions to Agnew and
Bridgland 2006). There is certainly the desire for such developments from
the majority of stakeholders whom we interviewed concerning the Theban
Necropolis. However, as with all of the issues raised, closer working com-
munication between all those with a vested interest in the heritage space is
essential to move things forward.
Conclusion
Drawing all of the evidence together, it is clear that the current inequalities
in physical and ideational access to the heritage space do not encourage a
universal, global heritage experience at the Theban Necropolis. In the
minds of many community members and leisure visitors, the site is ‘dying’
as social interactions are reduced and historically grown components of the
site are removed at random, prioritising just a single facet of its rich his-
tory. For numerous researchers and government officials, the preservation
of the ‘dead’ landscape through the reduction of contemporary influences
is a step in the right direction. However, there is recognition from both
ends of the spectrum that greater collaboration between stakeholders is
essential if the site is to negotiate these conflicting agendas which currently
threaten the sustainability and unique universal value of the Theban
Necropolis for future generations. Agreement on this point reveals how
theory is well ahead of practice in terms of CRM at the necropolis. In the-
ory, there is consensus that successful management of the heritage land-
scape relies on the development of an integrated social order to support
the physical remains (Cromer 2006a:21). In practice, a well-balanced social
order—the complex layering of multiple identities and temporalities which
exist simultaneously in and around the heritage space—is difficult to
achieve. Physical barriers, the demolition of ‘non-ancient’ structures,
police-enforced restrictions, population relocations and assumptions on
user needs from those in positions of power currently inhibit the social func-
tions of the site. Management which favours the preservation of physical
remains, research agendas and tourist revenue over human interactions also
has an intangible, but deep-reaching impact on the heritage space, transform-
ing the site in the minds of users from a living landscape to an ‘open-air
museum’, i.e. an economic commodity of questionable authenticity. False
dichotomies are created in this process as it simplifies the relationships
between concepts such as ancient/modern, tourist/community, public/pri-
vate, preservation/destruction and so on. The result is that different types of
stakeholders are increasingly isolated within a prescribed vision of the site
designated for their ‘group’ by the Egyptian state. For example: tourists ‘re-
live’ the ancient past and rarely come into contact with today’s Egyptians;
archaeologists ‘re-discover’ the ancient past and interpret it for others; busi-
nesses ‘re-package’ the ancient past and make it convenient for consumers
through affordable souvenirs, day-trips and themed hotel suites; officials ‘re-
present’ sites to meet government policies on tourism and site protection;
and communities ‘keep out’ of the designated World Heritage landscape
which they once called home. As one participant put it, ‘At the moment there
is a total disconnect’, which results in stakeholders’ experiences of the global
heritage space becoming increasingly narrow and arguably ‘worlds apart’.
Hope that the artificial divide between the ‘dead’ space of the designated
UNESCO World Heritage site and the ‘living’ space beyond its walls can be
challenged exists in agreement on the need for greater partnerships between
diverse stakeholders. The value of such an approach is bolstered by examples
of successful stakeholder collaborations at World Heritage sites in other
developing countries with colonial histories (Akrawi 2006; Wijesuriya 2006).
Thus, while acknowledging that the needs of all stakeholders cannot always
be reconciled, this research reveals how holistic plans for the heritage site,
which link income, preservation and knowledge through the inclusion of
multiple voices in decision making, could enable individual groups to negoti-
ate the issues which currently collide within the heritage space to sustain the
whole (Cromer 2006b:163). We hope that this research can provide the
impetus for further dialogue on the matter and choose to end, as we begun,
with a quote, ‘Changes can be effected but they need to come from a coherent
vision of the Egyptian government in conjunction with foreign fundraisers, local
people and so on’ (photographer for an archaeological mission).
Acknowledgments
This research was made possible by the funding of the Cluster of Excel-
lence TOPOI, Berlin. The authors would like to thank all of the partici-
pants for their co-operation and for sharing their personal insights and
experiences of their time at the Theban Necropolis. We would also like to
thank Claudia Näser for her encouragement and intellectual input through-
out the project.
Notes
1. UNESCO online, Thebes and its Necropolis, http://whc.unesco.org/
en/list/87 (last accessed on: 23/08/2013).
2. See ICOMOS, ICAHM Charter for the Protection and Management
of Archaeological Heritage 1999, called for a focus on the living cul-
tural landscape of World Heritage sites (http://www.international.
icomos.org/charters/arch_e.pdf, last accessed on: 23/08/2013).
3. The exception being properties belonging to foreign institutions,
such as the ‘German House’ of the German Archaeological Institute,
Dept. Cairo, and the ‘Japanese House’ of the team from Waseda
University.
4. The last village, Qurnet Murai, is still standing, but its population
was removed to New Qurna. People have, however, started to
return since the 25 January 2011 revolution.
5. At the pyramids at Giza, part of the World Heritage site of ‘Mem-
phis and its necropolis—the pyramid fields from Giza to Dahshur’
(http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/86/, last accessed on: 23/08/2013), a
large wall has physically cut off and visually obscured the local
community of Nazlet al-Simman (Hanna 2003).
6. Also known as ethnographic archaeology (Castañeda and Matthews
2008) and ethnocritical archaeology (Zimmerman 2008), archaeo-
logical ethnography promotes anthropological techniques in archae-
ology to position heritage sites as transcultural, multi-temporal
spaces which host multiple coexistences, encounters and dialogues
(Hamilakis 2011:401). This is distinct from ethnoarchaeology which
draws parallels from ethnographic information to interpret the
archaeological record (Stiles 1977).
7. Also known as community (Marshall 2002) and public archaeology
(Merriman 2004).
8. Meshwork theory suggests that multiple, non-fixed, overlapping and
interlinking social networks exist in relation to ‘place’, from local to
international scales, which maintain plurality without imposing uni-
formity (Escobar 2008).
9. Approximate interview figures are: 160 community members
(including business people, artists and children); 100 non-Egyptian
tourists/travellers/repeat visitors; 50 non-Egyptian archaeologists/
Egyptologists/researchers/students/mission employees; 20 Egyptian
non-local visitors; 20 Egyptian, non-local tour-guides/business
people; 10 ex-pats/charity workers/western business people; 10

Egyptian excavators; 6 members/employees of Luxor Governorate.
10. For Arabic discussions on the issue, see http://akhbarelyom.org.eg/news
158762_33.aspx, http://www.almasalla.travel/News-97597.html (last
accessed on: 23/08/2013).
11. An example of successful government collaboration is the World
Heritage site of Petra, where local administrators work with NGOs
and the local community to negotiate socially, culturally and envi-
ronmentally responsible site management (Akrawi 2006).
12. The Hajj is the pilgrimage to Mecca, which should be carried out
by every able-bodied Muslim who can afford it once in their life-
time. The Hajj is one of the 5 pillars of Islam (Peters 1994).
13. The ‘German House’ of the German Archaeological Institute was
allowed to remain on the fringes of the Theban Necropolis while
the locals’ houses were all destroyed.
References
Abraham, G., Bakr, A., and J. Lane.
2000. The Comprehensive Development of the City of Luxor Project, Egypt, Abt
Associates, Cambridge Massachusetts. http://www.abtassociates.com/reports/
2000829433054_99481.pdf (last accessed 23/08/2013).
Abu-Lughod, L.
1986. Veiled Sentiments: Honour and Poetry in a Bedouin Society. University of
California Press, Berkley and Los Angeles.
1991. Writing Against Culture. In Recapturing Anthropology, edited by R. Fox,
pp. 137–162. School of American Research Press, Santa Fe.
Agnew, N.
2006. Introduction. In Of the Past, for the Future: Integrating Archaeology and
Conservation, edited by N. Agnew and J. Bridgland, pp. 1–7. The Getty
Conservation Institute, Los Angeles.
Agnew, N. and J. Bridgland (editors)
2006. Of the Past, for the Future: Integrating Archaeology and Conservation. The
Getty Conservation Institute, Los Angeles.
Akrawi, A.
2006. NGO and Government Collaboration in Archaeological Site Management:
The Case of Petra. In Of the Past, for the Future: Integrating Archaeology
and Conservation, edited by N. Agnew and J. Bridgland, pp. 29–34. The
Arabist.
2008. Blog, http://www.arabist.net/blog/2008/11/27/showdown-in-gurna.html (last
accessed 23/08/2013).
Assmann, J., Dziobek, E., Guksch, H., and F. Kamp (editors).
1995. Thebanische Beamtennekropolen, Neue Perspektiven Archäologischer
Forschung, Internationales Symposium Heidelberg 9, 13.6.1993, Studien
zur Altägyptischen Geschichte und Archäologie 12. Heidelberger Orient-
verlag, Heidelberg.
Awad, M., and Y. Saleh.
2011. Post-Revolution, Egypt Tourism Remains in Disarray, 22 April, Reuters
online, http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/04/22/us-egypt-tourism-idUST
RE73L2X420110422 (last accessed 23/08/2013).
Barsum, L.K. (editor).
2000. The Comprehensive Development for the City of Luxor Project (CDCL),
Sponsored by: Ministry of Housing, Utilities and Urban Communities
(MHUUC) and The United Nations Development Program (UNDP),
Cairo.
Boleslaw, G., and H. Kammerer-Grothaus.
1998. Frühe Keramik und Kleinfunde aus El-Târif, Archäologische Veröffentlich-
ungen 40, Philipp von Zabern, Mainz.
Boleslaw, G., and J.K. Kozlowski
1984. The Tarifian and The Origin of the Naqadian. In Origin and Early Devel-
opment of Food-Production Cultures in Northern-Eastern Africa, edited by
L. Krzyzaniak and M. Kobusiewicz, pp. 247–260. Polish Academy of Sci-
ences, Poznan.
Boleslaw, G., Kozlowski, J.K., and J. Silwa.
1979. Excavation report on the prehistoric and predynastic settlement in El-Tarif
during 1978, pp 87–102. Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen In-
stituts, Abteilung Kairo 35, Cairo.
Bourdieu, P.
1985. The Genesis of Concepts of Habitus and of Field. Sociocriticism 2:11.
Bryman, A.E.
2004. The Disneyization of Society. Sage Publications, London.
Cabeza, A.
2006. Reflections on the Archaeological Heritage and Indigenous Peoples of
Chile. In Of the Past, for the Future: Integrating Archaeology and Conserva-
tion, edited by N. Agnew and J. Bridgland, pp. 125–130. The Getty Con-
servation Institute, Los Angeles.
Castañeda, Q. and C.N. Matthews (editors)
2008. Ethnographic Archaeologies: Reflection on Stakeholders and Archaeological
Practices. AltaMira, Lanham.
Colla, E.
2007. Conflicted Antiquities: Egyptology, Egyptomania, Egyptian Modernity. Duke
University Press, Durham.
Cromer, D.C.
2006. Part Two: Introduction. In Of the Past, for the Future: Integrating Archae-
ology and Conservation, edited by N. Agnew and J. Bridgland, pp. 21–22.
The Getty Conservation Institute, Los Angeles.
2006. Monitoring of Landscape Change at World Heritage Sites: Prologue to
Proactive Management. In Of the Past, for the Future: Integrating Archaeol-
ogy and Conservation, edited by N. Agnew and J. Bridgland, pp. 163–174.
Demas, M., and N. Agnew
2006. Decision Making for Conservation of Archaeological Sites: The Example
of the Laetoli Hominid Trackway, Tanzania. In Of the Past, for the Future:
Integrating Archaeology and Conservation, edited by N. Agnew and J. Brid-
gland, pp. 64–72. The Getty Conservation Institute, Los Angeles.
Denon, D.V.
1802. Travels in Upper and Lower Egypt. In Company with Several Divisions of
the French Army under the Command of General Bonaparte, McMillan,
London.
Description de l‘Égypte. [1809–1826].
2005. Taschen, Berlin.
Egloff, B.
2006. Part four: Introduction. In Of the Past, for the Future: Integrating Archaeol-
Escobar, A.
2008. Territories of Difference: Place, Movements, Life, Redes. Duke University
Press, Durham.
Fairclough, G., R. Harrison, J. Schofield, and J.H. Jnr Jameson
2007. The Heritage Reader. Routledge, London.
Fakhry, A.
1947a. A Report of the Inspectorate of Upper Egypt: The Theban Necropolis–
Destruction of Tombs. Annales du Service des Antiquités de l’Égypte 46:31–
33.
1947b. A Report of the Inspectorate of Upper Egypt: The Theban Necropolis–
The Project of the expropriation of the village of Gurna. Annales du
Service des Antiquités de l’Égypte 46:34–35.
Fathy, H.
1963. Planning and Building in the Arab Tradition: The Village Experiment
of Gourna. In The New Metropolis of the Arab World, edited by
M. BergerAllied Publishers, New Delhi.
1973. Architecture for the Poor: An Experiment in Rural Egypt. University
Chicago Press, Chicago.
Garcia, N.R.
2006. Social Landscapes and Archaeological Heritage in Latin America. In Of
the Past, for the Future: Integrating Archaeology and Conservation, edited
by N. Agnew and J. Bridgland, pp. 113–124. The Getty Conservation
Institute, Los Angeles.
Gershoni, I., and J.P. Jankowski
1986. Egypt, Islam and the Arabs: The Search for Egyptian Nationhood. Oxford
University Press, Oxford.
Halime, F.
2012. Revolution brings hard times for Egypt’s treasures. New York Times
Online, 31 October 2012, http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/01/world/mid
dleeast/revolution-brings-hard-times-for-egypts-treasures.html?_r=1& (last
accessed 23/08/2013).
Hamilakis, Y.
2011. Archaeological Ethnography: A Multi-Temporal Meeting Ground for
Archaeology and Anthropology. Annual Review of Anthropology 40:399–
414.
Hamilakis, Y., and A. Anagnostopoulos
2009. Preface. Public Archaeology 8:64–65.
Hanna, M.
2003. Nazlet al-Simman. Unpublished paper, American University in Cairo,
Cairo.
Hanna, M., F. Keshk, and S. Aboubakr
2013. The Documentation of the Cultural Heritage of the Bedouin of South
Sinai: A Pilot Study in Serabit al-Khadim. In The History of the Peoples of
the Eastern Desert, edited by H. Barnard and K. Duistermaat, pp. 358–
368. University of California Press, Los Angeles.
Harrison, S.
1994. Forgetful and Memorious Landscapes. Social Anthropology 12:135–151.
Hassan, F.A.
1998a. Memorabilia: Archaeological Materiality and National Identity in Egypt.
In Archaeology Under Fire, edited by L. Meskell, pp. 201–216. Routledge,
London.
Hassan, F.
1998b. Sometimes the City Changes, Al-Ahram Weekly Online, 24-30 December
1998, www.weekly.ahram.org.eg/1998/409.li1.htm (last accessed 23/08/
2013).
Hawass, Z., and S. Vannini
2009. The Lost Tombs of Thebes: Life in Paradise. Thames & Hudson, London.
Hauslohner, A.
2010. Egypt’s Plans for Luxor: Vegas on the Nile? Time World, 21 October 2010
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2026394,00.html (last acces-
sed 23/08/2013).
Hiller, J., and E. Rooksby
2005. Habitus: A Sense of Place. Ashgate Publishing Limited, Aldershot.
Jankowski, J.P., and I. Gershoni
1997. Rethinking Nationalism in the Arab Middle East. Columbia University
Press, New York.
Jones, A.
2008. Do not Prefer the Son of a Somebody to an Ordinary Man: Collaborative
Archaeology and the Representation of the Egyptian Past in Museum
Displays. Unpublished PhD, University of Southampton, Southampton.
Kotb, A.
2012. Tourism Looks Ahead, Al-Ahram Weekly online, 5–11 July 2012, http://
weekly.ahram.org.eg/2012/1105/ec3.htm (last accessed 23/08/2013).
Lane, E.W. [1836].
2003. An Account of the Manners and Customs of the Modern Egyptians, The
American University in Cairo Press, Cairo.
Lehner, M.
2004. The Complete Pyramids. The American University in Cairo Press, Cairo.
Mackay, R.
2006. Whose Archaeology? Social Considerations in Archaeological Research
Design. In Of the Past, for the Future: Integrating Archaeology and Conser-
vation, edited by N. Agnew and J. Bridgland, pp. 131–135. The Getty
Marshall, Y.
2002. What is Community Archaeology?. World Archaeology 34(2):211–219.
Maspero, G. [1881].
1966. A Hoard of Royal Mummies. In Hands on the Past: Pioneer Archaeologists
Tell their Own Story edited by C.W. Ceram, pp. 149–153. Knopf, New York.
Matero, F.
2006. Making Archaeological Sites: Conservation as Interpretation of an Exca-
vated Past. In Of the Past, for the Future: Integrating Archaeology and Con-
servation, edited by N. Agnew and J. Bridgland, pp. 55–63. The Getty
Merriman, N. (editor)
2004. Public Archaeology. Routledge, London.
Meskell, L.
2002. Archaeologies of Identity. In Archaeological Theory Today, edited by I.
Hodder, pp. 187–213. Polity Press and Blackwell, Oxford.
Mitchell, T.
1990. The Invention and Reinvention of the Egyptian Peasant. International
Journal of Middle East Studies 22:129–150.
1991. Colonising Egypt. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
2001. Making the Nation: The Politics of Heritage in Egypt. In Consuming Tra-
dition, Manufacturing Heritage: Global Norms and Urban Forms in the Age
of Tourism, edited by N. AlSayyad, pp. 212–239. Routledge, London.
2002. Rule of Experts: Egypt, Techno-Politics, Modernity. University of California
Press, London.
Moser, S., D. Glazier, J. Philips, L.N. El Nemer, M.S. Mousa, S. Richardson,
A. Conner, and M. Seymour
2002. Transforming Archaeology Through Practice: Strategies for Collaborative
Practice in the Community Archaeology Project at Quseir, Egypt. World
Archaeology 34(2):220–248.
Näser, C., and C. Kleinitz
2012. The Good, the Bad and the Ugly: A Case Study on the Politicisation of
Archaeology and its Consequences from Northern Sudan. In “Nihna nâs
al-bahar–We are the people of the river”. Ethnographic Research in the
Fourth Nile Cataract Region (Sudan), edited by C. Kleinitz and C. Näser,
Vol. 26, pp. 269–304. Meroitica, Wiesbaden.
Palumbo, G.
2006. Privatization of State-Owned Cultural Heritage: A Critique of Recent
Trends in Europe. In Of the Past, for the Future: Integrating Archaeology
and Conservation, edited by N. Agnew and J. Bridgland, pp. 35–39. The
Peers, L. and A.K. Brown (editors)
2003. Museums and Source Communities: A Routledge Reader. Routledge, London.
Peters, F.E.
1994. The Hajj: The Muslim Pilgrimage to Mecca and the Holy Places. Princeton
University Press, New Jersey.
Petrie, F.
1909. Qurneh, British School of Archaeology in Egypt and Egyptian Research
Account Fifteenth Year. Bernard Quaritch, London.
Pollock, S., and R. Bernbeck
1996. Ayodhya, Archaeology, and Identity. Current Anthropology 37(1):138–142.
Porter, B., and R.L. Moss
1960. Topographical Bibliography of Ancient Egyptian Hieroglyphic Texts, Reliefs,
and Paintings, Volume I: The Theban Necropolis, Part 1: Private Tombs.
Griffith Institute, Oxford.
Reid, D.M.
1997. Nationalising the Pharaonic Past: Egyptology, Imperialism, and Egyptian
Nationalism 1922–1952. In Rethinking Nationalism in the Arab Middle
East, edited by I. Gershoni and J. Jankowski, pp. 127–315. Columbia
University Press, New York.
2002. Whose Pharaohs? Archaeology, Museums and Egyptian National Identity
from Napoleon to World War One. University of California Press, London.
Roberts, P.W.
1993. River in the Desert: Modern Travels in Ancient Egypt. Random House, New
York.
RT (Not-For-Profit).
2011. No to Booze and Bikinis: Islamists Call for ‘Sin Free’ Tourism in Egypt,
14 December 2011, http://www.rt.com/news/egypt-elections-islamists-tou
rism-827/ (last accessed 23/08/2013).
Sadler, N., and Matsuda, A.
2010. Introduction. Archaeologies 6.3: 425–30.
Saleh, M.
1977. Three Old-Kingdom Tombs at Thebes, I. The Tomb of Unas-Ankh no. 413,
II. The Tomb of Khenty no. 405, III. The Tomb of Ihy no. 186, Archäologi-
sche Veröffentlichungen 14. Philipp von Zabern, Mainz.
Seidlmayer, S.J.
1990. Gräberfelder aus dem Übergang vom Alten zum Mittleren Reich, Studien zur
Archäologie der Ersten Zwischenzeit, Studien zur Altägyptischen Geschichte
und Archäologie 1. Heidelberger Orientverlag, Heidelberg.
Shenker, J.
2011. Egyptians form makeshift militias to stop looters, guardian.co.uk, 30 Janu-
ary 2011, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jan/30/egyptians-makes
hift-militias-looters (last accessed 23/08/2013).
Simpson, C.
2003. Modern Qurna: Pieces of an Historical Jigsaw. In The Theban Necropolis.
Past, Present and Future, edited by N.J. Strudwick and J.H. Taylor, pp.
244–249. British Museum Press, London.
2010. Qurna: More Pieces of an Unfinished History. In Thebes and Beyond:
Studies in Honour of Kent R. Weeks, edited by Z. Hawass and S. Ikram,
pp. 197–218. Supreme Council of Antiquities, Cairo.
Slackman, M.
2007. Egypt Evicts Neighbors of the Pharaohs, New York Times Online, 22
March 2007, http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/22/world/africa/22iht lux-
or.4995625.html?pagewanted = all&_r = 0 (last accessed 23/08/2013).
Slyomvics, S.
1989. Cross-Cultural Dress and Tourist Performance in Egypt. Performing Arts
Journal 11(3):139–148.
Soliman, R.
2009. Old and Middle Kingdom Theban Tombs. Golden House Publications,
London.
Steele, J.
1997. An Architecture for People. The Complete Works of Hassan Fathy. The
American University Press, Cairo.
Stiles, D.
1977. Ethnoarchaeology: A Discussion of Methods and Applications. Man
12:87–103.
Strudwick, N. and J.H. Taylor (editors)
2003. The Theban Necropolis. Past, Present and Future. British Museum Press,
London.
Theban Mapping Project.
2004. Introduction, KV Masterplan, pp. 27–51, http://www.thebanmapping
project.com/about/KVMasterplan/KVM_CH1.pdf (last accessed 23/08/
2013).
Tilley, C.
1994. A Phenomenology of Landscape. Berg, Oxford.
Tully, G.
2005. Community Archaeology, Children and Culturally Relevant Learning: The
Trial of a New Methodology, Quseir, Egypt, Unpublished Master of Arts,
University of Southampton, Southampton.
2007. Community Archaeology: General Methods and Standards of Practice.
Public Archaeology 6(3):155–187.
2010. “Answering the Calls of the Living”: Collaborative Practice in Archaeology

and Ancient Egyptian Daily Life Exhibitions in Museums, Unpublished
Doctoral Thesis, University of Southampton, Southampton.
UNESCO.
1972. Convention Concerning the Protection of World Cultural and Natural
Heritage, Adopted by the General Conference at its Seventeenth Session
Paris, 16 November 1972.
van der Spek, K.
2004. Making a Living in the City of the Dead—History, Life and Work at
al-Hurubāt in the Necropolis of Thebes, al-Qurna, Luxor, Unpublished
Doctoral Dissertation, Centre for Arab and Islamic Studies, The Austra-
lian National University, Canberra.
2011. The Modern Neighbors of Tutankhamun. History, Life, and Work in the
Villages of the Theban West Bank. The American University in Cairo Press,
Cairo.
Wijesuriya, G.
2006. Are We Ready to Learn? Lessons From the South Asian Region. In Of the
Past, for the Future: Integrating Archaeology and Conservation, edited by N.
Agnew and J. Bridgland, pp. 157–162. The Getty Conservation Institute,
Los Angeles.
Wilkinson, J.G.
1835. The Manners and Customs of the Ancient Egyptian, Three Volumes. John
Murray, London.
1843. Modern Egypt and Thebes: Being a Description of Egypt; Including the Infor-
mation Required for Travellers in the Country. John Murray, London.
1847. A Handbook for Travellers in Egypt. John Murray, London.
Winlock, H.E.
1915. The Theban Necropolis in the Middle Kingdom. The American Journal of
Semitic Languages and Literature 32:1–37.
World Monuments Fund.
2011. New Gourna Village: Conservation and Community, http://www.wmf.org/
sites/default/files/wmf_publication/New%20Gourna%20Report%20Final%
2015%20Meg.pdf (last accessed 23/08/2013).
Wurster, W.
2006. Maya Cities and Tourism. In Of the Past, for the Future: Integrating
Archaeology and Conservation, edited by N. Agnew and J. Bridgland, pp.
191–193. The Getty Conservation Institute, Los Angeles.
Young, C., A. Chadburn, and I. Bedu
2009. Stonehenge World Heritage Site Management Plan 2009. English Heritage,
London.
Yunis, E.
2006. Sustainable Tourism at Archaeological World Heritage Sites. In Of the
Past, for the Future: Integrating Archaeology and Conservation, edited by N.
Agnew and J. Bridgland, pp. 148–151. The Getty Conservation Institute,
Los Angeles.
2006. Part Six: Introduction. In Of the Past, for the Future: Integrating Archaeol-
Zimmerman, L.Z.
2008. Real People or Reconstructed People? Ethnocritical Archaeology, Ethnog-
raphy, and Community Building. In Ethnographic Archaeologies: Reflection
on Stakeholders and Archaeological Practices, edited by Q. Castañeda and
C.N. Matthews, pp. 183–204. AltaMira, Lanham.

Contemporary Communities and Archaeology

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Contemporary Communities and Archaeology

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Archaeologies: Journal of the World Archaeological Congress (© 2013)

One Landscape, Many Tenants: Uncovering

The archaeology of the Theban Necropolis is well documented. Under

Résumé: L’archéologie de la nécropole thébaine est bien documentée.

concernant la gestion du patrimoine mondial de la nécropole thébaine

Resumen: La arqueologı́a de la Necrópolis tebana está bien documentada.

© 2013 World Archaeological Congress

del significado del emplazamiento para la multitud de usuarios

Heritage, Stakeholders, Theban Necropolis, Intercultural dialogue

many developing countries which have recently gained their independence

methodology, the analysis presents valuable insights into the range of

History: The Many Gates of Thebes

Figure 1. Location of nineteenth century villages and their proximity to archaeological

mid-twentieth century (Mitchell 1990). The 25 January 2011 revolution

a highly poignant example of the wider issues of cultural desertification

Figure 4. The village of New Qurna (Photo Claudia Näser)

Fieldwork, in the form of interviews and participant observation, took

during a specific moment in Egypt’s history, which we hope to extend in

Agreement: The Uniqueness of the Heritage Space and its

While reading through the hundreds of interviews with different stakehold-

Disagreement: Respect Through the Management of the

Notions of responsible use and management of the necropolis differ

or intellectual investors, namely leisure/tourism developers and archaeo-

This personal conflict reveals the outcome of having to negotiate a lack of

Figure 6. Egyptian workers on an archaeological excavation, behind fences (authors’

Conservation, heritage and tourism professionals suggest that heritage

Contradiction: Actions and Reactions in the Heritage Space

One of the most frequently cited issues surrounding the management of

Descendants of ancient looting communities or not, the stereotype of the

The claims of local residents are supported by comments from expatriates

The views represent a general feeling of bafflement at the rapidly changing

The comment revolves around the integration of sustainable tourism,

Presenting the ‘reality’ of the heritage space is no simple task. As this

people; 10 ex-pats/charity workers/western business people; 10

2010. “Answering the Calls of the Living”: Collaborative Practice in Archaeology

You might also like