Topic ID #7958 - posted 6/26/2010 4:54 AM
Jennifer Palmer
Webmaster
Tomb raiders hit Iraqi sites as U.S. troops leave
Jennifer Palmer
Webmaster
'No guards, no fences, nothing' to protect oldest treasures of civilization
by Steven Lee Myers
updated 6/26/2010 3:30:33 AM ET
DHAHIR, Iraq — The looting of Iraq’s ancient ruins is thriving again. This time it is not a result of the “stuff happens” chaos that followed the American invasion in 2003, but rather the bureaucratic indifference of Iraq’s newly sovereign government.
Thousands of archaeological sites — containing some of the oldest treasures of civilization — have been left unprotected, allowing what officials of Iraq’s antiquities board say is a resumption of brazenly illegal excavations, especially here in southern Iraq.
A new antiquities police force, created in 2008 to replace withdrawing American troops, was supposed to have more than 5,000 officers by now. It has 106, enough to protect their headquarters in an Ottoman-era mansion on the eastern bank of the Tigris River in Baghdad and not much else.
Read the rest of the article here.
by Steven Lee Myers
updated 6/26/2010 3:30:33 AM ET
DHAHIR, Iraq — The looting of Iraq’s ancient ruins is thriving again. This time it is not a result of the “stuff happens” chaos that followed the American invasion in 2003, but rather the bureaucratic indifference of Iraq’s newly sovereign government.
Thousands of archaeological sites — containing some of the oldest treasures of civilization — have been left unprotected, allowing what officials of Iraq’s antiquities board say is a resumption of brazenly illegal excavations, especially here in southern Iraq.
A new antiquities police force, created in 2008 to replace withdrawing American troops, was supposed to have more than 5,000 officers by now. It has 106, enough to protect their headquarters in an Ottoman-era mansion on the eastern bank of the Tigris River in Baghdad and not much else.
Read the rest of the article here.
Post ID#17802 - replied 6/27/2010 8:48 PM
marehart
Just to annoy and see if anyone is awake....I wonder if: given that the Iraqis either don't care or are incompetent, would the U.S. be called an "Imperialist looter" or "Raper of Iraqi History" if we did excavations and took it with us rather than see it destroyed, looted by bulldozer and sold to collectors? Might be a chance to buck up the stats on job creation.
Of course the real solution is for the deadbeat government to stick their noses outside their garrisons and do something for Iraq that may not put money in their pockets. But then, I remember that since they are Arabs, they are really just another case of barbarian raiders/invaders and not the true, Sumerian-Akkadian natives. In other words, if it didn't happen after 750 A.D. is doesn't matter. At least in Egypt the Arab people have adopted the ancient Egyptians (and not yet driven the Copts to extinction).
Post ID#17806 - replied 6/28/2010 12:04 PM
Classarch
Well first off, just because they speak Arabic does not make them all Arabs! They are an admixture of several peoples who just adopted Arabic due to the spread of Islam throughout the region. So the people of the country are the inheritors of the cultural heritage of the land. As for Egypt the Arabs only mixed with the locals and thus the result of their adoption and acceptance of ancient Egyptian culture.
Next, it is not our right to tell others what to do with their antiquities and it is not our right to take it either. The antiquities belong to the people of Iraq or whatever other country of their origins. Just because the higher-up elected officials do not care to protect or preserve their cultural sites does not mean that there are no Iraqis fighting for them. In fact there are! The problem with the government is a matter of priorities and greed.
I do agree with you on the deadbeat government though! They are a bunch of wealthy former ex-pats who were placed in power by the U.S and England and the only thing they care about is their own personal gains in the endeavor to "rebuild" Iraq.
Next, it is not our right to tell others what to do with their antiquities and it is not our right to take it either. The antiquities belong to the people of Iraq or whatever other country of their origins. Just because the higher-up elected officials do not care to protect or preserve their cultural sites does not mean that there are no Iraqis fighting for them. In fact there are! The problem with the government is a matter of priorities and greed.
I do agree with you on the deadbeat government though! They are a bunch of wealthy former ex-pats who were placed in power by the U.S and England and the only thing they care about is their own personal gains in the endeavor to "rebuild" Iraq.
Post ID#17812 - replied 6/30/2010 8:52 PM
marehart
Your PC reply put me in a testy mood so my "culture" today is to be blunt.
I thought all this in Iraq was desigated world heritage stuff? Doesn't that make it everyone's business to preserve these treasures from thugs? Your thought that conquerors have a right to be cultural inheritors smacks of the 'might makes right' line of thought.
The Arab/Islamic culture that dominates Iraq and Egypt would like very much to establish their roots as the indigenous people of their respective areas. They seem to think that this would give legitimacy to their Jihadist forefathers in the 700's. Don't kid yourself; the "cultural" powers that be are only interested in post 700 stuff. You won't see fighting over Ur or Uruk, just mosques. Those that care are the few westernized academics. The rest are too ignorant, lazy, stupid, nuts or scared.
As a people, the Copts in Egypt is the group with the best claim to indigenous. The rest are so "mixed" and focused on post 700 years that their caring about the pre-700 years is due to tourist dollars, prestigue or issues of sovereignty.
By the way....what's with this, " who were placed in power by the U.S and England" trash? The only thing they installed was the election process. I doubt that either would consider the present government people if they had their choice.
Obama is just as bad or worse than Bush/Bush. If the US made a point of having the known sites guarded (even if by the near useless UN) and pushed hard, the Iraqi governent would respond. As it is they only move when pricked and the ancient dead don't have one.
Am glad you commented....this website needs more PARTICIPATION!!!
I thought all this in Iraq was desigated world heritage stuff? Doesn't that make it everyone's business to preserve these treasures from thugs? Your thought that conquerors have a right to be cultural inheritors smacks of the 'might makes right' line of thought.
The Arab/Islamic culture that dominates Iraq and Egypt would like very much to establish their roots as the indigenous people of their respective areas. They seem to think that this would give legitimacy to their Jihadist forefathers in the 700's. Don't kid yourself; the "cultural" powers that be are only interested in post 700 stuff. You won't see fighting over Ur or Uruk, just mosques. Those that care are the few westernized academics. The rest are too ignorant, lazy, stupid, nuts or scared.
As a people, the Copts in Egypt is the group with the best claim to indigenous. The rest are so "mixed" and focused on post 700 years that their caring about the pre-700 years is due to tourist dollars, prestigue or issues of sovereignty.
By the way....what's with this, " who were placed in power by the U.S and England" trash? The only thing they installed was the election process. I doubt that either would consider the present government people if they had their choice.
Obama is just as bad or worse than Bush/Bush. If the US made a point of having the known sites guarded (even if by the near useless UN) and pushed hard, the Iraqi governent would respond. As it is they only move when pricked and the ancient dead don't have one.
Am glad you commented....this website needs more PARTICIPATION!!!
Post ID#17850 - replied 7/9/2010 8:52 PM
Classarch
First off those who were placed up for election in the post Saddam era of Iraq were nothing more than ex-pat Iraqis who were wealthy business men with political and corporate connections who lived in the U.S and England. Later there may be a handful of them who never left Iraq and had religious influence, other than that there was no other way for any of those guys to have had any kind of influence to win an election without the direct support of the U.S and England. Nothing happened in Iraq at that time and most likely since without strong connections both politically and corporately.
Second, my reply was not PC but just obvious observational skills and knowledge of the history of the region. Yes the Coptic are the most connected with the ancient Egyptians but there are also many others.Oh by the way, most people who are Coptic SPEAK ARABIC and only use the Coptic language for liturgy. Are these people Arabs for speaking Arabic? What exactly happened to a majority population which was Egyptian when the handful of Arabs came into that land? Did they disappear or did they just assimilate themselves into the controlling culture? I believe that genetically the people of Iraq and Egypt have a strong connection with the ancient peoples of those lands. Just because a people change a religion does not mean that they have no right, claim or connection with the past.
Now a people who would fit perfect into your argument better are the Turks. They claim that their ancestors created many of the great ancient Greek sites in western Anatolia/ Turkey, but it is a known fact that the majority of the original population up until the 1920's were Greeks in the west such as Izmir/Smyrna and Istanbul/Constantinople and Armenian and Pontian Greeks along the central and eastern Black Sea coast. During the 1920's many 100's of 1000's of Greeks were killed and millions fled just like the Armenians where 1.5 million were massacred and millions fled. Yet today the Turkish people who have only been in that area for around 600 years claim cultural rights and connection with the ancient peoples of that land.
Third, my argument has absolutely nothing to do with "might makes right"! You are twisting my argument by assuming it is based on your beliefs that the people of Iraq and Egypt are Arabs and thus have no connection with that land. If that was my point then you would have a good counter-argument, but it is not. I claim that the majority of the people are the same as the ancients with slight admixture, depending on the area, and that just because they changed religions does not depreciate their claim and their right to the cultural and ethnic past of those lands.
Finally, you are correct in saying that it should be the concern of all the people in the world to protect cultural treasures but I still believe it should be the indigenous population who should have the first and final word on what should be done with them. We can influence them and give them incentives to do what we want them to do but it should never be our place to force someone else to do it. If a Native American tribe decided to dig up their ancestors bones and sell them to paleopathologist or osteoarchaeologist for study do we have the right to tell them that they can't? This is the same with all other countries, in my opinion.
One final thing I do agree with you on is that this site does need more participation!
Second, my reply was not PC but just obvious observational skills and knowledge of the history of the region. Yes the Coptic are the most connected with the ancient Egyptians but there are also many others.Oh by the way, most people who are Coptic SPEAK ARABIC and only use the Coptic language for liturgy. Are these people Arabs for speaking Arabic? What exactly happened to a majority population which was Egyptian when the handful of Arabs came into that land? Did they disappear or did they just assimilate themselves into the controlling culture? I believe that genetically the people of Iraq and Egypt have a strong connection with the ancient peoples of those lands. Just because a people change a religion does not mean that they have no right, claim or connection with the past.
Now a people who would fit perfect into your argument better are the Turks. They claim that their ancestors created many of the great ancient Greek sites in western Anatolia/ Turkey, but it is a known fact that the majority of the original population up until the 1920's were Greeks in the west such as Izmir/Smyrna and Istanbul/Constantinople and Armenian and Pontian Greeks along the central and eastern Black Sea coast. During the 1920's many 100's of 1000's of Greeks were killed and millions fled just like the Armenians where 1.5 million were massacred and millions fled. Yet today the Turkish people who have only been in that area for around 600 years claim cultural rights and connection with the ancient peoples of that land.
Third, my argument has absolutely nothing to do with "might makes right"! You are twisting my argument by assuming it is based on your beliefs that the people of Iraq and Egypt are Arabs and thus have no connection with that land. If that was my point then you would have a good counter-argument, but it is not. I claim that the majority of the people are the same as the ancients with slight admixture, depending on the area, and that just because they changed religions does not depreciate their claim and their right to the cultural and ethnic past of those lands.
Finally, you are correct in saying that it should be the concern of all the people in the world to protect cultural treasures but I still believe it should be the indigenous population who should have the first and final word on what should be done with them. We can influence them and give them incentives to do what we want them to do but it should never be our place to force someone else to do it. If a Native American tribe decided to dig up their ancestors bones and sell them to paleopathologist or osteoarchaeologist for study do we have the right to tell them that they can't? This is the same with all other countries, in my opinion.
One final thing I do agree with you on is that this site does need more participation!
Post ID#17851 - replied 7/10/2010 10:27 AM
marehart
So, you don't have any problems with the Taliban blowing up the Buddah rock carvings? The Taliban are nothing but theives/thugs writ large. They are a classic case of 'might makes right'.
If this is okay, then do you have a problem with looters at all?
It's pretty clear from their own admission that if they speak Arabic, they consider themselves Arab. Your discussion of the Turks makes my point. Taken your way, culturally speaking, no one should be pissed off about liebensraum or colonialism.
One point up for discussion; does an invading culture that has replaced an indigenous culture through violence ever have legitimacy concerning indigenous artifacts?
You also begged the question on the legitamacy of a "culture" forced on the indigenous population by war that did not end until they were stopped by Charles the Hammer at Tours and at the gates of Vienna in the 16th century and does not care about anything but their own post-Mohammed culture.
I still say the only thing keeping the Pyramids above ground level is the money from tourism.
I want to read comments from all you observers--or are you all just voyers???
Post ID#17856 - replied 7/11/2010 8:09 PM
Classarch
What does my believing that the indigenous populations of all countries having the right to control their own cultural heritage have to do with the Taliban blowing up the Buddha Sculptures? Supporting indigenous rights has nothing to do with supporting the destruction of archaeological resources. The two are not one in the same!
Even though, personally, I would never do any such thing or encourage others to do so I still believe that we have no right to tell others what to do with their archaeological resources. Anyways, isn't what makes archaeological resources important all a matter of perspective? What archaeologist deem important is not the same as all other groups.
No, I do NOT support looters and I never said any such thing! You were the one talking about telling the Iraqis what to do with the archaeological resources and saying that none of them care. I only pointed out that there are many who do care and so why don't we just support those people to help them influence the Iraqi government? Why is it when things don't go someones way or according to someones beliefs people always think that the only solution is to rush in and have an outsider control things?
Would you care to elaborate on this "Taken your way, culturally speaking, no one should be pissed off about liebensraum or colonialism." How exactly does this connect in with what I have discussed?
Even though, personally, I would never do any such thing or encourage others to do so I still believe that we have no right to tell others what to do with their archaeological resources. Anyways, isn't what makes archaeological resources important all a matter of perspective? What archaeologist deem important is not the same as all other groups.
No, I do NOT support looters and I never said any such thing! You were the one talking about telling the Iraqis what to do with the archaeological resources and saying that none of them care. I only pointed out that there are many who do care and so why don't we just support those people to help them influence the Iraqi government? Why is it when things don't go someones way or according to someones beliefs people always think that the only solution is to rush in and have an outsider control things?
Would you care to elaborate on this "Taken your way, culturally speaking, no one should be pissed off about liebensraum or colonialism." How exactly does this connect in with what I have discussed?
Post ID#17858 - replied 7/12/2010 12:09 PM
marehart
Your second paragraph confirms my point. It also is in conflict with your first paragraph.
Taken as you have expressed it, any conqueror becomes the legitimate decision maker on antiquities. My beef with the Arabic speakers is that except for a few people, they do not seem to care about anything pre 8th century (unless there is money in it for them) as opposed to fighting to the death over anything post 8th century. Hence, reprobates (yes, this is being judgemental) like the Taliban destroy anything they do not find useful. The people in charge of the Temple Mount in Jerusalem are of the same bent concerning anything pre 8th century.
A problem for cultural anthropology concerning the ethics of preserving antiquities is that the Muslim culture/religion is not native to anything pre 8th century and was forced upon the indigenous people/culture.
With your approach, Native Americans would be out of luck (otherwise known as SOL) if they didn't like the Museum of Nat'l History or the Smithsonian digging up their dead and displaying them.
If being designated a World Heritage Site does not carry an obligation to preserve, then what's it good for other than tourism? Not that the current locals don't have a major stake, but retreating or punting to current regimes in this way is going back to the Middle Ages.
Injecting your politics concerning the Iraqi invasion into a discussion of ethics is the problem.
Taken as you have expressed it, any conqueror becomes the legitimate decision maker on antiquities. My beef with the Arabic speakers is that except for a few people, they do not seem to care about anything pre 8th century (unless there is money in it for them) as opposed to fighting to the death over anything post 8th century. Hence, reprobates (yes, this is being judgemental) like the Taliban destroy anything they do not find useful. The people in charge of the Temple Mount in Jerusalem are of the same bent concerning anything pre 8th century.
A problem for cultural anthropology concerning the ethics of preserving antiquities is that the Muslim culture/religion is not native to anything pre 8th century and was forced upon the indigenous people/culture.
With your approach, Native Americans would be out of luck (otherwise known as SOL) if they didn't like the Museum of Nat'l History or the Smithsonian digging up their dead and displaying them.
If being designated a World Heritage Site does not carry an obligation to preserve, then what's it good for other than tourism? Not that the current locals don't have a major stake, but retreating or punting to current regimes in this way is going back to the Middle Ages.
Injecting your politics concerning the Iraqi invasion into a discussion of ethics is the problem.
Post ID#17860 - replied 7/12/2010 8:24 PM
Classarch
Wow, are you even paying attention to what I have been writing?
What do my personal views and perspectives have to do with the rights of the indigenous people to do what they want to do with their cultural heritage and archaeological resources? How does that conflict? My PERSONAL ethics - vs- Indigenous rights to their archaeological resources are two distinct entities. Just because I support their rights does not mean I will agree with what they do!
You argument about the illegitimacy of a conqueror has nothing to do with recent history. You are focused on the spread of Islam in the 7th through 9th centuries. Whether or not the spread of a RELIGION occurred and the indigenous peoples either adopting it or forced to convert does not take away the right of those people to their cultural heritage. So according to you the Greeks who converted, either by force or by choice, to Christianity lose all their rights and claims to the to their cultural heritage. After all it has been proven that many ancient Greeks were forced to convert to Christianity.
Your example about the Native Americans is a poor comparison. A people converting to a specific religion but still retaining their genetic connection with those who built the archaeological resources IS NOT THE SAME as a completely different ethnic group, genos, etc coming and completely conquering a land and becoming the predominant people and cultures. (Indigenous people converting to a different religion -vs- an entirely new group coming in and controlling the land).
As for "Injecting your politics concerning the Iraqi invasion into a discussion of ethics is the problem." You are the one that brought up the Iraqi leadership showing no concern for the archaeological resources of Iraq. All I was doing was discussing why they have no concern. I also pointed out that there are Iraqis who are concerned.
As for ethics, your injection of the Arab issue, changed your original thought on ethics to one which is more philosophical, historical and cultural.
If you would like to solely discuss the "....I wonder if: given that the Iraqis either don't care or are incompetent, would the U.S. be called an "Imperialist looter" or "Raper of Iraqi History" if we did excavations and took it with us rather than see it destroyed, looted by bulldozer and sold to collectors? Might be a chance to buck up the stats on job creation.
Of course the real solution is for the deadbeat government to stick their noses outside their garrisons and do something for Iraq that may not put money in their pockets." ,then we can start the discussion over and keep it a purely ethical one!
What do my personal views and perspectives have to do with the rights of the indigenous people to do what they want to do with their cultural heritage and archaeological resources? How does that conflict? My PERSONAL ethics - vs- Indigenous rights to their archaeological resources are two distinct entities. Just because I support their rights does not mean I will agree with what they do!
You argument about the illegitimacy of a conqueror has nothing to do with recent history. You are focused on the spread of Islam in the 7th through 9th centuries. Whether or not the spread of a RELIGION occurred and the indigenous peoples either adopting it or forced to convert does not take away the right of those people to their cultural heritage. So according to you the Greeks who converted, either by force or by choice, to Christianity lose all their rights and claims to the to their cultural heritage. After all it has been proven that many ancient Greeks were forced to convert to Christianity.
Your example about the Native Americans is a poor comparison. A people converting to a specific religion but still retaining their genetic connection with those who built the archaeological resources IS NOT THE SAME as a completely different ethnic group, genos, etc coming and completely conquering a land and becoming the predominant people and cultures. (Indigenous people converting to a different religion -vs- an entirely new group coming in and controlling the land).
As for "Injecting your politics concerning the Iraqi invasion into a discussion of ethics is the problem." You are the one that brought up the Iraqi leadership showing no concern for the archaeological resources of Iraq. All I was doing was discussing why they have no concern. I also pointed out that there are Iraqis who are concerned.
As for ethics, your injection of the Arab issue, changed your original thought on ethics to one which is more philosophical, historical and cultural.
If you would like to solely discuss the "....I wonder if: given that the Iraqis either don't care or are incompetent, would the U.S. be called an "Imperialist looter" or "Raper of Iraqi History" if we did excavations and took it with us rather than see it destroyed, looted by bulldozer and sold to collectors? Might be a chance to buck up the stats on job creation.
Of course the real solution is for the deadbeat government to stick their noses outside their garrisons and do something for Iraq that may not put money in their pockets." ,then we can start the discussion over and keep it a purely ethical one!
Post ID#17869 - replied 7/13/2010 2:58 PM
marehart
We're not going to get anywhere as long as you fail to understand that Islam is not just a religion, but an entire imperialistic culture package. The leaders of the "Arab" areas seem to want to follow its tenents. Only in Egypt is there respect for the pre-Islamic culture(s).
My point is, if they don't give a damn, why should they complain if someone else cares enough to work the sites? Concerning world heritage sites, they are in my mind not legitimate caretakers. Just because they are in power today doesn't matter--regime change can be affected in a number ways in that part of the world (just wait till our troops leave). It's medieval politics of greed, bigotry, and power mongering my friend.
Concerning Native Americans, I was refering your position that the powers that be and their culture in Iraq are the decision makers we have to respect. If so, then same concept applies to other venues doesn't it? BTW, aren't you getting picky when you differentiate the genetic heritage of a foreign, violent conqueror? Those being conquered/killed do not care one bit.
My point is, if they don't give a damn, why should they complain if someone else cares enough to work the sites? Concerning world heritage sites, they are in my mind not legitimate caretakers. Just because they are in power today doesn't matter--regime change can be affected in a number ways in that part of the world (just wait till our troops leave). It's medieval politics of greed, bigotry, and power mongering my friend.
Concerning Native Americans, I was refering your position that the powers that be and their culture in Iraq are the decision makers we have to respect. If so, then same concept applies to other venues doesn't it? BTW, aren't you getting picky when you differentiate the genetic heritage of a foreign, violent conqueror? Those being conquered/killed do not care one bit.
|
Next topic: "Yosemite National Park Volunteer Archeologists" |
|
Previous topic: "Hunting Weapon 10,000 Years Old Found in Melting Ice Patch" |
|
Looking for something else? Show recent posts in Discussion |