December 27, 2016
	There were two different reactions to the Damascus Colloquium on the Resilience of the Syrian Cultural Heritage on the part of the colleagues who did not take part in it. Some inquired thoughtfully about the nature and the results of the event, and our reasons for going. Others instead took position on the basis of their already well formed opinion, without the benefit of the information that those who participated could provide.
	The answer to those who asked for our view revolves around three major factors. 	 
	(1) The first was the exclusively professional nature of the colloquium, as the program plainly shows for each presentation. The papers were without exception of high caliber, and devoted to issues relating directly to the care of the heritage, the mitigation of the damage, and the plans for the future. The Syrian colleagues presented us with a wealth of information, and addressed clearly the issues relative to the problems and the possible solutions. The foreign colleagues either presented work that had been undertaken recently in Syria, or dealt with specific methodological issues, with a view towards defining what could be attempted under the circumstances.
	(2) As for the general atmosphere, it was totally geared to the concrete and the specific. As scholars working in Syria, we have always been used to see the DG and the staff of the DGAM as our colleagues, not as bureaucrats. And this came through ever more sharply in face of the tragic situation in which the country finds itself. There was the constant feeling that we were talking the same language, and that by abiding strictly to the purely archaeological dimension we were in fact providing a service to Syrian society on the difficult road ahead towards a search for unity. The professionalism about which I speak is not hiding in some sort of ivory tower. It is very much in the service of those values that a nefarious violence wants to systemically obliterate. It is a systemic constructive answer to a systemic cultural slaughter.
	(3) The third point is perhaps the most important: it addresses the courage with which the Syrian colleagues are facing the current situation. By this I mean especially the resolve to stay in the fray when everything else is collapsing. It is, in other words, the courage to maintain the effort at preserving their national cultural heritage in front of the darkness of an onslaught that comes at them from so many different directions. There was no sense of fatigue on their part. Just the quiet resolve to stand firm, and united, in front of uncontrolled violence. They all acknowledged, as we did, the central role of Dr. Maamoun's leadership, which transcended partisanship and the disagreements at play in the conflict. There was a sense of solidarity you could feel and touch and see.

	The Syrian colleagues must rely on their courage not only to face the physical violence of the war, but also the psychological violence exerted, they feel, by those colleagues who have "abandoned" them. It was a constant refrain: thanking us who had come from outside Syria because we showed them that at least some colleagues remain just that, colleagues in the best sense of the term, the sense they have taught us to see over the many years of our work in Syria. A collegial trust that they feel has been betrayed by some.
	We must then ask if this is not where the "shame" lies, that one should consider shameful standing by our Syrian colleagues in their effort to save their heritage. For we must acknowledge that even in these darkest moment they open the doors of their past to us foreigners so that we may continue to not feel as foreigners in Syria, but rather as friends and guests. The response must not be to impose cultural sanctions, pretending to teach them something. In truth, they are the ones who teach us what dignity means when the cultural coordinates collapse around them.
	The accusation that participation in the Colloquium caters to "propaganda" not only ignores that our proceedings were fully steeped in a professional mold; or that this professionalism was felt very much as a social factor capable of countering a perverse attack on values. It also projects a view of facts at odds with what we witnessed. There were no dignitaries we were supposed to please: neither the Minister of Culture nor the Minister of Tourism were present. There was no ideological pressure of any sort: each one spoke about facts, provided an analysis and offered guidelines for the implementation of future plans. We saw no display of propaganda in the media: there were interviews with the local TV, but we were simply asked to say what we had in mind, without questions or suggested topics. The whole event was as low key as could have been in terms of any public image.(1)

	Khaled Asaad is rightly remembered for his sacrifice facing the so-called Islamic State. One of his sons was at the Colloquium. Had he lived, Khaled himself would undoubtedly have been there with us, standing with the DGAM of today as he did with the DGAM of yesterday.

(1) SANA's website had two articles and they included a video and photos. The first is about the Colloquium, its purpose and the highlights of what the speakers said. The second article is about the second day and what each speaker said (only main points). The website of the Ministry of Culture mentioned the Colloquium and mentioned what the officials from Syria said.  – The Tishreen news paper copied exactly SANA, mentioning the Mozan experience and how it engages the local community. The Al Nahda newspaper had a brief paragraph about the Colloquium, and the Baladna newspaper mentioned ahead of time that there would be a Colloquium but did not publish anything about it after it was held. The  Al Thawra newspaper published what SANA wrote. In other words, the Colloquium was treated as any other local Colloquium about matters of local interest, such as agriculture.