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.