I first encountered SAFE and Cindy Ho while I was teaching Art History at SUNY New Paltz. As all of us, I was stunned at the horrific losses at the Baghdad Museum after the invasion of Iraq. I wanted to get involved in some way. I phoned Cindy and we had a lengthy conversation that ended with my commitment to supporting and contributing to SAFE in any way I could. Through those early years, I met several times with SAFE supporters and hosted the first SAFE Board retreat at my home in Saugerties, NY. We laid the foundations for what SAFE would become over those few days in my dining room. When SAFE began commemorating the anniversary of the looting with a Candlelight Vigil, I created an annual program at SUNY New Paltz which included a presentation on the looting of the Baghdad Museum and a screening of the film The Giant Buddhas, a powerful documentary detailing the destruction of the Bamiyan Buddhas in Afghanistan by the Taliban.

SAFE’s first Board meeting

Cindy and I shared a passion for world heritage protection and we bonded over long discussions concerning looting, collecting and preserving cultural heritage. Our commitment was solidified when we drove from New York to Washington, D. C. in 2005 where we spoke before the Cultural Property Advisory Committee to support a US / Italy Bilateral Agreement restricting imports of antiquities. The car ride home was spent brainstorming ways to promote public awareness of cultural heritage preservation and finding a bridge between the collecting and archaeological communities for a common cause. Cindy’s commitment and energy were inspiring and I still reflect on those influential conversations in my current work.

Today I am Co-founder and Co-Director of The Extreme History Project. We are a public history, non-profit organization dedicated to promoting the relevance of cultural heritage to community, policy and society. We believe in giving voice to the voiceless of the past and in the importance of the roll of history in forming individual and community identities. We are based in Livingston, Montana and work closely with indigenous communities in facilitating historical research surrounding the Native American reservation period of the west. Our work includes not only primary document archiving, but also the recording of Native American oral histories. The work that we do has real relevance for Indigenous communities here in Montana by helping recreate community identity through restoring a denied history and, as such, has application to many other indigenous communities around the world, battling the legacy of colonialism.

I credit much of the grounding of The Extreme History Project to those early conversations with Cindy about SAFE and preserving cultural heritage. I am honored and proud of my relationship to Cindy and to SAFE for its tireless contribution to the protection of our shared heritage. Our history contributes to our identity and without the knowledge and materials of history, we lose that identity and a part of ourselves. The fight for our world heritage must always continue and I thank Cindy and SAFE for staying on the frontline!

The 10th anniversary of the invasion of Iraq by the US and its allies has prompted many reflections.  They bring to my mind the Bad Faith to which the Iraqi people have been subjected ever since the victorious powers betrayed their Arab allies at Versailles after WWI.  “Bomber” Harris, who presided over the destruction of German cities from the air in WWII, practiced on rebellious Iraqi villages in the 1920s.  There was no organic connection between the royal Hashemite line imposed by the British on the Iraqi people, laying the grounds for nationalist coups to come, and the seemingly ineluctable descent into Saddam Hussein’s despotism.  The extraordinarily destructive invasion (in its acts and consequences) was but one of the more recent such betrayals, although in that instance the American and British people were also victims, though less grievously so.

Saddam’s dictatorship betrayed the Iraqi people in countless ways, including the gross distortions of culture and corruption of institutions that benefited the narrow interests of the dictator and his regime.  Unimaginable damage was wreaked by the war with Iran.  The human losses in their most concrete terms were terrible, but those to culture were similarly bad, from the devastation of Basra to the ecocide that destroyed the Marsh Arabs’ way of life after the 1991 Gulf War, which was precipitated by Saddam’s desire to rid himself of the debts incurred by the previous one.  The exorbitant costs of these wars resulted in the pervasive underfunding of culture and education throughout the ‘80s and ‘90s, and the sad fact that the Iraq Museum was kept shut for twenty years before the American invasion, opened only for VIP events.  That it remains closed despite much effort to rehabilitate it is evidence for the bad faith of venal and incompetent successor governments.

Starting in April 2003, I devoted my attention to the plight of Iraqi libraries and archives, resulting in two lengthy reports alongside other work that recounts much of that sorry tale*1

These two images, one general and one specific, of the first of three exhibits at the Cambridge Arts Council’s gallery representing the first of three exhibits of Al-Mutanabbi Street Starts Here-related artwork. They are principally artist books (85 of them in the vitrines), with some of the broadsides on the walls. A second exhibit of 82 books is now up, with a third to follow.

Cambridge Arts Council

It is through this work that I became acquainted with SAFE and the indefatigable Cindy Ho.  It is generally the case that any successful voluntary enterprise requires one inspired leader to get it going and, often, to sustain it, even though other committed individuals may contribute to its depth and breadth.  Cindy is that person, and one of those others whom she inspired to participate, Irina Tarsis, enlisted my participation in three symposia sponsored or co-sponsored by SAFE, the most salient being my paper, “Contested Patrimony: The Fate of the Iraqi Jewish Archive,” presented at Homeward Bound: Returning Displaced Books and Manuscripts.

It is heartening that SAFE has expanded its activities beyond Iraqi antiquities to those of other nations, and has considered those aspects of cultural heritage and national patrimony of more direct concern to those such as myself.  Its activities and website benefit the whole world.  Another person who, like Cindy Ho, was moved to initiate a project addressing threatened Iraqi culture, is Beau Beausoleil, poet and bookseller of San Francisco, who founded Al-Mutanabbi Street Starts Here following the catastrophic bombing of the street of the booksellers in Baghdad on 5 March 2007.  He has stated that he kept waiting for someone to do something in response to such a terrible affront to all that is good and decent, but nobody did, so he acted, first locally and then globally. This has resulted in an arguably unprecedented imaginative response: the creation of much poetry and other writing,*2 scores of broadsides, and about 360 artist books that reveal an extraordinary range of visual, literary and technical creativity. They have been on exhibit in many places, and a complete set of will eventually arrive at the Iraq National Library and Archive (a set of the broadsides has already reached the INLA).•3

http://www.al-mutanabbistreetstartshere-boston.com/

I was asked to provide a meaningful context for the eponymous event at one of the occasions associated with the six-month exhibit in Cambridge, Massachusetts.  That follows here.

“Framing the Bombing of Al-Mutanabbi Street: How We Might Think about what Led to it”

 Jeff Spurr, 25 February 2013

For

“Locating Al-Mutanabbi Street”
Cambridge Arts Council Gallery

We Americans tend to be navel gazers, deeply involved in our own problems, and oblivious to the consequences of our projection of power abroad.  Few have any conception of — or concern for — the cumulative suffering born by the Iraqi people, and the derangements to Iraqi society caused by our contribution to it.

A long, dark road led to the bomb blast at Al-Mutanabbi Street on March 5th, 2007.  The moral and symbolic implications of that horrendous event have been broadly addressed, thanks in particular to this wonderful initiative, Al-Mutanabbi Street Starts Here, rich evidence of which we see around us.

This evening I will briefly try to provide some context.  In my view, five principal conditions frame that terrible act.  They are (1) the nature of Saddam Hussein’s totalitarian regime, (2) the crippling sanctions against Iraq after the Gulf War of 1990-1991, (3) the American-led invasion of Iraq in 2003, (4) the disastrous policies of the Coalition Provisional Authority under L. Paul Bremer, and (5) the existence of a mobile radical Islamic movement associated with al-Qaeda, whose peculiar nature supports a terrifying cultural nihilism.

(1) Despotic regimes not only make the welfare of the tyrant and few others the measure of what is good and right for a whole nation, but their corrupt and absolutist ways suppress any normal civil society, and preclude the development of mature political views, mechanisms, and behavior, in the process injecting slow-working poisons into the body politic that remain long after these regimes are gone.  The resulting political immaturity, unfamiliarity with democratic ways, and dearth of practical initiative (due, that is, to the top-down character of all decision-making in such police states), have dire implications for what comes after.

(2)  The sanctions regime of the 1990s had no serious effect on Saddam, his family and cronies, whose control over the state remained unabated; however, it immiserated much of the Iraqi middle class, and made the lives of the poor much less bearable, adding new distress to a population that had already endured the terrible ravages of the Iran-Iraq war, ignominious defeat in the Gulf War, and the savage suppression of the subsequent Shi’ite rebellion in Central and Southern Iraq.

(3)  The criminally reckless American invasion was essentially undertaken without a plan beyond tactical questions concerning the inevitable military victory, which is to say the easy part.  General Shinseki was fired for speaking the truth regarding management of the aftermath, and magical thinking reigned in the White House.  The invasion began with the revolting spectacle of “Shock and Awe,” destruction from the skies targeting infrastructure and ministries whose principal consequence would be to dramatically diminish the capacity of successor governments to run the country.  Even worse, no provision was made to impose a new authority after the totalitarian regime was overthrown:  the lid was taken off the pressure cooker and not replaced.  Chaos was the inevitable result.  As history has shown, opportunists will always take advantage of the absence of authority, but the terrifying result under these especially bad circumstances was massive looting of nearly every institution in the country outside of Iraqi Kurdistan — whether cultural, educational, or governmental — from which Iraq will never fully recover.

Two images of the INLA (Iraq National Library and Archive).  The ‘before’ image is actually after the arson but before restoration of an interior space (you can discern the stairs), while the ‘after’ is of the same space (though a larger view), after Dr. Eskander’s restoration.

(4)  Then came the misrule of Paul Bremer, America’s satrap at the CPA, and arch-privatizer.  A combination of arrogance, ignorance and ideology scarcely matched by his boss led to the cashiering of the whole Iraqi army, an act of folly that removed a potential stabilizing force (Republican Guard excepted), and threw a couple hundred thousand men out of work.  Since the army of occupation had failed to secure ammo dumps across Iraq, arms were readily available.  Bremer also closed all state-owned enterprises, consigning countless others to unemployment and disaffection.  The mass firing of members of the Baath Party had similar results.  Idle hands make for the Devil’s work, after all, and the inability to mobilize for employment and sustain anything resembling normal functioning, plus an endless series of other unfortunate decisions, led inevitably to resistance — further exacerbated by blunt force behavior by the occupying forces.

Indeed, resistance led to extreme reaction.  Whereas it was said of the Vietnam War, “we had to destroy the village in order to save it,” things graduated in Iraq to “we destroyed the city to save it,” notably in the cases of Fallujah and Ramadi.  What leverage might have been gained from overthrowing the widely-hated Saddam was quickly squandered.

It is virtually axiomatic that a system of repression such as existed under Saddam leaves people little choice but to identify with more elementary structures of society:  the family, the tribe, and, particularly among the less secularized Iraqi lower classes, religion.  This is where social fault lines develop when all else disintegrates.

Violent Sunni resistance led ineluctably to two things:  the emergence of the much more radical al-Qaeda in Iraq, not invested in the preservation of any people or place, and largely consisting of foreign Arab elements coming from Jordan and through Syria, mirrored by the embrace of violence by Shi’ite groups, most conspicuously the Sadr Brigades, lumpen elements supporting that firebrand Shi’ite cleric, Muqtada al-Sadr.  This combustible situation led to an all-out civil war conducted by these radicalized elements, precipitated in its aggravated form when al-Qaeda blew up the Shi’ite Al-Askari Mosque and Shrine at Samarra in February 2006.  Al-Qaeda elements have been employing a slogan, “taqsir wa tafjir,” which, translated into English, signifies something like “denounce and detonate” or, according to a friend, effectively “blow them all up.”

It was in the context of this explosion of hate and strife, when upwards of four million largely middle class Iraqis (proportionately equivalent to about 42 million Americans), were forced to flee their homes, unlikely to return, that Al-Mutanabbi Street was devastated.  When tens of thousands are being murdered, when many parties are behaving in wanton ways, and when forces that consider humanism and enlightenment to be the enemy are unleashed on the land, it comes as no great surprise that this terrible crime occurred, much as we may lament it.

[modified and expanded for SAFE:]

As a coda, I would like to add that one man has shown what is possible in Iraq despite the conditions I have just described.  That person is Dr. Saad Eskander, who took charge of a devastated Iraq National Library and Archive (INLA) in the fall of 2003 at a very dark hour for that institution and Iraq.  There his performance has been exemplary under the most trying of circumstances.

Dr. Eskander not only succeeded in restoring a structure that had been declared a dead loss, but took a corrupt, moribund staff of 95 and turned it into a thriving, productive one of over 300, shepherding it through the dark years of civil war and difficult times since, initiating an enlightened administration in which the staffs of departments elect their representatives to the institution’s council; encouraging a women’s group that began a canteen and child care onsite.  He reached out to the world, for which reason he received critical donations of equipment and materials of every sort from many countries and institutions, plus advanced training for his staff on several fronts.  Despite having to repeatedly cope with retrograde elements in the Ministry of Culture and elsewhere in government, he has sustained the integrity of his institution and arranged for the building of a new National Archives building and a Generations Library for children and youth.  A new building for digital projects is underway.  Dr. Eskander has also spearheaded the effort to repatriate various classes of seized Iraqi documents on US soil or in American hands.  Much of this is described in detail in my 2007 and 2010 reports.  Despite  the grievous losses due to arson and deliberate flooding in April 2003, Saad Eskander continues his labors in the service of Iraqi culture and heritage.  His work provides not only a model for best practices in the administration of a cultural institution in Iraq, but for the world. We owe him our admiration and support.

*1 July 2005 report:

http://oi.uchicago.edu/OI/IRAQ/mela/indispensable.html

July 2007 report:

http://oi.uchicago.edu/OI/IRAQ/mela/update_2007.htm

A substantial update that focuses on controversies concerning various classes of seized Iraqi documents still under American control may be found in

“Report on Iraqi Libraries and Archives, 2010,” MELA Notes, no. 83 (2010), pp. 14-38

http://mela.us/MELANotes/MELA-Notes.html

at which point one must click on:

MELA Notes number 83 (2010)

*2  Beausoleil, Beau and Deema Shehabi, eds., Al-Mutanabbi Street Starts Here: Poets and Writers Respond to the March 5th, 2007, Bombing of Baghdad’s “Street of the Booksellers”, PM Press, Oakland, CA, 2012

*3  see:

http://bisi1932.blogspot.ca/2013/04/memory-identity-and-grassroots.html

NB: the big hole in the ground mentioned in this article is not the new Archives building, which has already been built, although not as yet fully furnished; it is the foundation for the Digital Library building, Dr. Eskander having long ago initiated a comprehensive plan for digitization in the service of transparency and access for Iraqis to their history and heritage.

Like those Americans of my parents’ generation who can remember where they were when they heard that President Kennedy had been shot, or of my generation who can remember their reaction to the breaking news of the September 11^th attacks, the looting of the National Museum of Iraq remains, ten years later, a watershed moment for the global archaeological community and those of us who work to document and mitigate the illicit antiquities trade. The scale of the plunder, and its seemingly preventable nature, shocked everyone who witnessed it or viewed the frantic efforts of those tasked with dealing with the aftermath. For me, it was troubling enough to hear, and then have confirmed, that the United States was once again going to war in the Middle East, and for reasons that many suspected were false even at the time they were being announced. Given that I was about to graduate with my Bachelor’s degree in Anthropology from the University of Arizona at the time, I routinely spent each day immersed in archaeological theory, method, and site data from around the world, including the numerous civilizations that flourished in today’s Iraq; the Mesopotamia of the ancient world. Thus, knowing that not only was a war of uncertain parameters and unknown duration already underway (with the inevitable loss of military and civilian life), but that priceless cultural institutions would also be under threat, made watching events unfold all the more troubling.

Interviews with Donny George and other museum officials during and after the fact really drove home how tragic this loss was. Coupled with the sacking and burning of much of the National Library, this tragedy was propelled to unbelievable proportions. Although I don’t think it will ever be known to what extent US troops were ordered to guard the museum, or whether or not their neglecting of this order made the looting easier, it has long been understood (since colonial days, really) that the risk of looting increases in times of armed conflict. For my cohort and I, all archaeologists in training just beginning to accrue field and museum curation experience, we could at least intuitively grasp how damaging the event was. Later professional and life experiences would just confirm this.

One positive outcome of this tragedy was, of course, the founding of SAFE; the only nonprofit with an expressed goal to raise public awareness of new developments and new research pertaining to the illicit antiquities trade. SAFE was founded in 2003; however it did not exist as a nonprofit until 2005. Although the looting of the Iraq Museum served as the impetus to found SAFE as a direct response of this event in 2003, I didn’t hear about its existence until my dawning realization of the scope of looting itself My archaeological “formative period” came about in the Southwestern United States (at the University of Arizona) where, for three years, I was fortunate enough to participate in excavations in settings as diverse as the Sonoran desert near Tucson to the Pacific Islands. Both of these locations do also suffer from looting and site vandalism (which I’d later observe), but the wide open spaces make encountering looting a rare occurrence unless you look for it. I had enough on my plate just learning the archaeological ropes!

By 2006, I had completed my Bachelor’s, as well as a Master’s degree at the Australian National University, and my focus had shifted to Vietnam, Southeast Asia, and bioarchaeology (the investigation of daily life, behavior, and human-environmental interaction from data contained in the skeleton, in the context of burial practices). The more I studied and worked in the field, the more I appreciated how much is lost when burials are dug up in the hunt for rare artifacts to sell. Burials uniquely represent one-off events; snapshots of the life and death of an individual and community. Perhaps more than any other category of archaeological site, burials are truly irreplaceable. Attending the 2006 Indo-Pacific Prehistory Association conference in Manila, Philippines, first exposed me to how severe looting had become in Southeast Asia.

Having already seen examples of the open sale of artifacts accidentally surfaced while farmers ploughed fields in Vietnam, causing me to wonder how many more sites similar to the c. 3,800 BP cemetery site I was currently helping to excavate were out there, I had an inkling of things to come. Presentations given by the Director and staff of Heritage Watch (a Cambodia based NGO specifically focused on the antiquities trade) truly opened my eyes. Seeing slide after slide of sites reduced to moonscapes and incredibly rare burial objects openly sold due to international greed and weak laws, despite the best efforts of local and Western archaeologists, broke my heart and made me unwaveringly determined to help in efforts to expose and combat this threat, in Cambodia and beyond. By 2010, after returning to Vietnam and Cambodia to excavate and learn more, working at numerous sites around Arizona (and seeing vandalism and pot-hunting first hand), and finally returning to Australia in 2008 to commence doctoral studies, I felt I had learned and seen enough to be able to meaningfully contribute. In 2010, I began to guest blog for SAFE, as well as begin my own blog to discuss cases, galleries, legal issues and the ‘demand’ side of the market in southern hemisphere countries such as Australia. My own current research, conducted with colleagues at the Institute of Criminology, University of Sydney, seeks to clarify the dimensions of this market, especially concerning South and Southeast Asian antiquities, to a degree not attempted before.

Although objects from the Iraq Museum remain unaccounted for and the museum remains only occasionally open to the public, events such as the scramble by civilians, museum and military personnel to remove and safely store thousands of priceless manuscripts from libraries and mosques in Timbuktu, Mali, during the ongoing conflict there do suggest that the global community is much less willing to be silent in the face of conflict-driven heritage destruction. In time, the collective efforts of INTERPOL, private investigators, journalists and governments in cooperation could recover even more objects stolen on that fateful April 10^th, but to me the larger point is that the looting of the National Museum of Iraq is symptomatic of the economic disparities between supply and demand countries, and the greed of those who fuel the no-questions-asked antiquities trade, that will continue to reduce countless sites to rubble before they can be excavated, let alone published and curated to share with the world.

Having just come from the latest (78^th annual) meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, in which thousands of delegates (myself included) presented the results of our latest research, I can safely attest that global research output is very vigorous. However, except for the occasional passing reference or resigned statement, there is still nowhere near enough acknowledgement of what the antiquities trade is doing to the world’s remaining archaeological record, despite the pervasiveness of looting and illicit dealing worldwide and the archaeological questions rendered moot because of it. Of course, the effects of looting also include hampering the efforts of many nations to establish museums with fully up-to-date acquisition and curation policies, and then to effectively safeguard those priceless pieces of cultural and national patrimony that they contain. The severe damage inflicted to the collections of the Iraq National Museum is just one poignant example.

As cutting edge research to document and mitigate the antiquities trade, excavate or salvage new sites, and create more context-driven and secure museums continues, let us all take a moment to remember not just what was lost when the Iraq Museum was looted, but what good has come from recovery efforts. Without the noble front-line fight of Donny George and his staff, much more would have been destroyed. Without the help of Iraqi religious leaders and governmental authorities, much more would be unaccounted for. The real challenge facing all of us is to stop the illicit antiquities trade before it starts, tighten the net around those who seek to profit from it, and provide enough training to troops on both sides of future, inevitable, conflicts that sites of cultural heritage are greater than any one conflict. Only by doing this can we ensure that the tide will continue to turn in favor of the preservation of the material remains of humanity’s shared past.

On the other side of this equation, it is vital for those who investigate the illicit antiquities trade from legal or criminological perspectives to seek out and maintain dialogues with archaeologists (both foreign and local) in all areas of the world where looting still occurs. As my own research continues to demonstrate to me, effective legal reform and prosecutions must rely on documentation of artifact authenticity, illegality of export, and likely archaeological context together. The clear explanation of what knowledge is lost, and how it fits into the bigger picture, when an object is ripped from the ground (or separated from its records when stolen from a museum) is something only archaeologists who have excavated intact sites and seen looting face to face can provide. Organizations like SAFE that continue to work to bridge these gaps are still sorely needed.

Dr. Damien Huffer
Institute of Criminology
Faculty of Law
University of Sydney
Darlinghurst, NSW, 2006, Australia

The Citadel of Aleppo, dating back to the 3rd millennium BC, is now caught in the fighting between President Basher al-Assad’s military and the Free Rebel Army.  The Citadel has a elaborate history: it was occupied by the Greeks, Romans, Byzantines, Mongols, Ottomans, Ayyubis, Mamluks, and unsuccessfully besieged by Crusaders in 1098 and 1124.  It is home of the Aleppo Codex, a medieval bound manuscript of the Hebrew Bible written in the 10th Century A.D.  It is identified in the Bible as Elijah’s cave and as a stopping point of Abram during his journey to Canaan and Egypt.  It became a UNESCO World Heritage Site in 1986 (“Ancient City of Aleppo,” UNESCO).

As early as May 21, Interpol requested vigilance in Syria to preserve ancient sites, citing that Roman mosaics in the city of Hama were missing and there was a high possibility for irreversible damage.  Their press release stated: “The on-going armed conflict in Syria is increasingly threatening a significant part of the cultural heritage of mankind. Roman ruins, archaeological sites, historic premises and places of worship are particularly vulnerable to destruction, damages, theft and looting during this period of turmoil” (“Interpol Calls for Vigilance on Looting of Ancient Mosaics in Syria,” Interpol, May 21, 2012).

UNESCO

The Citadel of Aleppo now caught in the fight between Basher al-Assad and the Free Rebel Army in Syria.

On July 31, UNESCO issued a plea to preserve the Citadel of Aleppo.  They asked Secretary-General Ban-ki Moon to employ international agreements which protect cultural property (“UNESCO Pleads with Syrian Secretary-General to Preserve Citadel of Aleppo,” UNESCO, July 30, 2012).  No action was taken.

In modern day Syria, the city of Aleppo is a commercial center and home to 2.5 million people.  New reports claim that if al-Assad’s forces lose control of Aleppo, the country will fall into Rebel hands. Aleppo has been a war zone for the past four weeks (“Syrian Army Moves on Rebels in Aleppo, Damascus,” Hadeel Al Shalchi, Reuters, August 3, 2012).

The Free Rebel Army made a major push to take the Citadel.  Ahmed, a young rebel fighter stated: “One day soon, we’re going to march inside.  We will make it to the heart of city.”  Muhammad, another rebel, boasted: “Soon you will see us in the Citadel.  And from there, you will see a liberated Aleppo” (“Syrian Rebels Edge Towards Aleppo’s Ancient Heart,” Erika Solomon, Reuters, August 2, 2012).

Last week NBC reported that the Free Rebel Army had taken control of Citadel and using it as a stronghold.  Without any anti-aircraft defense, the Citadel immediately became a major target for al-Assad’s military forces.  Reports also stated that the Free Rebel Forces began taking shelter in a hidden wall behind the outer wall of the Citadel.  Syrian tanks easily broke through the walls, killing the Rebels, and decimating the Citadel’s medieval walls.

Image shot by amateur videographer posted on Youtube shows fire raging through the city around the Citadel at Aleppo

On August 11, The Daily Star of Lebanon reported that the Citadel was being shelled and that the main damage was at the entrance gate.  The New Zealand Herald stated: “One shell demolished the front of the house, leaving a gaping hole where the arched gateway once stood. A second gouged out a crater 3 meter wide in the walled garden and a third smashed into bedrooms and the library”  (“Citadel at Risk as Modern War Rages in Aleppo,” Kim Sengupta, New Zealand Herald, August 14, 2012).

While this article focuses on the Citadel as an important world heritage site, we cannot overlook the deaths in Syria.  The Huffington Post estimates that about 17,000 people have died in fighting– 11,897 civilians, 4,348 soldiers and 884 military defectors.  In addition, the UN reports that as many as 1.5 million people have been displaced by the fighting (“Syrian Refugee Numbers Surge Again Amid Aleppo Clashes,” Los Angeles Times, August 10, 2012).  We hope that when the fighting does conclude, the Aleppo Citadel will become a unifying symbol.  It will remind modern, war torn Syrians to be proud of their common historic past and national heritage.

As of today, August 15, the present condition of the Aleppo Citadel is unknown.

For more information please visit:
Al Jazeera August 4, 2012 coverage “Syria Rebels Converge on Aleppo Citadel”
Aleppo Citadel Friends
Wall Street Journal Update on Fighting
UNESCO’s Site on the Ancient City of Aleppo 

In the summertime, thousands of visitors flock to Bagh-e Babur, “Babur’s Garden”, an historic park in the heart of Kabul. Presiding over the garden is the entombed 16th-century Emperor Babur the Conqueror, founder of the Moghul Empire in India, for whom the garden is named. In the emperor’s memoir, the Baburnama, he praises the location for its scenery, gardens, orchards, and semi-arid climate. “Within a day’s ride it is possible to reach a place where snow never falls,” he observes. “But within two hours one can go where the snows never melt.”

Five centuries later, the public enjoys this same ambiance. Enclosed by perimeter walls, fertile rows of cypress, hawthorn, and cherry trees adorn the cascading terraces of the garden. Groups congregate on the pavilions. Couples stroll lazily along the water channels. Families picnic beneath the shade of the trees, eating kebabs, chatting, and resting in the dry heat.

Babur’s Garden did not always paint so splendid a picture. By the end of the Mujahideen civil war (1992-95) much of the garden was destroyed. It lingered in this state of disrepair through the Taliban regime (1996-2001).  And it was not until 2003 that restoration work was begun by the Aga Khan Trust for Culture (AKTC), joined by Dr. Abdul Wasay Najimi, a conservation architect. Most of the work was completed by 2007 with facilities for cultural and recreational activities, including a caravanserai (inn with large courtyard and area for caravans), garden pavilion, swimming-pool, and Queen’s Palace complex.

It was at the garden that we filmed an interview with Dr. Najimi about his work as a conservation architect as part of the series, Untold Stories: the Oral Histories of Afghanistan’s Cultural Heritage. The interview can be watched in the short video, Who is the Conservation Architect?, which showcases Dr. Najimi’s work for AKTC, including conservation of the eighteenth-century Timur Shah Mausoleum. Today, Dr. Najimi is instructing in the history of the architecture of Afghanistan full-time at Kabul University, teaching a younger generation to appreciate their cultural heritage, so that in time, more of Afghanistan’s remarkable architecture may be preserved.

Q: Can you tell us a bit about your work experience with the Babur’s Garden project?

AWN: The first time I saw Babur’s Garden was in the Taliban’s time. It was in 2000. One of my former students was involved in the project. He had some funds from HABITAT to plant some trees that you can see at the lower part of Babur’s Garden. He also wanted to build a door for the garden.

Generally, the garden was completely destroyed. All its old trees were cut down. The place we are sitting at was destroyed. The structure was in place. The garden was ruined and there were no windows or doors or anything. All the surrounding houses were in ruins. I came with him to see what his plans were and what he was doing. For the second time, when I came in 2002, we started a deep survey and study of Babur’s Garden. Naturally, it was as I described before. Slowly we surveyed and developed a design and we implemented the plans. Now you see the results.

Q: When you were abroad (working towards your PhD), were you following the issues related to Afghanistan?

AWN: Since 1986, I have had direct working relations with Afghanistan. But not all my activities were related to historical sites and buildings. There were no such projects then, and also, there was no funding or budget for this kind of work. To earn a living, I worked with other organizations working in Afghanistan, organizations for development of cities and rural areas and such. But throughout this period, there were projects and missions once in a while from UNESCO or something organized by myself, where I traveled and studied historical sites closely, and wrote on them.

From 1991 or even 1990, I became more involved and I went to Bamiyan on behalf of UNESCO once or twice. Once, I went to Munar-e Jam. From ’93 onwards I was in Herat for two years with a Danish organization. We reconstructed some of the significant sites there. For a while after that, I was not very involved. But since 2002, after AKF (Aga Khan Foundation) opened an office in Kabul, we identified some sites/projects for reconstruction in Kabul. After 2005, I also got involved with Herat. Since then (2002), I have been directly involved in different projects.

Q: How many important projects did you work on at this time?

AWN: In Kabul, one of the most important projects was the revival and reconstruction of Bagh-e-Babur. Others were repairing, strengthening, and restoring the Timur Shah Mausoleum and garden, and reviving and repairing a residential area known as Ashiqan wa Arifan, in the old city of Kabul.

We further developed to include [restoring] a series of historical mosques, historical public baths, fixing roads and streams, and helping provide drinking water. Similarly in Herat, our important projects included reconstruction of an area in Herat, close to the center of the city; we reconstructed some of the houses as a sample.

Q: What role did Afghans have in reconstruction of the garden?

AWN: Generally, all we have done has been done through Afghans. To the extent possible, Afghans have also done the expert and technical work. AKF (Aga Khan Foundation) is an international organization and naturally wants to work with international standards. For this reason, we occasionally had international observers or experts whom we consulted with in case of need and asked for advice… Thus, it was both satisfactory and enjoyable. During these talks, my colleagues and I learned a lot academically and they (the international experts) also admired the restoration of old building material, the style, and the way of old work. They would see how to reuse the material that had been used before, again, and get a good result out of it.

Q: What are the plans for the future of Babur’s Garden?

AWN: Babur’s Garden, after its reconstruction was completed in 2006, I think towards the end of 2006, found a new administration. We tried to form a trust or administrative organization for the garden. It would be run by an executive board with help from the municipality, which used to run the garden, and the Ministry of Information and Culture, which is responsible for preservation of historical sites and buildings. The executive board members are representatives of AKF, the Kabul municipality, and the Ministry of Information and Culture.  The day to day management of the garden is conducted by the trust or organization called “Organization for Protection and Preservation of Babur’s Garden”.  The organization is registered with the Ministry of Economics and is run according to regulations of NGOs.

Q: And the idea is that the garden will be independent in future?

AWN: No. The idea is that in the past, many years ago, the garden was run by the municipality, and they sold tickets for entrance to the garden. Now, the garden is at the beginning of its reconstruction, and it has some expenses to be paid occasionally for its preservation and protection. The decision was made that the garden can have revenue from selling entrance tickets, from renting out for cultural events, and if there is a shortage of money/budget, it will ask for help from aid organizations so that it can manage its own expenses. According to government regulations, the municipality did the same thing. So it is permitted. The organization/trust is a non-profit. They need to manage all their expenses and income themselves. At the end of each year, their accounts are audited by auditors that have so far been international auditors and a report is made on their expenses.

Q: Was the team from Babur’s Garden involved in the restoration of Timur Shah Mausoleum as well?

AWN: Our team was really big. One team worked with Babur’s Garden. The other worked on Timur Shah Mausoleum and then on the walls and the gardens there. We had another team that was working in the old city. Some of the engineers, who gained work experience here, went and worked with other organizations, or made their own companies. Some of them went to Herat with me. We had the same program there regarding training of young people and such. For now, our work has decreased in Kabul, and we try to go and work in some other provinces where we didn’t have access before.

Q: How has the collaboration from local people been? How much do they know about historical sites?

AWN: Local people know about the value of historical sites and buildings… Unfortunately, during the war, there were many limitations. Poverty was increasing and roads were closed. Many people started to think that if they dig the historical sites, and find some historical or antique artifacts, and sell them, they can earn a living. Unfortunately, this led us to lose some of our important and historical artifacts.

When there is no specific responsible organization, the local people also slowly become careless, especially when it comes to buildings and such. In some places, historical buildings and locations have been misused, and that may have caused their destruction. In other places, lack of any preservation efforts and existence of snow and rain has led to destruction. Sometimes, it has been a case of military use or buildings being employed in some manner during the fighting. Or the government has used the structures for military purposes. The people have often used buildings as shelters. The important point is that there is little public knowledge about historical artifacts of our country. And the officials, even if they are responsible, they are not fully active and accountable on raising awareness. We still have the problem that on one front, we need to raise public awareness through radios and TVs and through schools and teaching, and on the other front we need to work to improve the organizations that are responsible for this job of preservation.

Q: What was the worst period for cultural heritage in Afghanistan?

AWN: It is now and it was in the past 30 years of war. The main reason is that it was hard to preserve historical sites, traveling was difficult, there were few professionals and experts of historical artifacts in the country, everyone was on the move, everyone was a migrant. But the problem still continues.

Q: What is the impact of security on preservation work?

AWN: Security impacts everything. If there is fear and worry somewhere, there is lack of certainty. Any work, from business to personal and governmental activities, will be harmed. Luckily, since we have so far worked in Kabul and Herat, and also, the way we worked, we had very close relations with the public. We also occasionally have consulted the government offices that were responsible for preservation. We have never had any (security) problems. If you are working in a place that is hard to access, and is not safe and secure, sending professional staff and required material and equipment would be difficult. I have to say this, that the history has proved that civilization will grow in a place where there is security. Where there is peace among a community or in an area, the civilization has grown, progress has happened and economy has grown. During the war, all decisions are quick decisions, and while taking quick decisions, one can’t make useful decisions for the future.

Q: How do you see the future in three or four years?

AWN: Well, God knows better about the future. We can’t predict. But, from a personal and professional commitment viewpoint, I can only say that for me, it has been proved that in implementing such projects, we need to educate the youth. So that, we can train architects that are interested in the profession, have an understanding of the profession, and can work for the future, so that we can offer these people to our society.

It is for this reason that since 2009 we have had a more serious collaboration with Kabul University. I have gone there regularly on behalf of AKF and have taught there in the section related to history of architecture for Afghanistan, specifically regarding conservation and preservation. Also, this year we will invite some people from abroad to hold short term, expert classes for students in Polytechnic University Kabul and Kabul University simultaneously to restore the motivation for professional work, the style of professional work.

This interview is part of a series, ‘Untold Stories: the Oral Histories of Afghanistan’s Cultural Heritage’, funded by a Hollings Center for International Dialogue Grant. The series will be available on video, made in collaboration with Kabul at Work, and available on their website at: http://www.kabulatwork.tv/

Joanie Meharry is currently completing an MA in International and Comparative Legal Studies at the School of Oriental and African Studies in London. She is a 2012 John F. Richards Fellow for the American Institute of Afghanistan Studies and is directing the project, Untold Stories: the Oral History of Afghanistan’s Cultural Heritage, with a Hollings Center for International Dialogue Grant. She also holds an MSc in Middle Eastern Studies from the University of Edinburgh.

Shaharzad Akbar is partner and senior consultant with QARA Consulting, Inc. in Kabul, Afghanistan. Shaharzad studied anthropology at Smith College and recently completed an MPhil in Development Studies at University of Oxford. Shaharzad has extensive media and development work experience in Afghanistan. In 2005, she was the journalism intern for the book Women of Courage. She has also worked as local reporter for BBC for Afghanistan, producer and host of a youth talk show on radio Killid and writer and editor for several Afghan magazines and newspapers.

The Bamiyan Buddhas will not be rebuilt.  Instead, UNESCO, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, has decided instead to transform the site into a sanctuary where the international community can meditate on the losses of cultural heritage and contemplate how to change the pattern of destruction that leaves the world without a past.  They have chosen Andrea Bruno, an architect who has been involved with the project since 2001, to spearhead the site design.

The decision not to reconstruct the Bamiyan Buddhas, which were bombed by the Taliban in March 2001, is practical for many reasons.  The site is more than just rubble– rubble weighing more than 60 tons– it is tied like a spider web to political, religious, economical, and archeological issues.  As I discussed in my article, Ten years later: The Buddhas of Bamiyan, UNESCO was faced with a myriad of plans.  It has taken 11 years for UNESCO to come to some conclusion about the future of the site and not rebuilding is a heartbreaking choice.

The site will focus on the empty space left behind by the destruction of the Bamiyan Buddhas.  Bruno describes his plan as “ecumenical,” “aiming to enhance the emotional and aesthetic experience of viewing the empty niche.” (Anna Somers Cocks, “The victory of the void, a defeat for the Taliban,” The Art Newspaper, May 31, 2012)  He explains, “The void is the true sculpture.  It stands disembodied witness to the will, thoughts and spiritual tensions of men long gone.  The immanent presence of the niche, even without its sculpture, represents a victory for the monument and a defeat for those who tried to obliterate its memory with dynamite.” (Andrea Bruno, Id.)  A viewing platform and lighting will be built to allow visitors to take in the full beauty of the site.  Bruno emphasizes that the construction will be minimal, easy to remove without harming the site, and built by local laborers in mere months.

UNESCO

The Bamiyan valley with two empty niches where the giant Buddha’s once stood.

The community of the Bamiyan valley consists mostly of Shia Muslims. For them the decision not to rebuild the Buddhas is beneficial both economically, religiously and politically.  In fact, the new plan takes into account their needs.  Rebuilding the Buddhas would be incongruous with the Muslim tenant against using images and could make the community vulnerable to a second Taliban attack.  The Bamiyan valley has been peaceful since the Buddha bombings, but suffers economically from the decrease in tourism.  The new site will bring international travelers to the valley and promises to increase the poor standard of living in the valley.

The new Bamiyan site is just one part of UNESCO’s new campaign to bring about peace and protect heritage sites.  In an April 6, 2012 letter to The New York Times Irina Bokova, Director General of UNESCO, quite convincingly described this mission.  She wrote: “It may seem incongruous to denounce crimes against culture and call for their protection at a time of political instability and humanitarian crisis, but it isn’t.  Protecting culture is a security issue.  There can be no lasting peace without respect. Attacks against cultural heritage are attacks against the very identity of communities.  They mark a symbolic and real step up in the escalation of a conflict, leading to devastation that can be irreparable and whose impact lasts long after the dust has settled.  Attacks on the past make reconciliation much harder in the future.  They can hold societies back from turning the page toward peace.  So protecting cultural heritage is not a luxury.  We cannot leave this for better days, when tensions have cooled.  To lay the ground for peace, we must act now to protect culture, while tensions are high” (Irina Bokova, “Culture Under Fire,” The New York Times, April 6, 2012). As I read these words I reflect on cultural heritage we have lost, a past gone forever, and the plans for the new Bamiyan site.  At first I am brought to tears, but then the drum beat of battle enters my ears.

The new Bamiyan site will be a symbolic reminder to us all that cultural heritage is a powerful force.  It emboldens us, as human beings, to become involved and join organizations such as Saving Antiquities for Everyone.  The new Bamiyan site can and will ignite the international community to take action against the cycle that perpetuates the destruction of cultural heritage.

The New York Times

Residents of the Bamiyan Valley hope that the UNESCO site will bring positive changes.

Origins and background

The ancient religious site of Gazur Gah is one of the most significant in Afghanistan. It lies near to the city of Herat in western Afghanistan, on an ancient trade route between Central Asia and the West, and marks one of last halting stations before the deserts of Kuhistan. Its recorded history begins around 1000 years ago, with the lives of a local Sufi, Shaikh ‘Amu, and his pupil Khwajah Abdullah Ansari. Following the death of Shaikh ‘Amu, who was buried in the nearby hill of Zangir Gah in 1049 CE, Khwajah Ansari became a prominent Sufi religious personality in the region of Khurasan. He founded a Sufi institution at Gazur Gah, and was buried at the site following his death in 1089 CE.

Gazur Gah was one of a number of medieval settlements in Khurasan that developed around a religious institution and funerary complex of a Sufi holy-man. Other such sites were founded in the mountainous regions to the east of Gazur Gah at Chisht and Jam, and in eastern Iran at Turbat-i Shaikh Jam. Gazur Gah became home to a brotherhood of Ansari’s descendants and disciples, and the site of pilgrimage for Sufi devotees from Herat and beyond.

The complex of buildings at Gazur Gah has been the focus of a recent restoration project undertaken by the Aga Khan Trust for Culture.

Historic Development

The site’s structures developed over several historic phases following the death of Khwajah Ansari. The Ghurid rulers added a religious school in the 12^th century, whilst the last Ghurid king – Sultan Mahmud – was buried at the site following his death in 1212 CE. The subsequent Kart dynasty also restored and added to the site though few, if any, architectural features remain from this medieval period.

The 15^th century Timurid rulers of Khurasan viewed Ansari as the pir or ‘wise man’ of Herat, and drew close association with the saint in establishing their rule. They constructed a more elaborate funerary complex at Gazur Gah, focused on the form, function and meaning of the saint’s grave.

The burial site itself is identified by a low platform, surrounded by a pierced stone screen, and a lone, gnarled tree. Around this, Timurid patrons constructed an impressive courtyard enclosure with high arched portals or iwans, burial chambers and graves of members of the ruling family, together with spaces for prayer, residence and communal meeting, and gardens, pavilions and a water cistern beyond.

The resulting funerary courtyard and Namakdan Pavilion are fine extant examples of Timurid monuments. A royal residence and gardens were built adjacent to the site, confirming Gazur Gah’s religious, political and social significance during this golden Timurid age. The complex also received endowments that have lasted, in some cases, to the present day.

The Safavid ruler Shah Ismail conquered Herat in 1510 CE. Although these new rulers were Shi’ite, they allowed Sufi customs and practices to continue at the site, and ordered further amplification of its buildings. The importance of Gazur Gah was nevertheless reduced through the Safavid focus on the Shi’ite sanctuaries of Mashhad, Ardabil, Qum and Mazar-i Sharif. The ruling Chingizid clan made further embellishments in the 17^th century, and undertook restoration of the cistern. Members of the clan were also buried at the site in the early part of the 18^th century. Beyond this, little repair had been undertaken in more recent times, leaving many of its buildings in a state of disintegration and collapse.

Recent Restoration Activities

Given its long history and religious and cultural significance, Gazur Gah has been the focus of recent remedial works by the Aga Khan Trust for Culture (AKTC) in Afghanistan, funded by government of Germany. The project forms a part of AKTC’s wider cultural heritage activities across the country (see below).

Following an initial survey of the complex in 2005, the AKTC signed an agreement with the department of Historic Monuments, to commence work.

Initial activities included the removal of modern concrete and earth materials from historic buildings, and roof repairs, alongside stabilization of the south side of the Khanaqah-i Zarnigar in 2006. In 2007, as part of documentation of the complex’s artistic and architectural history, a group of students from the faculty of Fine Arts at Herat University prepared full-scale drawings of the most significant historic graves – recording decorative stone techniques from 15^th to 19^th centuries. In the same year, focus also moved to stabilizing the main, eastern iwan of the central courtyard, which was showing signs of structural settlement. Surveys of the brick structure revealed a number of historic interventions made over the centuries to prevent its collapse. 2008 saw the construction of a brick buttress that now provides full support for the iwan.

Restoration took place alongside at the Namakdan Pavilion, a 12-sided brick structure that once stood in the midst of formal gardens. As with the other buildings, layers of concrete, earth and rubble were removed. This revealed the central dome’s rib structures for repair. Tensile steel ring-ties replaced original timber reinforcement that had since been consumed by termites. External footings were also repaired, using materials and techniques found in the original structure. With the structure strengthened, a modern intermediate floor could then be removed, to restore the original double-height interior space. During the course of works, the base of an octagonal pool was also discovered in the central space, along with traces of a water channel and a marble waterfall on the western side. Local craftsmen restored decorative traditional plaster and ceramic tiles to the building’s exterior.

Parallel landscaping was undertaken throughout the complex. This included re-laying of marble and brick paving in the courtyard, installation of subtle external lighting, and improvements to drainage systems.

Project Management

Effective management was emphasized by the AKTC throughout the project, maintained through regular consultations held by AKTC staff with the Historic Monuments department, and the Head of the religious order that oversees the shrine. Local craftsmen, masons and laborers were employed throughout, utilizing traditional skills and knowledge, and providing incomes to families in the area.

The 4-year restoration program was completed by 2009. An opening ceremony, presided over by HE the Governor of Herat, Yusuf Nooristani, and attended by religious and community leaders, was held 8^th October 2009.

Widely regarded as one of the most important surviving Timurid architectural complexes in the region, and a significant site of Sufi pilgrimage and prayer to this day, the restoration of the buildings at Gazur Gah is a significant landmark in the on-going safeguard of Afghanistan’s architectural heritage.

Further details of the Aga Khan Trust for Culture’s activities in Afghanistan and around the world can be found at http://www.akdn.org/afghanistan_newsletters.asp and http://www.akdn.org/AKTC

With grateful thanks to Jolyon Leslie and Hadi Jahanabadian for providing guidance with sources and information on the site’s restoration.

Thalia Kennedy‘s academic training is in art and architectural history, in which she holds her PhD.  Her area of research and teaching has been the Islamic and South Asian spheres.  She has held visiting lectureships at the School of Oriental & African Studies, the Victoria & Albert Museum, and the Institute of Ismaili Studies in London.  From 2007 to 2010, Thalia was the Director of the Turquoise Mountain Institute for Afghan Arts & Architecture in Kabul, and is now a member of the Institute Board.  In 2011, she was a Guest Scholar at the Getty Conservation Institute, and Scholar in Residence at the Doris Duke Foundation for Islamic Art.  Currently completing consultancy and research, Thalia has recently been selected for a museum position in Qatar, where she will be moving later this year.

Working in prehistoric southwestern North America the issue of looting and illicit antiquities is not easily avoided. The surface of many sites are pockmarked by looter pits.  I studied a Native American people, now referred to as the Mimbres, who lived in southwestern New Mexico more than a thousand years ago. The Mimbres are famous for their black-on-white painted pottery, covered with beautiful and finely drawn geometric and naturalistic images. These bowls became very popular among artcollectors beginning in the early to mid twentieth-century, which explains a significant portion of the looting.

In addition to the beautifully painted bowls, skeletal remains from at least 21 exotic Mesoamerican birds, including scarlet macaws, military macaws, and thick-billed parrots, have been recovered from Mimbres sites. These birds indicate interaction between the Mimbres and people in Mesoamerica, but specifically that people were transporting live birds a distance of at least 775 miles (1250 kilometers) one way more than a thousand years ago – an incredible effort! These fantastically colored birds were brought to the  Mimbres Valley where they were raised then sacrificed (possibly on the vernal equinox) after their tail feathers had grown. If the Mimbres were traveling to obtain these birds themselves, as the image depicted on one bowl suggests, then we can double the distance traveled.

Though scant in contrast with the hundreds that would later be sacrificed and interred (and probably bred and raised) at Paquime in Chihuahua Mexico, macaws and parrots in the Mimbres are among the earliest found in the North American Southwest. As such they have the potential to help us consider many questions: what was the function of these birds in Mesoamerica? Why were they sacrificed in the Mimbres Valley? How did aspects of the associated religion or particular rituals change as they were adopted by this outside group?

The images painted on the Mimbres’ black-on-white pottery could do much to help answer these questions. Connections to stories from the Popol Vuh, a Mayan creation myth, are plentiful: the Mimbres painted the Hero Twins, macaws, parrots, monsters, fish and more, but not as the Maya had done. These were painted in a Mimbres style. Contextual information for these bowls could reveal so much about the interaction between the Mimbres and their Mesoamerican contacts. Do the macaw and parrot bowls come from sites with actual macaws and parrots? And are these the same sites with the Mesoamerican imagery? Do bowls with these images come from particular areas of the sites in which they were found? From particular burials? And if so, could these burials have anything else in common that might help us to explain their presence? Are these images and the birds themselves reflective of a hierarchy among the Mimbres, generally accepted to have been an egalitarian society?

Unfortunately, very few of these bowls have provenience. Of the bowls with macaw and parrot images, fewer than half (16/35) can even be tied to a particular site.

So much information – so much potential – lost to us all for the monetary benefit of a few individuals.

It would be unfair to judge early pot hunters and their corresponding collectors by our standards, but today we should know better.

Archaeology has advanced significantly, and so has pot hunting. Now in addition to shovels we have backhoes to deal with. Where a skilled individual can use a backhoe to scrape off a fine layer of soil and expose hidden features, large sections of sites can also be completely destroyed so that an individual can dredge any artifacts with perceived value from the soil – completely devoid of any useful archaeological context.

Even if every artifact could belong to just one individual, treasure hunter or museum, still, the story of each artifact – our collective past – should belong to us all. Looting may appear to benefit a few individuals in the short term, but in truth we all lose.

On June 20, 2007, much celebration accompanied the National Museums of Kenya’s (NMK) return of two stolen ancestral memorial statues (vigango, singular kigango, Kigiriama) to a Giriama family near Kaloleni, in the Kenyan coastal hinterland. Returned by two American museums, the two vigango were, according to the NMK Director General Dr. Idle Omar Farah, the first stolen artifacts ever returned to Kenya from the United States. The ceremony drew hundreds of local celebrants and included speeches, performances by local dance troupes, and feasting. The Minister of Tourism and Wildlife, the Honorable Morris Dzoro, delivered the keynote speech. Other dignitaries attending included the NMK Board Chairman, Mr. Issa Timamy, and Ambassador Husein Dado, Senior Deputy Secretary of the Ministry of State for National Heritage. The NMK’s Mombasa branch, under the direction of Mr. Philip Jimbi Katana, made elaborate preparations for the ceremony, including building a steel enclosure in the homestead to protect the returned vigango from further theft.

The ceremony concluded a long and concerted effort by ourselves and our Kenyan colleague, John Baya Mitsanze (a Giriama and senior curator with the NMK) to have the two statues repatriated and to heighten global awareness of the theft of vigango and other non-Western cultural property.

Vigango are carved and erected to incarnate the spirits of deceased members of Gohu, a male semi-secret society, and are considered sacred by the Giriama and other northern Mijikenda peoples.

The two returned vigango were stolen more than twenty years ago, in 1985. By sheer coincidence, Monica Udvardy had photographed them at the Giriama homestead of Kalume Mwakiru shortly before their theft while she was conducting research on Mijikenda gendered secret societies. We (Udvardy and Linda Giles) discovered the vigango fifteen years later in the African collections of the Illinois State University Museum (later transferred to the Illinois State Museum in Springfield) and the Hampton University Museum in Virginia.

In 2006, we located the Mwakiru family, and later delivered to the NMK’s Mombasa branch the family’s written appeal to have their stolen vigango returned. NMK Principal Curator of Coastal Sites and Monuments, Mr. Philip Jimbi Katana, then wrote the official request to the two American museums. The Illinois State Museum readily agreed to the request, and on September 13, 2006, an eight-person delegation, headed by Kenya’s Minister of State for National Heritage, Suleiman Shakombo, and the Kenyan Ambassador to the United States, Peter Ogego, traveled to Springfield to collect the kigango. At that time, Hampton University refused to return their kigango or even to meet the delegation. However, shortly after the Kenyan delegation left the United States, Hampton bowed to public pressure and shipped the kigango to Kenya.

The NMK’s actions concerning the Mwakiru vigango demonstrate a new focus on recovering Kenya’s cultural heritage not only for the NMK itself, but also on behalf of individuals, families, and ethnic groups. In another recent case, the NMK assisted in the return of regalia of Nandi resistance hero Koitalel arap Samoei from a British family to Nandi elders in 2006.

Tracing the path of the Mwakiru vigango

Most vigango are stolen by unemployed Mijikenda male youths and sold to shops and markets in the coastal cities and in the capital, Nairobi, which then sell them to Western dealers and collectors. Most of the vigango in the United States have been imported by a dealer based in southern California. This dealer has sold many of the vigango to private individuals, including several associated with the Hollywood film industry; these individuals often then donate them to museums. Records from the Illinois State University Museum show that the actor Powers Boothe donated one of the Mwakiru vigango and seven other vigango to the Museum in 1986. The other Mwakiru kigango was donated to Hampton University Museum by an undisclosed individual in the same year; Museum records indicate that it was one of ninety-four vigango collected by the American dealer among the ninety-nine total vigango acquired by the Museum between 1979 and 1987.

Media attention and more vigango repatriation

Our efforts to return these vigango have received widespread attention from the news media. In 2006, Mike Pflanz, the East African correspondent for the Daily Telegraph (London) and the Christian Science Monitor, visited the Mwakirus and published astory in both papers about their stolen vigango and our research on vigango in U.S. museum collections. NMK curator John Baya Mitsanze also took Pflanz and a photographer to the Giriama homestead of Karisa Disii Ngowa to photograph several recently erected vigango. After Pflanz’s articles appeared, we were deluged with requests for interviews by the news media.

Probably the most important coverage was by the New York Times. Marc Lacey, the New York Times East African Bureau chief at the time, researched the story and visited the Mwakiru and Ngowa families with Mitsanze and a photographer. At the Ngowa homestead, however, they discovered that the vigango had been stolen soon after Pflanz’s visit. Lacey’s article about vigango theft, which described the vigango loss of both Giriama families, was published on page 4 of the 2006 Easter Sunday edition. At the same time, Lacey launched a multimedia, interactive version of the story on the New York Times web site which ran for three months.

Other news media reporting the story include Kenya’s national daily newspapers, radio interviews, and discussion on the BBC andNPR. At least fifty special interest blogs and web sites have discussed the issue from the perspectives of art history, archaeology, African Studies, and cultural anthropology.

The media attention has raised general public awareness about the devastating impact on local communities due to the widespread global marketing of African cultural heritage.

It has also led to the voluntary return of nine more vigango from the private African art collection of American producers/screenwriters Lewis and Jay Allen, after Connecticut art dealer Kelly Gingras discovered the Mwakiru case on the Internet while preparing an exhibit at her Insiders/Outsiders Art Gallery. Gingras notified the daughter of the late couple, Brooke Allen, who agreed that the statues should be returned to Kenya. Allen and Gingras handed the statues over to the Kenyan Ambassador during a ceremony at the United Nations headquarters in New York City in June of 2007, an event that was also covered by the New York Times.

There are also indications that the media attention has affected other African art dealers. In October 2007, Linda Giles contacted several African art dealers in New York City about Kenyan artifacts for sale. None of the dealers mentioned having any vigango. An employee of the Pace Primitive Gallery volunteered the information that Kenyan “funerary statues” could no longer be sold. He noted that some of these statues had just recently been returned to Kenya and that it appeared that the statues should never have been collected in the first place.

Current challenges

In spite of these successes, there are still many vigango in museums and private collections in the United States, Europe, and Kenya. We have been able to verify the presence of more than 400 vigango in various American museums, but there is no information about the families from whom they were stolen. This demonstrates the need to photograph vigango still in situ.

Though Kenya’s passage and enactment of a national heritage bill protecting various aspects of natural and cultural heritage is an excellent step, its application is hindered by its lack of a list of specific artifacts covered. Hence, vigango do not currently receive special protection through inclusion in a red list. We are also unaware of any efforts to prevent the sale of vigango and other stolen or endangered cultural items in the many curio and art shops catering to tourists and collectors.

References

Pogrebin, Robin, 2007. 9 statues uprooted from Africa head home.New York Times, June 26, Arts section: B1.

Giles, Linda, Monica Udvardy, and John Mitsanze, 2004. Cultural property as global commodities: The case of Mijikenda memorial statues. Cultural Survival Quarterly, 27.4 (Winter): 78-82.

Pflanz, Mike, 2006. Kenyans welcome home sacred relics stolen by British. Telegraph, April 15, News section.

Lacey, Marc, 2006. The case of the stolen statues: Solving a Kenyan mystery. New York Times, April 16: 4.

Udvardy, Monica, Linda Giles, and John Mitsanze, 2003. The transatlantic trade in African ancestors: Mijikenda memorial statues (vigango) and the ethics of collecting and curating non-Western cultural property. American Anthropologist, 105.3: 566-80.

Pflanz, Mike, 2006. Theft of sacred vigango angers Kenyan villagers. Christian Science Monitor, March 2.

It was recently reported that looting of archaeological sites in parts of Peru had declined due to an increase in the production of cheap fakes. I suggested in a previous post that Peruvian archaeology had found an unusual alley in online auction, sites such as eBay, because local thieves could make more money manufacturing cheap fakes than they could by looting unexcavated sites. However, the production of fakes should not be encouraged as a means to prevent the looting and destruction of cultural heritage. Fakes confuse real history and people are misled. The Royal Ontario Museum’s exhibition “Fakes & Forgeries: Yesterday and Today” (which is running until April 4, 2010) underlines this point. For example, forgeries of Egyptian antiquities often deceive individuals who do not know what to look for; eager buyers frequently do not have the proper education. Fake Egyptian statues and reliefs, such as that pictured (above left), have flooded the illicit antiquities market. The sandstone on this forgery is tinted with a reddish pigment to give the appearance of old age. The artist has also depicted the crown of Upper Egypt incorrectly – it is supposed to cover the nape of the pharaoh’s neck. Moreover, the carving of the facial features is very rough leading the Royal Ontario Museum to describe it as a “crude and contrived representation”. This example highlights how information is confused when it is manufactured.

The urn pictured (above right) is from Mexico and is also a fake. It is possible to decipher that this is not authentic by its style; thermoluminescence dating is not required. An examination of the motifs shows this to be a fake. The Royal Ontario Museum tells us that “a forger might copy the feathers from one genuine item, the tunic from another and the pedestal from yet another. Though each part seems authentic, the forgers combined them together in ways that don’t make artistic sense”. Fakes of this kind can create a great deal of confusion by mixing styles from different eras or locations.

One of the most far-reaching and long-lasting consequences from Haiti’s recent devastation is the immeasurable loss to its culture.

In this regard, international cultural organizations have issued statements expressing concern for the state of Haiti’s cultural heritage, including the International Committee of the Blue Shield. In a press release issued January 14, The Blue Shield says that it “places the expertise and network of its member organisations at the disposal of their Haitian colleagues to support their work in assessing the damage to the cultural heritage of their countries including libraries, archives, museums and monuments and sites, and subsequent recovery, restoration and repair measures.” The Facebook group Haiti 2010 Blue Shield Solidarity was created as numerous other online discussions have surfaced.

Similarly, the President of International Council on Monuments and Sites calls “on all ICOMOS to come together in solidarity ” and “identify individual ICOMOS members and groups of members who would be willing to form part of volunteer teams to be deployed to Haiti as needed when the time comes and the heritage needs are manifested by our Haitian colleagues.” At the moment, and probably for a while, priority will remain on human life. The time will come to make the decisions to rebuild Haiti.

Photographer Maggie Steber wrote in her Jan 19 New York Times “Essay: A Culture in Jeopardy, Too”:

“Devastated by the loss of its people and its places, Haiti stands on the precipice of losing something more precious — as audacious as that sounds amid all this death — because it is transcendent.

Haiti stands to lose its culture.

Culture describes a people more than anything. It stems from history. It is the glue that holds a nation together when all else fails. But now that, too, may be lost, in the well-intentioned rebuilding efforts by the international community.”

When cities, monuments, buildings and artifacts mark the way people live and provide information about ourselves and our ancestors, how will Haitian cultural heritage be altered when so much of the nation’s built environment has been reduced to rubble? When so many of its people have perished and can no longer tell their stories? Regardless of the condition of these structures before the recent earthquake, these were the people’s homes, where they learned, conducted business, worked and played.

“If the world is going to rebuild Haiti, Haitians must have a say.” Maggie Steber, who has covered Haiti for 30 years, writes. Loyola University’s Professor Angel Parham echoes this sentiment.

How will Haitians have a say? Indeed, discussions surrounding what’s best for a renewed Haiti sound hopeful, as policymakers see the opportunity to seize the moment to improve and “to change the country forever.” Washington Post reports.

We call for a look to the past. One way for Haitians to have a say is by observing how life was lived through images and videos before the earthquake. Much can be gathered as to what needs to change and what needs to be recreated and restored. And created anew.

Photo: James P. Blair/National Geographic, From the Archive: Haiti, Alive by David W. Dunlap, The New York Times

The article briefly outlines the historical context of collecting American Indian artifacts, including human remains, and how nowadays NAGPRA provisions regulate acquisition and protection of Native American cultural patrimony.

On a sunny afternoon of May 1988 an unusual, small procession composed of Zuni Indians religious leaders and tribal councilmen walked through the streets of Midtown Manhattan. It was, in the words of a witness, “A minuscule homecoming parade that took place under the eyes of hundreds of New Yorkers sitting in traffic, striding to a business lunch, or looking down from the Empire State Building at a city that moves so quickly it cannot see its minor miracle.” (Firestone 1988).

The “miracle” happening that day was the Zuni delegation taking back home to the Zuni Indian Reservation (New Mexico), a sacred, highly revered wooden figure called Ahayu:da, or war twin god, that had been illegally removed from its original shrine, and later landed up in the collection of the artist Andy Warhol (1928- 1987):

“Known popularly as “war gods” the Ahayu:da are twin gods who serve primarily as protectors of the Zuni people[...]. Each year in ceremonies at the winter solstice the leaders of the Deer clan create an image of the elder brother, Uyuyewi, in sculptural form, while the leaders of the Bear clan create an image of the younger brother, Ma’a'sewi. These images, carved from cylindrical pieces of cottonwood or pine about 50 to 78 cm long, feature a stylized face, torso, and hands. Bundles of prayer sticks and other offerings are attached around its base [...]. The images of Ahayu:da are entrusted to the bow priests (also called war chiefs), who place them at one of a number of shrines on the mesas surrounding Zuni Pueblo. The new Ahayu:da replaces an existing one that is now placed on a pile of “retired” images to remain an integral part of the shrine, gradually disintegrating the returning to the earth [...]. Once the Ahayu:da are installed at a shrine, no one has the authority to remove them. Zuni religious leaders believe that to do so unleashes their great powers, resulting in a wanton destruction and mayhem.” Merrill, Ladd, Ferguson 1993

While in the Zuni cultural system the Ahayu:da possess such a crucial significance that even their replicas and images are considered sacred, in the Western view they have been usually perceived as “exotic”, “primitive” objects, extremely fascinating especially among artists. Paul Klee’s Mask of Fear, painted in 1932 and now at the Museum of Modern Art in New York, was probably inspired by the very Zuni war god that the Berlin Museum of Ethnology, in Germany, still includes among the Zuni regalia and sacred objects “collected” by the American ethnographer Frank Hamilton Cushing (1857- 1900) for this Institution at the end of the 19th century.

When in 1988, a year after Andy Warhol’s death, his art collection was put  up for auction by Sotheby’s in New York City, William L. Merrill, a young anthropologist already involved with the repatriation of Zuni religious items from the Smithsonian (currently he heads the Ethnology division at the Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History), alerted the Zunis about the presence of the war god in the upcoming New York auction. With the help and legal intervention of the U.S. Department of Justice, the Zuni requested the restitution of the war god, and after the positive response of the Andy Warhol Foundation, and despite some resistance from Sotheby’s – already involved in a similar situation a decade before- the case was settled with the removal of the sacred figure from the auction and the consequential restitution to the Zuni people.

Today, after years of a persistent campaign of claims and negotiations with various counterparties, public and private as well, and with the help of a new federal law enacted in 1990, the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), many of the stolen Ahayu:da have been recovered and relocated in their shrines to complete the intended cycle of their physical existence, and so finally disintegrating and returning to the Earth.

Native America collected

The systematic pillage of American Indian cultural patrimony dates back to the very inception of the “scientific exploration” of the American Southwest in the late Nineteenth century, and so of the American archaeology tout court:

“American Indians were perceived as “specimen” to be empirically investigated and objectively understood. [...] Anthropologists studied American Indian by digging up their graves and exhibiting Indian people in “ethnographic zoos” [...] Native people became “living fossils”, sometimes tucked away int he museums of America; when these “museum Indians” died, their bodies were sometimes boiled, the bones numbered and store away as part of America’s greater heritage.” (David Hurst Thomas 2008)

The abundance of well-preserved sites and artifacts in the very places where contemporary Indians were still living, and the widespread ideological framework that Indian people were soon to “vanish”, fostered the organization of the expeditions to collect and document as much as possible about them. On October 12, 1879, James Stevenson (1840- 1888), leading with his wife Matilda Coxe Stevenson (1849- 1915) the first  Smithsonian Institution expedition to the Rio Grande Pueblos and Zuni Pueblo in New Mexico, and the Hopi villages in Northeastern Arizona, wrote to John Wesley Powell, director of the Bureau of Ethnology, just established within the Smithsonian:

“Our success has been beyond our expectations. I brought from Zuni yesterday two large wagon loads- loaded up to the bows- comprising the most curious and choice specimen ever gathered from this country, and I send the wagon back early in the morning for another large load.” (Miller 2007)

The United States Southwestern territory was a unique open field for studies and research, not to mention for collecting: “For the Southwest, which is probably the most heavily collected region of Native America, it [collecting] has never really stopped since the Smithsonian started in 1879.” (Jacknis 2008)

The fascination exerted by such a cultural context- real and mythical at the same time- also attracted foreign explorers: Swedish Gustaf Nordenski öld (1832-1901), universally remembered for being the first to study the cliff dwelling of Mesa Verde in Colorado, while working there in 1891 for the Swedish Museum of Natural History, amassed hundreds of artifacts which he shipped back to Sweden. Among those “artifacts”, as usual, there were human remains (skulls, skeletons, bones) today still held by the Museum of Culture in Helsinki (Finland).

Avidly amassing American Indian objects was not a scholar’s prerogative solely. All over the Country amateurs and collectors, for the most various reasons and purposes, entered into the arena as well, in many cases crossing inexorably their paths with those of the scholars already working in the field: the example of George Gustav Heye (1874- 1957) and “his” Museum of the American Indian is the most obvious, nonetheless the most emblematic. Established in New York in 1916 along with the Heye Foundation, the Museum held a huge, unparalleled collection- ranging with no solution of continuity form Alaska to Tierra del Fuego- that George Gustav Heye built the expertise of professional anthropologists and archaeologists like Franz Boas (1858- 1942), who supervised the acquisition of major collections from Northwest Coast Indians, andGeorge H. Pepper (1873- 1924) with whom, in 1914, Heye personally excavated a Munsee Indian cemetery in New Jersey, removing from the burials artifacts and human remains, equally regarded as “American antiquities”.

But the example of the Heye Museum is also paradigmatic for another reason, a reason- we like to think- with an inkling of an act of nemesis: after Heye’s death in 1957 the Museum and the Foundation experienced a long period of cultural limbo associated with financial difficulties. After years of unsuccessful attempts to ensure its fate and survival finally in 1989 the ownership was transferred to the Smithsonian Institution. Congress enacted a federal law, the National Museum of the American Indian Act (Public Law 101-185) that at the same time, significantly, established a “living memorial to Native Americans and their traditions”, i.e. a “national museum devoted exclusively to the history and art of cultures indigenous to the Americas” within the Smithsonian museum’s system; and policies and guidelines for the return, repatriation, of human remains and associated funerary objects, sacred objects, and objects of cultural patrimony in the Smithsonian collections to pertaining Indian tribes. The following year, on November 16, 1990, a new federal law, the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (Public Law 101-601) extended those policies and guidelines to all museums and agencies possessing American Indian collections and receiving federal funds. Also, the law enacted rules for conducting archaeological excavations, and rules for inadvertent discoveries, both on federal and tribal lands. Finally, the law prohibits the illegal trafficking Native American human remains and cultural items.

The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA)

When the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act became national law almost twenty years ago, many museum professionals with different backgrounds (archaeologists, anthropologists, art curators) alarmingly foreshadowed an apocalyptic scenario, with artifacts fleeing from the display cases, leaving behind empty spaces. Of course, such a thing has never happened, and will never happen.

What the law, in brief, mandates is that all institutions (Federal agencies, local agencies, museums, historical societies, university collections) receiving federal fund (through grants, loans, contracts) identify Native American items (including human remains) in their collections, writing out inventories, i.e. item by item lists, and/or summaries, that is detailed descriptions about kind of objects and number included in the collection, means and dates of acquisition, geographical and cultural affiliation (meaning the shared collective identity that can be traced back from a present day Indian tribe to an identifiable earlier group) that must be completed in consultation with appropriate tribal government officials and traditional religious leader. Where cultural and geographical affiliations of human remains are unknown or uncertain, a separate inventory must be compiled. Once the cultural affiliation has been determined, museums and federal agencies must send notice to lineal descendants (individuals tracing ancestry directly and without interruption to known Native American individuals whose remains, funerary objects, or sacred objects are covered by the law) or affiliated tribes who might claim the repatriation. After a museum or federal agency receives, reviews, and agrees on the repatriation request, procedures for the actual restitution initiate. Finally, notice of inventory/summary completion, and notice of intent to repatriate must be sent to the National Park Service, NAGPRA National Program, which provides assistance and guidance for the implementation of the law in behalf of the U.S. Department of the Interior, in order to be published in the Federal Register, the official, juridical daily publication of the Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). In addition to human remains, the cultural items covered by NAGPRA are:

a) Funerary objects: Objects intentionally placed, as part of the burial rite or ceremony, with the human remains of an individual either at the time of his/her death or later. For the purposes of the law, funerary objects are defined “associated” when the human remains with which they were found are in the possession of the museum as well, and as “unassociated” when otherwise. For instance, associated funerary objects are the brass or copper bracelets, fragments of ceramic vessels, plum pits, steatite shard sample of hematite, string of disc-like and tubular shell beads, worked bone square, unearthed with human remains of 17 individual by the New York State Museum archaeologists in 1911 from an early historic Seneca village associated with two burial sites. After having identified the geographical and cultural affiliation of human remains and objects in consultation with representatives of the Seneca Nation of Indians, in September 2008 the Museum initiated the procedure for the repatriation of both cultural items to the Seneca Nation of Indians.

Unassociated funerary objects are the shaman headdress, bone necklace, amulets, and an ivory burial figure that the Western reserve historical Society of Cleveland, Ohio, in consultation with the Central Council of the Tlingit & Haida Tribes, has concluded would have been buried with a shaman at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony, and so they have been removed from a specific burial site of an Native American individual. Therefore, even if the Western Reserve Historical Society has no possession of the physical remains of the shaman, those objects are nevertheless funerary objects, and so to be repatriated to the Central Council of the Tlingit & Haida Indian Tribes.

b) Sacred objects: Specific ceremonial objects needed by traditional Native American religious leaders for performing duties and practices related to Native American ceremonial or religious traditions for the benefit of present day adherents. A suitable example are prayer sticks, like those removed in 1952 from a cave in Nevada known as “Prayer Cave”, sacred to the present-day Northern Paiute Indians as well because regarded for having medicinal properties. The prayer sticks were donated to thePhoebe A. Hearst Museum of Anthropology, University of Berkeley, California. In 2008, the Museum, after consulting with representatives of the cultural affiliated tribe, the Yerington Paiute Tribe of the Yerington Colony & Campbell Ranch, Nevada – who reaffirmed the tribe’s belief that Prayer Cave and its contents are sacred, and that both are part of on-going ceremonies and beliefs – initiated the repatriation process to the Yerington Paiute Tribe.

c) Objects of cultural patrimony: Objects having ongoing historical, traditional, or cultural importance central to the Native American group or culture itself, rather than property owned by an individual Native American, and which, therefore, cannot be alienated, appropriated, or conveyed by any individual regardless of whether or not the individual is a member of the Indian tribe, and such object shall have been considered inalienable by such Native American group at the time the object was separated from such group. A clear example of this category is the wooden feast dish carved in the shape of a beaver that the American Museum of Natural History in New York City has repatriated in 2008 to the Central Council of the Tlingit & Haida Indian Tribes of Alaska. The Tribes reclaimed the dish in behalf of the Deisheetaan Clan (Beaver Clan) of Angoon, the village in Southwest Alaska shelled and destroyed in 1882 by the U.S. Navy. The fact that the dish is one of only a few items surviving that event corroborates its historical and cultural importance to the Tribes shared identity awareness.

The repatriation process is not always as simple and consequential as in the examples quoted above, where the museums involved possessed precise historical records about the circumstances of the acquisition. In frequent cases, other factors can determine different outcomes: first of all, federal agencies and museums are not required to repatriate cultural items for which no cultural affiliation to a present-day Indian tribe has been established, at least until the issue has been clarified through further researches and consultations, and resolutions or agreements have been reached among the involved tribes and/or museums.

Also, sometimes Indian Tribes want human remains or funerary objects to stay in the museums because of their traditional view about dead, as in the case of the Navajo People, who believe that there is a potential for harm in dealing, or even discussing it, therefore the current repatriation policy of the Navajo Nationprevents them from actually doing reburials on the Navajo Reservation, and defers to others handling the matter. Or, as in the case of human remains and funerary objects from the Sand Creek Massacre site repatriated by the National Museum of the American History to the Cheyenne of Oklahoma:

“Cheyenne representatives and elders eventually made museum staff aware of their decision to leave a particular collection of funerary objects at the museum for the educational benefit of Cheyenne tribal members and on-Cheyenne researchers who might want to conduct research on these historic materials in the future.” (Killion 2008)

Another reason for delaying the actual return is the growing concern about objects that, while stored in museums, have been treated with chemical substances, like arsenic or mercury, in order to preserve them, and so they can bear toxic residuals. Since the objects might be used in public ceremonies, they represent a possible health threat to the tribal community, and to the tribal designated handlers of those artifacts: sometimes the tribe wants the objects tested for poison before being repatriated, and that often requires long and expensive procedures slowing the effective return to the Tribe.

And yet, despite its legal requirements, its convolutions and, sometimes, contradictions, it is undeniable that the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Acts has, helped, volens ornolens, to substantially redefine the relationship between Native People and museums, where Native communities can exercise authority and control of knowledge as equal partners with scholars and museum professionals, and where their  traditional knowledge is no more considered pure mythology or superstition, but a crucial tool to interpret and  understand the data collected by researchers:

“Repatriation is about fundamentally about sharing, about a bridging of perspectives and practice – between anthropologists and museum professionals and descendant communities and the public – that has the potential to broaden our awareness and understand of human diversity and human experiences.” (Loring 2008)

And from an American Indian perspective:

“NAGPRA and cooperative curators have allowed us to rethink our relationship with our ancestors, to reaffirm our shared values, to learn more about the archaeological record, and basically to ask ourselves: What are the most important spiritual traditions that we need to keep alive?” (Hill Sr. 2006)

The Native American Grave Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) and illicit trafficking

Finally, another crucial issue NAGPRA deals with is the illegal trafficking in American Indian cultural patrimony and human remains. The law prohibits selling, purchasing, using for profit, or transporting for sale or profit human remains of a Native American, and/or Native American cultural items obtained without the voluntary consent of an individual or group that had authority of alienation on such objects. Specifically about human remains and associated funerary objects the meaning is obtained without full knowledge and consent of the next of kin or the official governing body of the appropriate culturally affiliated Indian tribe. Penalties for breaking these provisions include fines of up to $100,000 and/or one year of imprisonment, and in case of subsequent violation five years.

One of the first judicial cases in which NAGPRA was applied is the 1996 trial against Richard Corrow a dealer in Native American Art based in Scottsdale, Arizona, whose hearing and conviction have already become a typical case-law. In brief, Corrow was charged and sentenced for trafficking in Native American cultural items having tried to sell twenty-two Navajo ceremonial masks, or Yei B’Chei (considered among the most sacred items of Navajo religious practice) to an undercover federal agent. In his defense and then in appealing the sentence, Corrow – supported by theAntique Tribal Art Dealers Association challenged the constitutionality of NAGPRA critical definition of “cultural patrimony” by reason of its vagueness which, according to his argument, misleads the unwary because of its multiple meanings. The prosecution proved the accuracy of the definition and its applicability to the Navajo ceremonial masks; therefore Corrow was sentenced to two concurrent five-year probationary terms and one hundred hours of community service. In a similar case, in 1998 the owner of a well-known shop of natural history collectibles in New York City was convicted for selling American Indian human remains of Seminole and Peoria ancestry in violation of NAGPRA, and sentenced to one year imprisonment, and pay for the expenses of sending the human remains back to their tribes for reburial.

These instances, in addition to their significance as legal precedent, testify exhaustively about the strong demand for these artifacts both in the legal and illicit market, where the borderline in between is often very faint. Current auction prices start  at 14,000 dollars for a 19th century Hopi Kachina doll; 4,500 for a small Anasazi (Ancestral Puebloan) black-on-white earthen jar; 30,000 for  a mid-19 th century Chilkat ceremonial dance blanket; 20,000 for a prehistoric zoomorphic dagger, and so forth. On the other hand, in the illegal market prices can reach million of dollars, as in the case of the eagle-feathered headdress worn by Apache spiritual leaderGoyathlay (Geronimo, c. 1829-1909) that was put on sale in 1999 for 1.2 million dollars (recovered by an undercover federal agent). And we must not forget the constant, less sensational, nevertheless profoundly destructive activity of pothunters and looters, who also supply the demand of minor collectors for pottery, potsherds, stone knives, beads, bone tools, arrow points: “Many looters do not limit themselves to small tools that can be carried in a backpack but will use backhoes and other heavy equipment to completely devastate an area. The looters remove all the valuable and sellable items out of the ground and then simply bulldoze over the entire area. Once this type of destruction has happened, it is impossible to ever know the historical and archaeological context of the site, and that information is lost for ever”. This testimony given by John Fryar, enrolled member of the Pueblo of Acoma, New Mexico, and criminal investigator for the U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Indian Affaires (BIA), before the U.S. Sentencing Commission on February 26, 2002 confirms how irreparable the loss of information about the context of an artifact is, and how it steals the right to knowledge from all of us.

Since its passage on November 16, 1990 the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, beyond its legal requirements, has profoundly influenced, and in many cases radically changed, the way museums acquire, preserve, interpret and display Native People’s cultural heritage, not only in a specific country, the United States of America, but all over the world. Key-concepts like consultation and collaboration, clearly stated in the provisions of the law, have become internationally shared practices involving Native communities, scholars, and museum professionals together. All that has contributed to challenge the no more univocal definition of cultural patrimony and cultural identity, consequently their mutual relationship in a world scenario that constantly renegotiate their meanings and boundaries.

Epilogue

In 1987 acclaimed Luiseño artist James Luna presented his seminal work The Artifact Piece at the San Diego Museum of Man’s Hallof Kumeyaay Indians. Lying motionless for hours on a bed of sand inside a glass display case, surrounded by personal items and ceremonial objects from the Luiseño reservation, arranged and labeled as in the other exhibits of arrowheads or pottery around him, Luna’s purpose was to challenge the way museums represent and display Native people and cultural objects. Later, he said that what kept him going was the awareness that at the end of those hours, he could get up and leave; the Kumeyaay Indians represented in the objects around him could not. He was wrong.

References

Heye, George G., and George H. Pepper, 1915. Exploration of a Munsee Cemetery near Montague, New Jersey, New York: The Museum of the American Indian, Heye Foundation

Miller, Darlis A., 2007. Matilda Coxe Stevenson: Pioneering Anthropologist, Norman: University of Oklahoma Press: 37

Bolz, Peter, and Sanner Hans- Ulrich, 2000. Native American Art: The Collections of the Ethnological Museum Berlin, Seattle: University of Washington Press, 109-113

Nordenskiöld, Gustaf, 1893. The Cliff Dwellers of the Mesa Verde, Southwestern Colorado. Their pottery and Implements, Chicago: P.A. Norstedt & Soner

Jacknis, Ira, 2008. A New Thing? The National Museum of the American Indian in Historical and Institutional Perspective. The National Museum of the American Indian: Critical Conversations, Ed. A.J. Cobb and A. Lonetree, Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press: 7

Thomas, David H., 2008. American Archaeology in the Twenty-First Century: Back to the Future? Opening Archaeology: Repatriation’s Impact on Contemporary Research and Practice, Ed. Thomas W. Killion, Santa Fe: School for Advanced Research Press: 57

Hill, Richard W., Sr., 2006. Making a Final Resting Place Final: A History of the Repatriation Experience of the Haudenosaunee.Cross-Cultural Collaboration: Native People and Archaeology in the Northeastern United States, Ed. Jordan E. Kerber, Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press: 4

Firestone, David, 1988. Rescue in Manhattan: A Zuni God goes Home, Newsday- Long Island, May 27

Merrill, William L., Edmund J. Ladd, and T.J. Ferguson, 1993. The Return of the Ahayu:da: Lessons for Repatriation from Zuni Pueblo and the Smithsonian Institution, Current Anthropology, 34 (5): 523-67

Loring, Stephen, 2008. The Wind Blows Everything off the Ground: New Provisions and New Directions in Archaeological Research in the North. Opening Archaeology: Repatriation’s Impact on Contemporary Research and Practice, Ed. Thomas W. Killion, Santa Fe: School for Advanced Research Press: 183

Killion, Thomas W., 2008. View from the Trenches. Opening Archaeology: Repatriation’s Impact on Contemporary Research and Practice, Santa Fe: School for Advanced Research Press: 137

Ancient coins are among the most widely collected and demanded objects among American collectors of antiquities. A vocal lobby of ancient coin dealers/collectors has arisen to protect the importation of undocumented material into the United States and also seeks to make a distinction between antiquities trafficking and that in ancient coins. Coins are an equally important historical source and are no less important ‘antiquities’ than a Greek painted vase. I examine the scale of the trade in ancient coins in North America and address some points made by proponents of a continued unfettered ancient coin trade.

An overview of ancient coin collecting

The collecting of ancient coins as an avocation has existed since at least the Renaissance, an outgrowth of the antiquarian movement that originated withPetrarch (1304-74). However, the ancients also collected and exchanged coins for reasons that had nothing to do with commerce. For example, the Roman Emperor, Caesar Augustus (63 BC – AD 14), was known to have collected coins, which he acquired and dispensed at festivals (Suet, Aug. 75). This form of collecting surely existed centuries earlier, perhaps even since the invention of coinage.

Michael Setboun

Figure 1. Gold ‘medallion’ (double daric) possibly struck during the lifetime of Alexander the Great. Obverse (‘heads’) shows Alexander wearing elephant headress; Reverse (‘tails’) shows an Indian elephant.
Note: Since this unique piece entered the market without documented context, it is impossible to secure its authenticity.

The issuance of the first coin-like objects that were minted in limited edition, not as coinage, but as medallions or commemoratives to commemorate some historic event, publicize a ruler’s self-proclaimed divinity or omnipotence is evidence that medallions and commemorative pieces, like coins, were visually examined by ancient people and perhaps even kept as mementos or keepsakes. The honored few who received such items during ancient times, such as the gold ‘medallion’ (double daric) likely issued during Alexander the Great’s lifetime, commemorating a military campaign, would likely have kept them as evidence of their social rank and treated them as a collectibles or heirlooms rather than a medium of exchange (figure 1). Such medallions and commemoratives were minted during Hellenistic times and well into the Roman period, when their production increased significantly.

The fact that Augustus and others chose to collect coins and coin-like objects is evidence that other Roman nobles may have done likewise. Apparently, coin collecting may also have extended far down the social ladder. An observation by Pliny the Elder (c. AD 23-79)—that some people would pay more for silver coins of Mark Anthony, struck a half century earlier, because they had been debased with iron and were thus a curiosity (Pliny, NH 33.46) — suggests not only a widespread fascination with coins during Roman times, but also the existence of a marketplace in which coins could be analyzed and traded.
Today, with the increased employment of scientific techniques and interdisciplinary approaches in all academic disciplines, numismatics is more important than ever for our understanding of the ancient world. However, outdated techniques and approaches to an increasingly useful and scientific discipline, coupled with an overwhelming increase in demand for ancient coins, are causing problems for both archaeology and the serious study of coins alike.

Because it evokes an immediate and close connection to the ancient past, one that we can literally hold in our hand, the collecting of ancient coins has become an almost addictive pastime for many people today. For example, many collectors like to think of their coins in their original context, wondering, “Who might have held them?” “What might they have once been used to purchase?” and “What historical events might they have been witness to?” “If only the faces on those old coins could speak!”

Such romantic notions also captivated me and, after purchasing my first ancient coin for $1.75 in the mid 1990′s when I was 13 or 14 years of age, I fell in love with the history and ideology celebrated by various designs on Roman coins. For me, ancient coin collecting sparked an insatiable desire to learn as much as possible about the Roman world; thus, I began studying archaeology at college after graduating high school in 1999 and continued to collect coins occasionally as student finances allowed. Yet after beginning my doctoral studies in 2003 and after having discussions with some prominent scholars and numismatists (coin specialists) at theAmerican Numismatic Society Graduate Seminar in 2004, I began to re-evaluate the ethics of ancient coin collecting. I became aware of the irrevocable destruction of information caused by systematic looting at historical sites in search of ancient coins to sell on the market.

Upon being confronted with the reality of the situation, I reflected on my past participation in the trade and soon came to the conclusion that my passion for the ancient world lay not in the object itself and its acquisition, but rather in the historical information about our common cultural heritage that these coins can relate—information that is lost when a looted coin is ripped from its context. Therefore, for approximately three years, I have not purchased any ancient coin that does not have verifiable documentation attesting its existence in a collection in or before 1973, according to theAmerican Journal of Archaeology ethical guidelines, which follows the 1970 and 1972 United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) Conventions. I am not alone in my views. Many scholarly numismatists of the present generation do not collect, or no longer collect, ancient coins because of similar concerns. My personal decision essentially translated into a moratorium on my collecting habits, given the fact that coins from old collections or other verifiable provenance are difficult to find and command a premium on the market. Why is this the case?

Market snapshot

In 1993, it was estimated that 80% of all ancient coins openly sold on the market had been dug up within the past 30 years (McFadden 1993; see also discussion in Beckmann 1998: 25). Now, I suspect the percentage is even higher given that the supply of ancient coins on the market surged during the 1990s, particularly from Eastern Europe after the fall of the Iron Curtain. In addition, the increasing use of the Internet for commercial activities has allowed dealers and collectors to network as never before and made auctions and dealer inventories easily accessible to a global audience, thus fueling a growth in demand (that has outstripped the supply of previously documented and provenanced antiquities, including coins, prompting the search for fresh sources (Chippindale and Gill 2001; Elia 2001; von Kaenel 2004: 152-154).

Figure 2. Screen shot of the coin dealer from Germany

To illustrate the scale of the traffic in undocumented ancient coins, it may be helpful for us to consider a few statistics. As one prominent scholar and numismatist recently reported, a single seller on eBay (the German site) recently claimed to have sold more than 170,000 ancient coins from Serbia, which the seller alleged were taken from in and around Viminacium. These coins were sold in the approximately 2.5 years since the seller became a member on the site in November 2004 (von Kaenel 2007; figure 2). A quick look at this individual’s feedback record indicates most of his customers are North American.
Several auction houses and ancient coin dealers host auctions each year in the United States and dozens more in other parts of the world. One of the largest auction houses in the United States, Classical Numismatic Group (CNG), hosts three printed auctions per year and regular bi-weekly electronic auctions on its web site. Each January, CNG holds its largest sale of the year, known as the ‘Triton Sale’. In the latest Triton Sale, Triton X, some 19,087 ancient coins were sold, the vast majority having no reference to any previous collection (see figure 3).

Figure 3. Level of documentation for coins from the CNG Triton X Sale (8 Jan. 2007). Coins dating beyond c. AD 1200 were excluded; the vast majority of coins included were Greek or Roman. Individual lots 1-904 and bulk lots 1480-1645 comprised the data sample. Some medieval and world coins comprised other lots, but were largely excluded for simplicity and clarity of argument. The coins that commanded the highest premiums were ancient.

The value of the total lots sold (94%) resulted in a cumulative hammer price of $5,963,565. CNG’s normal autumn sale, prior to the Triton X sale, realized a hammer price of $1,325,917. By my count, only 32 of the 19,087 ancient coins in the latest Triton sale were sold referencing a pedigree pre-dating 1973, while others referenced only the names of modern collectors or more recent auction references. Approximately 80% of the lots provided no previous record at all.

In addition to auction houses, dozens of ancient coin and antiquities dealers operate in North America. For example, on VCoins, a web site developed to compete with eBay, 109 ancient coin dealers are actively selling coins (all VCoins data checked 22 June 2007). Eighty-one of the 109 dealers on VCoins are located in the U.S. and Canada, with 17 of the total selling bulk lots of ancient coins, and 48 selling other antiquities as well. According to the VCoins homepage, approximately 73,000 lots are being offered for sale, but it is unclear whether or not this includes the inventory of ‘sold coins’ that some dealers show. The 73,000 lots also include books and supplies, but factoring these out the figure drops to about 69,000 lots. However, when figuring in bulk lots of ancient coins, the number rises to approximately 75,000 coin-lots and has the potential to increase substantially when considering that many of the bulk lots advertise a price per coin with no disclosure of how many are actually available. According to the VCoins homepage, the total market value of the lots available for sale is approximately $14.5 million.

Between June 4 and July 2, 2007, I tracked listings in the Ancient Coins section of eBay (the U.S. site) and found that, on average, approximately 5,000 to 5,300 lots of ancient coins are sold per week. A number of dealers sell bulk lots of uncleaned ancient coins fresh from the ground (e.g. bags of 1000, 100, or priced per piece), often indicating that such coins were ” excavated ” in Eastern Europe— especially the Balkan countries. If one assumes that this one-month period reflects trends throughout the year, one may conclude that between approximately 260,000 and 280,000 coins are sold each year on the eBay-U.S. web site, not counting bulk lots. These rough numbers indicate the large-scale importation of ancient coins from the Old World and the potential movement of between half a million to a million coins sold in the North American marketplace annually, taking no account of local coin dealers who sell ancient coins in various cities and towns throughout the country. The trafficking in undocumented coins is clearly a multi-million dollar industry in the U.S. and Canada alone.

A coin’s journey to the North American marketplace

How does material enter the U.S.? Although the prospecting for antiquities (including coins) and the exportation of such objects without a permit is illegal in many countries, the U.S. has only adopted import restrictions on ancient coins with Cyprus, while the prohibition on import of coins from Iraq is based on the general sanctions against importation of illegally removed cultural materials from Iraq. This means that once a group of coins is illegally robbed from an archaeological site or its material context and smuggled from the country of origin, it is openly and easily sold on the American market in most cases since the origin of coins, which could travel widely in the ancient world, can be difficult to trace once divorced from their original find spot. The illicit excavation of ancient coins does not differ from the systematic looting of other antiquities, and some good investigative work has demonstrated the way ancient coins from Israel, for example, are most often procured and then ‘legally’ exported by falsifying pedigrees (see Kersel 2006: esp. 194-198). It has been reported that at least one coin dealer has suggested avoidance of honest provenance-reporting on eBay auctions in order to avoid suspicion regarding illicit imports from Cyprus (see David Gill’s blog entry “Coins, eBay and the ‘Coin Lobby’”)
Clearly, there is systematic looting for ancient coins in places like the Balkans as well. One documented case reports the seizure of 60 kg of ancient coins (19,860 specimens) at the Frankfurt airport that had been smuggled from Bulgaria (Dietrich 2002; von Kaenel 2004: 154-156). The shipment was bound for the United States and the individual shipping them had previously been arrested multiple times for antiquities smuggling and was associated with high-ranking politicians. For jurisdictional reasons, the coins were transferred to Munich where they were released by the Prosecutor’s Office and have presumably reached the United States for commercial profit.

Customs officials in Frankfurt continued to investigate the shipment and determined that this was one of several which had passed through Frankfurt to the U.S. They also estimated about one ton of ancient coins (c. 340,000) from Bulgaria had been shipped to the U.S. by this single individual, presumably spoiling dozens of archaeological and historical sites in the search for them. This was not an isolated incident; a similar shipment from Eastern Europe was seized on the German-Austrian border in 1999 (Szemethy 1999a; 1999b; 2000). Despite the increasing awareness of the general public and the professional community about looting and cultural property issues, the trade in undocumented ancient coins continues to grow and remains a serious problem for those wishing to preserve valuable information about the past and protect our common cultural heritage.

Coins in context

Figure 4. Clandestine vs. archaeological excavation. Chart by Nathan Elkins, translated and modified from Fasold, Stutzinger, and von Kaenel 1995: 26

When an historic or archaeological site is prospected by metal detectorists and dug up, the stratigraphy (the various layers of occupation that archaeologists study when excavating an archaeological site) is disturbed. As a result, one of the most reliable means to date various occupation levels is removed, and potential study of the economic conditions and demographics of the site are forever destroyed. The ancient coin dealer lobby in the U.S., the Ancient Coin Collectors Guild (ACCG) has become increasingly organized and influential amongst certain groups in recent years. The lobby frequently argues that archaeologists only care about coins for the dates they provide and then allow them to disintegrate in improper storage conditions. This, however, is a gross misconception and an exaggeration: although one may cite a few isolated incidents from the past, this hardly represents the standard in modern archaeology. It is true that coin finds are not always given the thorough treatment they deserve by excavators and are not always properly published; nevertheless, treatment of coins by archaeologists is not as grim as the lobby portrays and the study of coins in archaeological contexts has improved over the past few decades and continues to do so. In any case, does the simple fact that a few archaeologists have not published their coin finds in a timely manner excuse plunder?
When coins are found in situ, their exact find spots and archaeological contexts are recorded and the coin is stored in a warehouse or museum where it can be properly conserved and studied (see figure 4). Some specimens will enter museum collections where they are made available for the public and results are published, either with the excavation report or separately. In Israel, for example, artifacts are housed at the Israeli Antiquities Authority, which employs numismatists to study numismatic finds. On the other hand, coin collectors and dealers frequently store ancient coins in flips (plastic holders) which are made of PVC (a chemical that can harm coins) or in rigid PVC-free flips that can wear down the details of a coin. Some collectors carry ancient coins in their pockets as ‘good luck charms’ and others make ancient coins into jewelry (ShopNBCadvertises ancient coin jewelry on its network and other specimens can be found on eBay and VCoins).

Some dealers and collectors even tool or rework details of a coin to make it more visually appealing. A search on the Internet will also reveal a number of different cleaning methods used by dealers and collectors to clean coins, many of them potentially harsh and harmful to the coins. Indeed, one may find some instances in which archaeologists have mistreated objects from archaeological sites (especially in archaeology’s earlier days), but the notion that collectors and dealers generally treat ancient objects with greater care than trained professionals is a highly specious and debatable claim, which only detracts from the core issue: the value of ancient coins for scientific inquiry and the impact of the trade on it.

The notion that, once a date is obtained from a coin, it is disregarded by professionals is also completely erroneous. In recent decades, all fields of ancient studies (history, archaeology, etc.) have become increasingly interdisciplinary and must take account of developing approaches in other fields. Numismatics is a field that also incorporates such interdisciplinary approaches and relies on archaeological contexts for valuable information (see, for example, Finley 1975: 87-100; Howgego 1995, xi-xii; Sheedy and Papageorgiadou-Banis 1997; Rotroff 1997; Walker 1997). In addition to dates, coins in archaeological contexts provide information about human activities, the growth and contraction of settlements through time, and also the economy of the period (for general information, see the AIA’s new page on coins and archaeology).

Since 1960, the Frankfurt School has been producing volumes for the series Fundmünzen der römischen Zeit in Deutschland (FMRD—’Coin finds from the Roman period in Germany’) which catalogues coin finds from hoards and sites throughout Germany; similar initiatives have begun in other European countries. These are valuable catalogues for scholars wishing to study the ancient economies and circulation patterns. The Fundmünzen der Antike group also sponsors an important monograph series, Studien zu Fundmünzen der Antike (SFMA —’Studies on Coin Finds from Antiquity’), which publishes extended analyses directly relating to coins in archaeological contexts; monographs can be published in English, French, German, or Italian. The study of coins in archaeological contexts provide unique insights that undocumented and looted coins cannot offer, including the study of ritual (for example, Haselgrove and Wigg-Wolf 2007; Creighton 2000), special supplies of coin types sent to certain groups to disseminate imperial ‘propaganda’ (for example, Kemmers 2005; 2006a: 219-244), and various economic studies at site-specific and regional levels (for example, Kemmers 2006b; Peter 2001; von Kaenel 1999). The archaeological and scholarly numismatic world realizes that there is greater application for the study of coin finds in context than just dates.

Common misconceptions

It is often asserted that ‘collectible’ coins sold on the market come from hoards found by metal detectorists in the middle of fields away from any sort of proper historical or archaeological site (for example, Tompa 1998: 73-75; Tompa and Brose 2005: 205, 207-210), sometimes with the reasoning that most coins were buried by Roman soldiers before battles. One great flaw in this reasoning, however, is that many other types of ancient coins are sold on the market in addition to Roman coins! Additionally, it is clear that coin hoards are not only found in the middle of fields devoid of associated archaeological remains, but can comprise a large percentage of coin finds from archaeological sites. At the Magdalensberg, for example, approximately 38% of coins were found in hoards at the site (FMRÖ 2.1; and forthcoming unpublished research by S. Krmnicek). In western Germany, one can also see how common hoards are in places such as Cologne (Köln), Trier, and Mainz, where hoards can make up significant percentages of coin finds in ancient settlements (refer to the appropriate volumes of FMRD).

The argument also defies logic since someone looking for coins to sell for profit (rather than a weekend hobbyist) would naturally begin looking in a known area of habitation rather than empty fields; furthermore, it is well documented that many sites have been spoiled by metal detectorists looking for ancient coins and other metal objects. For example, after the publication of some Iron Age coin finds from Roseldorf, Austria, (Dembski 1991), metal detectorists flocked to the site and robbed it of coins, causing significant damage in the quest for their own personal profit and greed (Dembski 1994; 1995). When Frankfurt University began excavating at Groß-Gerau, a site near Frankfurt, Germany, they were perplexed by the lack of coin finds until they determined the site had already been robbed of coins by a local metal detectorist (per discussions with individuals at Frankfurt University).

Nathan Elkins

Figure 5. Bronze coin Constantine the Great, from Yotvata (L3a, B135), RIC VII (Siscia) 55

At Burghöfe, Germany, two metal detectorists leisurely despoiled the site of approximately 5,000 coins and 3,000 other metal objects over the course of ten years (Keller 1992; von Kaenel 1994: 7; 1995: 218). Carnuntum, in modern Austria, is also frequented by looters and causes significant problems with the study of the coin finds (Alram and Schmidt-Dick 2007: 64). It is often asserted that ‘collectible’ coins only come from hoards, where they are better preserved (Tompa 1998: 73-75; Tompa and Brose 2005: 205, 207-210). Single finds of excavated coins can be just as well-preserved or ‘collectible’ as hoard coins, contrary to the arguments of the lobby. For example, at Yotvata, Israel —a Late Roman site with a particularly corrosive soil—a large number of the single finds are rather well preserved (see for example figure 5, publication of the coin finds from this site is forthcoming). In short, a collector or dealer who does not demand viable documentation has no notion regarding the origin or circumstances in which that coin was found. Most coins on the market are undoubtedly single finds from archaeological sites or from hoards ripped from their original contexts and associations.

Those who argue that proper archaeological sites do not produce large numbers of coins are simply unfamiliar with the scholarly literature. Many large hoards and thousands of single finds can be found at sites of varying sizes. Familiarization with the FMRD volumes and similar publications will show that coin finds frequently are found in great numbers at civilian and military sites alike, as the numbers from Burghöfe illustrate. The idea that large hoards, devoid of any archaeological context associated with settlement-remains, satisfy collector and dealer demand is a fallacy; in fact, the selling practices of many coin dealers betray this notion. For example, when looking at bulk lots of coins on eBay and VCoins, one can read in the descriptions various disclaimers that there may be a mixture of Greek, Roman, Islamic, Medieval, or even modern coins in the lots; clearly, these are not the contents of an ancient hoard, but rather the accumulation of coins robbed from multiple archaeological sites with different periods and ranges of occupation.

Ethics and ancient coin collecting

Nathan Elkins

Bronze Coin of Cronstantine the Great (L3b, B33), RIC VII (Lugdunum) 53

The vocal ancient coin dealer lobby has arisen to protect its interests in the importation of ancient material, the vast majority of which has no documentation and may well have been procured through suspect means. Thus far, few academic numismatists have commented on the trade, perhaps, in part, because there are a number of numismatists that come from the old scholar-collector tradition. Nevertheless, the number of numismatists who are more sensitive to contextual study is growing and scholars have recognized that ancient objects are more than aesthetic objects: in a recorded context they are invaluable historical sources.

The professional community and the public at large cannot continue to remain silent about these issues. The search for coins to fuel market demand contributes to the destruction of valuable information for serious numismatic research and archaeology. When an object is looted and removed from its context (without proper documentation and recording), it also robs the world of cultural heritage and information about our past that we might otherwise be inheritors to, and that heritage and information is lost forever. We cannot think that ancient coins are less significant than Greek vases—when looted, both are forever divorced from their historical and archaeological contexts and irrecoverable information is lost when the site from which they came is vandalized. The relative abundance of ancient coins to Greek vases, for example, is irrelevant.

Although ancient coin collecting has a long historical precedent, not all practices accepted in humanity’s past are still considered ‘ethical’ today. For example, the ivory trade, which also had millennia of precedence, once flourished until the African elephant became increasingly endangered; only after laws were passed to protect the elephants did it become widely accepted that the ivory trade was unethical. Like the African elephant, our common cultural heritage is an endangered species.

Already, some ancient coin collectors and dealers are complaining about rising prices on Internet discussion groups. These price increases may be a result of the already dwindling supplies from Eastern Europe or could be attributed to the price-control practices routinely exercised in the antiquities market (Watson and Todeschini 2006; Mason 2005). All of the wonder that holding or seeing an ancient coin evokes: “Who once held it? What was it used for? Where was it used?” is information that only contextual study can hope to provide any meaningful answer to, but this is erased when a coin is looted and enters the market devoid of context. Although appearing on the market in large quantities, ancient coins are a finite resource and each one that is ripped from an archaeological site and its original context, without a record, forever lessens our ability to understand the world of our forbearers.

Nathan Elkins

Bronze coin of Maximian (L2065, B20760), RIC V.2 (Max. Herc.) 607

For those seeking to preserve cultural heritage and information about our past, the trade in illicitly excavated and exported ancient coins is perhaps one of the greatest threats to cultural heritage since ancient coins are the most widely collected ancient objects. Perhaps it may be possible for scientific inquiry and private collecting to coexist, but at present it is clear there is very little self-regulation occurring in the ancient coin trade and this is causing significant damage for mere self-interest. Legislation alone will, likely, do little to curb the trade and protect sites without more stringent enforcement in importing or source countries (countries from which antiquities are taken). Public education and dialogue are the only ways to begin addressing these problems. Coin collectors share with us a great passion for the ancient world; these collectors are the ones we should seek to educate about the issues, as these are the people who can force dealers to change the ways they import material by refusing to buy undocumented coins. Many collectors have expertise in identifying ancient coins. It may be useful to encourage these people to volunteer as staff numismatists at archaeological sites so they can see where ancient coins really come from and better understand the type of information that comes to light when they are found in context. It would also allow the collector to participate in the thrill of discovery rather than buying bulk lots of coins by the pound or an undocumented coin for their cabinet. Such a prospect, I believe, would be beneficial to both sides, especially since many scholarly numismatists are overburdened with material, and more numismatists are needed to process coin finds in the field.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS:

I am grateful to Prof. Dr. Hans-Markus von Kaenel (Frankfurt) for his comments on a draft of this paper, his encouraging comments, and our many discussions about these issues. Dr. David Wigg-Wolf and Stefan Krmnicek (Frankfurt) also improved this paper with their apt observations and their willingness to provide honest commentary. Rebekka Senart-Garcia and Bobby Mann graciously edited and commented on drafts of this paper for online publication. All views expressed in this paper are my own. Any inadvertent errors herein are my own responsibility. I am currently preparing a more substantial study of these issues for printed publication; that study will also include a discussion of possible solutions to the problem and opportunities for dialogue between polarized factions.
Return to the top

References

Dembski, G., 1994. Überlegungen zu einigen Neufunden von Keltenmünzen aus Niederösterreich. MÖNG, 34.4: 61-73.

Howgego, C., 1995. Ancient History from Coins, London and New York: Routledge.

Creighton, J., 2000. Coins and Power in Iron Age Britain, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Haselgrove, C. and D. Wigg-Wolf (eds.), 2005. Iron Age Coinage and Ritual Practices, Mainz: von Zabern, SFMA 20.

Sheedy, K.A. and Ch. Papageorgiadou-Banis (eds.), 1997. Numismatic Archaeology, Archaeological Numismatics, Oxford: Australian Institute at Athens, Oxbow Monograph 75.

Mason, C., 2005. The Art of the Steal: Inside the Sotheby’s-Christie’s Auction House Scandal, Rutherford: Putnam.

Watson, P. and Todeschini, C., 2006. The Medici Conspiracy:The Illicit Journey of Antiquities – from Italy’s Tomb Raiders to the World’s Greatest Museums, New York: Public Affairs.

Finley, M.I., 1975. The Use and Abuse of History, New York: Viking Press.

Peter, M., 2001. Untersuchungen zu den Fundmünzen aus Augst und Kaiseraugst, Berlin: Gebr. Mann Verlag, SFMA 17.

Kemmers, F., 2005. Not at Random: Evidence for a Regionalised Coin Supply? in J. Bruhn, B. Croxford, and D. Grigoropoulos (eds.), Proceedings of the Fourteenth Annual Theoretical Roman Archaeology Conference, which took place at the University of Durham, 26-27 March 2004. Oxford: Oxbow Books.

Tompa, P.K. and A.M. Brose., 2005. A Modern Challenge to an Age-Old Pursuit: Can Cultural Patrimony Claims and Coin Collecting Coexist? in K.F. Gibbon, ed., Cultural Policy, Cultural Property, and the Law., New Brunswick and London: Rutgers University Press: 205-216.

Tompa, P.K., 1998. Ancient Coins as Cultural Property: A Cause for Concern?, Journal of International Legal Studies, 4.1: 69-104.

Elia, R.J., 2001. Attuali sviluppi nella valutazione del possesso di beni culturali negli Stati Uniti. La circolazione illecita delle opera d’arte, Principio della buona fede, Rome: Bollettino di Numismatica suppl. 36. 47-57. (text in English and Italian)

Kemmers, F., 2006. Coin Circulation in the Lower Rhine Area: Deliberate Policy or Laissez-Faire? in C. Gaiu and C. G?zdac (eds.), Fontes Historiae: Studia in Honorem Demetrii Protase, Bistri?a and Cluj-Napoca: Editura Accent: 735-742.

Rotroff, S. I., 1997. Coins and Stratigraphy, in K.A. Sheedy and Ch. Papageorgiadou-Banis (eds.), Numismatic Archaeology, Archaeological Numismatics, Oxford: Australian Institute at Athens, Oxbow Monograph 75: 8-16.

Kemmers, F., 2006. Coins for a Legion: An Analysis of the Coin Finds from the Augustan Legionary Fortress and Flavian Canabae Legionis at Nijmegen, Mainz: von Zabern, SFMA 21.

Dietrich, R., 2002. Cultural Property on the Move – Legally, Illegally.International Journal of Cultural Property, 11.2: 294-304.

von Kaenel, H.-M., 1994. Die antike Numismatik und ihr Material.SchMbll, 44.173: 1-12.

FMRÖ 2.1 = Bannert, H. and G. Piccottini., 1972. Die Fundmünzen der römischen Zeit in Österreich, Kärnten 1: Die Fundmünzen vom Magdalensberg.
Archäologische Forschungen zu den Grabungen auf dem Magdalensberg2:
Klagenfurt: Kärntner Museumsschriften, 52.

Walker, A.S., 1997. Excavation Coins: the Use and Misuse of Numismatic Evidence in Archaeology, in K.A. Sheedy and Ch. Papageorgiadou-Banis (eds.), Numismatic Archaeology, Archaeological Numismatics, Oxford: Australian Institute at Athens, Oxbow Monograph 75: 17-26.

Szemethy, H., 2000. Frischer Erdgeruch, garantiert zwei Jahrtausende an Alter…, in M. Flasher (ed.), Bewahren als Problem. Schutz archäologischer Kulturgüter, Freiburg: Rombach Wissenschaften: 141-146.

Kersel, M.M., 2006. From the Ground to the Buyer: A Market Analysis of the Trade in Illegal Antiquities. in N. Brodie, M.M. Kersel, C. Luke, and K.W. Tubb (eds.) Archaeology, Cultural Heritage, and the Antiquities Trade, Gainesville: University Press of Florida: 188-205.

von Kaenel, H-M., 2007. Gauner, Gräber und Gelehrte. Antikenraub und Archäologie im Lichte der aktuelle Gesetzeslage, Paper read at the symposium, Gauner, Gräber und Gelehrte at the Johann Wolfgang Goethe Universität, 4 May, Frankfurt am Main.

von Kaenel, H.-M., 2004. Kritische Anmerkungen zu aktuellen Diskussionen in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland, in W.-D. Heilmeyer and J.C. Eule (eds.), Illegale Archäologie?, Berlin: Weißensee Verlag. 149-156.

von Kaenel, H-M., 1995. La numismatica antica e il suo materiale,Bollettino di Numismatica, 13.1: 213-223.

Dembski, G., 1991. Neue Keltenmünzen aus Niederösterreich. MÖNG, 33.1: 5-10.

McFadden, E.J., 1993. Numismatic News, Minerva 4/6,

Alram, M. and F. Schmidt-Dick (eds.), 2007. Numismatica Carnuntina.Forschungen und Material, Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften.

Beckmann, M., 1998. Numismatics and the Antiquities Trade. The Celator. Also available online:http://www.accg.us/issues/editorials/balance/beckman.pdf., (May): 25-28.

Chippindale, C. and D.W.J. Gill., 2001. Online Auctions: A New Venue for the Antiquities Market. Culture without Context 9. Also available online:http://www.mcdonald.cam.ac.uk/projects/iarc/culturewithoutcontext/issue9/ chippindale-gill.htm.,

Szemethy, H., 1999. Profis mit Metallsonden. Sichergestellte Münzen stamen aus Raubgrabungen. Salzburger Nachrichten, May 14: 4.

Keller, E., 1992. Raubgrabungen mit der Metallsonde—zur Situation in Bayern. Denkmalpflege Information, 97: 2-5

Fasold, P., D. Stutzinger, and H.-M. von Kaenel, 1995. Raubgrabungen zerstören archäologische Erbe. Begleitheft zur Ausstellung Fundort: Unbekannt – Raubgrabungen in Hessen., Wiesbaden: Archäologische Denkmäler in Hessen 127.

Szemethy, H., 1999. Schatz geschmuggelt. Archäologisch wertvolle Münzen in bugarischem Lkw. Salzburger Nachrichten, May 6: 4.

Dembski, G., 1995. Vorrömische und keltische Funde aus dem Nordöstlichen Niederösterreich. MÖNG, 35.4: 65-72.

von Kaenel, H.M., 1999. Zum Münzumlauf im augusteischen Rom anhand der Funde aus dem Tiber – mit einem Nachtrag zur geldgeschichtlichen Bedeutung der Münzfunde in Kalkriese, in W. Schlüter and R. Wiegels (eds.), Rom, Germanien, und die Ausgrabungen von Kalkriese. Internationaler Konress der Universität Osnabrück und des Landschaftsverbandes Osnabrücker Land e.V. vom 2 bis 5 September 1996. Osnabrück: Osnabrücker Forschungen zu Altertum und Antike Rezeption 1,

Abstract: The archaeological sites of Iraq, precious for their bearing on human history, became especially vulnerable to looters during two wars. Much of the looting evidence has been anecdotal up to now, but here satellite imagery has been employed to show which sites were looted and when. Sites of all sizes from late Uruk to early Islamic were targeted for their high value artifacts, particularly just before and after the 2003 invasion. The author comments that the “total area looted was many times greater than all the archaeological investigations ever conducted in southern Iraq and must have yielded tablets, coins, cylinder seals, statues, terracottas, bronzes and other objects in the hundreds of thousands.”

Introduction

As the birthplace of the world’s first cities and many aspects of complex society, present-day southern Iraq is commonly known as the “cradle of civilization”. The large number of archaeological sites and vast quantities of cuneiform tablets and artifacts discovered in this region offer a unique historical record of these early civilizations.

During most of the twentieth century, this vast archaeological heritage was relatively well protected. This situation changed, however, immediately after the first Gulf War (2 August 1990 – 28 February 1991) and during the subsequent economic embargo of Iraq, which ended foreign-sponsored archaeological work in southern Iraq and dramatically reduced funding and personnel of the Iraq Department of Antiquities, thus leaving all but a few Mesopotamian archaeological sites virtually unprotected.

During the 1990s, sporadic reports and evidence of site looting in the south reached archaeological community, but only began to receive greater attention outside the academic community following the invasion of Iraq during the spring of 2003. Three helicopter tours conducted between May 2003 and January 2004 of major sites such as Umma, Umm al-Aqarib, Isin, Tell Schmid, Bad Tibira, Zabalam, Abbas al-Kurdi and Mashkan-shapir confirmed that significant damage had occurred.

Separate visits in the Nasariyah area to sites such as Nippur, Larsa, Adab, and Umm el-Hafriyat revealed still more damage (Gibson 2003; Lawler 2003; Figure 1). Yet these site visits and accompanying photos, which circulated throughout the media left many questions unanswered. Was looting concentrated at the largest sites, or did looting occur at smaller sites as well? How did the pattern of looting relate to the population density across the region? Did looters target sites of particular date range in the hopes of discovering particular types of artifacts? Finally, what effect (if any) did the 2003 invasion and its aftermath have on the looting of archaeological sites in southern Iraq?

Answers to such questions are possible by analyzing data derived from high resolution commercial satellite images taken both before and after the 2003 invasion by the DigitalGlobe Corporation (DGC). For this study, data from more than 1,900 sites were analyzed to determine how their location, their size, and the date of their dominant surface assemblage correspond to the evidence of looting visible in the satellite photos. By comparing imagery of the same coordinates taken both before and after the March/April, 2003 invasion, limited data were developed with respect to the timeframes in which looting occurred. The study focused on the geographic area included within three archaeological surveys:

• the Robert McC. Adams survey of the Nippur area (Adams, 1981);
• the Henry Wright survey conducted in the vicinity of Eridu (Wright, 1981); and
• the Robert McC. Adams and Hans Nissen survey around Uruk (Adams, R. McC. & H.J. Nissen. 1972.)

This area was chosen for two reasons: (1) all of the sites with anecdotal reports of significant looting lay within this region; and (2) sixty-centimeter resolution Quickbird satellite images of this same area had already been captured by DGC. The majority of images used in this study were captured either immediately before the March/April, 2003 invasion or during the following summer. Images were captured only sporadically in 2002 and after 2004. All imagery used in this study was captured by DGC later than the spring of 2006; therefore, the latest image available for this study dates to early in 2006.

A total of 9,729 square kilometers of imagery was examined, within which 0.87 percent was occupied by known archaeological sites. The Adams (1981), Wright (1981) and Adams/Nissen (1972) surveys recorded data on 1,838 sites; 95.7 percent of these (i.e., 1,760 sites within the Nippur, Eridu and Uruk surveys) have been located within the DGC imagery and form the database for this study. More than one third of the 1,838 sites have been captured in multiple images taken at least one month apart. Only rarely does imagery for any one site date more than one year apart.

We also have imagery for part of the area surveyed by Abdel-Amir Hamdani, the archaeological inspector for Dhi Qar Governorate, adding another 189 sites to our database for a total of 1,949 sites. A small number of sites surveyed but not included in the final study were apparently destroyed by modern construction. Sites in the Eridu Basin, located beyond the range of DigitalGlobe’s coverage. are not included in this study.

Locating the sites and identifying looting

Analysis began by locating each site recorded in the Nippur, Eridu and Uruk surveys on the satellite photographs. Since the surveys took place before the existence of GPS, identification in the satellite photos was performed through visual analysis. Larger sites, identified by virtue of their size, shape and location relative to known landscape features, served as anchors for locating the smaller sites in their vicinity.

Sites located in the deep desert, imaged only during the summer of 2003, were sometimes obscured by blowing sand, making them difficult to pick out – unless, of course, they happen to have been looted. Some low sites had been ploughed over and some winter shots were obscured by clouds. Despite these challenges, at least 95 per cent of the published sites, were located in the satellite images. Those sites whose locations were not identified either lay within dune fields (with no visible evidence of looting) or lay in areas that has already been ploughed.

Analysis revealed that looting holes vary in their density, distribution and visual traces. Some sites had only a single hole, others had thousands of holes. At the smaller sites, the holes tended to vary in size and shape. At the larger sites, the holes were more regular. At certain sites, looting holes with sharp edges casting deep shadows suggested recent activity. At other sites, erosion had softened their edges and partially filled in the holes, suggesting that the holes were old.

The February 2003 and December 2003 images of Tell al-Uolwiyat in Dhi Qar province in Figure 2, for example, show evidence of fresh looting in the latter image, based on the sharp edges of the holes and the dark shadows within them. By contrast, many of the same holes seen in earlier imagery are difficult or impossible to make out in the August 2003 and September 2005 imagery, with only the largest holes still casting deep shadows. Both weather and light conditions varied from image to image. We therefore had to rely on a visual estimate when examining evidence of looting, taking into consideration the size of the site, the spacing of looting holes in different areas and their spatial distribution.

After our initial analysis, we digitized the margins of each site to arrive at an accurate size for each site, more accurate than the estimate available from survey publications. During this process we made new estimates of the amount of looting at each site and compared the revised estimated with those recorded earlier. Apart from those sites examined at the outset of the project (where corrections needed to be made), the two estimates were generally consistent. Any discrepancies were within 10 percent of each other. All such estimates were made by the author. It must be stressed that, given the source material, these estimates reflect only the surface area covered by looting holes, not their depth.

Measuring the circumference of a site was very easy in some instances. In other cases, in which the boundary of the site have been encroached upon by recent agriculture or fades into the surrounding landscape, we used the dimensions of the sites recorded in site survey publications as a guide. In certain instances, especially where looting is present, it became clear that some sites were actually larger than had been recorded at the time of the ground survey.

Accurate evaluations of site size made possible by satellite imagery allowed us to divide the sites into eight groups of site sizes, as seen in Table 1. An accurate record of site size could also be combined with the estimate of how much of the site had been looted to develop an estimate of the area of site surface destroyed for each looted site.

The date of each site’s last fluorescence, derived from the publications of the surveys, was used as a means of predicting the dominant surface deposit accessible to looters. Additional data from this aspect of the project are found in the published version of this study (Antiquity, op. cit.: 127-129).

Looting trends and modern population

Modern population density in southern Iraq peaks near the Tigris, Euphrates and Gharraf rivers. Most of the archaeological data analyzed in this study come from areas that were well-watered in antiquity but were mostly desert during the 1960s and 1970s, the exception being sites from the Dhi Qar survey, which are located well within the modern irrigated zone.

The most intensely looted sites, determined by the percentage of a given site in a given area covered by looting holes, are in the central part of our study area, as shown in Figure 3a. Consequently, the areas to the north, south, east and to a lesser extent west, the data show that fewer sites have suffered from looting and the degree of looting has been less severe.

Intense looting was found to be most common close to the boundaries between the settled area and the desert, a pattern seen even more clearly in the location of those sites with the most looted hectares, the large heavily looted sites shown in Figure 3b. It seems reasonable to conclude that those sites selected for intense activity were far enough away from modern settlement to allow looting to occur unmolested, yet were close enough to dense populations to attract a large labor force.

Archaeological periods targeted by the looters

A key question for this study is whether other factors, apart from site size and location, determined which sites would be looted in southern Iraq. Is the looting of archaeological sites in this area random, or are sites selected because they have accessible material from periods especially likely to yield marketable antiquities? Did the period of occupation at smaller sites affect the degree to which smaller sites were looted? To answer these questions, we looked only at the sites recorded in the Nippur, Uruk and Eridu survey areas where an assessment of the dominant surface assemblage can be made.

Temporal data for the Uruk and Nippur survey sites is provided in a consistent manner by Adams (1981). Wright (1981), however, used different criteria, with the result that he grouped some periods together which were distinguished by Adams. This results in an apparent absence of sites dating to Early Uruk, Middle Uruk, Achaemenid, Parthian, Middle and Late Islamic periods for the Eridu Basin. Lagash has been included in this analysis even though it was only visited during the Dhi Qar survey since the intense surface survey conducted by Elizabeth Carter, et al. (1989-90) allows us to date its predominant surface collection to the later Early Dynastic period.

Not unexpectedly, early sites dating to the Ubaid and the earlier Uruk periods, listed in Table 2 and Figure 4 [available in the published version of this study (Antiquity, op. cit.: 131)], which lack the cylinder seals, tablets, statuary, coins and other elaborate objects which seem to be of interest to collectors, show relatively low levels of looting. This begins to change at sites dating from the Late Uruk and Jemdet-Nasr periods, where the sites between 3 and 9 hectares (7.4 and 22.24 acres) in size received the greatest attention, along with sites dating to Early Dynastic I period. The intensity of looting increased even more at sites dating to the later Early Dynastic and especially Akkadian sites. All but one of the six sites with Akkadian surface material showed evidence for recent looting. But the value accorded to Akkadian artefacts is nothing new since many of these sites had already suffered the attention of looters as long as four decades ago (Adams 1981: 276, 284; Adams & Nissen 1972: 224).

Summarizing the data contained in the published version of this study, we found that the date of the surface assemblages of sites does indeed have a profound impact on their likelihood of being looted. Altogether, the data suggest that looters had considerable prior knowledge of the types of artifacts they would find at individual sites and exercised considerable selectivity in which sites would be targeted.

The chronology of looting

Of the 1,949 sites examined in this study, only 743 can be seen in more than one image. And of the 743 sites imaged on more than one occasion, only 213 were judged to have been looted, representing 26 percent of all looted sites identified in this study. Our attempt to understand the timeframe in which looting occurred was therefore based on a more limited sample than was available for the rest of the analysis presented here. Among the 213 sites used in this part of the research, some sites were imaged more than a month apart on as many as five separate times. We therefore have a total of 348 pairs of images taken at different times at individual sites.

As noted above, DGC Quickbird imagery provides sufficient detail to allow fresh looting to be distinguished from older activity on the basis of the sharpness of the sides of the holes. For the earliest image of each site we therefore recorded whether or not the site had been looted and, if so, whether these traces were old or recent. For subsequent images, we recorded any visible changes, again distinguishing between fresh and older looting. The imagery has sufficient clarity that it is possible to compare pairs of images hole by hole to determine whether any new activity had taken place. Where older holes were re-excavated, which has certainly been documented by journalists who have visited the sites (Joanne Farchakh-Bajjaly, personal communication), recent activity is often visible in the form of freshly dug earth which is darker than the rest of the surface of the site.

Our data indicate that the mass of small to medium sized sites in this 243-site sample, which lay unguarded in the countryside, were treated differently from the large, well-known sites, all of which had site guards, some more effective than others.

The many small and medium sized sites in our 243-site sample show evidence of intense looting immediately before the war, suggesting that the threat of hostilities, and presumably the mistaken expectation of increased security thereafter, stimulated an unprecedented level of activity. A subset of this group, 114 looted sites, had been imaged by DigitalGlobe multiple times and were imaged in February 2003. Eighty-five per cent of these 114 small to medium sized sites showed evidence of fresh looting. In the immediate post-war period, by contrast, most of these sites show little change and the holes that were visible in the earlier imagery have been eroded. Yet by the summer of 2003, looting patterns at these particular sites appeared to resume in a more focused way.

Among this sample — consisting of 114 smaller sites that had been imaged by DGC multiple times, including immediately before the March/April 2003 invasion – it appears that as the summer of 2003 progressed, looting resumed at approximately one-third of these sites, all of which had been attacked before the war. Some sites within this subset show evidence for intense looting during the autumn of 2003, but this seems to have died down again later. The rare instances in which we have multiple images of looted sites beginning by early 2003 and continuing into 2004-2006 within this subset suggest that there was little looting at these smaller sites during the last part of our time sample (2004-06). It should be noted, however, that most of our imagery from the 2004-06 timeframe comes from Dhi Qar province, which is the one place where extensive efforts to limit the looting were conducted by the Italian Carabinieri.

These observations do not apply to the major sites, where we can bring to bear resources other than DGC imagery. Many of these sites were pictured between 2000 and 2001 in archaeological site protection planning maps provided by the Coalition Provisional Authority, Ministry of Culture, and featured in the helicopter photographs taken by John Russell and the Italian Carabinieri between the autumn of 2003 and January 2004. The major sites fall into three categories: (1) those that had been excavated for decades by foreign archaeologists; (2) those left unattended except for a few site guards; and (3) those excavated year round between 1999 and 2002 for their protection. In the latter instance, the Department of Antiquities sent permanent teams to work at some of those sites most badly looted (e.g., Umma) during the embargo period, on the theory that the presence of archaeologists at sites not only discourages looters but also provides legitimate employment for the local workforce.

It is perhaps not surprising that among the major sites excavated by foreign expeditions, Nippur and Uruk were spared the pre- and post-invasion looting, because of their long history of employing local residents. Only minor damage was found at Nippur and no damage at all at Uruk. By contrast, Larsa, a site excavated for decades by the French but whose guard had been murdered during the 1991 uprising, was very badly damaged, as shown in Figure 1. The eastern half of this ancient city was bulldozed, and when theNational Geographic group visited the site by helicopter in May 2003, there was ample evidence of recent looting on the western half of the site (Lawler 2003). No other site in our sample has anything like this evidence for the use of earth moving machinery for looting, although we do encounter occasional backhoe cuts, and at some smaller sites in the eastern portion of the Dhi Qar survey area machinery designed to stabilise dunes seems also to have been used to aid the looters. Additional data from this aspect of the project are found in the published version of this study (Antiquity, op. cit.: 127-129).

The damage to Isin, a site excavated by the Germans, has been widely reported. The UNESCO group who visited the site in June 2003 reported that looters were tunnelling down to reach lower levels (M. Van Ess, pers. comm.). This deep looting can be identified in the DGC imagery both by the larger size and blackness of the holes and by the darker color of the excavated soil. Isin is the only site where this was evident. DGC image capture dates confirm that the deep looting at Isin seems to have commenced in February 2003 and accelerated immediately following the war.

Additional data from this aspect of the project are found in the published version of this study (Antiquity, op. cit.: 127-129).

Conclusions

The evidence indicates that site looting in Iraq has been pervasive. Archaeological sites of all sizes and periods have been affected in the area covered by this study, with the focus of looting activity tending to favor larger sites and those dating to periods most likely to generate cylinder seals, cuneiform tablets, and, to a lesser extent, early coins. The spatial distribution of the looting suggests that many interesting sites in central Babylonia and the Eridu Basin still have intact surfaces available for investigation. If order can be re-established, a large-scale, internationally aided, rescue programme might still be able to recover useful information from the sites in the heartland of ancient Sumer.

The evidence suggests that looting of the mass of small and medium-sized sites within the examined area has died down since 2003, perhaps because the market for Mesopotamian portable antiquities has finally been saturated. This should not be surprising, given that the total area of intensive looting adds up to 15.75 square kilometers – an area many times greater than all archaeological investigations ever conducted in southern Iraq. It also remains to be seen whether the illicit market can absorb this quantity of material. If it cannot, the archaeological and Assyriological communities will need to develop a rescue programme designed to recover, conserve and eventually return these materials to Iraq.

Finally, even though contextual information has been irretrievably lost for those objects that have been exported from Iraq, even more material must still lie within the spoil heaps left next to the looting holes at the sites, which may contain potsherds and broken objects. A detailed study of the spatial distribution of the material from these dumps could recover some information from this disaster. This research should include both large cities and small sites that were heavily looted. The very fact smaller sites attracted the attention of looters suggests that they were rich in artifacts. Their investigation could redress the excessive emphasis on large sites that has characterised Mesopotamian archaeology to this day.

Additional conclusions are found in the published version of this study (Antiquity, op. cit.: 127-129).

Acknowledgements

The DigitalGlobe Corporation Quickbird imagery was purchased using funds provided by the National Geographic Society, the National Endowment for the Humanities, the U.S. State Department, the Joukowsky Family Foundation, the National Science Foundation and private donations.

References

Hussein, L.M., 1999. Excavations in Tell Harmal: spring 1997.Sumer, 50: 61.

Adams, Robert McC., 1981. Heartland of Cities, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Adams, R. McC. & H.J. Nissen, 1972. Uruk Countryside, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Malko, H., 2006. A comparison of the social and economic organization of cities and small settlements in Mesopotamia. Unpublished MA diss., Stony Brook University.

Carter, E., J. Black, & J. Kenoyer, 1989. A surface survey of Lagash, al-Hiba, 1984: shell artifacts from Lagash, al-Hiba; inscribed objects from Lagash, al-Hiba and Girsu. Sumer, 66: 60-83.

Pollock, S., 1999. Ancient Mesopotamia, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Lawler, A., 2003. Beyond the looting. National Geographic, (October): 58-75.

Postgate, J.N., 1991. Early Mesopotamia, London: Routledge.

Baqir, T., 1948. Excavations at Harmal. Sumer, 4: 137-39.

Hussein, L.M., 2001. Excavations in Tell Harmal: fall 1998.Sumer, 51: 114-22.

Gibson, McG., 2003. From the prevention measures to the fact-finding mission. Museum International, 55(3-4): 108-18.

Kepinski-Lecomte, C., 1992. Haradum I. Paris: Recherche sur les Civilisations,

Mustafa, M.A., 1949. Sounding at Tell Dhibai. Sumer, 5: 173-86.

Al- Gailani, L., 1965. Tell edh-Dhibai, Sumer, 21: 33-40.

Baqir, T., 1946. Tell Harmal: preliminary report. Sumer, 2: 22-30.

Hamoodi, K.K., 1990. The excavations at Tell Dhibai. Sumer, 46: 91.

Wright, H.T., 1981. The southern margins of Sumer: archaeological survey in the area of Eridu and Ur, Appendix in R. McC. Adams,Heartland of Cities: 295-346, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Recently, I have been taking note of the use of the term “good faith” and particularly how the term is used by opponents of import restrictions on antiquities that do not have proper documentation, repatriations of looted material, and advocates of a “free-market” in ancient objects.

Yesterday, David Gill reported that a relief fragment from an Egyptian tomb was repatriated to Egypt after it had been withdrawn from a sale at Bonhams (London) earlier this year, when someone from the Metropolitan Museum of Art recognized it from an Egyptian tomb, where it was once in situ (“Tomb of Mutirdis (TT410): Update,” Looting Matters, 30 June 2008). A spokesperson for Bonhams would not identify the individual or dealership from whom they acquired the object, but stated that it appeared to have been acquired in “good faith.”

Also on David Gill’s weblog, and elsewhere, there has been discussion of the Association of Art Museum Director’s (AAMD) new guidelines for the acquisition of antiquities (“AAMD and Antiquities: a Revised Position,” Looting Matters, 5 June 2008). In light of this, he has recently discussed the use of a 1970 vs. 1983 date in response to Lee Rosenbaum, who suggested the 1983 cutoff date for repatriations (D.W.J. Gill, “Towards a Ceasefire in the ‘Antiquities Wars’: a Response to Lee Rosenbaum,” Looting Matters, 26 June 2008; id., “The ‘Antiquities Wars’: Further Thoughts,” Looting Matters, 27 June 2008; L. Rosenbaum, “Towards a Ceasefire in the Antiquities Wars: The Next Step (Part I),” CultureGrrl, 25 June 2008; id., “Towards a Ceasefire in the Antiquities Wars: The Next Step (Part II),” CultureGrrl, 27 June 2008). Peter Tompa, current president of the Ancient Coin Collectors Guild (ACCG) and an attorney, has also weighed in on the debate (“Memo to AAMD Members: Pick 1970 or 1983 as a Trigger for your Cultural Property Returns,” Cultural Property Observer, 26 June 2008). While Gill and Rosenbaum prefer different dates based on various legal and ethical precedents, 1970 (as per the 1970 UNESCO Convention) and 1983 (as per US legislation subscribing to the UNESCO Convention via the Cultural Property Implementation Act (CPIA)), respectively, Tompa suggests that repatriations be based on the date that a foreign nation’s request for import restrictions on cultural property is recognized by the U.S. Department of State be used as the guideline. He also makes the statement early on that “Repatriation decisions should never be taken lightly, particularly when lack of provenance information does not necessarily mean lack of good faith.”

Last week, it was brought to the attention of the Iraq Crisis Discussion List that some rare Iraqi Jewish books were smuggled out of Iraq and traded in Israel (“Rare Iraqi Jewish Books ‘Surface in Israel,’” Yahoo! News, 27 June 2008). There has been a protracted discussion on the Iraq Crisis Discussion List, to which many have contributed, including Jeff Spurr, Dorothy King, Paul Barford, Michael Balter, John Robertson, Patty Gerstenblith, Donny George, Peter Tompa, and others (visit the June and July archives to view individual contributions to the thread). Mr. Tompa and Mr. Barford have both blogged about the discussion and pertinent issues (P. Tompa, “Jewish Books Smuggled from Iraq to Israel,” Cultural Property Observer, 28 June 2008; P. Barford, “‘Stuff Happens’: US ‘Torah Rescue’ from Iraq?” Cultural Heritage in Danger (SAFECorner), 30 June 2008). In regard to a related issue on these Iraqi Jewish books, Tompa again brings up “good faith”: “In any event, the Torah described in the article would not easily fit into either category so I think we must assume (unless proven otherwise) that all concerned have acted in good faith.”

It was also reported this month that a Norwegian soldier who served in Afghanistan attempted to donate a hoard of coins and an ancient bottle he acquired there to a museum in Oslo and that Afghanistan is now seeking the return of the illicitly exported – and probably looted – material (N. Berglund, “Afghanistan Seeks Return of ‘Stolen Treasures,’” Aftenposten: News from Norway, 18 June 2008). Dorothy King provided a short discussion of it on her blog (“A Little Afghan Looting…Updated,” PhDiva, 23 June 2008). In the comments section of this post, Peter Tompa commented:

“This soldier should be given the benefit of the doubt. It is likely he bought these artifacts in good faith from desperately poor farmers who found the material, and I will assume this to be the case unless and until someone proves otherwise. This only became a story when the archaeological blogs picked it up. I suspect they helped egg on the Afghan Museum authorities to demand the repatriation of this material and an investigation. Before the Communists and Taliban took over, the government tolerated sales of minor artifacts such as this. A change of sensibilities in the elites that run the archaeological establishment, will not change the facts on the ground. Desperately poor farmers will sell whatever they find to whomever will buy it. Better to put in some system akin to Treasure Trove, that records everything, rather than assume Afghanistan has the funds and archaeologists necessary to conserve every piece of ancient history in its museums.”

A comment by Sebastian Heath in response to Tompa on the same entry is worth reading as well as his “Say What?” Mediterranean Ceramics, 23 June 2008.

The purpose of this post is not to “slam” Mr. Tompa. I have respect for him and he uses more discretion and reason than many of the dealers with whom I have tried to have discussions in the past (to be clear, Tompa is not a dealer, but rather a collector). Instead, I am trying to highlight a fundamental difference in perception and argumentation that people on different sides of the “antiquities debate” have. Tompa, for example, seems to present the notion that “good faith” and “the benefit of the doubt” are enough for the trading of antiquities. On the other hand, David Gill, among others, have argued the need for stronger “due diligence” processes in the acquisition of antiquities by dealers, collectors, and museums.

In the early spring of 1999, a 60 kilogram parcel of ancient coins, which was only part of a larger shipment, estimated to be in the neighborhood of a ton (literally), was intercepted at Frankfurt Airport (R. Dietrich, “Cultural Property on the Move – Legally, Illegally,” International Journal of Cultural Property 11.2 (2002): 294-304). The coins were falsely declared and were spirited out of Bulgaria and destined for sale in the United States. The Bulgarian national was and still is an active coin dealer and wholesaler to other dealers in the United States. Online correspondence on ancient coin discussion lists indicate this dealer was selling coins en masse to other dealers and collectors at a major North American coin show just a few months after customs officials released the parcel under peculiar circumstances (see the article for fuller discussion of the release from customs). Many collectors were excited by these coins and I am certain they purchased them in “good faith,” but does this excuse the way in which they made it to the marketplace? Although they may have been buying in “good faith,” were the dealers and collectors that purchased from this importer practicing adequate “due diligence”? Were they asking about how he acquired them, and if so, simply taking his word for whatever answer he might have supplied?

A couple of years ago, Classical Numismatic Group (CNG) acquired a very rare coin of Brutus commemorating Caesar’s assassination and paid approximately $23,000 for the coin (a wholesale price), which it in turn would have tried to sale for around $30,000 (D. Alberge, “Swoop by Customs Returns Brutus to Scene of the Crime,” Times Online, 15 June 2006; L. Worden, “Ancient Coin Buyers, Beware,” COINage Magazine 42.11 (Nov. 2006)). The Greek government claimed the coin was smuggled out of Greece and the coin was returned. Mr. McFadden of CNG acted in “good faith” in buying the coin and returned it to the Greek embassy when asked to do so. But how extensive was the “due diligence” process? The Times Online article stated:

“Mr McFadden, whose company is regarded as one of the world’s leading specialists in Greek and Roman coins, told The Times: ‘He did some work for Nino [Scavona] in the 1980s … One doesn’t refuse to deal with someone because he has a slightly shady background.

‘One looks at the deal on the table. We’re business people. If there’s any indication something’s not legitimate, we don’t deal in it.’”

Here is an excerpt from the COINage Magazine article:

“‘After the cash was seized,’ McFadden said, ‘his daughter kept phoning up, asking when her father could get his money back.’ That provided a clue that the man was indeed the seller. ‘That’s something that happened after the fact,’ McFadden said. ‘Not only did I not know about it, but I couldn’t have known about it.’ After all, it was the coin dealer who vouched for his ability to sell the coin. ‘If someone brings a coin in to you and says they own it and they can sell it to you and they guarantee the authenticity — obviously I’m aware of any recent reports of theft, so if the coin had been reported stolen, I would have known about it — then there’s nothing more one can do,’ McFadden said. Longtime coin dealer Wayne Sayles, executive director of the Ancient Coin Collectors Guild, agreed. ‘There is no tradition in the world market for the background-checking of sellers, nor is there any real reason for it,’ Sayles said. ‘There are pertinent and applicable laws in most countries that deal with import, theft, etc., and dealers do, in my experience, try diligently to follow those laws as they apply at the point of sale.’ Sayles lamented that ‘we may have lost an opportunity to contest a claim that seems to be arguable on several grounds.’

It is clear that existing due diligence processes in the antiquities trade are not as rigorously applied as one might hope and much of the existing processes seem to rely very much on the mere word of profiteers and suppliers. “Good faith” purchases and dealings are not enough. Dealers and collectors would add dignity to their activities if they were to follow the example of the AAMD and adopt more stringent due diligence processes and acquisition guidelines. This would decrease the demand for recently looted material by diminishing the market for it and profitability of it.

(Image of an Egyptian relief withdrawn from a Bonhams sale and now repatriated to Egypt. Source: D.W.J. Gill, “Tomb of Mutirdis (TT410): Update,” Looting Matters, 30 June 2008)

This post has been cross-posted from Numismatics and Archaeology: “Good Faith, Due Diligence, and Market Activities.”

A couple of days ago I visited the AIA’s Archaeology Watch resource page. I have visited the site several times before, but I have always glossed over the first little paragraph at the top of the page. This time, however, the little blurb about the Antiquities Act caught my eye. I was well aware that the AIA (Archaeological Institute of America), founded in 1879, was chartered by an Act of the U.S. Congress in 1906, but I had not realized until then that its charter coincided with President Theodore Roosevelt’s passage of the Antiquities Act and the role the AIA played in it is development. This may not be news to anyone but me, but I founded it interesting for a couple of reasons.

The Antiquities Act was supported by the AIA and lawmakers in order to give the American president power to counter looters and ‘pot hunters’ from destroying Native American cultural heritage in the American West [a Wikipedia article on the Act is also available - caveat emptor].

The AIA has been actively involved in raising awareness on problem of pillage and advocating protective legislation now for over 100 years. The AIA is frequently targeted by dealers for its stance on cultural property issues. In light of this fact, I find it even more peculiar that several antiquities dealers attempt to characterize the AIA’s position on the illicit trade in antiquities and looting as 1.) a recent development and 2.) a deliberate attempt to exclude “independent scholars” [i.e. dealers/collectors] from participating in academic discourse (for example, see my discussion at Numismatics and Archaeology: “‘Dilettanti and Shopmen’: Divergent Interests in Looting and Cultural Heritage Issues,” 7 May 2008). Is this just one component of the tactics employed by profiteers, who attempt to portray their activities as scholarly in their public-relations battle with archaeologists and cultural preservation advocates? (cf. J.L. Hall, “The Fig and the Spade: Countering the Deceptions of Treasure Hunters,” AIA Archaeology Watch. 15 Aug. 2007).

For a very long time there has been a clear difference between the interests of scholars and scientists and those who exploit our history for mere financial profit. The public should not be deceived. The AIA has a long legacy of supporting efforts to protect cultural heritage from destruction.

The following article appeared in Science Magazine on October 26, 2007 and is reproduced here with permission from the author, Michael Balter.

University College London (UCL), one of Britain’s premier universities, has become embroiled in a dispute over its handling of a large collection of religious artifacts that may have been part of the illicit trade in archaeological relics from Iraq in recent years. Last year, a committee of experts UCL established to investigate the matter concluded that “on the balance of probabilities,” the artifacts were illegally removed from Iraq, and in the past months Iraqi officials have taken steps to recover the relics. Their actions come after UCL agreed this summer to return the collection to its owner, a wealthy retired Norwegian businessman who had sued UCL for their recovery. As part of a settlement of that suit, UCL agreed not to publish the committee’s report.

“It is shameful that a university should set up an independent inquiry and then connive with the collector whose antiquities are under scrutiny to suppress the report through the vehicle of an out-of-court settlement,” says Colin Renfrew, an archaeologist at the University of Cambridge, U.K., and a longtime critic of trade in antiquities of questionable provenance. Renfrew was one of three experts appointed by UCL in early 2005 to look into allegations about the provenance of the Aramaic incantation bowls and to propose new antiquities guidelines. Neil Brodie, an archaeologist at Stanford University in Palo Alto, California, and former research director of Cambridge’s Illicit Antiquities Research Centre–created by Renfrew in 1996–calls suppression of the report “an attack on academic freedom, because the illegal trade in antiquities is a legitimate research subject.”(CREDIT: QFT PHOTOGRAPHY LTD., COURTESY OF C. RENFREW)

Salah al-Shaikhly, Iraq’s ambassador to the United Kingdom, told Science last week that Iraqi authorities have asked British authorities to block the export of the bowls and that the Iraqi government hopes to go to court to recover the bowls “in a matter of weeks.” The removal of the artifacts, al-Shaikhly says, is “a great loss to the Iraqi national heritage.”

The affair has also caused considerable discomfort within the university’s Institute of Archaeology, which has played a leading role in developing strict antiquities rules. “I deeply regret the fact that the panel’s report will not be published,” says UCL archaeologist Kathryn Tubb, who co-wrote the institute’s guidelines. “The results of the deliberations were to have informed future policy for the whole of UCL.”

UCL officials have refused to comment on the matter, and Martin Schøyen, the owner of the bowls, declined to be interviewed for this story. But a series of press statements on the Schøyen Collection’s Web site (www.schoyencollection.com/news.htm) explains that “any assertion that the bowls in the Schøyen Collection might be looted is incorrect.” The Web site notes that the artifacts came from a Jordanian collection “built over many years.”

The UCL committee of inquiry’s report–a copy of which Science has reviewed–concludes that the bowls most likely left Iraq illegally sometime after August 1990, when Iraq invaded Kuwait. Schøyen subsequently bought them from dealers based in Jordan and London. The 94-page report says that the committee found “no direct evidence that positively contradicts or impugns Mr. Schøyen’s honesty” in his account of how he obtained the bowls and credits him with “openness” in the way he purchased them. But it sharply criticizes UCL for agreeing to store the bowls without looking into their origins or “the manner in which Mr. Schøyen came to possess them.”

“A potentially damaging position”
During the 5th to 8th centuries C.E., many people living in Mesopotamia (present-day Iraq) buried pottery bowls under the thresholds of their houses to ward off evil demons. The bowls were inscribed with biblical passages and other incantations in Aramaic, an ancient Semitic language. Today, about 2000 of these Aramaic incantation bowls are known to exist in public and private collections around the world. Schøyen owns one of the two largest collections, numbering 656, and beginning in 1995, loaned 654 of them to UCL’s Department of Hebrew and Jewish Studies to be cataloged and studied. The research was led by linguist Shaul Shaked of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, in collaboration with UCL’s Mark Geller, an expert in ancient languages. (Away all demons! Ancient Mesopotamians used bowls inscribed in Aramaic to repel evil spirits. CREDIT: COURTESY OF ERICA HUNTER)

In September 2003, a documentary aired on Norwegian public television that questioned the provenance of a number of antiquities in Schøyen’s collection–which is based in Oslo and London–including the incantation bowls. According to the committee’s report, questions from the program’s producers led UCL Vice-Provost Michael Worton to write Geller on 2 December 2003, directing him to make arrangements to return the artifacts to Schøyen–an order that the report says was never carried out. (Both Worton and Geller declined to comment on this and other matters related to the bowls.) UCL also consulted its attorney, who, according to the committee report, told UCL on 10 September 2004 that it was in “an anomalous and potentially damaging position” because it might be violating international and British antiquities laws by keeping the bowls–or returning them to Schøyen–if the bowls had been removed illegally from Iraq.

In early 2005, UCL set up the committee of inquiry that, Worton explained in a 16 May 2005 press release, would allow UCL “to be absolutely clear about the provenance of these bowls, and to satisfy ourselves that they were not removed illegally from their country of origin.” He said the committee’s report would also “provide a model for best practice in dealing with the complex cultural issues that can arise from such situations.”

The committee–comprised of David Freeman of the London law firm Kendall Freeman; Sally MacDonald, now director of UCL Museums and Collections; and Renfrew–took testimony from three dozen witnesses, including Schøyen and two London-based antiquities dealers who, the committee determined, sold him many of the incantation bowls. Schøyen and the dealers told the committee that nearly all of the bowls had come from the family collection of Ghassan Rihani, a Jordanian antiquities dealer who reportedly died in 2001. But the committee found “unconvincing” two Jordanian documents that Schøyen offered in support of his claim that the incantation bowls had been legally transferred from Jordan to London.

In an interview with Science, one of the two London dealers, Chris Martin, says that Rihani had some incantation bowls in his collection at least “3 or 4 years” before the 1991 Gulf War. The committee calculated that Martin sold Schøyen 444 of the incantation bowls, of which at least 300 came from Rihani. After a time, Martin says, Schøyen began to buy directly from Rihani and, according to the report, acquired another 174 bowls this way.
The committee’s report cites the testimony of four experts in ancient Mesopotamia that nearly all known incantation bowls come from Iraq, which since 1936 has forbidden the export of antiquities except for exhibitions and research. “The bowls were present in Iraq when the 1936 Law came into force … [and therefore] were the property of the State of Iraq” at the time that Schøyen purchased them, the report concludes, even if Schøyen may not have realized this. Nevertheless, the committee found that, under U.K. law, Schøyen could still claim title to the bowls if he had already possessed them for 6 years and could demonstrate that he had bought them in good faith.

Claiming the bowls

The committee’s report, dated 27 July 2006, contains a number of recommendations, including that it “be published in full.” Indeed, Renfrew told Science, the panel prepared the report “in the expectation that it would be published.” Nevertheless, the panel proposed delaying publication for 6 months while copies were sent to Schøyen, the antiquities departments of Iraq and Jordan, London’s Metropolitan Police, and two other British government agencies. Although UCL officials have declined to comment on any aspect of the affair, Renfrew says UCL attorneys told the committee early in 2007 that the university would “omit the legal arguments and conclusions and recommendations” in summaries being sent to Iraq, Jordan, and the police.

The report has not been published, however. On 9 March 2007, the Schøyen Collection announced that it was suing UCL to recover the incantation bowls. A press release explained that it “has become frustrated with the waste of time and money caused by a lengthy and inconclusive inquiry into its provenance” and added that it had “los[t] confidence in UCL’s conduct of its inquiries.”

Meanwhile, on 26 June, Schøyen and UCL issued a joint press statement signaling an end to the litigation. “Following a searching investigation by an eminent panel of experts, and further inquiries of its own,” the statement declared, “UCL is pleased to announce that no claims adverse to the Schøyen Collection’s right and title have been made or intimated” and that “UCL has no basis for concluding that title is vested other than in the Schøyen Collection.” The bowls have been returned, the statement said, “and UCL has agreed to pay a sum in respect of its possession of them.”

Jenina Bas, media spokesperson for the Schøyen Collection, declined to say where the bowls are now located, citing “security reasons.” However, Shaked told Science that they are still in the United Kingdom. Al-Shaikhly says that Iraq did not immediately make a claim on the bowls because “lawyers in England are very expensive.” He adds that culture ministry officials in Baghdad discussed the matter for several months before agreeing to proceed.

In the meantime, Shaked says that he plans to continue his research. “It is my responsibility as a scholar to work on any ancient artifact that has information to tell us,” he told Science, staking out one side of a bitter debate among archaeologists about whether researchers should work with unprovenanced antiquities (Science, 28 April 2006, p. 513). The other side believes that researchers and collectors are morally obligated to carry out what archaeologists call “due diligence” into the provenance of the antiquities they work with. “Due diligence is at the heart of the discussion about the antiquities market,” says archaeologist David Gill of Swansea University in Wales. “If respected international institutions are unable or unwilling to release the findings of this process, archaeologists begin to smell a rat.”

Renfrew agrees with Gill’s assessment of the situation. He calls suppression of the report a “huge mistake” and believes it was motivated by the university’s desire to avoid a costly legal battle. “If so,” Renfrew says, “they have sold their souls for a mess of pottage.”

The notion that classical archaeologists do not care about ancient coins, or are ignorant of the utility of their study, is a myth repeatedly perpetuated by vocal members of the coin dealer lobby. One evident example is on the FAQ page of the Ancient Coin Collectors Guild (ACCG):

“Aren’t archaeologists good custodians of ancient coins?

While a few dedicated archaeologist-numismatists do care about coins and have used them to make important contributions to the study of numismatics, many, if not most, archaeologists view coins as just one means to date archaeological sites. Most well preserved specimens that numismatists prize do not even originate from archaeological sites. That is because most large hoards rarely come to light at archaeological sites; the ancients typically sought to hide their savings away from the prying eyes of neighbors. Instead of large hoards of well preserved coins, archaeologists typically find large numbers of ancient “small change” that was lost over time. Such coins are often so corroded by direct exposure to the soil as to be deemed uncollectible. Archaeologists tend not to treat such coins as important historical objects in themselves. Instead, after they serve a limited purpose as but one means to date archaeological sites, coins are all too often dumped into plastic bags and left to deteriorate in storage that usually lacks proper environmental controls.”

While there are some small grains of truth in aspects of this statement (e.g. some archaeologists and numismatists are slow to publish and make finds available for study), the claim that is made (essentially that archaeologists are not competent enough to study coins) is unsubstantiated and false; furthermore, the absolute contrary is demonstrable (see, for example, “Why Coins Matter,” “Misunderstanding the Portable Antiquities Scheme.” The Intellectual Consequences of Collecting Classical Coins,” “It’s All the Same: the Looting of ‘High Art’ vs. the Looting of the Minor Arts,” “Coins, Contexts and Collecting,” and “Can Cultural Property Legislation Kill an Academic Discipline?“).

The falsehood that archaeologists are too incompetent to advocate for the the protection of ancient coins from archaeological sites, even though they are important archaeological objects routinely found at archaeological sites, is evidently perpetuated by vocal members of the dealer lobby in order to present themselves as more appropriate custodians of ancient coins, in an attempt to lend credence to their arguments that ancient coins should be freely traded without a concern for the circumstances concerning their origin and journey to the market and to protect “trade secrets.” The latest unsubstantiated assertion of this idea was posted yesterday by one of the lobby’s top leaders, Wayne Sayles, who is the founder and Executive Director of the Ancient Coin Collectors Guild (ACCG). In the blog entry “Intrinsic Interests,” he attempts to contextualize the interest of the Archaeological Institute of America (AIA) in cultural property issues relating to ancient coins as “sudden” and as an assault on private collectors, referencing the AIA’s post on Archaeology Watch about “Coins and Archaeology”. Mr. Sayles has routinely criticized classical archaeology in general terms and the AIA more specifically for its concerns relating to the protection of cultural heritage and archaeological sites (see for example “Hijacked by Zealots” and “Archaeology: a Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing?“).

In his latest post, Mr. Sayles disparages the AIA and classical archaeologists in general by saying:

“The more that archaeologists learn about coins from antiquity, the more they will realize that the context within which they are found is merely one aspect, and a small one at that, of the tremendous historical resource that coins present.”

He continues:

“Unfortunately, the AIA’s motives for this blossoming interest are suspect. Having virtually ignored coins for scores of years, why is the AIA disposed now to highlight the value of coins to archaeology? The answer is really quite basic. The numismatic community, comprised primarily of independent scholars, has argued effectively that archaeologists do not have a preeminent claim to the acquisition or study of ancient coins, much less to the dissemination of knowledge about them and about the past from whence they came. If the AIA were to acknowledge this simple fact, it would expose a chink in the armor of their perceived supremacy. So, be prepared to see a lot more ink spilled by the AIA and other archaeological support groups regarding the “importance” of coins. Oddly, collectors have always known that coins are important. This awakening by archaeologists is probably a good thing if they really consider the issues rather than just fill the web and print media with institutional propaganda.”

These comments reflect either a lack of knowledge regarding both classical archaeology and academic contributions to numismatics or a desire to gloss over them. Instead of responding to sweeping generalizations and unsubstantiated assertions with the same, I shall respond with some facts:

Fact 1. Contrary to the assertions, classical archaeologists have always cared about ancient coins and DO study them (the Archaeology Watch webpage in question addressed the value of coins in archaeology); additionally, numismatists regularly participate in AIA activities and are an integral part of that organization. Please do not take my word for it, but take the evidence into account. A keyword search of “coins” from the online abstract archive for the 2004, 2005, 2006, and 2007 AIA meetings returned 57 papers directly addressing or relating to numismatic topics; I include the full list of results:

Abstracts from the 2007 Meeting

-The Philaïd Coinage of the Thracian Chersonesus, Sarah Bolmarcich, University of Michigan

-Symbolic Rivalry on the Imperial Coinage of the Island of Lesbos, Matthew F. Notarian, University at Buffalo-SUNY

-Icaria: History and Coins, Evangelia Georgiou, University of Ioannina

-Political Ideology and Roman Architectural Coin Types of the Republic and Empire, Nathan T. Elkins, University of Missouri-Columbia

-Roman War and Republican Coin Types, Rosemarie Trentinella, New York University

-Cistophori and Identity in Roman Asia Minor, Marsha B. McCoy, Austin College

-Research at the Castle of Marko in the Republic of Macedonia, Michael Fuller and Neathery Batsell Fuller, St. Louis Community College

-Excavations at Sarhoyok-Dorylaion in Phrygia Epictetos/Turkey, Taciser Tufekci Sivas, Anadolu Universitesi

-Discovery of the Roman Forum of Buthrotum (Butrint): Current Excavations, David R. Hernandez, University of Cincinnati

-Spectator Galleries on Honorary Arches: An Overlooked Function of Roman State Architecture, Martin Beckmann, Wilfrid Laurier University

-Maxentius and the Temple of Roma, Elisha Ann Dumser, Ursuline College

-Hellenistic and Roman Coins from Gordion: A Case for Monetization, Kenneth Harl, Tulane University

-Traces of Hellenistic Petra: Excavations on the Temenos of the Qasr al-Bint, Petra, Jordan, Andreas J.M. Kropp, University of Nottingham

Abstracts from the 2006 Meeting

-Starry Heroes in Late Ancient Rome, Dennis Trout, University of Missouri-Columbia

-Dharma or Diplomacy? A Reassessment of Cultural Policy in the Indo-Greek Kingdom, Jed M. Thorn, University of Cincinnati

-The Heroon at Messene: New Observations on Order, Style, and Date, Pieter B. F. J. Broucke, Middlebury College

-New Glass Finds from Cyprus: Evidence for Ritual, Dating, and Trade, Danielle A. Parks, Brock University

-Images of the Illustrious and the Reconstruction of the Past on Titus’s Restored Coins, Sarah E. Cox, Columbia University

-Monumental Messages: The Meaning of Changes in the Representation of Architecture on Roman Coins in the Early Empire, Martin Beckmann, University of Heidelberg

-Determining the Function of the So-Called Temple of Romulus in Rome, Elisha Dumser, University of Pennsylvania

-The Intensive Urban Survey Project at Kastro Kallithea, Greece: First Results, Margriet J. Haagsma and Sean Gouglas, University of Alberta, Athanasios Tziafalias and Sophia Karapanou, 15th Ephorate of Prehistoric and Classical Antiquities

-The Last of the Scythians, Nancy T. de Grummond, Florida State University

-Presenting the King: Herod the Great and Political Self-Presentation, Adam Kolman Marshak, Yale University, and Rebecca Donahue, Boston Society of the AIA

-Italian Bronze Age Pottery and Twenty-First-Century Scholarly Communication, Susan S. Lukesh, Hofstra University, and R. Ross Holloway, Brown University

-Harboring Fantasies in Roman Crete, George W. M. Harrison, AIA Member at Large

-Numismatic Paronomasia and the Case of Caesar’s Elephant, Edward Zarrow, Yale University

-Augustus’s Altar-ed State: The Altars of the Lares Augusti on Augustan Quadrantes, Lea Cline, The University of Texas at Austin

-The Origins of the Commemoration of Women on Roman Coinage, Tracene Harvey, University of Alberta, Edmonton

-The Function and Distribution of the Flavian Colosseum Sestertii: Currency or Largess? (Results of a Die Study), Nathan T. Elkins, University of Missouri-Columbia

Abstracts from the 2005 Meeting

-The “Numismatic Habit”? Roman Coins and Roman Inscriptions from Augustus, Edward Zarrow, Yale University

-Stone Offering Boxes (Thesauroi) in the Ritual and Administration of Greek Sanctuaries, Isabelle Pafford, UC Berkeley

-The Bust-Crown, the Panhellenion, and Eleusis: A New Portrait from the Athenian Agora, Lee Ann Riccardi, The College of New Jersey

-The “Skyphos Sanctuary” on the North Slope of the Acropolis, Kevin T. Glowacki, Indiana University, and Susan I. Rotroff, Washington University in St. Louis

-Imperial Cult in the Colosseum, Nathan T. Elkins, The University of Missouri, Columbia

-The Use of Die Studies as a Corrective to Late Seleucid History, Oliver D. Hoover, The American Numismatic Society

-Royal Women in Nabataea: The Case of Rabbel and Shuqailat, Bjorn Anderson, University of Michigan

-Conceptions of Rome: The Meta Sudans on Roman Imperial and Provincial Coinage, Brenda Longfellow, University of Michigan

-Under the Gaze of the Empress: Succession and Political Participation in Severan Coinage, Julie Langford-Johnson, Indiana University, Bloomington

-Communicating Royal Power in the Bosporan Kingdom, Patric-Alexander Kreuz, Freie Universität Berlin

-Keeping Up with the Seleucids and the Ptolemies, Olga Palagia, University of Athens

-Hellenistic Geronthrai: Archaeological Evidence for the Changing Life of a Perioikic Community at the Foot of the Parnon, Mieke Prent and Joost H. Crouwel, University of Amsterdam, and Elizabeth Langridge-Noti, The American College of Greece

-The Origins of Pompeian Domestic Architecture: New Evidence from the House of the Surgeon, Rick Jones and Damian Robinson, University of Bradford, and Steven J.R. Ellis, The University of Sydney

Abstracts from the 2004 Meeting

-False Fronts: Separating the Imperial Cult from the Aediculated Facade in the Roman Near East, Barbara Burrell, University of Cincinnati

-A Late Roman Settlement “Explosion”? The Continuity and Reuse of Sites in the Eastern Corinthia, David K. Pettegrew, The Ohio State University

-A Sample of Bullae from Zeugma, Sharon Herbert, University of Michigan

-Embellishing the Garden: A Glimpse of Private Life in Julio-Claudian Cosa, Jacquelyn Collins-Clinton, Cornell University

-The Apadana Coin Hoards, Darius I, and the West, Antigoni Zournatzi, The National Hellenic Research Foundation, Athens

-Ponēra Khalkia: Towards the Contextualization of Archaic/Classical Plated Coinage, Peter van Alfen, American Numismatic Society

-Regional Economy and Reconstruction: The Stymphalos Hoard of 1999, Robert G.A. Weir, University of Windsor

-Beyond Payment: Alternate Uses of Coins in the Ancient World, Sebastian Heath, American Numismatic Society

-Excavations in the Athenian Agora, John McK. Camp II, American School of Classical Studies at Athens and Randolph-Macon College

-Preliminary Report on the Hellenistic Material from the Dutch Excavations at Geraki (Geronthrai) in Laconia, Elizabeth Langridge-Noti, American College of Greece, and Mieke Prent, University of Amsterdam

-The Emperor, the Sun, and the Son: The Arch and the Colossus in Constantine’s Rome, Elizabeth Marlowe, Columbia University and American Academy in Rome

The 2008 meeting’s preliminary program is also online and includes several papers and panels directly addressing numismatics.

Fact 2. In addition to scholarly numismatic journals, such as the Numismatic Chronicle or the American Journal of Numismatics, other journals frequently host articles on numismatic topics, especially archaeological journals. Since July 2005, the American Journal of Archaeology(AJA), a publication of the AIA, has hosted at least four articles that address numismatic topics:

The Date of the Sardis Synagogue in Light of the Numismatic Evidence
Author: Jodi Magness
Volume: 109.3, Pages: 443-475

New Archaic Coin Finds at Sardis
Author: Nicholas Cahill and John H. Kroll
Volume: 109.4, Pages: 589-

Archaeology of Empire: Athens and Crete in the Fifth Century B.C.
Author: Brice Erickson
Volume: 109.4, Pages: 619-

Visualizing Ceremony: The Design and Audience of the Ludi Saeculares Coinage of Domitian
Author: Melanie Grunow Sobocinski
Volume: 110.4, Pages: 581-602

The AJA is a quarterly academic journal, which typically hosts between 3 and 5 articles per journal; and thus, numismatic topics can comprise a rather significant part of intrinsically related disciplines represented in the journal (e.g. ceramics, numismatics, topography, etc.), considering the journal addresses classical archaeology as a whole. For our readers that have JSTOR access or live in proximity to a good library, one can see that back issues of the AJA contain a plethora of numismatic articles and that the AJA is an important resource for numismatic research (more specifically see Sebastian Heath’s recent comments, on Sayles’ blog entry, about the history of the AJA and its long association with numismatists and numismatic publication). Other archaeological journals, which may be unfamiliar to many collectors and dealers, such as the Journal of Roman Archaeology, frequently host numismatic topics.

Fact 3. Contrary to what some members of the dealer lobby would have the general public and their constituents believe, the AIA has a strong relationship with numismatists. For example, the current AIA president is an alumnus of the American Numismatic Society graduate seminar on Greek and Roman numismatics, has taught graduate seminars on numismatics, and also has published books and articles that incorporate numismatic evidence. There is also a numismatist currently on the AIA’s Board of Academic Trustees. Additionally, one of the AIA’s largest “interest groups” is the “Friends of Numismatics,” which is comprised of alumni of the American Numismatic Society graduate seminar and other numismatists; the Friends of Numismatics meet annually at the AIA meeting. (Note: the “Friends of Numismatics,” associated with the AIA, should not be confused with the ACCG’s “Friend of Numismatics” award, which the lobby uses to honor individuals who “advance” or “protect” ancient coin collecting).

Fact 4. Unlike the AIA, the ACCG is a new organization, founded within the past few years, which arose in response to cultural property advocacy efforts that conflict with the interests of ancient coin collectors and especially dealers, who comprise most of the organization’s officers, all of its “benefactors,” and the majority of its “patrons.” The ACCG’s goals are highlighted on its “objectives” page. One of the ACCG’s primary aims is “to fight for the continued existence of a free market for all collector coins.”

Mr. Sayles pretends as if archaeologists know nothing about coins, objects which are commonly excavated at classical archaeological sites, and attempts to portray advocacy efforts to protect the contextual study of ancient coins and archaeological sites as misguided, since (in his mind) archaeologists should know nothing about coins. In my view, the AIA’s Archaeology Watch page, which Mr. Sayles rails against, reflects a concern many archaeologists have had for decades about looting and the role of the antiquities trade – which includes the trade in ancient coins – in the destruction of archaeological sites and historical information.

Why was the Archaeology Watch page on “Coins and Archaeology” posted this year? Anyone who has been following the discussions on ancient coins and cultural property (for example, on Looting Matters, SAFECORNER, or elsewhere) knows that Cyprus’ request for import restrictions on ancient coins and the U.S. State Department’s subsequent recognition of that request has caused an outcry from the coin dealer lobby, a lobby that attempts to thwart any legislation or protective measures designed to protect archaeological sites and cultural heritage should that legislation include anything that may hinder a completely unregulated and “free market” in ancient coins. Although I am not privy to the immediate circumstances regarding the AIA’s decision to post the “Coins and Archaeology” page, I suspect the ACCG’s outspoken activities, its unceasing assaults against the AIA and classical archaeology in general, and its gross oversimplification of the issues might have contributed to it.

The unregulated trade in ancient coins is responsible for some systematic looting and is forever destroying an important avenue into critical historical inquiry. These issues have already been examined in “Why Coins Matter” and a more substantial work is in preparation. The dealer lobby consistently downplays the value of context and asserts that collectors and dealers are the only people able to produce “scholarship” on ancient coins (see “Can Cultural Property Legislation Kill an Academic Discipline?”). Indeed, context is not the only aspect of numismatic or scholarly inquiry, but it is an important one and one that is essential to serious economic, circulation, and even iconographic studies. Context is an highly important aspect of any archaeological object or historical document and this aspect of an object should not be destroyed or ignored if at all possible. What if the Reka Devnia hoard had been found by a looter or metal detectorist and sold on the market with no record of its find spot or context? (The Reka Devnia hoard is one of the largest, if not the largest, ancient coin hoards ever discovered and contained c. 350 kg of silver Roman coins; it was excavated at Marcianopolis (see David Gill’s blog entry “Misunderstanding the Portable Antiquities Scheme” and comments there)).

In his newest blog post, Mr. Sayles betrays his misunderstanding of archaeology and has again drawn a distinction between “collectible” coins and “worthless” coins that are on the market. Another numismatist has commented that what Mr. Sayles has egregiously labeled “junk” and “trash” are invaluable historical sources. To an archaeologist and field numismatist, all coins are essential to understanding our history and the conditions under which our ancestors lived.

It is constantly claimed by vocal members of the ancient coin dealer lobby that classical archaeologists and cultural property advocates are driving a wedge between numismatists and the academic community. The facts do not support this spurious claim; as was related above, the AIA, for example, is an organization that embraces numismatists and numismatic research. In fact, it is the ancient coin dealer lobby painting a picture of discord, perhaps to rouse action from collectors and lawmakers in Washington to protect their ability to import and trade in “fresh” material indiscriminately, regardless of that material’s origin or the conditions regarding its acquisition (see again “Why Coins Matter” on the source of much of the new material presently on the market; also cf. Hall, J.L. 2007. “The Fig and the Spade: Countering the Deceptions of Treasure Hunters.” Archaeology Watch. 15 Aug., on how groups with a financial interest in trading in antiquities attempt to win public approval by portraying themselves as practicing serious scientific and scholarly activities). If ACCG leaders seriously want a “constructive dialogue,” let us stick to the facts and avoid the reactionary emotional responses and unsubstantiated generalizations and assertions that lack veracity.

*Since I am responding to criticisms leveled against the AIA specifically, but also classical archaeology as a whole, I should note that although I am a member of the AIA, the views presented here do not necessarily reflect the individual views of the AIA’s leadership, the general membership, or its institutional stances. Instead, I respond here in my capacity as a classical archaeologist and a numismatist sensitive to issues relating to looting and the widespread destruction of archaeological and historical information, and as an individual concerned about the future our ability to critically examine and understand humanity’s past – the forbearers of modern civilization – through disciplines that incorporate the study of material culture via the application of a scientific methodology.

Published by SAFECORNER on behalf of the author Francesca Haack

As Rome builds the third line of its subway, workers continually chance upon archaeological material. This paper discusses the ethical considerations behind the project. Some of these considerations are the necessity to satisfy all groups affected by the project, including archaeologists, commuters, the government, and construction companies, and the obligation to publish and study the finds. Other questions of archaeological ethics that arise are what to do with the plethora of artifacts uncovered, how to store and conserve them and what should and should not be destroyed. The paper begins by discussing and analyzing the archaeological discoveries and ethical considerations of metros in other Mediterranean cities, namely Athens, Istanbul, and Naples. It goes on to discuss the lack of emphasis on archaeology during the construction of Rome’s first two metro lines as compared to the methods and findings so far from line C. Finally, the paper outlines the ethical problems above and suggests solutions, stressing that solutions should be feasible and satisfactory to everybody involved.

The modern age has allowed a previously unfathomable number of people to live in a small area. The last century has witnessed the beginning of the widespread use of cars, trains and skyscrapers. Particularly in big cities, traffic congestion and the smog it produces have become major problems. Seeking a solution, many major cities have constructed an underground railway system. While subway systems are a convenient and environmentally-friendly solution to smog and congestion, in archaeologically rich metropolises, subterranean digging can become complicated. In Rome, a city of some 2.5 million people, commuters as well as hordes of tourists create a demand for public transportation that cannot be satisfied by the two present underground metro lines and the city’s buses and trams. Of course, Rome is also a metropolis that has been continuously occupied for at least 2,700 years. Every square meter of earth beneath the modern city contains archaeological treasures that cannot be ignored. In order to maintain a livable city while respecting the archaeological record, city planners in Rome must work closely with archaeologists as they plan and build the third “C” line of the metro system.

History of subways and classical archaeology

Rome is not the first big city to build a subway through the remains of an ancient city. Since so many other cities have faced the same difficult task of finding a balance between archaeological preservation and modern necessity, Roman city planners and archaeologists have at their disposal a wide range of ideas and expectations regarding metro digging. In order to analyze the archaeological and ethical issues surrounding the construction of the subway in Rome, it is helpful to first examine metro projects in some other cities of archaeological importance in the Mediterranean region.

Athens

The Athens metro project, inaugurated in 2000, is probably the closest counterpart to Rome’s C line project because of the type of cultural materials to be found as well as the size and importance of the city from ancient times through the present. Rather than simply plowing through archaeological strata, metro diggers took the opportunity to do a salvage archaeology excavation. In fact, the 70,000 square meters uncovered constitute Athens’ “most extensive single archaeological excavation and investigation” ever, according to the Minister of the Environment, Urban Planning and Public Works, Kostas Laliotis. The Athenian metro was a significant undertaking monetarily and temporally as well: the project cost $2 billion and took 22 years to plan and another 10 to build, largely due to the plethora of archaeological material uncovered. In the early 1990s, the technical design of the metro was finalized in meetings between archaeologists and city planners. The final plan, which incorporated suggestions from archaeologists, stipulated that digging should be far from the ancient walls and that any tunnels should be far below archaeological strata.

Photo 1. Stratigraphy of the antiquities wall of Athens Metro Syntagma station

The most pressing concern of archaeologists, however, was what to do with the over 32,000 artifacts uncovered during construction. One creative solution was to build miniature “museums” inside the subway stations. The 8-mile-long, 2-line system features 14 stations, many of which display archaeological material uncovered during the excavation. Commuters can see ancient artifacts in these innovative “metro-museums” without the effort of going to a separate museum. The Syntagma Square station even boasts a 7-meter by 40-meter long cross-section displaying the archaeological strata found at that shaft (see photo 1). Another creative use of the material is for archaeological training: the main rooms of a 3rd century balneum uncovered on Amalias Avenue are being reconstructed by the University of Athens at their Zographou campus “where it will serve as a training site for students of archaeology.” Finally, 514 of the more impressive movable finds were displayed in an exhibition entitled “The City Beneath the City” at theMuseum of Cycladic Arts.

Athens: The City Beneath the City

Photo 2. Bronze studs from a dog collar, 1st -2nd century CE

It was intended as a highly educational exhibit, with artifacts arranged by place of discovery rather than by type, so as to preserve their original context. Professor of Classical archeology and director of the museum Nicholas Stampolidis tried to exhibit a wide assortment of material, ranging from the entire grave of a dog, including grave goods and its collar (see photo 2), gold jewelry and clay toys to a grave stele erected to those who fell in battles of the Peloponnesian War. “The objects in the exhibition,” he says, “were selected on the criteria of their being representative as much of the place of their discovery and their provenance as of their quality, the material of which they are made, and, finally, their date.” Between the metro-museums, the archaeological training site and the exhibit, Athens successfully integrated archaeologists, engineers and even the public into their metro project.

Istanbul

Another significant project currently underway is the so-called “Marmaray,” a $2.6 billion, 75-kilometer railway including a tunnel under the Bosporus Strait to connect the European and Asian halves of Istanbul. A subway system is desperately needed in this location, since at present only two bridges cross the Bosporus Strait and both are heavily trafficked. The ferries that cross the strait are equally overcrowded. At present, only 3.6% of motorized transport in Istanbul is by rail, but once Marmaray is completed, that number could jump to nearly 28%. Of course, in a city that has been continually occupied for millennia, artifacts and monuments are bound to show up, so Istanbul is facing the same need to mediate between history and modern life that Athens did. In light of the archaeological remains they were sure to find, Istanbul’s deputy governor said the city would reroute the subway “if we come across remains of an ancient city, or a theater or any ancient relics.” Archaeologists moved the pieces of an 11th or 13th century boat and plan to display them in a station exhibit similar to Athens’ metro-museums, but the city did not uphold their vow to reroute the subway. This boat is just one of 23 shipwrecks archaeologists have uncovered so far at Yenikapi, the site of a 4th century port and the area where the tunnel emerges (see photo 3).

Alex Gallafent

Photo 3. Yenikapi , the site of a 4th century port in IstanbulA Byzantine sunken boat

Foreigners are harshly critical of the Turkish archaeologists as they excavate “the greatest nautical archaeological site of all time.” The director of the Archaeological Museum of Istanbul, Ismail Karamut, claims that so far nothing has been found that would “change the archaeological history of Istanbul.” But foreign archaeologists say that a site’s value “is in the eye of the beholder” and Italian archaeologist Eugenia Bolognesi notes that, “In Istanbul, people don’t think it’s important unless it’s a big monument.” UNESCO official Manji Yang agrees, claiming that, “A case as important as Istanbul should also have non-Turk experts.” Foreigners also criticize Istanbul for employing solely “poorly financed and trained” local archaeologists and are particularly critical of the city’s choice to tear down the walls of a 15th century bazaar. But the city actually left all decisions about what to do with archaeological finds in the hands of the Archaeological Museum of Istanbul. Museum staff were to report to the site and decide on a find-by-find basis the fate of each artifact. It is unclear whether project engineers and archaeologists would have agreed to such a simplistic plan if they had known everything they would find, but Karamut admits that archaeologists knew “that there was an [ancient] port around there.” Finally, one must not forget the financial pressure to finish the excavation quickly: according to Wired magazine, archaeological delays cost Turkey $1 million a day. Unfortunately, it seems that the city officials and archaeologists working on the Marmaray project lack the funding and the cooperation needed to effectively build the tunnel while respecting Istanbul’s cultural heritage.

Naples

Naples began work on its 2-line subway system in the late 1980s, but work on the €1.8 billion (about $2.6 billion) project is not scheduled to finish until 2011. The subway’s route is currently 13 kilometers long with 14 stations, but this comprises only about half of one line. As in Athens and Istanbul, the extreme delays over the last 20-odd years have been almost exclusively due to archaeological finds such as a second-century ship, medieval tombs, and the mosaic floor of an Augustan palace. In fact, stations at sea level above the ancient city remain unopened while all of the stations on the Vomero hill are completed, although making a subway change elevation requires much more complex engineering than building a subway at sea level.

virtualtourist.com

Photo 4. Mini-museum at Museo metro stop in Naples

City planners, engineers, and archaeologists are collaborating to complete the excavation carefully and are highly concerned about the artifacts they uncover. Archaeologists have already restored three ships and plan to both return them to where they were found and make them visible to the public. As in Athens, Naples has built a mini-museum in the “Museo” metro stop, directly below the enormous National Archaeological Museum (see photo 4). Two more metro-museums will open in 2008. Also, Giannegidio Silva, president of Metropolitana di Napoli, says, “We will rebuild the temple that we found [at the Duomo station] and include it in the station. It will be very striking.”

Still, such meticulous work is at the cost of efficiency. If city officials were not as concerned with Naples’ cultural patrimony, surely they would have completed the metro by now. Interestingly, the official web site of Metropolitana di Napoli mentions nothing about the cause of the delays nor the amazing artifacts and monuments that workers have found. It would seem, then, that at least in the eyes of the metro authorities commuters in Naples are not interested in the archaeology behind their subway system. If it is true that commuters are uninterested, should Naples excavate so slowly and meticulously or just push ahead with construction?

The Roman “C” line metro project

metrocspa.it

Photo 5. Map of the Roman metro; gray lines represent the current lines A and B, green line is the new line C

Rome is currently expanding its metro system with a third line, “line C.” City officials have decided that a third subway line is needed to accommodate the smog and street congestion due to Rome’s growing population of over 2.5 million. In addition, as Fiona Winward writes, the C line will reach further into the suburbs than the existing two lines and cover the “‘hole’ in the city centre that is bypassed almost entirely by the existing metro A and B lines” (see map in photo 5). But such an expansion carries a hefty price tag: at an estimate of three billion euro (about $4.3 billion), the C line will cost significantly more than even Athens’, Istanbul’s and Naples’ undergrounds. According to Metroitaliane, the company in charge of the project, the state will cover 70% of this cost while the city and province will pay 18% and 12%, respectively. So why will the project cost so much? For one thing, workers are removing 17.5 million cubic feet of dirt by hand so as not to damage any artifacts, an expensive and time-consuming process as we have seen in the building of other subway systems. In fact, the first part of the line is not expected to be open until 2011 and the entire line until 2015 , but those dates could change based on what archaeologists uncover. But as lengthy and costly as the project might be, the newest addition to Rome’s underground is providing an excellent forum to discuss the ethics of metro-building in an archaeologically rich metropolis.

As we have seen in the above subway projects, archaeologists and city planners must strike a balance between efficiency of transportation in a modern city and respect for the history of an ancient one. Including all involved parties in every step of the process, beginning with the planning phases, helps to achieve understanding between dissimilar groups and to promote solutions that satisfy everyone. During the initial planning phases of the project, archaeologists and engineers decided to build the C line 30 meters below street level to avoid tunneling through strata with evidence of human habitation. Still, as technical director Giovanni Simonacci says, “The issue is not the metro itself, which is going to run far enough below the surface that there is no risk” but rather “how to get people from the surface of the city down to the metro line without disturbing an important historic structure.”

Archaeology has changed a lot in the past few decades. Lately there has been an increasing care worldwide for the recording and conservation of artifacts, as well as interest in involving all affected groups at sites, worry about looting and debate about the merits of salvage archaeology. With metro projects in particular, there are the additional concerns of storing or destroying all the material uncovered in such an enormous excavation. In 2008, then, as Rome builds its third metro line, it is encountering issues that people simply did not worry about when Rome built the existing twolines B and A, inaugurated in 1955 and 1980, respectively. When Mussolini began construction of line B in the 1930s, there was little concern for the artifacts uncovered as he worked toward his goal of quickly creating a modern Roman Empire. Piles of dirt and artifacts were thrown away and diggers even broke off a piece of the Colosseum. The preservation office became much more involved thirty years later when in 1962 workers began construction on line A of the metro. When workers chanced upon the massive Baths of Diocletian, they “moved some [artifacts], destroyed some and changed [their] plans to avoid destroying more.” Despite the growing awareness of the archaeological value of the sites, city planners and archaeologists were completely at odds. In order to expedite construction, workers tried to cover up any finds to avoid interference. Simonacci, who also worked on line A, recounts the lack of cooperation between engineers and archaeologists: “We’d find something and the [preservation office] would swoop in…we would have to cover it over and change the route of the line. We lost years.” Construction of line B resulted in the loss and destruction of countless precious artifacts that may have added to our knowledge about ancient Rome, while the story of line A highlights the frustration and loss of time that occurs when archaeologists and city planners do not work together. Forty-some years after construction first started on the A line, archaeologists and city planners are finally attempting to work together on the C line. In this joint venture, they are not using the construction models of Rome’s first two metro lines, but rather contemporary work in Athens, Istanbul, Naples, and other cities.

Martin Conde

Photo 6. Aerial view of excavations at Piazza Venezia. Click image below for more related photographs by Martin Conde

Although barely into the project, archaeologists have already made some amazing discoveries. Besides the expected Roman coins, toys, and pottery, they have also uncovered a 2,000 year old compass and a skeleton possibly belonging to a woman who ruled the area 3,000 years before the founding of the city. Archaeologists have also found a 15th century glass factory in Rome’s largest square, Piazza Venezia (see photo 6), that they deemed important enough to move the station that was planned there. In addition, they have unearthed what is possibly theStagnum of Agrippa built in 25 BCE, a huge artificial pool in which, during a dinner party, “Nero and his guests were towed on a raft” filled with exotic animals while being seduced by prostitutes on both banks of the pool. In a historically significant find in November 2006, workers even uncovered part of the Aurelian Wall, through which discovery we now know that the walls defending Rome were twice as tall as previously believed. Archaeologists are bound to discover countless more artifacts as construction continues, and the excavation may continue to change the known history of Rome.

The main question that metro building raises, both in Rome and in other cities, is what to do with archaeological finds once they have been uncovered. Documenting finds and maintaining their context is of great concern to archaeologists, so they record the position and photograph everything they find. As far as displaying the objects they do decide to keep, Roman archaeologists are faced with the challenge of finding museum space and storage in a city already teeming with artifacts. In December 2006, the Olearie Papali, previously a papal warehouse, opened the exhibition Memories from the Underground: Archaeological Finds From 1980-2006, which displayed artifacts uncovered in Rome over those years. In a wonderful collaboration of archaeologists and city workers, the exhibition was primarily financed by the construction companies that unearthed the artifacts. Plans are also underway for at least one metro-museum mimicking those in Athens and Naples. Unfortunately, it would be impossible to save, publish, store and display every find from such a massive excavation. In fact, Angelo Bottini, the chief Roman archaeological official, admits, “for a lot of this stuff, all we need to do is document it and then destroy it.”

The other significant concern that the construction of the metro’s line C raises is how much or how little time and money to devote to archaeology as opposed to quickly creating transportation. In Rome’s past experience, the public seems quite supportive of the archaeological attention going into the metro. In Italy, nothing happens quickly but people accept that as a fact of life. In addition, Silvana Rizzo, top aide to Minister of Culture Francesco Rutelli, says, “In the last 10 or 15 years there’s been enormous attention on the part of the public” to ancient Rome. Italians are increasingly both aware of and proud of their cultural patrimony, as one can see in cases such as that involving the Getty Museum, which recently returned stolen antiquities to Italy. In addition, Bottini suggests that globalization produces countries with a “greater desire to establish an identity, and archaeology is an identity.”

Officials are also generally in favor of meticulous excavation prior to metro construction. Although it would drastically change the look of Rome’s main square, Mayor Walter Veltroni has agreed to change part of Piazza Venezia into a museum if an important discovery is made there. Unlike during the construction of the previous metro lines, in Rome today “archaeologists are not aligned against development as a matter of course,” says Bottini. Still, attention to archaeology can be very frustrating for city planners. “There are treasures that are underground that would stay buried forever,” says Enrico Testa, chairman of Roma Metropolitane SpA. “But as soon as we uncover them, our work gets blocked.” As with any public works project through an archaeological site, the only way for both city planners and archaeologists to be satisfied is for both groups to be willing to collaborate and make sacrifices.

The archaeological ethics of the project

Like all archaeological excavations, the digging of line C of the Roman metro brings to light a host of ethical considerations. In fact, due to the vast amount of material being unearthed, ethical considerations regarding the metro’s construction are of utmost importance. The field of archaeological ethics stresses the need to satisfy all affected groups. Though ancient Rome does not have any immediate descendant groups or living communities that share its culture, various groups do still have a vested interest in the project. On the one hand, urban planners and the government constitute one group, while archaeologists and the Italian Ministry of Culture make up another. Perhaps left out, however, is the largest group of all: common citizens, commuters, and tourists who will make up the ridership of the completed metro. Most archaeologists, of course, would favor more thorough digging and the publication of all finds. If the government and city planners could have their way, the metro might be built much more quickly and inexpensively, but at the cost of lost knowledge and the destruction of valuable archaeological material. Commuters would doubtlessly also like the metro to be available immediately, but commuters are the same citizens who have recently become interested in their cultural patrimony.

Archaeologists also face the ethical consideration of how best to treat artifacts. As stewards of the past, we as archaeologists and enthusiasts feel a responsibility to protect the dwindling archaeological record. There is no space to display or even store every find from such a large-scale excavation. Some archaeologists might even be inclined to call the Ministry of Culture irresponsible or unprofessional for allowing a project that, for lack of space, will inevitably destroy thousands of artifacts. And in this case there is no need to excavate in order to protect artifacts from looting; the modern streets and buildings above the material make looting virtually impossible. As long as there is little danger of looting, it is always best for the artifact to leave it in situ for future archaeologists with more advanced technology. But leaving everything in situ does not let us learn from the artifacts; what is the purpose of protecting the archaeological record if we cannot also learn from it? But as journalist Fiona Winward points out, “the great irony of…a new metro is the opportunity to dig in areas that would otherwise be off limits” and to learn from that otherwise inaccessible material. Moreover, smog from cars and buses severely damages monuments above ground. As we have seen, underground transportation can cut above-ground traffic significantly and therefore help protect precious archaeological material that is already exposed in Rome. Most importantly, if we as archaeologists condemn construction of the metro, we are disregarding the wishes of urban planners and commuters, the two other significant groups affected by the metro line.

The final ethical consideration archaeologists must face in construction of the metro line C in Rome is whether they are obligated to publish finds. Logistically, it would be impossible to study and publish every artifact that workers uncover as they clear the path for the subway. With limited time, money and labor, archaeologists and city planners must work together to develop a standard for publication. If not every artifact can be published, should archaeologists choose only the most interesting finds, an even sample of unusual and commonplace finds, or perhaps only everything uncovered at a single entrance shaft? It is unfair for archaeologists to say that we are ethically obligated not to dig at all if we lack the time, money and labor to publish and study the finds extensively. Outweighing the unfortunate destruction of artifacts and the unfeasibility of publishing every last find is archaeology’s responsibility to the living community, the 2.5 million people who need a third metro line to get to work and school every day.

Return to the top

Conclusion

Every archaeological dig poses problems. Be it a living community that claims cultural affiliation to a particular site, a lack of economic resources to complete a study, rampant looting of a site or two groups with opposing goals, each site comes with a particular set of challenges which the developing field of archaeological ethics aims to mediate. A third metro line is certainly needed to increase public transportation to the city center and the suburbs of a city as big and congested as Rome, yet the archaeological material beneath the city is irreplaceable and distinct from any other in the world. In the case of the C line of the Roman metropolitan subway, then, metro officials face the struggle of accounting for the wishes of the public as well as those of the government, urban planners, archaeologists and themselves. While this is no easy task, effective communication is the only means to ensure that everyone’s concerns are heard. As we have seen in Athens and Naples, good communication between all parties, beginning in the early planning stages, can lead to a successful metro project which benefits both urban planners and archaeologists. Unfortunately, as seen in Istanbul, groups do not always consult with each other about decisions. If this is the case, subway construction can face much criticism and encounter unforeseen problems such as a lack of funding and unclear protocol about what to do with finds. Luckily, Rome has learned from the mistakes of Istanbul and followed the good examples of Athens and Naples in its own project. Though some artifacts must be destroyed and not everything can be published or excavated thoroughly, archaeologists are still able to gather new and exciting information every day from sites that the metro has uncovered. Thanks to the cooperation and communication between urban planners and archaeologists, the construction of line C of the Roman metro is setting a new precedent for creative and collaborative efforts in archaeology.

Return to the top

References

Matthews, Jeff, 2005. Next Stop–Neapolis!, Around Napleshttp://faculty.ed.umuc.edu/%7Ejmatthew/naples/neapolismetro.htm (accessed November 10, 2007),

2007. Istanbul: Past and Future Colliding, HubPageshttp://hubpages.com/hub/Archaeology_v_Engineering_A_Byzantine_Tale (accessed November 10, 2007),

Rohde, Mike, 2007. Archaeology and Metros, Metro Bits http://mic-ro.com/metro/archaeology.html (accessed November 10, 2007),

2007. Sistema Metronapoli, Metronapolihttp://www.metro.na.it/metro/index.php?option=com_frontpage&Itemid=1 (accessed November 10, 2007),

2007. Metro C S.p.A. Metro C. n.d. http://www.metrocspa.it/index2.asp (accessed November 10, 2007),

2007. Linea C , Roma Metrohttp://www.metroitaliane.it/progetti_rm_lineaC.html (accessed November 10, 2007),

Winward, Fiona, 2007. The Metro C Slalom, Wanted in Romehttp://www.wantedinrome.com/articles/complete_articles.php?id_art=496 (accessed November 10, 2007),

Stampilidis, Nicholas & Parlama, Liana, 2000. Athens: The City Beneath the City, Athens: Greek Ministry of Culture and Museum of Cycladic Art.

Randall, Frederika, 2007. Eye on Athens: ‘The City Beneath the City’–Excavations for Subway Tunnels Reveal Strata of Lost Worlds; Art on the Morning Commute. Wall Street Journal, July 20, sec. A, p.24.

Landler, Mark, 2005. In Istanbul, A Race Against Progress.International Herald Tribune,

Giannegidio, Silva, 2005. L’intervisa Silva: Toledo, Municipio e Borsa tre nuove stazioni entro il 2008. Il Mattino,

2006. Metrò, pronta la prima galleria della linea Dante-Centro Direzionale. Il Mattino,

2006. Metro Project Provides Look at Rome’s Past. China Daily,

2004. Next Stop: Second Century A.D. Archaeology, 57,(2).

Provoledo, Elisabetta, 2006. Rome’s Ancient Treasures Inspire a New Generation. International Herald Tribune,

Rose, Mark & Aydingun, Sengul, 2007. Under Istanbul. Archaeology , 60,(4): 34-40.

Kahn, Gabriel, 2007. When Rome Builds a Submway, It Trips over Archaeologists; Tiny Spades and Artifacts Eventually Will Give Way to Massive Earthmovers. Wall Street Journal, January 27, sec. A, p. 1.

Biography

Francesca Haack is a senior at Macalester College in Saint Paul, Minnesota. She will be graduating in May 2008 with a Classical Languages major and a Hispanic Studies minor. Upon graduation, she hopes to travel and teach English abroad, probably in Latin America. During her junior year of college, she studied abroad in Rome and saw signs and construction sites all over the city for the new metro line that is being built. She became curious about how the city was handling the archaeological material uncovered, and whether people were interested in the archaeology behind the project, so she chose to research this for her senior seminar class. This paper is one of three SAFE essay contest finalists chosen from the Macalester College Archaeological Ethics Seminar taught in Fall 2007.