Preservationists Seek to Remove or Even Destroy Confederate Monuments

So-called "preservationists" have advocated for the removal or even destruction of Confederate war memorials as products of an inherently racist culture.  In contrast, CPO believes we should not erase history, but learn from it.

In a blog post on the subject, Obama Cultural Property Advisory Committee Appointee Prof. Rosemary Joyce justifies her views based on the assumption that

When you remove these statues to men who fought for slavery, you’re not destroying history – you’re making it.

Surprisingly, this 180 degree departure from archeology's mantra of preservation of objects in context appears to be based on little more than reductionist reasoning, i.e., the statues must be symbols of  "white supremacy" because they were produced in a racist South.  Indeed, efforts to draw attention to the fact that their iconography is virtually identical to monuments erected in the North at around the same time when the politically powerful Civil War generation was passing from the scene elicited little more than condenscending responses. It seems furthering "white supremacy" not commemoration of sacrifices on the battlefield must be the prime motivator in the South, but not the North (despite similar racist sentiments there at the time).

In any event, justifying the removal or even destruction of historical monuments by designating them as "racist" should be even more troubling given recent events in Iraq and Syria.   Indeed, there are distinct parallels between ISIS destroying "idolatrous" statues and monuments and efforts here to topple "racist" ones, not the least the motivation to deprive certain groups of artifacts deemed important to their culture (there Shia, Assyrian Christians and Yazhdis and here poor White people (who must be racist!)).  At least here, we have processes in place to allow localities and States to make the decision what to do with our Confederate monuments.  What must be avoided at all costs is another Durham, N.C., where a mob was allowed to take matters into its own hands.   

Doing Something to Prevent Destruction

Hugh Eakin has asked why the military has not used air strikes to dissuade the destruction of cultual sites like Hatra and Nimrud.

Good question.  Instead of making legitimate collecting of ancient artifacts that "look Syrian" subject to "collateral damage" from import controls supposedly designed to thwart ISIS, Western Governments should be directing at least some of the fire power at their disposal at ISIS culture destroyers themselves.

And why not consider spreading anti-personnel and anti-tank mines around archaeological sites by air?  Modern mines can be programmed to go inactive after a period of time so they would not be dangerous forever, but they could for a time dissuade ISIS jihadis from doing their worst.

It's too late for Hatra and Nimrud, but other sites in Syria and Libya are threatened by fanatics and should be protected before it's too late.

Reaction to New York Times Article on Repatriation in the Age of ISIS

CPO is proud to publish noted cultural property lawyer Bill Pearlstein's reaction to the New York Times' recent article entitled, Islamic State Destruction Renews Debate Over Repatriation of Antiquities:

The New York Times is correct to observe that the widespread destruction of cultural heritage in failed or failing states has lead to a quiet reevaluation in senior museum circles of the current policy bias in favor of national retention and reflexive restitution. (Islamic State Destruction Renews Debate Over Repatriation of Antiquities, March 30, 1015.) Western archeologists insist that antiquities remain in the nation where they are found to keep them off the market and reduce site looting. This misses the point where the threat to cultural heritage is iconoclastic; that is, ideologically driven destruction of cultural objects viewed as apostate. We need to rethink the bias towards national retention by taking into account the quality of national stewardship, especially where there is a clear and present danger to cultural heritage (including excavated sites, objects ex situ, objects in situ and related stratigraphic context). When cultural heritage is demonstrably at risk of domestic iconoclasm, the issue is whether objects ex situ must remain in country and at risk because of inflexible adherence to the principle of universal national retention. For example, it would make sense in principal to let international organizations rescue endangered objects and hold them in trust for safekeeping pending restoration of stability. Ricardo Elia, an archeologist at Boston University, misses the mark badly by stating that “It was only a matter of time before some in the art-collecting community tried to turn this cultural nightmare to their own advantage.” Elia’s reflexive hostility towards any form of antiquities collecting causes him to blame Western collectors, who favor preservation of objects, rather than the iconoclasts, who favor their destruction. Similarly, Allison E. Cuneo, a doctoral candidate in archaeology at Boston University, appears to believe that solutions favoring preservation over retention are “neocolonialist.” This is sloganeering and fails to address the issue. Archeologists are right to protest when unrestricted market demand drives looting and destruction of stratigraphic context. They are wrong to insist on universal national retention when to do so ensures the destruction of heritage sites and objects already out of context. Rescuing cultural heritage from the iconoclasts will require flexible thinking. I do not see that coming from the archeological community which seems content to blame old enemies instead of coming to grips with new ones.

 William Pearlstein

New York, New York

On the Iconoclasm of ISIS

Elicott Colla, an academic associated with Georgetown University, has written this interesting blog on the iconoclasm of ISIS.  His well-informed conclusions seem far more sensible to CPO than those who see ISIS merely as hypocrites with a political agenda. 

Latest Tragedy

Kate FitzGibbon, writing for the Committee for Cultural Policy, reports on the bulldozing of  Nimrud.  Meanwhile, the Economist does its best to explain the iconoclasm of ISIS.  It only fails by repeating disinformation blaming looting at Apamea on ISIS rather than the odious Assad regime.  And what of the culprits?  Archaeo-blogger Paul Barford, relying on Arab sources, suggests that local men may have been responsible for the destruction at the Mosul Museum.  If so, that would once again raise the question whether the "state owns all" approach favored by Barford and the archaeology lobby inexorably leads to the trash the past model of ISIS and others.

Committee for Cultural Policy Report on Destruction in Mosul

The Committee for Cultural Policy's report on the destruction of ancient statuary in Mosul again reminds us that decision makers should focus on preservation not repatriation and conservation and not control.

As the CCP observes,

The destruction at Nineveh is an excruciatingly painful example of the losses that could result from a policy that demands all art from source countries remain there. The notion that all art belongs in source countries is not only anti-humanist; recent events have made clear that it is also reckless in the extreme. Art – the tangible history of humankind – is at risk. No nation’s artistic heritage should be held in a single place. Yet international museums are being told not to collect or preserve at a time when art itself is most vulnerable.