 |
 |
Isn't it basically the problem that heritage is our only area of expertise? We can assume that a whole pile of other groups and professions will address their own concerns (Medicins sans Frontiers, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, Reporters without Borders, etc.), but obviously there's not much point having me, as an archaeologist, sticking my nose in where it doesn't belong and giving my opinion about how the economy should be reformed, or how press freedom legislation needs to be written. I mean: everyone has an opinion on such things, some more relevant or enlightened than others. As an archaeologist I can only legitimately offer my opinion on subjects dealing with archaeology, and from our now extensive experience of what happens to heritage in a war zone or revolution, or post-war anarchy (as in Iraq or maybe Palestine). I, like many other people, am concerned with events in Egypt, as I am about conditions in my own neighbourhood and in Canada and elsewhere. But obviously I can't do everything, so must target my limited resources to where they might do the best good. And in this case, I realize that political instability is temporary, that more people might get killed (whether I do anything or not), but in the long-term people will recognize the value of their heritage, and either regret that they did not do enough to protect it at the time, or be glad that a few "heroes" (I'm thinking of the apparently spontaneous "human chain" erected around the National Museum) had the foresight to do what they could to protect something so valuable. I sort of turn the question around the other way sometimes: maybe some "heritage" isn't worth losing human lives for, but others would argue that such intangibles (religion, homeland, language, freedom, traditions, etc.) are exactly the kinds of things some people believe are worth dying for (or enshrining in an International Charter of Human Rights). You have to think that people thought it was worth making in the first place, protecting all this time, treasuring and hoping they could pass on to future generations. -----Original Message----- I do think that Maresi has a good point here, though I am not sure whether we agree on all aspects. My view is that looting - whatever are the dynamics that have led to it - should rightly be of our concern, but it is important to see it in its political and social context. It is a typical reaction of many archaeologists - even in the face of a human tragedy of large scale proportions - to be solely worried about the conservation of material heritage, as if their critical thought and social responsibility could and should not go beyond that. I think that a more helpful approach would be to go beyond the surface of the heritage destruction to analyse and - wherever appropriate - condemn and actively oppose the forces that have led to such deterioration of a human society. It is this latter after all that is the ultimate cause of the violent clashes, executions, killings, brutality, tyranny as well as desrespectful attack on the wide range of elements that are treasured by contemporary as well as past societies and represent symbols of their identities - and which of course include archaeological objects.