Apologies for not keeping up with the debate, but I hadn't realized
that passing on information would create such a ruckus. However, I
will take Umberto up on his offer and would like to take a moment to
speak for myself instead of allowing others to speculate about my
intentions:
First of all, I should have been much clearer with my original plan.
Then intention of passing the message from Dr. Sarah Parcak on to
various archaeological listservs was to raise awareness and collect the
facts. In the early stages of the protests, communication between
Egyptians and the rest of the world were severed, making it difficult
to sort out fact from rumor. This is what happened when the first
reports of looting began to rise. The first initial reaction on
Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, blogosphere, etc. was PANIC without any
confirmation of sources or reports. By forwarding this email to a
wider audience beyond the original recipients, I was hoping that more
information could be shared in the hopes of separating hard facts from
the sea of sensationalized fiction.
I'm not going to speak for Sarah, but I'm sure her intention matches my
in that passing on her email was not some thinly veiled neo-colonial
plot to swoop in and gobble up Egyptian heritage. Nor was it expected
that we all jump on a plane and paratroop into Egypt fix everything
since OBVIOUSLY the people and authorities of Egypt cannot manage their
own heritage as well as we 'Westerners' or 'Americans' or 'Europeans'.
I apologize for the harsh snarky attitude, but why would I even pass
this on to a forum like Arch-Justice if I was suggesting that sort of
thing? It was my hope that Sarah's plea would inspire the global
archaeological community (students, scholars, activists, etc.) take
action and notify national agencies (border control/customs/etc.) in
order to alert them to the likely influx of illicitly excavated and
stolen materials from Egypt (as Cecily originally and correctly
suggested). Of all the archaeologically inclined interests groups, I
believed that this one would be the most likely to take action.
Considering the name of this listserv is Arch-Justice, with an emphasis
on archaeology, I believed that this issue, one that blends the line of
cultural heritage and human rights, would be of interest.
I think the original gut reaction of Sarah's to "send in the troops!",
though misguided and hasty, is one that stems from a post-Iraq Museum
era. Once again the world watched the pillage and vandalism of a
world-class repository of ancient cultural material, harkening back to
2003. I think many of us would agree that what happened in Iraq was a
GRAVE injustice as a result of negligence, poor planning, and blatant
disregard for cultural heritage, and one that we all hoped (especially
Americans) would be the last. The looting of the Iraq Museum was a
flashpoint in both archaeological and military defense fields, and for
the first time since the end of World War II people were talking about
how to better protect cultural property during armed conflict.
Articles and books were written, conferences were held and people
inevitably took sides. For the most part academics and military
personnel didn't see eye-to-eye, but what mattered was that there was a
unified goal to prevent another Iraq Museum from happening again.
Through this new dialog between to disparate fields we as
archaeologists hoped a more effective prevention management plan would
emerge.
And then there was Cairo. This begs the question- did we as
archaeologists, as cultural heritage managers, as museum curators, as
members of the armed forces, as political leaders learn ANYTHING from
the Iraq Museum? In reality the situation is no better than it was in
1954. Archaeologists, collections managers, and the rest of the lot
have not improved heritage management protocol in the event of armed
conflict. Members of the armed forces are no better equipped to
respect cultural sites and repositories than they were prior to the
original Gulf War. While the methods of destruction in Iraq and Cairo
are similar (vandalizing museums and looting archaeological sites),
clearly the cause of the looting in Egypt and the political/social
meaning of it is entirely different politically and legally to that of
Iraq. The point remains is that despite the terrible events in 1991
and 2003, heritage managers are still ill-prepared to protect sites and
collections from destruction.
LEGALLY only Egypt as an independent nation-state has the authority to
control the protection of it's cultural heritage within its own
borders. Egypt is a party to the 1970 UNESCO Convention on the Means
of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer
of Ownership of Cultural Property, the 1972 UNESCO Convention
concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage
and, most importantly for the current situation, the 1954 Hague
Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of
Armed Conflict. What sort of legal instruments were in place to adhere
to the 1954 Hague Convention at the time of the revolution I am not
sure, but it is clear whatever was in placed failed. As demonstrated
by the brave actions of Egyptian citizens to protect the Cairo Museum
during the early stages of the protest, the people of Egypt take pride
in their heritage. However, I question how seriously the government
values heritage management beyond its capacity to generate tourism
revenue.
As Geoff and Ben pointed out, we as archaeologists are in the best
position to help Egypt by preventing it's stolen antiquities from
entering the international art market never to be seen again. Yes, the
human tragedy is by far more important than protecting antiquities, and
the majority of resources should go into helping the people of Egypt,
but that doesn't mean that cultural heritage should be completely
ignored. There is no need to choose between people and antiquities, we
can and should care about both in varying degrees. I agree with Maresi
that 'archaeologist' and 'humanitarian' or 'political activist' are not
mutually exclusive, nor should they ever be. However, I'm not going to
pretend that I'm more knowledgable of international human rights law
than I am of heritage management and archaeology. I'm going to help
Egypt the best way I know how, which is by disseminating information to
those who can stem the flow of cultural material from entering global
markets and sharing any news about the status of cultural heritage in
Egypt. So we all can either continue to sit in our ivory towers of
academia and whinge on blogs and in emails, or we can take action and
do our part to help Egypt in the capacity which we are best equipped.
Allison Cuneo
Allison Cuneo
Boston University
Department of Archaeology
675 Commonwealth Avenue
Boston, MA 02215
[log in to unmask]
On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 12:34 PM, Umberto Albarella
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:
Dear Ben,
I find myself in agreement with much of what you say, but I also think that
anybody should also feel free to criticise whoever they want who
contributes to
this list. There is clearly a difference between criticsm and abuse or insult,
which we will certainly not tolerate. And in any case people have a right and
an opportunity to reply.
My more general point is that although I certainly welcome the fact that
archaeologists will want to put their expertise at the service of heritage
protection, I do not think that our responsibility should stop at that level
and, as you also say, the ultimate causes of heritage destruction will have to
be analysed. I like to think that I am first and foremost a responsible (and
very concerned) citizen of this world and as such I will react to any forms of
tyranny and injustice, inside and outside my profession. Or should I rather be
(actively) concerned about heritage from 9 to 5, and about the world in the
evenings and weekends?
Cheers,
Umberto
--
Umberto Albarella
Department of Archaeology
University of Sheffield
Northgate House
West Street
Sheffield S1 4ET
United Kingdom
Telephone: (+) 44 (0) 114 22 22 943
Fax: (+) 44 (0) 114 27 22 563
http://www.shef.ac.uk/archaeology/staff/albarella.html
For Archaeologists for Global Justice (AGJ) see:
http://www.shef.ac.uk/archaeology/global-justice.html
"only when the last tree has died and the last river been poisoned
and the last fish been caught we will realise we cannot eat money"
Quoting "Edwards, Ben [benedw]" <[log in to unmask]>:
> This is a lengthy post, for which I make no apology.
>
> I cannot help but agree with Maresi and Umberto, in that we should - as
> intelligent people with a concern for the rights and wellbeing of others -
> object to tyranny and oppression wherever possible. They are, after all, the
> circumstances under which heritage is most usually politically appropriated
> or damaged and abused.
>
> Geoff is also correct, in that a threat to global archaeological heritage is
> the thing which, in this context, we are most qualified to comment upon; and
> indeed it is the only field we are held in enough respect to be heeded by
> those in power - this is only pragmatic. This does not, however, need to
> stand in opposition to the stance of Maresi and Umberto, above.
>
> However, I refuse to accept Maresi's implied assertion, made in her initial
> post, that because we are Westerners, there is something hypocritical about
> decrying damage to heritage. By those standards is it equally hypocritical to
> decry genocide and forced migrations in the present? because 'the West' has
> been guilty of that in the past too. Yes, former imperial powers are guilty
> of creating many of the problems facing the world, yes the UK and US
> governments have propped up the Mubarak regime, and yes the West used to
> bring about the majority of the world's cultural vandalism; but that does not
> mean that it is wrong to call for help (wherever it may be found) when we see
> irreplaceable and utterly unique examples of our shared human past faced with
> destruction. Regardless of the actions of predecessors from the same
> hemisphere as myself, I choose to be ethical, I choose to object, and I
> should not wish to be summarily judged due to the actions of archaeologists
> of fifty years ago. Besides, I do not believe a single mail to this list has
> placed the welfare of heritage above the value of human life, despite what
> has been claimed in earlier posts - they simply react to a potential crisis
> in heritage vandalism.
>
> Finally, I hope we all agree that we have the right to voice our opinions on
> anything in a free and unfettered manner. It is therefore clearly wrong for
> Sarah and Allison (who were responsible for the initial post) to be
> criticised for the manner and extent to which they choose to react to world
> events. It is entirely reasonable for Sarah/Allison, as concerned
> archaeologists, to make a plea for any organisation, with any influence, to
> try and protect Egyptian antiquities. It is not reasonable for them to be
> criticised on the grounds they are not being as 'political' as Maresi would
> wish, still less because they happen to belong to a Western tradition of
> scholarship.
>
> At the final reckoning I would have to agree with Geoff. Archaeologists (of
> whatever nationality) are the only voice that will speak for the *long-term*
> interests of cultural heritage - it is no crime for them to do so.
>
> Ben
>
> -------------------
> Dr Ben Edwards
> Lecturer in Archaeological Practice
> University of Liverpool
>
On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 12:34 PM, Umberto Albarella
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:
Dear Ben,
I find myself in agreement with much of what you say, but I also think that
anybody should also feel free to criticise whoever they want who
contributes to
this list. There is clearly a difference between criticsm and abuse or insult,
which we will certainly not tolerate. And in any case people have a right and
an opportunity to reply.
My more general point is that although I certainly welcome the fact that
archaeologists will want to put their expertise at the service of heritage
protection, I do not think that our responsibility should stop at that level
and, as you also say, the ultimate causes of heritage destruction will have to
be analysed. I like to think that I am first and foremost a responsible (and
very concerned) citizen of this world and as such I will react to any forms of
tyranny and injustice, inside and outside my profession. Or should I rather be
(actively) concerned about heritage from 9 to 5, and about the world in the
evenings and weekends?
Cheers,
Umberto
--
Umberto Albarella
Department of Archaeology
University of Sheffield
Northgate House
West Street
Sheffield S1 4ET
United Kingdom
Telephone: (+) 44 (0) 114 22 22 943
Fax: (+) 44 (0) 114 27 22 563
http://www.shef.ac.uk/archaeology/staff/albarella.html
For Archaeologists for Global Justice (AGJ) see:
http://www.shef.ac.uk/archaeology/global-justice.html
"only when the last tree has died and the last river been poisoned
and the last fish been caught we will realise we cannot eat money"
Quoting "Edwards, Ben [benedw]" <[log in to unmask]>:
> This is a lengthy post, for which I make no apology.
>
> I cannot help but agree with Maresi and Umberto, in that we should - as
> intelligent people with a concern for the rights and wellbeing of others -
> object to tyranny and oppression wherever possible. They are, after all, the
> circumstances under which heritage is most usually politically appropriated
> or damaged and abused.
>
> Geoff is also correct, in that a threat to global archaeological heritage is
> the thing which, in this context, we are most qualified to comment upon; and
> indeed it is the only field we are held in enough respect to be heeded by
> those in power - this is only pragmatic. This does not, however, need to
> stand in opposition to the stance of Maresi and Umberto, above.
>
> However, I refuse to accept Maresi's implied assertion, made in her initial
> post, that because we are Westerners, there is something hypocritical about
> decrying damage to heritage. By those standards is it equally hypocritical to
> decry genocide and forced migrations in the present? because 'the West' has
> been guilty of that in the past too. Yes, former imperial powers are guilty
> of creating many of the problems facing the world, yes the UK and US
> governments have propped up the Mubarak regime, and yes the West used to
> bring about the majority of the world's cultural vandalism; but that does not
> mean that it is wrong to call for help (wherever it may be found) when we see
> irreplaceable and utterly unique examples of our shared human past faced with
> destruction. Regardless of the actions of predecessors from the same
> hemisphere as myself, I choose to be ethical, I choose to object, and I
> should not wish to be summarily judged due to the actions of archaeologists
> of fifty years ago. Besides, I do not believe a single mail to this list has
> placed the welfare of heritage above the value of human life, despite what
> has been claimed in earlier posts - they simply react to a potential crisis
> in heritage vandalism.
>
> Finally, I hope we all agree that we have the right to voice our opinions on
> anything in a free and unfettered manner. It is therefore clearly wrong for
> Sarah and Allison (who were responsible for the initial post) to be
> criticised for the manner and extent to which they choose to react to world
> events. It is entirely reasonable for Sarah/Allison, as concerned
> archaeologists, to make a plea for any organisation, with any influence, to
> try and protect Egyptian antiquities. It is not reasonable for them to be
> criticised on the grounds they are not being as 'political' as Maresi would
> wish, still less because they happen to belong to a Western tradition of
> scholarship.
>
> At the final reckoning I would have to agree with Geoff. Archaeologists (of
> whatever nationality) are the only voice that will speak for the *long-term*
> interests of cultural heritage - it is no crime for them to do so.
>
> Ben
>
> -------------------
> Dr Ben Edwards
> Lecturer in Archaeological Practice
> University of Liverpool
>
|
