British

The damage to Iraq's cultural heritage after the 2003 invasion is widely recognised and deplored. Yet, as Peter Stone shows, key legislation to address the underlying issues may fail over seemingly bureaucratic concerns.

In 2003 the world looked on in horror as images of the looting of the National Museum in Iraq were beamed around the globe. Reports of looting at other museums quickly followed, and then news of almost endemic looting of archaeological sites. All this had been entirely predictable, and military planners on both sides of the Atlantic had been lobbied and briefed by concerned archaeologists, myself included, months before the invasion. Yet no effective action had been taken; no troops had been deployed to secure any museums or archaeological sites.

While the nature and reasons behind the looting have been discussed and analysed, it is now obvious that the real blame lies not with the military, who deployed with far fewer troops than they had requested, but rather with their political masters who had capped troop numbers. Political indifference to the fate of the archaeological, and other, heritage in Iraq was encapsulated by the then US secretary of state in his remark, "stuff happens" [see feature, Sep/Oct 2006 by Roger Matthews and Michael Seymour].

Looting and damage to archaeological sites in times of political instability, and in some instances the sites' almost total destruction, is a global issue. It has three manifestations: the targeted destruction of cultural heritage in an attempt to gain political advantage; "collateral" damage, where the cultural heritage is destroyed as an "innocent bystander" to conflict; and destruction caused by the trade in illicit antiquities. All three occur, or have recently occurred in Iraq. Particular buildings, especially mosques, have been targeted by "professional terror groups" trying to gain control of different areas and cities, and the insensitive use of major archaeological sites by coalition forces has led to significant collateral damage.

It is a sad truth that the importance and nature of Iraq's archaeological remains, together with its continuing security situation, have nurtured the trade in illicit antiquities to an almost unprecedented level and to destruction on an unprecedented scale. There is increasing evidence that looting is helping fund what the media call Iraq's "insurgency". INTERPOL is hesitant to make this connection in public. Matthew Bogdanos, the US marine colonel who investigated the looting of the National Museum, has no such qualms: he makes explicit links between looting, antiquities sales and the funding of those fighting the coalition forces.

Bogdanos is one of a number of military personnel demanding and working for closer collaboration between archaeologists and other heritage professionals, and the armed forces [see My archaeology, Sep/Oct 2006]. His argument is simple: no-one escapes the Iraq story free of blame; wars will happen in the future; so those concerned about cultural heritage must strive for its protection as a key aspect of military planning.

I am one of those cultural heritage professionals working with the military to investigate how it can achieve both cultural heritage and military goals. This is not a role I cherish. The world would be a much better place without conflicts: but I am a realist and accept my professional responsibility to safeguard cultural heritage. Not all archaeologists see it this way. I have been criticised for being an "embedded archaeologist", whose involvement has "provided academic and cultural legitimacy to the [2003] invasion". This is seen as part of a wider "ethical crisis in archaeology", where archaeologists can "publicly mourn the loss of artefacts but find no words for the loss of people". Such criticisms make me even more convinced that we need to understand why the cultural heritage was not deemed important in 2003, and what can be done to ensure that it is taken into consideration in future conflicts.

A recent review of satellite imagery by Elizabeth Stone, of Stony Brook University, New York, showed extensive post-2003 damage at many sites. In June a joint Iraqi/British Museum project carried out a field assessment of eight archaeological sites in the south of Iraq with the support of the Multi-National Division (South-East). Finding that the conditions were different at each site, the team identified four types of damage. These resulted from:

turning the sites into military defensive positions – observed twice
coalition activities – clear at one site and probable at another
looting – probably occurred at five sites in or shortly after 2003
neglect – underinvestment in heritage, endemic since the beginning of the Iraq-IranWar (25 years ago), but accelerated sinceMarch 2003, has left sites in need of conservation.

Despite the above survey, it is symptomatic of the problems facing Iraq that we cannot be absolutely clear of the extent of any continuing threat to its cultural heritage. It appears that looting might have at least slowed down for three main reasons: the State Board of Antiquities and Heritage is slowly becoming more effective once again in protecting sites; anecdotal evidence suggests near "saturation" of the antiquities market (although there is always a home for really important finds); and, depressingly, the poor security situation makes other illegal activity more lucrative. If the saturation point is true, it provides further evidence, if any were needed, of the direct link between the illegal antiquities trade and looting.

Having said that, the report concludes with a caution. "Although this survey seems to indicate that there has been no looting during the last few years, it should be noted that we visited only eight sites and these are all in the southern part of Iraq"; the situation elsewhere, even in the south, "might be completely different".

The British response

Theoretically, cultural heritage has been protected since 1954 by the Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict (the Hague Convention) and its two protocols of 1954 and 1999. However, of the three main combatants in 2003, the UK, the US and Iraq, only Iraq had signed the convention, while the UK claims that its forces "operate in conformity" with it. This can be contested, and it is a tiny crumb of comfort that the failure of coalition forces to adequately protect the cultural heritage in Iraq has prompted the UKgovernment to move to ratify the convention.

The draft cultural property (armed conflicts) bill, sponsored by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS), was published in January 2008. It is designed to enable the UK to ratify the Hague Convention and to accede to its two protocols: it is hoped that it will become law during the next parliament. While the UK claims to have operated in Iraq in conformity with the convention, its armed forces will have a legal responsibility to heed it only after ratification. This will require better training and more serious consideration of cultural heritage issues when planning military operations. It could even result in a UK combatant being taken before a court of law. It can only be hoped that no British politician would open their armed forces to such action: they should, therefore, only deploy when enough troops were available to satisfy the requirements of the 1954 convention and its two protocols.

Written and verbal evidence were taken in June, and the DCMS committee produced its own written report in July. This welcomes the draft bill, and notes that it was strongly supported by all those providing evidence. It notes that the bill would, if enacted, strengthen the training of all deploying forces and emphasise the importance of the cultural heritage when planning operations. It may also encourage more Commonwealth states to sign the convention and protocols.

The committee saw that the fundamental issue in its inquiry was to establish whether the bill would constrain military operations unduly, noting that the MoD appeared confident that passage of the bill into law would not have that effect. The report also notes a number of minor drafting issues that require attention. None of these should prove insurmountable. However, the report recommends that the government should not bring the proposed legislation before parliament until it is able to present a clear statement on two major concerns:

whether it intends to draw up a list of cultural property in the UK deemed to be entitled to general protection and, if so, which property will be included in that list; and
the likely implications for publicly funded bodies.

These are significant issues. Both DCMS and English Heritage argued in their evidence that they were awaiting the publication of guidelines by UNESCO which are not due to be issued until 2009–10. It would be a tragedy if the bill were to fail because these bodies could not make at least an interim decision.

One other issue causes concern. In April the government published the draft heritage protection bill dealing with the wider UK heritage. On the whole, reaction to that has been strongly supportive: but nearly all respondents question the possibility of effective implementation without considerable additional resources being deployed [see News, May/Jun 2007]. In the present economic climate such funding seems extremely unlikely, and has not been offered. The government has indicated that the two bills will be combined into one act. It would again be a tragedy if any failure of the wider elements of this act derailed the specific clauses required to enable accession to the 1954 convention.

The UK is, without doubt, a major player in the trade in illicit antiquities. Reflecting this, in 1969 the Metropolitan Police set up the Art and Antiques Unit (AAU), and in 1996 the University of Cambridge created the Illicit Antiquities Research Centre (IARC). Both are needed now more than ever. The trade in illicit antiquities has grown to be worth an estimated $7.8bn, ranked behind only drugs ($160bn), and arms ($100bn), as the world's most profitable black market.

However, following Lord Renfrew's retirement in 2004, the University of Cambridge saw fit to reallocate its resources and closed the IARC in September 2007. The AAU had its budget halved in 2007, and only recently avoided complete closure. Its long term future is still not assured. These closures, real and threatened, will do much to enable the illicit trade in antiquities to grow and flourish, not only in the UK, but internationally.

Coalition forces failed to protect the cultural heritage in Iraq. Much work is going on internationally to ensure that armed forces take protection of cultural heritage far more seriously. The proposed Heritage Protection Act is a first step in ensuring that the UK does all in its power to protect the cultural heritage in times of conflict. It must not fail.

Peter Stone is professor of heritage studies at Newcastle University

Babylon

Ancient Iraq's most famed city was founded around 2300BC – when the megaliths at Stonehenge were just going up or just finished, depending on who you believe. An exhibition that mixes ancient Babylonian history and subsequent myth began in March at the Louvre, Paris, moved to the Martin-Gropius-Bau, Berlin, and on November 13 'Babylon: Myth and Reality' opens at the British Museum (till March 15 2009). The BM will focus the ancient story on Nebuchadnezzar (reigned 604–562BC) with inscriptions, wall panels (such as the restored dragon on loan from Berlin), and a new model of his city. All the great stories such as the Tower of Babel, the Hanging Gardens and the city's fall will be depicted, not least as seen through the minds of recent artists, writers and film-makers. Babylon's modern fate will be illustrated through video and photography.

CBA web:

British Archaeology

February 2001
April 2001
June 2001
August 2001
October 2001
December 2001
February 2002
April 2002
June 2002
August 2002
October 2002
December 2002
March 2003
May 2003
July 2003
September 2003
November 2003
January 2004
March 2004
May 2004
July 2004
September 2004
November 2004
Jan/Feb 2005
Mar/Apr 2005
May/Jun 2005
Jul/Aug 2005
Sep/Oct 2005
Nov/Dec 2005
Jan/Feb 2006
Mar/Apr 2006
May/Jun 2006
Jul/Aug 2006
Sep/Oct 2006
Nov/Dec 2006
Jan/Feb 2007
Mar/Apr 2007
May/Jun 2007
Jul/Aug 2007
Sep/Oct 2007
Nov/Dec 2007
Jan/Feb 2008
Mar/Apr 2008
May/Jun 2008
Jul/Aug 2008
Sep/Oct 2008
Nov/Dec 2008
Jan/Feb 2009
Mar/Apr 2009
May/Jun 2009
Jul/Aug 2009
Sep/Oct 2009
Nov/Dec 2009
Jan/Feb 2010
Mar/Apr 2010
May/Jun 2010
Jul/Aug 2010
Sep/Oct 2010

CBA Briefing

Fieldwork
CBA Network
Conferences
Courses & lectures
Grants & awards
Noticeboard

British

Archaeology

The voice of archaeology in Britain and beyond

Issue 103

Nov / Dec 2008

Contents

news

features

on the web

letters

CBA correspondent