Who minds the store?

The two discussions of the looting and destruction of Iraq's precious ancient artifacts--"Lost Time," by John Malcolm Russell, and "Aftershocks". by David Keys [6/03]--are a wakeup call about the folly of retaining world-class antiquities in their third-world countries of origin. Only in the great museums and universities of the first world can irreplaceable antiquities be properly conserved and studied.

Expropriation of antiquities from a place like Iraq, where the population has been subjected to despotism and has no connection with the ancient culture under its feet, is the most suitable solution.

John B. Bute

El Lago, Texas

David Keys seems to blame the damage done to Iraq's archaeological heritage on the lack of military intervention. As both a veteran and a scientist, I'd like to ask how many American or Iraqi lives it would have been worth losing to safeguard the museums and their artifacts.

If we had used our limited resources to protect the cultural assets of Iraq, what else might have been destroyed? Certainly the destruction was a tragedy, but to blame the military for the results of civil disorder is unreasonable.

Much of the looting seems to have been well planned and executed. Why didn't the Iraqis do more to protect their treasures? And shouldn't they take at least some responsibility for the lawlessness?

Michael J. Everhart

Derby, Kansas

JOHN MALCOLM RUSSELL REPLIES: Both letters raise issues that have been the subject of much debate.

Although the tradition of the victor expropriating the art of the vanquished--a tradition Mr. Bute seems to advocate--goes back to Mesopotamia, this practice is no longer fashionable, and is prohibited by the 1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict. Art is not necessarily safer in first-world countries: major paintings in Germany were destroyed during the Second World War, and several hundred works by the sculptor Auguste Rodin were lost when the offices of Cantor Fitzgerald were destroyed during the 9/11 attack.

As an alternative to expropriation, the former Ottoman practice of dividing excavated finds between the host country and the foreign institution sponsoring the excavations reduces the risks associated with having all your eggs in one basket. Host countries might consider reinstituting such a practice--with the understanding that divisions could be negotiated as open-ended loans rather than as gifts--but only if collectors and certain museums in the first world stop financing the plunder of archaeological sites.

Mr. Everhart correctly blames the looting on the looters, but it is unrealistic to eliminate a police force and then hope that criminals will no longer commit crimes. No one argues that anybody should have been placed in mortal jeopardy to protect the museum, but would guarding it have been that dangerous? Major armed resistance around the museum ended on April 9, the museum was looted on April 10-11, the staff began returning on April 12, and the United States posted guards at the building on April 16. Did the military consider protection of the museum to be a high priority it could not safely fulfill prior to April 16? Or was it unconcerned about the museum until the media and Secretary of State Colin Powell compelled it to take action? Only an independent investigation can provide answers to such questions.

COPYRIGHT 2003 Natural History Magazine, Inc.
COPYRIGHT 2008 Gale, Cengage Learning