Should Archaeologists Advise the Military on Middle East Heritage?
Archaeologists at the World Archaeological Congress in Dublin last week were faced with a difficult dilemma – whether to help the military in strikes against the Middle East. During the war with Iraq, important sites were destroyed, and countless artefacts looted. Now, concern is mounting over the safety of the archaeological treasures of Iran, should the US or any other nation go to war against the country.
Their stance on such a war was made clear: “The World Archaeological Congress strongly opposed the war in Iraq, and we strongly oppose any war in Iran... The Iraq war was a disaster for cultural heritage in this region. The world can not afford to replicate mistakes such as this.”
Their dilemma is more difficult... should archaeologists offer advice to the military in order to help them protect heritage sites in Iran? Should they effectively draw up a no-hit list of sites that should be exempt from air strikes and other attacks?
Professor Claire Smith reports that there was a great deal of debate on the issue:
“There is a strong view by some members that a refusal by archaeologists and others to work with the military would send a message that war with Iran is hugely unpopular amongst cultural heritage professionals. The view here is that providing advice and expertise to the military during the war planning against Iran would offer cultural credibility and respectability to the military action.”
“Other members take the opposite stance, that it is their responsibility as cultural heritage specialists to attempt to mitigate the damage done to cultural heritage wherever there is conflict as this cultural heritage could be an essential building block in the peace process.”
What's at Stake?
The discussion raises some very important issues about the destruction, and safe-guarding, of heritage sites and treasures, within the context of war. Sadly, countless sites and artefacts have already been destroyed. Afghanistan’s incredible Buddhas of Bamiyan were demolished by the Taleban in 2001, and US troops’ occupation of the Great Ziggurat in Iraq has been compared to “driving a tank between the stones at Stonehenge.”
There are nine listed UNESCO World Heritage Sites in Iran, including Persepolis and Bam, but the country has a wealth of less-protected sites, such as Naqsh-e Rostam and Susa.
And the outcome of the discussions? Well, the issue is not resolved yet. A resolution has been passed to the World Archaeological Congress Assembly, which proposes that archaeologists do not assist the military, but the resolution was ‘not approved as a formal statement of the position of the organisation as a whole’.
The issue is likely to be taken a step further if the World Archaeological Congress holds an Inter-Congress with the theme “Archaeologists, Ethics and Armed Conflict,” in The Hague in 2010, which is thought likely.
In the meantime, what do you think?
Read 4 comments, or leave your own
videos
Comments
There's no doubt relations between Iran and Britain, and indeed the western world, are about as dire as they've ever been - and that's some statement. But I'd probably content that in any future war with Iran, I'd be more worried about whether my north London house was left standing than the archaeological marvels of Persepolis!
Still, safeguarding heritage sites in times of violence is as difficult a dilemma as they come, and I certainly don't think archaeologists should be staging any sort of silent protest to get a message of defiance across to the armies of the world. Sadly (or not, if these zip-mouthed idiots are anything to go by) armies never have, and never will listen to anything an archaeologist says when people's lives are potentially at stake. You need look no further than the lunacy of Iraq's museums being looted and Babylon used as a helipad in the recent Iraq conflict, to see that even the most famous of all ancient sites is slave to modern warfare. The only way to mitigate demolition is to work as closely as possible with the authorities, and to see if there are any small compromises that can be made. After all, when we're talking about army officials who have untold stress places on their shoulders, are they really going to give two threepenny bits whether some historian thinks a pile of rubble is worth the lives of his or her soldiers? Archaeologists need to step off their high horses and see the other side of the argument.
Unfortunately, as Sean points out, military forces do have slightly more pressing itineraries to think about in times of conflict, however, let's hope that by talking to archaeologists, the various western militaries have moved on from target practice at the Treasurey in Petra and numerous sites in Egypt.
Afghanistan: 2001 to present...
Irak: 2003 to present...
Surely they took a time to take a detour arround important archaeology sites? Oh no, wait, those are excellent locations for military bases and airstrips. -sighs-
This is such a difficult but relevant question to ask, but one I fear that is impossible to answer. Intervening with the Bunyan Buddahs didn’t help, and in fact perhaps drew the Taliban’s attention to the west’s interest in them. Such total destruction may not have occurred if they weren’t aware of the impact such an event would have. And what an impact! Everyone who saw it couldn’t fail to be moved, and from an archaeologist’s viewpoint what a terrible day!! My stomach lurched when the dynamite blew and it brought a tear to my eye.
Post new comment