The looting of the National Museum in Baghdad was well documented. Perhaps less well known is the damage done to the national library which was comprehensively trashed, with books and historical manuscripts destroyed. Many university libraries suffered equally badly.
The damage to archaeological sites during, and particularly after, the war in Iraq has been immense. Sites are still being decimated by looters and the military. John Curtis, the keeper of the department of the ancient near east at the British Museum, has just compiled a report on the damage inflicted on the site of Babylon, first by
American troops and then the Poles who used it as a military camp. The exploding of munitions by soldiers close to Hatra (pictured), a World Heritage site, is causing structural damage to standing monuments, while the famous arch of the palace at Ctesiphon has also been badly shaken and is in a parlous state.
Arguably the most serious damage inflicted on archaeological sites has been done since the war was declared over in May 2003. Looters have been searching for saleable antiquities to smuggle out of the country and into world markets.
Some of the great third millennium sites in the south of the country, such as Umma and Umm al Aqarib, now look as if they are suffering from a bad case of cultural acne, with great pits and heaps of soil strewn across the site.
Security is inadequate. Local guards are poorly armed and few in number. Some have no walkie-talkies or radio communications, and can't call for reinforcements in the event of an attack by looters. If an army helicopter does pass overhead the looters retreat, only to return when it has gone.
Some people might ask if protecting artefacts is important in a country with little security and something approaching a humanitarian disaster. While humanitarian concerns must take precedent, there are three good reasons for protecting the heritage of Iraq.
The first is that our own cultural traditions derive in large part from Iraq and we owe a huge debt to the people of ancient Mesopotamia. In addition, it is home to some of the most holy sites in Islam and there are also many places connected to the Christian and Jewish faiths.
The second is the emotive or unifying power of the past. This is something that Saddam Hussein understood well. In a country such as Iraq, which has a diverse population of different ethnic, linguistic and religious traditions, it is pride in the achievements of the past that unites them.
Why else did Saddam portray himself as Hammurabi the lawgiver or as a victorious Assyrian king?
The third reason is economic. Even in oil-rich Iraq, there is a need for economic diversification against the day when the oil wells run dry. Tourism is an obvious source of foreign exchange for a country as rich in history as Mesopotamia.
The international community has poured money into the physical reconstruction of the National Museum in Baghdad. Now the Iraqis are desperate for training in almost every field to make up the ground they lost during 14 years of punitive sanctions, cut off from the outside world.
In response, USAID (United States Agency for International Development) is running a huge scholarship programme, while France and Germany have offered smaller numbers of grants. The British government has done nothing.
Some British institutions are doing what they can with limited resources. The British Museum has carried out conservation assessments in Baghdad and brought three Iraqi conservators over for a crash course in the BM labs, but staff from the BM were unable to go to Baghdad for a follow-up course because the situation was judged too dangerous.
The British Academy, the national institution for the humanities and the social sciences, paid for the restoration of the cuneiform library in the National Museum (at a cost of £12,000) and for a bookbinding workshop from its own funds.
The British School of Archaeology in Iraq has brought over two members of staff from the Baghdad Museum for work experience and further training. But much more needs to be done.
At a conference at the British Museum at the end of the war, Tessa Jowell, the minister for culture, said millions of pounds was available for reconstruction in Iraq. Not a penny of this has been put into the heritage sector.
Here is a unique chance to repair some of the damage caused by the allies and to win hearts and minds, at relatively little cost to the taxpayer, by bringing bright young professional Iraqis over here to upgrade their professional qualifications in this sector.
But it an opportunity that is currently being squandered. The situation leads one to ask if the British government has an overseas cultural policy at all?
Harriet Crawford is the chairwoman of the British School
of Archaeology in Iraq. The views expressed in this piece
are her own and not necessarily those of the school
The damage to archaeological sites during, and particularly after, the war in Iraq has been immense. Sites are still being decimated by looters and the military. John Curtis, the keeper of the department of the ancient near east at the British Museum, has just compiled a report on the damage inflicted on the site of Babylon, first by
American troops and then the Poles who used it as a military camp. The exploding of munitions by soldiers close to Hatra (pictured), a World Heritage site, is causing structural damage to standing monuments, while the famous arch of the palace at Ctesiphon has also been badly shaken and is in a parlous state.
Arguably the most serious damage inflicted on archaeological sites has been done since the war was declared over in May 2003. Looters have been searching for saleable antiquities to smuggle out of the country and into world markets.
Some of the great third millennium sites in the south of the country, such as Umma and Umm al Aqarib, now look as if they are suffering from a bad case of cultural acne, with great pits and heaps of soil strewn across the site.
Security is inadequate. Local guards are poorly armed and few in number. Some have no walkie-talkies or radio communications, and can't call for reinforcements in the event of an attack by looters. If an army helicopter does pass overhead the looters retreat, only to return when it has gone.
Some people might ask if protecting artefacts is important in a country with little security and something approaching a humanitarian disaster. While humanitarian concerns must take precedent, there are three good reasons for protecting the heritage of Iraq.
The first is that our own cultural traditions derive in large part from Iraq and we owe a huge debt to the people of ancient Mesopotamia. In addition, it is home to some of the most holy sites in Islam and there are also many places connected to the Christian and Jewish faiths.
The second is the emotive or unifying power of the past. This is something that Saddam Hussein understood well. In a country such as Iraq, which has a diverse population of different ethnic, linguistic and religious traditions, it is pride in the achievements of the past that unites them.
Why else did Saddam portray himself as Hammurabi the lawgiver or as a victorious Assyrian king?
The third reason is economic. Even in oil-rich Iraq, there is a need for economic diversification against the day when the oil wells run dry. Tourism is an obvious source of foreign exchange for a country as rich in history as Mesopotamia.
The international community has poured money into the physical reconstruction of the National Museum in Baghdad. Now the Iraqis are desperate for training in almost every field to make up the ground they lost during 14 years of punitive sanctions, cut off from the outside world.
In response, USAID (United States Agency for International Development) is running a huge scholarship programme, while France and Germany have offered smaller numbers of grants. The British government has done nothing.
Some British institutions are doing what they can with limited resources. The British Museum has carried out conservation assessments in Baghdad and brought three Iraqi conservators over for a crash course in the BM labs, but staff from the BM were unable to go to Baghdad for a follow-up course because the situation was judged too dangerous.
The British Academy, the national institution for the humanities and the social sciences, paid for the restoration of the cuneiform library in the National Museum (at a cost of £12,000) and for a bookbinding workshop from its own funds.
The British School of Archaeology in Iraq has brought over two members of staff from the Baghdad Museum for work experience and further training. But much more needs to be done.
At a conference at the British Museum at the end of the war, Tessa Jowell, the minister for culture, said millions of pounds was available for reconstruction in Iraq. Not a penny of this has been put into the heritage sector.
Here is a unique chance to repair some of the damage caused by the allies and to win hearts and minds, at relatively little cost to the taxpayer, by bringing bright young professional Iraqis over here to upgrade their professional qualifications in this sector.
But it an opportunity that is currently being squandered. The situation leads one to ask if the British government has an overseas cultural policy at all?
Harriet Crawford is the chairwoman of the British School
of Archaeology in Iraq. The views expressed in this piece
are her own and not necessarily those of the school
