Hugh Eakin has written an article entitled "The Devastation of Iraq's Past" for the New York Review of Books. It can be found here: http://www.nybooks.com/articles/21671
Eakin writes well and carefully, attributes not always found in the news business of today. That said, one should keep in mind that an article is only as good as its sources. Here, by necessity, Eakin relies on several experts who have arguably exaggerated the situation "on the ground" in the past.
Verification has been a problem due to instability in the country since the invasion in 2003, but this is beginning to change. This probably helps explain why when information finally comes to light-- as it has recently-- that there has been no recent looting at several important sites in the South doubts set in as to whether there has been any looting at all.
Eakin tries to set the record strait and does an admirable job attempting to do so. Still, one can't help feel that past exaggeration continues to haunt his entire enterprise. For example, on page 2 Eakin quotes Elizabeth Stone as estimating that hundreds of thousands of artifacts have been looted from sites in Southern Iraq. Yet, in the corresponding footnote, Eakin acknowledges the conjectural nature of any such estimates. Moreover, as he must, Eakin suggests that the amount of such material that has surfaced in the West remains limited and further that the amount recovered in an international dragnet no where near approaches Stone's estimates.
The nature and extent of the looting of archaeological sites within Iraq will probably remain in dispute for years. Under the circumstances, what I found most helpful was Eakin's acknowledgement that the best defense to looting is to engage the local populace. To me at least, encouraging the local populace to respect their own heritage sounds more promising and fair than the wholly punitive measures that have been emphasized to date.
Let us agree that the problem of looting is a serious one, and that it is important to focus on what we can learn from successful efforts to protect sites, so that we can do more of that. Enlisting (=paying) tribes to guard their sites is one strategy that has worked. Another strategy that has also shown success is joint efforts between troops (i.e., carabinieri) and antiquities police. Either of these strategies could be supported by private donations, or by tax revenues from sales of antiquities, or both. Can the collectors and dealers undertake an initiative to help support these strategies? That would be enormously helpful and a sign of good faith that might persuade archaeologists to be less "punitive" in spirit.
ReplyDeleteLet us agree that the problem of looting is a serious one, and that it is important to focus on what we can learn from successful efforts to protect sites, so that we can do more of that. Enlisting (=paying) tribes to guard their sites is one strategy that has worked. Another strategy that has also shown success is joint efforts between troops (i.e., carabinieri) and antiquities police. Either of these strategies could be supported by private donations, or by tax revenues from sales of antiquities, or both. Can the collectors and dealers undertake an initiative to help support these strategies? That would be enormously helpful and a sign of good faith that might persuade archaeologists to be less "punitive" in spirit.
ReplyDeleteThank you for your comment. (My apologies for posting it twice- still getting the hang of this blogger thing!)
ReplyDeletePerhaps, the archaeological community would consider setting up a not for profit that solicits funds for the purposes you suggest. It seems to me that would take advantage of the pre-existing contacts between archaeologists and source countries that would be necessary to make sure the funds go to suitable purposes in country. I'm not much one for more taxes, but I would suggest that source countries should consider selective deaccession of duplicates to help fund such efforts as well. I am also a fan of treasure trove, and note that in Bulgaria there has been a proposal to combine a requirement that anything that is returned to the finder for sale be sold at a state run auction (that ploughs a portion of the money generated back into archaeology). I recognize, however, that while that might work for coins (many, if not most of which I am told are found outside archaeological sites), it would probably not work for artifacts typically found only within archaeological sites.
Anyway, I think an approach tailored to the facts on the ground in a specific country is probably all for the best and I do appreciate your thoughts in that regard.
Sincerely,
Peter Tompa