Dr Zena Kamash and Dr Marianne Moen, have told thePipeLine that they stand by their account of the circumstances of their resignations as editors of the prestigious international journal. The response comes in response to a series of answers given by the Executive Board of the European Association of Archaeologists to questions put to the EAA following their interview on the Watching Brief podcast.
Following the interview thePipeLIne approached the Executive Board [ExB] of the EAA with a series of questions based on the interview and comments made by Dr Kamash and Dr Moen in Social Media.
The exchange ran as follows,
Question 1:
thePipeLine: Dr Kamash told us that during the controversy in 2025 regarding participation of Israeli delegates, a senior archaeologist, previously connected to the Executive Board, had been asked to liaise with the EAA’s publishing partner Cambridge University Press over communications regarding the Gaza controversy during the conference period and that this was done without the knowledge of Dr Kamash and Dr Moen as editors of the JEA.
Is that claim true?
ExB: No. Apart from not being how we work, nobody on the Executive Board or Secretariat can recollect or imagine what activity or event could have prompted such a description of events.
thePipeLine: If that claim is true why did the Executive Board seek to go over the heads of its own editors?
Not applicable.
Question 2
thePipelIne: Dr Kamash and Dr Moen told is in the interview that they had not been asked to contribute to the discussions around the issue of the ExB’s response to the Gaza debate and membership concerns even though that response would impact directly on their work
Is that allegation true, and if it is true, why did the ExB choose to side-line its own editors?..
ExB: Our editors have a specific role (with job description) which is not to be confused with the role of an Executive Board member. The Executive Board’s debate about the Gaza debate etc was not within their remit. Nor was it a debate that has any direct impact on the journal, which is where their remit lies.
Had the editors wished to raise any specific matters within their remit with the Executive Board, they simply had to ask. The normal route would be that the Editor approaches the Board through the Board’s Publications Officer, although they could also have approached the Secretariat or Secretary to ask for a matter to be added to the agenda. Editors are invited, or can ask, to attend an editorial agenda item that needs their input.
thePipeLine: Why did the ExB choose to side-line its own editors?
It did not; see above.
Question 3
thePipeLine: Regarding correspondence during the Gaza debate in The European Archaeologist [TEA] newsletter, why, having been warned that naming correspondents who had reasonably requested anonymity was potentially a breach of publishing ethics, did the Executive Board override the recommendation of the EAA Anti-Harassment Committee, the concerns of the TEA editors, not to mention the concerns of Dr Kamash, Dr Moen and others, that members should be allowed to contribute to that debate anonymously?
For information we were told that the ExB was warned specifically in writing, that naming members in these circumstances was contrary to publishing ethics as set out by the COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) which frames ethical scholarly publishing.
ExB: We have made the full ExB response of 20 February to a letter from Kamash and editorial colleagues of 13 February 2026 available here. Their letter was sent to us after the Executive Board’s decision about TEA and its correspondents.
Our core points are: (a) the TEA is a newsletter not an independent journal; (b) accountability for its content rests with the ExB; (c) the anonymity issue arose without prior and full ExB consultation, for which the TEA Editors were in no way to blame; (d) the ExB required named contributions.
Question 4
thePipeLine: How does the ESS respond to the accusation made by Dr Kamash and Dr Moen that there is “a level of irony” in that, while the EB insisted on naming members writing to TEA, neither the mandate, nor the make up of the EAA’s Task Force examining the issues following on from the 2025 Annual Meeting are currently in the public domain and this apparent double standard and lack of transparency, is leading to a loss of trust among members?
ExB: The context and scenarios are different (see Q3 response in relation to TEA). The Task Force told the Executive Board that it required anonymity for its members to be able to proceed with its work free of pressure and ensure their independence; it was not an Executive Board recommendation or indeed preference, but necessary for the Task Force to be able to advance its important work. The Chair will report upon the Task Force’s work at the next Annual Membership Business Meeting; the names of those who agree to do so will be revealed in the Task Force’s Final Report at the AMBM.
The remit of the Task Force follows from the outcomes of the August 2025 Annual Members Business Meeting (the ‘roadmap’) and January 2026 Special Meeting. It was emailed to all members and simultaneously made publicly available on the EAA website News page on 11 February 2026. The remit is as follows:
1. Assist the Statutes Committee in a complete review of the EAA Statutes with specific reference to:
. Defining the geographical scope of the Association; provision of a definition of what is meant by ‘Europe’ and ‘European’ and how this is to be determined.
. Defining the scope of areas of interest of the Association; the extent to which topics other than an interest in archaeology / cultural heritage may be addressed (if at all)
. Creating a mechanism for a vote of no confidence in Officers / Executive Board members and their forced removal.
. Reviewing the EAA nomination and election procedure, including in cases of removal of serving Officers / Executive Board members.
. Including in the duties of Officers and Executive Board members a specific requirement to act with integrity towards the Association and always in the best interest of the Association;
2. Review how EAA Statutes are put into practice through internal guidelines and outward-facing documents (this will need to include future Special Meeting operations);
3. Review internal decision-making processes within the EAA leadership / governance bodies;
4. Explore the fine line between Safe Space Policy and freedom of speech and review the updated EAA Handbook 3.20 on EAA Safe Space Policy;
5. Re-examine the practice of institutional suspensions, particularly the cases of Israel, Russia and Belarus, and define the respective EAA policy;
6. Review the third version of the Israel-Gaza statement of 2024 and come up with a new statement regarding the current situation in the region, as well as define / refine the respective EAA policy on its role in matters concerning endangered sites and conflict zones;
7. Assess how the EAA can optimally function as an academic forum;
8. Propose ways to restore trust, democratic governance and meaningful dialogue within the EAA.
Question 5
thePipeLine: How does the EAA see itself resolving the current situation so that the organisation operates for its members?
See answer to Question 4. See also, for example, our publicly accessible messages to Members of 20 March 2026 on steps being taken following the Special Meeting per rollam vote, 23 April 2026 update and summary of situation, and 8 May 2026 communication on institutional affiliations and Statement on current conflicts in Western Asia.
Further developments may be anticipated over the summer, as the Task Force and Executive Board continue their deliberations. Our EAA Annual Report will be circulated to members by 13 August and 2026 members will vote per rollam on proposed Statute changes following the August Athens AMBM.
Question 6
thePipeLine: Finally, How does the EAA respond to the suggestion that a small section of the EAA’s leadership and its allies, have chosen to override democratic debate within the organisation and ally publicly with on particular side in what is manifestly deeply complex and longstanding international crisis, with layers of injustice and multiple points of view, and has done so in a way which is unnecessarily destructive to their own organisation?
ExB: This statement is incorrect and misrepresents the EAA. EAA decisions are made by the Executive Board and by majority vote of its Board members, not a ‘small section of the EAA’s leadership’; the governance of the EAA is supported by EAA guidelines. See answer to Question 5 which also embraces details of the democratic process following the 2025 AMBM and 2026 Special Meeting. The establishment of the Roadmap Task Force sought representation from all advisory committees and several communities, among others.
The EAA addresses matters within its Statutory remit and direct competence, including the protection of archaeological heritage, the integrity of archaeological research, and the safety and freedom of our colleagues, regardless of nationality or affiliation.
We define our objectives in a cyclical Strategic Plan, published in our Annual Reports. These translate into an Action Plan.
thePipeLine shared the response of the EAA Executive Board to their interview with the Watching Brief with Dr Kamash and Dr Moen.
They provided us with the following statement,
“”We have both found this situation immensely difficult and upsetting. We stand by what we said in the interview, which was the truth as we experienced it.”
Meanwhile, to place the decisions of the EAA Executive Board in context, the controversy over the actions of the Government of Israel in Gaza, the Occupied Territories, Southern Lebanon and since 28 February 2026, Iran, has continued.
The IDF has faced criticism over alleged damage to historic and protected sites in Gaza, Lebanon and Iran, including the Commonwealth War Graves Commission cemetery in Gaza, while on 18 June 2026 the United Nations issued a report from its Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory into the the alleged targeting of Palestinian children by the Israel Defence Forces.
While rejected by the Netanyahu Government, one of the conclusions of the report was stated as follows.
“As an occupying power, Israel is legally bound to ensure the protection, care and survival of Palestinian children. However, through the nature, scale and extent of Israel’s military operations in Gaza, the Israeli government and security forces have deliberately carried out acts inflicting death and severe bodily and mental harm on hundreds of thousands of Palestinian children, irreparably destroying the sanctity of childhood, including family ties, identity, innocence, safety and future. The Commission found that much of the harm suffered by Palestinian children was not incidental but intended to destroy the existence of the Palestinians in Gaza as a group. Since children embody
the biological and social continuity of the group, the Commission has reasonable grounds to conclude that these acts form part of a deliberate strategy to destroy the future of the Palestinians in Gaza by targeting their children.”
The 32nd Annual Meeting of the EAA is due to take place in Athens in August.
It remains to be seen if the row over the response of the EAA Executive Board to the actions of the current Government of Israel in what the EAA terms Western Asia, that is Gaza, the Occupied Palestinian territories, South Lebanon and Iran, will once again dominate what is supposed to be a flagship event for European archaeologists.
If you have information about the way the EAA has handled the Gaza controversy please contact us.
There are safe ways to contact us on,
thePipeLine follows standard journalistic guidelines which require us to protect our sources and we do publish articles anonymously where that is necessary to ensure the professional or personal safety of the author.
Lead Image: Archaeosoup Productions the #WatchingBrief
thePipeLine sets out to tell the stories from archaeology and heritage world which we think you need to know about, and sometimes which certain people and organisations would prefer you didn’t know about.
That work is both exciting and challenging.
Nonetheless we will keep this website and the associated YouTube channel Open Access,
So please, when you read our stories, share them, and, if you can, support our work with a donation.