巴勒斯坦人对被迫驱离家园、遭到种族清洗的村庄和城镇所做出的回应,"在话语层面丰富、复杂而多变"(Slyomovics 2002)。近几十年来,小说、诗歌、电影、戏剧、民族志与摄影记录、地图、口述历史档案、网站,以及流散和境内流离失所社群中的各种活动,已经并正在被不断创作出来,其中许多旨在对抗以色列的否认,并纠正那些通过遗漏和歪曲来抹去巴勒斯坦人在这片土地上存在的做法。此外,无论是在以色列境内还是在比尔泽特大学,都出版了大量专门记述那些被驱空、被摧毁的村庄的书籍。这些著作构成了一个庞大的历史与想象文学传统,在其中,被摧毁的巴勒斯坦村庄得以"重获生机,其存在受到礼赞"(Slyomovics 2002)。1948年之后,巴勒斯坦人保留了其阿拉伯语地名中的多重含义,以及镶嵌于古老地名之中的多层次巴勒斯坦身份认同(Ashrawi 1995: 132‒134;Doumani 1995)。

Palestinian responses to forced depopulation and ethnic cleansing from their villages and towns are ‘discursively rich, complex and protean’ (Slyomovics 2002). In recent decades novels, poems, films, plays, ethnographic and photographic documentation, maps, oral history archives, online websites, and a wide range of activities in exiled and internally displaced communities have been and are being produced, many with the aim of countering Israeli denial and correcting distortions of omission and commission that eradicate the Palestinian presence in the land. Also a large number of books have been produced both inside Israel and at Birzeit University, all dedicated to villages that have been depopulated and destroyed. These form part of a large historical and imaginative literature in which the destroyed Palestinian villages are ‘revitalised and their existence celebrated’ (Slyomovics 2002). In the post-1948 period Palestinians maintained the multiple meaning of their Arabic names and the multi-layered Palestinian identity embedded in ancient names (Ashrawi 1995: 132‒134; Doumani 1995).

巴勒斯坦民族主义(包括世俗和宗教两个流派)与其他所有现代民族主义一样,其民族意识的建构是一种现代现象(Khalidi, R. 1998)。但这不应被自动等同于巴勒斯坦人的社会、文化和宗教认同,这些认同深深植根于这片土地,也植根于巴勒斯坦古老的历史和地名记忆之中。此外,直到1948年的大灾难之前,巴勒斯坦人主要是农民,深深扎根于巴勒斯坦的自然与文化景观之中。当地的方言以及他们村庄和城镇的名称,保存了这个国家多层次、多元化的文化遗产。

Palestinian nationalism (both secular and religious strands) however – like all other modern nationalisms – with its construction of national consciousness, is a modern phenomenon (Khalidi, R. 1998). But this must not be automatically conflated with the Palestinians’ social, cultural and religious identities, which are deeply rooted in the land as well as in the ancient history and toponymic memory of Palestine. Furthermore, the Palestinians, until the 1948 catastrophe, were predominantly peasants, deeply rooted in the physical and cultural landscapes of Palestine. The local dialect and the names of their villages and towns preserved the multi-layered and diverse cultural heritage of the country.

今天的巴勒斯坦人在文化和语言上属于阿拉伯人,大多数但并非全部信奉伊斯兰教。巴勒斯坦穆斯林人口主要源自当地的巴勒斯坦基督徒和犹太人,他们在公元7世纪伊斯兰征服之后皈依伊斯兰教,并继承了古代巴勒斯坦的许多社会、文化、宗教和语言传统,其中包括以色列人、迦南人和非利士人的传统(Shaban 1971: 25–161;Donner 1981;Nebel and Oppenheim 2000;Rose 2010;Esler 2011)。此外,阿拉伯语与乌加里特语之间的相似之处表明,阿拉伯语并非在公元638年阿拉伯穆斯林征服之后才晚近传入巴勒斯坦(Ra'ad 2010)。还有许多巴勒斯坦人是阿拉伯基督徒,他们在巴勒斯坦有着悠久的历史根源,与基督生活过的这片土地有着漫长的渊源。巴勒斯坦社会学家萨米赫·法尔苏恩(1937–2005)在评论巴勒斯坦人多层次的文化认同和多元的传承时写道:

Today the Palestinians are culturally and linguistically Arab and largely but not exclusively Muslim. The Palestinian Muslim population was mainly descended from local Palestinian Christians and Jews who had converted to Islam after the Islamic conquest in the 7th century and inherited many of the social, cultural, religious and linguistic traditions of ancient Palestine, including those of the Israelites, Canaanites and Philistines (Shaban 1971: 25–161; Donner 1981; Nebel and Oppenheim 2000; Rose 2010; Esler 2011). Furthermore, the similarities between their Arabic language and Ugaritic suggests that Arabic was not a late intruder into Palestine from 638 AD onwards, following the Arab Muslim conquest (Ra’ad 2010). Also many Palestinians are Christian Arabs who have historic roots in Palestine and a long heritage in the land where Christ lived. Commenting on the multi-layered cultural identity and diverse heritage of the Palestinians, Palestinian sociologist Samih Farsoun (1937–2005) writes:

巴勒斯坦人是当地及周边各民族广泛融合的后裔,其中包括迦南人、非利士人、希伯来人、撒玛利亚人、希腊化时期的希腊人、罗马人、纳巴泰阿拉伯人、游牧部落阿拉伯人、十字军东征时期的一些欧洲人、一些突厥人以及其他少数族群。然而,在公元七世纪的伊斯兰征服之后,他们绝大多数成为了阿拉伯人。因此,这一混合的人群至少在十四个世纪里发展出了阿拉伯-伊斯兰文化。(Farsoun 2004: 4)

Palestinians are descendants of an extensive mixing of local and regional peoples, including the Canaanites, Philistines, Hebrews, Samaritans, Hellenic Greeks, Romans, Nabatean Arabs, tribal nomadic Arabs, some Europeans from the Crusades, some Turks, and other minorities; after the Islamic conquests of the seventh century, however, they became overwhelmingly Arabs. Thus, this mixed-stock of people has developed an Arab-Islamic culture for at least fourteen centuries. (Farsoun 2004: 4)

近几十年来，巴勒斯坦民族主义的发展带来了对批判性考古学的更多关注，也带来了基于批判性圣经研究的历史写作，以及关于巴勒斯坦和巴勒斯坦人共同历史遗产问题的更多关注（Thompson 2003: 1）。

The development of Palestinian nationalism in recent decades has brought with it a much greater awareness of critical archaeology and historical writing based on critical Biblical Studies and the question of the shared historical heritage of Palestine and the Palestinians (Thompson 2003: 1).

此外,有趣的是,巴勒斯坦学者马津·古姆西耶赫(Mazin Qumsiyeh)在其著作《分享迦南之地》(*Sharing the Land of Canaan*)中提出了一种更为现实、较少二元对立的视角来看待迦南人与以色列人之争。他主张在巴勒斯坦-以色列地区实现共存,其依据是共同的历史遗产,以及"迦南人群"之间的文化与遗传亲缘关系:即米兹拉希犹太人与巴勒斯坦的基督徒和穆斯林(Qumsiyeh 2004: 28‒30;另见 Nebel and Oppenheim 2000)。

Also, interestingly, Palestinian scholar Mazin Qumsiyeh has suggested, in his Sharing the Land of Canaan, a more realistic and less dichotomous approach to the debate on Canaanites–Israelites. He argued for coexistence in Palestine–Israel based on shared historical heritage and cultural and genetic affinities between the ‘Canaanitic people’: Mizrahi Jews and Palestinian Christians and Muslims (Qumsiyeh 2004: 28‒30; see also Nebel and Oppenheim 2000).

诚然,认为现代巴勒斯坦人比大多数欧洲皈依犹太教的阿什肯纳兹犹太人更可能是古代非利士人(以及以色列人)的后裔,这种说法并非没有道理。从历史上看,与“流亡与归来”的神话相反,古代巴勒斯坦的许多原住犹太居民留在了这片土地上,并在数代之后接受了基督教和伊斯兰教。然而如今,与神话化的阿什肯纳兹犹太复国主义史学和阿拉伯民族主义史学相反,越来越多的考古学家和圣经学者确信,以色列人的祖先从未到过埃及,圣经中关于征服迦南的军事征服模式完全是虚构的。事实上,考古证据尤其动摇了《约书亚记》的可信性。如果出埃及以及在西奈半岛周围四十年的沙漠旅程不可能发生,而且古代巴勒斯坦“设防城市”的军事征服(依据《申命记》9:1:“城墙高耸入天的大城”)也已被考古学彻底驳倒,那么,这些以色列人、非利士人或迦南人究竟是谁呢?

Indeed, it would not be unreasonable to argue that the modern Palestinians are more likely to be the descendants of the ancient Philistines (and Israelites) than Ashkenazi Jews, many of whom were European converts to Judaism. Certainly historically, in contrast to the myth of ‘exile and return’, many of the original Jewish inhabitants of ancient Palestine remained in the country but had accepted Christianity and Islam many generations later. Today, however – in contrast to the mythologised Ashkenazi Zionist and Arab nationalist historiographies – more and more archaeologists and biblical scholars are convinced that the ancestors of the Israelites had never been in Egypt and that the biblical paradigm of a military conquest of Cana’an was completely fictional. Indeed, the archaeological evidence undermines, in particular, the Book of Joshua. If the Exodus from Egypt and the forty-year desert journey around Sinai could not have happened and the military conquest of the ‘fortified cities’ ancient Palestine (according to Deuteronomy 9:1: ‘great cities with walls sky-high’) were totally refuted by archaeology, who, then, were these Israelites, Philistines or Canaanites?

巴勒斯坦人近几十年来通过数字化存档的口述历史和地名记忆,记录了数百个被摧毁的村庄和城镇。这一方法已成为一项重要的研究路径,其意义不仅在于构建关于巴勒斯坦大灾难(Nakba)的另类历史、重现失落的历史巴勒斯坦的记忆,也在于延续土著的生活、活态的巴勒斯坦实践以及持续的人类生态。与以色列定居者殖民主义的遗产产业,以及带有至上主义色彩的圣经考古学形成鲜明对比——后者执着于神话叙事,并热衷于拼凑考古碎片——土著巴勒斯坦人则格外重视村庄历史与口述传统中极为丰富的层积信息,将其视为本土生活与生存实践延续不断的见证(Said 2004: 49;Masalha 2008: 123–156)。

Palestinian digitally archived oral histories and toponymic memories of the hundreds of destroyed villages and towns have emerged in recent decades as a significant methodology not only for the construction of an alternative history of the Palestinian Nakba and memories of the lost historic Palestine but also for an ongoing indigenous life, living Palestinian practices and a sustained human ecology. In contrast with the Israeli settler-colonial heritage- style industry and a supremacist biblical archaeology, with its obsession with myth-narratives and assembling archaeological fragments, indigenous Palestinians have devoted much attention to the enormously rich sedimentations of village history and oral traditions as a reminder of the continuity of native life and living practices (Said 2004: 49; Masalha 2008: 123–156).

去殖民化历史，重新掌握并保护巴勒斯坦及巴勒斯坦人的古代遗产与物质文化，至关重要。迫切需要讲授巴勒斯坦的古代历史以及土生土长的巴勒斯坦人（穆斯林、基督徒、撒玛利亚人和犹太人）的历史，包括为中小学、学院和大学，以及为数以百万计的流亡巴勒斯坦难民，编写新的、具有批判性的巴勒斯坦教科书。这种理解与教学应涵盖巴勒斯坦新的批判性考古学研究，以及对这片土地古代历史与记忆的新的批判性理解。

Decolonising history and reclaiming and preserving the ancient heritage and material culture of Palestine and the Palestinians is vital. There is an urgent need to teach the ancient history of Palestine and the indigenous Palestinians (Muslims, Christians, Samaritans and Jews), including the production of new and critical Palestinian textbooks for schools, colleges and universities, as well as for the millions of exiled Palestinian refugees. This understanding and teaching should encompass the new critical archaeology scholarship of Palestine and the new critical understanding of the ancient history and memories of the land.