Recent events occurring within the self-proclaimed caliphate (e.g. the now confirmed destruction of the Roman temple of Baal in Palmyra), have undoubtedly struck my consciousness and posed me no little dilemma (in moral, professional as well as political terms).
Some of the responses to such a situation have involved taking up the challenge offered by the continuous threat to cultural heritage by deploying the potential of new technologies. This is the case of the team up between Harvard and Oxford resulting in a new project aimed at a mass 3d scanning/digitisation of artefacts and monuments. Such an approach is not new and echoes similar projects that have been recently undertaken (i.e. the Micropast project by the Institute of Archaeology UCL). Besides doubts concerning the effectiveness/practicality of using 3d equipment (even if cheap and well distributed over the whole area) in a war situation, we need to ask if digitisation is the real answer. What digital technologies do in this case is simply transferring cultural heritage from the material to the immaterial domain. Becoming information the trouble of preserving the real is lost, but so is the very materiality of archaeological objects.
Preserving this last aspect implies some sort of direct action and some colleagues as well as journalists have suggested that the unprecedented level of aggression attested in this situation calls for unprecedented measures, most notably in the form of a military campaign aimed at striking ISIS and securing key heritage sites in the region. Traditionally the relationship between archaeology and war has been a strict one. Many wars and military interventions have been legitimised through reference to history and archaeology, with the latter becoming more prominent with the increase of the importance of the discipline. The fact that marks a profound difference here lies in the fact that the principle which is called to legitimise military action is the universal nature of the heritage profaned by ISIS and not its value for the individual nation-state. Besides the historical specificities of this case, again, the supposed effectiveness of such measures has been put in question. To this extent, it needs to be reminded that rarely military intervention has proved to be an effective deterrent against looting/destruction/dispersal of cultural heritage (take as an example the infamous looting of Iraq National Museum in 2003). As it has been suggested impoverished economic conditions are a fertile ground for ISIS its propaganda and related activities, in the absence of concrete changes in these, military action alone is unlikely to bring any changes in the current status quo.
Apparently such a scenario leaves us with surprisingly little room for action. Apparently. There is actually something that, in my view, we can do.
This is counteracting the gigantic looting operation perpetrated by the caliphate from the demand rather than the supply end of the market. There is still much opacity in the ways artefacts arrive on the antiquarian market and the need for scrutinising such processes is overwhelming. Moreover, the level of coordination needed to make such scrutiny is effective is inherently international, as artifacts looted always travel between different countries, making institutions based within individual states ill-equipped to deal with this phenomenon. Between 1996 and 2007 a pioneering project, based at the University of Cambridge, was aimed precisely at offering this kind of control. Alas the project has been shut down some 8 years ago but the upsurge of looting activity triggered by the current situation (an upsurge that many sees in continuity with activities occurring before the arrival of ISIS) would definitely require a renewed effort in this direction. Knowing the 'accomplices' in the western world, of course, does not guarantee a deterring effect, unless individual states and supra-national political entities (e.g. the EU) decide to implement more effective sanctions against those who are opaque in their dealings with antiquities. However, it undoubtedly represents an excellent initial step. Could a new monitoring project, enforced primarily (but not exclusively) through a close scrutiny of the internet, represent a first effective response to the mass-scale looting currently ongoing?
-UPDATE-
My friend Ulla kindly suggested me a number of additional monitoring initiatives undertaken more recently by various people (among which are also some of the initiators of the Illicit Antiquities Research Centre at Cambridge). So actually the monitoring is, to a large extent, already there. Now if this is the case, we need to ask why despite there is a fairly good knowledge of these phenomena they still thrive and represent an important factor for the funding of ISIS, shaping their agenda. I suspect the discomforting answer is that there has not been the political will to act. So far...
 |
| Destruction of the main building of the Temple of Baal, Palmyra, Syria |
Some of the responses to such a situation have involved taking up the challenge offered by the continuous threat to cultural heritage by deploying the potential of new technologies. This is the case of the team up between Harvard and Oxford resulting in a new project aimed at a mass 3d scanning/digitisation of artefacts and monuments. Such an approach is not new and echoes similar projects that have been recently undertaken (i.e. the Micropast project by the Institute of Archaeology UCL). Besides doubts concerning the effectiveness/practicality of using 3d equipment (even if cheap and well distributed over the whole area) in a war situation, we need to ask if digitisation is the real answer. What digital technologies do in this case is simply transferring cultural heritage from the material to the immaterial domain. Becoming information the trouble of preserving the real is lost, but so is the very materiality of archaeological objects.
 |
| ISIS militant sledging statues in Hatra, Iraq |
Preserving this last aspect implies some sort of direct action and some colleagues as well as journalists have suggested that the unprecedented level of aggression attested in this situation calls for unprecedented measures, most notably in the form of a military campaign aimed at striking ISIS and securing key heritage sites in the region. Traditionally the relationship between archaeology and war has been a strict one. Many wars and military interventions have been legitimised through reference to history and archaeology, with the latter becoming more prominent with the increase of the importance of the discipline. The fact that marks a profound difference here lies in the fact that the principle which is called to legitimise military action is the universal nature of the heritage profaned by ISIS and not its value for the individual nation-state. Besides the historical specificities of this case, again, the supposed effectiveness of such measures has been put in question. To this extent, it needs to be reminded that rarely military intervention has proved to be an effective deterrent against looting/destruction/dispersal of cultural heritage (take as an example the infamous looting of Iraq National Museum in 2003). As it has been suggested impoverished economic conditions are a fertile ground for ISIS its propaganda and related activities, in the absence of concrete changes in these, military action alone is unlikely to bring any changes in the current status quo.
 |
| Homepage of the Illicit Antiquities Research Centre at the McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, University of Cambridge, now closed |
Apparently such a scenario leaves us with surprisingly little room for action. Apparently. There is actually something that, in my view, we can do.
This is counteracting the gigantic looting operation perpetrated by the caliphate from the demand rather than the supply end of the market. There is still much opacity in the ways artefacts arrive on the antiquarian market and the need for scrutinising such processes is overwhelming. Moreover, the level of coordination needed to make such scrutiny is effective is inherently international, as artifacts looted always travel between different countries, making institutions based within individual states ill-equipped to deal with this phenomenon. Between 1996 and 2007 a pioneering project, based at the University of Cambridge, was aimed precisely at offering this kind of control. Alas the project has been shut down some 8 years ago but the upsurge of looting activity triggered by the current situation (an upsurge that many sees in continuity with activities occurring before the arrival of ISIS) would definitely require a renewed effort in this direction. Knowing the 'accomplices' in the western world, of course, does not guarantee a deterring effect, unless individual states and supra-national political entities (e.g. the EU) decide to implement more effective sanctions against those who are opaque in their dealings with antiquities. However, it undoubtedly represents an excellent initial step. Could a new monitoring project, enforced primarily (but not exclusively) through a close scrutiny of the internet, represent a first effective response to the mass-scale looting currently ongoing?
-UPDATE-
My friend Ulla kindly suggested me a number of additional monitoring initiatives undertaken more recently by various people (among which are also some of the initiators of the Illicit Antiquities Research Centre at Cambridge). So actually the monitoring is, to a large extent, already there. Now if this is the case, we need to ask why despite there is a fairly good knowledge of these phenomena they still thrive and represent an important factor for the funding of ISIS, shaping their agenda. I suspect the discomforting answer is that there has not been the political will to act. So far...
