Conflicting aims

In the aftermath of the 2003 invasion of Iraq, thousands of priceless antiquities from the Babylon, Ur and Nineveh civilisations were looted from the National Museum of Iraq in Baghdad. Among the artefacts plundered was the sacred vase of Warka, a 5,000-year-old carved alabaster stone vessel.

Manuscripts and maps in the National Library were destroyed and monuments vandalised. As the armies occupied the country, they carelessly caused irreparable damage to the historical record. Iraq is the home of Mesopotamia, the cradle of civilisation and a major archaeological site.

This destruction should have been limited, if not prevented. In the months preceding the war, antiquities experts asked the Pentagon and the British government to ensure the national museum’s safety from combat and plunder, but it didn’t happen.

Frantic attempts were made to salvage the situation by heritage professionals. They worked with the military, in an ad hoc fashion, to try and stem the devastation by providing advice and knowledge.

Peter Stone, professor of heritage studies at Newcastle University, was approached in February 2003 by the Ministry of Defence (MoD), to help identify archaeological sites in Iraq that required protection.

He was initially reluctant, he explains, primarily because he was the wrong person to talk to - it wasn’t his area of expertise. But, he agreed to the request. “It was made very quickly clear that it was me or no-one.”

Seven years later, Stone has few regrets about collaborating with the MoD. It is the best of a bad situation, he argues. “So long as you make the point it is better not to go to war, then the next realistic step is to help mitigate the damage.”

In fact, Stone is convinced that permanently working with the military, rather than responding too late in urgent circumstances, would be more sensible.

“If we want to take protection seriously, we need to engage with the military, not as a knee-jerk reaction, but continuously, to make sure they and politicians know the importance of cultural heritage.”

He is trying to formalise the relationship. “It shouldn’t be about responding to a particular place. From day one, the military and senior relevant government officials should be effectively trained in the importance of culture.”

Stone is involved in an international group meeting regularly to influence training in the US and Europe. He has been lobbying the British government to ratify the 1954 Hague Convention on the Protection of the Cultural Heritage in Times of Armed Conflict, which should have been passed in the Heritage Protection Bill that was dropped last year.

The involvement of heritage professionals in the protection of cultural property in conflict has divided the sector. Critics argue this militarises archaeology and recalls the role archaeologists played in the past when they formed a part of imperialistic campaigns.

Yannis Hamilakis, reader in archaeology at the University of Southampton, and vocal opponent, explains his concerns: “It’s about the loss of autonomy and independence on the part of the heritage specialist.”

He argues: “In situations like Iraq in 2003, assuming the formalised role of the military adviser once the conflict started and once the western armies invaded the country, made these heritage specialists part of the structure of the occupation and colonisation of the country, regardless of their personal opinion on the war.”

These reservations are shared by Tim Schadla-Hall, reader in public archaeology at University College London. “I find it distasteful. You cannot work with the army and separate yourself from warfare. You endorse the aims and activities of the invader by being there,” he says.

But John Curtis, keeper of the department of the Middle East at the British Museum, who played an active role in attempting to ameliorate destruction to Iraq’s cultural heritage, found working alongside the British military to be a positive relationship.

Many archaeologists were concerned about the British Museum, a national museum of one of the primary countries waging an illegal war, working with the invaders.

Curtis understands their worries: “The decision to go to war is political. I was vehemently opposed and nothing changes that. I didn’t want to get involved in the run up to war.”

But, when conflict starts, heritage professionals have a responsibility to assist in the protection of the culture, he says. It is essential “to protect the physical past - including landscape, books and intangible heritage, for the Iraqi people. They need culture and mu-seums as well as schools and hospitals.”

Despite the warnings from critics, Curtis found working with the army reasonably easy. “They were helpful and hospitable. We couldn’t have been there without them.”

Not only did the army get the heritage professionals into the country and keep them safe, but, says Curtis, “They also are far more open and accountable than the dubious security firms.”

Curtis is careful to stress that they would not have gone without an invitation from the Iraqi people. “We were invited by, and worked with Iraqi colleagues. We wouldn’t do it without them.”

Subsequently, the British Museum has been one of a few organisations involved in exchanges with Iraqi cultural experts, who learn and share skills such as conservation and building databases.

During the course of 2008, the British Museum and the British Army collaborated in a project to inspect archaeological sites in the south of Iraq and to develop plans for a new museum in Basra. Curtis is convinced that the museum would not have been possible without the army.

“The military got the project off to a good start, enabling a survey of the sites, and for it be overseen by a project manger.” Despite these efforts, the museum’s future is uncertain.

“Now the army are not there and we have a steering committee with Iraqi and British representatives. But we have no money. The British government was interested, but with the recession, it’s not looking likely.”

Heritage professionals are not alone in being a group of people drawn into conflict situations because of their expertise. Embedded journalists and anthropologists have recently become the focus of controversy.

But, as Peter Stone points out: “Doctors go to war-torn places and save lives without being accused of being partial.”

Schadla-Hall takes issue with this comparison: “You cannot compare archaeologists to doctors. Unlike medicine, archaeology comes with major baggage. Archaeology is political.”

Working with the military raises questions even for its advocates. René Teijgeler, a conservator, served as senior adviser of the United States Embassy to the Iraqi Ministry of Culture from 2004 to 2005.

He later worked in Afghanistan for six months, where he negotiated with NGOs and the military leaders with the importance of cultural rights, traditions and customs.

Afghanistan was a different experience. “I will not go back to Afghanistan,” he says. “Because of the particularities of the security situation, you get too close to the army, and neutrality in practice is too difficult.”

It is also dangerous: “You are at risk. One colleague was killed in Iraq; it’s hardly a holiday.” Even so, Teijgeler is in favour of working with the army. “Should we stand by and watch Babylon be destroyed?” he asks. “We have a moral responsibility to help.”

The ethical problems archaeologists en-counter in cooperating with armed forces are similar to problems humanitarian workers have faced since the 1990s.

Teijgeler says the sector should learn from their experience. “Humanitarian workers now have very strict rules. We also need to make our own guidelines.”

They should give clear advice on at what stage in the run up to war should the heritage expert work with the army, or for them, and in what capacity. He is adamant that they shouldn’t unless the conflict is internationally sanctioned.

The Warka vase was returned to the Iraq Museum during an amnesty in 2003 but many other antiquities have been lost forever. And as long as war continues, there will be conflict over how the heritage sector should respond.

Tiffany Jenkins is a sociologist and visiting fellow at the London School of Economics in cultural property and heritage law

The British Museum has been helping to protect Iraq’s archaeological legacy since early 2003, when it warned the UK government about the danger to the country’s cultural heritage in the event of military action.

Once war began in March 2003, the British Museum’s worries centred on the National Museum of Iraq in Baghdad, which had suffered looting. Concern soon spread to other museums and sites.

A number of British Museum staff have visited Iraq to assess damage to museums and archaeological sites. These included its director, Neil MacGregor, and John Curtis, who is the keeper of the department of the Middle East.

The British Museum has provided Iraq with a range of conservation, archaeological and curatorial assistance since 2003. This has included training for staff as part of the museum’s international curatorial training programme.

The British Museum has also been involved in attempts to tackle the illicit trade in Iraqi antiquities and has provided help for provincial museums.

Simon Stephens

Babylon is one of the most important archaeological sites in the world, having been the capital cities of two of the most famous kings of antiquity, Hammurabi (1792-1750BC) and Nebuchadnezzar (604-562BC), who built the hanging gardens.

Despite the site’s significance, it was used as a military base by coalition forces from April 2003 until December 2004, when it was handed back to Iraq’s State Board of Antiquities and Heritage (SBAH).

By then, coalition forces and their contractors had damaged Babylon by digging, cutting, scraping and levelling. The extent of the damage is contained in a report issued in 2009 by the International Coordination Committee for the Safeguarding of the Cultural Heritage of Iraq.

The report includes evidence from a visit to Babylon by the British Museum’s John Curtis. The museum has an existing collection of artefacts from Babylon, including the stone commemorative stela, pictured left, which is on display in its Mesopotamia gallery.

A number of organisations are now trying to safeguard the future of Babylon, including the World Monuments Fund. The aim is to develop a masterplan to conserve and study Babylon as well as cater for tourism.

Simon Stephens