Search

Looting of archaeological sites and thefts from cultural institutions in the Middle East is driven by an international demand for artifacts. Despite the efforts of Ministries of Culture, Department...

How do archaeologists, governments, law enforcement, and a local non-governmental organization react to a hole in the ground—a hole that is the direct result of archaeological site looting? Whatever the response, the aim is the same: the protection of Jordanian cultural heritage through a curtailing of archaeological looting. New to the standard suite of responses are unpiloted aerial vehicles (UAVs). A comprehensive approach to the landscape, which includes UAV flyovers, ground truthing, oral interviews, collaborative efforts with the Jordanian Department of Antiquities and local cultural heritage organizations, is essential to safeguarding and documenting what remains of a series of Early Bronze Age sites (3600–2000bc) along the Dead Sea Plain in Jordan. This is an examination of the (w)hole picture—individual and institutional responses to looters’ holes—diverse reactions with the common goal of preserving and protecting Jordanian cultural heritage.

This chapter assesses the protection of cultural heritage in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA). In their initial days of statehood, most postcolonial entities did not alter the basic institutional arrangements of colonial law and administration. In the MENA region, this resulted in the adoption of laws and policies related to the protection and preservation of cultural heritage, which included elements from earlier Ottoman laws and by-laws, British and French Mandatory laws and ordinances, and the legislative efforts of the colonial powers of France and Italy. Subsequently, in postcolonial MENA, nation states began adopting the 1970 UNESCO Convention with the aim of protecting their cultural resources and at the same time asserting themselves as legitimate States who care about culture. UNESCO efforts were also aimed at fostering greater parity between nations, with the intention of eliminating or at least ameliorating colonial legacies of inequality and misappropriation.

Palestine is a state in limbo—they lack full formal recognition as a sovereign land but possess a unique nation-state status that incorporates elements of a unified national consciousness and basic civil institutions albeit with limited autonomy. Palestine’s ambiguous political status is starkly illustrated by its convoluted territorial control, and nowhere is this more clearly attested than in the jurisdiction of archaeological sites and the display of artifacts in museums. The legislative colonial legacies of the Ottoman, the British Mandate, the Jordanians, the Egyptians, Israeli military orders, and the 1995 Oslo II Accords, which carved the Occupied Territories into a complex mosaic of areas—A, B, and C— have resulted in fractured oversight of heritage sites and objects. A case study focused on Herodium provides a fascinating lens for examining the efficacy of law and the administration of archaeological and object management in a contested landscape.

Through an examination of representations of cultural heritage in miniature this paper tackles the recurrent question of how culture, the nation, and the past are presented to the public. Exploring how this is achieved at the microcosm of Mini Israel, an outdoor park midway between Jerusalem and Tel Aviv where you can "see it all small" (Shapira 2003: 1), we conclude that Mini Israel offers visitors (foreign or local) what they want; an unthreatening version of the Holy Land, where differences in ethnicities, religions, and political groups are abridged in a pristine environment free from conflict and strife. At Mini Israel displays include the commercial, the contemporary, and the ancient, depicting what is "beautiful, good, important and special" (Shapira 2003: 2). We argue that the selection of sites in miniature is a reflection of tourism trends, financial motives, and visitor preference, rather than a reflection of facts on the ground.

Rather than recount a specific archaeological project and its community relationships, in the following, I consider the competing claims for archaeological objects by the various groups associated with the illegal and legal trade in antiquities. For nearly a decade I have examined the efficacy of cultural heritage laws in the protection of eastern Mediterranean archaeological landscapes. More specifically, I am interested in the contentious issues surrounding legalized antiquities markets as a means of protecting the archaeological past. In order to assess the value of various legal instruments I attempt to engage with the communities who claim an interest in the buying, selling, protection or appreciation of antiquities. The list of communities is long, varied and often at odds with each other. Reconciling these competing claims is a Herculean task, but one worthy of investigation as questions of inclusion, responsibilities and ownership of cultural heritage are at the forefront of an engaged archaeology.

This is a commentary on a series of papers presented in the Imperial Intersections: archaeologists, war and violence session at the 2007 Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology. The session addressed issues surrounding archaeology, war and violence and the ethical responsibilities of archaeological practitioners. The papers in this volume have created more questions than answers, but as with all ethical scenarios, I was inspired to think and to examine critically aspects of archaeology that may have eluded past contemplation. In attempting to find commonalities and themes in the submissions I realized that almost every paper is concerned with the production of knowledge—how much access should there be; who should have access to knowledge; how should knowledge be disseminated; and when and if the knowledge should be reproduced. The central debate of “in whose best interest is this knowledge produced” is also explored in this review?

Does the demand for archaeological artefacts in the legal marketplace in Israel increase the looting of archaeological sites in the region? Through the course of investigating this question it became apparent that while consumer demand may be at the heart of the trade in antiquities, the nature and driving forces behind looting are far more complex than is often understood. The motivations for looting involve notions of nationalism, the forces of globalism, conflicting preservation and management plans, colonialism, and long-entrenched traditional practices. It is an examination of this complexity (i.e. the multiple forms of and incentives for looting), which forms the focus of this paper. This is an exploration of the multivocality of the various agents who make it possible for objects to transcend borders.

For 20 years (1974–1993), the “Antiquities Market” section of the Journal of Field Archaeology provided news and commentary on the illicit traffic in antiquities and on issues of cultural heritage relevant to field archaeologists from around the world. Much has happened in more recent years; military conflict, natural disaster;development, political or religious extremism, calculated looting, and the illicit sale of antiquities all combine to jeopardize the very existence of archaeology. The commodification of material culture is among the most pressing issues on the archaeological agenda. Links between collecting and looting continue to be hotly debated, and recent investigations illustrate how archaeological research may also unintentionally spur looting. Legislative efforts attempt to curb the plunder of sites and the illicit sale of antiquities. What is clear from the various efforts and questions is that globalization is bringing us closer together,and that we need a concentrated internationa...

edited by Lawrence Rothfield, Lanham, MD, AltaMira Press, 2008, 340 pp., US$29.95 (paperback), ISBN 0‐7591‐1099‐9 In April 2003, images of the looting and destruction of the Iraq Museum and the Ira...

"The looting of archaeological sites and museums has recently been brought vividly to public attention. In this book, many of the world's experts on the subject examine the extent of the problem, how trafficking in illicit artifacts is carried out, and what can be done to save our cultural heritage."--Ellen Herscher, contributing editor, Archaeology magazineArchaeological artifacts have become a traded commodity in large part because the global reach of Western society allows easy access to the world's archaeological heritage. Acquired by the world's leading museums and private collectors, antiquities have been removed from archaeological sites, monuments, or cultural institutions and illegally traded. This collection of essays by world-recognized experts investigates the ways that com-modifying artifacts fuels the destruction of archaeological heritage and considers what can be done to protect it. Despite growing national and international legislation to protect cultural heritage, increasing numbers of archaeological sites--among them, war-torn Afghanistan and Iraq--are subject to pillage as the monetary value of artifacts rises. Offering comprehensive examinations of archaeological site looting, the antiquities trade, the ruin of cultural heritage resources, and the international efforts to combat their destruction, the authors argue that the antiquities market impacts cultural heritage around the world and is a burgeoning global crisis.Neil Brodie is research director of the Illicit Antiquities Research Centre at the McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, University of Cambridge. Morag M. Kersel, a Ph.D. candidate at the University of Cambridge, is studying the legal trade of antiquities in the Middle East. Christina Luke is a research fellow in the department of archaeology at Boston University. Kathryn Walker Tubb is a lecturer in cultural heritage studies and conservation in the Institute of Archaeology, University College, London.