Heritage in Conflict: Proceedings of Two Meetings: 'Heritage in Conflict: A Review of the Situation in Syria and Iraq', Workshop Held at the 63rd ... (Ancient Near Eastern Studies Supplement, 57) 9789042943179, 9789042943186, 9042943173

Citation preview

ANCIENT NEAR EASTERN STUDIES SUPPLEMENT 57

HERITAGE IN CONFLICT

Edited by

Heather JACKSON, Andrew JAMIESON, Abby ROBINSON and Sophie RUSSELL

PEETERS 󰀂󰀀󰀂󰀁

ANCIENT NEAR EASTERN STUDIES SUPPLEMENT 57

ANCIENT NEAR EASTERN STUDIES SUPPLEMENT 57

HERITAGE IN CONFLICT Proceedings of two meetings: ‘Heritage in Conflict: A Review of the Situation in Syria and Iraq’ Workshop held at the 63rd Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale, Marburg, Germany, 24–25 July 2017 and ‘Syria: Ancient History – Modern Conflict’ Symposium held at the School of Historical and Philosophical Studies, University of Melbourne, Australia, 11–13 August 2017 Edited by

Heather JACKSON, Andrew JAMIESON, Abby ROBINSON and Sophie RUSSELL PEETERS LEUVEN – PARIS – BRISTOL, CT. 2021

Series Editors: Andrew Jamieson and Claudia Sagona A catalogue record for this book is available from the Library of Congress.

ISBN 978-90-429-4317-9 eISBN 978-90-429-4318-6 D/2021/0602/81 Cover illustration courtesy Dr Yasser Dallal: Dismantling the Minbar of the Aleppo Great Mosque (Photo Waddah Al-Masri) © Peeters, Bondgenotenlaan 153, B-3000 Leuven, Belgium All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or translated in any form, by print, photoprint, microfilm, microfiche or any other means without written permission from the publisher PRINTED IN BELGIUM BY

Peeters N.V., Warotstraat 50, B-3020 Herent

– ‫هذا الكتاب مخصص لشعب سوريا والعراق‬ ‫مهد الحضارة‬

This book is dedicated to the people of Syria and Iraq – the cradle of civilisation

CONTENTS

Foreword . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

xiii

List of Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

xv

Marburg Workshop Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

xxi

Melbourne Symposium Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

xxv

Introducing Heritage in Conflict . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Andrew JAMIESON

1

SECTION ONE: HERITAGE IN CONFLICT: A REVIEW OF THE SITUATION IN SYRIA AND IRAQ WORKSHOP, MARBURG 24–25 JULY 2017

Chapter 1 The Marburg Workshop: An Introductory Note . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Frank BRAEMER

15

Chapter 2 Heritage in Conflict: Perspectives from Iraq . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Roger MATTHEWS

19

Chapter 3 Recovering Stolen Artefacts: A Case Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Saad Abbas ISMAIL

23

Chapter 4 Conflict and Heritage: The Model of Bosra al-Sham . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Suleiman Al-Issa AL-SAMADI

27

Chapter 5 Protecting Cultural Heritage in Times of Conflict . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Yasser DALLAL

33

Chapter 6 Protection Measures Taken by Museums during the Syrian War: The National Museum of Aleppo as a Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mohamad FAKHRO

43

viii

CONTENTS

Chapter 7 Old Aleppo City under Fire: The ‘Real’ Situation and Future Salvation Youssef KANJOU

. . . . .

59

Chapter 8 Protecting Heritage: The Work of Heritage for Peace and Others in Syria . . . . Isber SABRINE and Emma CUNLIFFE

71

Chapter 9 Focus Raqqa: Dutch-Syrian Initiatives Safeguarding Syrian Archaeological Heritage Olivier NIEUWENHUYSE†, Khaled HIATLIH, Ayham AL-FAKHRI and Rasha HAQI

85

SECTION TWO: SYRIA: ANCIENT HISTORY – MODERN CONFLICT SYMPOSIUM MELBOURNE 11–13 AUGUST 2017

Chapter 10 Syria: Ancient History – Modern Conflict Exhibition Opening Address . . . . . . Graeme W. CLARKE

107

Chapter 11 Aleppo and Palmyra: How Monuments were Weaponised in the Syrian Conflict . Ross BURNS

111

Chapter 12 Community Connections to Cultural Heritage: Continuity, Reconnection and Recovery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Marilyn C. TRUSCOTT

125

Chapter 13 Syria’s Cultural Heritage: Life as it is . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Fiona HILL

139

Chapter 14 Between Death and Taboo: Heritage Destruction in the Digital Turn . . . . . . . José Antonio GONZÁLEZ ZARANDONA

149

Chapter 15 Case Studies: The Australian Excavations at Jebel Khalid and Tell Ahmar in Syria Pre- and Post-Conflict . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Heather JACKSON and Andrew JAMIESON

161

CONTENTS

ix

SECTION THREE: ADDITIONAL CONTRIBUTIONS Chapter 16 Raqqa: A History of the Destruction of Cultural Heritage . . . . . . . . . . . . . Anas AL KHABOUR Chapter 17 Memories of Exhibitions Past: Revisiting the Syria Exhibition at the University of Melbourne Two Years On . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Annelies VAN DE VEN Chapter 18 Responding to Cultural Heritage Destruction in Conflict: Digital Initiatives . . . Sophie RUSSELL APPENDIX The Sites and Organisations Discussed by the Authors in this Volume . . . . . . .

183

197

215

235

IN MEMORY OF OLIVIER NIEUWENHUYSE: 16 November 1966 – 15 January 2020

Olivier, fourth from the left, with arms crossed, at the SHIRIN International committee meeting, Thursday 5 April 2018, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München, Historicum Schellingsstrasse, during the 11th International Congress on the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East, 3–7 April 2018, Munich, Germany

‘When that day comes, archaeologists should stand ready to assist …’

(Olivier NIEUWENHUYSE† Chapter 9 this volume)

FOREWORD

The papers presented in this volume are organised in three sections. Section One contains the papers presented at the workshop in Marburg, Section Two contains the papers presented at the symposium in Melbourne, and Section Three contains three additional papers. The program details of the workshop and symposium are included following the List of Contributors. The papers in Sections One and Two of this volume are listed in the order they were presented at the workshop and the symposium. One goal of this project was to provide our Syrian and Iraqi colleagues with an opportunity to publish in a collective volume, so as to make their research available to a broad readership and ensure their contributions are represented in the scientific literature. Too often their voices are not heard. We are pleased that many of them accepted the invitation to submit their papers for inclusion in this volume. In preparing contributions for publication following the meetings in Marburg and Melbourne some authors revised the content and titles of their papers. Throughout this monograph there are references to Islamic State, IS, ISIL and Daesh. We have retained the author’s spelling in the use of these names. Similarly, the format and spelling of Arabic place names used by the different authors has been retained. We have used SHIRIN, instead of Shirin (Syrian Heritage in Danger: An International Research Initiative and Network) and RASHID, instead of Rashid (Research, Assessment and Safeguarding of the Heritage of Iraq in Danger) when referring to these organisations throughout. The symposium in Melbourne would not have been possible without the assistance of various people whom it is our pleasure to thank here. First of all, Professor Trevor Burnard, former Head of the School of Historical and Philosophical Studies at the University of Melbourne, approved financial support to convene the symposium in Melbourne. Kelly Gellatly, Director of the Ian Potter Museum of Art at the University of Melbourne and her team, and especially Rachael Morrison, provided logistical support. Professor Ross Burns, former Australian ambassador to Syria, kindly agreed to deliver the keynote lecture (see Burns this volume). Annelies Van de Ven prepared the symposium flyer and program. Kahtan Al Sobh very generously provided all the Syrian food and beverages that were served at the symposium. To them all we express our sincere gratitude. We are very grateful to Professor Frank Braemer, former SHIRIN president and Professor Roger Matthews, RASHID president, for supporting the production of this monograph and contributing to it. We would like to express our thanks to all the authors from the Marburg workshop and Melbourne symposium that have contributed papers to this volume. Finally, we must thank Abby Robinson from the University of Melbourne for her editorial assistance, Sophie Russell for coordinating the correspondence with the contributors, Annelies Van de Ven for formatting the images, Jarrad Paul for checking the references and bibliographies, and Paul Peeters, Bert Verrept and the staff at Peeters Press for making this publication possible.

Heather JACKSON and Andrew JAMIESON

LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS

Ayham AL-FAKHRI Ayham Al-Fakhri was in 2013 appointed director of antiquities in Raqqa by the General Directorate of Museums and was the last curator of the archaeological museum of Raqqa before IS took over the city. Subsequently, he participated in projects to protect and track the looted artefacts from Raqqa and Syria. He was deputy to the director of Syrian museums in Damascus and vice president of Archaeological Affairs in Syria. Al-Fakhri now lives in France, working on initiatives to protect Syrian cultural heritage. Anas AL KHABOUR Dr Anas Al Khabour was Director of Archaeology and Museums of Raqqa Governorate, Syria from 2006 to 2008. Before the conflict in Syria he worked on several joint archaeological expeditions, including the Syrian-Japanese Expedition at Bishri Mount, the SyrianGerman Expedition at Rusafa (Sergiopolis), the Syrian-Dutch Expedition at Tell Sheikh Hasan, the Syrian-American Expedition at Tell Zeidan, and the Syrian-Italian Expedition at Arslan Tash. In 2005 he was the representative of Directorate General of Archaeology and Museums (DGAM) with the German Expedition at Tell Mumbaqa and from 2003 to 2008, he was the director of the National Museum of Raqqa, Syria. He worked for the Syrian Cultural Sector in Madrid between 2008 and 2012. After that, he was a researcher and lecturer in different European universities: University Santiago de Compostela (Spain), Gothenburg University (Sweden), Université Libre de Bruxelles (Belgium). He was the curator of the Ancient Middle East collection at the National Museum in Sweden. Currently Al Khabour works for Lund University in Sweden and teaches museum and object-based learning and Cultural Heritage in the Event of Armed Conflict. Suleiman Al-Issa AL-SAMADI Suleiman Al-Issa Al-Samadi was born in Bosra and graduated from the University of Damascus in 2003. He has held senior archaeological positions in Daraa and Bosra. He participated in missions and campaigns at archaeological sites in the city of Bosra Al-Sham. He was also involved in collecting and documenting artefacts at the museum of Bosra Al-Sham and keeping them safe during the conflict. Frank BRAEMER Professor Dr émérite Frank Braemer is research director at the French National Center for Scientific Research. For many years he has worked on projects in Syria. He was the President of SHIRIN (Syrian Heritage in Danger: An International Research Initiative and Network) during the years 2015–2019.

xvi

LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS

Ross BURNS Dr Ross Burns is an Adjunct Fellow at Macquarie University, Sydney. He spent 37 years in the Australian Foreign Service, including posts as Ambassador in the Middle East, South Africa and Greece. He has authored several books on the history of Syria. Graeme CLARKE Emeritus Professor Graeme Clarke is an Adjunct Professor in the School of Classical Studies at the Australian National University. Professor Clarke has also held many other Fellowships, Chairs and other academic positions. Since 1986 he has directed the archaeological excavation in northern Syria at Jebel Khalid. Emma CUNLIFFE Dr Emma Cunliffe is a member of the UNESCO Chair Cultural Property Protection and Peace team at Newcastle University (UK), where she works to support the Blue Shield network. She has worked on a number of large-scale site recording and assessment projects using satellite imagery, such as the Durham University Fragile Crescent Project, Endangered Archaeology in the Middle East and North Africa (EAMENA), and as a consultant for UNOSAT-UNITAR, doing damage imagery assessments of heritage sites damaged during conflict together with UNESCO. She has also published widely on site damage in the MENA region. She is the Secretary for UK Blue Shield, and part of the Secretariat for Blue Shield International. Yasser DALLAL Dr Yasser Dallal is Research Associate in Islamic Archaeology at the German Archaeological Institute (DAI) Istanbul. He has Islamic art and archaeology field experience. In 2013 he worked on conservation and documentation projects in the Old City of Aleppo. He received a scholarship from the Gerda Henkel Foundation for research and training in the “Stewards of Cultural Heritage (SoCH)” project at DAI Istanbul between 2016 and 2018. This project won the Grand Prix in the prestigious European Heritage Awards/ Europa Nostra Awards 2019. Mohamad FAKHRO Dr Mohamad Fakhro has extensive Middle Eastern archaeological field experience. He participated in many archaeological excavation projects in Syria, such as Emar-Balis, Tell Shiukh Tahtani, Tell Halaf, Qala’at Halawanji and Tell Ahmar. He was the second director of the Directorate of Antiquities and Museums in Aleppo and Director of the Department of Excavation. During the Syrian war, he had an active role with his colleagues in protecting the artefacts in the National Museum of Aleppo. Since 2015, he has worked as a researcher on the Tell Halaf/Guzāna excavation project at the University of Tübingen. José Antonio GONZÁLEZ ZARANDONA Dr José Antonio González Zarandona is a research fellow at the Alfred Deakin Institute, working on a project on iconoclasm in the 21st century. Prior to obtaining his present

LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS

xvii

position, Antonio worked with Associate Professor Benjamin Isakhan on a project that measured the destruction of heritage in Iraq and Syria. He has also received several fellowships at numerous cultural heritage organisations around the world, including the Ironbridge International Institute for Cultural Heritage at the University of Birmingham; the Centre for International and Regional Studies (CIRS) at Georgetown University, Doha; the Endangered Archaeology in the Middle East and North Africa project at the University of Oxford; Forensic Architecture at Goldsmiths University; and Columbia University. Rasha HAQI Rasha Haqi is a Syrian-Palestinian archaeologist. As a staff member of the Directorate General of Antiquities and Museums (DGAM) in Damascus she participated in a project to document mosaics in Syrian museums in cooperation with the European Centre for Byzantine and Post-Byzantine Monuments. After the outbreak of the Syrian crisis she worked with the Syrian DGAM to document the illegal trafficking of stolen Syrian artefacts. Haqi coordinated a Local Community Development Team to support Syrian local communities engaging with their shared past. She developed workshops for refugees and, especially, children to stimulate them in protecting cultural heritage, in cooperation with the Institute for Digital Archaeology in Oxford. After she arrived in the Netherlands she began to rebuild her heritage network through Dutch and European cultural organisations. She became active in helping Syrian refugees integrating into their new communities and she participates in initiatives to protect Syrian cultural heritage. Khaled HIATLIH Khaled Hiatlih is a Syrian-Palestinian archaeologist. Before the conflict he was associated with the Directorate General of Antiquities and Museums (DGAM) in Damascus. With the Institute for Digital Archaeology in Oxford, he explores and leads the potential of new technologies to repair and reconstruct destroyed archaeological monuments and sites. Dedicated to the preservation of Syrian cultural heritage, Khaled has been tracking the illicit trafficking of Syrian archaeological artefacts and documenting damage to Syrian heritage since the crisis started. He is active in cultural initiatives to raise public awareness and protect endangered Syrian heritage as part of global human heritage. He also runs an educational cultural project for children in Syria with TDA-HPI and is managing a new heritage platform: thearchaeologist.net. Fiona HILL Dr Fiona Hill participated in University of Melbourne archaeological expeditions in Syria’s northern Euphrates River valley and returned there annually until March 2012. Graduating as an anthropologist, she specialises in Middle East and North Africa (MENA) heritage, and her business (Almanar Consultancy) provides project coaching and cultural consultancy to a range of commercial businesses, not-for-profits, Australian and Arab country government agencies, and travellers. In the first few years of Syria’s current conflict she was a regular contributor to mainstream and alternative media outlets, and in 2013 was invited by the UNHCR to comment on camp governance at Za’atari Refugee Camp in Jordan.

xviii

LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS

Saad Abbas ISMAIL Saad Abbas Ismail is a Kurdish archaeologist, translator and writer, who has published extensively on a range of archaeological topics and worked on many archaeological sites around the world. His recent archaeological work has focused on looted sites in the northeast of Syria. Heather JACKSON Dr Heather Jackson is currently an Honorary Senior Fellow at the University of Melbourne. Her early career was as a teacher of Classics, but she has excavated at Jebel Khalid since 1989 and was made co-director in 2000. She is the author and co-author of several books on the site. Her research focus is on Hellenistic Syria: housing, ceramics and figurines. Andrew JAMIESON Associate Professor Andrew Jamieson has extensive Middle Eastern archaeological field experience. In the mid-1990s he was deeply involved in the UNESCO post-war salvage operations in Beirut. For ten seasons he worked on the Australian salvage excavations at Tell Ahmar in northern Syria. Since 2005 he has curated over 20 exhibitions in the Classics and Archaeology Gallery at the University of Melbourne’s Ian Potter Museum of Art. Youssef KANJOU Dr Youssef Kanjou currently holds a research position at the Institute for Ancient Near Eastern Studies at the University of Tübingen. He is the co-author of A History of Syria in One Hundred Sites (2016) and was Director of the Aleppo National Museum until 2013. He was also previously a lecturer in the Department of Archaeology at the Aleppo University. In 2008, 2010 and 2013–2016, he was a visiting researcher at the University of Tokyo and the University of Tsukuba, Japan. He has co-directed several international joint missions, including Tell Qaramel and Dederiyeh Cave. Since 2018 he has worked on projects concerned with the preservation of the archaeological cultural heritage in Aleppo and the surrounding area (Syria). Roger MATTHEWS Professor Roger Matthews is head of the department of archaeology at the University of Reading, UK. He has extensive archaeological experience in Iraq, Iran, Syria and Turkey. Since summer 2016, Roger has been President of RASHID (Research, Assessment and Safeguarding the Heritage of Iraq in Danger) International, a group of academics and others aiming to assist Iraqi colleagues with the major challenges they face in protecting their cultural heritage. Olivier NIEUWENHUYSE† Dr Olivier Nieuwenhuyse† specialised in Near Eastern archaeology. He worked as a researcher in projects across the Middle East, carrying out field research in Syria, Turkey, Lebanon and Iraq. More recently Olivier worked for the Deutsche Archäologische Institut

LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS

xix

(DAI) and held a Humboldt research position at the Freie Universität Berlin. He was also an advisor for the World Customs Organisation. From 2017 to 2019 Olivier served as the president of SHIRIN. Sophie RUSSELL Sophie Russell is an archaeologist and PhD candidate at the University of Melbourne, specialising in the management of geospatial data including GIS and photogrammetry. Her research explores the digitisation of archaeological sites that are threatened by conflict or natural disaster, with a focus on case studies in the Middle East and South-East Asia. Her work is particularly concerned with community engagement, decision making and the representation of contested heritage in the digitisation process. She has worked with cultural heritage in Peru, Greece, Georgia, the Philippines and Australia. Isber SABRINE Isber Sabrine is a Syrian archaeologist specialising in Cultural Heritage Management. He has been a member of the Spanish National Research Council (CSIC) since 2005. He has been involved in the protection of the Syrian cultural heritage since the beginning of the conflict, and is currently chair and co-founder of the Spanish NGO Heritage for Peace (HfP). Since 2015 he has been involved in cultural initiatives for Syrian refugees in Germany. He is a guide for the Multaka project by the Museum of Islamic Art in the Pergamon Museum, which organises guided tours for refugees in the museums of Berlin. Marilyn TRUSCOTT Marilyn Truscott studied archaeology, history, materials conservation and cultural heritage management. She has worked as an archaeological researcher and museum curator and as a senior government heritage official. Now a consultant, her heritage experience extends from Australia to many continents. Much of her work now includes a strong engagement with local communities regarding their living heritage in decisions that may impact on its continuity. Annelies VAN

DE

VEN

Dr Annelies Van de Ven is a post-doctoral researcher at the Université Catholique de Louvain working with archaeological collections. In 2018 she received a PhD working at the intersection of Museology and Archaeology at the University of Melbourne. Her main field of interest is archaeological reception as well as heritage and identity studies. She is currently focused on conflict archaeology in the sense of how remains of the past are performed, experienced, monumentalised and memorialised in the public sphere to create modern narratives of identities. She is interested in how these are used in conflicts to justify violence and discrimination, and how we can invert those intensions.

MARBURG WOKSHOP PROGRAM ‘Heritage in Conflict: A Review of the Situation in Syria and Iraq’ Marburg 24–25 July 2017 (*indicates authors included in this publication)

SYRIA: THE ORGANIZATION

AND

SESSION 1 ACTION OF “LOCAL AUTHORITIES”

DURING THE

WAR

Introductory notes *F. BRAEMER and R. MATTHEWS Archaeological Heritage Management in Northeastern Syria *S. ISMAIL Experiment of Democratic Self-Management: About Protection of the Archaeological Sites in Al Jazira Canton-Syria R. ABDO The Work of the Syrian Center for Cultural Heritage Protection (Idlib) A. ALYHIA Report on the Department of Antiquities in the City of Bosra Sham *S. AL-ISSA SAMADI

SESSION 2 BIG CITIES: THE “ALEPPO CASE” Protecting Cultural Heritage in Times of Conflict *Y. DALLAL Protection Measures of Museums During the Wars, National Museum of Aleppo as a Model *M. FAKHRO Situation and Future of Old Aleppo *Y. KANJOU Seven Years of Conflict – the State of Cultural Heritage in Aleppo M. FIOL

MARBURG WORKSHOP PROGRAM

xxii

ACTIONS

SESSION 3 ABROAD: INTERNATIONAL ISSUES AND SUPPORTING ACTIONS

IN THE

FIELD

Protecting Heritage: The Work of Heritage for Peace and Others in Syria *I. SABRINE, B. VAROUTSIKOS, E. CUNLIFFE, L. LECKIE Les défis de la préservation du patrimoine archéologique syrien dans les zones les plus menacées: efforts locaux et soutien Sh. AL SHBIB Report on a Summer School Project M. NOVÁK Patrimoine syrien: Pillage et trafic des antiquités syriennes – filières, mécanisme et contres mesures Ch. ALI

SESSION 3 ACTIONS ABROAD: INTERNATIONAL ISSUES AND BUILDING TOOLS FOR THE POST CONFLICT PERIOD Endangered Archaeology in the Middle East and North Africa (EAMENA): Progress Report on Work in the Middle East as of July 2017 G. PHILIP Syrian Heritage Archive Project. Digital Safeguarding of Cultural Heritage Between Limits and Chances I. BALLOUZ An Update on ASOR Cultural Heritage Initiatives Inventory Development and the Use of Arches A. VAUGHN Focus Raqqa: Dutch-Syrian Initiatives Safeguarding Syrian Archaeological Heritage *O. NIEUWENHUYSE, Kh. HIATLIH, R. HAQI, A. AL-FAKHRI The Deir ez-Zor Museum Inventory Project – Progress Report H. KÜHNE Cultural Protection Fund Projects in Iraq and Syria A. EASTWOOD, A. BISHOP, S. SMITH

MARBURG WORKSHOP PROGRAM

xxiii

SESSION 4 ENLARGING THE SCREEN Archaeological Heritage in Conflict Zones: Perspective from Turkey D. BOUAKAZE-KHAN, Z. G. UNAL, N. A. MUNAWAR, C. ZOROGLU A Comparative Analysis of Dynamics of Cultural Heritage Destruction and Preservation Efforts in Afghanistan versus Syria/Iraq G. STEIN, A. GALLEGO-LOPEZ, M. FISHER An Open Discussion on an Ethics Charter for Near Eastern Archaeology and Assyriology M. LEBEAU and C. MICHEL

MELBOURNE SYMPOSIUM PROGRAM ‘Syria: Ancient History – Modern Conflict’ Melbourne 11–13 August 2017 (*indicates authors included in this publication)

Opening Address to the Syria: Ancient History – Modern Conflict Exhibition *G. W. CLARKE KEYNOTE LECTURE Aleppo and Palmyra – How Monuments were Weaponised in the Syrian Conflict *R. BURNS

CULTURAL

SESSION 1 DIVERSITY– JEBEL KHALID

Putting it All Together? Thirty Years of Work at Jebel-Khalid-on-the-Euphrates *H. JACKSON A View from the Summit: Excavations on the Acropolis at Jebel Khalid J. TIDMARSH Peopling the Landscape; Archaeological Surveys in the Euphrates Hinterland M. MOTTRAM Piecing Together and Stabilising the Past: Archaeological Field Conservation in Syria H. JONES-AMIN

CONQUEST

AND

SESSION 2 COLONISATION – TELL AHMAR

Tell Ahmar: An Important Site on the Euphrates G. BUNNENS (in absentia: paper read by M. GLYNN) Ivories, Tablets, Mosaics and More: Neo-Assyrian Discoveries in Area C J. SMITH Sherds of an Empire: Neo-Assyrian Ceramics from Tell Ahmar *A. JAMIESON

xxvi

MELBOURNE SYMPOSIUM PROGRAM

SESSION 3 SETTLEMENT AND MIGRATION El-Qitar: Bronze Age Fortress on the Euphrates T. MCCLELLAN Mapping the Landscape: From El-Qitar to Jebel Khalid C. OGLEBY Excavation of Tell Nebi Mend C. DAVEY

COMMUNITY

SESSION 4 ENGAGEMENT AND CULTURAL HERITAGE

Community Connections to Cultural Heritage: Continuity, Reconnection and Recovery *M. C. TRUSCOTT Engaging Community and Near Eastern Archaeological Collections: The Syrian-Australian Research Collaboration Project *A. JAMIESON Syria Re-imagined *F. HILL

WAR AND

SESSION 5 DESTRUCION – DIVERSITY

AND IDENTITY

After the War: Effects on Syria’s Cultural Diversity N. AL-JELOO Archaeology, Heritage and Destruction: Decolonising Syria’s Cultural Heritage M. MOTTRAM Digitally Mediated Iconoclasm: The Islamic State and the War on Cultural Heritage * J. A. GONZÁLEZ ZARANDONA

INTRODUCING HERITAGE IN CONFLICT Andrew JAMIESON1 Classics and Archaeology, School of Historical and Philosophical Studies The University of Melbourne, Australia E-mail: [email protected]

RESPONDING

TO HERITAGE IN CONFLICT:

SYRIA AND IRAQ

The Syrian and Iraqi civil wars, with their immense toll of human suffering, have also fuelled an unprecedented wave of heritage destruction. The deliberate ruin of cultural property in Syria and Iraq by the self-proclaimed Islamic State (also referred to as IS, ISIS, ISIL or Da’esh) and other belligerents – widely broadcast across traditional and social media – has horrified heritage professionals and the general public alike.2 How the heritage community reacted is now coming under increasing scrutiny. The low impact of some projects and, indeed, the total ineffectiveness of others has been highlighted by various commentators. Salam Al Quntar and Brian Daniels go so far as to say that the response was a failure. Having retrospectively identified three categories of action: “site documentation projects; public-awareness-raising projects; and emergency training and mitigation projects,”3 they determine that the emphasis on information gathering and distribution was disproportionate when compared with on-the-ground activities that may have alleviated the immediate effects of the crisis in practical ways. “We have failed as an expert community if we do not demand something more,” they conclude.4 They are right to call for more urgent action. In the midst of heritage destruction in Aleppo, Yassar Dallal, a contributor to this volume (Chapter 5), witnessed first-hand the inaction of the heritage community: “We tried to communicate with local and international associations and organisations, but … we received no financial support for our works,” he laments (p. 40). When the Syrian conflict began in 2011, Isber Sabrine and Emma Cunliffe (Chapter 8) note, “it became clear that the international community was not prepared or able to protect cultural heritage during conflict: indeed the prevailing argument was that it would be necessary to wait until the conflict was over – whenever that would be – and then send aid to what remained” (p. 73). Now is the time to evaluate our responses, reflecting on the successes and failures, in the hope of making future efforts more effective. It is intended that this volume will contribute to this 1  The author would like to express his sincere thanks to Abby Robinson for her generous editorial assistance and also wishes to convey his great appreciation to Dr Claudia Sagona for kindly producing the two maps included in this introduction. 2  On the terms ‘cultural property’ and ‘cultural heritage’ see Weiss and Connelly 2017, pp. 9–11. See also McDonald 2018, p. 7. On media and public responses, see, for example, Stone 2015, p. 52. 3  Al Quntar and Daniels 2016, p. 381. 4  Al Quntar and Daniels 2016, p. 391. Ömür Harmanşah has also documented the “relatively weak responses from the archaeological community around the world” noting that they “rarely went beyond the stereotypical expression of ‘dismay’ to ISIS’s heritage destruction” (Harmanşah 2015, p. 170).

A. JAMIESON

2

process. The book reflects the proceedings of two workshops, held in Marburg and Melbourne in 2017, that dealt with these matters, and the contributions provide a range of insights into the problems (and solutions) involved. Rather than lengthy formal papers, they offer accounts – in many cases first-hand reports or personal reflections – on the situation as it unfolded. The workshop in Marburg, organised by the SHIRIN (Syria) and RASHID (Iraq) initiatives and entitled Heritage in Conflict: A Review of the Situation in Syria and Iraq, invited papers addressing relevant topics, including assessments of projects headed by local heritage authorities, scientific organisations and NGOs. It aimed to include as many speakers from Syria and Iraq as possible alongside their international counterparts. This book is meant likewise to provide our local colleagues with an opportunity to disseminate their views and make their research available to a broad readership. Too often their voices are not heard and we are pleased that many of them accepted the invitation. From hearing about their experiences, it quickly becomes apparent the immense sacrifices some of them have made in order to protect their heritage. In his introductory comments to the Marburg workshop, Frank Braemer (Chapter 1), emphasises the damage that Syria and Iraq have suffered to their rich cultural heritage, and notes that “after years of conflict, it is necessary to attempt a general vision at the Near/ Middle East level and to share experiences, actions and projects” (p. 15). He ends optimistically, stating that “we welcomed … papers that outline new projects, local, national and international, that may help to address heritage concerns and challenges in the months and years ahead, in particular as both Iraq and Syria strive for a future beyond Daesh” (p. 15). The Melbourne symposium ran in conjunction with the exhibition Syria: Ancient History – Modern Conflict (discussed in the chapters by Jamieson and Jackson, and by Van de Ven), which showcased decades of archaeological research by Australians in Syria. The symposium brought together experts from the disciplines of heritage and conservation studies, as well as archaeology, to discuss all aspects of what had been learned, how the participants might aid in the current conflict, and how the future of archaeological and heritage studies in the region might look going forward. The papers included in this volume cannot of course cover all the issues or all the places affected by the conflicts in Syria and Iraq (see maps Figs. 1–2), nor can they mention every organisation or group involved in the different response efforts (for a listing of the sites and organisations that are discussed by the authors in this volume see the Appendix Tables 1–18). It is also important to note that there are key differences between Syria and Iraq in the heritage crisis, “most notably [that] Iraq retains some governance capability over cultural heritage in ways that Syria has not, which provides a governance framework for all emergency heritage efforts.”5 Nevertheless, these proceedings from the Marburg workshop and Melbourne symposium provide a sample of actions undertaken by local and foreign archaeologists and heritage specialists to protect, document or raise awareness about cultural heritage in various conflict zones in Syria and Iraq, and provide an opportunity to critically review them.

 Al Quntar et al. 2015, p. 156.

5

INTRODUCING HERITAGE IN CONFLICT

3

Fig. 1. Map of Iraq (courtesy Claudia Sagona).

KEY THEMES Several dominant themes emerge from the papers. Among them is the weaponisation of monuments. It has become evident that threats to certain sites – for example, Palmyra or Aleppo – attracted greater worldwide attention than to others.6 Youssef Kanjou has identified an equation whereby “the more significant the site, the more inevitable and barbaric the destruction will be.”7 He notes that such sites – particularly those on UNESCO’s World Heritage List – were previously considered untouchable because of their value to local and international communities. However, as Ross Burns, a former Australian ambassador to 6 7

 See Ali 2013; Cunliffe 2012; Cunliffe and Curini 2018.  Kanjou 2020, p. 322.

4

A. JAMIESON

Fig. 2. Map of Syria (courtesy Claudia Sagona).

Syria, attests (Chapter 11), the same category of sites was specifically targeted and, in fact, “weaponised” in the Syrian conflict. Sadly, this highlights a great tragedy resulting from the crises in Syria and Iraq – the deliberate destruction of heritage. Antonio González Zarandona (Chapter 14) analyses this in terms of “iconoclasm … the destruction of images for political and religious purposes,” (p. 149) noting that it is an age-old phenomenon, but now incorporates the novel aspect of being captured and disseminated across the world by means of social media.8 Other papers deal with the record and the future of international heritage laws. According to some commentators, the cultural property protection policy of Syria and its regional neighbours has failed.9 Ross Burns begins his study by asking: “Why has the open flouting 8  Ömür Harmanşah (2015, p. 170) also discusses these matters, considering the impact of “place-based violence” of this kind on the identity and memory of local people, as well as Islamic State’s deliberate use of modern media technologies to communicate such “spectacles” to the world. “These violent acts and their hightech mediatic representation,” he writes, “accomplished many goals at once: from humiliating the local communities to broadcasting a radical ideology of religious fanaticism in order to recruit new transnational militants all the way to defying the common values attached to cultural heritage in the globalized world” (p. 171). See also Isakhan 2018, 2013, 2015; Shabab and Isakhan 2018. 9  Neil Brodie (2015, p. 329) argues that “international public policy should move away from countryspecific ‘emergency’ actions of protection and recovery and focus instead on developing long-term, global

INTRODUCING HERITAGE IN CONFLICT

5

of the rules of war, painstakingly set down and almost universally accepted over the past century, now become almost the ‘new normal’?” (p. 111). He examines the function of international conventions intended to protect cultural heritage in conflicts, noting that dozens of states have signed on to them. Yet “in the heat of battle,” he observes, “few combatant elements (be they state parties or insurgent groups) take much trouble to keep away from sites which have been adopted by their opponents as refuges and double as offensive positions” (p. 111). Sabrine and Cunliffe (Chapter 8) note there was a gap in existing law in situations of civil war: “Since international heritage law is mainly applicable to state parties,” they observe, “governmental and intergovernmental organisations can largely only work with heritage authorities that are supported by the recognised state authority, and with whom there is existing diplomatic relations. In situations of civil conflict, non-state actors may control heritage resources, but have no access to support or aid” (p. 73).10 Sabrine and Cunliffe’s contribution also draws attention to the fraught issue of how to maintain neutrality in conflict situations. They relate this to their Syrian Heritage Law Training (SHELTr) project, which offers online materials to Islamic court staff, heritage workers and government officials in opposition-held parts of the country. “Working as a neutral organisation in a conflict is complicated,” they explain, “and in trying to maintain its neutrality HfP faced many difficulties … some [groups] refused to work with the NGO because of who else it had worked with; others felt the NGO should work with them alone; and some attempted to use HfP’s work with ‘the other side’ to slander the NGO’s reputation” (p. 82).11 As already mentioned, there has been considerable criticism of the response to the hostilities in Syria and Iraq, particularly as it related to the dire situation on the ground.12 With this in mind, several papers in this book candidly discuss organisations and projects formed, by themselves or others, in direct reaction to the conflict.13 In one instance, Olivier strategies of market reduction. If the destination market in cultural objects from Syria and its regional neighbors had been tackled decisively in the 1990s, the damage caused by looting since then in Syria and the wider region would have been lessened.” See also Brodie and Renfrew 2005. 10  On the destruction of cultural property and legal implications and obligations in the context of the Syrian conflict, see also Cunliffe et al. 2016, pp. 1–31; Lostal and Cunliffe 2016; and Luck 2018. 11  See Jamieson and Russell 2019 (p. 275) on reports that other initiatives have faced similar problems regarding neutrality. 12  Salam Al Quntar and Brian Daniels contend that “the mobilization of the international heritage community and the responses to date have been characterized by what Lynn Meskell has so aptly called “expert failure”, in describing the impotence of professional archaeologists and preservationists to implement positive change in crisis situations.” Elsewhere, Salam Al Quntar et al. have looked at the role of international heritage community, which they note “has a great deal of interest in responding to the present crisis in Syria and Iraq, but is not well-integrated into the international humanitarian and disaster response community in order to translate this goodwill into action.” They suggest “the international heritage community cannot do much to protect cultural heritage inside Syria and Iraq directly, but it can support willing heritage professionals and activists inside both countries who are already doing so. Perhaps the greatest conceptual challenge for the archaeological community is to reimagine heritage protection as one of many humanitarian actions that offer direct support to populations in crisis.” (Al Quntar and Daniels 2016; Meskell 2010). 13  For more on projects, initiatives and organisations assembled by international scholars over the past eight years to address the crisis in Syrian heritage, see the four volumes entitled Towards a Protection of the Syrian Cultural Heritage: A Summary of the National and International Responses, published by Silvia Perini, Emma Cunliffe, Leonardo Leckie and Bastien Varoutsikos in association with Heritage for Peace. Importantly, these volumes also help in identifying priorities, sharing knowledge and avoiding unnecessary duplication, so that

6

A. JAMIESON

Nieuwenhuyse, Khaled Hiatlih, Ayham Al-Fakhri and Rasha Haqi (Chapter 9) describe their pilot project, ‘Focus Raqqa’ and its aims. They suggest that the pilot has been most successful in demonstrating that it is achievable to fully document the collections once curated in the Raqqa Museum. “Although no one can know for sure when, where or how these objects will again emerge,” they conclude, “or even if they still exist, we believe that at least some of them shall one day surface in an auction house, a biblical museum, or someone’s exclusive private collection. When that day comes, archaeologists should stand ready to assist international organisations in combatting the traffic in stolen goods, and to identify whether the object’s origin lies in northern Syria” (p. 99). Sophie Russell’s very topical paper (Chapter 18) deals with projects focused on the digitisation of cultural heritage affected by conflict. Enterprises of this kind are mainly run by organisations based in the western, English-speaking world, she observes, and while they are the product of a fast-growing field that presents many opportunities, there are also inherent problems of ownership and access. Like other response types discussed in this volume, heritage digitisation projects have led to commendable outcomes in documentation and engagement, but Russell questions how much practical use they have been to Syrian and Iraqi communities affected by the loss of their local heritage. Some possible ways forward that she identifies recognise a need for greater collaboration with in-country colleagues and communities. Heather Jackson and Andrew Jamieson touch upon a more targeted use of digital technology in their discussion of the past and future of their own international projects in Syria (Chapter 15); that is, the Australian archaeological excavations at Jebel Khalid and Tell Ahmar. After the civil war brought about destruction and halted scientific investigations in the region, they dedicated their efforts to producing digital resources and publications and to mounting the exhibition and symposium, Syria: Ancient History – Modern Conflict. Syrian contributors to this volume grant us a rare and valuable insight into actions and motivations on the ground – where community groups are striving to preserve and protect the heritage they live amongst – and highlight successes due to dedication and a sense of ownership. Saad Ismail, a professional archaeologist living in Qamishli, northeast Syria, gives a first-hand account of his attempts to preserve archaeological heritage in Al-Jazira territory (Chapter 3). His account highlights the extreme challenges of “saving archaeological sites and artefacts … in times of war,” but he remains committed to the cause, as “the need for documenting, protecting and safeguarding Syrian archaeology especially in this period is most urgent” (p. 26). Ismail’s personal sacrifices have been many, but there have also been victories, including local training projects to help manage recovered artefacts and the documentation and secure storage of thousands of items. Suleiman Al-Issa Al-Samadi (Chapter 4) writes about the ancient city of Bosra al-Sham, which was added to the World Heritage List in 1980, and the efforts of local volunteers – members of a non-political independent civil organisation – to protect the heritage where

available (and often limited) resources can be targeted or redirected. The list, at first covering the period from March 2013 to December 2016, has been updated several times: Perini and Cunliffe 2014a; 2014b; 2015; Leckie et al. 2017.

INTRODUCING HERITAGE IN CONFLICT

7

they live. According to Suleiman, “What distinguishes the people of Bosra from other areas is their sense of responsibility for protecting the monuments … because they dwell on the site between the archaeological buildings,” and “it was preserved by their fathers and grandfathers who left in our hands a principle to pass on to future generations” (pp. 27–28). This dedication to one’s personal heritage is also a theme of Yasser Dallal’s account of conservation work that took place in the Old City of Aleppo (Chapter 5). The difficult working conditions, he says, meant it was not always possible to comply with formal academic standards, but the dedication and commitment of the participants, who often put their lives at risk, was beyond doubt. Mohamad Fakhro (Chapter 6) explains the success of the archaeological museum in Aleppo in meeting the challenges of the conflict era, noting with relief that the museum’s safety plan and security measures contributed significantly to the protection of all its artefacts.14 Summing up, Roger Matthews (Chapter 2) flags the “good news story” that is “the capacity of … people to rise above the devastation through their determination and community spirit in order to generate grass-roots solutions to the array of major problems facing them” (p. 19). He goes on to mention that at Marburg, “it was especially heartening to learn of the innovative and effective ways in which local communities across Syria, often inspired by single outstanding individuals, had taken it upon themselves to organise the protection and enhancement of the cultural heritage assets within their control, to everyone’s advantage” (p. 19). It becomes clear that local participation may also point to the way forward in the postconflict era. In looking for causes behind the massive destruction of Syrian heritage, Youssef Kanjou, director of the Aleppo Museum until 2013, has identified factors that originated before the war. They mainly revolved around a legal and administrative structure that did not allow for community input. “As a consequence,” he wrote, “the strategy has been counterproductive, as the local communities considered the historical monuments to be the property of the state. Thus, when the state lost control, the local community quickly attacked archaeological sites in retaliation, assuming they belonged to the state and not to society.”15 In this volume, reviewing the damage to the Old City in Aleppo, Kanjou (Chapter 7) discusses plans for future rehabilitation and conservation. As this process gets underway, he identifies cooperation between the local community, local authorities and international organisations as the key to success. Anas Al Khabour (Chapter 16) is also focused on the importance of community involvement. Speaking about the city of Raqqa, he expresses concern about “a lack of research on the role of heritage in connecting a community with their past, based on their shared memories … [but hopes that] future projects

 See also Kanjou 2016 and Ali et al. 2015.  Kanjou 2020, p. 323. See also Kanjou 2018. See Giblin 2014 for heritage in post-conflict environments and the importance of treating heritage “as a common, dynamic and socially contextualized cultural process involving the use of the past in the present” (p. 502); and Newson and Young 2017. Benjamin Isakhan and Lyn Meskell (2019) draw similar conclusions in the Iraqi context, with a focus on the city of Mosul. “UNESCO,” they say, “must continue and expand its efforts to create an ongoing dialogue with the local population – despite their divergent and competing views – and create opportunities for their participation in, and ownership over, every stage of the reconstruction process” (Isakhan and Meskell 2019, p. 1200). 14 15

A. JAMIESON

8

will contribute to resolving conflict, protecting human rights, and rehabilitating [the city’s] society, which has been severely impacted by social and physical trauma” (p. 194). Other papers that foreground the local perspective and see it as crucial to recovery include Fiona Hill’s evocative “exploration of the role of individual and collective memory” in the future of Syrian heritage (Chapter 13, p. 139). Inspired by conversations with her Syrian informants, she concludes that “Syrian people’s great variety of unique daily practices [have] the potential to reinvigorate social spaces and recreate relatively cohesive social experiences. When ancient sites and monuments can be fully integrated into those social spaces, Syria’s heritage will not only be preserved. It may in fact be reborn” (p. 148). Marilyn Truscott (Chapter 12) takes a similar position, arguing that communities can play a vital part in “the recovery of heritage … [and] not only a physical recovery of place – if appropriate, but a community’s sense of place and with that their cultural identity” (p. 125). A final group of papers in this volume is concerned with efforts to raise awareness “about the significance of archaeology in Syria and the toll the war is taking on this important cultural resource” (Jamieson and Jackson, Chapter 15, p. 174). Unable to continue fieldwork at Jebel Khalid and Tell Ahmar, the Australian archaeologists made this their focus, Jackson and Jamieson explain, giving talks and curating the museum exhibition, Syria: Ancient History – Modern Conflict that led to the Melbourne symposium.16 In his opening address to the exhibition in May 2017 (reproduced in Chapter 10), Graeme Clarke, himself a director of the Jebel Khalid project, drew attention to the display of artefacts and archives from Tell Ahmar, Jebel Khalid and El-Qitar (an earlier project), as a reminder of “how important it is to preserve what we can of the past and of human history – and, we might hope, learn from it” (p. 109). Annelies Van de Ven, in a critical review of the exhibition (Chapter 17), thinks that Clarke’s speech “had a eulogistic quality, a characteristic that can also be ascribed to the exhibition” (p. 200). While judging Syria: Ancient History – Modern Conflict a success, Van de Ven regrets – like other contributors to this volume – the absence of local voices: “What was unfortunately left out,” she writes, “was how Syrian locals and diaspora felt about this cultural heritage” (p. 202). More generally, she laments that local collaborators are so seldom given a place in the public products of international research, a situation which this volume hopes in some small part to address.

THE

WAY AHEAD

In respect to this book’s stated aim of improving our responses to heritage in crises, it is clear that many contributors feel that local and international collaboration is of crucial importance in achieving this. As Sophie Russell and I have noted elsewhere, experience shows that such collaborations often depend on personal relationships established prior to crisis. Archaeologists are uniquely well placed to make connections of this kind, given that they spend long fieldwork seasons in remote locations to which they return year after year.17 16

 See Jamieson and Jackson 2020.  Jamieson and Russell 2019.

17

INTRODUCING HERITAGE IN CONFLICT

9

When face-to-face meetings are no longer possible – whether due to armed conflicts or circumstances such as those quite unexpectedly facing most of the world at the time of writing – another way to build and strengthen partnerships is to ensure that local voices continue to be part of our publications, problem solving and future planning. In this context, I thank our Syrian and Iraqi colleagues for their contributions to the Marburg and Melbourne events and to this volume. I also take this opportunity to acknowledge the many achievements of Olivier Nieuwenhuyse, who sadly passed away in 2020, an exemplary collaborator with local and international colleagues alike and an eloquent advocate for heritage and the people who live amongst it. April 2020 BIBLIOGRAPHY AL QUNTAR, S. and DANIELS, I. B. 2016 “Responses to the Destruction of Syrian Cultural Heritage: A Critical Review of Current Efforts,” International Journal of Islamic Architecture 5(2): 381–397. AL QUNTAR, S., HANSON, K., DANIELS, B. I. and WEGENER, C. 2015 “Responding to a Cultural Heritage Crisis: The Example of the Safeguarding the Heritage of Syria and Iraq Project,” Near Eastern Archaeology 78(3): 154–161. ALI, C. 2013 “Syrian Heritage Under Threat,” Journal of Eastern Mediterranean Archaeology and Heritage Studies 1(4): 351–366. ALI, C., MAKINSON, M. and QUENET, P. 2016 “Syrian Museums under Threat: An Overview,” in Proceedings of the 9th International Congress on the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East. Vol. 1. Collections at Risk: Sustainable Strategies for Managing Near Eastern Archaeological Collections, edited by A. Jamieson, pp. 477–492. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. BRODIE, N. 2015 “Syria and its Regional Neighbors: A Case of Cultural Property Protection Policy Failure?,” International Journal of Cultural Property 22(2–3): 317–335. BRODIE, N. and RENFREW, C. 2005 “Looting and the World’s Archaeological Heritage: The Inadequate Response,” Annual Review of Anthropology 34: 343–361. CUNLIFFE, E. 2012 “Damage to the Soul: Syria’s Cultural Heritage in Conflict.” Palo Alto: Global Heritage Fund. http://ghn.globalheritagefund.com/uploads/documents/document_2107.pdf CUNLIFFE, E. and CURINI, L. 2018 “ISIS and Heritage Destruction: A Sentiment Analysis,” Antiquity 92(364): 1094– 1111. CUNLIFFE, E., MUHESEN, N. and LOSTAL, M. 2016 “The Destruction of Cultural Property in the Syrian Conflict: Legal Implications and Obligations,” International Journal of Cultural Property 23(1): 1–31. GIBLIN, J. D. 2014 “Post-Conflict Heritage: Symbolic Healing and Cultural Renewal,” International Journal of Heritage Studies 20(5): 500–518. HARMANSAH, Ö. 2015 “ISIS, Heritage, and the Spectacles of Destruction in the Global Media,” Near Eastern Archaeology 78(3): 170–177.

10 ISAKHAN, B. 2013

A. JAMIESON

“Heritage destruction and spikes in violence: The case of Iraq,” in Cultural Heritage in the Crosshairs: Protecting Cultural Property During Conflict, edited by J. Kila and J. Zeidler, pp. 219–248. Leiden: Brill. 2015 “Creating the Iraq cultural property destruction database: Calculating a heritage destruction index,” International Journal of Heritage Studies 21(1): 1–21. 2018. “How to Interpret ISIS’s Heritage Destruction,” Current History 117(803): 344–350. ISAKHAN, B. and MESKELL, L. 2019 “UNESCO’s project to ‘Revive the Spirit of Mosul’: Iraqi and Syrian opinion on heritage reconstruction after the Islamic State,” International Journal of Heritage Studies 25(11): 1189–1204. JAMIESON, A. and JACKSON, H. 2020 “Community Engagement and the ‘Syria: Ancient History – Modern Conflict’ exhibition and symposium,” in Proceedings of the 11th International Congress on the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East (03–07 April, 2019, Munich). Vol. 1, edited by A. Otto, M. Herles and K. Kaniuth, pp. 327–338. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. JAMIESON, A. and RUSSELL, S. 2019 “Responding to Syria’s Cultural Heritage in Crisis: A Case Study,” Ancient Near Eastern Studies 56: 267–288. KANJOU, Y. 2016 “Protection Strategies and the National Museum of Aleppo in Times of Conflict,” in Proceedings of the 9th International Congress on the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East. Vol. 1. Collections at Risk: Sustainable Strategies for Managing Near Eastern Archaeological Collections, edited by R. A. Stucky, O. Kaelin and H.-P. Mathys, pp. 465–475. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. 2018 “The Role of the Local Community and Museums in the Renaissance of Syrian Cultural Heritage,” Journal of Eastern Mediterranean Archaeology and Heritage Studies 6(4): 375–91. 2020 “The Consequences of the Destruction of Syrian Heritage on the Syrian Identity and Future Generations,” in Testing the Canon of Ancient Near Eastern Art and Archaeology, edited by A. Gansell and A. Shaffer. pp. 322–324. Oxford University Press. Oxford Scholarship Online. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780190673161.003.0021 LECKIE, L., CUNLIFFE, E. and VAROUTSIKOS, B. 2017 Towards a Protection of the Syrian Cultural Heritage: A Summary of the National and International Responses. Vol. 4. (October 2015–December 2016). Catalonia, Spain: Heritage for Peace. http://www.heritageforpeace.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Heritage-for-PeaceInt-Actions-report-vol-4-oct-2015-dec-2016.pdf LOSTAL, M. and CUNLIFFE, E. 2016 “Cultural Heritage that Heals: Factoring in Cultural Heritage Discourses in the Syrian Peacebuilding Process,” The Historic Environment: Policy and Practice 7(2–3): 248–259. LUCK, E. C. 2018 Cultural Genocide and the Protection of Cultural Heritage. Los Angeles: J. Paul Getty Trust. https://www.getty.edu/publications/pdfs/CulturalGenocide_Luck.pdf MCDONALD, D., ed. 2018 Culture Under Fire: Armed Non-State Actors and Cultural Heritage in Wartime, Geneva Call, Geneva. https://www.genevacall.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Cultural_Heritage_Study_ Final_HIGHRES.pdf

INTRODUCING HERITAGE IN CONFLICT

11

MESKELL, L. 2010 “Conflict Heritage and Expert Failure,” in Heritage and Globalisation, edited by S. Labadi and C. Long, pp. 192–201. London: Routledge. NEWSON, P. and YOUNG, R. 2017 Post-Conflict Archaeology and Cultural Heritage: Rebuilding Knowledge, Memory and Community from War-Damaged Material Culture. New York: Routledge. PERINI, S. and CUNLIFFE, E. 2014a Towards a Protection of the Syrian Cultural Heritage: A Summary of the National and International Responses. Vol. 1. (March 2011–March 2014). Catalonia, Spain: Heritage for Peace. http://www.heritageforpeace.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/Towards-a-protection-of-the-Syrian-cultural-heritage.pdf 2014b Towards a Protection of the Syrian Cultural Heritage: A Summary of the National and International Responses. Vol. 2. (March 2014–September 2014). Catalonia, Spain: Heritage for Peace. http://www.heritageforpeace.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Towards-a-protection-of-the-Syrian-cultural-heritage_Oct-2014.pdf 2015 Towards a Protection of the Syrian Cultural Heritage: A Summary of the National and International Responses. Vol. 3. (September 2014–September 2015). Catalonia, Spain: Heritage for Peace. http://www.heritageforpeace.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Towards-a-protection-of-the-Syrian-cultural-heritage_Vol3.pdf SHAHAB, S. and ISAKHAN, B. 2018 “The Ritualization of Heritage Destruction under the Islamic State,” Journal of Social Archaeology 18(2): 212–233. STONE, P. G. 2015 “The Challenge of protecting heritage in times of armed conflict,” Museum International 67(1–4): 40–54. WEISS, T. G. and CONNELLY, N. 2017 Cultural Cleansing and Mass Atrocities Protecting Cultural Heritage in Armed Conflict Zones, Los Angeles: J. Paul Getty Trust. https://www.getty.edu/publications/pdfs/CulturalCleansing_Weiss_Connelly.pdf

SECTION ONE: HERITAGE IN CONFLICT: A REVIEW OF THE SITUATION IN SYRIA AND IRAQ

CHAPTER 1

THE MARBURG WORKSHOP: AN INTRODUCTORY NOTE Frank BRAEMER Université Côte d’Azur, CNRS, Centre Culture et Environnement, Préhistoire, Antiquité, Moyen Âge Nice, France E-mail: [email protected]

The SHIRIN (Syria) and RASHID (Iraq) organisations (see below) organised on July 24th, 2017 a workshop at the 63rd Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale (RAI) in Marburg, Germany to provide updates and critical reviews of the heritage situation in Iraq and Syria. As we all know, both these countries have suffered terribly from afflictions to their rich cultural heritage in recent years; damages and attacks to the archaeological heritage continue, and will grow with the reconstruction projects. After years of conflict, it is necessary to attempt a general vision at the Near/Middle East level and to share experiences, actions and projects. In this workshop we have invited papers that address relevant issues, including accounts of projects headed by local heritage authorities, scientific organisations and NGOs. For security reasons, many of these projects take place outside Iraq and Syria, in foreign countries where scientific communities – including colleagues in exile – are dealing with Near/Middle East Heritage preservation research and teaching programs. We have also wished to hear about projects taking place inside Iraq and Syria and in surrounding countries taking in refugees and displaced persons. We have also welcomed proposals for papers that outline new projects, local, national and international, that may help to address heritage concerns and challenges in the months and years ahead, in particular as both Iraq and Syria strive for a future beyond Daesh. We wish to thank all the workshop participants for their presence and their contributions. Despite the efforts of the RAI organisers and the help of many friends, it was not possible to obtain visas for the colleagues living in Syria. Nevertheless, they agreed to participate through a videoconference and we were very happy for their willingness to share their experiences. Finally, we are very grateful to the ANES editors who agreed to publish these contributions. *  * *

F. BRAEMER

16 SHIRIN

SHIRIN – Syrian Heritage in Danger: An International Research Initiative and Network –was created at the request of participants in a workshop on Syrian Heritage, funded by the Swiss Society for Ancient Oriental Science, at the 9th International Congress on the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East (ICAANE) at Basel in 2014.1 SHIRIN’s aims included bringing together a significant proportion of international research groups and scholars who were working in Syria prior to 2011, with the purpose of making their expertise available to wider heritage protection efforts. Accordingly, SHIRIN’s international committee, at the time of its creation, included the directors of a number of long-term international research programs and others who shared their strong commitment to the effective protection of the heritage of Syria, including the former head of the Department of archaeological research and excavations, Dr Michel Maqdissi. Representatives of the following countries were listed on the SHIRIN International committee at the time of its creation: Australia, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, Lebanon, Poland, Spain, Switzerland, The Netherlands, UK and USA.2 When SHIRIN was created, its focus was primarily on providing archaeological experience and expertise in the following ways:

• Producing ‘Damage Assessment’ Reports on archaeological sites • Creating databases of sites and inventories artefacts • Evaluating the provenance of illicitly excavated (looted) or stolen artefacts SHIRIN coordinated the preparation of damage assessment reports on key archaeological sites. To assist in the production of these reports, SHIRIN International collaborated with UNESCO and UNOSAT to obtain up-to-date satellite imagery. SHIRIN contacted 129 foreign, joint and national research projects to obtain damage assessment data: 56 project directors provided site reports. SHIRIN also created a database and interactive maps containing around 15,000–20,000 sites across Syria, based on data from two already-existing projects: 1) The Fragile Crescent Project, UK-based and directed by Graham Philip of Durham University (this work builds on the Historic Environment Record for Syria); and 2) The PaléoSYR / PaléoLIB projects, a French venture directed by Frank Braemer (CNRS, Nice) and Bernard Geyer (CNRS, Lyon). Additionally, SHIRIN collaborated on Digitized Inventories of Museums of Syria (DIMS). This project expands on an earlier initiative known as Digitizing the Inventory of the Museum of Deir ez-Zor, funded by the German Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and involves cooperation 1  Marc Lebeau, of the European Centre for Upper Mesopotamian Studies, Brussels, was tasked by the workshop organisers with forming an international response, which resulted in the creation of SHIRIN. 2  At the 61st Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale in Bern (and Basel), on 25 June 2015, Frank Braemer (France) was elected President, Hartmut Kühne (Germany) Vice President, Graham Philip (UK) Treasurer and Andrew Jamieson (Australia) Secretary, forming the board of the SHIRIN International Committee. A new interim SHIRIN executive board – Conseil d’administration – was formed on 4 November 2017, replacing the original international committee structure. The members of the new Conseil d’administration included: Olivier Nieuwenhuyse (President), Mirko Novák (Vice President), Marina Pucci (Secretary), Andrew Jamieson (Treasurer), Frank Braemer and Dominik Bonatz.

THE MARBURG WORKSHOP: AN INTRODUCTORY NOTE

17

with the Directorate General of Antiquities and Museums (DGAM) and also with the International Committee for Documentation (CIDOC), a branch of ICOM. SHIRIN representatives worked with Interpol and other agencies to help identify the provenience of illicitly excavated or stolen artefacts. In addition, SHIRIN issued two statements (directed to UNESCO) on the destruction and reconstruction of Palmyra (19 April 2016) and Aleppo (20 December 2017). Newsletters were also produced highlighting SHIRIN’s activities and publicising other related heritage efforts and events. SHIRIN International encouraged the establishment of national committees. It was hoped that these would be formed in all the nations with representatives on the SHIRIN International committee. From the beginning, SHIRIN International offered to work collaboratively on a neutral basis with other national and international partners including DGAM, Syrian National Council, UNESCO, ICCROM, ICOMOS, ICOM, Blue Shield, Interpol, UNOSAT/ UNITAR, PennMuseum/Smithsonian Group, ASOR, Syrian Heritage Archive Project (SHAP), Museum für Islamische Kunst/Museum of Islamic Art (MIK), and the Deutsches Archäologisches Institut (DAI), as well as the Association for the Protection of Syrian Archaeology (APSA), Heritage for Peace (HfP), and Syrian Archaeological Patrimony in Danger (PSAD).

RASHID RASHID – International (Research, Assessment, Safeguarding the Heritage of Iraq in Danger) – was formed shortly after the creation of SHIRIN. The RASHID website states: ‘RASHID International is a worldwide network of archaeologists, cultural heritage experts and like-minded professionals dedicated to safeguarding the cultural heritage of Iraq. The history and archaeology of ancient Mesopotamian cultures are our passion, for we believe that knowledge of the past is key to understanding the present. This knowledge is in imminent danger of being lost forever. Militant groups are razing mosques and churches, smashing artifacts, bulldozing archaeological sites and illegally trafficking antiquities at a rate rarely seen in history. Iraqi cultural heritage is suffering grievous and in many cases irreversible harm. To prevent this from happening, we collect and share information, research and expert knowledge, work to raise public awareness and both develop and execute strategies to protect heritage sites and other cultural property through international cooperation, advocacy and technical assistance. RASHID International is registered as a non-profit organisation in Germany and enjoys charitable tax-exempt status under German law. We are an organisation in special consultative status with the United Nations Economic and Social Council since 2019.’

The current RASHID board of directors include: Roger Matthews (President), Simone Mühl (Vice President), Luca Peyronel (Treasurer), and Rozhen Mohammed-Amin (Secretary). Further information about the structure, activities, projects and publications is available on the RASHID International website: https://rashid-international.org/

CHAPTER 2

HERITAGE IN CONFLICT: PERSPECTIVES FROM IRAQ Roger MATTHEWS Department of Archaeology, University of Reading UK Email [email protected]

This important publication of papers delivered at workshops held in Marburg and Melbourne in the summer of 2017 is greatly to be welcomed. Within the pages of this volume we have vivid evidence of both the devastation that has been inflicted on people (above all) and their heritage in Syria and Iraq in recent years and, at the same time, of the capacity of those same people to rise above the devastation through their determination and community spirit in order to generate grass-roots solutions to the array of major problems facing them. At the Marburg workshop it was especially heartening to learn of the innovative and effective ways in which local communities across Syria, often inspired by single outstanding individuals, had taken it upon themselves to organise the protection and enhancement of the cultural heritage assets within their control, to everyone’s advantage. This good news story stands as a major achievement that has gone largely unnoticed in the west where the media insist on focusing largely on the bad news stories where Syria and Iraq are concerned. As the volume here is heavily weighted towards the heritage of Syria, it might be helpful in this introduction to provide some discussion regarding the heritage of Iraq, and consideration of how the organisation of which I am President, RASHID International (Research, Assessment, Safeguarding the Heritage of Iraq in Danger: https://rashid-international.org/), is helping in matters regarding Iraq’s heritage. With the expulsion of Daesh from almost all of Iraq, it is a fitting time to take stock of that country’s cultural heritage and to consider the challenges and opportunities now faced by the people and government of Iraq.1 Firstly, multiple efforts are underway to catalogue the devastation wrought by Daesh, or by others during Daesh’s expulsion, on heritage buildings and assets across northern Iraq. Outstanding in this regard has been the research conducted by the Monuments of Mosul in Danger project,2 which has worked in Prague since 2015 to record damage to Mosul’s incredibly rich architectural heritage during its occupation by Daesh for three years from June 2014 and during the violent expulsion of Daesh from the city in the summer of 2017 (culminating a few days before the Marburg workshop took place). Characterising this episode as ‘urbicide’ and ‘city annihilation’, the Czech team has accumulated a chilling picture of Mosul as a city which “has lost all its major sites, all centres of communal religious life and social memory, all sites which once constituted its panorama and distinctive 1 2

 See Matthews et al. 2020 for further discussion.  Jones 2019.

R. MATTHEWS

20

appearance”.3 The sole consolation is that some of the churches and Ottoman-era mosques have survived more or less intact, probably because of their listing on no-strike lists provided to military target planners. As to Mosul’s future, there are encouraging developments, headed by UNESCO’s Revive the Spirit of Mosul project, cited as “the most important reconstruction campaign undertaken by UNESCO in recent times”.4 Within the remit of this project reconstruction of such iconic sites as Al-Nuri Mosque and Al-Hadba Minaret is well underway. Less clear is the extent to which local communities have been engaged in consultations over the future of Mosul and its heritage.5 Without such engagement, which must include all relevant stake-holder communities, any progress in heritage rehabilitation will not be sustainable in the longer term. Secondly, we are pleased to note that the government of Iraq has expressed its intention to ratify the 1999 Second Protocol to the 1954 Hague Convention,6 a move for which RASHID International has been lobbying for several years. Iraq’s imminent accession is important as it will enable access to resources such as The Fund for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict, which provides funds for activities such as the preparation of inventories, planning of emergency measures or implementation of protection plans. This fund has been called upon very rarely, probably because its existence is not widely known. Once party to the 1999 Second Protocol, Iraq could rightly claim assistance from this fund for a range of appropriate activities, including cataloguing of heritage sites across all Iraq. The Second Protocol also enables states to assign Enhanced Protection status to heritage sites “of the greatest importance for humanity” (a descriptor that could reasonably apply to multiple Iraqi heritage sites), which would communicate to all parties the special status of such sites and the potentially serious consequences of inflicting, or allowing, damage to them. Finally, we note the situation of Iraq at the core of contemporary discussions around the cultural rights agenda. Heritage and cultural rights intersect at multiple nodes, as especially illuminated through the vigorous work of the UN Special Rapporteur in the field of cultural rights, currently Karima Bennoune.7 RASHID International has been highly active in contributing reports on specific themes within the Special Rapporteur’s remit.8 Key elements of this rapidly developing field include: the aim to integrate cultural rights within the broader human rights arena; a determination to characterise deliberate destruction of cultural heritage assets as an egregious infringement of multiple human rights; a concern to adopt a fully gendered approach to the field of heritage and cultural rights, situating women at the heart of sustainable heritage management; the encouragement of state actors, in this case the government of Iraq, to embed cultural rights firmly within their human rights agendas (as argued in RASHID International’s contribution as NGO to the Third 3

 Nováček 2019, p. 251.  UNESCO 2019. 5  Isakhan and Meskell 2019. 6  UNESCO 30 April 2019. 7  UNHRC 3 February 2016; 6 October 2016; 16 January 2017. 8  See RASIH International 2017. 4

HERITAGE IN CONFLICT: PERSPECTIVES FROM IRAQ

21

Cycle of the Universal Periodic Review of Iraq’s human rights in 2019), and finally; recognition of the value (social, cultural, economic) of cultural heritage within the framework of sustainable development. In this regard, it is notable that culture and heritage feature minimally in the 17 Sustainable Development Goals articulated a few years ago by the United Nations (UNGA 2015).9 To conclude, the heritage of Iraq, like that of Syria, widely acknowledged to be of global significance within the deep-time perspectives of archaeology, history and human sociocultural development, sits at the core of a range of key themes and issues recurrently addressed in recent years by many international workshops and symposia. The papers in this volume add new perspectives and new data to the ongoing discussions and for that we owe the contributors and editors a major debt of gratitude.

BIBLIOGRAPHY ISAKHAN, B. and MESKELL, L. 2019 “UNESCO’s project to ‘Revive the Spirit of Mosul’: Iraqi and Syrian opinion on heritage reconstruction after the Islamic State,” International Journal of Heritage Studies 25(11): 1189–1204. JONES, E. 2019 Monuments of Mosul in Danger. http://www.monumentsofmosul.com/ MATTHEWS, R., RASHEED, Q. H., FERNÁNDEZ, M. P., FOBBE, S., NOVÁČEK, K., MOHAMMED-AMIN, R., MÜHL, S. and RICHARDSON, A. 2020 “Heritage and cultural healing: Iraq in a post-Daesh era,” International Journal of Heritage Studies 26(2): 120–141. DOI: 10.1080/13527258.2019.1608585 NOVÁČEK, K. 2019 “Mosul: systematic annihilation of a city’s architectural heritage, its analysis and postcrisis management,” in Archaeology of Conflict / Archaeology in Conflict, edited by J. Bessenay-Prolonge, J.-J. Herr and M. Mura, pp. 249–260. Paris: Routes de l’Orient. RASHID INTERNATIONAL 2017 Publications. https://rashid-international.org/publications/ UNESCO 2019 Three more States to ratify the Second Protocol to Hague Convention to protect cultural heritage during armed conflicts. 30 April 2019. https://en.unesco.org/news/ three-more-states-ratify-second-protocol-hague-convention-protect-cultural-heritageduring-armed-conflicts. 2019 Revive the Spirit of Mosul. https://en.unesco.org/projects/the-spirit-of-mosul UNGA 2015 UN General Assembly Resolution 70/1. Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. 21 October 2015. https://undocs.org/A/RES/70/1 UNHRC 2016 UN Human Rights Council. Report of the Special Rapporteur in the Field of Cultural Rights, Karima Bennoune. 3 February 2016. https://undocs.org/A/HRC/31/59 2016 UN Human Rights Council. Resolution 33/20. Cultural Rights and the Protection of Cultural Heritage. 6 October 2016. https://undocs.org/A/HRC/RES/33/20 2017 UN Human Rights Council. Report of the Special Rapporteur in the Field of Cultural Rights, Karima Bennoune. 16 January 2017. https://undocs.org/A/HRC/34/56

9

 UNGA 21 October 2015.

CHAPTER 3

RECOVERING STOLEN ARTEFACTS: A CASE STUDY Saad Abbas ISMAIL Qamishli, Syria E-mail: [email protected]

ABSTRACT The following short paper describes some of the experiences of the author, in Syria itself, of tracking down, treating, recording and storing artefacts looted or stolen during the Syrian conflict. Key phases are outlined in the response efforts. The resources required to undertake this work are also discussed.

First of all, I would like to thank SHIRIN and RASHID for inviting us to this conference. We are also grateful to the people who assisted us in obtaining our visas. May the situation of Syria and the Syrians be much better next year, and the obtaining of visas much easier. I am Saad Ismail, from Qamishli in Syria. I studied archaeology in Beirut at the Lebanese University. In 2011 I postponed preparations of my dissertation and joined an archaeological rescue operation at Mes Aynak in Afghanistan. I have 16 years of experience regarding excavations, archaeological studies, and archaeological site management. When I returned from Afghanistan, I noticed the archaeological situation in Northeastern Syria: there were illegal excavations everywhere, and smugglers working hard to find and sell artefacts. Instead of joining the archaeological rescue operation in Beirut, directed by Dr Hans Curvers of the University of Amsterdam, I decided to improve the local situation. I tried to contact the authorities and look for those who cared most for heritage and archaeology in this war. After some time I met Mr Juan Ibrahim, an educated young man working within the Asayish forces (Police forces). He understood my description of the emergency regarding heritage and archaeology and decided to support my efforts to manage archaeological heritage in the region controlled by the Asayish forces, and the Authority of Tourism and Protection of Antiquities. Asayish forces have an anti-organised crime section: one of the responsibilities of this section is to track illegal dealers and smugglers of archaeological artefacts. They collect information about the movements of the dealers and smugglers. In some cases they are able to prevent smuggling and the illegal excavations that damage archaeological sites. After receiving and confirming any information about the presence of artefacts in the possession of one person or a group of people, the anti-organised crime team arrests suspects and confiscates all artefacts. In the course of our work I have trained the members of the team in how to deal with artefacts and how to handle and move them in a suitable manner (Fig. 1: 1–3). As a result the team is well prepared and uses special boxes during rescue and recovery missions.

24

S. A. ISMAIL

Fig. 1:1. The team recording and measuring a looted artefact.

Fig. 1:2. Training members of the team in how to deal with looted artefacts.

Fig. 1:3. Training members of the team in how to handle and move artefacts in a suitable manner.

After confiscating the artefacts from the illegal art dealers and smugglers, the items are transferred to the archaeological laboratory, where I process and investigate the artefacts with the assistance of one other person. Our mission, the processing and investigation of the objects, consists of several stages, which are described below.

RECOVERING STOLEN ARTEFACTS: A CASE STUDY

25

Phase I Firstly, I document all confiscated objects and look for those that are in bad condition: sometimes there are obvious breaks or cracks. Cleaning the artefacts from dust and mud is often necessary. The illegal art dealers often saturate artefacts in clay to add more authenticity to them, in an attempt to convince buyers that these objects have been recently excavated (Fig. 2).

Fig. 2. Recovered artefacts before cleaning.

Phase II Secondly, I study the artefacts and determine the date of each piece. I compare the objects with artefacts discovered and published from the region or compare them with collections of other museums throughout the world (Fig. 3).

Fig. 3:1–4. Examples of recovered and treated artefacts.

S. A. ISMAIL

26 Phase III

Thirdly, I also prepare an official archaeological report in which the photographs and descriptions and the result of my studies are combined. In some cases I ask Dr Hans Curvers for assistance, and sometimes he contacts other colleagues and scholars to provide me with relevant information. A copy of the report is sent to the Authority of Tourism and Protection of Antiquities, and a second copy is for the Public Prosecution to take appropriate action against the arrested people. Phase IV Fourthly, after the investigations and compilation of the report is complete, the artefacts are packed in appropriate boxes. The boxes are subsequently transported to a special storage facility, which is well protected and guarded by Asayish forces. Phase V Finally, in order to avoid error or destruction of the data, all documents and photographs of archaeological artefacts and reports are kept in more than one place. In these last years we have documented and protected many sites. During the war the houses of archaeological missions were also damaged and we were able to save and recuperate their inventories. I have talked about my work as a member of the Asayish forces and the Anti-Organised Crime section. Saving archaeological sites and artefacts is a very difficult task in times of war. Life itself is sometimes difficult: no water, electricity, tools, equipment, and no one seems to care and nobody is willing to help. Here I should say that we all are responsible for protecting Syrian archaeology. Everybody can contribute in his or her way according to their financial means and moral awareness. We have many archaeological projects that need support. I prepared and organised several projects. They just need support; maybe SHIRIN can help and support us in the near future. It is possible to support our activities by providing us with some of the basic tools that will allow us to continue our work: 1. A private car or rental car, including fuel 2. Internet connection (currently we use Turkish internet) to be able to communicate, and to keep people informed about our work 3. Photographic and filming equipment (e.g., camera, lenses, vertical and horizontal tripods, etc.) 4. Archaeological tools for rescue excavations You should know, last year on the 27th of July 2016, I lost my house, office, car and equipment in a large explosion near my house. I lost everything. Many of my neighbours died, but my family survived. I did not despair. Most of my colleagues asked me to move to Europe to continue my life in peace as a refugee. But I insisted on staying where my presence and expertise is needed. The need for documenting, protecting and safeguarding Syrian archaeology especially in this period is most urgent.1 1

 A recording of this presentation can be found online at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nZR-NN5dZ4Y

CHAPTER 4

CONFLICT AND HERITAGE: THE MODEL OF BOSRA AL-SHAM Suleiman Al-Issa AL-SAMADI E-mail: [email protected]

ABSTRACT The city of Bosra al-Sham, rich in archaeological sites of the Nabataean, Roman, Byzantine and Islamic periods, was, like many other Syrian cities, badly damaged in the Syrian conflict. This paper describes the efforts and ambitions of a group of young volunteers to prepare the way for restoration and rehabilitation, not only by documentation but also by active community participation.

The ancient city of Bosra al-Sham suffered, as did other cities and archaeological sites in Syria, from destruction and damage as a result of the conflicts and war in Syria, which had a bad impact on all areas of life (that is, on human life, heritage, and urban and community fabric). The historical and archaeological city of Bosra al-Sham, registered in 1980 on the World Heritage List, is located in the southernmost part of Syria, about 140 km from Damascus. It was a religious capital and an important commercial centre on the Silk Road. It is also rich in archaeological sites of the Nabataean, Roman, Byzantine and Islamic periods. Like other Syrian cities (Damascus, Homs, Aleppo, Palmyra and Idlib) the site needs a lot of attention and care, especially since many of the world’s civilisations were represented there and left witnesses in the form of architectural buildings. Bosra al-Sham, as an ancient historical site, is not only the property of the Bosra community, but also belongs to all international communities. The responsibility to protect and preserve it is primarily an international concern, the responsibility of not only every one of us here, but also the responsibility of every individual and organisation working with the preservation of heritage and culture. Based on the need to preserve our heritage and civilisation, also based on our awareness of the importance of preserving the urban and cultural fabric of our city and not damaging the cultural and archaeological components, a group of young volunteers created the Department of Antiquities of Bosra al-Sham on the 8th of April 2015. We would like to emphasise here that our centre and our institution is an independent civil organisation that does not belong to any political party but was created by the efforts of our Bosra people and our working group. RESPONSIBILITY AND

COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION

What distinguishes the people of Bosra from other areas is their sense of responsibility for protecting the monuments of Bosra and its historical city, because they dwell on the site between the archaeological buildings. This makes the people a single fabric with their

28

S. AL-ISSA AL-SAMADI

archaeological and urban heritage. The people of Bosra are aware of the importance of this historic city and the need to preserve it, as it was preserved by their fathers and grandfathers who left in our hands a principle to pass on to future generations. Therefore, we find that each of Bosra’s old houses has continued to be inhabited by the residents and thus preserved, also protecting the nearby archaeological sites.

OUR TASK Our task involves documenting the damage and destruction of Bosra, recording all violations such as the robbery of museum properties, protecting and preserving archaeological sites near Bosra, and preventing vandalism, damage and clandestine excavations in the old city. The museum documentation records the removal or destruction of pottery, statues and coins dating back to a variety of periods, as well as secret excavations which occurred inside the castle and some other sites. Also documented is the complete or partial destruction of Roman, Byzantine and Islamic archaeological buildings, such as the Castle of Bosra al-Sham, where the Bed of the King’s Daughter collapsed and was completely destroyed as a result of direct artillery shells, the Omari Mosque, which was hit by barrel bombs, the cathedral, the Monastery of the Monk Beira, the School of Abi-Alfida, and the houses and buildings of the old city, which was still inhabited. We have created a special group for this archaeological documentation, whose task is to collect information about each site that has been destroyed and damaged, document the current status of those sites with pictures, drawings, plans and necessary information, and put this data in specific files for each archaeological site. In addition, our aim is to collect the remains of distributed artefacts, protect and document them. Museums are located in the Citadel of Bosra and in the surrounding area; the ancient city of Bosra al-Sham is considered to be an open museum because of its many monuments, architectural buildings from different civilisations, and nearby archaeological sites. The volunteer team began to inspect archaeological sites and record violations through photography and description. This enormous task requires time and effort, as well as experience and scientific skill; it also needs financial support, because the number of archaeological sites is more than 20, most of which have been damaged. We have started the collections of both exterior and interior museums, located inside the Castle of Bosra al-Sham. All artefacts were documented, then packed in wooden boxes specially manufactured for that task and placed in a safe place inside the castle, so it will be possible to reopen the museums and display their collections whenever safe conditions exist and financial support is provided. From the very beginning, we initiated a preliminary study and field research to determine the status of these archaeological sites. A preliminary process was developed as follows: 1. Removing the remnants and fragments of destruction and bombing by activating voluntary workshops or by employing cadres able to deal with the specificity and sensitivity of these sites.

CONFLICT AND HERITAGE: THE MODEL OF BOSRA AL-SHAM

2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

Cleaning the archaeological sites of soil and grass and the remains of stones. Documenting the current status of the sites and protecting them from sabotage, as well as studying the need to restore what was destroyed. Setting a guard for these sites (fixed or mobile) whose task it is to protect them from sabotage, tampering or theft, and to reduce clandestine excavations. Documenting the current state of museums and studying their rehabilitation. considering, in addition, the possibility of exhibiting the remaining precious artefacts. Restoring the building of the Department of Antiquities, which has been destroyed and demolished.

DIFFICULTIES AND 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

2.

LIMITATIONS

Lack of funding to implement the aforementioned plan. The absence of guardians at archaeological sites to protect them from damage, robbery and secret excavations. Lack of human resources necessary to carry out restoration and maintenance projects for archaeological sites. Lack of the necessary tools and equipment required to make the work of the department a success. Poor practical experience and the need for staff to have specialised training courses in restoration, protection and documentation.

WHAT HAS 1.

29

BEEN ACHIEVED DURING THE TEAM’S TENURE

The process was begun by collecting and documenting the artefacts and statues in the Museum of the Castle of Bosra. A detailed written report was prepared, with pictures recording the extent of damage that occurred in the Citadel of Bosra as a result of military bombing.

Work was started within the project of documenting museums (Classical Museum / Museum of Writings and Stone Carvings, the Open Museum or Sculpture Square) where we recovered scattered artefacts, and recording what we were able to collect of fragments of artefacts in one place. We also cleaned the museums and open squares from the remnants of shattered glass and debris. After that, we made a complete record by taking accurate pictures of statues and archaeological finds with statistical tables of the surviving pieces, and thus counting what was stolen and destroyed, then putting the artefacts and finds in wooden boxes, which were moved to a safe place until the museum could be re-opened. Documentation was started for the important archaeological buildings in the ancient city of Bosra al-Sham. This was carried out through accurate and complete photography of each site, with all its parts and details, reflecting the current situation, as a first stage of preparation for the documentation of the entire old city. We would then be ready, should we be able to

30

S. AL-ISSA AL-SAMADI

obtain the necessary financial support, to start on the overall restoration process. In this particular project, the aim has been: • To show the extent of the destruction and devastation affecting archaeological sites and the old city. • To have ready important and necessary documentation to be used as a reference for the rehabilitation of each site in the event of approval being granted for restoration projects. • To adopt, if possible, a project digitising archaeological sites in the City of Bosra al-Sham. • This task is immense, and needs qualified staff and adequate resources. However, we have worked with all our energy despite the small number of staff and the lack of professional cameras and measurement devices. The lack of financial support for this project was a huge obstacle, but we worked within available possibilities. The project is ongoing and needs a long period of time to be implemented. 3. The Department of Antiquities of Bosra al-Sham launched a voluntary campaign (to clean the ancient city) which continued from 26–30 April 2015, where we removed all fences and barriers, eliminating explosive mines that were planted inside the old neighbourhoods containing archaeological sites. In addition, grass and debris were removed from the Theatre and Castle. 4. The opposition forces arranged a special group to protect archaeological sites, under the direct supervision of the Department of Antiquities. Its task is to carry out patrols and place mobile guards inside the old city of Bosra 24 hours a day; its mission is to preserve those sites from damage and to prevent illegal excavations. 5. A simple restoration was carried out to support some buildings which threatened to collapse, with the idea of maintaining them by restoring or repairing some of the openings and pits resulting from the bombardment of the ancient city. The greatest destruction that occurred was at the Bed of the King’s Daughter building and the Castle of Bosra al-Sham. Great economic support, technical and scientific expertise is needed to restore what was destroyed. 6. Our participation in the campaign (#Unit4Heritage) from 6–10 December 2015, which was launched by UNESCO, had a great impact in educating students and society about the importance and necessity of preserving archaeological sites as a cultural and human heritage. This could be achieved by the following means: • Planning educational journeys and activities for school students to archaeological sites, especially the Castle of Bosra al-Sham. • Organising meetings and events with the local community to discuss with them how to preserve the archaeological cultural heritage in our city. • Co-operating with some institutions and organisations in the activities of the campaign, such as Syrian Civil Defense and the local city council. • Posting publications in schools, service institutions and public places to promote awareness of the importance of the campaign and its objectives. • Holding a closing ceremony for the campaign’s activities to include honouring the institutions that played an important role in helping and contributing to the protection of the ancient city of Bosra al-Sham.

CONFLICT AND HERITAGE: THE MODEL OF BOSRA AL-SHAM

31

7.

Cooperation occurred with some media organisations through field reports, live broadcasts or meetings, which highlighted the importance of the archaeological city of Bosra and the ways to provide support. 8. Domestic tourism was promoted by opening the gates of the castle to visitors from inside and outside Bosra. Another initiative was the establishment of cultural activities and festivals, such as the opening of a second Syrian festival in the amphitheatre of the Castle of Bosra al-Sham. 9. Participation in regional conferences and workshops: a workshop in Amman, Jordan was sponsored by the Metropolitan Museum and Columbia University from 11–13 October 2016. 10. Participation in the documentary photography course for museums, in Amman, Jordan, from 14–18 October 2016, which was organised by the Metropolitan Museum in cooperation with the American Center of Oriental Research in Amman. Finally, we in the Antiquities Department of Bosra al-Sham yearn to restore Bosra to the peak of its brilliance by the combined efforts of its own people and those who love the city.

CHAPTER 5

PROTECTING CULTURAL HERITAGE IN TIMES OF CONFLICT Yasser DALLAL E-mail: [email protected]

ABSTRACT Syria in general and Aleppo specifically have suffered from six years of conflict, which has definitely affected cultural heritage in the city. The extent of destruction of the buildings in old Aleppo exceeds imagination. War does not distinguish between military sites and heritage ones. Protecting cultural heritage in times of conflict or at least mitigating the resulting damage is, therefore, our duty.

In early 2013, the need to work effectively to protect archaeological sites was recognised. This began to take shape by creating a group of archaeologists, architects and other volunteers who were interested in saving their heritage. The conservation works that took place in the Old City of Aleppo were the result of a collaboration between the Archaeology Department of the Free Aleppo Governorate Council and The Syrian Association for Preservation of Archaeology and Heritage. The team tried their best to preserve cultural heritage in a time when no one considered heritage to be a priority. This paper is mainly to share the experience of the Archaeology Department, as the author was the director of this department for one year. The measures explained later in this paper may not follow the best academic standards, as the author is trying to explain the situation in a conflict zone and the works conducted are based on personal experience.

THE CITY

OF

ALEPPO AND

ITS HISTORY

The City of Aleppo was the commercial and industrial centre of Syria. It was second only to the capital Damascus in terms of area and population. Aleppo is one of the oldest continuously inhabited cities in the world.1 It is believed to date back to a very early period: Tell Qaramel in northern Aleppo, for example, dates back to 10,000 BCE.2 Excavations in Tell as-Sawda and Tell al-Ansari, just to the south of the Old City of Aleppo, show that the area was occupied by Amorites from at least the latter part of the third millennium BCE. In addition, Aleppo was first mentioned in cuneiform tablets unearthed in Ebla and Mesopotamia, in which it is described as a part of the Amorite state of Yamhad and is noted for its commercial and military proficiency. This long history is closely related with Aleppo’s 1 2

 Alafandi and Abdul Rahim 2014, p. 321.  Kanjou 2009, p. 26.

Y. DALLAL

34

strategic location: it became a major trade centre between the Mediterranean and Mesopotamia.3 Aleppo has witnessed several kingdoms and empires throughout its history, such as Hittites, Assyrians, Umayyads, Mamluks and Ottomans. The most important monuments in the city are the Citadel and the Great Mosque, in addition to many historic madrasas, palaces, hammams and khans. In 1986, the Old City of Aleppo was inscribed on the World Heritage List as the ‘Ancient City of Aleppo’.4

SYRIA’S

CIVIL WAR AND THE STATUS OF

ALEPPO’S CULTURAL

HERITAGE

Protests began in Syria on 15 March 2011. Anti-regime protests were held in several districts of Aleppo and were met by security forces. Later, in early 2012, the situation turned to armed confrontations between the two sides. These confrontations took place even in the Old City, which was turned into a battlefield. At first, the rebels took control over large parts of the Old City, then the regime retrieved several sections. The exchange of control over several areas continued until the end of 2016, which led to the deterioration of the situation and an increase in damage (Fig. 1), especially with the increased reliance on the use of heavy weapons and air strikes. The author witnessed these events until the end of 2013. During that time, the unique minaret, sections of the Great Mosque and large areas of the Old City were destroyed.

Fig. 1. An Aerial photograph of the destruction of ancient Aleppo 20 February 2017 (Google Earth Pro).

3

 Alafandi and Abdul Rahim 2014, p. 321.  See UNESCO 2019.

4

PROTECTING CULTURAL HERITAGE IN TIMES OF CONFLICT

PROTECTING ALEPPO’S

35

CULTURAL HERITAGE

Work in the Old City started on three main axes: Documentation of damage Due to the difficult living conditions at that time and the lack of facilities, we did not have the appropriate tools for proper documentation, except for paper, pens and a camera. Sometimes even a professional camera was not available, so we had to use a mobile phone camera instead. Our work methodology was based on dividing the Old City into sectors, depending on the quarters’ names, using old maps and Google maps. We later carried out frequent and successive rounds of these neighbourhoods to conduct surveys of damage to historic buildings and document their deterioration and damage level. In this way, we documented more than 100 buildings, including mosques, markets, schools, public baths, old houses and more (Fig. 2).

Fig. 2. The deterioration of the Minaret of Al–Adiliyah Mosque (Photo: (a) Yasser Dallal and (b) Ahmad Masri).

Y. DALLAL

36 Preservation projects

Protecting important building elements in the Great Mosque Aleppo’s Great Mosque (715–716 CE) dates back to the Umayyad period with many Ayyubid, Mamluk and Ottoman modifications and additions.5 The mosque caught the attention of the belligerents, being a very important monumental building. Therefore, it became the centre of armed clashes. The mosque has been taken over several times by both fighting sides. In the end, it was under the control of the Free Syrian Army from late 2012 until they were forced to evacuate Aleppo at the end of 2016. Throughout 2013, we visited the mosque several times to check its situation and inspect the damage. We noticed new damage in a different part of the mosque on each and every visit. On 14 October 2012, the northern arcade and the women’s prayer hall were burnt. The Al-Waqfiyya library was also burnt. On 24 April 2013, the minaret collapsed. Later, in 2014, the western part of the main prayer hall was also burnt and the eastern arcade partially collapsed. Additionally, there were almost daily shootings with light and heavy weapons. The destruction was enormous; it is not possible to mention all the details in the context of this report. Therefore, an urgent intervention had to take place. The surviving manuscripts of the burnt library and the minbar that became exposed for targeting opened the argument on what should be done. Leaving everything in its place was not a good solution at all. It seemed equivalent to intentionally destroying these elements. Preserving them in situ was also impossible. We considered transferring the elements, although it was also not a great idea because we could have been charged with theft – which happened later anyway. Furthermore, the elements would not be fully protected, because all rebel-held areas were vulnerable due to the frequent bombing. However, it was worth attempting to raise these important heritage elements’ survival chances. The first step was to transfer the surviving manuscripts and objects after the big fire in the Al-Waqfiyya Library to a safe place under the control of Free Aleppo Council. Later, we started studying the possibilities of protecting the very valuable minbar, which dates back to the reign of Sultan al-Nasir Muhammad ibn Qalawun6 and the main elements in the southern wall: the main mihrab, the tomb of Prophet Zakariya and Wali room gate. The decision was made to dismantle the minbar and build a protective wall in front of the previously mentioned elements. It was known that the construction of a concrete brick wall, no matter how strong, could not stand as a barrier against heavy weapons. But it could protect against shots and reduce the damage of a heavy bombardment. In addition, there was not enough financial support to build a better protective wall and, most importantly, freedom of movement and entry into the mosque was not always an option, due to clashes that could take place at any time. The place of work was targeted by a sniper. Therefore, it had to be covered for protection. After hanging some curtains in front of the southern wall of the prayer hall, we contacted a carpenter, experienced in traditional woodworking. On 13 May 2013, we dismantled and

5

 Osman 2009, pp. 196–200.  Osman 2009, p. 199.

6

PROTECTING CULTURAL HERITAGE IN TIMES OF CONFLICT

37

Fig. 3. Dismantling the Minbar of Aleppo Great Mosque (Photo: Waddah Al-Masri).

transferred the minbar to a safe place. The parts were dismantled carefully and covered with soft foam insulation (Fig. 3). It should be noted that two pieces of the minbar’s door were missing before we started working. Later, on 31 August 2013, we started constructing the protective wall in front of the southern wall elements. The wall was 40 cm thick, 16 m long and 5 m high. It was constructed 20–30 cm away from the original walls; therefore, pillars had to be added to it. Styrofoam boards were used as an insulator between the protective wall and the original wall. The construction works lasted nine days and 3000 solid blocks (with a thickness of 15 cm) were used, in addition to 9 m³ of sand and 15 Portland cement bags (Fig. 4). The Great Mosque had two sundials in the courtyard; one horizontal and one vertical. The horizontal one was in a bad state and we decided to use the same approach for protecting it. On 9 September 2013, we constructed a curved protection wall around the sundial (Fig. 5). The thickness of the wall was 20 cm and it was 180 cm high; the roof had a thickness of 15 cm. In the construction, some of the materials remaining after construction of the previous wall were used. Protecting the wooden Mihrab of Al-Halawiyeh School This mihrab is also the so-called niche of Eben Adeem. It is a distinctive wooden mihrab, which belongs to the Zengid dynasty. The niche was renovated by the last Ayyubid king, Joseph II Bin Mohammed Aziz (1245).7 7

 Osman 2009, p. 204.

38

Y. DALLAL

Fig. 4. Protecting the main Mihrab, the Tomb of Prophet Zakariya and Wali Room Gate in Aleppo Great Mosque (Photo: Yasser Dallal).

Fig. 5. Protecting the horizontal sundial of Aleppo Great Mosque (Photo: Yasser Dallal).

PROTECTING CULTURAL HERITAGE IN TIMES OF CONFLICT

39

On 20 May 2013 we went to check the mihrab’s fabric and observe its status. The mihrab (width 355 cm, height 460 cm) had severe damage on its right side, where the wood had separated from the wall behind it and become quite weak, indicating it was close to collapsing. The upper arch was in a similar poor condition. Additionally, some wooden fragments had been lost and were scattered on the floor next to the mihrab. We managed to find 39 wooden fragments and transferred them all to the Free Aleppo Council headquarters. After studying all possibilities and protection methods, including many suggestions, we decided on building a protective wall. This decision was based on what could be applied in accordance with the prevailing conditions, as mentioned above. First, we cleaned the place and isolated the niche with soft foam under a plastic mat cover (the thickness of insulation was 1 cm). Later, the 40 cm-thick protection wall was constructed 20–30 cm away from the plastic mat, with three pillars (two pillars based on the right and left of the Mihrab, and one in the middle, the wall being 150 cm high), without touching the inner part of the niche. Transferring the construction materials to the niche took four days, during which we transferred 1000 solid blocks (with a thickness of 15 cm), in addition to 4 m³ of sand and 5 Portland cement bags. Once the construction of the wall was completed, we covered the upper opening with two fixed iron doors (Fig. 6).

Fig. 6. Protecting the wooden Mihrab of Al-Halawiyeh School (Photo: Yasser Dallal).

Y. DALLAL

40

The work was interrupted on the second day when the Syrian regime forces targeted the workshop site. Thankfully, no injuries were recorded. The next day we continued the work. Protecting and transferring some objects from Adolphe Poche House The author of this paper had no information about the Adolphe Poche House and its properties before the war. But during the work at the Great Mosque, we heard from the locals in the area about an old house by this name, with a collection of treasures and antiques that was repeatedly subjected to theft. We decided to visit the house to discover what was there. It contained a large number of books, manuscripts, antiques, archaeological artefacts and old photos (Fig. 7). Many items had already been stolen from the house, which was damaged and burnt in some parts. As an urgent action, we decided to transfer some of the antiquities into the depots of the Free Aleppo Council. Later we tried to communicate with the owners of the house, who sent their representative. They were afraid because they thought that we were a military group or thieves, but after we explained our group’s purpose, it became clear to them that we were up to no harm. On 8 August 2013 we worked together to close the entrances to the house by building brick walls. The house representative also took some personal belongings. Later, the author heard that the house owners collected their belongings from the Free Aleppo Council. Protecting some of the maps, books and CDs from Al-Shibani Church The al-Shibani Church, which is also known as al-Shibani School, was a religious and cultural centre located in the al-Jalloum district of the Old City of Aleppo. After rehabilitation works carried out by the Aleppo City Council in 2006 with German Technical Cooperation assistance, the building was used to host cultural events and exhibitions.8 During the conflict, the building was bombarded and damaged in many places: debris was everywhere. We tried to clean the church rooms and secure them. But that was not effective against thieves. Therefore, we decided to transfer some of the old maps, books and CDs to the depots of the Free Aleppo Council (Fig. 8). Communication with local and international organisations and associations We tried to communicate with local and international associations and organisations, but unfortunately we received no financial support for our works. The only association that gave us moral support and consultation was the Association for the Protection of Syrian Archaeology (APSA), in addition to the help of some university professors.

8

 Osman 2009, p. 105.

PROTECTING CULTURAL HERITAGE IN TIMES OF CONFLICT

Fig. 7. Closing of Adolphe Poche House (Photo: Yasser Dallal).

Fig. 8. Preparing old maps to be transferred from Al-Shibani Church (Photo: Yasser Dallal).

41

42

Y. DALLAL

CHALLENGES In undertaking the work outlined above we faced two types of challenges: 1) logistical challenges, such as securing funds, supplies and staff; and 2) the danger of working on sites that were located on the front lines. Working in rebel areas, where different military groups control different parts of the city, was extremely difficult. There were also moral and psychological challenges, as our work was politicised by some entities. In addition, we were accused of theft. The lack of support and encouragement for such projects finally led to halting our activities despite their proven success.

RECOMMENDATIONS The international community and organisations must take the practical steps needed towards putting an end to the targeting of cultural heritage and towards supporting projects protecting it without any political prejudice.

BIBLIOGRAPHY ALAFANDI, R. and ABDUL RAHIM, A. 2014 “Umayyad Mosque in Aleppo yesterday, today and tomorrow,” International Journal of Art and Science 7(5): 319–347. KANJOU, Y. 2009 “Study of Neolithic human graves from Tell Qaramel in North Syria,” International Journal of Modern Anthropology 1(2): 25–37. OSMAN, N. 2009 Halep, Kilis ve Gaziantep’teki Tarihi Eser ve Abideler. Aleppo: Aleppo University Press. UNESCO 2019 Ancient City of Aleppo. http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/21 (24 July 2018)

CHAPTER 6

PROTECTION MEASURES TAKEN BY MUSEUMS DURING THE SYRIAN WAR: THE NATIONAL MUSEUM OF ALEPPO AS A MODEL Mohamad FAKHRO* Institute of Archaeology Universität Bern, Switzerland E-mail: [email protected]

ABSTRACT Apart from the human catastrophe, the cultural heritage in Syria is one of the victims of the Syrian war. The destruction of ancient monuments and museums, and the illegal excavations have reached a very high level during the Syrian conflict. Numerous Syrian museums have been affected by the armed conflict. Some museums, such as the ones in Al-Raqqa, Idleb and Aleppo, have suffered from theft as well as damage and destruction caused by bombardments and the impact of explosives and shrapnel. At the same time, the Directorate General of Antiquities and Museums, as well as non-governmental and international organisations have taken many measures to protect and save museums from loss, theft, destruction or trading of their contents on the black market. These efforts have resulted in the protection of many archaeological artefacts in the museums as well as in the national museum of Aleppo, where all objects were saved by the efforts of the national museum team.

INTRODUCTION A museum is an institution that tells stories throughout history. It houses collections of artefacts created by nature and by humans and other objects of scientific, artistic, cultural, or historical importance, and makes them available for the public through exhibitions. The definition of the International Council of Museums (ICOM) in the statute is, “a museum is a non-profit making, permanent institution in the service of society and of its development, open to the public, which acquires, conserves, researches, communicates and exhibits, for purposes of study, education and enjoyment, material evidence of people and their environment.”1

* The author would like to thank the organising committee of the Workshop, Heritage in Conflict: A Review of the Situation in Syria and Iraq 24–25 July 2017 in Marburg. The author also would like to thank Heather Jackson, Andrew Jamieson and Sophie Russell for their efforts in editing this volume. Finally, the author would like to thank all colleagues at the Aleppo National Museum, in particular: Assad Yosef, Ammar Kannawi, Ahmad Othman, and Hussein Alhassan. They had the greatest role in protecting archaeological artefacts in the museum. 1  ICOM 1990, p. 22.

M. FAKHRO

44 HISTORY

OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL MUSEUMS IN

SYRIA

Before the end of World War I, Syria had no museums. The museum of Damascus was established in 1919, after the end of the Ottoman Empire and one year before the establishment of the French mandate. It is thus the oldest cultural heritage institution in Syria. It was first located in al-Madrasa al-Adiliyeh (‫)المدرسة العادلية‬, a historical building in the old city dating to the 12th/13th centuries CE – Ayyubid Period – located in the historic centre of Damascus.2 In 1936, a new and larger museum was built near the Sultan Sulayman Mosque, designed by French architect Michel Écochard (1905–1985) to house the national antiquity collection relating to the Greco-Roman and Islamic periods only; the materials dating to the pre-classical period were, instead, housed in the National Museum of Aleppo. In 1946, the number of museums increased rapidly in various governorates of the country, but some of these archaeological museums are more sophisticated than others. This museum revolution was a natural result of the increase of archaeological expeditions, especially European, and the huge increase in archaeological discoveries annually. During this period, the idea of establishing museums was limited to one goal: the collection and preservation of archaeological heritage. Museums have been established in most Syrian provinces, and have been set up in historic buildings: firstly because these buildings were located in the centres of cities, so the public can visit them easily and effortlessly; secondly because there was a limited budget in this area; and finally because these buildings were in good architectural condition, needing only some restoration and equipment to become museums.3 Today in Syria, there are 38 museums, including two national (in Damascus and in Aleppo), and 12 regional (in Bosra, Daraa, Deir ez-Zur, Hama, Homs, Idleb, Palmyra, Latakia, Quneitra, Al-Raqqa, Sweida and Tartus). Eleven are dedicated to a specific theme (like the Museum of Arabic Calligraphy in Damascus, or the Museum of Mosaics at Ma’arat al-Nu’man). Seven housed popular arts and traditions, and several minor museums were located nearby important archaeological sites and displayed their collections, such as those at Dura Europos or at Qala’at Ja’bar.4

SYRIAN

MUSEUMS DURING THE ARMED CONFLICT

Eight years have passed and Syria has been drowning in a war that affected every single aspect of life there, from houses, mosques and churches to archaeological sites, museums and most importantly the wellbeing of the Syrian people. The war in Syria has resulted in the biggest humanitarian catastrophe in modern history, with millions of refugees and internally displaced people and hundreds of thousands of victims, in addition to costly damage of Syria’s infrastructure.5 Besides the human catastrophe, the cultural heritage in Syria is one of the victims of the Syrian war. The destruction of ancient monuments and  Joundi et al. 1999.  Alhaji 2008, p. 296. 4  DGAM 25 June 2018. 5  Holmes 2014. 2 3

THE NATIONAL MUSEUM OF ALEPPO AS A MODEL

45

museums and the illegal excavations during the Syrian conflict have reached a very high level. Numerous museums were affected by the armed conflict. Damage to the museums is relatively different from one to another: some museums have suffered from looting and theft, others from physical damage and destruction, resulting from bombardments, and the impact of explosives and firearms fragments. The destruction has extended to include architecture – for example, windows and doors of the museums, such as Deir ez-Zur museum.6 The location of the museums in the centre of the cities exposed them to many different dangers and threats. Often situated close to fighting lines, the physical structure of many museums has been impacted by clashes and explosions. Many museums reported different types of damage: shell damage, gunfire, army occupation, extremist groups’ (terrorism) activities, looting, theft and other damage.7 In the face of this adversity, many measures had to be taken to protect and save museums from loss, thefts, destruction or trading of its contents on the black market. For example, the Directorate General of Antiquities and Museums (DGAM) has taken many measures to protect archaeological artefacts in museums, such as documenting and archiving all records of the Syrian museums’ holdings, which were electronically documented and stored in safe places. Around 118,000 artefacts belonging to most of the Syrian museums, including the National Museum of Damascus, were documented. In addition, the artefacts of the Deir ez-Zour Museum and the Homs Museum were documented, totalling 30,000 artefacts.8 Another practice was to transfer important artefacts from some endangered museums to safe places in Damascus for safekeeping, such as from the museums of Deir ez-Zur, Daraa and Homs, among others.9 In March 2015, 300,000 artefacts and manuscripts from 34 Syrian museums were wrapped and transported to secret locations. “The damage to museums is less important than it would have been otherwise because of this preventative action, which of course we praise and consider very, very important,” said Francesco Bandarin, Assistant Director-General for Culture at UNESCO.10 Further measures for protection and enforcement were taken, such as reinforcing and closing all the internal and external doors and windows of most of the Syrian museums. In addition, alarm and surveillance systems were installed and activated. Moreover, the DGAM managed to recover around 6500 stolen artefacts. The pieces were mostly funerary busts made of limestone from Palmyra, as well as coins, some pottery, glassware and other material.11 The non-governmental organisations have played an active role in the protection of museums and artefacts. One example is ‘Poche House’, the Belgian Consulate in Aleppo, which housed a library, as well as several collections of ancient and traditional artefacts. Some were looted between 2011 and 2012. In June 2013, members of the Syrian Association for Preserving Archaeology and Heritage (SAPAH) and the Department of Archaeology of [the Free City of] Aleppo (DAA) managed to enter the house and record previous damage 6

 DGAM 2014.  Cunliffe 2012, pp. 6–17; Munawar 2014, pp. 27–37. 8  Deeb 2016, pp. 29–34; DGAM 6 February 2014; DGAM 20 December 2014; DGAM 2 March 2015. 9  Deeb 2016, pp. 29–34. 10  UN News 5 February 2014. 11  Deeb 2016, pp. 29–34. 7

M. FAKHRO

46

and degradation during this visit. On 18 June 2013, they packed and moved the objects, and delivered them into the hands of the Council of Aleppo Province.12 The Museum of Ma’arat al-Nu’man underwent many protection and restoration efforts. The work was carried out by the Idleb Antiquities Centre and the Syrian Heritage Centre who implemented a project to protect the mosaics in 2014, by covering them with a protective adhesive layer, then covering them with sandbags to shield them from the shelling and explosions in the city. The museum building was bombed more than once. Therefore, volunteers worked to recover antiquities and remove debris from damaged areas of the museum. The rest of the antiquities on display in the museum halls were moved to more secure locations of the site.13 The Idleb Antiquities Centre also documented and preserved more than 1700 artefacts from irregular excavations. In the eastern region of Syria, the Authority of Tourism and Protection of Antiquities in Al-Jazira documented, in 2018, the damage to the Al-Raqqa Museum after expulsion of the Islamic State soldiers. The main damage was the looting of artefacts, but there was also significant damage to the building. Some pottery, plaster and mosaic works still survive.14 International organisations also had a role in contributing to protection and preservation efforts; for example, the appeals that have been issued by UNESCO to protect Syrian heritage and the suggested resolutions of the United Nations and the Security Council to take effective decisions to stop the war.15 Warnings were also issued about the looting of Syrian museums and warehouses, including the warning in October 2013 of the looting of a warehouse containing artefacts from the Heraqla archaeological site. An important international contribution has been the fight against illicit traffic in cultural goods, which required the enhancement of legal instruments and the use of practical tools disseminating information, raising public awareness, and preventing illegal export. For that, ICOM decided to publish the ‘Emergency Red List of Syrian Cultural Objects at Risk’ with the aim of helping art and heritage professionals and law enforcement officials to identify Syrian objects that are protected by national and international legislation. In order to facilitate identification, the Emergency Red List illustrates the categories or types of cultural items that are most likely to be illegally bought and sold.16 Experience has shown that the Syrian museums were particularly vulnerable during conflict: destruction, looting, robbery, as documented by Syrian NGOs and other international associations such as SHIRIN.17 These organisations communicate and cooperate with other international bodies and the community of scholars to draw attention to the problems. In addition, the Digital Inventories of Museums of Syria (DIMS) project, is creating a tool for the detection of stolen items and illicit traffic in antiquities. This project aims to produce a large database of the inventories of all the museums of Syria, using excavation archives to fill the many gaps of the ‘in-country’ records. This work is carried out in close cooperation with DGAM, key international organisations (such as UNESCO), and other relevant parties, including directors of excavation projects in Syria. 12

 APSA 5 July 2013.  Alyehia 2016. 14  ATPA 5 December 2017. 15  UNESCO 1 March 2013. 16  ICOM 2013. 17  See SHIRIN 15 February 2015. 13

THE NATIONAL MUSEUM OF ALEPPO AS A MODEL

NATIONAL MUSEUM

OF

ALEPPO AS

47

A MODEL

The National Museum of Aleppo was established in 1926 by order of decree No. 136 of the State of Syria. At first, artefacts from archaeological projects working in northern Syria, particularly the finds emerging from Tell Ahmar and Tell Halaf, were deposited in one of the houses of Al-Jamiliya neighbourhood. These objects were the first on display. In April 1930, a conservator was officially appointed and began looking for a large and convenient place to be the museum’s headquarters. In 1931, the artefacts were transferred to an Ottoman palace (Al-Na’oura palace).18 Within a few years, the museum in Aleppo was at the forefront of Syria’s museums because of the abundance and richness of its collections, which covered the periods prior to the Greek era: the prehistoric, Bronze and Iron Ages.19 In 1966, a modern building replaced the Ottoman palace, and this remains the current museum.20 The square-shaped building consists of three stories with long interconnecting halls and a large internal courtyard.21 The basement was used for storage of archaeological artefacts. After this time, Aleppo Museum exhibited the history of northern Syria, and for that reason it was called the North Syrian Museum. Its collection includes the most important finds from archaeological sites in Syria. Over time, the contents of the Aleppo Museum grew with the increased number of archaeological excavations in northern Syria. Later, when regional museums were opened in Al-Raqqa, Deir ez-Zur and Idleb, many objects were relocated to these new institutions, but much pressure remained on the Aleppo Museum to find space for its ever-expanding archaeological collections.22 Nowadays, Aleppo Museum houses and exhibits thousands of treasures from ruins and antiquities spanning many historical periods. The museum displays are organised chronologically, with as many objects as possible presented on archaeological sites. It is divided into five sections: Prehistoric, Ancient Syrian, Classical, Arab-Islamic and Modern Art.

RISK TYPES

AND THREATS

The conflict in Syria has put this highly significant museum collection at risk. The conflict began on 15 March 2011 with peaceful protests, but soon took the form of armed conflict, which continues until now. As the crisis unfolded, it was necessary to evaluate the evolving security situation in the city of Aleppo, which changed as the armed conflict came closer to the museum. The use of different types of weapons, including car bombs, posed 18  Al-Na’oura palace was built in late 1924 under the rule of Mar’i Pasha al-Mallah, the governor of Aleppo. The palace was a huge luxury building in the courtyard of Al-Na’oura, outside Bab Al-Faraj. It was prepared for the meeting of the House of Representatives. It had 12 upper and lower rooms and a 20-m-wide lobby. In the front yard there was an obelisk (memorial stone) commemorating the French General GastonHenri Billotte, who resided there in 1926. 19  Le Musée National d’Alep 1932. 20  The new building was built after the project of Yugoslav architects Zdravko Bregovac and Vjenceslav Richter (1956/1957) who won first prize for their competition entry. 21  Mrduljaš 2018, pp. 42–43; Munivrana and Meštrić 2017, p. 90. 22  Kanjou 2014, pp. 465–475.

M. FAKHRO

48

an increased threat to the staff attending the museum every day. At the same time, the museum staff began to assess the types of risks that could occur due to security developments and based on previous experiences observed in other countries (notably Egypt, Iraq and Libya). Considerations included whether thieves or armed groups would steal the objects and whether there would be big or small shells or bombs.23 In 2011, the security risk was relatively low; however, in the following year, the armed forces entered the city and surroundings and clashes came nearer to the museum. The first risk was the terrorist attack on the city centre (Sahat al-Jabri) at the beginning of October 2012, when four car bombs exploded and greatly damaged the museum infrastructure: the suspended ceiling collapsed, windows were blown out and a curator and two public officers were injured.24 The museum’s location and its proximity to the fighting, on the frontline of the battle, in the Old City of Aleppo, made it vulnerable daily to large numbers of mortars, gas bombs, shells and bullets. Moreover, snipers begun to observe and target the main door of the museum. DESTRUCTION AND

DAMAGE

The museum – like the Old City of Aleppo, which has been on UNESCO’s List of World Heritage in Danger since 2013 – is also in danger. In 2016, the head of the United Nations cultural agency deplored the shelling of the National Museum of Aleppo, located on the edge of the war-torn ancient city in northern Syria, calling once again for the destruction of cultural property to stop.25 The museum has suffered extensive damage over the past eight years and was heavily bombed. Nearly all the long narrow windows that span the west side of the museum were blown out when mortars pierced the roof (Fig. 1). The museum has also intermittently sustained serious damage to its adjacent administrative building. The main façade of the museum, the museum’s exterior walls and structure, roof, external doors, offices and the outer fence, approximately 60 metres from the museum’s front entrance, have also been repeatedly damaged.26 Below is a summary of the damage to the National Museum of Aleppo: • On 27 April 2014 the museum and administration buildings were partially damaged due to a blast occurring nearby. Windows, ceilings, stone façades and stone floor tiles of the museum were damaged.27 • On Sunday 1 June 2014 a mortar shell slammed into the museum causing extensive damage.28 • On 3 June 2014 falling mortar shells damaged the garden of the museum and exposed some employees to non-serious injuries.29 23

 Kanjou 2014, pp. 465–475.  DGAM 12 November 2012. 25  UN News, 14 July 2016. 26  Lamb 8 December 2016. 27  DGAM 5 May 2014. 28  DGAM 31 May2014. 29  DGAM 2 June 2014. 24

THE NATIONAL MUSEUM OF ALEPPO AS A MODEL

49

• On 11 July 2016 the museum was attacked by a large number of falling missiles and explosive bombs causing serious damage to the structure of the museum, partial destruction of the concrete ceiling in different parts of the building, and much damage to exterior doors, the staff offices, the generator room and parts of the museum’s outer fence.30 At this time, on 13 July 2016, the Director-General of UNESCO, Irina Bokova, called once again to stop the destruction of the ancient city of Aleppo and deplored the recent shelling at the National Museum, which is located just outside of the boundaries of the ancient city of Aleppo.31 • On 24 July 2016 the museum was attacked again, by a number of falling explosive bombs around the site. One of the bombs struck the museum façade, causing severe damage.32 The good news is that the vast majority of Aleppo Museum’s treasures have been saved, because of the protection measures carried out by the staff of the Directorate of Antiquities and Museums of Aleppo since the beginning of the current crisis in March 2011.

Fig. 1. Islamic Museum: destruction of the walls and the ceilings in the galleries (Source: National Museum of Aleppo).

30

 DGAM 12 July 2016.  UNESCO 14 July 2016. 32  DGAM 23 July 2016. 31

M. FAKHRO

50 PROTECTION MEASURES

Prior to 2011, the museums of Syria were no better monitored than archaeological sites, because of deficiencies in – or even a total lack of – security measures. Similar inadequacies also existed in the archiving of records and in object conservation. The museums were not ready to face the situation that destabilised all Syrian cities from the second half of 2011 onwards.33 Therefore, all the protection measures at Aleppo National Museum only began after the beginning of the crisis in Syria.

DOCUMENTATION Since the beginning of the conflict in Syria, measures have been taken to protect the museum collection, such as photocopying all museum records, keeping copies (JPEGs) of those records, and collecting all the images and documents on CD-ROM and saving and storing them safely. Moreover, electronic copies of all previous documents were transferred to the DGAM in Damascus and another set of copies were kept in the department in Aleppo. In addition to updating the digital archive system of all artefact records, at the end of 2011 and beginning of 2012, all the artefacts were catalogued and entered into the database of the Syrian museum system. The archiving process included entering all the detailed information concerning the identity of each artefact, such as its specifications, date, measurements and any participation in international exhibitions, as well as any museum information since it was discovered, up to the date of archiving (Fig. 2). This process began in Aleppo

Fig. 2. Form of a museum archive card (Source: National Museum of Aleppo).  Ali et al. 2014, pp. 477–492.

33

THE NATIONAL MUSEUM OF ALEPPO AS A MODEL

51

and took place in two stages. Each stage took 21 days and involved working with two groups of students (12 in each group) from the Archaeology Department at the University of Aleppo.34 The project was part of a national initiative by DGAM (and the Directorate of Information Technology). It was aimed at creating a central digital and archaeological database as a source of information to help in managing heritage material and documenting the archaeological buildings and sites, based on a geographic information system (GIS). All museums in Syria were fitted with a digital system for documenting artefacts. Moreover, a new special interface was allocated to damaged and stolen artefacts during the crisis. In addition, a central system was established containing all the data related to the Syrian museums, allowing staff to digitally manage and store data and to obtain reports and quickly search results regarding any museum through the data fed into the system.35

TRANSFERENCE OF REMOVABLE

OBJECTS

The security situation in Aleppo in 2011 was still acceptable so all portable artefacts were moved from the galleries, showcases and gardens to the museum storage areas. Original objects were replaced with replicas (modern copies). At that time, it was believed that the main danger was thieves attempting to loot the museum. Moreover, important and rare pieces were transferred to a safe place outside the museum at the request of the Directorate General of Antiquities and Museums in Damascus.

IMMOVABLE

OBJECTS

Large and immovable objects (like statues and mosaics) were protected in situ after similar crisis management cases were studied at different locations (e.g., Beirut). For example, concrete walls were built around some stone artefacts – as was done at the Beirut Museum during the civil war. Items protected in this way included the spring goddess and the statue of Ishtup-ilum in the Mari hall and the alabaster statue of a woman from the classical period in the outdoor garden (Fig. 3). Because of the high cost of building materials and the difficulty in obtaining and transferring them to the museum, it was necessary to think of other ways to protect the antiquities. Therefore, all the objects in the entrance, inside the galleries, and even in the inner and outer garden were covered with sandbags on all sides (to a depth of 50 cm). Items protected in this way included the stele of Esarhaddon in Tell Ahmar hall (Fig. 4), mosaics and the Hittite stele in the inner garden (courtyard). The façade of the museum, which is a representation of the Aramaic Palace of Tell Halaf, the original of which was destroyed in World War II and restored at Pergamum Museum in Berlin, also required special protection. In order not to repeat history, care was taken to protect the elements of the façade, an iconic symbol of the Aleppo Museum. The front and 34

 Kanjou 2014, pp. 465–475.  Almedani 2015, pp. 47–51.

35

M. FAKHRO

52

sides of the façade were covered with two rows of sandbags. Sandbags covering the top of the façade were reinforced using vertical wooden beams of thick beech wood (5 cm) (Fig. 5). In retrospect, sandbags were a poor choice, especially when used to cover externally located pieces, as they perished due to sun damage and weather conditions. The staff at the museum therefore decided to cover the artefacts with insulation (Fig. 6), then build wooden boxes36 filled with sand around them, especially for the objects located in the inner and outer garden (Fig. 7).

Fig. 3. Alabaster statue of a woman: building concrete walls around some stone artefacts (Source: National Museum of Aleppo).

Fig. 4. Tell Ahmar hall: covering artefacts with sandbags from all sides (Source: National Museum of Aleppo). 36

 Many wooden panels were found stored in the museum’s warehouse.

THE NATIONAL MUSEUM OF ALEPPO AS A MODEL

Fig. 5. Protection the façade of the National Museum of Aleppo (Source: National Museum of Aleppo).

Fig. 6. Tell Halaf bull figure: covering the artefacts with insulation (Source: National Museum of Aleppo).

Fig. 7. Tell Ahmar Hittite stele: building wooden boxes filled with sand around the artefacts (Source: National Museum of Aleppo).

53

M. FAKHRO

54 OTHER

MEASURES

Other measures have also been taken, such as the removal of large pieces of stone from the bases of the displays, placing works upside down to protect any engraved surfaces, and covering them with small pebbles. In addition, mosaics behind the museum were shielded with wooden panels supported by wooden pillars to reinforce them, after being insulated by damp-proof and protective insulating material. As well, the wooden ceiling of the Islamic coins hall (from the Ottoman period) was reinforced; this was done by building a metal structure that rises from the floor of the room up to 10 cm below the ceiling topped with a wooden platform to hold the ceiling in case it falls or collapses (Fig. 8). The platform was insulated with fire-proof material and fitted to ensure there was no direct contact between it and the wooden ceiling and to protect the original colours and decorations from damage and scratching. In addition, all the halls and storerooms were closed with metal (fireproof) doors and reinforced with concrete, enabling quick closure and control in emergencies. In order to ensure the security of both the museum and the employees and to obstruct armed groups entering to the museum, some staff remained inside the museum at all times. At this time, the museum housed a number of guards and curators (the families of six guards and three curators were based at the museum). Moreover, to reduce the effects of groundwater, which is the most difficult problem currently, especially when the power outages last for a long time, a plan was implemented to raise the floor level by about 50 cm in the basement storerooms, using perforated concrete. To prevent water accumulating it is necessary to maintain and regulate the work of the water pumps. The number of pumps was increased from 6 to 12 to prevent the water rising to dangerous levels. The groundwater problem, however, remains great. It must also be noted that this method of water control does not reduce the risk of moisture damage to the artefacts.

DIFFICULTIES OF PROTECTION EFFORTS Many difficulties faced museum staff during work, such as the absence of an emergency plan in the museum in case of war, fire or other problems. Moreover, the museum’s location on the frontline of the battle made it vulnerable to many missiles and explosions. There are not enough qualified persons for risk management in the event of war at the museum. Moreover, there was a lack of funding and slow implementation of projects; sometimes it took six months to start a protection measure project. Even though the strategy has been set, it has not been possible to execute the full security plan allowing for the most thorough protection because of a lack of economic support. In addition, there was no provision of expertise and information from international organisations, especially in the first three years of the war. It was as though the international archaeological community had abandoned the museum and its staff. This led the museum staff to study similar cases at other international museums in times of conflict, as well as testing new methods. There was also a lack of cooperation with the foreign archaeological excavation missions that worked in Syria before the war. Especially serious was the lack of contact

THE NATIONAL MUSEUM OF ALEPPO AS A MODEL

55

Fig. 8. The wooden ceiling of the Islamic coins hall: a metal-built structure with wooden platform to protect the ceiling (Source: National museum of Aleppo).

56

M. FAKHRO

with the conservators of these missions. Information on the best way to save the cuneiform tablets, bronzes, pottery, stone and other tools was desperately needed. Other difficulties were the negative effects of the weather, groundwater and high humidity in the storerooms.

CONCLUSIONS Were the protection efforts at Aleppo National Museum sufficient to preserve the artefacts, compared with actions at other Syrian museums? The answer is yes. It was sufficient to preserve the artefacts. There were protection measures in most Syrian museums, but often they were limited only to the closure of the museum and the transfer of important pieces to a safe place or to the warehouses, as in the cases of the museums at Daraa, Sweida, Deir ez-Zur, Palmyra, Raqqa, et cetera. As mentioned above, some of these museums suffered catastrophic fates, such as at the Raqqa and Palmyra museums. Compared with other Syrian museums, there is a marked difference in the protection procedures adopted in Aleppo. Only in the Aleppo Museum were there additional protection efforts such as the construction of concrete walls, the use of sandbagging, the building of wooden boxes filled with sand, et cetera. Finally, the museum’s overall safety plan and security measures have contributed 100 per cent to the protection of all artefacts at Aleppo National Museum. The damage is only to the museum’s structure, such as walls, windows and display cabinets, with some minor damage to some of the pottery pieces stored in the upper floor.37

BIBLIOGRAPHY ALHAJI, S. 2008

Les méthodes d’exposition des collections archéologiques romaines au musée: nature et mise en scène. Études comparatives entre les musées en France et les musées en Syrie. Unpublished PhD diss. University of Burgundy. ALI, C. H., MAKINSON, M. and QUENET, P. H. 2014 “Syrian Museums under Threat: an Overview,” in Collections at Risk: Sustainable Strategies for Managing Near Eastern Archaeological Collections, Proceedings of the 9th International Congress on the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East, Vol. 1, edited by A. Jamieson, pp. 477–492. Wiesbaden: Harassowitz. ALMEDANI, A. 2016 “Directorate of Information Technology,” in Syrian Archaeological Heritage – Five Years of Crisis 2011–2015, edited by M. Abdulkarim and L. Kutiefan, pp. 47–51. Damascus: Ministry of Culture and Directorate General of Antiquities and Museums. ALYEHIA, A. R. 2016 “Syrian Heritage Centre,” in The Day After: Heritage Protection Initiative Site Monitors Project, Update Damage Report Ma’arra. Istanbul: Heritage Protection Initiative. 37  Some information has mentioned a gas shell (mortar) that directly hit the wooden box that protected the Aramaic statue in the inner garden, which led to its cracking into three pieces.

THE NATIONAL MUSEUM OF ALEPPO AS A MODEL

57

APSA 2013

5 July. The Association for the Protection of Syrian Archaeology. Strasbourg, Aleppo Report on the Work Carried out in the House of the Belgian Consul in the old city of Aleppo. Aleppo. http://www.apsa2011.com/index.php/en/provinces/aleppo/ monuments/650-aleppo-report-on-the-work-carried-out-in-the-house-of-belgianconsul-in-the-old-city-of-aleppo-05-07-2013.html (16 December 2015)

2017

“The Authority of Tourism and Protection of Antiquities,” the situation of Raqqa Museum. 5 December 2017. https://youtu.be/gaOZXJFPvCs (23 February 2018)

ATPA

CUNLIFFE, E. 2012 Damage to the Soul: Syria’s Cultural Heritage in Conflict. Palo Alto: Global Heritage Fund. DEEB, A. 2016 “Directorate of Museums Affairs, Syrian Archaeological Heritage,” in Syrian Archaeological Heritage – Five Years of Crisis 2011–2015, edited by M. Abdulkarim and L. Kutiefan, pp. 47–51. Damascus: Ministry of Culture and Directorate General of Antiquities and Museums. DGAM Directorate General of Antiquities and Museums. Damascus. http://www.dgam.gov.sy (10 May 2014) Syrian Museums. http://www.dgam.gov.sy/index.php?m=298 (25 June 2018) 2012 Material damage affects National Museum of Aleppo because of the bombings in Saadallah al-Jabri Square. Damascus. 12 November 2012. http://www.dgam.gov.sy/ index.php?d=239&id=598 (15 December 2014) 2014 Annual Report 2013 Syrian Arab Republic, pp. 5–6. Damascus: Ministry of Culture and Directorate-General of Antiquities and Museums. 2014 Directorate of Antiquities and Museums of Aleppo: Completion of digital copies of 1500 geometric designs. 6 February 2014. http://dgam.gov.sy/index.php?d=239&id= 1143 (26 July 2014) 2014 Pictures: Tangible Damage in Aleppo’s Department of Antiquities and National Museum. Damascus. 5 May 2014. http://www.dgam.gov.sy/index.php?d=314&id= 1262 (25 May 2014) 2014 Pictures: Mortar Shell Hits National Museum of Aleppo. Damascus. 31 May 2014. http://www.dgam.gov.sy/index.php?d=239&id=1237 (15 December 2014) 2014 Museum of Aleppo under attack again – employees injured. Damascus. 2 June 2014. http://www.dgam.gov.sy/index.php?d=239&id=1241 (17 July 2015) 2014 Create a Data Base of Archaeological Icons. Damascus. 20 December 2014. http://www.dgam.gov.sy/index.php?d=314&id=1545 (16 March 2015) 2015 Built Cultural Heritage – Digital Archive. Damascus. 2 March 2015. http://www.dgam.gov.sy/index.php?d=314&id=1607 (23 August 2017) 2016 Huge Damages in the National Museum of Aleppo. Damascus. 12 July 2016. http://www.dgam.gov.sy/index.php?d=177&id=2007 (4 August 2016) 2016 New damage at the National Museum of Aleppo. Damascus. 23 July 2016. http://www.dgam.gov.sy/index.php?d=177&id=2011 (4 August 2016) HOLMES, O. 2014 Satellite images show 290 heritage sites in Syria damaged by war: U.N. Reuters. 23 December 2014. http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/12/23/us-mideast-crisis-syriaheritageidUSKBN0K10DK20141223 (19 August 2017) ICOM 1990 International Council of Museums Statutes, article 1, paragraph. 2: 22. http://archives. icom.museum/statutes.html 2013 Red list of Syrian cultural object at risk, the cultural heritage of Syria is protected by the following national and international laws. Paris. http://icom.museum/resources/red-lists-database/red-list/syria/ (14 June 2018)

58

M. FAKHRO

JOUNDI, A., ABÛ-L-FARAJ AL-῾USH, M., and ZOUHDI, B. 1999 Catalogue du Musée National de Damas. Damascus: Publications de la Direction générale des antiquités et des musées. KANJOU, Y. 2014 “Protection Strategies and the National Museum of Aleppo in Times of Conflicts,” in Collections at Risk: Sustainable Strategies for Managing Near Eastern Archaeological Collections. Proceedings of the 9th International Congress on the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East, Vol. 1, edited by A. Jamieson, pp. 477–492. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. LAMB, F. 2016 Aleppo Update: An Inspiring Return to the Bombed out National Museum, Counter Punch. 8 December 2016. https://www.counterpunch.org/2016/12/08/aleppo-updatean-inspiring-return-to-the-bombed-out-national-museum/ (27 May 2018) LE MUSÉE NATIONAL D’ALEP 1932 “Catalogue sommaire, Société Archéologique Alep (Syrie),” D’Alep Revue Archéologique Syrienne Année 5: p. 37. MRDULJAŠ, M. 2018 “Vjenceslav Richter und die Architektur: Engagement versus Assistenz. Ein rebellischer Visionär Vjenceslav Richter,” in Neue Galerie Graz, Joanneumsviertel, Universalmuseum Joanneum, 23. März, pp. 42–43. Zagreb: Kooperation mit dem MSU/Museum für zeitgenössische Kunst. MUNAWAR, N. 2014 Preserving Cultural Heritage in Conflict Areas. Unpublished Masters Diss. University of Warsaw. MUNIVRANA, M. and MEŠTRIĆ, V., eds. 2017 Richter, Rebel with a Vision, Zagreb: Muzej Suvremene Umjetnostia. SHIRIN 2015 SHIRIN – Syrian Heritage in Danger: an international research initiative and network. 15 February 2015. http://shirin-international.org/?page_id=1356 UN NEWS 2014 Syria’s protection of cultural artefacts ‘only piece of good news’ amid rubble of war, says UN cultural agency. 5 February 2014. https://news.un.org/en/story/2014/02/ 461252-syrias-protection-cultural-artifacts-only-piece-good-news-amid-rubble-warsays (16 August 2015) UNESCO 2013 Syria: The Director-General of UNESCO Appeals to Stop Violence and to Protect the World Heritage City of Aleppo. 1 March 2013. http://whc.unesco.org/en/news/ 990/ 2016 UNESCO Director-General deplores heavy damages at the National Museum of Aleppo. 14 July 2016. http://www.unesco.org/new/en/media-services/single-view/news/ unesco_director_general_deplores_heavy_damages_at_the_nation (16 May 2017)

CHAPTER 7

OLD ALEPPO CITY UNDER FIRE: THE ‘REAL’ SITUATION AND FUTURE SALVATION Youssef KANJOU Researcher at Institute for Ancient Near Eastern Studies (IANES) University of Tübingen, Germany E-mail: [email protected]

ABSTRACT This paper presents a discussion of the importance of the cultural heritage of Aleppo throughout antiquity, and its sequential pathway to destruction from armed conflagration during the ongoing Syrian war. It considers key heritage landmarks: souqs, mosques and museums and looks at some of the different causes and types of destruction. It also includes a discussion of potential plans concerning the future rehabilitation and conservation of the Old City.

INTRODUCTION Aleppo is located at a strategic point in the northwestern region of Syria, about 50 km south of the Turkish border. The Aleppo district covers the region between the Euphrates River (east) and the Mediterranean Sea (west). This location attracted many cultures throughout antiquity, in an unbroken sequence, dating back to deep prehistory. It was also a crossroads of several trade routes since the third millennium BCE. Archaeological surveys have shown that the history of the Old City of Aleppo (or ancient City of Aleppo) dates back to the seventh millennium BCE, while archaeological excavations showed significant discoveries dating to the third millennium.1 The ancient city centre was built on a Roman-Hellenistic plan and still keeps this general form.2 The modern city contains historical buildings and archaeological remains belonging to many different periods (Bronze Age, Iron Age, Roman, Hellenic, Byzantine, Islamic, Ottoman). In brief, the settlement of Aleppo began in very ancient times and has lasted up till now. The name Aleppo was mentioned in the Mari and Ebla tablets as a city and religious centre of the Storm God. A temple dedicated to this deity was discovered on the Aleppo citadel. During the citadel excavations at least 14 layers were found, the earliest dating to the Early Bronze Age.3 Also, during rescue excavations inside the Old City of Aleppo several other sites have been uncovered dating to the Bronze Age, such as areas below the Omayyad mosque and in the vicinity of the new Sheraton hotel. During the Ottoman period Aleppo was the third largest city 1

 Matthers 1981.  Tabaa 1997. 3  Kohlmeyer 2013. 2

Y. KANJOU

60

after Istanbul and Cairo. The oldest part of Aleppo retains the traditional style of an Ottoman town, with examples of houses, khans, hammams, churches and mosques typical of the Ottoman era. The Aleppo souq (market) was one of the most significant souqs of any Arab and Islamic city, with its 37 different market areas, stretching over 15 km of walkways. Located in the heart of the Old City, the souq of Aleppo covered 16 ha. In the last 20 years archaeological missions have worked intensively in the Aleppo region (governate of Aleppo). Twenty-five missions excavated every year until 2011, uncovering remains of different periods in many areas of greater Aleppo, including the centre of the Old City.4

THE OLD CITY OF ALEPPO DURING THE

WARTIME BETWEEN

2012

AND

2016

Aleppo was impacted by the Syrian war for more than four years. The conflict severely affected the most important parts of the city and compelled the inhabitants to migrate to neighbouring countries, in particular Turkey, where they try to preserve and continue their traditional way of life. The war caused significant damage inside the city: notably, the souq, Omayyad mosque, and citadel. Areas immediately around these historical precincts of the city were also badly damaged. The precise reasons behind the destruction are still unknown. Since the war stopped in Aleppo, the documentation of damage has started slowly, showing the immensity of the devastation. At the same time, a few restoration projects also started up. Nonetheless, with the lack of funds and expertise to support these projects inside the Old City of Aleppo, the rehabilitation of the city and the return to a normal way of life for the people of Aleppo will be a difficult task. Aleppo started to suffer when opposition forces entered the city in July 2012 (they did not leave until July 2016). Clashes occurred immediately inside the Old City. The first stage of devastation resulted in burning one part of the souq (Souq al-Zarb), followed by the destruction of several other parts of the souq and associated buildings.5 The destruction increased with the intensification of battle and the use of heavy weaponry. The use of air strikes and of tunnel bombs underground contributed in particular to the loss of a number of historical buildings and significant sections of the souq.6 All parts of the Old City suffered damage. The most important historical areas were especially hard hit, such as the great Umayyad mosque and surrounding precinct– the oldest part of the city, where soundings during previous renovation works revealed traces from the third millennium BCE up to the Byzantine period. One of the most important features to be destroyed was the minaret of the Umayyad mosque (on 26 February 2013); this minaret represented both a symbol and the identity of the Old City, so it was devastating to see it completely destroyed. Other parts of the mosque were also burnt, together with the northern and eastern corridors. Some areas of the mosque collapsed, such as the southwestern wall and the southern and western entrance of the Masjid (mosque). Much of the Waqf 4

 Kanjou and Tsuneki 2016.  Karouny 30 September 2012. 6  Abdulkarim 2016. 5

OLD ALEPPO CITY UNDER FIRE: THE ‘REAL’ SITUATION AND FUTURE SALVATION

61

library, which belongs to the mosque,7 was also burnt, although a number of manuscripts were rescued and taken to an unknown (secret) site for safekeeping. The Umayyad mosque’s minbar was able to be moved, along with some traditional objects present in the museum of the mosque, to a place that is still unknown and whose destiny is not certain. As noted, the souq suffered significantly. The intensity of destruction varied from shop to shop. Some shops were completely destroyed. A few are still intact, such as the Khaabi market (Fig. 1).8 The most severe destruction was near the Umayyad mosque. Some of the other old mosques in Aleppo have been destroyed, such as the Khosurfya mosque and the Baharmyah mosque, which was distinguished by its unique minaret. However, some mosques are still in good condition, such as the Hamwi mosque. The Aleppo citadel was damaged in several sectors, notably the wooden door of the main entrance which dates back to the Ayyubid period. Parts of the citadel walls, especially in the northeast and near the citadel museum, sustained damage. Also destroyed were parts of the citadel museum and the expedition house of the archaeological mission located inside the citadel (Fig. 2). However, the Storm God temple in the centre of the citadel is still in good condition.

Fig. 1. The main entrance to the Old City Souq near Aleppo Citadel, showing the scale of destruction (Photo: A. Yusef).

7 8

 Al-Skaf and Ahmed 2016.  Al Mayaden 22 March 2018.

62

Y. KANJOU

Fig. 2. The damage to the north wall of Aleppo Citadel (Photo: Ain Bldy).

Fig. 3. The area in front of the Aleppo Citadel where several historical buildings have been destroyed (Photo: Salah Zakor).

OLD ALEPPO CITY UNDER FIRE: THE ‘REAL’ SITUATION AND FUTURE SALVATION

63

despite the temporary roof and sandbags which protected the temple from destruction.9 A number of areas opposite the Aleppo citadel were badly damaged. These included: the Saray (Grand Serail); the Carlton Hotel, which was part of a historic building; the Al-Sultaniyah mosque, which dates back to the Ayyubid era; the Yalbougha’s hammam; and the Awqaf Directorate building (Fig. 3).10 All of Aleppo’s museums have been badly affected as they are situated within the Old City area. The buildings of the Museum of Folklore Traditions (Bit Agabash) and the Museum of Aleppo City (Dar Ghazaleh) have been destroyed and most of the material in them has been stolen or looted (Fig. 4).11 While the infrastructure of the National Museum of Aleppo was damaged, especially the roof, lighting, doors, and windows, only three archaeological statues have been damaged (Fig. 5).12 Finally, the city walls and some towers of old Aleppo, have been damaged at several points: notably in the area between the gate of Antakya and Bab Jinan in the west of the city, and near Bab Qenasrin in the south.

Fig. 4. The destruction of the Museum of Folklore Traditions (Bit Agabash) (Photo: Syrian DGAM).

9

 Abdulkarim 2016.  Abdulkarim 2016. 11  Danti et al. 2016. 12  Personal communication with Aleppo museum staff. 10

Y. KANJOU

64

Fig. 5. The damage to the Classical section, National Museum of Aleppo (Photo: Youssef Kanjou).

Although the war stopped two years ago, so far there are no complete or accurate statistics on the overall level of destruction in the Old City. There have been several reports on the destruction. In 2013, a report by the Syrian Directorate General of Antiquities and Museums (DGAM) indicated that more than 121 historical/archaeological buildings and 24 markets (comprising more than 1000 shops) were damaged in Aleppo.13 A damage assessment of the Old City of Aleppo was also provided by satellite image analysis in 2014. It was produced by the United Nations Institute for Training and Research (UNITR) using the Operational Satellite Applications Programme (UNOSAT). This report indicated that the military conflict inside the Old City of Aleppo affected at least 135 historical/archaeological buildings, which the authors classified according to four different categories of damage: 1) 22 completely destroyed; 2) 48 severely damaged; 3) 33 moderately damaged; and 4) 32 possibly damaged. This information is currently being updated and will be released shortly.14

13

 Abdulkarim 2013.  Cunliffe et al. 2014.

14

OLD ALEPPO CITY UNDER FIRE: THE ‘REAL’ SITUATION AND FUTURE SALVATION

THE OLD CITY OF ALEPPO DURING THE

POST-WAR PERIOD:

2017

65

TO NOW

With the end of the military conflict inside the Old City of Aleppo and the departure of opposition forces in 2016, a new chapter began in the history of Aleppo. The first task was to open the streets, which were closed because of the devastation. Salvageable historical structures, features and stones were sorted and kept for later use in restoration work. Thus far, restoration activities have been carried out on a small scale by some local inhabitants. In all cases, the restorative works were not aimed at preserving the identity of the archaeological features and historical buildings but at rebuilding as new. International coordination of activities inside the Old City is still absent up till now, except for the collaboration of UNESCO in the restoration of the entrance of the Aleppo citadel and the support for damage assessments, in cooperation with the Aleppo Antiquity Department and DGAM.15 In addition, the Aga Khan development network carried out studies for the rehabilitation of Souq al-Sakatya, an area of the Aleppo souq. One of the most important activities inside the Old City currently in progress is the restoration of the Umayyad mosque with the financial support of the Chechen Republic and under the supervision of the University of Aleppo and the DGAM; the work is focused on consolidating construction, documenting the minaret stones and restoring a number of mosque walls.

RESTORATION,

NEW ARCHAEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE AND AWARENESS RAISING EFFORTS

With the beginning of the restoration and renovation of the infrastructure of the Old City of Aleppo, new archaeological evidence, previously unknown, has started to emerge. One case is under a street in front of several banks, where the archaeological remains of foundations or cellars appeared during the installation of a new sewer (Fig. 6). In another location, remnants of the Old City walls also appeared near Bab al-Naser when ground was broken for a new building development.16 With further rebuilding, a great deal of archaeological evidence is expected to appear in the Old City, due to Aleppo’s long history, and it will require adequate documentation and protection. One must mention here the activities of local community associations (NGOs); although few, their actions are concerned with the preservation of Aleppo heritage. The ‘Friends of Bab al-Nasar’ aim to rehabilitate the whole gate. Its form was not clear before the war since a number of shops were in front of the gate, blocking the view; these shops were destroyed during the war. This is one of the most important civil initiatives to take place so far inside the city. Meanwhile, the Association of Al Adeyat, an Archaeological Society founded in 1931 to raise awareness of the importance of preserving the heritage of Aleppo, has begun to conduct tours within the Old City for the inhabitants and interested people, with the purpose of familiarising them with the historical values of old Aleppo.17 Al Adeyat also 15

 DGAM 20 November 2017.  Aleppo Archaeology Facebook page 30 May 2018. 17  See Al Adeyat Archaeological Society of Aleppo 2019. 16

Y. KANJOU

66

Fig. 6. The archaeological remains that appeared during the implementation of a new sewer (Photo: Youssef Kanjou).

recently opened several branches in other Syrian cities. It is hoped these awareness raising initiatives will help preservation efforts by making more people conscious of the issues. Finally, to date there has been no initiative by the official authorities to undertake largescale restoration work nor is there a clear strategy to protect the heritage of Aleppo during future restoration activities. However, some small-scale work and documentation is currently being carried out by the DGAM in cooperation with other international institutions. THE

CURRENT SITUATION OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES IN THE

ALEPPO REGION

Most of the damage to archaeological sites near Aleppo has been caused by clandestine excavations. This illegal activity is widespread and extensive, and is especially destructive when heavy equipment is used, such as has happened at Tell Qaramel. Another cause of damage is the use of archaeological sites as military installations, as happened at Tell Refat.18 Destruction occurred in some parts of the ancient churches in the Dead Cities registered on the World Heritage List. The Church of Saint Simeon in particular was badly damaged, particularly the remains of the celebrated pillar and the south-east façade of the building. The site has also suffered from clandestine excavation work in the vicinity of the church.19 Parts of the temple at Ain Dara were destroyed as a result of bombing by Turkish forces; the northeastern section was damaged, in addition to the famous footprints carved into the stone floors of the portico. In total, more than of 30 per cent of the temple has been destroyed.20 18

 Aleppo archaeology Facebook page 10 November 2013.  See UNESCO 18 May 2016. 20  Danti et al. 2018. 19

OLD ALEPPO CITY UNDER FIRE: THE ‘REAL’ SITUATION AND FUTURE SALVATION

67

DISCUSSION One of the most direct causes leading to the destruction of the Old City of Aleppo during the period from 2012 to 2016 was the entry of opposition forces. This resulted in a long battle with the regime forces to gain control of the Old City and caused massive destruction of many historical areas. However, what are the real reasons that led the opposition forces to enter the Old City? One purpose was to seek protection from regime air strikes by taking advantage of the Old City’s abundant hiding places, such as the labyrinth of the souq. On the other hand, considering that the Old City is a world heritage site, the opposition forces may have assumed that this would prevent the regime from bombing them with heavy weapons. In the end, as is now well known, all types of weapons were used, including air strikes. When the opposition forces were unable to control the Old City as they had planned, they implemented a new type of destruction – tunnel bombs. This involved tunnelling under the Old City in several places and resulted in destruction of a number of buildings, such as the Saray building near the citadel. Sadly, one thing that is clear is that the combatant parties are ignorant about the importance of the heritage of the Aleppo Old City.21 The documentation of destruction and restoration of Aleppo has been slow after the cessation of hostilities. It seems that this situation will endure until political stability is re-established in the whole of Syria and the relationship between the Syrian government and other countries becomes clearer. Many local inhabitants were forced to leave the Old City. So far few have returned to their residences and shops.22 This is delaying the restoration and consolidation processes, as local residents play the greatest role in returning life to the city. Regrettably, some of those that were able to stay or to return quickly are trying to take advantage of the current lack of strict building regulations and controls. This is particularly true of some merchants, who are most interested in expanding their premises by various means and show little regard for heritage preservation. In the end, the outcome of this situation is similar to that of the military conflict – the destruction of the Old City Aleppo, but in a different way. The weakness of the authorities is due to the current circumstances and the absence of local expertise. Most skilled architects and restorers moved out of the country because of the dangerous situation. There is therefore a lack of capacity to monitor restoration works, resulting in numerous irregularities and failures to comply with the expected requirements. THE

FUTURE OF

ALEPPO

The future of the Old City of Aleppo is uncertain because of a number of factors which include: lack of stability; inadequate local, national and international cooperation; absence of expertise needed for restoration projects; and scarce financial support to rebuild the city. Perhaps one of the greatest challenges facing the future of Aleppo is the development of a master plan or strategy. The Old City of Aleppo urgently needs the following: 21

 Kanjou 2014.  Costa and MacMillan 12 July 2018.

22

Y. KANJOU

68 Financial support

Financial support is needed to start the rebuilding of the city, it is especially needed in the case of the Old City. It will only be possible through the support of international organisations, since the local authorities do not have the scale of resources needed to cover the huge area which needs to be restored.23 Expertise Expertise is needed in disaster management situations as well as in modern technologies. Without the relevant skills and latest equipment, the task will be impossible.24 Local community The local community (merchants, residents, artisans, labourers, et cetera) is the owner of the city and their communal memory will be of great value in the rebuilding. The citizens of Aleppo must play a role in reviving the city. Without local community involvement it will be impossible for any strategy to succeed in saving what remains of Old Aleppo.25 Collaboration Collaboration, involving the local community, local authorities and international organisations, is considered essential in restoring the Old City of Aleppo.26 Archaeological excavation Where old buildings have been destroyed, there will be an opportunity for archaeological excavations before redevelopment. For this reason, it is important to carry out salvage excavations inside the city prior to starting new projects, because this provides a chance to investigate the history of the city and to document any archaeological layers before modern development commences. It is also one area for possible cooperation between the local community and local authorities, by involving the local community in the archaeological process.27 CONCLUSIONS The most important cultural elements destroyed by the war include large parts of the ancient souq, the minaret of the grand mosque, other mosques, and several historic buildings; there has also been damage to parts of Aleppo citadel. In addition to the destruction 23

 Ilona 9 October 2015.  Malas 2013. 25  Montoya-Guevara 15 February 2017. 26  See UNESCO 4 June 2016. 27  Kanjou 2014. 24

OLD ALEPPO CITY UNDER FIRE: THE ‘REAL’ SITUATION AND FUTURE SALVATION

69

of historic monuments and property, the war has also pushed the occupants of the city out. These are people, together with their ancestors, who have lived and worked in the city for hundreds of years. This displacement and interruption of traditional life has affected the social and religious structure of the city and the return of any semblance of its previous context will certainly require an indefinite amount of time. The restoration of the Old City will need immense economic and academic support that will only be possible through collaboration between the international community and local people in conjunction with official Syrian heritage agencies (and other) institutes and associations. If a massive restoration effort is not conducted in the future, the Old City will suffer permanently and remain a hollow reflection of the many atrocities and tragedies of war. In conclusion, an extraordinary strategy is needed for the restoration and rebuilding of the Old City of Aleppo. Cooperation between the local community, local authorities and international organisations is essential in establishing this plan. Planning must take into account the preservation of the traditional urban layout, style and fabric of the Old City and the commercial and residential interests of the local people. There needs to be financial support from international organisations to support the strategy. A primary initiative and focus could be the souq of Aleppo, where restoration will contribute positively to stimulating the return of people and crafts to the Old City. It is very important that the local community is involved in the planning process and accepts the strategy, once it is defined, as they will play an important part in its implementation. Finally, it must be stated that the return of the local community to the Old City is crucial, in order to support the process of rehabilitation and provide local expertise. Without this involvement, it will be difficult to reopen the gates of the city of Aleppo once restored.

BIBLIOGRAPHY ABDULKARIM, M. 2013 The Archaeological Heritage in Syria During the Crisis 2011–2013. Damascus: Directorate General of Antiquities and Museums. 2016 Syrian Archaeological Heritage: Five Years of Crisis 2011–2015. Damascus: Directorate General of Antiquities and Museums. AL ADEYAT ARCHAEOLOGICAL SOCIETY OF ALEPPO 2019 https://www.aladeyat.org/ AL MAYADEEN 2018 Bab al-Nasr and the Aleppo Museum. 22 March 2018. http://www.almayadeen.net/ episodes/866787/‫قركلا‬-‫وأكرم‬-‫السيد‬-‫المشرق_علاء‬-‫أجراس‬ AL-SKAF, M. and AHMED, M. 2016 Syrian tangible cultural heritage between 2011 and 2015. MEDMAK Syrian Archaeologist Studies Centre. ALEPPO ARCHAEOLOGY FACEBOOK PAGE 2013 10 November 2013. https://www.facebook.com/aleppoarchaeology 2018 30 May 2018. https://www.facebook.com/aleppoarchaeology COSTA, A. and MACMILLAN, M. 2018 From Rebel to Regime: Barriers of Return to Aleppo for Internally Displaced People (IDPs). The Aleppo Project. 12 July 2018. https://www.thealeppoproject.com/papers/# (15 July 2018)

70

Y. KANJOU

CUNLIFFE, E., PEDERSON, W., FIOL, M., JELLISON, T., SASLOW, C., BJØRGO, E. and BOCCARDI, G. 2014 Satellite-Based Damage Assessment to Cultural Heritage Sites in Syria. Geneva: UNOSATUNITAR. DANTI, M. D., CUNEO, A., PENACHO, S., AL-AZM, A., ROUHANI, B., GABRIEL, M., KAERCHER, K. and O’CONNELL, J. 2016 ASOR Cultural Heritage Initiatives (CHI): Planning for Safeguarding Heritage Sites in Syria and Iraq, Weekly Report: 107–108. DANTI, M. D., GABRIEL, M., PENACHO, S., RAYNOLDS, W., CUNEO, A., KAERCHER, K., ASHBY, D., KRISTY, G., O’CONNELL, J. and HALABI, N. 2018 ASOR Cultural Heritage Initiatives (CHI): Planning for Safeguarding Heritage Sites in Syria and Iraq, Monthly Report. DGAM 2017 The restoration works of the staircase at the entrance to Aleppo Castel. 20 November 2017. http://www.dgam.gov.sy/index.php?d=314&id=2362 ILONA, I. I. 2015 Rebuilding downtown Beirut. The Aleppo Project. 9 October 2015. https://www. thealeppoproject.com/papers/# (15 June 2018) KANJOU, Y. 2014 “The Syrian cultural heritage tragedy: cause, effect, and approaches to future protection,” Journal of Disaster Mitigation for Historical Cities 8: 271–278. KANJOU, Y. and TSUNEKI, A., eds. 2016 A History of Syria in One Hundred Sites. Oxford: Archaeopress. KAROUNY, M. 2012 “Large Part of Ancient Souq in Syria’s Aleppo in Ashes: Activists.” 30 September 2012. Reuters. http://www.reuters.com/article/us-syria-crisis-idUSBRE88J0X720120930 (1 June 2018) KOHLMEYER, K. 2013 “The temple of the Storm-God of Aleppo,” in Archéologie et Histoire de la Syrie, edited by W. Orthmann, P. Matthiae, and M. al-Maqdissi, pp. 511–524. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. MALAS, M. 2013 Post-War Mostar: The Reconstruction of a City without Reconciliation, London: University College London. https://www.academia.edu/3812056/Post-war_Mostar_ The_reconstruction_of_a_ city_without_reconciliation (15 June 2018) MATTHERS, J., ed. 1981 The River Qoueiq, Northern Syria, and its catchment: studies arising from the Tell Rifa’at Survey 1977–79. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports (BAR International Series 98). MONTOYA-GUEVARA, C. 2017 Aleppo Al-Madina Souq: Post-conflict reconstruction of its social functions. The Aleppo Project. 15 February 2017. https://www.thealeppoproject.com/papers/# (15 June 2018) SAFIER, M. 1996 “The cosmopolitan challenge in cities on the edge of the millennium: Moving from conflict to co‐existence,” City 1: 12–29. TABAA, Y. 1997 Constructions of power and piety in medieval Aleppo. Philadelphia, PA: Penn State University Press. UNESCO 2016 Director-General of UNESCO deplores severe damage at Church of Saint Simeon, World Heritage site in Syria. 18 May 2016. https://en.unesco.org/news/directorgeneral-unesco-deplores-severe-damage-church-saint-simeon-world-heritage-site-syria 2016 Syrian and international experts agree on emergency measures to safeguard Syria’s heritage. 4 June 2016. http://www.unesco.org/new/en/media-services/single-view/ news/syrian_and_international_experts_agree_on_emergency_measures/

CHAPTER 8

PROTECTING HERITAGE: THE WORK OF HERITAGE FOR PEACE AND OTHERS IN SYRIA Isber SABRINE Heritage for Peace President and PhD candidate at Girona University, Spain E-mail: [email protected] and

Emma CUNLIFFE Heritage for Peace Consultant, Research Associate, Cultural Property Protection and Peace Newcastle University, UK E-mail: [email protected]

ABSTRACT The large-scale destruction of historical buildings, museum collections, and archaeological sites by different actors during the Syrian conflict has led to the development of initiatives and programs by International Organisations (IOs) and Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs). This paper discusses one of these initiatives: the work of Heritage for Peace. In 2013, the NGO Heritage for Peace was created in Spain. It is a non-profit organisation whose mission is to support all Syrians in their efforts to protect and safeguard Syria’s cultural heritage during the conflict. This paper begins with the idea behind Heritage for Peace (HfP). It will then give an overview of the work being done to protect Syria’s heritage by the NGO. Within this context, we then present the Syrian Heritage Law Training (SHELTr) project. SHELTr aims to provide an online curriculum, offered to Islamic court staff, heritage workers and government officials across opposition-held areas in Syria. After carrying out a survey of lawyers, imams, and archaeologists, HfP – with the support of Save Muslim Heritage and the Gerda Henkel Foundation – designed a course looking at cultural heritage destruction under three different frameworks: Syrian domestic law, Islamic law, and International Humanitarian law. We will present the ongoing work of this project, and perspectives for the future. Finally, the paper will highlight some of the difficulties that the NGO has faced during its work and some lessons learned during its operation. By necessity, this chapter provides only a brief overview of five years of work: HfP are currently preparing an analysis that looks in depth at the work of the NGO, and evaluates all of its successes, its failures and the reasons why.*

INTRODUCTION Since the Syrian conflict began in 2011, the humanitarian, political and socio-economic repercussions of the crisis continue to be catastrophic. As a result of the ongoing war, more

*  The work of Heritage for Peace is dependent on the time and dedication of a large number of volunteers, whom we wish to thank. However, we especially wish to thank Rene Teijgeler, Bastien Varoutsikos, and Dianne Fitzpatrick. We also wish to thank those who generously donated money to Heritage for Peace, in particular the Gerda Henkel Striftung Foundation.

I. SABRINE

72

– E.

CUNLIFFE

than 400,000 people have been killed and more than half of Syria’s population has been displaced, with 5 million seeking refuge abroad and over 6 million displaced internally (United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) 2017). Syria’s cultural heritage also became a victim: the conflict has led to the destruction of a significant amount of Syria’s cultural heritage – shown, for example, in a 2014 UNOSAT, UNITAR’s Operational Satellite Applications Programme, analysis,1 and in the regular damage reports by American Schools of Oriental Research (ASOR) Cultural Heritage Initiatives.2 A recent analysis by UNESCO and UNOSAT (2018)3 demonstrated that of the 518 assessed historic and religious buildings, only eight showed no visible damage. Thousands more buildings, monuments, archaeological sites, libraries, archives, and other forms of heritage are still under threat. Every Syrian site inscribed on the World Heritage List has suffered: in 2013, the World Heritage Committee decided to place the six World Heritage sites on the List of World Heritage in Danger.4 Since the beginning of the 20th century, the Directorate General of Antiquities and Museums (DGAM) has been the main Syrian authority responsible for archaeological excavations, registration of archaeological sites, management of Syrian museums, and the restoration and preservation of historic buildings and archaeological sites. However, during the conflict, DGAM staff have not been able to reach many areas to carry out their duties, especially in Idleb, Aleppo, the northern part of Hama, Daraa, Deir al-Zour, and Al-Raqqa. In these areas, DGAM employees were no longer under the remit of the Syrian government, and no longer on the payroll; as a result, they had to stop working with the DGAM. Although some ultimately went on to local government heritage departments, or local organisations, this took many years, leaving a clear gap at the start of the conflict. This urgent need to act during the conflict – a previously uncommon stance – resulted in the creation of civil society initiatives. The new cultural heritage civil society organisations (CSOs) were distributed across different geographic areas: in opposition-held areas in the northern part of the country (the countryside of Idleb and Aleppo); in the southern part of the country in Bosra; and also in the Democratic Self Administration of Rojava (DSA) controlled territories in the north-eastern part of the country. The areas under government control did not witness new CSOs. In addition, new initiatives were created outside Syria that aimed to protect Syria’s cultural heritage. These initiatives were created by Syrians and foreign experts in archaeology and cultural heritage, and the members mostly comprised academics, archaeologists, and former DGAM employees. Since 2011, all of these initiatives – those inside Syria and those based externally – have played an important role in documenting the destruction and raising awareness.5

 Bjørgo et al. 2014.  ASOR Cultural Heritage Initiatives 2018. 3  Fiol and Tabet 2018. 4  UNESCO and UNITAR-UNOSAT June 2018. 5  More information on these NGOs, and their membership, can be found in a series of online Heritage for Peace reports. See Heritage for Peace 2019a. 1 2

PROTECTING HERITAGE: THE WORK OF HERITAGE FOR PEACE AND OTHERS IN SYRIA

73

Heritage for Peace (HfP) is one of these CSOs: it was founded in 2013 by a team of volunteers with the goal of helping to protect Syria’s cultural heritage. Since the NGO was founded, it has been in frequent contact with Syrian heritage workers of all denominations, trying to find ways to assist them in saving and preserving their heritage. This paper discusses the work of HfP since its foundation, summarising several of the projects undertaken. These include: crisis management advice, training and workshops, raising awareness, and other activities related to the protection of Syria’s cultural heritage. The NGO supported both the DGAM and heritage groups in opposition-held areas that were not able to receive support.

THE

IDEA BEHIND

HERITAGE FOR PEACE

When the Syrian conflict began in 2011, it became clear that the international community was not prepared or able to protect cultural heritage during conflict: indeed the prevailing argument was that it would be necessary to wait until the conflict was over – whenever that would be – and then send aid to what remained. Others felt it was clear that they needed to reflect on new ways of working and new measures of protection (and some continue to argue this is still the case today,6 despite the changes in international practice). HfP was founded on the principle that it was vital to work during the conflict, rather than waiting until it was over. This stance directly contradicted many of the pre-existing international NGOs in 2013;7 although it now seems so commonplace, it is easy to forget how quickly this has changed. HfP also recognised that there was a gap in existing work in situations of civil war. Since international heritage law is mainly applicable to state parties, governmental and intergovernmental organisations can largely only work with heritage authorities that are supported by the recognised state authority, and with whom there is existing diplomatic relations. In situations of civil conflict, non-state actors may control heritage resources, but have no access to support or aid. HfP sought to fill this gap by working with all parties in conflict situations: to do this we understood we needed to be independent from any existing structure, and to be neutral,8 taking no political stance on the conflict.

6

 Brodie 2015, p. 319.  Although this statement is anecdotal and direct evidence is not available, knowledge of damage to Syria’s heritage became widespread in 2012, when a report was published by the Global Heritage Fund (Cunliffe 2012). The report was widely circulated in heritage circles (and picked up by news outlets in more than 16 countries). However, a review of the 2011–2014 HfP International Action report (Perini and Cunliffe 2014) demonstrates that the vast majority of international work to protect Syria’s heritage (rather than simply raising awareness about damage to it) did not begin until at least 2014, a year after HfP had already undertaken several projects to help Syrian heritage workers. 8  The issue of neutrality is extremely complex, and one we spent much time discussing. There is not space in this paper to go into those discussions, but we point readers to the article by one of our founding members, which was hugely influential in our thinking (Teijgeler 2011). 7

I. SABRINE

74

– E.

CUNLIFFE

HfP’s mission statement is: “Heritage for Peace is a non-profit organization whose mission is to support all Syrians in their efforts to protect and safeguard Syria’s cultural heritage during the armed conflict. As an international group of heritage workers we believe that cultural heritage, and the protection thereof, can be used as a common ground for dialogue and therefore as a tool to enhance peace. We call on all Syrians of any religion or ethnicity to enter into a dialogue and work together to safeguard their mutual heritage.”

HfP was founded in Girona, where its office is based, on March 2013 under Catalonian law. Crucially, it has no paid staff, but is composed entirely of an international network of volunteers. Over the years, these volunteers have included academics, heritage professionals, and independent consultants from Australia, Denmark, Italy, the Netherlands, Syria, Spain, the UK, Turkey, France and the United States. All were dedicated to working to protect the cultural heritage of Syria. We believe that heritage can serve as a key focus of dialogue between communities, nations, and ethnic groups: heritage can, in fact, become a tool for peacebuilding.9 In 2013, when it was founded, HfP was unique in that its special focus is on protecting cultural heritage during conflicts. By providing training and support in heritage protection to our colleagues, the NGO works to assist with mitigation and/or stop the damage to the nation’s cultural heritage, as well as laying the groundwork for reconstruction. HfP’s work engages local knowledge and the previous expertise of its international staff in conflict situations to promote capacity-building and knowledge transfer in order to create self-sufficiency in heritage management among heritage workers and local communities inside Syria.

HERITAGE

FOR

PEACE’S

WORK DURING THE CONFLICT

HfP’s projects have been focused on building capacity within Syria to address the interlocking challenges of site and museum protection, stopping looting, monitoring damage, identifying the work of other groups on the protection of Syria’s cultural heritage in order to avoid duplication, and preparing for post-war reconstruction.10 Only a selection of our key projects is discussed below, divided into categories: crisis management advice and assistance projects, training, damage assessment of sites, and our report on Actions to Protect Syria’s heritage. Other work includes: providing assistance to facilitate the participation of Syrian museum workers at the conference of Arab Museums in Beirut organised by the American University of Beirut (May 2013); creating a ‘No-strike list’ for Aleppo,11 published on the website of Heritage for Peace and made available on request, in cooperation with the UK Blue Shield (June 2013). In addition, a resolution was delivered for discussion at the Geneva talks on Peace in Syria (Jan. 2014), drawn up in agreement with the Syrian National Coalition. The resolution requested all warring parties to protect the Syrian

 Walters et al. 2017.  The projects carried out by Heritage for Peace are listed on our website. See Heritage for Peace 2019b. 11  See Heritage for Peace 2019c. 9

10

PROTECTING HERITAGE: THE WORK OF HERITAGE FOR PEACE AND OTHERS IN SYRIA

75

cultural heritage during the present conflict.12 Lastly, the NGO has also carried out considerable awareness-raising through publications, interviews, talks, statements, press releases, and other measures. Our Facebook page,13 for example, has almost 2500 followers. In addition, there were a number of other projects that the NGO was not able to realise, for reasons including lack of funding, lack of adequate volunteers, and lack of support from various institutions. These project proposals included: • A Syrian Heritage Damage Assessment platform, which aimed to create a collaborative, web-based platform that would have been accessible to everyone working to document and assess damage to cultural heritage in Syria, including experts, institutions, NGOs, and activists on the ground. • Syrian Heritage in Small Hands, a project based on the use of cultural heritage education for Syrian children in refugee camps in Turkey; it aimed to connect Syrian children refugees who suffered violence, displacement and trauma to their cultural heritage. • The Idlib and Aleppo Damage Assessment Task Force, a project which aimed to train Task Forces and facilitate their work within Syria. • A project to transfer knowledge (train-the-trainer workshops) regarding evacuation, handling, packaging and storage of movable cultural heritage, to help with damage assessment work and to provide the resources to execute the work in situ. • Heritage For Peace: Theory And Practice Of Heritage Protection And Use For Peacebuilding During Conflicts a project submitted to Humanities in the European Research Area for funding (unsuccessfully) in partnership with Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cientificas (CSIC) and a number of other institutions. The project aimed to develop theoretical understanding and the Peace-Conflict framework, to provide additional training in heritage first aid, to raise awareness of damage, to promote a fatwa by Islamic authorities, and to use heritage for peacebuilding by building on the Santander model. It would also have promoted knowledge of Syrian heritage in the refugee camps, and inter-confessional and political dialogue, using heritage as “places of encounter”, with high symbolic significance for the parties in conflict, where they could find each other as part of the reconciliation process. Crisis Management Advice and Assistance E-Resource Platform: In 2013, most Syrian heritage sites and museums lacked disaster plans, and Syrian heritage professionals lacked crisis training. In order to support and help the heritage workers, in March 2013 – as one of our first projects – we created an electronic platform that provides heritage workers operating during conflict with resources and advice on heritage protection in all sectors (museums, libraries and archives, monuments and archaeological sites).14 With this resource, we aimed to meet the need for practical advice

12

 See Heritage for Peace 19 December 2013.  See Heritage for Peace Facebook Page https://www.facebook.com/heritageforpeacesyria. 14  See Heritage for Peace 2019d. 13

76

I. SABRINE

– E.

CUNLIFFE

for those who cannot access support. However, we struggled with the language barrier. Most free resources in crisis response and emergency management are only available in English,15 but the majority of heritage workers in Syria do not know foreign languages fluently, if at all. We tried to make as many Arabic resources as possible available, helping heritage workers to get a practical overview of the necessary emergency management procedures. The NGO updated this list regularly in the early stages of the conflict, when it was most important, with documents and guides on heritage protection during conflict and disasters. As time passed it became less essential. Needs Assessment: Heritage for Peace also designed a Needs Assessment, drawn up in September 2013, in order to better advise and assist the DGAM. This requirement was identified during a training course with the DGAM (discussed below). This project was intended as an e-survey for DGAM staff, with the goal of collecting information in different heritage categories. We then hoped to analyse the priorities of the DGAM, and to identify helpful strategies and resources for Syria’s cultural heritage protection. HfP was in intensive contact with DGAM to design and carry out this survey, but ultimately it was not implemented, as shortly after its design was completed, DGAM withdrew. Task Force Proposal: The Proposal for a Task Force on Antiquities and Museums for the Ministry of Culture and Family Affairs of the Syrian Interim Government in Gaziantep, Turkey, was the third project that the NGO undertook. It built on an initial training course for Ministry staff (discussed below). After discussions with the Ministry, HfP was asked to design a Task Force on Antiquities and Museums, with funding from the Dutch Government for the first phase of the project. The proposed structure for the Task Force was sent to the Deputy Minister of Culture and Family Affairs on 14 July 2014, with the intent that it would allow the Interim Ministry to begin operating in the field of cultural heritage.16 The Task Force design proposed human and financial resources: to establish effective control over sites, monuments, libraries, and museums; to mitigate damage from combat and looting; and to advocate and raise awareness of Syria’s heritage at a local level, especially with regard to illegal digging on archaeological sites and the illicit trade in antiquities. HfP proposed that the Task Force be made up of a Director, four Task Groups, and two Liaison Officers. The task groups included: Museum and Library Affairs, Archaeology and Site Management, Historic Buildings, and Legal Affairs. One Liaison Officer was to coordinate with local authorities and a second to coordinate with the military council of the Interim Government. The Task Force would have its main office at the Interim Ministry of Culture and Family Affairs in Gaziantep, Turkey. The design of this task force was similar to the DGAM’s organisational structure, in order to facilitate its integration with the DGAM (or the other way around) once the 15  It is noteworthy that at the start of the conflict, not even the 1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict, the key international law relating to heritage protection in armed conflict, signed by Syria in 1958, was available in Arabic. 16  See Heritage for Peace 23 June 2014.

PROTECTING HERITAGE: THE WORK OF HERITAGE FOR PEACE AND OTHERS IN SYRIA

77

conflict was over. Unfortunately, this design for the Task Force was not realised on the ground. It remained a theoretical plan, primarily due to the lack of adequate professionals and staff at the Ministry of Culture and Family Affairs of the Syrian Interim Government in Gaziantep. The staff of the ministry were not prepared to deal with cultural heritage: they depended on heritage sector workers inside Syria, who lost trust in the Ministry of Culture and Family Affairs and stopped collaborating with them in 2015. Ultimately, the Syrian Interim Government failed to take any sustainable practical actions to protect Syria’s cultural heritage in the opposition-held areas for some time. Heritage and Conflict Conference: The conference “Heritage and Conflict: Learning from previous experiences to safeguard cultural heritage during the Syrian crisis” was the fourth project aiming to support Syrian heritage workers. The conference aimed to bring together Syrian and international experts who had worked in previous conflicts in BosniaHerzegovina, Egypt, Iraq and Lebanon to discuss possible measures to help reduce the risks of damage to Syria’s cultural heritage and to fight illicit traffic of antiquities, learning from past experience. The conference was organised in April 2014 in Santander, in partnership with the Spanish National Research Council and the Institute of Prehistory at the University of Cantabria. The conference established a climate of co-operation focused on exchanging experiences and data. International experts presented case-studies from a variety of previous conflicts, highlighting their efforts to limit the destruction of cultural heritage in these countries during conflicts. The discussion of international conventions and protocols on the protection of cultural heritage during conflicts was also felt to be key. At the end of the conference, the participants agreed to the Santander Statement and Outcomes.17 In this statement, the participants agreed on a Declaration regarding Syria’s heritage in which they: “Invite the governments, multilateral and international organisations, civil society organisations and especially the national and international heritage communities to 1. affirm the role cultural heritage can play in enhancing the peace process 2. support and assist the parties to realize their efforts to safeguard and protect the cultural heritage of Syria 3. call upon the governments, especially those of the Syria’s neighbouring countries, to do their utmost to stop the illegal trade in Syrian artefacts.” In addition, they agreed on a number of conference outcomes. These were: 1. to work together on the creation of Syria’s cultural heritage database and to use one uniform damage assessment form, 2. to work on preparing a register of ‘Who is Who’ in Syrian heritage expertise, 3. to continue publishing the International Responses Towards the Protection of Syria’s Cultural Heritage by Heritage for Peace,

17

 See Heritage for Peace 25 April 2015.

I. SABRINE

78 4. 5. 6. 7.

– E.

CUNLIFFE

to make available manuals and guidelines on the Heritage for Peace website on training materials to promote the use of international standards, to make a case for the use of cultural heritage as a tool for peacebuilding in Syria, to raise awareness of the importance of the protection of Syria’s cultural heritage both inside and outside Syria, to support the creation of local Emergency Teams and advise the national and international stakeholders to coordinate actions with them for the protection of cultural heritage.

The conference was particularly noteworthy at an international level as it was the first time that members of DGAM (themselves employees of the Syrian regime) and the Syrian Interim Ministry of Culture and Family Affairs sat at the same table and reached an agreement about a topic of mutual importance. In addition, this project was important for the NGO because it was able to apply its mission on using cultural heritage for peacebuilding for the first time. Training The NGO organised two training/workshop events – one for the staff of the DGAM, and one with staff of the Syrian Interim Ministry of Culture and Family Affairs. 1. Basic Tools to Protect Cultural Heritage in Syria Now: Heritage for Peace was the first NGO from abroad to contact the DGAM, and discussions resulted in this training program. This first workshop was organised for staff of the DGAM between 28 April and 1 May 2013. The aim of this training was to assist DGAM in protecting and safeguarding Syrian archaeological sites, historic monuments and museums, by presenting Basic Tools to Protect Cultural Heritage in Syria Now. Heritage for Peace was unable to come to Syria, so Beirut was chosen as an alternative that was accessible to all. Five members of different DGAM departments attended, and three members from HfP. In this training, the organisation tried to stress its neutrality: a policy of no politics and no pictures during the training was heavily emphasised. Participants were expected: • Not to discuss politics, and to recognise the norms and values of HfP • To discuss religion only in the context of the program • To behave as professionals. DGAM staff presented the actual situation in Syria and as a result, HfP was able to discuss suggestions regarding a needs assessment for the DGAM. During the training, HfP presented several “Lessons Learned” from other countries regarding the protection of cultural heritage during conflicts. The last presentation in the workshop was about post-conflict situations, with examples of cultural heritage from places such as Iraq, Bosnia, and Lebanon. At the end of the training, and as an evaluation, HfP and the staff of DGAM started to identify a list of needed projects for the DGAM. These included capacity building for the DGAM, the need to map archaeological sites and historical monuments, training in workshop packaging, handling and storage for evacuation, the need to reduce illicit trade

PROTECTING HERITAGE: THE WORK OF HERITAGE FOR PEACE AND OTHERS IN SYRIA

79

and illegal excavations, the need for foreign missions in Syria to meet (carried out by UNESCO in May 2014 – “Rallying the International Community to Safeguard Syria’s Cultural Heritage”18), and training to document damaged archaeological sites and historical monuments in Syria. 2. Damage Assessment for Cultural Heritage: The second training project was a Damage Assessment course for the staff of the Syrian Interim Ministry of Culture and Family who are based in the Idlib region. It took place between 23 and 26 November 2014, with funding by the Dutch Government. This training was intended as a train-the-trainer course, where participants would pass on their acquired knowledge and practice to their colleagues in the regions where they were working. It included lessons on risk management, damage assessment principles, and free GPS applications for smartphones. The training was extended at the request of participants; the last day was spent on prioritisation of needs and short introductions in some basic skills such as management, computer use, accounting and administration. In addition, equipment was provided to facilitate damage assessment work within Syria. It was based on needs identified by participants, which included laptops, digital cameras and motorcycles. The prioritisation of needs was the last phase in the training. The damage assessment training was considered to be very helpful by the attendees in increasing their skills for uniform and objective collection of data on damage, and on enhancing the reliability of the data. At the end, HfP surveyed participants to evaluate the training: its success was also examined during damage assessment exercises. The results of the survey and the exercises demonstrated that the training was successful. In the posttraining evaluation, one of the participants noted, “Before I did not really know what to write down on the damage of an archaeological mound but now I do and I can even see the details of the damage.”19 Damage assessment of sites Survey of Archaeological Site Directors in Syria: Within the framework of international co-operation established under the auspices of the UNESCO Observatory for the Safeguarding of Syria’s Cultural Heritage, HfP contacted archaeologists who had directed projects in Syria before 2011. They were invited to participate in a brief survey that aimed to gather information about the known status of archaeological sites.20 HfP planned to share the results in open discussions with recognised and trusted heritage bodies. In May 2014, the NGO received a list of archaeological missions and the names of the directors of the missions from the DGAM. The survey was primarily distributed via email, but the NGO also participated in two international events. The first was on 23 May 2014 in Paris, at the UNESCO international expert meeting “Rallying the International Community to Safeguard Syria’s Cultural Heritage.”21 Many directors of archaeological missions who had 18

 UNESCO 28 May 2014.  See Heritage for Peace 1 December 2014. 20  See Heritage for Peace March 2014. 21  UNESCO 28 May 2014. 19

I. SABRINE

80

– E.

CUNLIFFE

worked in Syria attended. The second was ICAANE (the International Congress on the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East) in Basel. HfP took the opportunity to attempt to seek support for the assessment at both events. Unfortunately, few answers were received from the directors, and with these modest results, we could not use the information in any meaningful way. Damage Mailing List: In February 2014, HfP started to publish its “Damage Mailing List.”22 This email circular, using the free Mailchimp program, contains news of damage occurring to Syria’s heritage, updates about looting, reports and updates about heritage protection work from people inside Syria, and updates on international activities related to Syria’s cultural heritage, as well as links to news articles on any of these topics. Information was collected from approximately 40 social media channels and news websites, as well as via general web searching using keywords, but we struggled to access Arabic information. Between February 2014 and December 2018, the NGO circulated 110 newsletters, all available on the website, and it had approximately 400 subscribers. In 2014, when the circular was begun, it was the only source of collated information about the damage occurring to Syria’s heritage. However, later that year ASOR Cultural Heritage Initiatives (then ASOR Syrian Heritage Initiatives) began to publish regular, detailed reports on damage in Syria,23 with funding from the American Department of State. HfP chose not to remove the damage section, but the focus shifted to the summary of actions to protect heritage, with the goal of cataloguing work, preventing duplication, and providing opportunities for greater cooperation. Other activities Heritage for Peace report: Towards a protection of the Syrian cultural heritage: A summary of the international responses: The early stages of the conflict were frequently subject to concerns of duplication of effort. The first report, published in April 2014, offered a summary of the actions that had been undertaken by different bodies and organisations towards the protection and conservation of tangible cultural heritage from the beginning of the Syrian uprising up until March 2014. The report aimed to increase international awareness, strengthen collaborations between scholars, and establish contacts between individuals, organisations and stakeholders interested in this matter. It was followed by a second report six months later, another report a year after that (October 2015), and another report in March 2017, covering October 2015 to December 2016. Highlighting the difficulties of being staffed by volunteers, the 2017 report remains incomplete. The reports have been cited in a number of articles addressing cultural property protection in Syria.24 However, due to the difficulties in completing them, and the lack of feedback regarding their utility, it is expected the 2017 report will be the last.

22

 See Heritage for Peace 2019e.  ASOR Cultural Heritage Initiatives 2018. 24  See, for example, Al Quntar and Daniels 2016; Lostal 2017. 23

PROTECTING HERITAGE: THE WORK OF HERITAGE FOR PEACE AND OTHERS IN SYRIA

SHELTR:

A LEGAL TRAINING PROGRAM TO PRESERVE CULTURAL HERITAGE IN

81

SYRIA

Our current project is SHELTr (Syrian Heritage Law Training) – a course in development by HfP in partnership with Save Muslim Heritage, and funded by Gerda Henkel Stiftung, with the aim of providing legal training to court staff in the opposition-held areas of Syria on matters pertaining to cultural heritage.25 The program was born out of research carried out by HfP on the current judicial landscape in the opposition-held areas of Syria. Questionnaires were completed with various stakeholders including imams, lawyers, heritage experts, and local council members. Results emphasised three key points: • the large majority of legal affairs in the opposition-held areas of Syria are handled by Islamic courts, or local courts basing a large amount of their ruling on Islamic jurisprudence, while also including aspects of Syrian National Law on an ad hoc basis. • cultural-heritage-related questions were addressed on average one to five times a week. • an increasing proportion of these courts’ staff lack proper legal training, especially in matters of cultural heritage. SHELTr relies on the development of a curriculum addressing legal aspects of cultural heritage protection in three legal frameworks relevant in Syria: Syrian National Law, Islamic Law and International Humanitarian Law. Specifically, the project objectives are to: 1. Research the interactions between International Humanitarian Law (IHL) and Islamic Law around the theme of cultural heritage, for application in Muslim countries worldwide. 2. Promote the use and implementation of IHL and foster productive interactions with other existing legal frameworks such as Islamic law and Syrian National Law in courts in the opposition-held territory. 3. Remind local legal stakeholders about their duties regarding protection of cultural heritage. 4. Reach out to community leaders and decision-making actors in the opposition-held territory to influence behaviours and good practices towards cultural heritage across Syria. The project is divided into five phases: preparation > content development > e-course formatting > e-course > evaluation-assessment. Through this program, local legal stakeholders will be better informed to advocate for, and adjudicate on, the protection of cultural heritage in the opposition areas. Ultimately, it is hoped this project will improve the protection of cultural heritage and mitigate looting and the illicit antiquities trade in opposition-held areas through the participation of community leaders and other decision makers.

25

 Varoutsikos 6 December 2016.

82 CONCLUSIONS:

I. SABRINE

– E.

CUNLIFFE

SOME REFLECTIONS ON THE WORK OF

HERITAGE FOR PEACE

Since its foundation in 2013, HfP has faced a number of difficulties, but has also achieved a number of successes. Some of the obstacles and limitations are detailed here. Perhaps the greatest difficulty has been neutrality. Working as a neutral organisation in a conflict is complicated, and in trying to maintain its neutrality HfP faced many difficulties. Not all groups were willing to recognise or respect HfP’s neutrality – for example some refused to work with the NGO because of who else it had worked with; others felt the NGO should work with them alone; and some attempted to use HfP’s work with ‘the other side’ to slander the NGO’s reputation. The organisation is a volunteer-based NGO, with no paid staff. Although heartfelt thanks are given to the volunteers who did so much work, managing them and their work (as volunteers ourselves) is not an easy task. In addition, there are always difficulties when working with volunteers: some were not professional, for example, stopping without warning, or falling behind deadlines when ill but without telling anyone; others were highly professional but needed to resign from their tasks when they become busy with other work or personal commitments,26 leaving staffing gaps that also took time to fill. There were also problems with the lack of international support, and the international system that prevented NGOs from sending support into Syria. Lastly, although we had a number of extremely supportive volunteers who assisted in translation, the international HfP volunteers always faced difficulties communicating with Syrian colleagues because of the language barrier. Despite these difficulties, however, HfP has completed a number of actions worthy of remark. First and foremost, the NGO was at the forefront of the change in dialogue about heritage protection in conflict, from a position of waiting until a conflict is over before aiding, to one of a recognised need for intervention and assistance while it is ongoing. HfP demonstrated that action is not only necessary, but possible, and within a year many other NGOs and projects were doing the same. Secondly, as an independent NGO, HfP did largely succeed in working with both sides in a bitter conflict, and was the first to offer support to either side when the conflict began. In addition to its work with the DGAM, the NGO undertook several projects in opposition-held areas, such as the training in damage assessment for staff of the Syrian Interim Ministry of Culture and Family Affairs. It is also currently working on the SHELTr project in partnership with the Syrian Center for Cultural Heritage Protection. Here, Teijgeler’s work on neutrality27 has been key, and has underpinned the NGO’s approach, proving practical guidance in what – for many – is a theoretical issue. Additionally, the NGO played an important role in liaising between heritage workers in all areas in Syria and the international heritage community. HfP has always worked to support all Syrians to protect their heritage: recognising the role of local communities is crucial. Although they were ultimately not realised, HfP tried 26  One volunteer continued to try and support the NGO whilst on maternity leave, as they were aware no other volunteer could cover their work! 27  Teijgeler 2011.

PROTECTING HERITAGE: THE WORK OF HERITAGE FOR PEACE AND OTHERS IN SYRIA

83

to create heritage Task Forces in Aleppo and Idlib, and the Santander Outcomes recognised the need for local Emergency Teams. Through the SHELTr project, HfP aims to support local leaders in the protection of cultural heritage by improving their skills and knowledge in this area. The lack of support for heritage protection at the local level remains an ongoing problem in Syria, despite the fact that significant heritage protection occurs there. Lastly, and perhaps representing its other most important achievement, the conference in Santander confirmed that the protection of cultural heritage can be used as a common ground for dialogue between opposing parties in a conflict. Although few of the conference outcomes were realised, HfP was able to promote dialogue between the DGAM and the Ministry of Culture and Family Affairs of the Syrian Interim Government – both representatives of their respective governments (it is also notable that this occurred in April 2014, before most Syrian heritage protection projects had even started). It is unfortunate that we were unable to get funding to develop our work using heritage as a peacebuilding tool. As a voluntary organisation, HfP’s future is never certain, but despite all the difficulties the NGO has faced, it stands as one of the first groups to provide international help to Syrian heritage workers on all sides affected by the conflict, and its work has paved the way for heritage protection as a foundation for dialogue and for peacebuilding, highlighting the importance of heritage to all Syrians. BIBLIOGRAPHY AL QUNTAR, S. and DANIELS, B. 2016 “Responses to the Destruction of Syrian Cultural Heritage: A Critical Review of Current Efforts,” International Journal of Islamic Architecture 5(2): 381–397. ASOR CULTURAL HERITAGE INITIATIVES. 2018 Weekly reports available on the website of ASOR CHI. http://www.asor-syrianheritage.org/weekly-reports/ (4 July 2018) BJØRGO, E., FIOL, M., CUNLIFFE, E., PEDERSON, W., JELLISON, T., SASLOW, C. and BOCCARDI, G. 2014 Satellite-Based Damage Assessment to Cultural Heritage Sites in Syria. UNITAR, UNOSAT. http://unosat.web.cern.ch/unosat/unitar/downloads/chs/FINAL_Syria_ WHS.pdf (01 December 2018) BRODIE, N. 2015 “Syria and its Regional Neighbors: A Case of Cultural Property Protection Policy Failure?,” International Journal of Cultural Property 22: 317–335. CUNLIFFE, E. 2012 Damage to the Soul: Syria’s Cultural Heritage in Conflict. Palo Alto: Global Heritage Fund. HERITAGE FOR PEACE 2013 Resolution for Geneva talks on Peace in Syria. 19 December 2013. http://www.heritageforpeace.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/Resolution-for-Geneva-talks-onPeace-in-Syria-Jan-2014.pdf (20 October 2018) 2014 Invitation to Archaeological Site Directors – Syria. March 2014. http://www.heritageforpeace.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Heritage-for-Peace-Invitation-to-SiteDirectors.pdf (20 October 2018) 2014 Task Force on Antiquities and Museums: the interim Ministry of Culture and Family Affairs. 23 June 2014. http://www.heritageforpeace.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/ Task-Force-Press-Release-24-June.pdf (20 October 2018)

I. SABRINE

84 2014 2015 2019a 2019b 2019c 2019d 2019e LOSTAL, M. 2017

– E.

CUNLIFFE

Damage Assessment Training for Staff of the Syrian Interim Ministry of Culture and Family Affairs. 1 December 2014. http://www.heritageforpeace.org/wp-content/uploads/ 2014/12/Damage-Assessment-Press-Release-1-December.pdf (20 October 2018) Santander Declaration. 25 April 2015. http://www.heritageforpeace.org/wp-content/ uploads/2014/05/Santander-Statement-and-Outcomes.pdf (20 October 2018) Summary of National and International Responses. http://www.heritageforpeace.org/ news/reports-towards-protection-syrian-cultural-heritage-summary-internationalresponses/ (20 October 2018) Our Projects. http://www.heritageforpeace.org/about-us/our-projects/ (20 October 2018) No Strike List for Aleppo. http://www.heritageforpeace.org/news/no-strike-list-foraleppo/ (20 October 2018) Disaster and After. http://www.heritageforpeace.org/resources/disaster-after/ (20 October 2018) Previous Damage Newsletters. http://www.heritageforpeace.org/syria-culture-andheritage/damage-to-cultural-heritage/previous-damage-newsletters/ (20 October 2018)

International Cultural Heritage Law in Armed Conflict. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. PERINI, S. and CUNLIFFE, E. 2014 Towards a protection of the Syrian cultural heritage: A summary of the international responses (March 2011 – March 2014). Girona: Heritage for Peace. TEIJGELER, R. 2011 “Archaeologist under pressure: neutral or cooperative in wartime,” in Cultural Heritage, Ethics and the Military, edited by P. G. Stone and J. Farchakh-Bajjaly, pp. 86–112. Woodbridge: Boydell & Brewer. UNESCO 2014 International Expert Meeting: “Rallying the International Community to Safeguard Syria’s Cultural Heritage.” 28 May 2014. https://whc.unesco.org/en/events/1167/ (20 October 2018) 2018 List of World Heritage in Danger. June 2018. https://whc.unesco.org/en/danger/ (20 September 2018) UNESCO and UNITAR 2018 Five Years of Conflict: The State of Cultural Heritage in the Ancient City of Aleppo. Paris; Geneva: UNESCO; UNISAT. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000265826 (24 September 2018) VAROUTSIKOS, B. 2016 SHELTr Project, a legal training program to preserve cultural heritage in Syria. Gerda Henkel Stiftung. 6 December 2016. https://lisa.gerda-henkel-stiftung.de/ sheltr_a_legal_training_program_to_preserve_cultural_heritage_in_syria?nav_ id=6717 (22 October 2018) WALTERS, D., LAVEN, D. and DAVIS, P., eds. 2017 Heritage and Peacebuilding. Woodbridge: Boydell & Brewer.

CHAPTER 9

FOCUS RAQQA: DUTCH-SYRIAN INITIATIVES SAFEGUARDING SYRIAN ARCHAEOLOGICAL HERITAGE Olivier NIEUWENHUYSE† Khaled HIATLIH Centre for Global Heritage and Development, Leiden University, The Netherlands E-mail: [email protected]

Ayham AL-FAKHRI Bibracte Research Center, Bibracte EPCC – Centre Archéologique Européen, Saint-Léger-sous-Beuvray, France E-mail: [email protected]

Rasha HAQI Centre for Global Heritage and Development, Leiden University, The Netherlands E-mail: [email protected]

ABSTRACT Museums in Syria suffer terribly from the ongoing violence in the country. In contrast to other provincial museums, the Directorate-General of Antiquities and Museums (DGAM) did not evacuate the collections from the Museum of Raqqa to its headquarters in Damascus when hostilities reached the city in 2012. The museum held objects representing decades of archaeological fieldwork in the broader region; its public displays formed a unique document of millennia of human civilization in Upper Mesopotamia. In 2017, the DGAM and the Centre for Global Heritage and Development (Netherlands) conducted a pilot project on compiling a detailed list of the movable archaeological heritage lost in the fog of war. This should facilitate Syrian and international organisations responsible for recovering stolen antiquities to identify these objects, should they surface on the art market in the future. We present the project and other Dutch initiatives to safeguard Syrian archaeological heritage. We conclude with a brief, provisional assessment of the status of the Raqqa museum and its former collections.

INTRODUCTION As this volume testifies, archaeological researchers identify strongly with the fate of the diverse communities that make up the cultural mosaic of contemporary Syria, and with their material and immaterial heritage. In the Netherlands, this engagement was heartfelt, even if it was slow to rise to the surface. The Dutch archaeological community has been

O. NIEUWENHUYSE†

86

– K.

HIATLIH

– A.

AL-FAKHRI

– R.

HAQI

remarkably active in (mostly) northern Syria for over five decades and excavations at a number of sites were ongoing when the war started. Initial responses to the engulfing violence were shock and disbelief, mixed with horror. Soon after the outbreak of hostilities, however, initiatives began to emerge to mitigate the inevitable damage to archaeological collections, sites and research projects. These sought to maintain the peer network of Dutch-Syrian communications as much as possible, and to prepare the ground for a future return to the field.1 Initial initiatives mainly focused on taking stock of the vast research archives that had accumulated after decades of Dutch fieldwork in Syria. While professional work on archiving and digitising these very diverse archives had started already before the war, several key archives remained poorly accessible except for small circles of specialists. The Allard Pierson Museum in Amsterdam holds collections and archives from Dutch-Syrian field projects undertaken by the University of Amsterdam. Here, archaeology students catalogued the personal records of Maurits van Loon, a pioneer of Upper Mesopotamian archaeology.2 They then integrated this rich collection of handwritten notes, letters and diaries, academic correspondence, site documentation (including photographs, colour slides and even movies), in a professional archival institute. Geography students from the Free University of Amsterdam digitised the hard copy records of the University of Amsterdam’s survey in the Balikh valley of northern Syria, which was carried out in the 1980s.3 This group then teamed up with the University of Durham, home base of Endangered Archaeology in the Middle East and North Africa (EAMENA), in order to establish a complete record of archaeological sites in this part of the country (Fig. 1). These initiatives may not seem like much in the face of the ugly bloodshed witnessed in Syria and Iraq, but to future scholars they may facilitate bibliographical and historical studies, studies of landscape formation and culturally specific site location preferences. As a whole, they offer insights into the delicate and ever-changing condition of tangible heritage over time. Adopting a more proactive approach, the pilot project Scanning for Syria worked with silicone casts made of archaeological objects lost in the fog of war. Directed by Dominique Ngan-Tillard of the Centre for Global Heritage and Development, the project explored the potential for both academic research and heritage work of creating virtual reconstructions of cuneiform texts that recorded the anxieties of Assyrian administrators in the 12th century BC.4 Making use of the facilities of the Technical University of Delft, Ngan-Tillard and her team made high resolution scans of silicone moulds, prepared workable virtual reconstructions of the objects, and then moved on to 3D printouts in various bright and accessible colours (Fig. 2). While the consulted Assyriologists at first bristled at (what they perceived to be) the “un-natural” colours of the prints, in the end they all agreed that the cuneiform signs were perfectly readable: mission accomplished. For public outreach, Ngan-Tillard worked with the creative industry to print the cuneiform tablets in chocolate. This pilot scheme is ongoing and expanding: at the Interdisciplinary Centre for Scientific Computing  Dutch scholars joined the international NGO SHIRIN (see Dunning et al. 2018).  Haex et al. 1989. 3  Akkermans 1984. 4  Akkermans and Wiggermann 1999; Arnaud 2018. 1 2

FOCUS RAQQA

87

Fig. 1. Part of the analogue archive of the Balikh Survey Project by the University of Amsterdam in the 1980s. Numbered, coloured spots overlaying the geological map represent documented ‘points of interest’, most of them representing archaeological sites (image: Leiden University, Centre for Global Heritage and Development, Balikh Hinterland Project).

(IWR) at the University of Heidelberg, a team led by Hubert Mara is teaching smart computers to read the cuneiform.5 The cuneiform tablets so meticulously reconstructed by Scanning for Syria came from the site of Tell Sabi Abyad, situated in the Balikh valley of northern Syria. The Balikh, a perennial tributary of the Euphrates, flows south from the Taurus foothills in southeastern Turkey, crossing the Turkish-Syrian border and finally joins the Euphrates at the location of Raqqa. While the bustling town of Raqqa has gained the spectacularly undeserved reputation as a “capital of evil” in recent years, it has in fact a long, impressive cultural history stretching back to the Neolithic period.6 The city flourished in the historical periods, and boasts important remains from the Roman-Hellenistic era.7 It became especially famous for its Medieval, Early Islamic remains, when the city became the second capital of the Abbasid empire.8 Excavations by Syrian and international archaeologists in its rural hinterland brought to light evidence from the times of Homo neanderthalensis to the Islamic period.  Bogacz et al. 2016, 2017; Mara and Krömker 2017.  Akkermans 1993; Copeland 1979, 1982; Malenfant 1976; Stein 2010. 7  Al-Khabour 2012; Rayne 2015; Strommenger 1991; Strommenger and Kohlmeyer 1998, 2000; Van Loon 1988; Wilkinson 1998a, 1998b; Wilkinson et al. 2014. 8  Al-Khalaf and Kohlmeyer 1985; Bartl 1993, 1994, 1996; Heidemann 2002, 2006, 2011; Henderson 2000; Henderson et al. 2002; Meinicke 1985, 1991; Toueir 1983, 1985, 1990. 5 6

O. NIEUWENHUYSE†

88

– K.

HIATLIH

– A.

AL-FAKHRI

– R.

HAQI

Fig. 2. Coloured high-resolution prints of Assyrian cuneiform texts from the site of Tell Sabi Abyad, northern Syria (image: D. Ngan-Tillard, Centre for Global Heritage and Development, Scanning for Syria Project).

In March 2016, representatives of the Directorate General of Antiquities and Museums (DGAM) approached the Centre for Global Heritage and Development with a request for assistance with documenting the damage wrought on the collections of the Raqqa Museum.9 This led to the pilot project entitled Focus Raqqa.10

THE

ARCHAEOLOGICAL MUSEUM OF

RAQQA

To put the Raqqa Museum in perspective, it is important to understand that until the mid-20th century there hardly was an ‘archaeology of Upper Mesopotamia’ worthy of the name. To be sure, there was the success of a few, isolated archaeological excavations in

9

 The Centre for Global Heritage and Development is a consortium of Leiden University, the Technical University Delft and Erasmus University Rotterdam. Focusing on the study of archaeological heritage in the broadest sense, it brings together archaeologists, historians, anthropologists, high-tech scientists and heritage specialists. 10  The project became possible with a grant from the Cultural Emergency Fund of the Dutch Prince Claus Fund (CER.2016.06296). The Faculty of Archaeology of Leiden University provided additional funds, logistic facilities and an inspiring work environment: especially thanks go to Jan Kolen and Mara de Groot. The Bibracte Museum (France) enabled the participation of Ayham al-Fakhri: a warm hug to its director Vincent Guichard. Goteborg University and the Leiden branch of Scholars at Risk (SAR) facilitated the participation of Anas al-Khabour, opening up avenues for future cooperation. We thank Hartmut Kühne (Freie Universität Berlin) for sharing his experiences gained during his Deir ez-Zor Museum project, as well as Reinhard Förtsch (Deutsches Archäologisches Institut Berlin) and Ousama Rumayed for their expertise regarding database management. Finally, we thank all the many international colleagues who helped us with recovering information and high-quality imagery of lost objects from Raqqa.

FOCUS RAQQA

89

northern Syria, at places such as Tell Hariri (ancient Mari), Dura Europos, Tell Chagar Bazar, Tell Brak, Tell Halaf, or indeed Raqqa. Many foreign (non-Syrian) archaeologists saw what is today northern Syria as little more than a barren wasteland, which should be crossed quickly towards the more promising sites of Assyria and Babylonia in Iraq.11 This changed spectacularly in the early 1960s after Dutch archaeologist Maurits van Loon answered the call from the Syrian DGAM to safeguard archaeological knowledge in Lake Assad that was uncovered on the central Syrian Euphrates.12 Van Loon’s regional survey in the valley and his subsequent excavations kickstarted the research field of Upper Mesopotamian archaeology: in Syria this flourished until 2011.13 Van Loon and his students eventually settled on the valley of the river Balikh, initiating more focused regional surveys and excavations at Tell Hammam et-Turkman, Tell Sabi Abyad, Damishliya and Khirbet es-Shenef. In addition to the Dutch, several research teams from Syria, Germany, the United Kingdom and the United States choose the Balikh valley as their regional focal point (Fig. 3). The Balikh valley and its regional capital (the city of Raqqa) may have lacked monumental, internationally renowned splendours such as those found at Palmyra, Bosra, or the old city of Aleppo. Nevertheless, the region became a vibrant regional hot spot for international archaeological activity. The Raqqa Museum lay at the hub of coordinating the various international and Syrian field projects, managing the accumulating stream of excavated artefacts and study collections, and translating the academic results to a broader, non-scholarly audience.14 Dedicated to the cultural heritage of Raqqa Province, the Raqqa Museum was founded in 1981 in a late 19th century Ottoman government building (Fig. 4). The ground floor contained antiquities of the Bronze Age and Classical period discovered outside the city boundaries. The upper floor was dedicated to artefacts of the Bronze Age and Byzantine and Islamic eras discovered inside the city of Raqqa. The museum displayed important finds from excavations in the region, serving as a public space for expositions and community events, and as the regional office of the DGAM. It also functioned as a well-guarded repository for archaeological finds. In the 1990s, accumulating finds from increasing numbers of Syrian and foreign excavations necessitated improved storage facilities. The DGAM constructed a large storage house at the Hellenistic site of Heraqla, some 8 km west of Raqqa. This became the major archaeological repository for the bulk of the province’s excavated objects and the study collections. Archaeological teams divided their excavated materials into two main categories, which we may provisionally term ‘precious finds’ and ‘study collections’ (Fig. 5). Staff from the Raqqa Museum asked that the most precious finds recovered from excavations be deposited in the museum itself, as it offered superior preservation conditions to those in Heraqla. This category encompassed all objects of high monetary value, including those made of precious metal (e.g., coins, jewellery), cuneiform tablets, and the occasional intact prehistoric item. The public displays in the museum presented a small selection of these objects, and the staff 11

 Bounni 1990.  Freedman 1979. 13  Akkermans and Schwartz 2003; Fortin 1999; Kanjou and Tsuneki 2016; Weiss 1985. 14  Abasa 2009; Lamb 2015. 12

90

O. NIEUWENHUYSE†

– K.

HIATLIH

– A.

Turkey

AL-FAKHRI

– R.

HAQI

TURKEY

Iran

Eu

12

AYN EL-ARUS

13

ra

r is

t es

Ti g

ph

Syria

TELL ABYAD

11

Jordan

Iraq 2

HAMMAM ET-TURKMAN 1

3 5 4

approximate 220 mm rainfall isoyhet

10

BAL IK H

0

10km 9

Modern town

RAQQA 8

Excavation

Eup hr

14

6 7

ate s

Fig. 3. Map of the Balikh Valley, Northern Syria, showing the locations of modern towns and major archaeological excavations projects (list not exhaustive). 1: Tell Hammam et-Turkman; 2: Damishliyya; 3: Tell Sabi Abyad; 4: Khirbet es-Shenef; 5: Medina Tel-Far; 6: Raqqa ar-Rafiqa; 7: Raqqa glass kilns; 8: Tell Zaidan; 9: Tell Bi’a; 10: Tell Sheikh Hassan; 11: Tell Assouad; 12: Tell Khuera; 13: Kharab Sayyar; 14: Resafa (image: Focus Raqqa Project).

FOCUS RAQQA

91

Fig. 4. The Raqqa Museum before the war (photos: Raqqa Museum archives). Dig house

Excavation

Registration Study Selection

Study collection

Exceptional pieces

Precious finds Bulk; study collections

DGAM Damascus

Museum Raqqa Heraqla

Fig. 5. Chart illustrating the flow of archaeological materials from excavation to storage in northern Syria prior to the crisis (image: Focus Raqqa Project).

secured the majority in a guarded room. The Raqqa Museum inventory book lists a total of about 6000 objects curated by the museum by summer 2011. Over the years, a very small selection of the most exceptional pieces travelled to Damascus for display in the National Museum of Antiquities. All other objects were instead brought to the Heraqla storehouse. These included objects of low monetary value and/or of less historical importance, and extensive ‘study collections’. These comprised thousands of carefully packed, minutely registered boxes from several

O. NIEUWENHUYSE†

92

– K.

HIATLIH

– A.

AL-FAKHRI

– R.

HAQI

archaeological sites, containing complete and incomplete objects, pottery sherds, pieces of flint stone, and botanical and faunal samples. In short, it contained everything else that archaeological specialists deemed valuable for further study. While these study collections may have had a low monetary value, their scientific value was incalculable. By 2011, the vast study collections accumulated at Heraqla were sufficient to occupy several generations of future archaeologists. In addition to the storage at Heraqla, most excavation projects kept a part of their study collections within their local dig houses for as long as their fieldwork was ongoing. These did not include highly valued finds but mostly constituted bulky materials such as pottery sherds, flints, animal bones, or geomorphological soil samples kept for future specialist studies. At the start of the crisis, several projects were in full swing including those at Khuera, Tell Zeidan, and Tell Sabi Abyad. The dusty boomtown of Raqqa may have had a ‘provincial’ feel to international visitors, but the objects kept in its museum comprised the crème-de-la-crème from decades of regional excavations. They represented all epochs in the long history of human development and attested to the rich heritage of the surrounding region. Mousterian flint axes documented the achievements of Homo neanderthalensis; coarse pottery vessels from Tell Sabi Abyad belonged to the oldest pottery in the Middle East; elaborately painted drinking vessels showed the accomplishments of the Halaf people; clay tablets carrying text in cuneiform from the Bronze Age or the time of the Assyrians spoke to contemporaneous audiences directly. The museum proudly displayed unique examples of blue-glazed Islamic-period pottery, the famous Raqqa Ware.15 Finally, the collection of modern Syrian art contained works important for both artistic and art historical reasons. Most of the objects might not fetch huge sums of money if traded on the antiquities market, but their unique artistic, historical, and academic potential made them literally priceless.

WHEN

WAR CAME TO

RAQQA

Given the fog of war and the highly politicised media of today, it remains difficult to reconstruct in detail the recent developments concerning the archaeological heritage in Raqqa and its rural hinterland. The DGAM has regularly summarised the available information, relying on inspections from its staff, the informal Syrian network of researchers, the academic world, and international NGOs.16 This information remains incomplete and inconsistent especially for the period when the so-called Islamic State controlled the city. Making use of whatever information was available and comparing different sources against one another allows us to provide a provisional reconstruction of this period in broad outlines.17

15

 Jenkins-Madina 2006.  Abdulkarim 2012, 2015, 2016; Ali et al. 2014; Deeb 2015; Lamb 2015. 17  Also Danti et al. 2018. 16

FOCUS RAQQA

93

The city of Raqqa and its hinterland initially remained relatively quiet. By early 2012, both the museum and the Heraqla storehouse were still secure. In the course of 2012, however, clashes between the government and opposition groups erupted. Ayham al-Fakhri, at the time Director of Excavations of the museum, took effective pre-emptive measures.18 Al-Fakhri and his colleague Mohamad al-Jajan packed public displays into boxes; only the larger items, difficult to pack, were left exposed. The museum removed three boxes holding finds with high monetary value to the Raqqa Central Bank; henceforward this collection will be referred to as the ‘Raqqa Central Bank’ (RCB) collection. Al-Fakhri made detailed inventories of the various sub-collections. In contrast to other regional museums, however, the DGAM had not (yet) evacuated any objects to the National Museum in Damascus. In March 2013, a coalition of opposition groups unexpectedly captured Raqqa, preempting any evacuation of the museum’s collection. The museum came under the control of the Liwā’ Thūwwār ar-Raqqah (‘Raqqa Revolutionaries’ Brigade’). The situation in the city remained relatively peaceful, however, and the museum collections were mostly unharmed. An inspection in April showed that most of the collection was still in the museum, but also that some objects were missing. Mostly these were smaller, portable items, easy to smuggle out and sell, and hence especially prone to theft. No information is available as to the present whereabouts of these objects, and in all likelihood they should be considered lost. However, the collections secured in the Raqqa Central Bank – the ‘RCB collection’ – fared much less well. On 25 June 2013, members of one of the opposition groups seized the six boxes of valuable objects. DGAM staff soon identified three of them afterwards in the town of Tabqa on the shores of Lake Assad (west of Raqqa), and they were even able to inspect the boxes. However, the boxes were neither returned to Raqqa nor handed over to the DGAM. No further information is available on their whereabouts or on the status of the ‘RCB collection’ as a whole. In October 2013, the so-called Islamic State took full control of the city, declaring Raqqa the capital of its ‘caliphate’. Thus began an unprecedented reign of terror for the increasingly desperate inhabitants of the city, and for their archaeological and historical heritage. The organisation destroyed several public archaeological monuments for political and ideological reasons.19 They also occupied the museum building itself, smashing and looting its contents, and turning the building into a heavily booby-trapped military outpost. Ultimately more devastating (from a purely academic perspective), was the attack against Heraqla. Already prior to October 2013, armed groups had repeatedly made attempts to access the storage facilities. DGAM guards and local communities initially repelled these attacks successfully, often at great personal risk. An utterly cataclysmic and fatal attack came in October 2013. Some hundred heavily armed representatives of the ‘Islamic State’ demanded full control of the facility. They then proceeded to systematically pillage the entire storage. Available imagery shows armed desperados tearing open boxes and bags, 18  Deeb 2015. In April 2013, the DGAM appointed Al-Fakhri as Director of Antiquities in Raqqa; his colleague Mohammad al-Jajan at the time was Director of the Raqqa Museum. 19  Jones 2018.

O. NIEUWENHUYSE†

94

– K.

HIATLIH

– A.

AL-FAKHRI

– R.

HAQI

spilling their contents. They were unable to loot some of the heavy, well-hidden mosaics kept at the facility, some of which have therefore miraculously survived.20 There can be little doubt, however, regarding the immense scale of loss for the region’s tangible archaeological heritage. The debilitating repercussions of this wanton destruction for future research opportunities of Syrian and international archaeologists are difficult to exaggerate. Finally, the status of the immovable archaeological heritage of the Balikh valley – the hundreds of archaeological sites detected over decades of research – remains equally difficult to assess. The collapse of the Syrian state and the disappearance of social control removed restrictions on illicit digging. Poverty and economic destitution induced people to recover artefacts for sale, although the scale of such activities remains problematic to ascertain.21 There are reports of illicit digging at some excavated sites, while the ‘Islamic State’ used some settlement mounds (tells) as a foundation for military check points, heavily compromising the integrity of these sites. Inventories made by the NGO SHIRIN and by the Authority for Tourism and Protections of Archaeology (ATPA) made it clear that some excavation houses have experienced severe damage and looting. Others appear to have survived, while simply no recent information is available for many.

A

PILOT PROJECT:

FOCUS RAQQA

Starting in April 2017, the Focus Raqqa project set out with a purposely limited, hence manageable pilot project. We decided to restrict the first stage of the work to a small part of the Raqqa Museum collection: the several hundreds of objects stolen from the Central Bank of Raqqa. This strategic decision reflected the urgency of documenting these objects soon after news emerged that they had disappeared, the limited finances immediately available, and the need to test the feasibility of our aspirations before contemplating any larger project. The pilot aimed to:

• Establish a societal and academic network of stakeholders in safeguarding the collections from the Raqqa Museum; • Compile a damage assessment on the Raqqa Museum and its collections; • Set up a workable database for archaeological objects lost from the Museum, commensurable with the goals and activities of other stakeholders; • Collect available information on objects stolen from the Raqqa Central Bank, including detailed descriptions and high-quality imagery. In terms of practical output, a primary aim of the pilot was to construct a database for the lost objects from the Raqqa Museum and to collect information about items stolen from the Central Bank of Raqqa. We began by consulting H. Kühne, who had been directing a comparable project focused on the archaeological museum of Deir ez-Zor (Freie Universität Berlin), specialists on illicit trafficking of antiquities from Interpol, and IT specialists from  Danti et al. 2018.  Brodie 2015, 2016; Brodie and Sabrine 2017; Taub 2015.

20 21

FOCUS RAQQA

95

the Deutsches Archäologisches Institut Berlin, represented by R. Förtsch. This led to several trials with constructing databases of varying complexity.22 In the end, we decided to keep things as simple as possible to ensure maximum transferability and accessibility. Future work may expand towards more comprehensive, more inclusive forms of database. For the limited purposes of the pilot, our database has proved itself to be flexible and manageable. We struggled with objects that had a singular entry in the registration book of the Raqqa Museum but in fact contained multiple items. Invariably, these were collections of coins. In many cases, museum staff had collected many coins in a single bag and registered it with a single museum registration number. Inventories containing two to ten coins together were common; one entry even included 184 coins. Pragmatic as this may have been to local museum staff, it presented an obstacle to Interpol as they attempted to identify single objects. We therefore sub-divided these into singular records in the database. However, we soon acknowledged the futility of this exercise from the perspective of an international policing organisation. The available descriptions for most of these pecuniary items represented a bare minimum; photographs were either non-existent or of poor quality, and generally the individual coins all looked pretty much the same (in Interpol’s terms: they displayed no individualising characteristics). This is certainly not to blame museum staff. Most of the coins were stray finds from irregular, non-academic excavations in Raqqa city, some of these dating back to the early 20th century, and therefore never had any good documentation to begin with. Our neat sub-divisions should probably be lumped together again, and in all likelihood the coins should be considered completely lost. Having constructed a workable database structure, our team then began to collect descriptive information from the objects stolen from the Raqqa Central Bank. This proved to be time-intensive and complex. The work flow involved several steps: A) copying the inventory lists into the database; B) adding descriptive information for each object using the official Raqqa Museum Book; C) completing and improving the data; D) making separate lists of all items for each site or excavation project; E) reaching out to the international community of representatives of these projects; and F) collecting their responses. The starting point was the inventory of all items stored in the bank, made just before the city fell, by Ayham al-Fakhri and his colleague, museum curator Mohamad al-Jajan. Made in Arabic and English, this inventory listed 123 records. Given the complexities with multiple objects registered under singular records (see above), these represented 512 objects in total. The information was limited to a short description and, in many cases, a provenance (e.g., Fig. 6). However, the inventories contain a crucial ‘key’: the so-called ‘General Number’. This represents the official registration number of the object. In the decades since its foundation, the museum had kept a handwritten registration book for every object in its collection.23 These registrations detail the type of objects, their shape and size, and in 22  In particular, we tested various ways of incorporating so-called controlled vocabularies for facilitating standardised descriptions and automated translations. We abandoned most of them subsequently for practical reasons, but we kept standardised descriptions for materials and site descriptions (a numerical code corresponding to the ‘site gazetteer’ of the Deutsches Archäologisches Institut). We did not integrate images inside the database itself but instead kept them organised separately. 23  The DGAM made a copy of the Raqqa Museum book available to this project.

96

O. NIEUWENHUYSE†

– K.

HIATLIH

– A.

AL-FAKHRI

– R.

HAQI

Fig. 6. Raqqa Central Bank collection. Part of the inventory made of the collection stored in the Raqqa Central Bank (image: DGAM Damascus).

many cases their provenance. The ‘General Number’ provides a stepping stone to record vital descriptive information. The Raqqa Museum book in turn contained another crucial ‘key’: the formal registration numbers given to the objects by the excavation projects. As we all know, international archaeological teams working in the Middle East do not adhere to a standardised code for registering finds, and registration codes vary widely in composition and length. Field projects submitting their objects to the Raqqa Museum have often favoured long, complex

FOCUS RAQQA

97

registrations, involving varying permutations of strings and numbers, slashes and dots. As these originated from handwritten systems (before the advent of digital documentation), and were copied into the Museum Book over the years by hand (by many different hands), they were often incomplete or contained mistakes. Thus, the team spent some effort in completing them, and occasionally failed to do so. Nevertheless, in theory, these registration numbers made it possible to identify each object in foreign excavation project archives. In practice, this indeed turned out to be quite possible in many cases (but certainly not all). This globally distributed data allowed our team to systematically search for additional descriptive information, images and publications. No sooner had our team entered the inventories into the database, than it became clear that the data required some dedicated attention before they could be made available to the academic community. The object descriptions were often incomplete, inconsistent in spelling, definition and description, or were simply incorrect. We emphasise once more that this is not to scapegoat the Raqqa Museum staff for inadequate documentation. Rather, the nature of their documentation highlights the difficult conditions in which the staff worked in the years prior to the war, as well as the severe stresses forced upon them when the Syrian crisis began. We filled in missing information and corrected any mistakes to the best of our ability, profiting from the archaeological expertise available at Leiden University’s Faculty of Archaeology and the personal knowledge of the Syrian project members. Here the participation of two former directors of the Raqqa Museum, Ayham al-Fakhri and Anas al-Khabour, payed off massively. On occasion, we discussed examples of missing information with representatives of the foreign excavation projects. These colleagues worked wonders by correcting registration numbers, adding information on the size and provenance of objects, and providing references to associated publications. The final steps consisted of reaching out to the international academic community. For each archaeological site represented in the Raqqa Central Bank collection, we made lists of objects together with whatever information we were able to gather, including descriptions and photographs made by museum staff when the crisis began. These hastily made photographs were mostly of poor quality but often sufficed to identify objects. A significant challenge at this stage was accessing the archives from projects whose objects had reached the museum. Issues of copyright proved to be less of a problem than we had anticipated, thanks to the constructive support from the representatives of the field projects that we contacted. Adding complexity to this step was the fact that, almost by definition, Near Eastern archaeology is an international affair. Accessing project archives involves negotiations with individuals and institutions across Europe, the United States and Syria. Many of the field projects represented in the Raqqa Museum were concluded long ago, before the age of digitised documentation; whatever archive exists will be in analogue form. These may or may not be stored in a public setting such as a university. Establishing who is a legitimate successor, formally or in informal practice, of a project concluded decades ago can be a challenge. For the pilot, this obstacle did not pose large difficulties, as in the end we identified just six different field projects that had contributed objects to the Raqqa Central Bank collection. For any future expansion of this project, however, this issue should be given due consideration.

98

O. NIEUWENHUYSE†

– K.

HIATLIH

Object types Buckle Coin Earring ‘Mass of gold’ Seal Clay tablet Vessel Total Materials Bone Clay Gold Silver Stone Total

– A.

AL-FAKHRI

– R.

HAQI

Frequency

Percent

  1 421  17   1  20  51   1 512

,2 82,2 3,3 ,2 3,9 10,0 ,2 100,0

Frequency

Percent

  1  51 185 254  21 512

,2 10,0 36,1 49,6 4,1 100,0

Table 1. The composition of the Raqqa Central Bank collection. Upper: object categories. Lower: material categories.

Percentage of objects (%) in the Raqqa Central Bank collection

So, the large majority of the objects stored in the Raqqa Central Bank – a staggering 82 per cent – were coins (Table 1: upper). Obviously, this should not come as a surprise: made of precious metals and prone to theft, coins belong in a bank. For the most part, the coins do not have any stated provenance, severely skewing the proportion of ‘unprovenanced’ artefacts in the RCB collection (Fig. 7). Leaving the unprovenanced coins aside, the remaining objects came from six archaeological sites: two Dutch excavations at Tell Hammam et-Turkman and Tell Sabi Abyad, and four German excavations at Tell Bi’a, Tell Halawa, Tell Munbaqa, and Tell Chuera. The predominance of these two nationalities simply reflects the historic circumstance that Dutch and German archaeologists were especially 100 90 80

n = 420

70 60 50 40 30 20

n = 92

10 0

No provenance Provenanced

Fig. 7. Raqqa Central Bank collection: Proportions of objects having a documented provenance and objects with no documented provenance. The total number of objects stored in the Raqqa Central Bank: 512 (image: Focus Raqqa Project).

FOCUS RAQQA

99

active in Raqqa Province in the past decades. Excluding the coins, the collection kept in the Raqqa Central Bank included: clay tablets carrying cuneiform texts (Fig. 8), cylinder seals made of various types of stone, precious metal jewellery, a Late Neolithic stone vessel, a Late Neolithic buckle made of engraved bone (Fig. 9), and an enigmatic ‘gold mass’ that upon consulting the excavator turned out to be, well, a ‘mass of gold’. Apart from, probably, the ‘gold mass’, all of the objects may well surface on the antiquities market or in private collections in the future. Fortunately, most of them now have documentation of sufficient quality to facilitate their future identification.

LOOKING TOWARDS

THE FUTURE

When it comes to the archaeological and historical heritage of Raqqa, the plight of the city at the time of writing has become even more dire than when Focus Raqqa began its pilot project. Only since the city has been liberated by military force from the so-called Islamic State, has the horrific extent of urban and demographic destruction begun to be assessed. Much of the historical townscape lies in ruins; a good part of its population has fled or disappeared. International militaries have shown an active interest in destroying the power base of IS, notably at great cost to the urban fabric of the city. However, international interest in the unique cultural heritage of Raqqa and its hinterland has so far lagged behind the attention usually reserved for monuments of a more spectacular order, such as Palmyra. Immediately after Kurdish-Syrian troops and Arabic militia secured the city, members of ATPA took emergency measures to safeguard the museum building. They removed deadly booby-traps, prevented the structure from collapse, and began to make an inventory of what remained from the collections.24 They report that most of the objects from the museum have disappeared, and that their whereabouts remain unknown. Only having proper documentation of the former museum collections can offer a better picture of the previous state of the Museum. Completing this remains a crucial first step to future identification and, hopefully, repatriation. The objects stolen from the Raqqa Museum belong to the Raqawi, the citizens of Raqqa. Perhaps the main contribution of our limited pilot has been to show that a full documentation of the collections once curated in the Raqqa Museum is feasible. The pilot has outlined a viable workflow, found solutions for a wide range of obstacles, and established a broad and communicative peer network. Although no one can know for sure when, where or how these objects will again emerge, or even if they still exist, we believe that at least some of them shall one day surface in an auction house, a biblical museum, or someone’s exclusive private collection. When that day comes, archaeologists should stand ready to assist international organisations in combatting the traffic in stolen goods, and to identify whether the object’s origin lies in northern Syria.

 Abdo et al. 2017; Danti et al. 2018.

24

100

O. NIEUWENHUYSE†

– K.

HIATLIH

– A.

AL-FAKHRI

– R.

HAQI

Fig. 8. Object stolen from the Raqqa Central Bank Collection. Clay tablet carrying cuneiform text (Tell Sabi Abyad, 1200 BC) (image: Focus Raqqa Project).

Fig. 9. Object stolen from the Raqqa Central Bank collection. Bone buckle (Tell Sabi Abyad, ca. 6500 BC) (image: Focus Raqqa Project).

FOCUS RAQQA

101

BIBLIOGRAPHY ABASA, M. 2009 Raqqa. Territoires et pratiques sociales d’une ville syrienne. Beirut: IFPO. ABDO, R., AHMAD, A. and QASSEM, M. 2017 The situation of Raqqa Museum. Qamishli: Internal Report Authority for Tourism and the Protection of Archaeology. ABDULKARIM, M. 2012 Archaeological Heritage in Syria during the Crisis 2011–2013. Damascus: Ministry of Culture and Directorate General of Antiquities and Museums. 2015 “DGAM vision during the crisis,” in Investigation of the endangered cultural heritage in Syria, edited by A. Tsuneki, pp. 5–11. Tsukuba: University of Tsukuba. ABDULKARIM, M., ed. 2016 Syrian Archaeological Heritage. Five Years of Crisis 2011–2015. Damascus: Ministry of Culture and Directorate General of Antiquities and Museums. AKKERMANS, P. M. M. G. 1984 “Archäologische Geländebegehung im Balih-Tal,” Archiv für Orientforschung 31: 188–190. 1993 Villages in the Steppe. Ann Arbor, MI: International Monographs in Prehistory. AKKERMANS, P. M. M. G. and SCHWARTZ, G. 2003 The Archaeology of Syria. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. AKKERMANS, P. M. M. G. and WIGGERMANN, F. A. M. 1999 “La Forteresse de Tell Sabi Abyad – Sentinelle de l’empire assyrien,” Archéologia 358: 56–65. ALI, S., MAKINSON, M. and QUENET, P. 2014 “Syrian Museums under Threat: an Overview,” in Proceedings of the 9th International Congress on the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East. Vol. 1. Collections at Risk: Sustainable Strategies for Managing Near Eastern Archaeology, edited by A. Jamieson, pp. 477–492. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. AL-KHABOUR, A. 2012 “Histoire de l’occupation de la vallée de l’Euphrate entre le Balih et le Habur à l’époque préclassique,” in Du village néolithique à la ville syro-mésopotamienne, edited by J.-L. Montero Fenollós, pp. 163–175. Coruña: Proyecto Arqueológico Medio Éufrates Sirio – Universidade da Coruña. AL-KHALAF, M. and KOHLMEYER, K. 1985 “Untersuchungen zu ar-Raqqa–Nikephorion/Callinicum,” Damaszener Mitteilungen 2: 123–133. ARNAUD, B. 2018 “Une tablette sumérienne percée par jour,” Sciences et Avenir 859: 48–49. BARTL, K. 1993 “The Balikh Valley, Northern Syria, During the Islamic Period – Remarks Concerning the Historical Topography,” Berytus 41: 29–38. 1994 Frühislamische Besiedlung im Balih-Tal/Nordsyrien. Berlin: Dietrich Reimer Verlag. 1996 “Balikh Valley Survey – Settlements of the Late Roman/Early Byzantine and Islamic Period,” in Continuity and Change in Northern Mesopotamia from the Hellenistic to the Early Islamic Period, edited by K. Bartl and S. R. Hauser, pp. 333–348. Berlin: Dietrich Reimer Verlag. BOGACZ, B., HOWE, N. and MARA, H. 2016 “Segmentation Free Spotting of Cuneiform using Part Structured Models,” in 2016 15th International Conference on Frontiers in Handwriting Recognition, edited by J. E. Guerrero, pp. 301–306. Los Vaqueros Circle: The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers. BOGACZ, B., KLINGMANN, M. and MARA, H. 2017 “Automating Transliteration of Cuneiform from Parallel Lines with Sparse Data,” in Document Analysis and Recognition (ICDAR): 2017 14th IAPR International Conference, Vol. 1, edited by the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers, pp. 615–620. DOI: 10.1109/ICDAR.2017.106

102 BRODIE, N. 2015

O. NIEUWENHUYSE†

– K.

HIATLIH

– A.

AL-FAKHRI

– R.

HAQI

“Syria and its regional neighbours: a case of cultural property protection policy failure?,” International Journal of Cultural Property 22: 317–335. 2016 Trafficking out of Syria. http://www.marketmassdestruction.com/trafficking-out-ofsyria/ (23 August 2016) BRODIE, N. and SABRINE, I. 2017 “The illegal excavation and trade of Syrian cultural objects: a view from the ground,” Journal of Field Archaeology 43: 74–84. BOUNNI, A. 1990 “La Djéziré syrienne, pays aux milles tells,” Dossiers d’Archéologie 155 (Mille et une Capitales de Haute–Mésopotamie): 2–3. DANTI, M. D., ZETTLER, R., ASHBY, D. P., HIATLIH, K., ABDO, R., AHMED, A., QASIM, M., CUNEO, A. and GABRIEL, M. 2018 Special Report: Current Status of the Raqqa Museum. http://www.asor-syrianheritage.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/DOS-SPECIAL-REPORT-%E2%80%93Raqqa-Museum-Status-Report-2018.pdf (5 January 2018) DEEB, A. 2015 “Syrian Museums during the crisis,” in Investigation of the endangered cultural heritage in Syria, edited by A. Tsuneki, pp. 12–13. Tsukuba: University of Tsukuba. COPELAND, L. 1979 “Observations on the Prehistory of the Balikh Valley, Syria, during the 7th to 4th Millennium B.C.,” Paléorient 5: 251–276. 1982 “Prehistoric Tells in the Lower Balikh Valley, Syria: Report on the Survey of 1978,” Annales Archéologiques Arabes Syriennes 32: 251–271. DUNNING, C., FAKHRO, M., GENEQUAND, D. and NOVÁK, M. 2018 “Strategies for restoration and reconstruction. Museums, heritage sites and archaeological parks in post-war countries,” in Text and Image. Proceedings of the 61e Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale, Geneva and Bern, 22–26 June 2015, edited by P. Attinger, A. Cavigneaux, C. Mittermayer and M. Novák, pp. 513–515. Leuven: Peeters (Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis Series Archaeologica 40). FORTIN, M. 1999 Syria, Land of Civilizations. Québec: Editions de l’Homme. FREEDMAN, D. N., ed. 1979 Archeological reports from the Tabqa Dam project––Euphrates Valley, Syria. Cambridge: American Schools of Oriental Research. HAEX, O. M. C., CURVERS, H. H. and AKKERMANS, P. M. M. G. 1989 To the Euphrates and Beyond. Archaeological Studies in Honour of Maurits N. van Loon. Rotterdam: Balkema. HEIDEMANN, S. 2002 Die Renaissance der Städte in Nordsyrien und Nordmesopotamien. Leiden: Brill. 2006 “The History of the Industrial and Commercial Area of ‘Abbāsid Al-Raqqa, called Al-Raqqa Al-Muḥtariqa,” Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 69(1): 33–52. 2011 “The agricultural hinterland of Baghdad, al-Raqqa and Samarra. Settlement patterns in the diyar mudra,” in Le Proche-Orient de Justinien aux Abbassides. Peuplement et Dynamiques Spatiales, edited by A. Borrut, M. Debié, A. Papaconstantinou, D. Pieri and J.-P. Sodini, pp. 43–57. Turnhout: Brepols. HENDERSON, J. 2000 “Archaeological investigations of an Islamic industrial complex at Raqqa, Syria,” Damaszener Mitteilungen 11: 243–265. HENDERSON, J., CHALLIS, K., GARDNER, A., O’HARA, S. and PRIESTNALL, G. 2002 “The Raqqa Ancient Industry Project,” Antiquity 76: 33–34. JENKINS-MADINA, M. 2006 Raqqa Revisited: Ceramics of Ayyubid Syria. New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art.

FOCUS RAQQA

103

JONES, C. W. 2018 “Understanding ISIS’s Destruction of Antiquities as a Rejection of Nationalism,” Journal of Eastern Mediterranean Archaeology & Heritage Studies 6(1–2): 31–58. KANJOU, Y. and TSUNEKI, A. 2016 A History of Syria in One Hundred Sites. Oxford: Archaeopress. LAMB, F. P. 2015 Syria’s Endangered Heritage. An International Responsibility to Protect and Preserve. Damascus: Orontes Publishing House. MALENFANT, M. 1976 “L’industrie Acheuléenne de Chniné (Djézireh, République Arabe Syrienne),” Annales Archéologiques Arabes Syriennes 26: 145–159. MARA, H. and KRÖMKER, S. 2017 “Visual Computing for Archaeological Artifacts with Integral Invariant Filters in 3D,” in Eurographics Workshop on Graphics and Cultural Heritage, edited by T. Schreck, T. Weyrich, R. Sablatnig and B. Stular, pp. 37–47. Goslar: Eurographics. MEINECKE, M. 1985 “Grabungen im ‘abbasidischen Palastareal von ar-Raqqa/ar-Rafiqa,” Damaszener Mitteilungen 2: 85–105. MEINECKE, M. 1991 “Raqqa on the Euphrates: Recent Excavations at the Residence of Haruner-Rashid,” in The Near East in Antiquity: German Contributions to the Archaeology of Jordan, Palestine, Syria, Lebanon and Egypt, Vol. 2, edited by S. Kerner, pp. 17–32. Al-Kutba: Protestant Institute for Archaeology. RAYNE, L. 2015 “Imperial irrigated landscapes in the Balikh Valley,” Water History 7: 419–440. STEIN, G. 2010 “Tell Zeidan, 2009–2010,” Annual Report of The Oriental Institute: 105–118. STROMMENGER, E. 1991 “Ausgrabungen in Tall Bi’a, 1990,” Mitteilungen der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft 123: 7–34. STROMMENGER, E. and KOHLMEYER, K. 1998 Tell Bi’a-Tuttul I. Die Altorientalischen Bestattungen. Saarbrücken: Saarbrücker Druckerei und Verlag. 2000 Tall Bi’a-Tuttul III. Die Schichten des 3. Jahrtausends v. Chr. im Zentralhügel E. Saarbrücken: Saarbrücker Druckerei und Verlag. TAUB, B. 2015 The Real Value of the ISIS Antiquities Trade. The New Yorker. 4 December 2015. https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/the-real-value-of-the-isis-antiquities-trade TOUEIR, K. 1983 “Heraqlah: A Unique Victory Monument of Harun ar-Rashid,” World Archaeology 14: 296–304. 1985 “Der Qasr al-Banat in ar-Raqqa. Ausgrabung, Rekonstruktion, Wiederaufbau (1977– 1982),” Damaszener Mitteilungen 2: 297–319. 1990 “Le Nahr el-Nil entre Raqqa et Heraqleh,” in Techniques et pratiques hydro-agricoles traditionelles en domaine irrigué. Actes du Colloque du Damas 27/6–1/7 1987, edited by B. Geyer, pp. 217–227. Paris: IFAPO. VAN LOON, M. N., ed. 1988 Hammam et-Turkman I: Report on the University of Amsterdam’s 1981–84 Excavations in Syria. Istanbul: Nederlands Historisch-Archeologisch Instituut. WEISS, H. 1985 Ebla to Damascus. Art and Archaeology of Ancient Syria. Washington: Smithsonian. WILKINSON, T. J. 1998a “Settlement and irrigation in the Balikh Valley, Syria from the 3rd to the 1st millennium BC,” in About Subartu. Studies Devoted to Upper Mesopotamia, Volume I: Landscape, Archeology, Settlement, edited by Marc Lebeau, pp. 150–170. Turnhout: Brepols..

104

O. NIEUWENHUYSE†

– K.

HIATLIH

– A.

AL-FAKHRI

– R.

HAQI

1998b “Water and Human Settlement in the Balikh Valley, Syria: Investigations from 1992–1995,” Journal of Field Archaeology 25: 63–87. WILKINSON, T. J., PHILLIP, G., BRADBURY, J., DUNFORD, R., DONOGHUE, D., GALIATSATOS, N., LAWRENCE, D., RICCI, A. and SMITH, S. L. 2014 “Contextualizing Early Urbanization: Settlement Cores, Early States and Agro-pastoral Strategies in the Fertile Crescent during the Fourth and Third Millennia BC,” Journal World Prehistory 27: 43–109.

SECTION TWO: SYRIA: ANCIENT HISTORY – MODERN CONFLICT SYMPOSIUM

CHAPTER 10

SYRIA: ANCIENT HISTORY – MODERN CONFLICT EXHIBITION OPENING ADDRESS Graeme W. CLARKE Classics and Archaeology, School of Literature, Languages and Linguistics Australian National University, Canberra, Australia E-mail: [email protected]

[Note: Emeritus Professor Graeme Clarke FSA, FAHA, AO, director of the Jebel Khalid excavation project, opened the Syria: Ancient History – Modern Conflict exhibition at the University of Melbourne on Tuesday 30 May 2017. His opening address, below, provided a historical context to the Australian excavations in Syria (El-Qitar, Tell Ahmar and Jebel Khalid), which featured in the exhibition and were discussed at the symposium held in Melbourne from Friday 11 August to Sunday 13 August 2017.]

Imagine you are in an area of the Middle Euphrates, some 60 km south of the present Turkish border, known as “The Big Bend.” This is where the Euphrates describes a large curve westwards and comes closest to the Mediterranean. As such, it was in Antiquity a strategic area. Not only was the Euphrates navigable upstream for a further 120 km but from there it was also navigable downstream all the way down past Babylon out into the Persian Gulf. The Euphrates corridor was the great highway through the region. Goods coming upstream could leave the Big Bend for the Mediterranean markets and vice versa, and invaders from the Mediterranean could transport prefabricated, demountable ships to this area, the shortest route to the river, re-assemble them and sail down river on their expeditions – as we know Alexander and various Roman Emperors did. Conversely attackers from the East, like the Arsacids, Sassanians and Persians, could get closest to prime targets like Aleppo or Antioch, before having to cross the Euphrates barrier. Unsurprisingly, therefore, throughout Antiquity a series of fortified settlements was established along this stretch of the river, controlling river traffic as well as being able to sustain themselves off the rich riverine floodplains. Further downstream, when the Tabqa Dam was being constructed, and when it was due to flood, on completion, numerous ancient settlements all along the river, creating Lake Assad, there was a huge international salvage effort, supported by UNESCO, to rescue as much archaeological data as possible. The next barrage planned was the Tishrin Dam, at the headwaters of that Lake Assad. This is where the Australians come in. El-Qitar, in this Big Bend, controlled a narrow stretch of river, with Jerf al-Ahmar on the East Bank opposite. It is situated at the extreme north of the designated Tabqa salvage area. Remember the river is at its highest in spring and summer, that is, during a military campaigning season, being fed by the melting snows of Anatolia. It was, therefore, not only

108

G. W. CLARKE

a desirable control point for river traffic – any shipping traffic being within arrow-shooting range – but, militarily-speaking, a desirable narrow crossing point during the spring/summer campaigning season. Getting an army safely across, along with all its impedimenta was, from a military point of view, notoriously, a fraught manoeuvre, exposing an army vulnerable to attack. Accordingly, a fortified Middle-to-Late Bronze-Age Hittite settlement was established there, with a massive riverine gate, and was excavated by Tom McClellan, Bill Culican and their team from the University of Melbourne in the early 1980s – an archaeological site only to be trashed when the Tishrin Dam itself was eventually constructed on its flanks. Just to the North, was an earlier, multi-period site, including Neolithic and Halafianperiod, known as Tell Halula, sheltered just inland from the Euphrates on a bluff on the Wadi Abu Qalqal, a tributary of the Euphrates. Obsidian blades collected from there, along with other objects, have been published by Professor Tony Sagona, and Dr Mandy Mottram, from the University of Melbourne and the Australian National University (ANU), has completed her doctoral thesis on a statistically controlled surface survey of the site. It has subsequently been excavated by a Spanish team from Barcelona, showing very early domestication of animals and crops and early paintings of human female figures. Across the river, a Neolithic site, also confusingly called Jerf al-Ahmar (Red Cliff), was explored by Tom McClellan, Mandy Mottram and Anne Porter – all originally part of the el-Qitar team and originally from the University of Melbourne. This discovery was subsequently excavated by a joint French-Syrian team and proved to be an extremely important, very early, pre-pottery Neolithic series of settlements dated in excess of 9000 years before present, now, alas!, underwater by the flooding of that Tishrin Dam. And further upstream, similarly situated, is, of course, the neo-Assyrian site and, at the time, regional capital of Til Barsib/Tell Ahmar, explored by a French team in the late 1920s and early 1930s, with its famous frescoed orthostats now in the Louvre, and re-opened by Dr Guy Bunnens and his team from the late 1980s onwards, originally based in the University of Melbourne, and with stunning results – ivories, statuary, inscriptions. The Curator of this Exhibition, Dr Andrew Jamieson, has been an important member of this team, especially concerned with the ceramics recovered from the site. And, finally, just downstream from the Tishrin Dam and at the headwaters of Lake Assad, and within that original salvage area, is the Hellenistic fortress-town of Jebel Khalid, established again, with similar motives, after Alexander’s conquest of the region, controlling that strategic river corridor where the river narrows, fortified with 3.4 km of defensive wall with 30 bastions and towers, and a separate walled Acropolis. It was founded very early in the Macedonian occupation of the area under the Seleucid Dynasty and lasted some two and half centuries until that Dynasty finally collapsed. Quays on the riverine frontage, now visible underwater (due to the rising waters of Lake Assad), bear witness to the service of the traffic and trade along the river. A joint University of Melbourne-ANU team, led originally by the late Peter Connor and myself, and subsequently Dr Heather Jackson (who has contributed much to this exhibition), John Tidmarsh and myself, have excavated the site from 1986 onwards. The strategic importance of the area did not cease in Antiquity. Sadly, given the importance of the hydro-electric works of the Tishrin Dam and the irrigation potential and

SYRIA: ANCIENT HISTORY

–

MODERN CONFLICT EXHIBITION OPENING ADDRESS

109

water-supply of its catchment all the way north to the Turkish border, the area has been fought over in the recent conflict and has changed hands several times, and its associated settlement of Tishrin has been subject to bombing and shelling. It is timely that, given all the destruction in the current, disastrous Civil War, we have this Exhibition to remind us how important it is to preserve what we can of the past and of human history – and, we might hope, learn from it.

CHAPTER 11

ALEPPO AND PALMYRA: HOW MONUMENTS WERE WEAPONISED IN THE SYRIAN CONFLICT Ross BURNS Department of Ancient History, Macquarie University, Australia E-mail: [email protected]

ABSTRACT Why has the open flouting of the rules of war, painstakingly set down and almost universally accepted over the past century, now become almost the ‘new normal’, with numerous monuments used as weaponry in themselves? Some explanations are sought in the context of two cities severely damaged in the Syrian conflict since 2011 – Aleppo and Palmyra.

Monuments have long been caught up in conflict and suffered from either direct exposure to combat or incidental damage from its consequences. As many as 132 states have signed on to the various conventions intended to protect monuments in modern conflicts. These include the Hague Conventions of 1899, further spelt out in the Convention on Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict (the Hague 1954) and Article 16 of Protocol II of the Geneva Conventions. However, the very suggestion that historic sites or zones should be exempt from hostile interest also tempts armed forces (particularly those of combatants weak in terms of firepower) to adopt them as refuges. In the heat of battle, therefore, few combatant elements (state parties or insurgent groups) take much trouble to keep away from sites which have been adopted by their opponents as refuges which double as offensive positions. Weaponising monuments has long been the norm. What seems to be especially regrettable, however, in the case of the Syrian conflict (since 2011) is that some combatants have chosen to make monuments military assets, not only to return fire directed at a combatant unit but even when there is no military value in seizing or destroying a building of great historic interest. In the course of a conflict which has been marked by new and blatant attacks on civilian targets, even hospitals, such disregard for the rules of war may not seem remarkable given new benchmarks of savagery now established. It might, however, be of some use to look back at the conflict to see why such open flouting of the rules of war have become part of a new ‘normal’. This paper looks only at two historic centres among the thousands of registered monuments given heritage value in Syria. The two cities chosen, Aleppo and Palmyra, are selected for the contrasting pattern of destruction which has emerged and to emphasise that the complexity of the issues relating to monument protection allows no simple solutions. This is especially the case when so many combatant groups are involved, some claiming to prioritise religious agendas which overlap in no way with the norms of the national states which have

R. BURNS

112

signed on to the conventions. Many of these fighters do not even represent significant interest groups within Syria but have chosen to fly the flag of their cause in the Syrian arena, taking advantage of the country’s descent into ungovernable chaos. Shortly after the conflict began, the writer decided to create a website which gave readers of the pioneering work on the archaeology of Syria (the first detailed archaeological guide to the country’s rich historical remains)1 a visual accompaniment to the sites described in the book as it remained impossible for outsiders to visit while the conflict raged (Fig. 1). A year after the conflict broke out, it was noticeable that media coverage of damage to Syrian monuments was often based on uninformed appreciations of the condition of historic remains before the conflict or on material posted on the internet by inside sources who had their own agendas. As a result, commentary often appeared wide of the mark. In most cases the damage was exaggerated, or the pre-conflict state of a building or site was not taken into account. It was often assumed that monuments had largely been destroyed, when their real condition represented a lesser level of damage. This encouraged the assumptions that wrote off one of Syria’s great resources in the eyes of the outside world. Indeed, such claims became part of the propaganda war which accompanied the conflict, with various groups and the authorities themselves willing to use reports of damage as a weapon against their opponents’ credentials.

Fig. 1. Monuments of Syria website home page www.monumentsofsyria.com (Copyright: Ross Burns, creative commons). 1

 Burns 2009.

ALEPPO AND PALMYRA

113

Given that it was impossible for the writer to visit Syria over the past eight years, the basis for the re-assessment of hundreds of damage claims was to use material posted on the internet by all parties. Such sources included Syrians on the ground concerned to draw attention to the fate of their local sites, expatriate Syrian groups collecting other postings from within Syria and the Syrian government’s own archaeological service, the Directorate General of Archaeology and Museums which has remained functioning during the conflict years and maintained a website which carried frequent reports on damage. This visual material (as distinct from the written descriptions of reported damage) was evaluated against the author’s own database of scores of thousands of photos of archaeological sites in Syria gathered over three decades before 2011. This is retained as a resource for his own work as well as one made available to other researchers.2 Although Google Earth coverage is often many months or years behind the present, it was used eventually to check earlier estimates of damage, but the clarity of resolution was often wanting and internal damage in a building was often not visible. Each month, under the ‘Syrian Conflict’ tab the website gave a catalogue of damage to Syria’s archaeological heritage. The listings largely excluded buildings post-1914 and did not include damage to landscape unless of major significance (e.g., satellite images of extensive areas of looting pits or bulldozer excavations and other illegal diggings). It also did not seek to cover structures adapted to house internal refugees from the conflict whose presence could hardly be considered hostile or seriously likely to damage caves, tombs or ancient house remains. Nor did it include claims where sources referred only to ‘damage’ or ‘destruction’ but gave little or no verbal indication or visual evidence of its true severity.

ALEPPO VS PALMYRA Aleppo and Palmyra show totally different patterns of destruction. Indeed, the damage from the conflict rarely shows a common pattern across Syria. Some areas have escaped exposure, particularly in western Syria; others have seen battles rage haphazardly back and forth across the countryside several times during the war. In some cases, the rebel groups have sought to project a concern to avoid damage to monuments (even boasting of their efforts to protect sites from intruders and restore weather or conflict damage). At others, a pattern of adopting minarets as firing positions and mosques as barracks or depots has greatly exposed these buildings to retaliatory or defensive fire. In the case of Aleppo, the city was careful to stay out of the conflict for the first 13 months. However, by July 2012 Syria had become the target for outside groups funded by external elements (particularly those linked to Islamic and fundamentalist causes). The centre of the ancient and medieval city found itself the ‘ground zero’ of a confrontation which quickly flared on a massively damaging scale from September 2012. The ‘downtown’ area of the old city with its extraordinary maze of suqs and khans clustered around the Great Mosque lay 2

 For the author’s website see Burns 2019a. A great number of his other photos have been posted on the website, made available freely for non-profit purposes. See Manar al-Athar 2017.

114

R. BURNS

trapped between the two sides of the lines of confrontation. The rebels embedded themselves in the central market area (‘al-Medina’) below the Citadel. From here they had access via the eastern suburbs to the outside world through the crossing points along the Turkish border. The regime held the Citadel itself and a finger of control connecting to the main government-held facilities and suburbs to the west (Fig. 2).

Fig. 2. Map of the historic walled city of Aleppo (Ross Burns).

The author’s map (Fig. 2) of the historic walled city of Aleppo (broken blue line) shows the central area of confrontation with main deployments indicated as follows: blue shaded zone, government forces; remainder, opposition forces; dotted zone, area of intense confrontation in historic city. In the 18 or so months during which the confrontation was at its most intense, massive amounts of firepower were unleashed by both sides. It must be remembered, however, that the heaviest bombardments were not in the old city itself but in the major concentration of modern high-rise apartment blocks, especially those to the east and southeast (Fig. 3). While the Syrian government forces retained control of the Citadel throughout these months of intense exchanges, the rebels responded from the mosques, madrasas and shops of the Medina. Extensive damage occurred in the heart of the historic town. The regime’s artillery easily outmatched the rebels’ rifles and mortars, which could make little impact on the massive fortifications of the Citadel. Many of the downtown minarets were adopted as rebel firing positions with the government responding through attempts to clear the suqs area via artillery and tank fire. On 10 October 2012 forces of the Islamist group Jabhat al-Nusra (an al-Qaeda offshoot) took the Great Mosque and intense firefights developed in the surrounding suqs. One battle

ALEPPO AND PALMYRA

Fig. 3. Imagery of greater metropolitan Aleppo with the historic core indicated by blue outline and zones. Government- and rebel-held areas (Google Earth).

115

Fig. 4. Minaret of the Great Mosque of Aleppo (Copyright: Ross Burns, creative commons).

saw the conflagration of the central patchwork of shops and warehouses. An electricity substation caught fire and exploded, incinerating the mosque’s important library of manuscripts housed on the northeast corner of the courtyard. In April 2013, engagements between rebel forces in the mosque and the regime’s forces to the north continued. At some point in the engagement, the great minaret, which had stood as the city’s sentinel, collapsed. Neither side claimed responsibility and it is not clear whether its collapse was due to explosives planted within the building or to external artillery fire (Fig. 4).3 In this first phase of the conflict in downtown Aleppo, the loss of the minaret of the Great Mosque was the most significant single blow. The minaret had reared over the old city, its 45-m high square shaft clearly visible from all vantage points (Fig. 4). The structure was virtually the only monument of the Seljuk period in Syria, commissioned under a brief period of Seljuk control at the end of the 11th century. As an independent structure, it had survived two massive conflagrations in the mosque itself in the following century. It was a singular achievement of 11th century Aleppo and a remarkable tribute to the continuing architectural tradition of the city at the time. Its four levels of decoration were an extraordinary assemblage of architectural traditions from Roman through Byzantine to Islamic times, unique in the Seljuk world that once stretched from modern Turkey to Iran. It mixed Classical embellishments with inventive Byzantine moulded decoration combined with the sensitive use of Islamic flourishes including the relief inscriptions proclaiming verses from the Koran in bands dividing each level of the shaft. Its defiance of the centuries since the 12th-century fires had been remarkable. It had been carefully recorded by the American expert, Ernst Herzfeld, before the First World War,4 its stonework was carefully restored by Syrian craftsmen during the last century and a threatened lean was corrected 3 4

 BBC News 24 April 2013.  Herzfeld 1955, pp. 143–173. On the use of ‘Classical revival’ elements, see Allen 1986, pp. 23–29.

116

R. BURNS

Fig. 5. Restoration work underway on the minaret of the Great Mosque in Aleppo – Syrian Arab News Agency (https://sana.sy/en/?p=154089) (accessed in 2019).

with Italian expert advice in the 1990s.5 Its loss now is an incomparable blow to the city but the fact that many of the stone blocks survived, albeit in a battered state, could aid its reconstruction and operations to that end have already started (Fig. 5).6 The second phase of the conflict in the city reached its culmination in 2015 when the formation of the Islamic Front, with support from Islamist funders largely in the Gulf, introduced the means to invest in a new scale of urban warfare. Islamic Front supporters excavated a series of long tunnels approaching the historic centre from the outskirts. These tunnels passed under the buildings grouped around the southern edges of the terrace in front of the Citadel. Here a cluster of important Islamic and civil buildings marked the zone which for centuries had been a parade ground for the ceremonies of the rulers of Aleppo and where they posted their claim to the legitimacy conferred by Islamic righteousness and justice (Fig. 6).7 In this new phase of warfare, however, no holds were barred in the use of monuments as weapons, signalling the determination of Islamist groups to stop at nothing. Around the plaza, six tunnels burrowed under the main monuments were stuffed with explosives and detonated to send the buildings heavenward in the form of clouds of dust and rubble reaching hundreds of metres. What remained on the ground was sucked back into huge cavities that the explosions had left in the ground leaving nothing but a few crumbled stones around their edges. It didn’t seem to matter to these ‘Islamists’ or their backers that numbered among these buildings were significant Islamic landmarks including the tomb and teaching madrasa of the most successful of the sons of Saladin, al-Zahir Ghazi, or the first mosque and charitable complex built by Mimar Sinan, the great Ottoman architect working for Suleiman the Magnificent, the Khosrofiye Madrasa (Figs 7a and 7b). What sense did it make to demolish so effectively buildings which had stood for centuries as landmarks of

5

 Alafandi and Rahim 2014.  For a recent update on restoration work see Syrian Arab News Agency 2018. 7  Tabbaa 1997, pp. 138–141. The role of Islamic Front’s ‘Tawhid Brigade’ in initiating the series of tunnel bombs was reported as early as May 2014 in an interview with the brigade’s members in the Anadolu News Agency carried out during the tunneling operation. The first explosion (8 May 2014) targeted the Ottoman era building, the Carlton Hotel, said to have been used by Syrian official forces as barracks. Islamic Front’s role was reported and the organisation later moved on to other key historic buildings in the area. See Chulov 9 May 2014; Evans 8 May 2014. 6

ALEPPO AND PALMYRA

117

Fig. 6. The ceremonial at the foot of the Aleppo Citadel taken in April 2011 – the Madrasa Sultaniye (and tomb of al-Zahir Ghazi) lies on the left with Sinan’s Khosrofiye Madrasa complex on the right, both now destroyed as a result of tunnel bombings (Copyright: Ross Burns, creative commons).

Fig. 7. The Khosrofiye Madrasa complex, the work of Ottoman architect, Sinan: a. prayer hall, 2005; b. Digitalglobe image of same, UNESCO, UNITAR 2017: fig. 38 (Copyright: 7a RB 2017; 7b UNESCO/UNITAR 2018 – with permission).

118

R. BURNS

Islam?8 The Islamist forces, however, expressed pride in their handiwork and had only one reading of Islam, one that that involved returning it to a primal state, wiping out everything that had preceded or indeed followed. The path of destruction was later extended right across the edges of the access route that government forces were using to reach the Citadel, as traced by the blue zone on fig. 4. At least a further eight tunnel bombs marked the edges of the route, crossing a further swathe of Islamic monuments and the Jdeide (‘new’) Quarter, which has since the 14th century been established as a place for Armenian and other Christians attracted to the city by Aleppo’s growing role as the western terminus of the Silk Route. This flourishing trade, through which cloth, spices, and precious stones were handed on to the growing community of European traders, helped to make Aleppo into one of the great commercial centres of the Arab world. In this second wave of destruction – virtually never covered by the international media at the time, perhaps because they struggled to identify any logic in it – a range of khans and other commercial buildings were pulverised by eight or more tunnel bombs. Some of the most memorable houses of the Jdeide Quarter as well as its most important waqf complex, used to generate Islamic endowments, again disappeared into the explosive craters with much secondary damage inflicted on the most memorable domestic palaces of the stone-paved Jdeide Quarter.

PALMYRA A markedly different pattern of destruction was the result of the arrival of ‘Islamic State’ (ISIS), an offshoot originating in Iraq. It had spread to Syria in mid-2015, setting up a headquarters for its self-styled ‘caliphate’ in Raqqa in January 2014 after a failed merger with Jabhat al-Nusra.9 In May 2015, ISIS seized the central Syrian site of Palmyra, the first time the group had come within striking distance of any of the country’s Classical or major Islamic remains. Using a slick social media campaign, this time the Islamists’ message was not lost on the outside world, since ISIS’s propaganda did the work of the media for them. They staged and videoed the blowing up of many of Palmyra’s ancient and Islamic structures, preferring those which had preserved their four walls, thus more effectively concentrating the blasts engineered by their explosive experts. Nothing was spared to drive home a message even more brutal than Islamic Front’s campaign in Aleppo. The beheading of several figures, including the former Director of Antiquities in Palmyra, Khalid al-’Assad, proved to be an even more effective way of grabbing the headlines in the outside world. ISIS spread their spectacular campaign of mindless destruction over several months, in that time destroying the central shrine of Palmyra’s Temple of Bel, a Classical-era building among the most important surviving monuments of that period anywhere. The temple, like the Aleppo Great Mosque’s minaret, preserved a rich merging of styles from Hellenistic Greek to Byzantine, spanning all the cultures represented in the wealthy city, whose fortunes 8

 Necipoğlu 2005, pp. 472–475; Watenpaugh 2004, pp. 60–77.  Cockburn 2015, p. 150.

9

ALEPPO AND PALMYRA

119

rose spectacularly under Roman rule through the opening of trading routes to India and Central Asia. After blowing up the Bel Temple’s central shrine and the second-century jewel of Roman architecture, the Temple of the Phoenician god Baalshamin, they blasted apart the 12 most intact remains in the city’s Valley of the Tombs, an extraordinary collection of tower tombs unique in the Roman world.10 Some might strive to explain this destruction as ISIS’s promotion of a ruthless iconoclasm reflecting the values of early Islam, interpreted as prohibiting commemoration of the dead or of human and animal figures. It was, however, clearly done with much more than a straightforward iconoclastic agenda. It was meant to shock and terrify, to signal to the Syrian people and the world that they would stop at nothing. One of ISIS’s chosen targets, for example, was the Monumental Arch (Fig. 8) erected in the second century AD to correct a town-planning error. When the Palmyrene elite decided to build a great columned axis across the city, as found by then in most of the cities of any size in Roman Syria, they had to cope with the fact that the street needed to bend by 15 degrees to avoid an existing temple of the Arab god, Nabu. To disguise the bend, but still keep the visual flow of the column-lined axis, the two faces of the arch were oriented at an angle but gave from each side the impression of a continuous vista. The richly decorated arch, however, had no animal or human figures on its relief panels which might justify its addition to the target list. It was just blown up because ISIS wanted to show they could do it, though the effort was more challenging than most other targets in the city as it was a structure open on all sides and offered little capacity to contain or direct the blasts.

Fig. 8. Palmyra’s Monumental Arch, looking northeast (2007) (Copyright: Manar al-Athar, creative commons permission, photographer Michael Godfrey 2003).  Danti et al. 2015.

10

R. BURNS

120 ALEPPO VS PALMYRA:

A PROVISIONAL TALLY

Perhaps the best way of illustrating the different results of the campaigns of destruction in Aleppo and Palmyra is through statistics. The table below (Fig. 9) is a tally of the damage done in both cities based on the criteria used for the writer’s website listings (explained above). Both sites have suffered severely and contributed disproportionately to the national toll of buildings, which on this calculation amount to 281.

Fig. 9. Table of estimated cases of damage in Aleppo and Palmyra and national figures by category – data revised as of August 2018.

It should first be noted that a national toll of 281 is considerably below the figures provided in most media accounts, in websites maintained by monitoring groups and even the database on the website of the Directorate General of Antiquities and Museums in Damascus.11 It therefore warrants some explanation. • Many accounts of ‘destruction’ actually prove to represent, on looking closely at visual evidence, only minor damage which could be fixed by patching with replacement stone or the re-assembling of toppled remains. • The writer’s list does not include buildings erected after 1914 and thus excludes modern mosques that provided places of refuge for opposition fighters. • The tally does not include landscape damage unless it represents significant, systematic and extensive damage to a site’s archaeological value. • It also does not cover opportunistic illegal diggings (‘looting pits’). • By any account a toll of destruction that approaches 300 is a terrible blow to a nation’s heritage though it also includes a large proportion of structures that could readily be restored.12 The fact is, though, that Aleppo and Palmyra have played a high toll for their participation, usually unwillingly or through the involvement of outside parties to this conflict. Most notably, they have contributed almost two-thirds of the cases of Syrian buildings which are in the top category on the table, and thus either entirely or extensively damaged 11

 See DGAM 2015.  At the time of finalising this contribution, a number of new visual images or videos have been posted online showing some restoration work underway, particularly in the mosques and suqs of the historic centre. 12

ALEPPO AND PALMYRA

121

and requiring massive rebuilding work if they could be restored at all. As the reader works down through the ratings of severity, the contributions of Aleppo and Palmyra fall, but they still provide a disproportionate share of the national figures. Only perhaps Homs could rival these figures but there a lot of the shelling damage would seem to be reparable with fairly basic interventions, given that there are no cases of deliberate use of massive detonations within or underneath buildings.

CONCLUSIONS It should be emphasised that these figures are not reached through on-the-ground examination of the buildings and certainly not on engineering reports assessing the challenge involved in repair or restoration. They provide, however, a picture of the dimensions of the path of damage that has swept across Syria’s thousands of sites and heritage buildings. It falls well short, however, of the proportions that a remarkable number of sympathetic outside observers simply assume, assuming that the greater part of Syria’s archaeological and historical buildings has gone. Given that tourism before 2011 had risen to be Syria’s third source of foreign exchange and given that ‘fake news’ can take a generation or more to correct, it might be better to focus on the reality rather than tropes that have recently been endlessly recycled. The reality behind this table above is that beyond the 250 or so probable serious hits (of which 59 are claimed but not verified by any information) there are simply thousands of other registered monuments in Syria on the books of the Directorate General of Monuments and Museums. In the last hundred or so years, reading Syria more correctly has given foreign historians and archaeologists an entirely fresh insight into the many civilisations which have interacted with each other on its soil. Syria’s past, however, has not been an object of fascination or appreciation reserved for foreign scholars or visitors. Syrians themselves have delved into the history of the remains they live among. These buildings are part of their understanding of their society, a dimension reinforced up to 2011 by the Syrian education system and by the upgrading of sites and museums around the country. The very fact that so many reports on what has happened to their monuments are posted by Syrians themselves underlines their belief that those monuments should be part of their future.13 Outsiders therefore do Syrians no service by overplaying the extent of damage. The time has not yet come for a concerted reconstruction effort, but when it does it is to be hoped that those who have been prepared to spend extravagant sums on 3D or other reconstructions abroad might be willing to divert further sums to the rebuilding of Syrian ancient remains in physical form.14 Repair and reconstruction have for a hundred years or more 13  Some of the most informative social media sites drawing attention to the level of destruction at heritage sites in Syria have been maintained by Syrians. See Association for the Protection of Syrian Archaeology Facebook Page 2018; Aleppo Archaeology Facebook Page 2019; Salah Maraashi Photography Facebook Page 2019. 14  Among the most ambitious promotors of symbolic efforts at reconstruction is the Institute of Digital Archaeology. See Institute of Digital Archaeology 2019.

122

R. BURNS

provided much of the work for the authorities involved in presenting buildings to the public in an understandable way. Many of the remains which did survive up to 2011 were heavily rebuilt in the course of the 20th century to correct the ravages of time, the weather, earthquakes or earlier conflicts. It is an ongoing, not a new, challenge. Rebuilding the devastated modern cities with their homes, schools, hospitals and infrastructure is the bigger priority, but rebuilding a society torn apart by these events also means restoring to it the confidence in the underpinnings of their society that these historical remains had stimulated. The ravages of the post-2011 conflict may require the rest of this century to reverse, but it is a challenge which can and should involve the skills, enthusiasm and know-how which are there in the Syrian community; releasing them again should be the main task.

BIBLIOGRAPHY ALAFANDI, R. and RAHIM, A. A. 2014 “Umayyad Mosque in Aleppo — Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow,” International Journal of Arts & Sciences 7(5): 319–347. ALEPPO ARCHAEOLOGY FACEBOOK PAGE 2019 https://www.facebook.com/aleppoarchaeology/ ALLEN, T. 1986 A Classical Revival in Islamic Architecture. Wiesbaden: Ludwig Reichert Verlag. ASSOCIATION FOR THE PROTECTION OF SYRIAN ARCHAEOLOGY (APSA) FACEBOOK PAGE 2018 https://www.facebook.com/apsa2011 BBC NEWS 2013 Syria clashes destroy ancient Aleppo minaret. 24 April 2013. https://www.bbc.com/ news/world-middle-east-22283746 BURNS, R. 2009 Monuments of Syria. London: I. B. Tauris. 2018 Aleppo: A History. London: Routledge. 2019a Monuments of Syria. www.monumentsofsyria.com (15 June 2019). 2019b “Weaponising Monuments,” International Review of the Red Cross 99(906): 937–958. CHULOV, M. 2014 Syria rebels blow up Aleppo hotel used as barracks by government forces. The Guardian. 9 May 2014. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/may/08/syria-rebels-blowup-aleppo-hotel-barracks-government-forces (15 June 2019) COCKBURN, P. 2015 The Rise of Islamic State — ISIS and the New Sunni Revolution. London: Verso. DANTI, M., TATE, P., BARNES GORDON, L.-A., MOAZ, A., ALI, C., FRANKLIN, K. and ELITZER, D. 2015 Special Report on the Importance of Palmyra. Boston, MA: American Schools of Oriental Research. DGAM 2015 http://dgam.gov.sy EVANS, D. 2014 Syrian rebels blow up Aleppo hotel used by army. Reuters. 8 May 2014. https:// www.reuters.com/article/us-syria-crisis-aleppo/syrian-rebels-blow-up-aleppo-hotelused-by-army-idUSBREA4706Z20140508 (15 June 2019) FIOL, M. and TABET, Y. 2018 Five Years of Conflict — The State of Cultural Heritage in the Ancient City of Unesco. Paris, Geneva: UNESCO, UNISAT. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000265826 (15 June 2019)

ALEPPO AND PALMYRA

123

HERZFELD, E. 1955 Inscriptions et Monuments d’Alep – Tome I, vol. 1 (texte) (Matériaux pour un Corpus Inscriptionum Arabicarum – 2e partie, Syrie du Nord). Cairo: Institut français d’archéologie orientale du Caire. INSTITUTE OF DIGITAL ARCHAEOLOGY 2019 http://digitalarchaeology.org.uk/our-purpose/ (15 June 2019) MANAR AL-ATHAR 2017 Manar Al-Athar free image resource for the study of the Middle East. http://www. manar-al-athar.ox.ac.uk (15 June 2019) NECIPOĞLU, G. 2005 The Age of Sinan: Architectural Culture in the Ottoman Empire. London: Reaktion Books. SALAH MARAASHI PHOTOGRAPHY FACEBOOK PAGE 2019 https://www.facebook.com/salahmaraashiphotography/ SYRIAN ARAB NEWS AGENCY 2018 With great attention to details, restoration of Aleppo Umayyad Mosque underway. 22 December 2018. https://sana.sy/en/?p=154089 TABBAA, Y. 1997 Constructions of Power and Piety in Medieval Aleppo. Philadelphia, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press. WATENPAUGH, H. 2004 The Image of an Ottoman City — Imperial Architecture and Urban Experience in Aleppo in the 16th and 17th Centuries. Leiden: E. J. Brill.

CHAPTER 12

COMMUNITY CONNECTIONS TO CULTURAL HERITAGE: CONTINUITY, RECONNECTION AND RECOVERY Marilyn C. TRUSCOTT Canberra, Australia E-mail: [email protected]

ABSTRACT This paper explores the ethics and processes of involving the local communities in decisions about heritage reconstruction or restoration in Syria. The inclusion of the relevant community can foster the recovery of heritage in its widest sense, whether archaeological sites, historic architecture, or urban spaces with their traditional uses. Such a community role can also advance not only a physical recovery of place – if appropriate, but a community’s sense of place and with that their cultural identity. Various processes of engaging the local community are explored, whether on site or with refugees elsewhere. Cultural mapping is increasingly applied in heritage studies to identify community connection with place, as well as the meaning of the physical environment, buildings, sites, and spaces to that group. Particularly ‘memory mapping’, including with those who have fled from home, is known to provide essential information on the community values of place when any proposed reconstruction of destroyed places and sites is considered. The examples given include Syrians in refugee camps in the Middle East. Other case studies of processes post-disaster, whether natural or from conflict, demonstrate the relevance of including local people in post-war processes for recovery.

INTRODUCTION “Heritage stands at the crossroads of climate change, social transformations and processes of reconciliation between peoples. Heritage carries high stakes – for the identity and belonging of peoples, for the sustainable economic and social development of communities.”1

This statement in 2011 by Irina Bokova, the Director-General of UNESCO, also stressed the need to involve communities in heritage preservation. Bokova was launching the 40th anniversary celebrations of the Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage 1972 (the World Heritage Convention), with its theme of World Heritage and Sustainable Development: The Role of Local Communities. The 2012 celebration ended with the ‘Kyoto Vision’ reiterating the important role of local and indigenous communities for World Heritage.2 In late November 2018, the World Bank and UNESCO launched a position paper based on their “shared conviction that culture is critical to achieve sustainable urban development

1 2

 UNESCO News 7 November 2011.  UNESCO 2012, p. 3.

M. C. TRUSCOTT

126

and to ensure effective post-crisis reconstruction and recovery processes.”3 An emphasis on local communities’ involvement in heritage is one that has been made for some decades, with several international declarations, charters and regulations that emphasise community input into heritage management. Recently there has been a strong focus on actions for heritage at times of disaster. This paper presents the relevant guidelines, and the ethics and processes of involving local communities. Given the strong international desire to plan for Syria’s heritage recovery before the current conflict is resolved, it is important not to ignore or dismiss the views of local people. The involvement of community avoids more ‘top-down’ decisions for heritage by experts, including archaeologists and architects. A shared, or even ‘bottom-up’ process, reflects the increased recognition of the associations and meanings a place has for a community. The inclusion of the relevant community can foster the recovery of heritage, whether archaeological sites, architectural monuments, or living historic urban spaces. Such a community role can also advance not only a physical recovery of place, but a displaced community’s reconnection with its sense of place and cultural identity. This cultural identity does not merely relate to the physical form of their surrounds, but the roles such structures and spaces have in their lives. It is where they practise oral traditions, performing arts, and other social practices, hold festivals, and produce objects, food, and other items, both traditional and contemporary, which are part of everyday life.4 The ‘old’ heritage structures are part of a living heritage. This paper presents both the current codes for the inclusion of the community, examples of community-based responses for Syria’s heritage, and examples of other post-disaster processes. There is an over-emphasis on World Heritage, perhaps understandable given the international reaction to the destruction of Palmyra, one of Syria’s six sites on the World Heritage List5. However, the processes outlined apply to community involvement with all heritage, and as such can provide inclusive ways for the best possible future for Syria’s heritage.

LOCAL COMMUNITY

AND HERITAGE

Codes, charters and guidelines for community participation In July 2017, a forum of young heritage professionals on ‘Memory: Lost and Recovered Heritage’ at the annual World Heritage Committee’s meeting made the following declaration, first stressing that:6

3

 UNESCO News 19 November 2018; World Bank and UNESCO 2018.  UNESCO 2003. 5  The following are the World Heritage sites in Syria, with their dates of listing: Ancient City of Damascus (1979); Ancient City of Bosra, Site of Palmyra (1980); Ancient City of Aleppo (1986); Crac des Chevaliers and Qal’at Salat el-Din (2006); Ancient Villages of Northern Syria (2011). They were all placed on the World Heritage in Danger List in 2013. See UNESCO 2013. 6  UNESCO 2 July 2017. 4

COMMUNITY CONNECTIONS TO CULTURAL HERITAGE

127

“the opinion of local communities, indigenous peoples, artisans and youth should be an important factor when deciding on the conservation or reconstruction of cultural heritage;” … In the same document, they called on the International community “to make local communities the keystone of any decision-making process relating to discussions on cultural identity and memory, as well as post-disaster management.” They also urged State Parties “… to … establish participation mechanisms for local communities …”

This statement follows earlier declarations, codes, and regulations regarding the relevant community’s role in ‘their’ heritage. As early as 1990, both the World Archaeological Congress (WAC), and the international heritage professional association, the International Committee on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS), provided guidelines to include relevant local communities. The World Archaeological Congress First Code of Ethics states members have “obligations to indigenous peoples” with “Rules to Adhere to” related to negotiating informed consent, keeping the community informed, human remains, and training and employing of community members.7 ICOMOS’ Charter for the Protection and the Management of the Archaeological Heritage states:8 … elements of the archaeological heritage constitute part of the living traditions of indigenous peoples, and for such sites and monuments the participation of local cultural groups is essential for their protection and preservation. Article 6 Maintenance and Conservation … Local commitment and participation should be actively sought and encouraged … This principle is especially important when dealing with the heritage of indigenous peoples or local cultural groups. … entrust responsibility for the protection and management of sites and monuments to indigenous peoples.

Both codes result from the growing awareness in new settler countries, such as in the Americas or Australia, that indigenous views were not included in decisions about their past. Nonetheless, there is a broad recognition, particularly in parts of the world where new peoples have arrived over millennia, that such ‘non-indigenous’ cultural groups have longstanding links with a place, many being descendants of those who built earlier monuments. As such, those groups are, in practice, included in these codes of practice as having a voice regarding decisions about heritage. Australia ICOMOS soon extended this inclusion of community in decision making beyond indigenous people in its Burra Charter.9 In 2007, the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples was passed, calling for indigenous participation in and rights to their heritage, including archaeological and historical sites:10 Article 11 1. Indigenous peoples have the right to practise and revitalize their cultural traditions and customs. This includes the right to maintain, protect and develop the past, present 7

 WAC (World Archaeological Congress) 1990.  ICOMOS 1990. 9  See Australia ICOMOS 1999, 2013. The stronger inclusion of a role for the relevant community continued in the 2013 edition of this charter. 10  United Nations 2007. 8

M. C. TRUSCOTT

128

and future manifestations of their cultures, such as archaeological and historical sites, artefacts, designs, ceremonies, technologies and visual and performing arts and literature. 2. States shall provide redress through effective mechanisms, which may include restitution, developed in conjunction with indigenous peoples, with respect to their cultural, intellectual, religious and spiritual property taken with-out their free, prior and informed consent or in violation of their laws, traditions and customs. In the case of World Heritage, the first call for indigenous involvement was voiced in 2000 by the World Heritage Indigenous Peoples Forum at UNESCO’s World Heritage Committee meeting in Cairns, Australia, noting:11 … the lack of involvement of Indigenous peoples in … the protection of their holistic knowledge, traditions and cultural values, which apply to their ancestral lands within or comprising sites now designated as World Heritage Areas.

The proposal for a World Heritage Indigenous Peoples Council of Experts (WHIPCOE) was warmly received by the World Heritage Committee. However, this plan was shortlived, as some state parties did not wish to participate.12 Yet, concern persisted regarding people’s rights in World Heritage decisions, when in 2011 the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights proposed:13 … establishing an appropriate mechanism through which indigenous peoples can provide advice to the World Heritage Committee and effectively participate in its decision-making processes.

Exemplars of the involvement of local peoples in World Heritage are cited at various international conferences.14 The University of Madrid’s second conference on ‘Best Practices in World Heritage: People and Communities’ in 2015 resulted in a ‘practical tool’, serving to:15 remind UNESCO about the need to require from applicant countries and the World Heritage Committee a true policy of participatory consultation with a special attention being paid to the concerned communities.

Heritage, community and disaster In more recent years, guidelines specific to dealing with damaged heritage, whether from natural disasters or human conflict, also stress the inclusion and role of the local community in decisions about the recovery of heritage values. ICOMOS’ guide for post-trauma recovery for World Heritage sites, which includes a Framework for Action that outlines factors in inheritance and transmission, organisational factors and preparedness, notes that such disaster causes community displacement and loss of roots and traditional culture. It outlines the following conditions for World Heritage urban areas:16 11

 UNESCO 24 November 2000.  Meskell 2013. 13  African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights 5 November 2011. 14  For example, in the Netherlands in 2003, with case studies from around the world in de Merode et al. 2004. 15  Castillo Mena 2015. 16  ICOMOS 2017, pp. 7, 13. 12

COMMUNITY CONNECTIONS TO CULTURAL HERITAGE

129

If OUV (Outstanding Universal Value)17 relates to the dynamism of a city that reflects centuries of urban societies and their formal and informal structures, then the attributes of that urban form might be re-established to re-house the inhabitants and revitalize the social and economic fabric, maintaining the authenticity of the place. … If OUV relates to customary practices such as rituals, beliefs, stories or festivals, reconstruction of tangible attributes (structures and carvings) may be critical to the persistence of those practices.

There are also many case studies on how countries have responded to disasters that have damaged cultural heritage, some with a stronger focus on the local community role than others.18 Other guides, such as those of UNESCO and the World Bank, provide helpful information, with many case studies about how to promote disaster-resilient cultural heritage.19 Given the increase in extreme natural disasters, and the current frequency of internal, if not cross-border, human conflict, it behoves those responsible for heritage management to be aware of how to protect that heritage to prevent risks as far as possible. UNESCO responded quickly to the disastrous impact on Syria’s heritage after the conflicts started in March 2011.20 Its call for unity to protect Syrian cultural heritage, reiterated in 2016, was a reaction to a perception that the understandable international rush to do something was uncoordinated. Since 2014, UNESCO’s Internet platform ‘Observatory of Syrian Cultural Heritage’ has collated information on the damage, destruction and looting, and disruptions to intangible heritage practices and transmission, and projects in response.21 The UNESCO Beirut office holds meetings with heritage experts and Syrian heritage officials, and training courses with broad participation by communities.22

COMMUNITY PROCESSES TO SHARE

HERITAGE VALUES

Ensuring that the relevant communities have a strong participation in decisions about their place, their heritage, can be straightforward in normal circumstances. However, during and after disasters, whether natural or from human conflict, obtaining such input from those key community groups is harder. Cultural mapping is a currently preferred technique that can be used, widely applied to chart the meanings of a place to community groups, whether community members are in their locality or not.23 UNESCO has recognised this process “as a crucial tool and technique in preserving the world’s intangible and tangible cultural assets.”24 Community-based participatory mapping – that is, giving the relevant local community a core role – is fostered 17

 ‘Outstanding Universal Value’: the generic description for the values met in significance criteria for a listed World Heritage site. 18  World Bank and UNESCO 2018. 19  UNESCO 10 May 2007; Stanton-Geddes and Soz 2017. 20  UNESCO 13 April 2016. 21  UNESCO March 2014a. 22  With training for more than 125 professionals for emergency protection of cultural heritage, and 12 safeguarding initiatives on the ground. See UNESCO 13 April 2016. 23  Also known as cultural resource mapping or cultural landscape mapping, and widely applied for the identification of key assets, including cultural ones, for urban planning, and ahead of large development plans. 24  UNESCO Bangkok 4 July 2017.

130

M. C. TRUSCOTT

by UNESCO via both the 2003 Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage,25 and the 2005 Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions.26 The process is also applicable to participatory planning for the recovery and reconstruction of damaged or destroyed places. Some current examples of such mapping of Syrian memories of place follow. Examples of displaced Syrians connecting with their heritage The following examples mostly involve displaced Syrians who fled their homes. They have been able to share the values, the meaning and the sense of the place, including the tangible and intangible heritage, where they lived previously. The Aleppo Project’s online cultural mapping project by the Shattuck Center of Conflict, Negotiation and Recovery in Budapest, Hungary:27 This project seeks input on the basis that “each person who lived in the city has their own maps of Aleppo in their heads.” It aims to “document not just the buildings and streets but the meaning of the city to its residents and its past life.” The online site provides a plan of neighbourhoods in Aleppo (Fig. 1), where participants can add to the map particular places and their meaning to them. The Aleppo Project also has other initiatives, including a blog, surveys of community views and participatory planning about the rebuilding or reconstruction of Aleppo, and experts’ essays about the city’s history and culture.28

Fig. 1. Map of Aleppo (Center for Conflict Negotiation and Recovery 2016a. The Aleppo Project: Add Your Story, School of Public Policy, Central European University, Budapest. http://www.aleppomaps.ceu.edu).

25

 UNESCO 2016a, 2016b.  UNESCO November 2010. 27  Center for Conflict Negotiation and Recovery 2016a. 28  Center for Conflict Negotiation and Recovery 2016b. 26

COMMUNITY CONNECTIONS TO CULTURAL HERITAGE

131

The Syrian government retook Aleppo in December 2016, and in January 2018 provided its State Party report to UNESCO on its World Heritage site’s condition. A National Higher Steering Committee for the Restoration of the Ancient City of Aleppo had been established including local communities,29 several government agencies, experts in the field of archaeology and restoration, and the Aga Khan Foundation for Culture. It was looking at “logistical and financial details related to restoration work … its needs and obligations.” In the process, local community members with “traditional building crafts and skills in Aleppo” were identified. UNESCO’s Observatory of Cultural Heritage webpage has listed many initiatives for Syria’s heritage.30 Among them are those being undertaken by UNESCO, particularly its Beirut office and by UNESCO ‘partners’ such as ICOMOS, ICOM (International Council of Museums), or ICCROM (International Centre for the Study of the Preservation and Restoration of Cultural Property), as well as 36 ‘other initiatives’. Undertaken by assorted international groups, individual countries, and local interests, ten of these 36 projects focus on communities’ links with heritage.31 Six of the ten focus on displaced Syrians’ intangible heritage: their stories, their songs, and traditional art and craft projects, and four involve local communities’ connections and memories of heritage places; for example, the Aleppo Project’s mapping. The Hekkaya Project, being undertaken by Syrians for Heritage (SIMAT), is one of these initiatives, but different in that it involves a community still living in its traditional landscape, and32 focuses on the participation and the empowerment of the local communities living in neighbouring villages to the World Heritage Site of the Ancient Villages of North Syria (known also as the Dead Cities).

The aim is to ensure the sustainability of the sites, the traditional local crafts and the different forms of cultural expression by integrating the communities’ way of life in the recovery process and supporting their wellbeing. SIMAT has five other projects in 2018,33 one being the Deir Soubat – Al Bara Project begun in October 2017, also located in the World Heritage Ancient Villages area. This project aims to document the level of damage and the needs of the most weakened structures, in the aftermath of collateral bombing, deliberate destruction, or removal of stone by locals. Another key aim is “raising the local communities’ awareness on heritage to strengthen their relation with the site and involve them in its preservation.”34 29

 Syria Ministry of Culture, Directorate General of Antiquities and Museums 1 February 2018, pp. 14–15. The date for the formation of this committee appears to be between March and August 2017. 30  UNESCO March 2014a. 31  UNESCO March 2014b. The other projects include 16 related to heritage reconstruction, including two for museums, and heritage preservation training; two have a focus on illicit trafficking, the others being general public statements by Syrian heritage leaders or international groups. 32  Syrians for Heritage (SIMAT) 2018a, 2018b. This project is a cultural association that strives to preserve the Syrian heritage for all Syrians and for the world. 33  Syrians for Heritage (SIMAT) 2018c. The other projects include one at the Idlib Museum, and another for refugees in Berlin, Germany, on the continuity or learning of heritage related trades, such as mosaics. 34  Syrians for Heritage (SIMAT) 2018d.

132

M. C. TRUSCOTT

The Syrian government’s 2018 report to UNESCO also cites the cooperation of local communities near the Ancient Villages.35 The local communities are reported as providing information about the deliberate destruction by ‘terrorist gangs’ of non-Islamic elements in particular, such as churches and archaeological sites, and also recording the looting of stone at the sites by some locals. This information was seen as helpful, given the difficulty in getting heritage staff to access the area. Not all community-based projects are listed by UNESCO. Two initiatives are described below: one, funded by Oxfam, identifies refugees’ photographs of Syria and the associated stories, the other, started by refugees, facilitates building miniatures of Syria’s iconic heritage sites. Oxfam contracted photographer John Beck in 2016 to meet with refugees in the Beka’a Valley, Lebanon, and the Za’atari camp, Jordan. He interviewed several refugees, including families, taking their photos while they shared photographs of their own that illustrated the stories of their former neighbourhoods and favourite places – many of which had been destroyed – and conveyed memories of people, some of whom had died, others who had fled elsewhere. A repeated refrain is a longing to return to Syria: “I wish I could return to Aleppo, to walk in the streets.”36 A group of Syrian artists at the large Za’atari refugee camp in Jordan started a project about Syria’s heritage:37 Outraged but powerless to prevent the havoc being done in their homeland … [the refugees] have used their skills and whatever materials they can find to build models of the landmarks that embody Syria’s long and rich history.

These models included World Heritage sites such as Palmyra and the Crac des Chevaliers, and also other well-known sites, such as Damascus’ Umayyad Mosque and the Hama water wheels (Fig. 2). Based on photographs and illustrations, they were built from clay, rocks, discarded pieces of wood, and wooden kebab skewers. The models were displayed throughout the Za’atari camp and also in Amman, Jordan’s capital. The refugee artists’ purpose was to maintain an ongoing sense of Syrian identity for those in the camp and raise awareness of Syria’s history with the refugee children.38 This project’s view that refugees in Za’atari are aware of these aspects of their heritage is in contrast to a common international notion that Syrians are not aware of their country’s heritage. Some international heritage experts consider Syrians do not value the monumental and archaeological sites in their vicinity, or at least do not share an understanding of their international research significance. This possible or apparent “alienation of local communities … from a commitment to local heritage” is explained by Syrian archaeologist Eva Ziedan.39 She cites the example of local Palmyra residents, living amid Greco-Roman monuments, being removed to enable archaeological research. They were expelled by the French authorities who governed Syria 35

 Syria Ministry of Culture, Directorate General of Antiquities and Museums 1 February 2018, pp. 22–23.  Joram 16, Beqa’a Valley, Lebanon, as quoted by Beck 2016. 37  Herwig and Dunmore 2016. 38  Lewis 2016. 39  Ziedan 2016. 36

COMMUNITY CONNECTIONS TO CULTURAL HERITAGE

133

Fig. 2. Miniature model of the Aleppo Citadel, Za’atari Refugee Project (Herwig and Dunmore 2016. Syria’s Landmarks restored in Miniature. UNHCR. https://www.unhcr. org/news/stories/2016/1/56ec1eba3/syrias-landmarks-restored-in-miniature.html).

from 1920 to 1946.40 The Palmyra community had lived continuously at the oasis, an important desert trading post and increasingly multi-ethnic, before and after these ‘monuments’ were built. They had used the Temple of Bel as their mosque in the centuries since converting to Islam. Such disruptive removal of local inhabitants from their sense of living connections to place occurred at many heritage sites.41 Ziedan also argues, based on personal experience, that “the local and central institutions did not make any effort to understand the regional particulars of social structures – tribal, mercantile, rural, and urban.” In my personal experience, however, this may not always have resulted in a local community’s alienation from their local heritage, instead perhaps reinforcing a sense of local ‘tribal’ links with place. When excavating beside the Euphrates in northern Syria, I found the local villagers working onsite had a broad understanding of their area and its sites. Also, they were able to assist me technically when excavating as they connected immediately with the construction processes, such as in mudbrick. They understood the form and nature of the building remains we unearthed, being the same as housing in their nearby village. Indeed, local communities had lived at Syrian World Heritage sites that were not living cities, such as Crac des Chevaliers after its role as a fortress ended, Palmyra, and amid the ‘Dead Cities’. The only exception is the Qal’at Salat el-Din fortress, on a high ridge between two ravines and somewhat inaccessible It was not inhabited after the 14th century, partially collapsing as a ruin. These local communities were all moved out, if not by the French, then once the sites were declared as World Heritage. However, they continue to live in nearby villages, maintaining a link, a sense of place, and storying these sites over centuries as part of their living tradition. 40

 As part of the mandate system after World War I, which had ended the Ottoman Empire.  It was formerly a common practice to ‘protect’ World Heritage Sites, with many local residents removed from living at their sites, but is now being questioned, e.g. Antons and Logan (eds) 2017; Press 2019. 41

134

M. C. TRUSCOTT

The other three World Heritage sites, the Ancient City of Aleppo, the Ancient City of Bosra, and the Ancient City of Damascus, are living cities. Local community values reflect these cities’ living cultures beyond the ‘ancient’ times implicit in their World Heritage names. Thus, community views are particularly relevant to any future reconstruction – to rebuild, to recover a sense of community continuity and identity. Risks of rebuilding and reconstruction to community recovery Examples of post-disaster responses for heritage in other countries can provide exemplars of good practice, or bring to light mistakes that have broken a city’s community cultural connection with place.42 Communities may desire a complete reconstruction to look identical to the past; they may wish to keep a ruin as a memorial; or they may want to rebuild for the same function but with some modern conveniences. Their preference may be that their urban space, or nearby monument, reflects a mix of these options. The damage to a cultural group of the loss of their heritage is greater when it has been deliberately targeted by opposing forces. Deprived of any voice in decisions about rebuilding denies them a sense of recovery and reconnection. In this chapter, only one example is critiqued. In many ways it is a warning of what not to do – the example is central Beirut. During the civil war in Lebanon from 1975 to 1990, the centre of Beirut suffered major damage. The city’s central district had been a centre of activity for all Beirutis from all levels and groups of society. With its souks, crowded with goods and shoppers, as were cafés, cinemas, and transport hubs, its historic churches and mosques, and Martyrs’ Square, as the community’s major public meeting place, 43 the area was central to Beirut’s identity. In 1994, the then Lebanese President Rafic Hariri funded his private company Solidere44 to develop a vision and “framework … of renewal, restoration and development” for the central district.45 Solidere razed the damaged buildings, especially the souks, making possible major archaeological excavations below today’s surface, where only some Roman columns were previously visible.46 Providing evidence of settlement back some 5000 years, with earlier human stone tools found dating to the Middle Palaeolithic, today some of the excavated areas remain open to see and another area can be visited underground. This author was not involved in the excavations but visited them in 1996 and was also an official guest, guided by Solidere explaining future plans for Beirut’s centre’s ‘restoration’. When revisiting Beirut’s central district in 2013 and 2016, after it was reopened in 2000, I found it strangely empty. Although the newly built ‘souqs’ notionally echo the external form of the former souqs, their long, covered alleys are filled with upmarket trendy boutiques. Only the wealthy can afford to be there. “The city centre has in fact lost its Lebanese soul.”47 42

 UNESCO January 2018; World Bank and UNESCO 2018; World Monuments Fund 2018.  Originally Sahat al-Burj, it was renamed Martyrs’ Square in 1931 in memory of people executed there during Ottoman rule. 44  Solidere – The Lebanese Company for the Development and Reconstruction of Beirut Central District. 45  Gavin and Maluf 1996, p. 13. 46  Jidejian 1991; Cumberpatch 1997. 47  Ziedan 2016. 43

COMMUNITY CONNECTIONS TO CULTURAL HERITAGE

135

A Beiruti and member of the Association for the Protection of Lebanese Heritage comments, “My grandfather suppresses a tear when passing by what used to be the … souqs. This kills our identity.”48 Representatives of this body and Save Beirut Heritage argue that the development of the central district is only one aspect of the post-war lack of community consultation, with the demolition of 80 per cent of the 1600 landmark buildings identified by the Ministry of Culture. A sense of a loss of cultural continuity is profound and could have been moderated had a participatory planning process been undertaken with the community before rebuilding Beirut. This is a risk to be avoided wherever possible in future recovery in Syria, in the result being not only a physical rebuilding but also the reconnection and recovery of its people.

BIBLIOGRAPHY AFRICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN AND PEOPLES’ RIGHTS 2011 Resolution 197: Resolution on the Protection of Indigenous Peoples’ Rights in the Context of the World Heritage Convention and the Designation of Lake Bogoria as a World Heritage site. Meeting at its 50th Ordinary Session held from 24th October to 5th November in Banjul, The Gambia. 5 November 2011. https://www.achpr. org/sessions/resolutions?id=193 (7 August 2017) ANTONS, A. and LOGAN, W., eds. 2017 Intellectual Property, Cultural Property and Intangible Cultural Heritage. Taylor & Francis, London, UK. AUSTRALIA ICOMOS 1999 The Burra Charter: the Australia ICOMOS Charter for Places of Cultural Significance. https://australia.icomos.org/wp-content/uploads/BURRA-CHARTER-1999_ charter-only.pdf (7 August 2017) 2013 The Burra Charter: the Australia ICOMOS Charter for Places of Cultural Significance. https://australia.icomos.org/wp-content/uploads/The-Burra-Charter-2013-Adopted31.10.2013.pdf (7 August 2017) BECK, A. J. 2016 Syrian Refugees in Lebanon & Jordan with Oxfam International. http://alexjohnbeck.com/projects/oxfam.html (7 August 2017) JIDEJIAN, N., ed. 1991 125th Anniversary Volume: LEBANON III: Saving the country’s cultural heritage. Beirut: The American University of Beirut (Berytus 34). CUMBERPATCH, C. G. 1997 “Archaeology in the Beirut Central District: some notes and observations,” Berytus 42: 157–172. CASTILLO MENA, A. R., ed. 2015 Personas y comunidades: Actas del Segundo Congreso Internacional de Buenas Prácticas en Patrimonio Mundial (29 -30 de abril, 1 y 2 de mayo de 2015); People and communities: Proceedings of Second International Conference on Best Practices in World Heritage (29th – 30th April, 1st and 2nd May, 2015). Madrid: Otros. Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Servicio de Publicaciones. CENTRE FOR CONFLICT NEGOTIATION AND RECOVERY 2016a The Aleppo Project: Add Your Story. School of Public Policy, Central European University, Budapest. http://www.aleppomaps.ceu.edu (7 August 2017) 48

 Lupo 2013.

136

M. C. TRUSCOTT

2016b The Aleppo Project. School of Public Policy, Central European University, Budapest https://www.thealeppoproject.com/home-inn/ (7 August 2017) EVE, L. 2016 1 December. Syrian refugees at Za’atari camp restore destroyed cultural heritage in miniature. Inhabitat. https://inhabitat.com/syrian-refugees-at-zaatari-camp-restoredestroyed-cultural-heritage-in-miniature/ (7 August 2017) GAVIN, A. and MALUF, R. 1996 Beirut Reborn: The Restoration and Development of the Central District. Lanham, MD: Wiley. HERWIG, C. and DUNMORE, C. 2016 Syria’s Landmarks restored in Miniature. UNHCR. 5 January 2016. https://www. unhcr.org/news/stories/2016/1/56ec1eba3/syrias-landmarks-restored-in-miniature. html (7 August 2017) ICOMOS (INTERNATIONAL COMMITTEE ON MONUMENTS AND SITES) 1990 ICOMOS Charter for the Protection and the Management of the Archaeological Heritage. https://www.icomos.org/images/DOCUMENTS/Charters/arch_e.pdf (7 August 2017) 2017 ICOMOS Guidance on Post trauma recovery and reconstruction for World Heritage Cultural Properties. http://openarchive.icomos.org/1763/ (7 August 2017). LEWIS, D. 2016 Syrian Refugees are Recreating Demolished Monuments in Miniature. Smithsonian Magazine. 19 January 2016. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/syrianrefugees-are-recreating-demolished-monuments-miniature-180957862/ (7 August 2017) LUPO, N. 2013 Demolishing Lebanese Identity. Now. 11 February 2013. https://now.mmedia.me/ lb/en/reportsfeatures/demolishing-lebanese-identity (17 January 2019) MESKELL, L. 2013 “UNESCO and the Fate of the World Heritage Indigenous Peoples Council of Experts (WHIPCOE),” International Journal of Cultural Property 20(2): 1–20. DE MERODE, E., SMEETS, R. and WESTRIK, C., eds. 2004 Linking Universal and Local Values: Managing a Sustainable Future for World Heritage: A conference organised by the Netherlands National Commission for UNESCO, in Collaboration with the Netherlands Ministry of Education, Culture and Science, 22–24 May 2003. Paris: UNESCO World Heritage Centre. PRESS, M. 2019 “The Implicit Threat of Being Designated a World Heritage Site,” Hyperallergic. https://hyperallergic.com/515985/the-implicit-threat-of-being-designated-a-worldheritage-site/ STANTON-GEDDES, Z. and SOZ, S. 2017 Promoting disaster resilient cultural heritage (English). Washington, D.C.: World Bank Group. SYRIA MINISTRY OF CULTURE, DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF ANTIQUITIES AND MUSEUMS 2018 1 February. State Party Report on the State of Conservation of the Syrian Cultural Heritage Sites (Syrian Arab Republic). http://whc.unesco.org/en/documents/165430 (17 January 2019) SYRIANS FOR HERITAGE (SIMAT) 2018a About Us. https://syriansforheritage.org/about-us/ (17 January 2019) 2018b The Hekkaya Project. https://syriansforheritage.org/project/the-hekayya-project/ (17 January 2019) 2018c The Current Projects. https://syriansforheritage.org/projects/ (17 January 2019) 2018d Deir Soubat – Al Bara Project. https://syriansforheritage.org/project/deir-soubat-albara-project/ (17 January 2019) UNITED NATIONS 2007 United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. https://www.un.org/ development/desa/indigenouspeoples/wp-content/uploads/sites/19/2018/11/ UNDRIP_E_web.pdf (7 August 2017)

COMMUNITY CONNECTIONS TO CULTURAL HERITAGE

UNESCO 2000

2003 2007

2010

2012 2013 2014a 2014b 2016 2016a 2016b 2017 2018

137

Submission to the World Heritage Committee from a Forum of Indigenous Peoples assembled in Cairns, Australia, 24 November 2000. World Heritage Committee, Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage, Twenty-fourth session, Cairns, Australia, 27 November-2 December 2000. Annex V. 24 November 2000. https://whc.unesco.org/archive/repcom00-annexes.htm#annex5 (7 August 2017) Article 2. Text of the Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage. https://ich.unesco.org/en/convention Strategy for Reducing Risks from Disasters at World Heritage properties. World Heritage Committee meeting for World Heritage Convention, 31st Session, WHC-07/31.COM/7.2, Christchurch, New Zealand, June 23–July 2. 10 May 2007. http://whc.unesco.org/archive/2007/whc07-31com-72e.pdf (7 August 2017) Mapping Cultural Diversity: Good Practices from Around the Globe. A Contribution to the Debate on the Implementation of the UNESCO Convention on the Diversity of Cultural Expressions. November. https://en.unesco.org/creativity/sites/ creativity/files/mucrossroads.unesco.best_.practice.11.10.pdf (1 September 2018) The Kyoto Vision. 8 November 2012. https://whc.unesco.org/document/123339 (7 August 2017) Syria’s Six World Heritage sites placed on List of World Heritage in Danger. https:// en.unesco.org/news/syria’s-six-world-heritage-sites-placed-list-world-heritage-danger Observatory of Syrian Cultural Heritage. March. https://en.unesco.org/syrian-observatory/ (7 August 2017) Other Initiatives. Observatory of Syrian Cultural Heritage. March. https://en.unesco. org/syrian-observatory/initiatives/other-initiatives?keys=&field_tags_tid= (17 January 2019) UNESCO reiterates call for unity and coordination to protect Syrian Cultural Heritage. World Heritage Centre News. http://whc.unesco.org/en/news/1475/ (7 August 2017) Unit 28 - Participatory Mapping in Inventorying. Facilitator’s Notes. 13 April 2016. https://ich.unesco.org/en/materials-repository-00417 (30 August 2018) Unit 28 - Participatory Mapping in Inventorying. Presentation. https://ich.unesco. org/en/materials-repository-00417 (30 August 2018) World Heritage Young Professionals Forum 2017 Declaration. 41st Session of World Heritage Committee, Krakow, Poland. 2 July 2017. https://whc.unesco.org/document/158882 (7 August 2017) World Heritage and Reconstruction. World Heritage number 86. January. https:// ich.unesco.org/en/convention (17 January 2019)

UNESCO BANGKOK 2017 Cultural Mapping. 4 July 2017. https://bangkok.unesco.org/content/cultural-mapping (1 September 2018) UNESCO NEWS 2011 UNESCO kicks off 40th anniversary celebration of World Heritage Convention. 7 November 2011. https://whc.unesco.org/en/news/809/ (7 August 2017) 2018 UNESCO and World Bank use culture for building back better after conflict and disasters in cities. 19 November 2018. https://en.unesco.org/news/unesco-and-world-bankuse-culture-building-back-better-after-conflict-and-disasters-cities (17 January 2019) WAC (WORLD ARCHAEOLOGICAL CONGRESS) 1990 First Code of Ethics. https://worldarch.org/code-of-ethics/ (7 August 2017) WORLD BANK AND UNESCO 2018 Culture in City Reconstruction and Recovery: position paper. Paris and Washington: UNESCO and The World Bank. WORLD MONUMENTS FUND 2018 World Monuments Watch. https://www.wmf.org/2018Watch (17 January 2019) ZIEDAN, E. 2016 Syrian Civil Society healing the Fracture between Heritage and Identity. Syria Untold. 29 June 2016. http://syriauntold.com/2016/06/29/syrian-civil-society-healing-thefracture-between-heritage-and-identity/ (17 January 2019).

CHAPTER 13

SYRIA’S CULTURAL HERITAGE: LIFE AS IT IS Fiona HILL Victoria, Australia E-mail: [email protected]

‘Every single one of us is a little civilization built on the ruins of any number of preceding civilizations, but with our own variant notions of what is beautiful and what is acceptable … ’1

ABSTRACT This paper is an exploration of the role of individual and collective memory in the articulation, protection, conservation, and restitution – or recreation – of Syrian heritage. It is inspired by the common themes arising from direct verbal and written communication with a range of rural and regional Syrian informants who have shared with me their visions of (cultural)2 heritage, each one speaking as an individual within the limits of his or her immediate family.

With domestic and international discussion about Syria’s rehabilitation well underway, this paper explores what my Syrian informants, who have no formal voice in this discussion, have to offer to it. It appears that a common response to the current crisis of violent physical and social destruction is to (re)focus attention on the tangible and intangible artefacts of everyday life. In other words, it appears that for Syrians without personal agency or civic power, cultural heritage is a continuity of life lived in a particular location. A banner sighted in a Damascus rally in 2013 read, “If we are Christians, we have been Christians for more than 2000 years; if we are Muslims, we have been Muslims for more than 1400 years. But we have been Syrians for more than 10,000 years.”3 In a similar vein, a recent survey of resident and expatriate Syrians found that 56 per cent believe Syrian heritage encompasses the legacies of “all” who have inhabited Syria, “without distinction of their origin or religion.”4 Yet, it seems that the broad collective of both local and global ‘friends of Syria’ focused on Syria’s cultural heritage protection, conservation, and restitution find they are in contest with ‘on the ground’ agendas articulated in nationalistic, religious, or ethnic terms. Some

1

 Robinson 2004, pp. 224–225.  Conceptions of ‘heritage’ usually are conveyed in Arabic simply as ‘turath’ – literally ‘inheritance’ – in which culture is implied. When used as a tool for civic agendas, ‘civilisational’ or ‘national’ are added. 3  Translation of a photograph depicting the banner (in Arabic) sent to the author by a friend, but the original source is unknown. 4  Soufan July 2015, p. 24. 2

140

F. HILL

senior Syrian antiquities and heritage authorities have even gone so far as to denounce multinational groups of high-profile scholars, gathered to assist the conversation around Syria’s preservation, as being hostile to Syria and its interests.5 In response, those who seek to take the path of least resistance now focus their support on groupings of individuals such as Syrian youth, independent scholars, and heritage industry colleagues who have no official status within the State. In other words, they choose to support Syrians who have no civic power – as yet.6 With neither access nor aspiration to power in any civic sense, my informants tend to share a vision of cultural heritage based on the physical and social environment in which they recently lived with their immediate family and close friends. The antiquities and historical sites co-located in that same environment form a part of that vision, but only to the extent of their physical coincidence with the lives they lived before conflict, destruction, fear, violence, and deprivation. It appears that the current battle between competing domestic and international political and ideological narratives about Syria’s heritage going forward is leaving Syrians at home and in diaspora7 struggling to broadcast their own truths.8 Some of those truths stand side by side in stark contrast to one another. For example, a young Bedouin from Tadmor (Palmyra) fled in 2012 to various locations in Syria, settling his and other families without a male protector in village schools before finding relatively safe rented houses in a border town.9 But when the Kurdish community who originally owned those houses gained the strength to take them back, he fled to Turkey, and from there joined the Turkish-supported Free Syrian Army (FSA) for ‘Operation Euphrates Shield’. He is now married and living in Al Bab, the very town he helped destroy. He tells me he thinks only of his naqa (she-camel) in Tadmor and fears for what may have become of her. A young man from Deir ez-Zur now works with a colleague from Damascus in Abu Dhabi. “I’m Muslim – he’s Christian – but no-one ever cared before,” he tells me. The two’s views on events at home differ significantly, one robustly supporting the government and the other vehemently against it. “We agree to disagree,” one told me. “But those fighters want to destroy Syria and make her in their own image.” Younger Syrians, like 11-year-old Abdullah, envisage heritage as what they used to do and enjoy and the physical environment in which they did it. Now resident in Beirut, he says Syria is special because “Hama is in Syria and in Hama there are waterwheels. We used to go to see them every day and have our picture taken …”10

5

 Confidential communication 2016.  The current publication exemplifies this shift in focus from the powerful to the (currently) powerless. Another example is the Damascus Window on Life mural, as described in this paper. 7  From the Greek diaspeirein – ‘to scatter, to spread about, to sow.’ 8  No political undertones are at all intended, and the rights or wrongs of heritage-directed actions in Syria are in no way under discussion. 9  From 2012 onwards, it has been common for displaced families to find refuge in village schools around Syria. 10  Najda Now International 2014. 6

SYRIA’S CULTURAL HERITAGE: LIFE AS IT IS

141

Similarly, 14-year-old Muamar, a refugee in Turkey, confided that for him the natural environment was his heritage. “I just want to go home so I can jump in the Euphrates like we used to do.”11 For senior Syrians, like Um Saleh from Tadmor and Um Najdat from Menbij, Syrian heritage is the social and physical environment in which they made their homes and successfully raised their families. Now both resident in Turkey, one woman told me, “My home was right next to the ruins. I looked out at them every day. I brought up my 12 children there. They were my home.” While violent turmoil and grotesque breakdown in physical and social norms are ongoing, the other woman mourned, “Syria is gone. She is ruined and gone.” Syria’s rural youth offer another approach. When asked to consider Syria’s cultural heritage, Abu Nour and his peers, 20-something men who spent childhood climbing in and out of Roman tombs, sifting through Halafian potsherds, and casually discarding Neolithic arrowheads, responded without hesitation. For them, Syrian heritage is their lives as natives of the Euphrates River valley. The ‘adaat wa taqalid (customs and traditions) of their home community constitutes the sum of their heritage. They animatedly recited detailed stories about the customs of interaction within families, with neighbours, with strangers, and with the (contemporary) dead, each story prompting another, and another.12 I have lived amongst these young men’s families for more than three decades, originally in villages in the northern Syrian Euphrates River valley and more recently in Turkey and Lebanon.13 Arab Tribal groups arriving out of Arabia via Iraq, their ancestors settled in this part of the Euphrates valley in the 19th century, alongside Kurdish, Circassian, and for a time Armenian communities. When Syria’s second hydro-electric dam (Sad Tishreen) flooded riverine crops, orchards and villages to the north as far as Jerablous, the new lake precluded traditional modes of collecting potable water, closed access to fishing, and effectively robbed local communities of a largely subsistent lifestyle. Able-bodied men then left their villages to find wages from labour in Damascus and Syria-friendly Jordan, Lebanon, Libya and Qatar, with a few mavericks braving the hazardous journey into Greece. Many developed building and decor skills, and others found opportunity for trading goods from Aleppo, such as women’s lingerie, children’s clothing and refurbished agricultural machinery. The change in their physical landscape caused changes in ownership as locals traded land for money. This, and Syria’s national educational reforms in the first decade of the 21st century, inspired social change too, since girls were now able to finish primary and secondary school, and the marriage age was pushed back by an average of five years.

11  Two years later this young man secretly returned to Syria with that purpose in mind but was killed by an airstrike before he reached home. 12  Much has been written about the role of individual memory existing only in collective memory, and memory’s role in fashioning the future. Collective memory as a reflexive and transformative mechanism for creating new experience in old spaces now provides inspiration to arts and heritage projects, see Dogu and Sönmez 2017. Mallea’s “Each man’s destiny is personal only insofar as it may happen to resemble what is already in his memory” (Mallea 1937) is often quoted to affirm this intuition. 13  Every year since 1984 I have lived with these communities, initially in the company of University of Melbourne archaeologists, then as an anthropologist, and currently as a family member.

142

F. HILL

In 2010, my local adoptive sister and I realised a long-held ambition to build a house on a small plot of land, purchased from a cousin, that looked out majestically over the Euphrates and surrounding limestone hills. She and others in the district dismissed out of hand my nostalgic vision of a modest limestone-wash adobe building with poplar beams, brush ceiling, and blue-painted window shutters and doors. Instead I got a ‘modern’ breezeblock villa with steel doors and windows, a wraparound verandah, concrete stairs to a roof terrace, a flushing toilet and a palette of colours that are common in Greece. But my sister did agree that our new villa could be a welcome home for the appurtenances of old. We started to welcome local artefacts no longer in common currency among the village communities who were quick to embrace an opportunity to commemorate material links to their and their ancestors’ past lifestyles. The word spread to bring things out of storerooms and old trunks – things they did not want to sell to a dealer, or throw away, but which they just never used anymore. The planned archaeological and historical artefact collection to be housed at Qala’at Najem (Qalat Najm) upstream14 was the inspiration for our nascent collection, and our villa started to fill with lababeed,15 straw mats, locally woven rugs and stitched embroideries, old farming implements, and domestic bric-a-brac. Local children gave us their bags of old marbles, sling shots, shanghais, hoops and sticks, knuckle bones, and spinning tops. Everyone was on notice to keep thinking about what mattered to them too much to throw away and was too locally iconic to forget. I aspired to buy an iconic Chevrolet driven in the riverine villages by the tribal shuyukh16 in the days when everyone else got about on foot, on the back of a donkey, riding on a tractor, by horse and cart, or in a three-wheeled trazeela, but prices had increased dramatically since the rapprochement with Turkey.17 Our splendidly located villa was also destined to welcome people from around the world to live a few weeks and volunteer their time to teach whatever skill they had to offer to the local community. It was to be a true community house that would preserve what mattered most to the local communities, stimulate economic opportunities, and break down barriers to direct engagement with rural Syria.18 But the region stopped being a safe place for any non-militant foreigner in mid-2012 when the first Syrian opposition forces seized the

14  Qalat Najm (Castle of the Star) sits on the Euphrates River’s Shamiyya bank, northeast of Menbij. The site was first mentioned in Arabic texts from the seventh century CE as Jisr Menbij because of a pontoon bridge located there. In 2010 the University of Melbourne gained permission to use internal rooms of the castle for the storage and study of artefacts uncovered during archaeological salvage works in the northern Euphrates River valley flooded by Tishreen Dam in 1999. ISIS occupied the castle in 2014 until 2016 when the Syrian Democratic Front’s militant branch the People’s Protection Unit (aka the YPG) wrested the fortification from them. The extent of damage is as yet unknown. 15  The thick wool felt floor runners for which Al Bab, Aleppo countryside, was famous. 16  Senior men and tribal leaders. 17  The robust economic bonhomie between Syria and Turkey in the first decade of this century – years in which we saw young Syrians wear T-shirts printed with Erdogan’s face or the Turkish flag – saw a resurgence of trade and restoration of Syria’s sites of historical import to the Turks. 18  As a result, I was invited to meet with the Businesswomen Committee of the Damascus Chamber of Commerce to discuss how our community house and local knowledge could inform the Syrian Alliance of Businesswomen in Action (SABA) outreach into the communities of the droughtstricken Jezira.

SYRIA’S CULTURAL HERITAGE: LIFE AS IT IS

143

Tishreen Dam site. In 2013 the multinational DAESH (ISIS) took over control, and by Christmas 2015 the current Kurdish majority militant opposition group arrived, initially with air support from the USA military, and later with ground support that still remained at the time of writing. Much of the built environment has been razed or damaged and looted. Eyewitnesses report pick-up trucks laden with the contents of entire households, both moveable and fixed, being driven away, into the Jezira. Many homes were taken over by the occupying militia and their families. Our splendid villa became headquarters for the current multinational occupying force.19 Remarkably, the building still stands when all around it is destroyed, the land pitted with mortar shell craters, the olive trees cut down, and all former neighbours scattered. This is not the first enforced physical, psychological, ideological, and ultimately political transition in the history of the Syrian Euphrates River valley. Nor is it the first experience of violence for the 21st century inhabitants. Prior to the rapid successions of occupation in the past six years, conflict, contest, feuds, violence and homicide had been by-products of the local communities’ distinctive ‘arab social structures for centuries. But the involvement of foreign governments’ military forces and disparate foreign mercenaries, and the widespread availability of sophisticated surveillance and the erosion of locally accessible telecommunications20 served to mute local traditions and neutralise customary law. When the current conflict began in Wadi Tishreen, extortion, summary execution, house and land confiscations, intimidation and violent threats from sources and individuals extraneous to the locale became the norm. Each succession of armed occupation opened avenues for settling old scores and enlivening latent antagonisms, with some locals effectively turning gossip into weapons to inflict pain, loss and intimidation of those against whom they bore a grudge. Traditional tribal law was unable to negotiate any of this. The remarkable rise in social media conversations that celebrate sharaf and ‘adat wa taqaleed (honour and customs and traditions) might be seen as an attempt to counter this social disintegration. My mid-20s informants clearly subscribe to this same form of celebration. Between 2013 and 2015, daily social media updates of a diverse network of individuals who had fled from their native homes in Wadi Tishreen and surrounds shared a common theme. The posts of images, poetic texts, and musical recordings that celebrate local cultural heritage displayed a clear nostalgia for the recent past and a sombre commemoration of its passing.21

19  Our villa was a star performer in the Ross Kemp ‘Extreme Worlds’ television documentary series in 2016. So it seems I have contributed to the creation of a new cultural artefact in the north Syrian Euphrates valley. 20  The conflict cut landline and mobile telecom services in Wadi Tishreen completely between March 2012 and August 2013. The arrival of DAESH coincided with the arrival of 4G Internet but mobile phone use was monitored closely by the new occupiers. 21  In those early years all posts appeared via Facebook. Today posts appear on all dominant mainstream social media platforms and include scenes from the ground in Menbij Province and recordings of local tribal leaders making position statements to gatherings of fellow tribespeople.

144

F. HILL

Posts included photographs of bucolic scenes familiar to anyone who has spent time in the northern Syrian Euphrates River valley. Typical among them were images of limestone cliffs flanking the Euphrates River, flocks of sheep drinking at the river shore, local landmarks in their flooded villages jutting up out of the water, and steppe land covered in red poppies and other wild plants. There were black and white photographs of parents, grandparents, shuyukh, men squatted on the ground playing menkala with pebbles or sheep dung, community celebrations such as weddings and Eid gatherings, cooperative work events like threshing wheat or milking the flock, and young women in traditional costume, replete with tattoos, in such spontaneously natural poses one presumes they are close relatives of the photographer. There were sophisticated posts of images accompanied by original poems extemporising on the theme of that image, or by an audio recording of local music. For example, one post shows an image of goat hair tents matched with a distinctively ‘arab (Bedouin) singer accompanied by a rababa. There also were simple posts of friends lounging in houses, gardens, or village lanes. Perhaps the simplest post of all was an image of a qandarees – a wild thistle sought out by thirsty children for its crunchy moist core. The Facebook post asked ‘Friends’ if they could name the plant correctly, and responses came from many parts of Syria as well as from other Arab countries. Indeed many posts were ‘Liked’ and shared by Arab males in many parts of the Arab world.22 It is perhaps remarkable that there were no images of ancient sites and historical buildings posted during these years. I did ask my informants on the ground to capture footage of sites before, during, and after their excavation, and subsequent destruction, with heavy machinery, but none dared to do so. Under occupation by DAESH, whenever a male came into close proximity to one of the occupiers, he was searched and his mobile phone checked for images. The consequences of recording destruction of local sites were too terrible to risk. There can be no controversy in suggesting that once social heritage becomes muted, physical heritage has even less chance of preservation. *  * * When we recognise that communities are shaped by the memories of their individuals (and vice versa), we better appreciate the import of what Syria’s Tourism Minister advised me in 2006 when he said, “People come to Syria to admire our monuments, but they leave admiring the Syrian people more.”23 In other words, visitors arrive, or travel, in Syria to see her grand civilisational moments, and depart Syria impressed by local quotidian life. When Syrians tell deeply personal stories about their heritage – stories that would delight any archaeologist should they be found recorded on an unearthed clay tablet – discussion of cultural heritage might start to shift from traditional official discourses of political control and international claims of shared heritage.24 22

 No female contributors are apparent within this virtual community. The role of gender in visions and recreations of cultural heritage is a rich area of discussion in itself. 23   Private meeting in 2006 with Syria’s Minister for Tourism, Dr Saadallah Agha Al Qalaa, an accomplished musician and software engineer. 24  In reference to Syria’s monuments and historical sites Nada Al-Hassan of UNESCO World Heritage Centre claims that “not only do we have to transfer our [author’s italics] heritage to future generations, but we also

SYRIA’S CULTURAL HERITAGE: LIFE AS IT IS

145

Syria’s historical sites in fact have long engendered quotidian cultural practice, and contemporary meanings drawn from historical landmarks like shrines and tombs still remain within reach of the ordinary citizen. But heritage preservation in Syria traditionally has been a State-owned enterprise that has reinforced a clear separation of Syrian citizens from the ancient sites they lived alongside, and many scholars active within those ancient sites subscribe (understandably) to the same principle of protecting those sites from the local inhabitants. It is a common lament amongst archaeologists that State-sponsored guards appointed to protect ancient sites from interference seldom, if ever, have precluded illegal excavations of adjacent or nearby sites the moment archaeologists and government appointed supervisors leave the scene. No matter how much Syrian citizens may have enjoyed, and possibly profited from, the amenity of historic monuments, the detritus of ancient communities is not, and has never been, owned by them in any sense. So for many citizens co-resident with ancient sites, discovery and trafficking of ancient artefacts has provided a potentially lucrative casual pastime. One could propose that in this regard they have interpreted authorities’ proposal for the preservation of the district in which they lived correctly – that is, ancient detritus has intrinsic value, historical value, national value, and market value – and they have sought to claim their part in that proposition. Meanwhile in the ruins of Palmyra, the gross destruction and theatrical slaughter perpetrated by a multinational brigade of Islamically-inspired fighters fired heated debate between international governments, international heritage arbiters, and local and international archaeologists about how Palmyra should be protected and restored. Some commentators insist that those who destroyed Palmyra in recent years embody the very opposite of ‘civilisation’.25 In many ways there is deep arrogance in such a statement that ignores the harsh realities of human ambition throughout history.26 In reality, the repeated destructions of Palmyra remind us that an empire falling and another taking its place actually looks like this. Tadmor’s fluctuating fortunes throughout history, including during the current crisis, amplify the fact that Palmyra has finally fallen … again, and again, and again. Human ambition has been destroying physical infrastructure from the earliest beginnings of Syria’s current conflict. Water sources, railways, bridges, pipelines, electricity stations, telecommunications, schools, churches, temples, mosques, convents, monasteries, shrines, takiyya, government buildings and entire suburbs have been attacked, ransacked and demolished, and often requisitioned by the government forces and the multiple factions of the armed opposition. have to preserve it as a guarantee of social cohesion and as a founding element of the rebuilding of countries after war.” Similarly, Jen Psaki, US State Department Spokesperson in Washington DC, 21 September 2014, stated in relation to Syria, “Historic monuments and archaeological sites of the world, which enrich modern societies by connecting all of us to our cultural origins and informing our identities, must be preserved.” 25  See Schama 2018. 26  Islamically inspired militants do not only destroy and loot ancient monuments, tombs, archaeological sites, and historically significant objects. They also disrupt, re-use and recreate both tangible and intangible cultural heritage. Worship, storytelling, songs (of praise), costume, and other visual culture manifest in streetscapes, colour schemes (i.e., primary black), and even modes of physical movement, all convey a powerful ideological and political agenda that aspires to its own version of civilisation.

146

F. HILL

In terms of social infrastructure, stories of armed opposition groups kidnapping men to coerce them to fight with them (with the option to pay a ransom or else be summarily executed), Syrian government incarceration and torture of men found in the wrong place at the wrong time, and radical Islamically-inspired brigades’ slaughter of non-combatant men, women and children, are all verified by my informants, many of whom have experienced these things first-hand. None of these experiences ought to be discounted in discussion of Syria’s rehabilitation. Similarly, we must acknowledge and reconcile the physical destruction of socially potent locales. While the destruction of Aleppo’s World Heritage covered market (souq) caused international lamentation, there was little if anything said about what that meant for Syria’s mercantile activity, economic health and socio-cultural wellbeing. The most famous traditional houses and churches of Al Jdaideh district of Aleppo, significant for its rich Christian history, were attacked and razed to the ground or trashed and pillaged, but little was said about Syria’s vital Christian heritage by international commentators.27 It is well known that Syria’s religious men and women are keepers and scholars of theological texts and other items of historical significance. So the murder of a Franciscan monk, the abduction of Christian bishops, priests, and 13 nuns of St Thekla’s in Maalula, and the assassination of Syria’s most esteemed Islamic scholar dealt a calculated blow to Syria’s religious heritage. After his son was killed alongside a Professor of History at Aleppo University,28 the Sunni Muslim Grand Mufti of Syria pronounced himself both Sunni and Shia, in a bid to counteract efforts to undermine Syria’s Muslim heritage. So many determined acts of erasure of individuals with significant cultural and ideological footprints is a tried and true tool of nation and empire building, serving effectively to neutralise objects and practices of indigenous heritage. This effect becomes amplified with each new political aspirant who arrives on the scene. Such parvenu ‘barbarians’ forcefully remind the people whose lives they hold to ransom of the end of yet another empire.29 Archaeologists, historians, and social scientists know better than most that empires are premised on seizing control of the stories, not just the buildings and the lands. Equally, they know that a story repeated often enough becomes a standard of truth, no matter how narrow or fabricated it may be. Which is why focus on heritage sites and ancient objects ought to be balanced by an equal focus on the normative cultural practices of everyday life, both in the recent past and in the new present. In a conscious bid to do just this, and to disrupt the traditionally top-down approach to Syria’s heritage preservation (and ownership), a 2014 arts project in Damascus constructed the world’s longest mural made from recycled materials30 along a well-trodden thoroughfare in Mezzeh (Fig. 1). 27  One senior Western Diplomat in the region told me that Syria’s Christian leaders should tell their congregations to leave Syria. The fact that earliest Christianity bloomed and blossomed in Syria was unknown to her. 28  Dr Mohammed Al Omar was one of a long list of academics, scholars, scientists and school educators deliberately targeted and killed by armed opposition groups. 29  The Syrian Government recently announced an amnesty for Syrian males wishing to return home. See Syrian Arab News Agency (SANA) 9 October 2018; Al Jazeera 9 October 2018. But those who fled under threat of violence know that returning means capitulating to one or other of the dominant competing groups. One community leader, still known in exile as ‘mukhtar’, told me that, “Like Zenobia, I’ll never join anyone who has power over me.” 30  The mural measures 720 m². See Guinness World Records 27 January 2014.

SYRIA’S CULTURAL HERITAGE: LIFE AS IT IS

147

Fig. 1. World’s longest mural made from recycled materials along a well-trodden thoroughfare in Mezzeh, Syria (Photo: Fiona Hill).

The locally resident Syrian artists involved say their work is premised on the fact that the Syrian people’s rebuilding and reimagining of all that has been destroyed by war and natural disasters throughout history has not only revived their heritage sites but enlivened Syria with a constantly evolving, local inspiration. The artists go even further to propose that Syrian historical memory has always been the target of attack, and give this as their reason for choosing to use everyday domestic items, workshop tools, writing instruments, and familiar architectural elements as the key objects in their highly colourful mural. They say they want Syrians to see past the objects they use, and break, on a daily basis, to access the mural’s key message that destruction and cultural heritage disintegration are springboards for the sort of personal and local community hopefulness that generates new forms of collective memory.31 The objects of daily use, and disuse, are for these artists the obvious choice for quotidian cultural heritage preservation and re-creation. They also propose that such objects ‘recreated’ may well be a source of healing for entire communities. There are many such examples of the potential for quotidian objects and practices, and regular engagement in shared experiences, to promote common understandings in any one locale. One is the traditional storytelling that once took place in the cafés of all of Syria’s cities. While the hakawati technique of voice is taught to students at the Damascus Academy of Theatre Arts,32 like any performance art it must be performed before an audience to retain its artistic essence. Critics insist the tradition is now no more than a museum piece in Syria, and some use the term ‘commercialised’ to express distaste for its most recent incarnation at Al Nafura café in Damascus. Putting aside the fact that museum pieces are, in effect, commercialised objects, the last highly regarded professional hakawati in Damascus, Abu Shadi Al Halak, offers a different view of his work. He understood that audience participation was key to his recitations of malahim (heroic poems). He must also have understood that the language of this recitation is so colloquial, and the telling so dependent on the active involvement of an enthusiastic audience, that the tradition is organically and reflexively reinvigorated with time and with telling. When Abu Shadi and critics alike mourn the demise of café storytelling, they point to the fact that re-invigoration of similar social traditions may well have the power to heal new social wounds.33 31

 Syria Trust for Development 2014.  Aziz 1996. 33  Such is the premise of the Al Hakawati project financed by the Swedish Postcode Lottery designed to support Syrian refugees in Lebanon. See Cultural Heritage without Borders 11 July 2014. 32

F. HILL

148

Every archaeologist and social scientist can attest that destruction through conflict, forced migration, and natural disaster forms an integral part of cultural heritage.34 But the linked suggestions that not all legacies deserve preservation, and not all those who co-exist with historical sites desire their conservation, remains a challenge to many scholars and commentators. The Syrian people’s great variety of unique daily practices, if consciously re-imagined, has the potential to reinvigorate social spaces and recreate relatively cohesive social experiences. When ancient sites and monuments can be fully integrated into those social spaces, Syria’s heritage will not only be preserved. It may in fact be reborn. Ultimately, for Syrians today, life as it is has more relevance, more currency, and more transformative power, than life as it once was. BIBLIOGRAPHY AL JAZEERA 2018

Syria’s Assad offers amnesty to army deserters. 9 October 2018. https://www.aljazeera. com/news/2018/10/syria-assad-offers-amnesty-army-deserters-181009090035909.html

AZIZ, B. N. 1996 “The Last Hakawati,” Aramco World Magazine January – February 47(1): 12–17. CULTURAL HERITAGE WITHOUT BORDERS 2014 Syria: preservation of intangible cultural heritage. 11 July 2014. http://chwb.org/others/ activities/syria-preservation-intangible-cultural-heritage/ DOGU, T. and SÖNMEZ, S. 2017 “Curating urban memories in connecting communities,” Street Art & Urban Creativity Scientific Journal 3(1): 73–84. DRIESSEN, J., ed. 2013 Destruction: Archaeological, Philological and Historical Perspectives. Louvain-la-Neuve: Presses Universitaires de Louvain. GUINNESS WORLD RECORDS 2014 Largest mural from recycled material. 27 January 2014. http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/world-records/largest-mural-from-recycled-material MALLEA, E. 1937 Historia de una pasion argentina. Buenos Aires: Sudamericana. NAJDA NOW INTERNATIONAL 2014 Syrian Refugee Children Exhibition 2014 Calendar. Beirut: Royal Norwegian Embassy and Pursue a Local Perspective SAL. ROBINSON, M. 2004 Gilead. London: Virago Press. SCHAMA, S. 2018 Second Moment of Creation. Episode 1. Civilisations TV Series. BBC. SOUFAN, A. 2015 Historiographical Overview on the Post Conflict Reconstruction in Syria: From the mid-19th Century to the 2011 Crisis. UNESCO. July 2015. https://whc.unesco.org/ ocument/139964 SYRIAN ARAB NEWS AGENCY (SANA) 2018 Presidential decree granting general amnesty for military deserters inside and outside country. 9 October 2018. https://sana.sy/en/?p=148449 SYRIA TRUST FOR DEVELOPMENT 2014 A Window on Life. Translated by Widad Khoury. 34  How archaeologists perceive and engage with destruction is a rich area of discussion in itself. See Driessen 2013.

CHAPTER 14

BETWEEN DEATH AND TABOO: HERITAGE DESTRUCTION IN THE DIGITAL TURN José Antonio GONZÁLEZ ZARANDONA Alfred Deakin Institute, Deakin University, Victoria, Australia E-mail: [email protected]

ABSTRACT The destruction of heritage in Iraq and Syria by the so-called Islamic State (IS) became a watershed moment in the history of iconoclasm – the destruction of images for political and religious purposes – because it was mediated via social media. The study argues that the capturing of these moments of destruction in social media can be compared to some artistic practices, flamed by an iconoclastic spirit, while discussing the impossibility of destroying these images of destruction due to the role of the image-archive in our visual culture.

INTRODUCTION The digital turn is everywhere we look, and it is changing the way we experience everyday life – we pay our bills through digital transactions, we organise our social life through them, our digital profiles are available to everyone via social media, and we create digital images (files) with the simple click of a button as well as sharing them. Certainly, the turn is associated with the advances in digital technology that make our life easier in some aspects.1 The turn has contributed to changing the ordinary through what Hodge calls the “saturation of contemporary life by digital media,”2 and one of the most important aspects is the number of digital images we make and share. One of the latest affordances of this turn is the destruction of cultural heritage in Iraq and Syria, mainly by the Islamic State (IS), mediated by our screens when these images are shared on social media. The digital turn has enabled this new phenomenon through the ubiquitous distribution of images of destruction via social media and traditional media. Technological affordances and social media networks enable these acts of digitally mediated iconoclasm3 to be recorded and globally disseminated on an almost instantaneous basis. These images of destruction have shaped the way heritage destruction is experienced in the 21st century, at the intersection of three streams of visibility: videos and photographs created by the IS; responses in the media to these videos and photographs; and the sharing of these images (and responses to them) on social media and eventually traditional media. 1

 Nicholson 2013.  Hodge 2017, p. 839. 3  González Zarandona et al. 2018. 2

J. A. GONZÁLEZ ZARANDONA

150

The reasons behind the recording of the destruction of cultural heritage are varied. Some scholars claim that these videos function as recruitment devices to attract young people to join the IS ranks,4 and that they are a re-enactment of past iconoclasms in the present, thus comprising a staged and choreographed theatrical performance.5 It is also claimed that these videos are part of a propaganda strategy devised by the IS to garner supporters, locally and globally, expanding their territory, but also spreading terror within local populations and anxiety at a global level as a result of the vulnerability of the heritage sites that the IS threatened.6 Other scholars claim that these videos are an extension of the cultural genocide campaign that the IS performed throughout Syria and Iraq, targeting particular cultural groups that once were part of the rich multicultural mosaic of these two countries.7 Far from being random acts of terror, this heritage destruction is partly motivated by the following hypothesis: the more Western society and media invests in the concept of universal heritage, the more destruction of cultural heritage fundamentalist groups will perform, both on the ground and in the media.8 This study will consider the mediation in social media of the destruction of cultural heritage by the IS as a new phenomenon that nevertheless shares commonalities with past examples that captured death and destruction – both human lives and cultural heritage – in different mediums, as well as the dialogue that these images create with images of death and destruction in contemporary art. It will be argued that the capturing of these moments of destruction in social media can be compared to some artistic practices, flamed by an iconoclastic spirit, while also discussing the impossibility of destroying these images of destruction due to the role of the image archive in our visual culture.

IMAGES

OF

DESTRUCTION

A genealogy of images of destruction mediated and disseminated through the Internet might begin with the destruction of the Buddhas of Bamiyan in Afghanistan in 2001, when the Taliban regime blew up the two statues and journalists recorded the destruction, which was broadcast via the Internet to multiple news outlets. The act of recording the destruction speaks about the desire of fixing in time the “invocation of reiterative genealogies” and mapping the act of destruction “onto a concatenation of resonant antecedents, while simultaneously asserting its own historicity as a reform necessitated by diachronic deviations from monotheistic orthopraxy.”9 The act of destruction is in itself not strong enough to explain why the stones were attacked. The act needs to be recorded simultaneously to assert its own historicity as a reformative act in the 21st century.

 Harmanşah 2015; Smith et al. 2016.  Harmanşah 2015. 6  Smith et al. 2016. 7  Isakhan et al. 2019. 8  Cf. Gamboni 2001. 9  Flood 2016, p. 118. 4 5

BETWEEN DEATH AND TABOO: HERITAGE DESTRUCTION IN THE DIGITAL TURN

151

The destruction in Bamiyan is a watershed moment in the history of iconoclasm, because it created the very icon of iconoclasm, through the creation of an image of destruction. From then on, iconoclasts would seek to maximise their destructions to make a spectacle out of the destruction; for example, the toppling of Saddam Hussein’s statue in Baghdad’s Firdos Square in 2003, when the US Army staged the toppling to mark the end of Saddam’s regime in dramatic fashion. As Mitchell has stated: “The main weapon of terror is the violent spectacle, the image of destruction, or the destruction of an image, or both”.10 With the destruction of the Twin Towers in New York City in 2001, when again the destruction of an icon became part of the terrorist strategy of an extremist radical group, the stakes were raised. Cultural heritage and significant architectural structures became a fundamental target in the strategy to claim victory, gain territory, and show strength, through images, by destroying others. In 2015, the stakes were raised again with the irruption of the IS that created a destruction of a mediated violent spectacle that is disseminated on a global scale through the network of social media. Just as with the Bamiyan Buddhas, the destruction of cultural heritage sites in Syria and Iraq obeys, on the surface, an iconoclastic mandate – the destruction of idols to avoid idolatry – but beneath the surface lies the realisation that cultural heritage is now a precious commodity in the West11 and people, as well as governments, can profit from it through tourism12 and other activities such as looting.13 Can we thus expect that the IS was willing to negotiate with Western governments and museums for the safeguarding of these monuments in exchange for money? Certainly not, as their first and foremost aim was to erase all signs of past cultures in the territories they controlled. The main images of heritage and art destruction before the 21st century came from paintings and photographs depicting the destruction, or as a fantasy product of the artist who imagined the destruction. To know more about the destruction, the viewer had to read about the destruction somewhere else (poems, newspapers, history books) and find out about the fate of the targeted monument or artwork. Artists interpreted what poets and historians recounted and their abilities to render the invisible visible shaped the destruction. The result was paintings where the act of destruction was glorified or condemned (think for example on the series of paintings by Thomas Cole, The Course of Empire (1833–36), where he depicted the different stages of civilisation, including destruction). With the advent of photography, early photographs provided a more accurate register of the destruction. In any case, the act of destruction was interpreted by someone else and viewers were asked to believe that the interpretation was accurate, freezing a particular moment in time for didactic purposes. The images illustrated the different ways that destruction of images, symbols and ideas signified differently in different contexts. For example, the destruction of a Christian symbol in a Protestant context would have a meaning different from the destruction of a Christian symbol in a Muslim context. Likewise, the rendering of visual registers that document the destruction of heritage by artists is didactic because they show people what must be destroyed 10

 Mitchell 2011, p. 64.  Pace 2012, p. 285. 12  Prideaux 2003. 13  Brodie 2012; Kersel 2012. 11

152

J. A. GONZÁLEZ ZARANDONA

and what must be conserved in terms of heritage. The images produced to this effect were, in a way, a clean and legitimate effort to show the unspeakable and unimaginable, and once images of destruction were turned into pictures (the image sustained by a material support) via paintings or photographs, they were accepted as part of the collective imaginary. They were fixed in time. Likewise, the videos shot by the IS are “comparable to the didactic images produced by many Islamist groups for educational or polemical purposes.”14 When moving images started to document the act of destruction and the viewer could admire and contemplate the moment of destruction (before, during and after), the entire act of destruction became visible. The interpretation of an artist was no longer required. The recording was less polished but more “authentic”.15 Thus, we could witness the destruction of a swastika at the Nuremberg Zeppelin ground in 1945, filmed by the US Army to record the moment when the symbol is destroyed and the pieces scattered after it exploded. The document aims to deter anyone from following fascist Nazi ideology. As Mitchell states, the destruction of the Twin Towers was an image of destruction and spectacle that “has been cloned repeatedly in the collective global nervous system.”16 Indeed, it was in 2001 with the destruction of the Buddhas and the Twin Towers that the moving image became a staple in the recording and documentation of heritage destruction. Since then, moving images brought to the iconoclastic effort the perfect medium through which these violent acts could be better appreciated. The contemplative aspect of heritage destruction through a single image (a photograph or a painting) is no longer the case. Not only has the passive viewer in front of the image ceased to exist, but also the contemplative aspect of looking into the destruction, because the moving image, as Groys argues, celebrates the staging of the destruction of passive monuments.17 Moreover, viewers interact in social media with these images by sharing and commenting on them. The images are no longer static objects hanging in a museum or a gallery waiting to be admired, but images that elicit action on a global level. The trajectory that these images has taken has been accurately described by Mitchell.18 He claims that images are disseminated via social media with an unprecedented speed that we have not witnessed before in the global nervous system, whereby digital images on the Internet are growing and mutating, thus infecting the system. Linking images with viruses and diseases provides the cue to analyse the virulent aspect of disseminating digital images on social media. WHY SOCIAL MEDIA? As Mitchell states, social media is another vehicle for viewers to witness contemporary war in real time.19 The digital turn allows us to watch destruction in real time at all times, regardless of where we are. With social media, images of destruction can be equally enjoyed 14

 Flood 2016, p. 120.  Sontag 2003, p. 24. 16  Mitchell 2011, p. 51. 17  Groys 2008. p. 71. 18  Mitchell 2011. 19  Mitchell 2011, p. xi. 15

BETWEEN DEATH AND TABOO: HERITAGE DESTRUCTION IN THE DIGITAL TURN

153

as other images that social media produce, share and circulate in an endless loop. On the other hand, social media afford a space where images of destruction can be rapidly and broadly disseminated without an authority blocking or censoring them. In fact, people use them in a myriad of ways. It is therefore not surprising that IS recorded the destruction, thus inaugurating a sad tradition in the history of iconoclasm and heritage destruction: that of digitally mediated iconoclasm.20 Answering the question ‘why social media?’ may be straightforward, but certainly there is no evidence yet that can prove it: because they wanted to attract new members to fight with them and join them in their efforts to build a utopian caliphate. We could also ponder that IS used social media simply because they could; it is cheap and reaches a global audience. Another answer is because by inserting, through social media, gruesome images depicting killings, executions and destruction these acts become normalised as part of our social and digital life.21 These images of destruction clash with the everyday life images that social media regularly produce and regurgitate (meals, travels, exotic locations, holidays, kittens, etc.). The irruption attracts attention while also alienating viewers. The shock value intended with the irruption pays off when these images are widely shared by social media users and traditional media re-use them to report the act. Behind these motivations, there is certainly an expressive will of the members of IS to show these images through social media. For Flood, echoing Harmanşah,22 the production of images of destruction circulated by IS, “for consumption across a wide range of global media,” is the reason why antiquities were targeted to perform iconoclasm. Uploading videos on social media containing images of destruction allows the terrorist to represent what is considered an act of deprivation and abhorrence – an act of destruction that is considered in the West unimaginable. It is no coincidence that most of the IS’s videos bear trademarks of the video clip and video game industries, such as swift editing and background music to accompany the images depicting violence – raw footage is not enough. Images of heritage destruction were rarely published in the media before 2001, because publicising such acts would amount to legitimising them. Heritage destruction image-making would be tantamount to inviting people to destroy heritage to attract attention.23

DEATH, MOVING IMAGES

AND

HERITAGE

Moving images, in the form of video, fiction or documentary, enable us to capture the entire process of death before, during and after.24 The capture can sometimes take on epic tones, so the destruction of heritage may be celebratory in mood, just as in the case of the IS.

 González Zarandona et al. 2018.  Murray 2008. 22  Flood 2016, p. 120; Harmanşah 2015. 23  Cf. Freedberg 1985. 24  Barthes 1985, p. 356; Bazin 1967, p. 14. 20 21

J. A. GONZÁLEZ ZARANDONA

154

Certainly, photography has never been a stranger to the concept of capturing and recording an execution and the death of victims. Some of the most famous examples that captured death are the photographs taken by war photographer Robert Capa, depicting the moments before, during and after the subject was killed. Images of this kind are the photographs The Falling Soldier (1936), depicting the exact moment when a soldier dies in action during the Spanish Civil War, and the series of photographs depicting the death in Leipzig in April 1945 of US soldier Raymond J. Bowman, known as the “last man to die” in the Second World War, published in Life magazine. However, each moment is separated by the click of the shutter. In the case of a moving image, albeit edited, the process is visible from start to finish. It is a central element in the iconography of IS’s propaganda to capture the moment of death and not edit it out. This is most evident in the videos that record the execution of prisoners in Tadmor (Palmyra), the drowning of several prisoners locked in a cage in a pool, filmed with GoPro underwater cameras to capture every single detail, or the death of Jordanian pilot Muath Al-Kasasbeh burned alive inside a cage. The same detailed approach applies to the destruction of heritage. The recording of the destruction is an essential moment that needs to be captured, and it can be achieved not only through video, but also by taking selected screenshots from the video feed that detail the exact moment when the destruction occurs. As explained elsewhere,25 the destruction of heritage filmed by IS comprises three stages: before, during and after the destruction. The tragedy of recording such destructions is that viewers can witness the whole process, mimicking the series of images in Ai Weiwei’s photograph of himself dropping a Han dynasty urn while recording the process of destruction (Fig. 1). However, whereas Ai Weiwei is making, through his art, a statement about the value of heritage in a complex society like China, where capitalist economic drive and socialism’s ideals are effectively intertwined, in the case of the IS they are targeting the value of heritage in the West, while also capturing the destruction at the exact moment when it occurs.

Fig. 1. Ai Weiwei, Dropping a Han Dynasty Urn, 1995, three black-and-white silver gelatin prints, 148 × 121 cm each (image courtesy of Ai Weiwei Studio).  González Zarandona et al. 2018.

25

BETWEEN DEATH AND TABOO: HERITAGE DESTRUCTION IN THE DIGITAL TURN

155

Ai Weiwei shows three moments, but he does not show the exact moment when the object is destroyed. He stops right before it is smashed, though he shows the aftermath – a space for reflection and thinking. In contrast, IS edits the recording to put emphasis on the moment that depicts destruction. They focus on the exact moment when the destruction is taking place by freezing it in some cases, or slowing down the speed. In other outputs, the entire destruction is continuous, as in the videos shot at Nimrud and Mosul. Editing serves to heighten the senses and manipulate emotions, thus transforming the recording of death and destruction into a production that shares the same values as one of Hollywood’s.26 Furthermore, capturing death and destruction seems relevant when talking about heritage, because the latter is a concept rooted in death – heritage becomes part of the new owner only after the previous owner dies or is killed. Likewise, songs and traditions are transmitted by older generations to younger ones to perpetuate the memory of particular identities. For something to become heritage, death must occur. Sometimes the objects or traditions we have deemed heritage are celebrated and remembered by representing the dead owner, mainly through images, but also through chants and songs. Images are usually the medium through which we can fill the loss of the dead. In the case of the IS, the image is also a medium, but this time is used against those who cherish both the image of heritage and the heritage of the image. Ultimately, the artefacts destroyed at Hatra, Nimrud or Palmyra were considered heritage – dead in the eyes of the tourists on the heritage trail visiting archaeological sites. Within this context, the forms of exchange between the contemporary heritage industry and the flood of images it produces, particularly in our digital age, where images are constantly moving from one medium to another, without discrimination, are important to consider. Given that the heritage industry, brilliantly criticised by Lowenthal,27 uses images of architectural icons to promote exotic and far-away destinations rich in antiquities and cultural heritage, particularly in developed countries, it is not surprising to see terrorists using digital images to promote their cause by maximising the destructions,28 influencing public opinion as a vehicle for psychological warfare, while demonstrating that the West cares more about the cultural heritage of Iraq and Syria than its people.29 Accordingly, a War of Images has ensued. On the one hand, digital images disseminated through social media are now the most durable and widely circulated record of the ephemeral performance of iconoclasm, which then becomes a process of destruction as it can be slowed down or reproduced ad infinitum. In doing so, perpetrators who have used the digital means available to document an act of destruction can claim immortality while acknowledging the contingency of the destruction. On the other hand, artists, archaeologists and experts in Middle East heritage have created a new set of images, from 3D reconstructions of destroyed heritage sites such as Palmyra, for exhibitions and public displays, mainly in Europe.30 Reproduction and recreation of these targeted monuments is an act of resistance, according to the former French President, François Hollande. Moreover, as Jason 26

 Comolli 2016.  Lowenthal 1998. 28  Smith et al. 2016. 29  Shaheen 16 May 2015. 30  See examples in Simons 31 December 2016; see also Thompson 2018. 27

J. A. GONZÁLEZ ZARANDONA

156

Farago appropriately summed up the debate, discussing the Getty Institute online exhibition “The Legacy of Ancient Palmyra”, with photographs taken by European travellers who visited (and most likely looted) Palmyra in the 19th century: these images should circulate digitally – along the same networks that ISIS has so effectively used to advertise its own inhumanity. Its war has been waged through images as well as armaments. We need images too, from the past and the present, to guard the ideals we so often fail to realize but cannot live without.31

In light of the current debate regarding the restitution and return of looted artefacts in Europe,32 the claim that the destruction of heritage in the Middle East by the IS provoked a War of Images, and that creating 3D reconstructions is an act of resistance, certainly begs the question: a war against whom exactly? Against terrorism? If so, how should the looting and ransacking of Asian, Oceanian and African treasures by European thieves, settlers and explorers be classified?

THE IMAGE-ARCHIVE While the value and life of these images of destruction is still debated, we cannot know what the future holds for them and how they might influence the creation of other images of destruction and destruction itself,33 or prevent further destruction and similar acts. These images are powerful vehicles containing a toxic ideology that might be picked up again in the future by aspiring groups who will use iconoclasm as their tool to terrorise and control a territory. Likewise, these images of destruction evidence a moment in history and time that cannot be erased anymore, even though the act they are registering is one of erasure. These images are not, in contrast to Ai Weiwei’s, a reflection of the conflict, but part of it. These images are part of the IS’s rebellion against its many enemies. In contrast with previous genocides, perpetrated in the past, where evidence of the destruction was erased, the heritage destruction mediated by social media is clear evidence that members of IS are responsible for the destruction. They want to become part of that history. They are within the frame. Only then can they speak the unspeakable, “perform and state the unimaginable.”34 It is a paradox to realise that these terrorists are showing us the unimaginable – the destruction of heritage – through precisely the tool that they despise so much: the image. Why use images if you are against them? Because terrorists need images to create a spectacle, to traumatise beholders.35 For this reason, there is nothing paradoxical in the use of technology and social media to mediate the destruction – technology has always assisted the proliferation and reproduction of images, as well as the destruction of heritage. Before the advent of the digital turn, pictures, the material support of images, could be destroyed – photographs, videos, any visual recording. The image, though, remained untouched 31

 Farago 15 February 2017.  See Sarr and Savoy November 2018. 33  Cf. Gamboni 2011. 34  Mitchell 2011, p. 63. 35  Mitchell 2011, p. 12. 32

BETWEEN DEATH AND TABOO: HERITAGE DESTRUCTION IN THE DIGITAL TURN

157

and could be transferred to an array of different mediums to create new pictures. However, in the case of the digitally mediated iconoclasm, both the picture and the image remain untouched because even the picture (in digital format) will remain archived, as a digital file. For this reason, a digitally mediated iconoclasm is more powerful than previous acts of mediated iconoclasm. Videos showing the destruction of cultural heritage are long-lasting, because they can freeze the destruction in time, so viewers are able to go back and forward, replaying the destruction ad infinitum, creating a digital archive where a series of destructions will be a testament to the creation of a state without idols, tracing the passage from life to death, and endlessly repeating it for their visual pleasure. The destruction of heritage, particularly in Syria, goes hand in hand with the reproduction of images of destruction on social media. Most of what we know regarding the conflict, perpetrators and trends in heritage destruction is because of the news and images that social activists and citizens-turned-journalists are uploading to the Internet, where the destruction of heritage can be followed. Pages on Facebook and websites of associations like the Association for the Protection of Syrian Archaeology (APSA), the Directorate-General of Antiquities and Museums (DGAM), Raqqa is Slowly Being Slaughtered, and the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights (SOHR), to name a few, have been sharing the destruction, step by step, of archaeological sites like Palmyra, but also the destruction of lesser-known heritage sites, such as mosques, cultural centres and churches in different Syrian locations. In this light, the recording of heritage destruction becomes a necessity. The IS recorded their actions because they needed to prove they were serious regarding the destruction of monuments – a taboo in many societies – and because they could – they had the means and the infrastructure to make it possible. But there is one aspect that was not really caught by those who analysed these images: the time IS took not only to destroy, but also to prepare the stage to perform their destructive actions, and to edit the images. It took them time, but they “had” time to destroy the cultural heritage. This is in stark contrast to the little time it took for these images to become viral, difficult to censor. However, if these images of destruction were showing a taboo, why didn’t the media stop them from becoming viral? The simplest answer is because in sharing the images and videos the news outlet gains readers, likes and shares – a measure of success these days. Likewise, for the people inside and outside Syria, the recording of the destruction of Syrian heritage was also a necessity in order to know more about the conflict, the role cultural heritage played in this conflict, and how the power relations played out between the actors, both internal and external. The destruction of a commodity, in this case heritage, is to Western society a taboo, particularly if the commodity is invaluable. This becomes more problematic because the IS has in traditional media an ally when the latter augments the value of these images by sharing them. Traditional media became a megaphone for these terrorists by taking these images out of the shadows where they were first posted (the so-called darknet) and giving them a life of their own in the public sphere. In all this mediation and framing, who is moderating the discussion? Who sets the limits to decide if posting these images is morally wrong? Moreover, the mediation and framing does not provide a context from which viewers could grasp the meaning of these destructions, beyond the trope of the iconoclast as a barbarian. What should we do when these images are shared? Should we choose not to see these images in this War of Images? Do we have an option in this landscape of cloning terror?

158

J. A. GONZÁLEZ ZARANDONA

CONCLUSIONS In an increasingly connected world, the IS has demonstrated that cultural heritage may be used by terrorists for different purposes and this action has far-reaching consequences outside the community where the destruction takes place. The trail of heritage destruction left by the IS in Iraq and Syria shows us that the stakes to control cultural heritage from now on are going to rise, because by destroying cultural heritage, IS has demonstrated that cultural heritage possesses a higher value than we originally thought and can contribute to a bloody campaign when it is digitally mediated. Therefore, these acts of destruction cannot be taken lightly and we should pay more attention to the voices that interpret and frame these acts through their own ideological lenses. Unfortunately, cultural heritage nowadays is becoming increasingly politicised and used as a weapon, without forgetting that in some cases, heritage continues to be part of religious groups’ cultural identity. BIBLIOGRAPHY BARTHES, R. 1985 “On Photography,” in The Grain of the Voice: Interviews 1962–1980. Translated by L. Coverdale, pp. 353–360. New York: Hill and Wang. BAZIN, A. 1967 What Is Cinema? Berkeley: University of California Press. BRODIE, N. 2012 “Uncovering the Antiquities Market,” in The Oxford Handbook of Public Archaeology, edited by R. Skeates, C. McDavid and J. Carman, pp. 230–252. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press. COMOLLI, J.-L. 2016 Daech, le cinéma et la mort. Paris: Verdier. FLOOD, F. B. 2016 “Idol-Breaking as Image-Making in the ‘Islamic State’,” Religion and Society: Advances in Research 7: 116–126. FARAGO, J. 2017 The Ancient Syrian City ISIS Is Destroying, Preserved Online. The New York Times. 15 February 2017. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/15/arts/design/palmyra-syriaisis.html FREEDBERG, D. 1985 Iconoclasts and their motives. Maarssen: Gary Schwartz. GAMBONI, D. 2001 “World Heritage: Shield or Target?,” Conservation: The Getty Conservation Institute Newsletter 16(2): 5–11. 2011 “Bildersturm,” in Handbuch der politischen Ikonographie, Vol. 1, edited by U. Fleckner, M. Warnke and H. Ziegler, pp. 144–151. Munich: C. H. Beck. GONZÁLEZ ZARANDONA, J. A., ALBARRÁN, C. and ISAKHAN, B. 2018 “Digitally mediated iconoclasm: the Islamic State and the war on cultural heritage,” International Journal of Heritage Studies 24(6): 649–671. GROYS, B., ed. 2008 “Iconoclasm as an Artistic Device: Iconoclastic Strategies in Film,” in Art Power, pp. 67–82. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. HARMANŞAH, Ö. 2015 “ISIS, Heritage, and the Spectacles of Destruction in the Global Media,” Near Eastern Archaeology 78(3): 170–177.

BETWEEN DEATH AND TABOO: HERITAGE DESTRUCTION IN THE DIGITAL TURN

159

HODGE, J. J. 2017 “Digital Psycho: Dedramatizing the Historical Event,” Critical Inquiry 43(4): 839– 860. ISAKHAN, B., GONZÁLEZ ZARANDONA, J. A. and JAMAL, T. 2019 “Cultural Cleansing and Iconoclasm under the ‘Islamic State’: Human/Heritage Attacks on Yezidis and Christians Humans/Heritage,” in Sites of Pluralism: Community Politics in the Middle East, edited by F. Oruc, pp. 181–194. London: Hurst. KERSEL, M. 2012 “The Value of a Looted Object. Stakeholder Perceptions in the Antiquities Trade,” in The Oxford Handbook of Public Archaeology, edited by R. Skeates, C. McDavid and J. Carman, pp. 252–272. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press. LOWENTHAL, D. 1998 The Heritage Crusade and the Spoils of History. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. MURRAY, S. 2008 “Digital Images, Photo-Sharing, and Our Shifting Notions of Everyday Aesthetics,” Journal of Visual Culture 7(2): 147–163. NICHOLSON, B. 2013 “The Digital Turn. Exploring the methodological possibilities of digital newspaper archives,” Media History 19: 59–73. MITCHELL, W. J. T. 2011 Cloning Terror. The War of Images, 9/11 to the Present. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press. PACE, A. 2012 “From Heritage to Stewardship. Defining the Sustainable Care of Archaeological Places,” in The Oxford Handbook of Public Archaeology, edited by R. Skeates, C. McDavid and J. Carman, pp. 275–295. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press. PRIDEAUX, B. 2003 “Commodifying Heritage: Loss of Authenticity and Meaning or an Appropriate Response to Difficult Circumstances?,” International Journal of Tourism Sciences 3(1): 1–15. SARR, F. and SAVOY, B. 2018 The Restitution of African Cultural Heritage. Toward a New Relational Ethics. November 2018. https://restitutionreport2018.com/sarr_savoy_en.pdf SHAHEEN, K. 2015 Isis pulls back from Palmyra but fear of ‘cultural atrocity’ remains. The Guardian. 16 May 2015. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/may/15/isis-pulls-back-frompalmyra-but-fear-of-cultural-atrocity-remains SIMONS, M. 2016 Damaged by War, Syria’s Cultural Sites Rise Anew in France. The New York Times. 31 December 2016. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/31/world/europe/destroyedby-isis-syrias-cultural-sites-rise-again-in-france.html SMITH, C., BURKE, H., DE LEIUEN, C. and JACKSON, G. 2016 “The Islamic State’s symbolic war: Da’esh’s socially mediated terrorism as a threat to cultural heritage,” Journal of Social Archaeology 16(2): 164–188. SONTAG, S. 2003 Regarding the pain of others. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux. THOMPSON, E. 2018 “Recreating the Past in Our Own Image: Contemporary Artists’ Reactions to the Digitization of Threatened Cultural Heritage Sites in the Middle East,” Future Anterior 15(1): pp. 44–56.

CHAPTER 15

CASE STUDIES: THE AUSTRALIAN EXCAVATIONS AT JEBEL KHALID AND TELL AHMAR IN SYRIA PRE- AND POST-CONFLICT1 Heather JACKSON Classics and Archaeology, School of Historical and Philosophical Studies, The University of Melbourne, Australia E-mail: [email protected] and

Andrew JAMIESON Classics and Archaeology, School of Historical and Philosophical Studies, The University of Melbourne, Australia E-mail: [email protected]

ABSTRACT This paper discusses the Australian excavations in Syria focusing on the work at Jebel Khalid and Tell Ahmar: two important sites in the middle and upper Euphrates River valley. It documents key archaeological findings at Jebel Khalid and Tell Ahmar from before the war and describes the situation at these sites post 2010. The damage caused by the conflict is discussed. Also noted is the research on Jebel Khalid and Tell Ahmar which continues in the form of publications and web resources, as well as other initiatives by Australian archaeologists in response to the conflict in Syria.*

INTRODUCTION In this paper we briefly discuss fieldwork conducted in the middle and upper Euphrates River valley, focusing on two of the three Australian archaeological research projects in this area.2 Since 1986, the University of Melbourne has collaborated with the Australian National University to undertake fieldwork at the Hellenistic settlement of Jebel Khalid.

* The writers to would like to express their warmest thanks and appreciation to all the past and present members and representatives of the Syrian Directorate General of Antiquities and Museums (DGAM) who have greatly facilitated and kindly assisted with all aspects of the research at Jebel Khalid and Tell Ahmar. Without the assistance and expertise of the DGAM none of this work would have been possible. 1  For the purposes of this publication, the authors decided to combine the papers that they presented at the Melbourne symposium, giving greater focus to the situation at Jebel Khalid and Tell Ahmar pre- and postconflict. 2  The University of Melbourne’s association with the area began in the early 1980s with the El-Qitar project. From 1984, three seasons of excavation and survey were conducted at El-Qitar. The first two seasons were jointly directed by Thomas McClellan and the late William Culican, of the then departments of Middle Eastern Studies and History. The third season was directed by McClellan. As the El-Qitar project concluded before the war in Syria it is not discussed in this paper. On El-Qitar, see Culican and McClellan 1983–84; McClellan 1985; McClellan 1986. See most recently McClellan 2019.

162

H. JACKSON

– A. JAMIESON

The University of Melbourne also undertook salvage excavations at Tell Ahmar, primarily known as a provincial centre of the Neo-Assyrian Empire, from 1988 to 1999; since 2000, Liège University has assumed responsibility for archaeological excavations there. To some extent the excavations at Jebel Khalid and Tell Ahmar were prompted by the construction of the Tabqa (Tabaqah) and Tishrin (Tishreen) hydroelectric dams on the Euphrates River. The construction of the Tabqa Dam on the Syrian ‘big bend’ of the middle Euphrates River required intensive archaeological salvage excavations in the Tabqa region, 50 km up river from the town of Raqqa.3 When construction work on the Tabqa Dam began in 1968, numerous sites were threatened with destruction. The Directorate General of Antiquities and Museums (DGAM), with the support of UNESCO, appealed for international assistance, and many foreign archaeological missions responded to this call by offering excavation assistance. The Tabqa Dam was completed in 1973, creating a reservoir now known as Lake Assad. Then, in the late 1980s, the DGAM initiated a second intensive program of rescue archaeology, inviting international collaboration to investigate sites to be inundated by the construction of the new Tishrin Dam, north of Tabqa, in the Syrian upper Euphrates River valley. Once again, many important archaeological sites, ranging in date from the Neolithic to Classical periods through Late Antiquity to the Early Modern period, were threatened with destruction, including Tell Ahmar (Fig. 1).4 The Tishrin Dam was completed in 1999.

Fig. 1. Map of Syria (Drawn by Chandra Jayasuriya). 3

 Freedman 1979; Margueron 1980.  Del Olmo Lete and Montero Fenollos 1999.

4

THE AUSTRALIAN EXCAVATIONS AT JEBEL KHALID AND TELL AHMAR

JEBEL KHALID ON THE EUPHRATES 1985

TO

163

2010

Jebel Khalid was first identified as a Hellenistic site in 1984 by Graeme Clarke of the Australian National University (ANU), who had been invited by the El-Qitar project to help in an area survey. It had been registered as a Roman site for the Tabqa Dam survey, probably because aerial survey showed up the lines of the much later (fourth century CE) temporary Roman camp,5 but the thick scattering of pottery on the hillside at Jebel Khalid, including fine black glaze ware, and the stretcher-and-header construction of the walls were all distinctively Hellenistic. Graeme Clarke (ANU) and Peter Connor of the University of Melbourne were the first co-directors of the expedition, which began with further survey work in 1985 and 1986. Excavation began in 1987 and continued until 2010, after which political events prevented return to Syria. Co-directors after the death of Peter Connor in 1996 were Graeme Clarke, Heather Jackson (University of Melbourne) and John Tidmarsh (University of Sydney). Over the years many students and specialist experts, both Australian and international, have been involved in the campaign. Full details of personnel are to be found on the website: http://jebelkhalid.arts.unimelb.edu.au/ Jebel Khalid is a limestone mesa of some 50 ha on the west bank of the Euphrates, overlooking a strategic crossing point of the river where it narrows, and dominating the landscape both from a river and a land view (Fig. 2). Survey and excavation have revealed a hitherto unknown Hellenistic settlement, established in the early third century BCE under the Seleucid dynasty following the conquest of Alexander and substantially abandoned by the middle of the first century BCE with the collapse of that Seleucid dynasty. It was carefully laid out on a Hippodamian grid with streets running strictly north/south and east/west and it covered some 30 ha of built environment, with 3.4 km of protective city-walling with 30 bastions and towers and a separate walled Acropolis.6 Such cities established under the Seleucids are largely unknown, being for the most part overlaid by subsequent centuries of occupation. The only other comparable site is Aï Khanoum on the Oxus in Northern Afghanistan, destroyed around the mid-second century BCE.7 Aï Khanoum is not only currently inaccessible but has been subject to severe robbing. At first it was thought that Jebel Khalid was a ‘clone’ of Dura-Europus, also a Seleucid settlement further south, but Hellenistic finds from there are meagre and it has become obvious that it was a very small settlement in the Hellenistic period,8 with nothing like the infrastructure of Jebel Khalid. At Jebel Khalid, the team has excavated the Governor’s Palace on the Acropolis, a building with a layout reminiscent of the Macedonian palaces but with some Near Eastern features,9 a Temple which is also a hybrid of Mesopotamian and Greek design,10 the Main Gate flanked by massive twin towers,11 the rounded North5

 Jackson 2017.  A succinct summary is available in Clarke and Jackson 2016a. 7  Bernard 1970; Lyonnet 1994; Leriche 1999. 8  Leriche 1996, 2003; Downey 2000. 9  Clarke 2001, 2002a. 10  Clarke 2016a. 11  Clarke 2002b. 6

164

H. JACKSON

– A. JAMIESON

Fig. 2. Contour plan of Jebel Khalid (Courtesy Jebel Khalid project, Graeme Clarke and Heather Jackson. Drawn by Barry Rowney).

THE AUSTRALIAN EXCAVATIONS AT JEBEL KHALID AND TELL AHMAR

165

West Tower at the highest point of the defensive system overlooking land approaches,12 the necropolis in the valley to the west,13 and a complete insula measuring 35 × 90 m (one of several visible insulae) of houses, one of which contained a painted frieze of Erotes driving goat chariots.14 In 2010, after which excavation ceased, a Palaistra, a Greek feature unparalleled at other Seleucid sites, was being excavated,15 together with a large complex with river access thought to be a commercial area concerned with river trade.16 One of the fascinating aspects of the site is the insight into Seleucid rule that it offers. Jebel Khalid was established as a military colony of immigrant Greeks and Macedonians. The moneyed veteran soldiers and a salaried garrison brought economic prosperity to the area, providing a new market for agricultural produce as well as demand for military products, and employment in the extensive building program. Far from being culturally imperialistic, the architecture of major public buildings such as the Acropolis Palace, the Temple and the houses show considerable input from local building traditions. The temple itself, a hybrid of Greek and Mesopotamian building conventions, appears to have housed multiple divinities in the Syrian tradition rather than being dedicated to one god in the Greek tradition.17 There was a degree of integration of the indigenous and immigrant population18 and an adaptation on the part of the colonisers to the local cultural and religious sensitivities and traditions, seen also in both the sculpture and figurine corpus, which includes Persian riders alongside Greek deities.19 Both Greek script and local North Mesopotamian Aramaic writing attest to a degree of bilingualism.20 Jebel Khalid thus is allowing us to discover for the first time what everyday life was like in such a settlement over its two and a half centuries of occupation. It has cast a flood of light on an otherwise unknown period of human history. But further excavation of this important site is now impossible.

JEBEL KHALID POST 2010 The situation at the end of excavation in 2010 had finds stored in a rented house in the village of Abu Qalqal, where the team lodged. In the subsequent conflict, due to the strategic importance of the nearby Tishrin Dam, this part of the Euphrates valley was overrun by Islamic State (also known as IS, ISIS, ISIL or Da’esh). Store rooms were raided and emptied (Fig. 3). All stored finds have been stolen, dispersed or damaged (Fig. 4). At the site itself, a bulldozer was sighted on the Acropolis; internet pictures from Google Earth now show that any trace of the Governor’s Palace has been eradicated; only bedrock remains (Fig. 3). Elsewhere on the site, random holes have been illegally dug and walls 12

 Clarke and Connor 2002.  Littleton and Frolich 2002. 14  Jackson 2009, 2014. 15  Clarke 2016b. 16  Jackson 2016, 2018. 17  Jackson and Clarke 2016. 18  Clarke and Jackson 2016b. 19  Jackson 2006. 20  Clarke and Jackson 2002. 13

166

H. JACKSON

– A. JAMIESON

Fig. 3. Destruction at Jebel Khalid (Photo: R. Abdo, S. Ismail and A. Ahmed, 2017).

Fig. 4. Store room of the Jebel Khalid project at the expedition house in Abu Qalqal (Photo: Dianne Fitzpatrick).

THE AUSTRALIAN EXCAVATIONS AT JEBEL KHALID AND TELL AHMAR

167

undermined. Fortunately, the Australian team had been rigorous in recording both the excavations and the finds, with the result that since 2010, four more volumes have been added to the two final reports published before excavation ceased (i.e., The Pottery, The Housing Insula, Report on Excavations 2000–2010, and A Zooarchaeological Analysis; a further volume reporting on the metals is in press). In 2015, Clarke and Jackson were invited to Beirut, Lebanon, to participate in the International Syrian Congress of Archaeology and Cultural heritage (ISCACH).21 This was attended by many campaign directors whose work in Syria had been interrupted by the conflict. Many attendees were international but it was particularly heart-warming to have the company of many Syrian archaeologists, and to hear of the efforts being made to document damaged sites, as well as proposed strategies for repair or reconstruction.22 The work for Jebel Khalid continues in the form of a website currently being developed by John Burke of the University of Melbourne. It is planned to include all publications, all archives, whether photographic, graphic or written reports, catalogues of all categories of finds (stamped amphora handles, coins, lamps, figurines etc.) and room-by-room analyses of major areas of the site. Some of these are already installed on http://jebelkhalid.arts.unimelb. edu.au/. Thus work on Jebel Khalid will be available to future investigators as evidence not only of this important Seleucid site but of the structure and lifestyle of the inhabitants of the Seleucid empire.

TELL AHMAR 1988

TO

2010

Prompted by the construction of the hydro-electric Tishrin Dam, the University of Melbourne, under the direction of Guy Bunnens, undertook salvage excavations at Tell Ahmar (ancient Til Barsib), from 1988 to 1999.23 Tell Ahmar is located on the left bank of the Euphrates, about 20 km south of the modern Syrian-Turkish border. Semi-circular in shape (Fig. 5), it was about 56 ha in size at the time of the Assyrian domination in the eighth/ seventh century BCE (see below). The ancient site consists of three parts: an artificial mound or ‘tell’, a natural terrace to the west (the middle town), and a flat depression to the north and east (the lower town). Both the middle and lower towns were not occupied until the beginning of the first millennium BCE. In 2000 the lower town was inundated by the waters of the Tishrin Dam and the Acropolis now forms a kind of promontory in the lake. Prior to the Australian excavations at Tell Ahmar, the site was excavated by the French archaeologist François Thureau-Dangin. After making a preliminary sounding in 1928,24 Thureau-Dangin worked at Tell Ahmar from 1929 to 1931. A total of seven months of excavation was undertaken by the French, with the results of this work published in the final report, entitled Til-Barsib, in 1936.25 They concentrated their investigations on the 21

 Abdu Massih and Nishiyama 2018; see Jackson 2018, pp. 39–48.  Abdu Massih and Nishiyama 2018, p. 1. 23  Bunnens 1989, 1990, 1991, 1997a, 1997b, 1997c; Roobaert and Bunnens 1999. 24  Thureau-Dangin 1929, pp. 185–205. 25  Thureau-Dangin and Dunand 1936. 22

168

H. JACKSON

– A. JAMIESON

Fig. 5. Contour plan of Tell Ahmar (Courtesy Guy Bunnens).

Acropolis with some excavation in the Lower City. They found an Assyrian palace with a series of wall paintings (usually dated to the second half of the eighth century BCE).26 The main gate, with the famous inscription of Samsi-ilu, was also explored by the French, and three important stelae were discovered at the site (in the vicinity of the Middle City). The French team also uncovered the famous Early Bronze Age ‘hypogeum’ burial with a large amount of pottery on the Acropolis.27 The Ubaid period (ca. 5000/4500 BCE) is known from painted pottery sherds found by the French expedition in layers going down to bedrock. In addition, they also excavated architectural remains dating to the Late Chalcolithic 1–2 period (ca. 4500/4000 BCE) on the tell. Since the earlier French-led excavations concentrated on the Acropolis, the Australian excavators at Tell Ahmar decided to focus their attention on the Middle and Lower City areas when they returned to the site in 1988.28 Most of the Iron Age archaeological levels excavated by the University of Melbourne expedition seem not to be earlier than the seventh century BCE.29 In the Middle City the Australian archaeologists excavated an area known as Area C, revealing at least three buildings which were mostly built on virgin soil. One of these houses, with pebble mosaic courtyard,30 conformed to a typical Assyrian 26

 On the dating of the palace and paintings, see Bunnens 2013, p. 184.  Bunnens has noted that the stratigraphic sequence which can be reconstructed from the French excavations comprises the following phases: Ubaid, Early Bronze IV (the Hypogeum and cist graves), Iron Age I/II and II/IIIA (with an Assyrian palace and city gate), Iron Age IIIB (Achaemenid burials), Hellenistic, Islamic and modern (Bunnens 1990, p. 3). 28  A small sounding (Area B) was also made at the foot of the Acropolis to the northwest by the Australian team in 1988 (Wightman 1990). 29  Bunnens 1997b, pp. 18–20. 30  Bunnens 2016b. 27

THE AUSTRALIAN EXCAVATIONS AT JEBEL KHALID AND TELL AHMAR

169

house plan (Building C2).31 In a destruction layer, 21 cuneiform Assyrian-style and two Aramaic clay tablets were found.32 Other notable discoveries from Area C dating to the Iron Age included a collection of 15 carved ivories,33 a (re-used) Hittite inscription with Luwian hieroglyphs,34 a large chamber tomb made of baked bricks,35 and a carved basalt male statue.36 Liège University has assumed the responsibility for archaeological excavations at Tell Ahmar since 2000.37 The Belgian team, again directed by Guy Bunnens, continued investigations on the Acropolis. The occupation of the second half of the third millennium is represented by the remains of a temple on the eastern slope. Five buildings of the Middle Bronze II period (ca. 1750/1600 BCE), with storage facilities and living quarters, were found on the summit of the tell. These architectural complexes were destroyed by a conflagration in the 17th century BCE. In the eastern part of the Acropolis, in Areas A and S, especially in Trenches A27, A29, S14 and S15, a stratigraphic sequence covering the end of the second millennium down to the eighth century BCE (Late Bronze Age to Iron Age) was revealed. It has also been possible to correlate these findings with the stratigraphy in Area M in the western part of the Acropolis.38 It is also worthy of note that several later periods are documented at Tell Ahmar. The combined archaeological activity at the site has revealed evidence for the Achaemenid period (burials and stamp seals), as well as scattered, mostly pottery, remains of the Hellenistic and Roman periods.39

TELL AHMAR

POST

2010

The situation at Tell Ahmar post 2010 is not entirely clear. Maintaining contact with the local people residing at Tell Ahmar, including the site guard, was difficult. There are conflicting reports concerning damage and destruction at the site, as well as some uncertainty about the condition of the expedition dig house and storage facilities. One report, titled Detection Report About the Archaeological Sites in the Balikh Basin and Euphrates Valley, prepared for the Authority of Tourism and Protection of Antiquities in the Al Jazira Canton by Rustem Abdo and Adnan Al Bari, includes details on Tell Ahmar (Fig. 6).40 It notes bulldozing was detected on top of the mound, along with theft of equipment and records from the expedition house. It also notes that some of the contents were transported to a safe place. In a subsequent report, titled the Archaeological Sites in the Middle Euphrates Valley 31

 Bunnens 1997b, pp. 20–22; Roobaert and Bunnens 1999, pp. 167–172.  Bunnens 1997a, pp. 61–65; Dalley 1997, pp. 66–99; Bordreuil and Briquel-Chatonnet 1997, pp. 100–

32

107. 33

 Bunnens 1997c, pp. 435–450.  Hawkins 1997, pp. 108–117; Hawkins 2000, pp. 231–234, pl. 95–96. 35  Bunnens 1997b, pp. 23–24. 36  Roobaert 1996, pp. 79–87; Bunnens 1997b, pp. 24–25. 37  Bunnens 2001, 2003, 2014, 2016a, 2018. 38  Bunnens 2013, pp. 177–197. 39  Bunnens 2016a, p. 241. 40  Abdo and Al Bari 2016. 34

H. JACKSON

170

– A. JAMIESON

Fig. 6. Aerial image of Tell Ahmar (Google Earth).

Balikh Basin (2) (2017), also prepared by Rustem Abdo and Adnan Al Bari, Tell Ahmar, identified as site number 5 in the report, is again mentioned.41 The authors report bulldozing activity on the hilltop and on the eastern side of the tell. In addition, erosion of the excavation trenches caused by weathering is noted. The report states the dig house has been ruined and its contents robbed. Director of the Tell Ahmar project, Guy Bunnens, observes: “Google Earth pictures show some bulldozing on the tell, which … resulted in backfilling, rather than destroying, the excavated remains (Fig. 7). Otherwise, everything looks as can be expected after several years of neglect.” 42 Bunnens understands “the antiquities that were stored in the excavation house were transferred to Kobane/Ain el-Arab,” but when he asked where exactly he received no answer, noting that “the situation seems to be catastrophic for the village, but not that much for the excavations. Most of them seem to be all right.”

Fig. 7. Abandoned store rooms at Tell Ahmar (Photo: Rustem Abdo and Adnan Al Bari, 2017). 41

 Abdo and Al Bari 2017. See also Abdo, Ahmed and Oassem 2017, pp. 53, 58.  Personal communication Guy Bunnens 2019.

42

THE AUSTRALIAN EXCAVATIONS AT JEBEL KHALID AND TELL AHMAR

171

In 2010 the Tell Ahmar Neo-Assyrian pottery from the excavations in Area C was transported to Qala’at Najem (Fig. 8).43 The relocation of this material was part of a plan to conserve, store, study, interpret and exhibit archaeological collections extant in Syria’s northern Euphrates River valley that was advanced in planning when the Syrian war began in 2011.44 The deficient storage situation for excavated archaeological collections had highlighted a need to find an alternative storage location so that the material from the Euphrates valley could be available and accessible in the future. Establishing a repository at Qala’at Najem, located on the right bank of the Euphrates River, approximately 20 km from the modern town of Menbij (ancient Hierapolis), was the idea of the late Dr Hamido Hammade (former curator, National Museum of Aleppo). So in 2010, the stratified NeoAssyrian pottery, approximately 20,000 sherds from the excavations in Area C at Tell Ahmar, was relocated to Qala’at Najem.45 The current state of this material is not precisely known.46 In the first report by Rustem Abdo and Adnan Al Bari mentioned above, they note that Qala’at Najem was used as a military base (point) by extremist groups and that the citadel was damaged in several areas.47 However, material stored at Qala’at Najem is not

Fig. 8. Neo-Assyrian pottery from Tell Ahmar relocated to Qala’at Najem and stacked in plastic storage crates (Photo: Andrew Jamieson).

43

 On the Area C pottery see Jamieson 1999, 2000, 2012, 2013. On Qala’at Najem see Sourdel 2010.  On this plan see Jamieson and Kanjou 2009. 45  On this initiative see Jamieson 2016a, 2016b. 46  Personal communication Youssef Kanjou (17 September 2019). 47  Abdo and Al Bari 2016, p. 8. 44

172

H. JACKSON

– A. JAMIESON

mentioned (Fig. 9). A recent communication supplied by Youssef Kanjou, based on sources in Menbij, confirmed some, but not extensive, damage inflicted by IS at Qala’at Najem. The same sources reported no damage to the Qala’at Najem ‘mission storage’.48 Like Jebel Khalid, research on Tell Ahmar also continues in the form of publications and conference papers. Reports on Tell Ahmar by Guy Bunnens appeared in 2016 and 2018.49 and a major monograph on the work in Area D at Tell Ahmar, which includes a large corpus of late Neo-Assyrian pottery, is forthcoming.50 Papers on Tell Ahmar were also presented at the International Congress of the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East (ICAANE) in Basel (2014), Vienna (2016) and Munich (2018).51

OTHER ACTIVITIES OF AUSTRALIAN ARCHAEOLOGISTS IN RESPONSE TO THE CONFLICT IN SYRIA Members of the Jebel Khalid and Tell Ahmar projects have also been active in the international and Australian committees of SHIRIN (Syrian Heritage in Danger: An International Research Initiative and Network). SHIRIN International was formed following ICAANE in Basel in 2014.52 SHIRIN Australia was formed shortly thereafter, and identified the following four actions: 1. Supporting Syrian colleagues 2. Curating an exhibition 3. Presenting a symposium 4. Promoting an awareness-raising and education program In terms of the first action, members of the national committee of SHIRIN Australia provided support to Syrian archaeological colleagues, including assistance to relocate owing to safety concerns in 2013; and to attend conferences in Australia and Switzerland in 2014, and Germany in 2018. In 2019, SHIRIN Australia representatives also contributed to the acquisition of resources to assist Syrian archaeological colleagues working at the museum in Aleppo. Actions 2 and 3 resulted in the exhibition and symposium Syria: Ancient History – Modern Conflict, held at the University of Melbourne from March to August 2017. The exhibition and symposium generated considerable interest and intense debate.53 Both were intentionally developed to engage the wider community or communities in Melbourne. Mindful of wanting to reach Melbourne’s Middle Eastern community, exhibition text panels were available in both Arabic and English.54 The exhibition presented finds from the Australian excavation projects in the Euphrates valley and showcased their contribution 48

 Personal communication Youssef Kanjou (17 September 2019).  Bunnens 2016a, pp. 239–242; 2018, pp. 31–38. 50  Jamieson 2020. 51  Jamieson 2013, 2016b, forthcoming; Jamieson and Jackson 2020. 52  Jamieson and Russell 2019. 53  On the exhibition Syria: Ancient History – Modern Conflict, see http://www.art-museum.unimelb.edu.au/ exhibitions/past-exhibitions/fromyear/2008/toyear/2019/exhib-date/2017-03-28/exhib/syria-ancient-historymodern-conflict 54  Mohamed Alsamsam translated the exhibition text panels into Arabic. 49

THE AUSTRALIAN EXCAVATIONS AT JEBEL KHALID AND TELL AHMAR

173

to our understanding of the archaeology of Syria.55 The exhibition, installed at Melbourne University’s Ian Potter Museum of Art, was on display for approximately five months: from 27 March to 27 August 2017. It was officially opened by Professor Graeme Clarke (see Clarke this volume). The exhibition featured over 150 objects, ranging from excavated artefacts to excavation archives and equipment. The symposium, which took place from 11 to 13 August 2017, accompanied the exhibition. The keynote lecture was presented by the former Australian ambassador in Syria, Professor Ross Burns. Focused on Aleppo and Palmyra, it was entitled “How monuments were ‘Weaponised’ in the Syrian Conflict” (see Burns this volume). On the first full day of the symposium, the papers explored Australian archaeological fieldwork in Syria across three decades. On the second day, the presentations focused on current issues: ‘Community connections to cultural heritage: continuity, re-connection and recovery’; ‘Syria re-imagined’; ‘After the war: effects on Syria’s cultural diversity’; ‘Archaeology, heritage and destructions: decolonising Syria’s cultural heritage’; and ‘Digitally mediated iconoclasm: The Islamic State and the war on cultural heritage’. Over 16,000 people visited the exhibition and over 500 attended the symposium.56 The exhibition attracted widespread coverage in the media: major reviews appeared in local and national newspapers. The exhibition was also used as backdrop for classes, tutorials and seminars attended by students at the University of Melbourne. Cohorts of students from a diverse array of disciplines visited and discussed the exhibition as part of their studies in Anthropology, Architecture, Archaeology, Education, History, Law, Medicine and Media Studies.57 Radio interviews and social media also contributed to promoting the exhibition and increasing visitation, while at the same time raising awareness about the destruction of Syrian cultural heritage. Actions 2 and 3 – curating an exhibition and presenting a symposium – also contributed to completing action 4, engaging the community in Australia (particularly in Melbourne) about the situation in Syria. In addition, while the exhibition was on more than 20 public programs were presented. These events covered a range of different themes and topics, such as discussions on asylum seekers, refugees and people fleeing persecution. Using the exhibition as a platform, some of the public programs involved collaboration with refugee advocacy groups within the University of Melbourne (such as the Melbourne Social Equity Institute) and externally (such as the Asylum Seeker Resource Centre and Refugee Council). Many of the participants explained that sharing their stories and hopes for the future aided in their recovery from the trauma they faced leaving their home country and throughout the journey to settlement in Australia.

55

 Jamieson and Kanjou 2009.  Van de Ven and Jamieson 2019, p. 221. See also Van de Ven (this volume). For reviews of the exhibition see Allen 2017 and Webb 2017. 57  Jamieson and Jackson 2020. 56

174

H. JACKSON

– A. JAMIESON

CONCLUSIONS Focusing on the Australian excavations at Jebel Khalid and Tell Ahmar as case studies, this paper has highlighted the archaeological findings at these strategically situated sites in the Euphrates River valley of north Syria. The construction of dams on the river prompted the rescue excavations of both sites. In 2011 a different type of threat emerged, halting scientific investigations and causing widespread archaeological heritage destruction in the region. The study showed that Jebel Khalid and Tell Ahmar are both archaeologically significant but for different historical periods. Jebel Khalid was established as a military colony of immigrant Greeks and Macedonians, and became an important Hellenistic settlement in the early third century BCE under the Seleucid dynasty. The site was substantially abandoned by the middle of the first century BCE with the collapse of that Seleucid dynasty. It was revealed that such cities established under the Seleucids are largely unknown, being for the most part overlaid by subsequent centuries of occupation, making Jebel Khalid an important site for the Hellenistic period. By contrast, Tell Ahmar has a relatively long sequence of occupation spanning many different periods from the Neolithic through to Hellenistic and Roman times. It reached its greatest extent under Assyrian domination in the eighth/seventh century BCE, and became a prominent centre for the Assyrian administration of the region. Important levels of the Bronze and Iron Age were under investigation when the outbreak of violence in 2011 prevented the completion of this work. Raqqa, located 40 km east of the Taqba Dam, became the capital of the Islamic State Caliphate between 2014 and 2017. Due to the strategic importance of the nearby Tishrin Dam, this part of the Euphrates valley was overrun by Islamic State. In the ensuing conflict Jebel Khalid and Tell Ahmar attracted unwanted attention. The sites were bulldozed and the store rooms of the dig houses were raided and emptied. The full extent of the damage is yet to be determined. Prevented from undertaking field work in Syria, members of the Jebel Khalid and Tell Ahmar expeditions have concentrated on writing reports and producing publications, giving public lectures and presenting conference papers, as well as initiating other projects and public programs about the sites’ archaeological importance. It is widely acknowledged the crisis in Syria is a catastrophe on many different levels, but especially for the people of Syria and the human suffering the conflict has caused. The loss of cultural heritage has undoubtedly been devastating for the Syrian populace. It has also engendered a strong reaction from archaeologists of the Near East. For those Australian archaeologists who were fortunate enough to be involved in the excavation projects at Jebel Khalid and Tell Ahmar before the war, it was difficult and distressing to see the conflict unfold. Powerless to stem the flow of human suffering and helpless in preventing the destruction of heritage sites and monuments, instead we focused our efforts on raising awareness in Australia about the significance of archaeology in Syria and the toll the war is taking on this important cultural resource. Despite the modest scale of Australia’s archaeological activity in Syria before the war, those of us undertaking this work felt privileged to be involved and hope it may be possible to return to Syria when the time comes to assist with restoration and rebuilding efforts.

THE AUSTRALIAN EXCAVATIONS AT JEBEL KHALID AND TELL AHMAR

175

BIBLIOGRAPHY ABDO, R., AHMED, A. and OASSEM, M. 2017 General Report: The Situation on Archaeological Sites in Al Jazireah Territory – Syria (2017). The Authority of Tourism and Protection, Al Jazira Canton, Syria. ABDO, R. and AL BARI, A. 2016 Detection Report About the Archaeological Sites in Al Balikh Basin and Euphrates Valley. The Authority of Tourism and Protection of Antiquities in the Al Jazira Canton. 30 December 2016. https://en.unesco.org/syrian-observatory/sites/syrian-observatory/files/reports/Detection%20report%20in%20El%20Balikh%20Basin%20and%20Euphrates%20Valley. pdf (1 May 2020) 2017 The Archaeological Sites in the Middle Euphrates Valley and Balikh Basin (2) (2017). The Authority of Tourism and Protection of Antiquities in the Al Jazira Canton. 30 May 2017. https://en.unesco.org/syrian-observatory/sites/syrian-observatory/files/reports/report%20 about%20Euphrate%20valley%20and%20Balikh%20basin.pdf (1 May 2020) ABDO, R., ISMAIL, S. and AHMED, A. 2017 The Archaeological Sites in the Middle Euphrates Valley (3), May 2017. The Authority of Tourism and Protection, Al Jazira Canton, Syria. ABDUL MASSIH, J. and NISHIYAMA, S. eds. 2018 Archaeological Explorations in Syria 2000–2011. Proceedings of ISCACH-Beirut 2015. Oxford: Archaeopress. ALLEN, C. 2017 “Devoted to the past,” The Weekend Australian newspaper (30 June 2017). BERNARD, P. 1970 “Campagne de fouilles 1969 à Aï Khanoum en Afghanistan,” Comptes-rendus des séances de l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres 114: 300–349. BORDREUIL, P. and BRIQUEL-CHATONNET, F. 1997 “Aramaic documents from Til Barsip,” Abr-Nahrain 34: 100–107. BUNNENS, G. 1989 “Tell Ahmar on the Euphrates. A new research project of the University of Melbourne,” Akkadica 63: 1–11. 1991 “Melbourne University excavations at Tell Ahmar: 1988 season,” in Mésopotamie et Elam. Actes de la XXXVIème Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale, edited by L. De Meyer and H. Gasche, pp. 163–170. Ghent: Universiteit Gent (Mesopotamian History and Environment, Occasional Publications I). 1997a “The archaeological context,” Abr-Nahrain 34: 61–65. 1997b “Til Barsib Under Assyrian Domination: A Brief Account of the University of Melbourne Excavations at Tell Ahmar,” in Assyria 1995. Proceedings of the 10th Anniversary Symposium of the Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project (Helsinki, September 7–11), edited by S. Parpola and R. M. Whiting, pp. 17–28. Helsinki: Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project. 1997c “Carved ivories from Til Barsib,” American Journal of Archaeology 101(3): 435–450. 2001 “Tell Ahmar/Til-Barsib, the eleventh, twelfth and thirteenth seasons (1998–2000),” Orient-Express 3: 65–68. 2003 “Tell Ahmar/Til-Barsib: The fourteenth and fifteenth seasons (2001–2002),” OrientExpress 2: 40–43. 2009 “Assyrian Empire building and Aramization of culture as seen from Tell Ahmar/ Til Barsib”, Syria 86: 67–82. 2013 “Looking for Luwians, Aramaeans and Assyrians in the Tell Ahmar stratigraphy,” in Syrian Archaeology in Perspective: Celebrating 20 Years of Excavations at Tell Afis, edited by S. Mazzoni and S. Soldi, pp. 177–197. Pisa: Edizioni ETS.

H. JACKSON

176

– A. JAMIESON

“Til Barsib. B. Archäologisch,” Reallexikon der Assyriologie und Vorderasiatischen Archäologie 14(1–2): 38–42. 2016a “Tell Ahmar/Til Barsib (Aleppo),” in A History of Syria in One Hundred Sites, edited by Y. Kanjou and A. Tsuneki, pp. 239–242. Oxford: Archaeopress. 2016b “Neo-Assyrian pebble mosaics in their architectural context,” in The Provincial Archaeology of the Assyrian Empire, edited by J. MacGinnis, D. Wicke and T. Greenfield, pp. 59–70. Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research. 2018 “Unfinished Work at Tell Ahmar. Early and Middle Bronze Age Finds,” in Archaeological Explorations in Syria 2000–2011. Proceedings of ISCACH-Beirut 2015, edited by J. Abdul-Massih and S. Nishiyama, pp. 31–38. Oxford: Archaeopress. BUNNENS, G., ed. 1990 Tell Ahmar 1988 Season (Abr-Nahrain Supplement 2). Leuven: Peeters. CLARKE, G. W. 2001 “A Seleucid Governor’s Palace: Jebel Khalid on the Euphrates,” in The Royal Palace Institution in the First Millennium BC, edited by I. Nielsen, pp. 215–247. Aarhus: Aarhus University Press. 2002a “The Governor’s Palace, Acropolis,” in G. W. Clarke, P. J. Connor, L. Crewe, B. Frolich, H. Jackson, J. Littleton, C. E. V. Nixon, M. O’Hea and D. Steele, Jebel Khalid on the Euphrates, Volume 1. Report on Excavations 1986–1996, pp. 25–48. Sydney: Meditarch (Mediterranean Archaeology 5). 2002b “The Main Gate,” in G. W. Clarke, P. J. Connor, L. Crewe, B. Frolich, H. Jackson, J. Littleton, C. E. V. Nixon, M. O’Hea and D. Steele, Jebel Khalid on the Euphrates, Volume 1. Report on Excavations 1986–1996, pp. 17–24. Sydney: Meditarch (Mediterranean Archaeology 5). 2014 “The Jebel Khalid Temple: Continuity and Change,” in Religious Identities in the Levant from Alexander to Muhammed: Continuity and Change, edited by R. Raja, A. Lichtenberger and M. Blömer, pp. 142–155. Turnhout: Brepols. 2016a “Area B: the Temple,” in G. Clarke, H. Jackson, C. E. V. Nixon, J. Tidmarsh and K. Wesselingh, Jebel Khalid on the Euphrates, Volume 5. Report on the Excavations 2000–2010, pp. 9–36. Sydney: Meditarch. 2016b “Area C, the Palaestra,” in G. Clarke, H. Jackson, C. E. V. Nixon, J. Tidmarsh and K. Wesselingh, Jebel Khalid on the Euphrates, Volume 5. Report on the Excavations 2000–2010, pp. 37–47. Sydney: Meditarch. CLARKE, G. W. and CONNOR, P. J. 2002 “The North-West Tower,” in G. W. Clarke, P. J. Connor, L. Crewe, B. Frolich, H. Jackson, J. Littleton, C. E. V. Nixon, M. O’Hea and D. Steele, Jebel Khalid on the Euphrates, Volume 1. Report on Excavations 1986–1996, pp. 1–16. Sydney: Meditarch (Mediterranean Archaeology 5). CLARKE, G. W. and JACKSON, H. 2016a “Jebel Khalid (Aleppo),” in A History of Syria in One Hundred Sites, edited by Y. Kanjou and A. Tsuneki, pp. 335–338. Oxford: Archaeopress. 2016b “Evaluating Cultural and Ethnic Identities from Archaeological Remains: The case of Hellenistic Jebel Khalid,” in Aspects of the Roman East, Papers in Honour of Professor Sir Fergus Millar FBA, Vol. 2, edited by S. N. C. Lieu and P. McKechnie, pp. 78–127. Turnhout: Brepols (Studia Antiqua Australiensia 7). Reprinted in abbreviated form in Art et Civilisations de l’Orient hellenisé, edited by P. Leriche, pp. 97–110. Paris: Picard. CULICAN, W. and MCCLELLAN, T. L. 1983–84 “El-Qitar: First Season of Excavations, 1982–1983,” Abr-Nahrain 22: 29–63. DALLEY, S. M. 1997 “Neo-Assyrian tablets from Til Barsib,” Abr-Nahrain 34: 66–99. DEL OLMO LETE, G. and MONTERO FENOLLOS, J.-L., eds. 1999 Archaeology of the Upper Syrian Euphrates, the Tishrin Dam Area: Proceedings of the International Symposium Held at Barcelona, January 28th–30th, 1998. Barcelona: Sabadell (Aula Orientalis Supplementa 15). 2014

THE AUSTRALIAN EXCAVATIONS AT JEBEL KHALID AND TELL AHMAR

177

DOWNEY, S. B. 2000 “The Transformation of Seleucid Dura-Europus,” in Romanization and the City, Creation, Transformations and Failures. Proceedings of a Conference held at the American Academy in Rome 14–16 May 1998, edited by E. Fentress, pp. 154–172. Portsmouth: Journal of Roman Archaeology (Journal of Roman Archaeology Supplement 38). FREEDMAN, D. N., ed. 1979 Archaeological Reports from the Tabqa Dam Project, Euphrates Valley. Cambridge, MA: American Schools of Oriental Research. HAWKINS, J. D. 1997 “A new Luwian inscription of Hamiyatas, King of Masuwari,” Abr-Nahrain 34: 108–117. 2000 Corpus of Hieroglyphic Luwian Inscriptions I. Inscriptions of the Iron Age. Tell Ahmar 5. Berlin: de Gruyter. KANJOU, Y. and TSUNEKI, A., eds. 2016 A History of Syria in One Hundred Sites. Oxford: Archaeopress. JACKSON, H. 2006 Jebel Khalid on the Euphrates, Volume Two. The Terracotta Figurines. Sydney: Meditarch. 2009 “Erotes on the Euphrates – a figured frieze in a private house at Hellenistic Jebel Khalid on the Euphrates,” American Journal of Archaeology 113(2): 231–253. 2014 Jebel Khalid on the Euphrates, Volume Four. The Housing Insula. Sydney: Meditarch (Mediterranean Archaeology Supplement 9). 2016 “Area S: The Commercial Area?,” in G. Clarke, H. Jackson, C. E. V. Nixon, J. Tidmarsh and K. Wesselingh, Jebel Khalid on the Euphrates, Volume 5. Report on the Excavations 2000–2010, pp. 49–76. Sydney: Meditarch. 2017 “Romans at Jebel Khalid? Where and When?” in Text and the Material World, Essays in Honour of Graeme Clarke, edited by E. Minchin and H. Jackson, pp. 143–156. Uppsala: Astrom Editions. 2018 “A Colonnaded Building in a Commercial Area at Seleucid Jebel Khalid,” in Archaeological Explorations in Syria 2000–2011, Proceedings of ISCACH-Beirut, 2015, edited by J. Abdul Massih and S. Nichiyama, pp. 39–48. Oxford: Archaeopress. JACKSON, H. and CLARKE, G. W. 2016 “The Sculpture from the Jebel Khalid Temple,” in G. Clarke, H. Jackson, C. E. V. Nixon, J. Tidmarsh and K. Wesselingh, Jebel Khalid on the Euphrates, Volume 5. Report on the Excavations 2000–2010, pp. 77–96. Sydney: Meditarch. JAMIESON, A. 1999 “Neo-Assyrian pottery from Tell Ahmar,” in Studies on Iron Age Pottery from Northern Mesopotamia, Northern Syria and South-Eastern Anatolia, edited by A. Hausleiter and A. Reiche, pp. 287–308. Munich: Altertumskunde des Vorden Orients. 2000 “Identifying room use and vessel function. Case-study of Iron Age pottery from building C2 at Tell Ahmar, North Syria,” in Essays on Syria in the Iron Age, edited by G. Bunnens, pp. 259–303. Leuven: Peeters (Ancient Near Eastern Studies Supplement 7). 2012 Tell Ahmar III. Neo-Assyrian Pottery from Area C. Leuven: Peeters (Ancient Near Eastern Studies Supplement 35). 2013 “Processes of Assyrianisation. Identity and connectivity manifested in Neo-Assyrian ceramics and the Tell Ahmar Area C pottery,” in SOMA 2012: Identity and Connectivity. Proceedings of the 16th Symposium on Mediterranean Archaeology, Florence, Italy, 1–3 March 2012, Vol. 1, edited by L. Bombardieri, A. D’Agostino, G. Guarducci, V. Orsi and S. Valentini, pp. 75–85. Oxford: Archaeopress (BAR International Series 2581). 2015 “Developing Strategies for Sustainably Managing Archaeological Collections,” Journal of Eastern Mediterranean Archaeology and Heritage Studies 3(1): 71–76. 2016a “Community Engagement and Near Eastern Archaeology,” Archiv für Orientforschung 43(1–2): 1–7.

178

H. JACKSON

– A. JAMIESON

2016b “New Uses for Old Collections: Community and Curriculum Engagement Using Near Eastern Archaeological Collections,” in Proceedings of the 9th International Congress on the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East, Vol. 1: Collections at Risk: Sustainable Strategies for Managing Near Eastern Archaeological Collections, edited by A. Jamieson, pp. 533–542. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. 2020 “Tell Ahmar: An Important Iron Age Site in the Euphrates Valley,” in Formation, Organization and Development of Iron Age Societies: A Comparative View, edited by A. Sollee, pp. 63–82, Vienna: Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften. (forthcoming) Tell Ahmar IV. Neo-Assyrian Pottery from Area D. Leuven: Peeters. JAMIESON, A. and KANJOU, Y. 2009 “Archaeological Research by the University of Melbourne in the Middle and Upper Euphrates Valley, North Syria,” The Artefact 32(1): 1–30. JAMIESON, A. and JACKSON, H. 2020 “Community Engagement and the Syria: Ancient History – Modern Conflict exhibition and symposium,” in Proceedings of the 11th International Congress on the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East (03–07 April, 2019, Munich), Vol. 1, edited by A. Otto, M. Herles and K. Kaniuth, pp. 327–338. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. JAMIESON, A. and RUSSELL, S. 2019 “Responding to Syria’s Cultural Heritage Crisis: A Case Study,” Ancient Near Eastern Studies 56: 267–288. MARGUERON, J.-C. 1980 Le Moyen Euphrate: zone de contacts et d’échanges: actes du colloque de Strasbourg, 10-12 mars 1977. Leiden: E. J. Brill. MCCLELLAN, T. L. 1985 “El-Qitar: Second Season of Excavations 1983–1984,” Abr-Nahrain 23: 39–72. 1986 “El-Qitar: Third Season of Excavations 1984–1985,” Abr-Nahrain 24: 83–106. MCCLELLAN, T. L., BUITENHUIS, H., POLAK, E., PREVALET, R., REESE, D. S. and SAGONA, C. 2019 El-Qitar: A Bronze Age Fortress on the Euphrates. Turnhout: Brepols (Subartu XLI). LERICHE, P. 1996 “Le Chréophylakion de Doura-Europos et la mise en place du plan hippodamien de la ville,” in Archives et Sceaux du Monde Hellénistique. Archivi e Sigilli nel Mondo Ellenistico, edited by M.-F. Boussac and A. Invernizzi, pp. 157–169. Athens: École française d’Athènes (Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique Supplement 29). 2003 “Doura-Europos hellénistique,” Topoi. Orient-Occident, Supplément 4: 171–191. LITTLETON, J. and FROLICH, B. 2002 “Excavations of the Cemetery – 1996 and 1997,” in G. W. Clarke, P. J. Connor, L. Crewe, B. Frolich, H. Jackson, J. Littleton, C. E. V. Nixon, M. O’Hea and D. Steele, Jebel Khalid on the Euphrates, Volume 1. Report on Excavations 1986–1996, pp. 49–70. Sydney: Meditarch (Mediterranean Archaeology 5). LYONNET, B. 1994 “L’occupation séleucide en Bactriane et en Syrie du NE, d’après les données archéologiques,” Topoi. Orient-Occident, Supplément 4: 547–565. ROOBAERT, A. 1990 “The city gate lions,” in Tell Ahmar 1988 Season, edited by G. Bunnens, pp. 126– 135. Leuven: Peeters (Abr-Nahrain Supplement 2). 1996 “A Neo-Assyrian statue from Til Barsib,” Iraq 58: 79–87. ROOBAERT, A. and BUNNENS, G. 1999 “Excavations at Tell Ahmar-Til Barsib,” in Archaeology of the Upper Syrian Euphrates: The Tishrin Dam Area, edited by G. del Olmo Lete and J.-L. Montero Fenollós, pp. 163–178. Barcelona: Sabadell. SOURDEL, D. 2010 “Ķalat Nadjm,” in Encyclopaedia of Islam, edited by P. Bearman, Th. Bianquis, C. E. Bosworth, E. van Donzel and W.P. Heinrichs, 2nd ed. Leiden: Brill Online.

THE AUSTRALIAN EXCAVATIONS AT JEBEL KHALID AND TELL AHMAR

179

THUREAU-DANGIN, F. 1929 “Tell Ahmar,” Syria 10: 185–205. THUREAU-DANGIN, F. and DUNAND, M. 1936 Til-Barsib. Paris: Paul Geuthner (Bibliothèque Archéologique et Historique 23). VAN DE VEN, A. and JAMIESON, A. 2019 “Beyond Display: Curriculum and Community Engagement in a University Museum,” in Museums of the Ancient Near East: Curatorial Practice and Audiences, edited by G. Emberling and L. Petit, pp. 210–224. London: Routledge. WIGHTMAN, G. 1990 “Area B Sounding in the Middle City,” in Tell Ahmar 1988 Season, edited by G. Bunnens, pp. 106–120. Leuven: Peeters (Abr-Nahrain Supplement 2). WEBB, P. 2017 “Ancient artefacts cherished, while humans held captive,” The Age (28 April 2017).

SECTION THREE: ADDITIONAL CONTRIBUTIONS

CHAPTER 16

RAQQA: A HISTORY OF THE DESTRUCTION OF CULTURAL HERITAGE Anas AL KHABOUR Université Libre de Bruxelles (ULB), Belgium E-mail: [email protected]

ABSTRACT In the present paper I will demonstrate the history of Raqqa’s cultural heritage, its floruit and its destruction, from its resettlement in the 19th century until the “Islamic State” period. I will also discuss the recent situation and the challenges to heritage associated with post-war construction in Raqqa. Raqqa was the summer capital of the caliph Harun Al Rashid and the centre of government for the Islamic world for 13 years. After the Mongols’ invasion in 1258 the city was abandoned for six centuries. The Ottoman Empire encouraged people to settle in the city by building the police station in 1863. After that date, many changes occurred to the city’s cultural heritage, but the most destructive challenge was the arrival of a new ideology and new people who targeted both the inhabitants and their heritage. This was the so-called “Islamic State” in Iraq and Syria, which settled in Raqqa, making it the capital de facto of the state; this period is known to the local population as “the dark plague”.

INTRODUCTION On the banks of the Euphrates lies a quiet city, forgotten and sometimes abandoned for centuries, but history has condemned it to be remembered on different occasions, either as attached to wealth and prosperity, such as during the reign of the Abbasid caliph Harun Al Rashid (766–809), or associated with horror and violence during the occupation of the radical group of the “Islamic State” in Iraq and in Syria (ISIS). There is limited information about the relatively new inhabited city of Raqqa and the stages that its cultural heritage passed through since its resettlement 160 years ago. Early references were made by European travellers such as Francis Rawdon Chesney, who noted in 1836 some aspects of the ancient city walls.1 The Rafiqa ruins were mentioned by William Harrison Ainsworth2 and by Ernest Sachau in 1879.3 Friedrich Sarre and Ernst Herzfeld4 carried out a topographic study of the city between 1907 and 1910. Years later, Max von Oppenheim visited Raqqa and documented the city’s ruins in photographs. His book The Bedouins, addresses the population in Raqqa as well as its ruins.5 1

 Chesney 1850.  Ainsworth 1888. 3  Sachau 1883. 4  Sarre and Herzfeld 1911. 5  Oppenheim 2004. 2

184

A. AL KHABOUR

It is worth mentioning that the Ottoman Empire, as a response to illegal digging in Raqqa, carried out two excavation campaigns, directed by Theodore Macridy and Haydar Bey on behalf of the Imperial Museum between 1905 and 1908. The finds are hosted in the Museum of Turkish and Islamic Arts in Istanbul.6 After the fall of the Ottoman Empire and the division of its territory, Syria came under the French mandate in 1920–1946. Raqqa’s ruins were documented through several aerial photos published by Dussaud.7 These images were had been taken by Jean Sauvaget in 1924 and Antoine Poidebard in 1926–1930.8 The documentation published by Sir Keppel Archibald Cameron Creswell was in response to the city’s modern expansion. 9 The German Archaeological Institute (Deutsches Archäologisches Institut, DAI), in collaboration with the Directorate General of Antiquities and Museums (DGAM), carried out excavation at the Abbasid palaces located to the north of Raqqa and restored one of these palaces. These works were directed by Michael Meinecke. Further research on Raqqa’s ceramic workshops was carried out by Julian Henderson.10 As to the social structure of the city and how the new owners settled and impacted on Raqqa’s heritage, the written documents and the official information regarding the early population were destroyed in 1941 when the French forces left Raqqa. Afterwards, one resident of Raqqa’s countryside called Ghaffan al Tarkan (‫ )غفان التركان‬with his band announced the foundation of the Ghaffanian State. He attacked the government centre Saray, where the museum is nowadays, and burnt the civil register; next he attacked the rest of the French forces, and those in turn confronted him and drove him away from Raqqa. This “state” lasted for one day. It is well known in the local calendar as the Chaos of 4 July 1941 or Faltet 4 Tammuz (‫ تموز‬4 ‫)فلتة‬. There are a few publications in Arabic and French that targeted the social structure, but as a native person of this city, I have many observations on the data gathered and the reliability of the resources used. Who lived in Raqqa after 1863? How did the pioneers treat heritage? How was the response to the city’s development and expansion in terms of protecting or destroying heritage? What was the impact of the city expansion on illicit digging? What happened to heritage during the Syrian war 2011 in general and the time of ISIS especially? Was Raqqa in fact the capital or the victim of ISIS in terms of damage to heritage and local population? This paper attempts to fill the gap in knowledge about the social structure of the population, their relation to their heritage in Raqqa and their impact on the ancient city since 1863. It will also explain the preservation of heritage that flourished for decades until the Syrian war in 2011, with particular focus on the ISIS period and how the war affected both tangible and intangible heritage.

6

 Yoltar-Yıldırım 2013, p. 76.  Dussaud 1927. 8  Siegel 2010, pp. 131–132. 9  Creswell 1940. 10  Tonghini and Henderson 1998. 7

RAQQA: A HISTORY OF THE DESTRUCTION OF CULTURAL HERITAGE

HISTORICAL

185

OVERVIEW

The early settlement of Raqqa is well documented through the German excavations of the site of Tell Bi’a (“Tuttul”), dated to the third millennium BCE. The settlement continued during later periods and new cities were built in extensions directed to the west from Tell Bi’a. During the early Hellenistic period (301–281 BCE) it was called Nikephorion, but in the time of Seleucus III Kallinikos (246–226 BCE) it was re-named Kallinikos. The city was destroyed by the Sassanians and rebuilt by the Emperor Justinian (527–565). The Omayyad Raqqa (661–750) was merged with the horseshoe-shaped Abbasid city of Al-Rafiqa in the eighth century and became the summer capital of the Abbasid caliph Harun Al Rashid (786–908) controlling the wide geographical area stretching from northern Africa to Central Asia. At that time Raqqa was larger than the Omayyad capital Damascus.11 The city was known for its intellectual life and ceramic and glassware industry. The walled city served as a garrison for soldiers, and the ceramic industry was located to the east of the city walls, while the Abbasid palace complexes and canals spread out of the city walls to the north (Fig. 1).12 Raqqa flourished under the Zangids and Ayyubids, and it was an important provincial centre under Salah al-Din (Saladin 1171–1193).

Fig. 1. Map of Raqqa/Rafiqa (Heidemann 2006, p. 36). 11

 Heidemann 2006.  Heidemann 2004, p. 50.

12

A. AL KHABOUR

186

After the Mongol invasion in 1259–1265 the city was abandoned for six centuries. The Ottoman Empire tried several times to re-establish life in Raqqa. One of these attempts was during the reign of Sulayman Qanuni (1520–1566) and attested through a building inscription found last century in reuse in the mausoleum of Ueis al Qarni.13 But it was the last attempt (that is, construction of the Ottoman police outpost in 1863, that was successful and saw life returned to the city until the present day.

SOCIAL

STRUCTURES AND THE INFLUENCE OF THE PIONEERS ON HERITAGE SITES

When the Ottoman Empire established the police outpost in 1863, several families came to Raqqa along two main axes: from the north from Urfa, Viranşehir and Birecik in modern Turkey and from the east, from Iraq. These families (who later formed Raqqa’s main tribes) settled near the police outpost in order to offer their services to the Ottoman soldiers and enjoy their protection. Most of these families had fled from their place of origin, escaping from different risks to their own and their family’s lives; some had committed an minor crime or an infraction of the social rules in the place of origin, while others came for economic reasons. The regions nearby to Raqqa were already inhabited by the Afadla tribes, who in turn called the families who lived near the police outpost (Karakol in Turkish) the Kol or Qoul tribes (‫)القول‬. The Qoul were 17 tribes and they formed the core of the population of modern Raqqa after 1863. The new inhabitants carried out two interesting initiatives in order to create harmony between them, since they came from various backgrounds and geographical areas. The first initiative was creating a new dialect of mixed Iraqi and south Turkish dialects, and then a specific dialect known as Raqqian dialect (Lahja Raqqawia), a mixture of Bedouin and Iraqi with broad use of Turkish and Kurdish vocabulary. The second initiative was the “social contract”. Many of these families were formerly part of the Milli Confederation which is a confederation of Arab, Kurd and Turkman tribes in southern Turkey, with its capital in the city of Viranşehir. They brought the idea in practice to the new habitat Raqqa. It was a purely social confederation without any military or defensive dimensions. They called it the Akrad confederation because the Arabic tribe called Al-Akrad initiated it. The idea of the confederation was accepted by seven tribes/families that formed the Akrad Confederation or Hilf al Akrad (‫)حلف الاكراد‬, they are: Al-Akrad (‫)الكراد‬, Bachri (‫)البجري‬, Shmuta (‫)الشمطة‬, Sa’do (‫)السعدو‬, Ramadan Agha (‫ )الرمضان اغا‬Shibl al Salama (‫)الشبل السلامة‬ and Berjakli (‫ )البرجكلية‬tribes. On the other hand, some families did not accept, and decided to form their own confederation under the leadership of the Ujaily family; they called their confederation the Ashsharin Confederation or Hilf al ‘ashsharin (‫العشارين‬ ‫ )حلف‬because they mainly came from ّ Iraq and ‘Ishara (Terqa) region on the Syrian Euphrates. They are ten tribes: Ujaily (‫)العجيلي‬, Bleibil (‫)البليبل‬, Mohamed al Hasan (‫)المحمد الحسن‬, Hassoun (‫)الحسون‬, Sh’eib (‫)الشعيب‬, ّ Ramla‫) )الرملة‬, Shwadhib (‫)الشواذيب‬, Shahin (‫)الشاهين‬, Wahab (‫ )الوهب‬and Gwaydir (‫)الكويدر‬ 13

 Heidemann 2004, p. 55.

RAQQA: A HISTORY OF THE DESTRUCTION OF CULTURAL HERITAGE

187

tribes. These two confederations, Ahlaf: Hilf al Akrad and Hilf al ‘ashsharin, formed the Qoul people (‫)القول‬, the core of the pioneers of modern Raqqa 160 years ago. It is worth mentioning that a few families from the Qoul did not join any of these confederations. More people came and enriched Raqqa’s population, including the Circassian refugees in 1905 and the Armenian refugees who escaped from the Turkish genocide in 1915. The population grew extensively after the so-called Cotton Boom, which was the 1940s flourishing of irrigated cotton cultivation. As a result, many people came from Aleppo and other Syrian provinces to live in Raqqa and work in cotton-related employment. In 1961 Raqqa became the capital of the recently established province which meant the need to recruit more employees and administrative personnel, who came from all Syrian provinces.14 This was a non-homogeneous population, comprising those pioneers who had settled in the ancient city of Raqqa and had an impact on its heritage through destroying the ancient city wall to build their houses, as well as participating in early illicit digging, and the later Raqqa people, who settled in the rest of the Abbassid city. As to Raqqa’s later, post-1970s inhabitants, they could not integrate completely and it was difficult for them to create a real connection to the place; they always had the feeling of their stay in Raqqa being temporary, and once their job or employment was finished they would return to their place of origin. These most recent people of Raqqa, in Al Hassoun’s words, maintained a “Hotel Culture” and had no real connection to Raqqa, its heritage or history.15

EARLY

DAMAGE TO HERITAGE IN

RAQQA

Interest in Raqqa began with translations of the literary classic Alf Layla wa-Layla (The Thousand and One Nights) into English by John Payne (1882–84) and Sir Richard Burton (1885–88) and into French by J. C. Mardrus (1898–1904). It was the best image to advertise Raqqa, the capital of the caliph Harun al-Rashid, and its valuable wares to the West.16 The demand for Raqqa’s artefacts and the proliferation of its ceramics and glassware in museums, art markets and galleries led to early illicit digging and damage to the ruins of Raqqa. When Raqqa was inhabited again after the police outpost was built, it was part of the Ottoman Empire and antiquities were protected by the Ottoman laws: Law 1869 (Asar-I Antika Nizamnamesi 1869), Law 1874 (Asar-I Antika Nizamnamesi 1874), Law 1884 (Asar-I Antika Nizamnamesi 1884) and finally Law 1906 (Asar-I Antika Nizamnamesi 1906).17 With the establishment of the Qoul tribes, they removed bricks from Raqqa ruins and ancient city walls to construct their homes, apparently with permission from the Ottoman government, but this led to the unearthing of ceramic objects and illicit digging. Early documents related to illicit digging in Raqqa appear in the Ottoman archive as early as 1899. Furthermore, the Ottoman Empire withdrew permission in December 1900 and requested 14

 Rabo 2017.  Al Hassoun 2017. 16  Jenkins-Madina 2006, pp. 11–21. 17  Al Khabour 2018, pp. 2–4. 15

A. AL KHABOUR

188

the Imperial Museum to conduct scientific excavations in Raqqa. Beginning these excavations was not possible before 31 December 1905 and they continued for two months.18 A new wave of Circassian refugees arrived in Iskenderun in November 1905, escaping from Russian pressure. Forty-seven families were settled in Raqqa: the city quarter they settled in is known until now as the quarter of the Circassians or Hai al-Charaksa (‫)حي الجراكسة‬. Each family was given land, a two-room cottage, a stable and a yard. Their arrival on 2 April 1906 was a threat to Raqqa’s antiquity, as opportunistic looting and smuggling by these refugees increased; objects confiscated from Raqqa were hosted in Istanbul and other Ottoman museums. As a response to the threat, the Imperial Museum conducted a further excavation season on 3 August 1908.19 It is worth mentioning that not just the dealers and smugglers participated in smuggling Raqqa’s antiquities, but archaeologists such as Max Von Oppenheim were also involved.20 In a letter written by the Officer of the Imperial Museum in Raqqa, dated to 4 September 1908, he claimed that hundreds of local residents dug the site day and night and very few places were left without disturbance (Fig. 2).21 Reports in Turkish and German on the objects from Raqqa, both from excavations and confiscations, were published in 1938.22 Raqqa’s population increased with the continued arrival of new tribes settled in the new city, including Armenian refugees in 1915. Consequently, the town expanded and the need to build roads and squares affected the archaeological scene. Between 1936 and 1950, a road alongside the southern wall was constructed and cut into the Ayyubid citadel built in the 13th century; the northeastern and part of the northwestern towers survived. The northwestern tower was the southwestern tower of the Abbasid city wall, known to the local

Fig. 2. Illicit digging near the Great Mosque, Raqqa (The Metropolitan Museum of Art Creswell archive, p. 12). 18

 Yoltar-Yıldırım 2006, p. 193.  Jenkins-Madina 2006, pp. 11–21. 20  Yoltar-Yıldırım 2006, pp. 195–196. 21  Yoltar-Yıldırım 2006, p. 201. 22  Yoltar-Yıldırım 2013, p. 88. 19

RAQQA: A HISTORY OF THE DESTRUCTION OF CULTURAL HERITAGE

189

people as al-gulla “the ball”, nowadays under the Square of the Clock Dawar al Sa’a (Fig. 3).23 The Abbassid industrial area to the east of the ancient wall was removed, together with the area of Hellenistic and Omayyad Raqqa, which is the al-Mishlab area today. The remains of the Omayyad mosque al-Munaitir mentioned by Sarre and Herzfeld were visible until the beginning of the French Mandate in Raqqa in the 1920s; it was then demolished and the elementary school of Zaki al Arsouzi was built in its place.

Fig. 3. Reconstruction of the citadel (Heidemann 2004, p. 50).

As to the Abbassid palaces complex located to the north of the city walls, it has been covered by the modern city of Raqqa since the 1970s. The palace complexes were distinguished by means of the French aerial photographs taken by Jean Sauvaget in 1924 and those taken by Antoine Poidebard in 1926–1930. Initially under French direction and then supervised by the Syrian Department of Archaeology, four palace complexes were excavated (A-B-C-D) and five further residential buildings (the West Palace, the East Palace, the East Complex, the North Complex and the Northeast Complex). Two Islamic glass and ceramic workshops were studied during 1982–1994 as part of rescue excavations directed by Michael Meinecke, German Archaeological Institute, Damascus Branch.24 Corona satellite imagery of Raqqa demonstrates the growth of modern Raqqa over archaeological remains in 1924– 1967 and 1987 (Fig. 4: A, B, C).25

Fig. 4A, B, C. Plans showing the growth of modern Raqqa on archaeological remains in A: 1924, B: 1967 and C: 1987 (Keith et al. 2004, pp. 150–151). 23

 Heidemann 2004, p. 49.  Siegel 2010, pp. 131–132. 25  Keith et al. 2004, pp. 150–151. 24

A. AL KHABOUR

190

MODERN RAQQA: ARCHITECTURAL DEVELOPMENT, HERITAGE PROTECTION, FOUNDATION OF THE NATIONAL MUSEUM AND PRIVATE MUSEUMS

Protecting heritage as part of the nation’s identity became a prominent feature after the 1963 Syrian Law of Antiquities and later amendments in 1999. The Department of Antiquities and Museums of Raqqa was established in 1974; initially it occupied a room in the government building and from there directed all issues related to Raqqa’s antiquities. After the International Congress on the History and Archaeology of Raqqa from 24–28 October 1981, the Ottoman government building known as the Saray, saved from demolition by the local population, was inaugurated as the archaeological museum of Raqqa to host the finds of many decades of archaeological labour. Other museums were opened later, such as the Ja’bar Museum and the Folkloric Museum, as well as private museums and galleries such as the Museum of Taha al Taha to host folkloric items, ancient newspapers, artworks and some archaeological items. THE

WAR IN

SYRIA: PLUNDERING

MUSEUMS AND DESTRUCTION OF HERITAGE SITES

During the first two years of war in Syria, Raqqa was a quiet place and the city hosted people who escaped from war and destruction in other Syrian provinces: the population including the guests reached one million inhabitants. On 13 March 2013 the Syrian regime lost control over Raqqa. Power circulated among different militant armed groups; one of these was the group of Ahrar al-Sham, who in July 2013 attacked the Central Bank and stole 513 archaeological items which had been deposited by the museum’s staff in the bank for security reasons. The museum and archaeological sites were bombed by Syrian aircraft on 11 November 2014 and on various occasions afterwards. The Museum of Ja’bar Citadel was also looted in 2013: storehouses were targeted, like the storehouse of Heraqla on 3 November 2013, and intensive clandestine excavations spread across different archaeological sites in Raqqa, such as Tell Bi’a, Tell Hammam et’Turkman, Tell Sabi Abyad and many more. A detailed record of Raqqa’s damaged heritage was made by the author in 2015, but there is need to update that work because more incidents occurred after that date, especially during the ISIS period.26 ISIS:

THE START AND SPREAD

As a result of the violent reaction of the Syrian regime and the high number of civilians killed, the Syrian revolution became militarised under the leadership of the Nusra Front (Jabhat al-Nusra). At the beginning it was supported by a branch of al-Qaida in Iraq: the Islamic State in Iraq led by al-Baghdadi. In 2013 al-Baghdadi declared the bilateral merging of the Nusra Front and the Islamic State in Iraq; in 2014 he declared the foundation of the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria: ISIS or DAESH (Daulat al Islam fi al-‘iraq wa al-Sham) and Raqqa became the capital of a state that lasted for almost five years, until March 2019. 26

 Al Khabour 2015.

RAQQA: A HISTORY OF THE DESTRUCTION OF CULTURAL HERITAGE

CULTURAL

HERITAGE UNDER

ISIS

191

CONTROL

The arrival of this radical ideology in Raqqa was the worst thing ever to happen to the lives of the local people, their human rights and their cultural heritage. As a consequence of the loss of the governmental control over Raqqa, people started practising deep agriculture in the protection zones of the archaeological mounds, which had been previously protected by Syrian Antiquities Law. Then the local population in the countryside began building structures above the sites themselves and later digging in the archaeological mounds, thus destroying the stratigraphy and looting valuable finds. After that, museums and storehouses were plundered. The arrival of ISIS was a catastrophe because they implemented a new interpretation of religious texts that involved destroying monuments, statues (idols in ISIS’s interpretation), museum objects and archaeological sites. But at the same time ISIS practised illicit trafficking and smuggling antiquities to the West, Arab Gulf countries and Japan. Digging in archaeological sites became “allowed” subject to payment of 20 per cent of the finds (the Khums). Later, ISIS even produced its own excavators, metal detectors and heavy machinery. DAESH manipulated the people by using religious rhetoric and by spreading the “idolism” culture to justify crimes against cultural heritage on one hand, and the sale of it on the other. In Raqqa, as soon as they announced the city as the de facto capital of the state, they destroyed the 3000-year-old statues of the Assyrian Arslan Tash Lions which were displayed in the national park in 2014. The destruction continued until the last day of ISIS’s control over Raqqa, including the ancient city walls of Raqqa, the Abbassid Mosque and a large number of archaeological sites, some of which had been excavated or surveyed by the Department of Archaeology of Raqqa or by international institutions. Not just archaeological sites and museums were targeted by ISIS but also religious sites. They considered all Muslim shrines “against religion” and destroyed most of these, such as the Mosque and Shrine of Oueis al-Qarni, the shrine in the Abbassid Mosque and the shrine of Ibrahim al-Khalil in Tell Abyad, just at the Syrian-Turkish frontier. Raqqa’s churches were also damaged after ISIS converted them into places to spread ISIS’s ideology and interpretation of Islam, or used them as centres to collect taxes (Zakaah); examples are the Syriac Church of the Annunciation (Kanisat al-Bishara) and the Catholic Church of the Resurrection (Kanisat al-Qiama).27

WOMEN

AND CHILDREN

The most vulnerable elements of society were women and children. ISIS formed the Battalion of al-Kansa (Katibat al Khansa’) to terrify women and control their movements and their way of dressing, and banned them from moving alone without an unmarriageable person (Muhram). Women (that is, all females over 11 years) were obliged to dress all in black, with two cloaks (‘aba’a), niqab, gloves and three veils (hijab) on the head to prevent 27

 Al Khabour 2015.

192

A. AL KHABOUR

visibility even under the direct light of the sun. The punishment for not following the rules was biting by Katibat al Khansa’ or lashing in public. Female society lived under threat all the time of ISIS; families were afraid that ISIS would oblige them to allow ISIS soldiers to marry their daughters by force.

EDUCATION The education sector in Raqqa was completely paralysed for four years because ISIS closed the schools and all teachers were considered apostates, to be subjected to a course of repentance before they could exercise the profession. Teachers, the majority of governmental employees, stayed without salaries from the Syrian government, and most schools were bombarded and destroyed. ISIS opened religious schools (Madrasa Shar’ia) to teach the children their radical interpretation of Islam, because of which the large majority of the people preferred to keep their children at home for four years, so as not to be brainwashed by ISIS. The damage to education and the entire generation is inexcusable. ISIS affected negatively the whole society and the future of thousands of children. Literacy levels dropped. Some children became involved in the world of crime and weapons (Fig. 5).

Fig. 5. Child selling guns in Tell Abyad/ Raqqa (Al Hakkar 2015, https://www.jadaliyya.com/Details/32178).

RAQQA: A HISTORY OF THE DESTRUCTION OF CULTURAL HERITAGE

LOCAL

193

POPULATION

The public squares became arenas to run executions, mutilating headless corpses, cutting off hands and legs. The local population finally became used to seeing hanged corpses in the Clock Square (Dawar al- Sa’a) or the pelting of a woman with stones or the throwing of homosexuals from high buildings. It was prohibited to listen to music or drink alcohol. It was compulsory to practice religion, such as Ramadan or the daily five prayers, and the shops were obliged to close their doors during these times. The non-Muslim community was obliged to pay the Head Tax (Jizyah) if the followers did not want to convert to Islam. Even when DAESH was forced to leave Raqqa, they laid a huge number of mines in civilians’ houses; thousands of innocents were killed or became handicapped after ISIS lost its “capital”.

DISCUSSION Cultural heritage in Raqqa has suffered different stages of destruction since the modern settlement of the city in 1863. The social structure of Raqqa’s population played a crucial role in the heritage context. The first pioneers came from different backgrounds and geographical areas and for various reasons. They affected the ancient city ruins by extracting bricks from the historical monuments to build their own houses, and by participating in illicit digging to benefit from the new economic revenue, encouraged by antiquities dealers who smuggled Raqqa’s famous fine ceramics and glassware out of the city. Even the 17 Qoul tribes developed feelings of belonging to the new place relatively late, but by creating a good example of harmony and coexistence, they managed to achieve social and demographic integration, and to consider themselves the new owners of heritage as the original people of Raqqa, responsible for protecting its history and heritage. After the Cotton Boom, more new people settled in Raqqa looking for job opportunities; they contributed to the development and advancement of Raqqa and converted it from a large town into a real city, but they had a problem of identity, and could not (or did not want to) be fully integrated into their new home. These later Raqqa people conserved the dialect of their place of origin, its way of dressing and social relationships. Many maintained the idea of the “hotel culture”, referred to above. This double identity affected their connection to Raqqa and its heritage, taking into account that the Qoul tribes do not form more than 20 per cent of the entire inhabitants of Raqqa city. This weak and loose society, in my opinion, was the main reason that made ISIS choose Raqqa as the capital of the Islamic State, a favourable environment in which to terrify the non-homogenous society and control the city more easily than would be possible elsewhere. Under these conditions ISIS could destroy Raqqa’s history, and people’s lives and memories without any real resistance. Now, after the recovery of Raqqa from ISIS by the USA-supported forces of the Syrian Democratic Forces, there are many projects involved in reconstructing the destroyed city (estimated to be around 80 per cent). The international community has invested many efforts in post-war reconstruction but has neglected practices related to social acts and

194

A. AL KHABOUR

elements such as using heritage for peace-creating and peacekeeping. There is a lack of research on the role of heritage in connecting a community with their past, based on their shared memories. I hope future projects will contribute to resolving conflict, protecting human rights, and rehabilitating Raqqa’s society, which has been severely impacted by social and physical trauma.

CONCLUSIONS In the present study, we explained the modern history of Raqqa, and how it was reinhabited after almost six centuries of abandonment. We showed how Raqqa’s rich history and prosperity was the reason for early illicit digging and damage of historical monuments after the establishment of the Qoul tribes in 1863. We also explained how the weak and divided social structure of more recent Raqqa, besides the need for city growth, led to the disappearance of the major part of the ancient Abbassid capital, and how this weak social structure formed a less resistant environment, which encouraged DAESH to take it as the capital of the state. In fact, the heritage and the people of Raqqa, who suffered from such ideology, were the most vulnerable elements and victims. Further post-war reconstruction research should consider social aspects in healing the trauma of war and rebuilding the relationship between people and their heritage.

BIBLIOGRAPHY AINSWORTH, W. H. 1888 A Personal Narrative of the Euphrates Expedition. London: Kegan Paul. AL HAKKAR, F. 2015 Syrian city of Raqqa: From the civilization to the unknown future (in Arabic). https://www.jadaliyya.com/Details/32178 (1 September 2019) AL HASSOUN, M. 2017 Raqqa, from the tribe to the city: the Ottoman police outpost…temporary states… al Ba’th and the Jihadists 2-3 (in Arabic). http://alaalam.org/ar/society-and-culturear/item/539-655190617 (1 September 2019) AL KHABOUR, A. 2015 El conflicto armado en Siria y su repercusión sobre el Patrimonio Cultural, Vol. II: Inventario del Patrimonio Cultural afectado en la provincia de Raqqa (marzo 2011marzo 2015). https://en.unesco.org/syrian-observatory/sites/syrian-observatory/files/ reports/ANAS_VOL_II.pdf (1 September 2019) 2018 “Il ruolo della Legge sulle Antichità Siriane per la protezione del patrimonio culturale fino allo scoppio della guerra civile in Siria nel 2011,” Astarté. Estudios del Oriente Próximo y el Mediterráneo (1): 1–13. CHESNEY, F. R. 1850 The Expedition for the Survey of the Rivers Euphrates and Tigris. London: Longman. CRESWELL, K. A. C. 1940 Early Muslim Architecture, Part Two: Early Abbasids, Ummayyads of Cordova, Aghlabids, Tulunids, and Samanids. Oxford: Clarendon Press. DUSSAUD, R. 1927 Topographie de la Syrie. Paris: Presses de l’Ifpo.

RAQQA: A HISTORY OF THE DESTRUCTION OF CULTURAL HERITAGE

195

HEIDEMANN, S. 2004 “Die Zitadelle von ar-Räfiqa (The Citadel of al-Rafiqa),” in Raqqa III - Baudenkmäler und Paläste I, edited by V. Daiber and A. Becker, pp. 49–55, plates 14, 15. Mainz: Ph. Von Zabern. 2006 “The history of the industrial and commercial area of Abbasid Al-Raqqa (called Al-Raqqa Al-Muhtariqa),” Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 69(1): 33–52. JENKINS-MADINA, M. 2006 Raqqa Revisited, Ceramics of Ayyubid Syria. New York: The Metropolitan Museum of Art. KEITH, C., GARY, P., ADAM, G., HENDERSON, J. and O’HARA, S. 2004 “Corona Remotely-Sensed Imagery in Dryland Archaeology: The Islamic City of al-Raqqa, Syria,” Journal of Field Archaeology 29: 139–154. OPPENHEIM, M. V. 2004 The Bedouins, 5 vols. Translated by M. Kibyu. London: Dar Al-Warraq. RABO, A. 2017 “Anthropological Methods and an Analysis of Memory: Migration, Past and Present in Raqqa Province, Syria,” Middle East Journal of Refugee Studies 2: 51–72. SACHAU, E. 1883 Reise durch Syrien und Mesopotamien. Leipzig: F.A. Brockhaus. SARRE, F. and HERZFELD, E. 1911 Archäologische Reise im Euphrat und Tigrisgebiet. Vol. 1. Berlin: Dietrich Reimer – Ernst Vohsen. SIEGEL, U. 2010 “The racecourse at ar-Raqqa/ar-Rafiqa (Syria),” Zeitschrift für Orient-Archäologie (3): 130–141. TONGHINI, C. and HENDERSON, J. 1998 “An eleventh-century pottery production workshop at al-Raqqa, Preliminary report,” Levant 30: 113–127. YOLTAR-YILDIRIM, A. 2006 “The Ottoman Response to Illicit Digging in Raqqa,” in Raqqa Revisited: Ceramics of Ayyubid Syria, edited by M. Jenkins-Madina, pp. 191–220. New York: The Metropolitan Museum of Art. 2013 “Raqqa: The Forgotten Excavation of an Islamic Site in Syria by the Ottoman Imperial Museum in the Early Twentieth Century,” Muqarnas: An Annual on the Visual Cultures of the Islamic World 30(1): 73–93.

CHAPTER 17

MEMORIES OF EXCAVATIONS PAST: REVISITING THE SYRIA EXHIBITION AT THE UNIVERSITY OF MELBOURNE TWO YEARS ON Annelies VAN DE VEN Université catholique de Louvain, Belgium E-mail: [email protected]

ABSTRACT This paper critically reflects on the Syria: Ancient History – Modern Conflict exhibition in the Classics and Archaeology Gallery of Ian Potter Museum at the University of Melbourne. It focuses on how the exhibition was able to combine its university-mandated educational function while simultaneously grappling with themes of memory and empathy. Wider issues that have emerged since the start of the conflict are also considered, particularly the notion of academic objectivity in safeguarding heritage and the role of reconstruction, whether digital or physical in our commemoration of Syrian archaeological sites.

INTRODUCTION Syria: Ancient History – Modern Conflict was an exhibition curated by Andrew Jamieson and Heather Jackson that ran in the Classics and Archaeology Gallery at the Ian Potter Museum of Art from 28 March to 27 August 2017.1 Within the small gallery space, a number of subjects were addressed, from international reconstruction projects of Palmyra to Hellenistic pottery in the Middle Euphrates Valley. Unlike previous exhibitions in the gallery where narratives were manifested in impressive artefacts, from complete funerary assemblages from the Dead Sea region to charismatic Greek bronzes, the narrative of the Syria exhibition focused primarily on objects with less physical presence. Archaeological tools and fragmented artefacts made up the bulk of the exhibition. The monumental entrance piece was provided by a Palmyrene bust of Hagar on loan from the Australian War Memorial (Fig. 1).2 Her human countenance gave a distinct and memorable face to 1

 The exhibition was co-curated by Andrew Jamieson and Heather Jackson, in collaboration with Ian Potter Museum of Art staff members. I acted as research assistant on the exhibition, helping to prepare images and texts and thus this review is an instance of self-critique as much as it is an attempt to constructively address several ongoing problems in the curation of Middle Eastern collections. 2  Accession Number ART00484. The story told by Australian Lieutenant General Sir Harry Chauvel, and the one recorded both at the Australian War Memorial and in the Syria exhibition, is that the bust was given to him as a gift by the Sheikh of Tadmur. While the former enjoys great renown in Australian history, the latter remains dishearteningly unnamed in published accounts. Based on travelers’ accounts, he can potentially be identified as Sheikh Mohammed Abdallah (Kelman 1908; Morrill 1924, p. 260). The gift was reportedly a response to Chauvel’s own offer of a gold watch in gratitude for the Sheikh’s hospitality towards two wayward Australian airmen. See Trendall 1942.

198

A. VAN DE VEN

Fig. 1. View of the stele from Palmyra on loan from the Australian War Memorial for the Syria: Ancient History – Modern Conflict exhibition (Courtesy of the Australian War Memorial and Ian Potter Museum of Art. Photographer: Christian Capurro).

the displacement of Syrian heritage being discussed within the exhibition. In the central cases, the visitor was taken through past Australian-Syrian collaborations (see Jamieson and Jackson this volume), all salvage projects responding to the construction of the Tishrin and Tabqa dams. First was the University of Melbourne’s excavations at El-Qitar led by Tom McClellan and William Culican in the 1980s, then the work of Guy Bunnens and his team at Til Barsib/Tell Ahmar, and finally the largest section was dedicated to the most recent excavations of Graeme Clarke and Heather Jackson at Jebel Khalid. The outer cases held digital images of lost objects while on the back wall an enlarged image of the Palmyrene arch stood as a testament to the damage wreaked by Da’esh and the recent efforts by international teams to document the destruction and dislocation of heritage in the region (Figs 2–3). Throughout this paper, I will focus on how the exhibition was able to combine its university-mandated educational function while simultaneously grappling with themes of memory and empathy. I will attempt to shed light on the curatorial choices made in this exhibition, from the aims and messages it sought to promote, to the interpretative tools and engagement strategies it deployed. As this is a critical reflection, I also describe several challenges faced by the curatorial team and the shortcomings that have become clear with two years of hindsight. The first section will focus on the emotional engagement of the exhibition, as mediated through the materials provided by the archaeologists of the AustralianSyrian campaigns. Following this, the University of Melbourne’s Syria exhibition is compared with others in the field in order to determine the role of local voices in the modern museology of the ancient Middle East. The subsequent sections analyse the use of Palmyra in the exhibition, as a significant site that has become a symbol of both destruction and resistance in recent conflicts. This will also involve a discussion of wider issues that have emerged since the start of the conflict, particularly the notion of academic objectivity in safeguarding heritage and the role of reconstruction, whether digital or physical in our

MEMORIES OF EXCAVATIONS PAST

199

Fig. 2. General view of the Syria: Ancient History – Modern Conflict exhibition (Courtesy of the Ian Potter Museum of Art. Photographer: Christian Capurro).

Fig. 3. View of the exhibition showing the image of the Arch of Palmyra (Courtesy of the Ian Potter Museum of Art. Photographer: Christian Capurro).

commemoration of Syrian archaeological sites. Finally, I will look to the human loss, as well as the potential for healing and collaborative futures. By exploring the exhibition, both on the micro-scale of personal memory and in the context of wider discussions in the field, I aim to highlight the role of museums as a forum for both debate and reconciliation. It is my hope that this chapter be read as both a celebration of the exhibition’s achievements and a guide for future improvements.

A. VAN DE VEN

200 EVOKING

EMPATHY

The opening of the Syria exhibition was never going to be a run-of-the-mill academic event. Walking into the Classics and Archaeology Gallery on 30 May 2017, any regular exhibition goer could sense that the atmosphere was more emotionally charged. Beyond being an exploration of over three decades of Australian-Syrian collaborations in archaeology, the exhibition had a far greater significance, a moment of both mourning and celebration. As former collaborators clasped hands in greeting in the lobby, the bitter-sweetness of the event became evident. Besides the warmth of old friends sharing memories, there was also a sense of sadness for what they had lost, both academically and personally. These connections were ultimately the framework upon which the exhibition was constructed. The memories of the team members who participated in the Australian-Syrian excavations promoted both an emotional engagement with the destruction of heritage in the region and a contextual understanding of its history. In his opening address, Graeme Clarke placed these experiences within the archaeological landscape, inviting the audience in attendance into this memory-laden space by richly describing the context of the Middle Euphrates valley. He took the listener on a journey along the Big Bend, from the Tabqa Dam to the Tishrin Dam, ending his narrative voyage at Jebel Khalid, a site where he had spent numerous seasons uncovering the region’s deep history.3 His speech had a eulogistic quality, a characteristic that can also be ascribed to the exhibition. The nostalgic notes in the opening event were reflected in the materials of the exhibition itself. Archaeological artefacts like lamps, figurines, and vessels interspersed with old dumpy levels, toolkits and cameras filled the central cases of the gallery. The materials on display become “metonymic displacements”4 for geographically distant archaeological sites as well as temporally distant events. The inclusion by Jamieson and Jackson of out-of-use archaeological tools, filled-in notebooks, and incomplete artefacts created the entrancing effect of a time capsule, transporting all visitors back to the final days of excavation before the sites were threatened by conflict. Sketches along the central panel placed the visitor in the shoes of the archaeologists, seeing the sites as they saw them. A seemingly more objective archaeological vision was represented by a series of photos on the labels. Open empty landscapes, framed artefacts and action shots alternated throughout the exhibition. All the elements together created a visual juxtaposition. On one hand is the archaeological site as an object of study, with all of our data and records. On the other hand, the sites themselves are actors on the historic stage with their own biographies independent of ours, and thus continuing beyond our interventions. Archaeological museums have previously been criticised for failing to “connect to the personal narratives that visitors carry with them.”5 However, the personal archives on display in the table cases in the back of the gallery, including travel documents, entry tickets, and group photos belonging to the exhibition curators, created an atmosphere of familiarity 3

 Clarke 2001, 2002, 2014, 2016; Clarke and Jackson 2016.  Shaw 2018, p. 156. 5  Pujol et al. 2013, p. 77. 4

MEMORIES OF EXCAVATIONS PAST

201

for a wide audience. Perusing the cases, a visitor might be reminded of their own passport stamps and photo albums, souvenirs of past travels. These archival artefacts complemented their archaeological counterparts, bringing personal storytelling into an otherwise academic narrative. This kind of display breaks down the trope of the “hero-discoverer”,6 focusing instead on the everyday experiences of the archaeologists, and the passion they hold for their subject matter. The personal connection created in this way between curator and visitor was not just a handy museological strategy, but it was also the central aim of the exhibition itself. Names of devastated sites and distant colleagues were interwoven into the display cases, text panels and object labels. Surrounded by photos of fragmented teams and reconstructions of missing objects, it was impossible not to feel affected by the experiences of the archaeologists featured in the exhibition. The sense of empathy engendered by the exhibition is one that feels immediate and relevant. As museologist Lauren Zalut highlights, we often see “trauma and complex issues through museum educators, tour guides, or docents who are generations or decades removed from the topic or event.”7 It is far less common for museums, especially archaeological ones, to consider these themes through a personal and contemporary lens. This is where Syria: Ancient History – Modern Conflict excelled. Rather than focusing on the motivations and actions of people in the past, the exhibition considered how the loss of our past can affect us in the present. Despite an acute awareness of the great and inexorable loss that this conflict evoked, the exhibition also carried with it a seed of hope. The focus on local-international collaboration and cultural preservation efforts did not just emphasise events of the past, it outlined possible futures. This was most clearly indicated in the wall panel about Jebel Khalid, which ended with a note on the future plans for the excavation. Despite reports about the site and its storerooms at Abu Qalqal showing extensive destruction and looting by Da’esh,8 directors Heather Jackson and Graeme Clarke decided to focus their text panel on looking to the future. For them, the warfare does not mark an end to their research, but rather a temporary cessation.

THE IMPORTANCE OF LOCAL VOICES9 The University of Melbourne exhibition was not alone in its focus on Syrian heritage, and it came at a time when museums around the world were working to engage with memory, heritage and conflict in the region.10 The balance is a difficult one to strike, and 6

 Riggs 2018, p. 171; Stevenson and Williams forthcoming.  Zalut 2018, p. 4. 8  Abdo et al. 2017. 9  This reflection on the need to holistically include local voices in all stages of exhibition development was by no small measure motivated by the important work of archaeologist and curator Heba Abd el Gawad, whose work to make Egyptology more inclusive of local voices has been inspirational. In addition, special thanks is owed to Drs Alice Stevenson, Mirjam Brusius, Christina Riggs, Paul Collins and Giovanna Vitelli for their aid in identifying resources to further support this section. 10  Examples of these exhibitions include: Syria: A Living History, Aga Khan Museum (Oct 15, 2016 – Feb 26, 2017); Syria: Please Don’t Forget Us, United States Holocaust Memorial Museum (Jan 3, 2017 – Sep 4, 2017); Aleppo, Tropenmuseum (Apr 20, 2017 – Mar 4, 2018). Since the Melbourne exhibition, several 7

202

A. VAN DE VEN

the numerous interpretations by cultural institutions in the past five years have shown how broad the spectrum of responses can be. Some museums chose to focus more on human stories throughout time, as was the case at the Brooklyn Museum’s exhibition. The exhibition Syria, Then and Now: Stories from Refugees a Century Apart combined modern art and Ayyubid artefacts to tell the parallel stories of Circassian refugees who came to Syria from Russia in the late 19th century and the experiences of Syrian refugees fleeing the recent violence. In contrast, Aleppo at the Tropenmuseum was very visually oriented, with photos of the city taking centre stage. A single survivor story was the focus of the multi-media exhibition held at the United States Holocaust Museum, featuring the testimony of Mansour Omari. Their self-proclaimed aim was to “sound … the alarm on policymakers and the public about atrocities being committed by the Assad regime.”11 The University of Melbourne took a different approach with its Syria exhibition, focusing less on contemporary politics and more on how the Australian researchers working in Syria valued the archaeological heritage of the region. This approach played to the university department and the collection’s strengths. What it unfortunately left out was how Syrian locals and diaspora felt about this cultural heritage. Though the images of Syrian colleagues were included in the display cases, their voices were not, an omission that comes out when looking at the exhibition with hindsight. As “no set of objects speaks except through a voice we provide,”12 the objects on display from Syria are thus endowed only with the voices of the archaeologists that study them, rather than the diverse communities that find value in them. This is not a problem unique to the Syria exhibition, but is an issue that has become central to debates about ownership and inclusion in Middle Eastern archaeology.13 While it has become more commonplace to incorporate community outreach and local collaborations into fieldwork, there is still hesitancy in allowing multivocality in the public products of our research, whether due to a desire to “retain intellectual authority”14 or a fear of critique. Through the Syria exhibition curatorial team, Syrian groups were actively welcomed into the exhibition space. Bilingual English-Arabic interpretation was provided for the exhibition,15 and groups from the Syrian diaspora and refugee communities were invited for tours and events. Like several other exhibitions across Australia, the US, the UK, and Europe, the curatorial team of the exhibition at the University of Melbourne also sought to

other museums have hosted further displays focusing on the rich heritage of Syria and its loss in recent conflicts: Palmyra: Loss and Remembrance, The Getty Villa (Apr 18, 2018 – May 27, 2019); Syria, Then and Now: Stories from Refugees a Century Apart, Brooklyn Museum (Oct 13, 2018 – Jan 13, 2019); Syria Matters, Museum of Islamic Art Qatar (Nov 22, 2018 – Apr 30, 2019); Cultural Landscape Syria, Pergamonmuseum (Feb 28, 2019 – May 26, 2019); The Road to Palmyra, Glyptoteket (Sep 20, 2019 – Mar 1, 2020). 11  As quoted on USHMM 2017. 12  Joyce 2002, p. 117. 13  Several scholars have contributed to this debate across the world, but so far it has gained more traction with discussions of ethnographic displays of indigenous communities (see Onciul 2015) than archaeological displays of far-flung regions. Thematic volumes like Simpson 2001; Peers and Brown 2003; Golding and Modest 2013; Onciul et al. 2017 provide essential parallel case studies placing the issues of local inclusion in the reception Middle Eastern archaeology into its wider museological context. 14  Stevenson 2015, p. 9. 15  All wall panels were translated into Arabic by Mohammad Alsamsam, and printouts were available around the exhibition.

MEMORIES OF EXCAVATIONS PAST

203

incorporate Syrian voices through inclusive exhibition programming.16 A series of talks was organised with help from the Asylum Seeker Resource Centre and Refugee Council around the theme of refugees and asylum-seeking. The series acted both as a platform for personal stories and as a source of information for those seeking to settle in Australia. Particularly important were the presentations of refugee advocates Somayeh Farahani, Arif Hazara, and Omar Al-Kassab whose stories had a significant impact on the museum visitors. However, with a temporary exhibition, these interventions are “temporary and ephemeral,”17 confined to a single event with a circumscribed audience. Though the exhibition made some efforts to de-elevate the objectivity of the curatorial voice, the choice of only including local voices in this transitory way highlights that there is still a clear contrast between the authoritative archaeological stance and the recent experiences of the Syrian people that should be addressed in future exhibitions. Being self-critical about how we approach authority in our narratives is an essential part of the archaeological process, and the disenfranchisement of local voices is a challenge we have yet to alleviate from our discipline. This being said, headway is being made, and this volume, edited by the exhibition curators, is a great example of how scholars are working to create more collaborative multi-vocal records of heritage in conflict. Several institutions are working “to highlight how museums can only be decolonised by involving those who have been colonised.”18 Alternatives to the uneven power dynamic evident in the Syria exhibition can be found in exhibitions like Listen to Her, held at the Petrie Museum from 14 September to 22 December 2018 and curated by Heba al Gawad. Rather than focusing on the curator’s vision of archaeological objects in the collection, Listen to Her focuses on the interpretations of nine Egyptian women in order to “affirm Egyptian agency over their past … [and] remind museums of their accountability to local communities.”19 The resulting labels provide evocative insights into the objects and their meanings, written with confidence and expertise. Another significant example lies in the work of Gemma Tully. Her collaborative curations with wide-ranging communities in Egypt show a similarly inclusive approach to Abd el Gawad’s. Her exhibition Re-Imagining Egypt20 was based on inclusively “representing continuity and change … allowing for multiple interpretations of a country’s past to co-exist.”21 She created contextual dialogues by placing ancient artefacts alongside and on the same level as modern Egyptian art by both professional artists and children, framing the 16  Events included: Finding Home: Personal stories of seeking asylum (June 7, 2017) – Bwe Thay and John Gulzari; Creating opportunities (June 14, 2017) Lizzy Kuoth and Dabessa Gemelal; Making Connections: Personal stories of privilege, persecution, protection and progression (June 21, 2017) Somayeh Farahani and Arif Hazara; From persecution to finding refuge in education (June 28, 2017) Omar Al-Kassab and Fern White; Seeking asylum: A global discussion (July14, 2017) Arnold Zable, Jana Favero Raffat Ishak, Hana Assafiri and Karen Block. Famous examples from other museums include the Multaka: Treffpunkt Museum project training refugees as tour guides within Berlin museums, the Penn Museum’s integration of Syrian and Iraqi immigrants to guide tour groups in their new Middle Eastern galleries, and the recent Oxford adaptation of Multaka for several of its university museums. See also Lynch 2019, pp. 118–120; Coates 2019, Jul 30. 17  Onciul 2015, p. 108. 18  Downes 25 September 2018. 19  Personal communications with Heba Al-Gawad (10 August 2019). 20  She also aided in setting up an exhibition in Cairo in 2017 entitled Eternal Light: Something Old, Something New that incorporated a similar focus on dialogue but this time without the school outreach. 21  Tully 2017, p. 93; 2011; Stevenson and Williams forthcoming.

204

A. VAN DE VEN

connections with quotes from Egyptians on their own identity that she collected during her PhD research. Exhibitions like Listen to Her and Re-imagining Egypt make us reconsider our stereotyping of the ancient Middle East and its relationship to modern communities. They remind us how important it is to reflect on what narratives we are excluding when we display traces of the past as disconnected from present day “cultural production and commentary.”22

RECONSTRUCTIONS OF SIMULATED PASTS23 The disconnect between international and local experiences perceived on a micro-level within the Syria exhibition is a phenomenon that extends to wider issues outside the museum walls. One of the main ways in which this has been expressed is in the international drive towards static reconstruction projects as a solution to the loss of heritage faced within the conflict rather than schemes more flexible to ongoing change and local needs. Within the Syria exhibition, an attempt was made to address this issue on a small scale through featuring an image of the Palmyrene arch of triumph as part of the display (Fig. 4). The inclusion of Palmyra as a major focus of the exhibition may be considered an odd one as there were no Australian excavations at Palmyra. However, even in Australia, Palmyra remains the most publicly recognisable archaeological site in Syria due to its place within the history of the Roman Empire, its high state of reconstruction and its central place in the digitally mediated iconoclasm of Da’esh.24 This small area in the southeast corner of the gallery featured a large print of a photo of the Roman arch of Triumph from Palmyra taken by exhibition curator Andrew Jamieson in 1989. In October 2015, this arch, dating back to the third century, was destroyed by Da’esh terrorists. Throughout the next six months, a UK based organisation, the Institute for Digital Archaeology (IDA) worked to create a 3D model and 1/3 scale reconstruction of the arch based on photos given to the project.25 A video showing the creation of a temporary reconstruction of the arch by IDA for display in Trafalgar Square,26 is placed alongside the large-scale 1989 photo to highlight this process. Responses to the reconstruction were mixed, which is most clearly evident in the press reviews written around the opening of the replica arch at Trafalgar Square arch on 19 April 2016. The reviews varied greatly in their appreciation of the piece, some lauding it as a 22

 Stevenson and Williams forthcoming.  An important incentive for this part of the reflection was a series of discussions with Roman archaeologist Zena Kamash whose insights into the reception of Syrian heritage since the conflict have greatly informed my thinking on the issue. Her ongoing meaningful engagement with Syrian heritage through collaborative processes, most profoundly evidenced by her Postcards from Palmyra project (see Kamash 2017), provides an important example for others working in this field to follow. 24  Zaradona et al. 2018. 25  The photos form part of the Million Image Database (https://www.millionimage.org.uk/). 26  Several other arches were also constructed including in City Hall Park, New York (September 2016), at the World Government Summit, Dubai (February 2017), Piazza della Signoria, Florence (March 2017), Khaled al-Asaad Archaeological Museum, Arona (April 2017), The National Mall, Washington DC (September 2018), Place des Nations, Geneva (April 2019), Waisenhausplatz, Bern (June 2019). 23

MEMORIES OF EXCAVATIONS PAST

205

Fig. 4. View of the exhibition showing one of the four electronic tablets used to display digital images of objects (Courtesy of the Ian Potter Museum of Art. Photographer: Christian Capurro).

defiant symbol of resistance to terrorism,27 while others took a more critical stance.28 Two particular points of contestation were, on one hand, the top-down privatisation of ‘shared’ heritage,29 and on the other the high cost of creating a reconstruction in London that may have better been spent as aid for those suffering through the conflict.30 To quote Michael Crichton, the reconstructors of the arch appeared to be so “focused on whether they [could] do something … they never stop to ask if they should do something.”31 These problems have been further elaborated upon in academic analyses of the arch’s reconstruction.32 Far from celebrating the arch’s creation, these accounts call into question the arch’s ability to promote any form of defiance, given its colonial setting33 and they highlight the arch’s contribution to an ongoing cultural fetishisation of Syrian heritage. In addition to these issues, the method of the arch’s creation was hasty and without consideration for its full history, both as a symbol of power and as an embodiment of trauma interwoven with personal memories and human stories.34 Dr Zena Kamash in her presentation to the

27

 Richardson 18 April 2016; Brown 19 April 2016; Turner 19 April 2016; Boyle 20 April 2016.  Jones 11 April 2016; Heathcote 19 April 2016; Bevan 25 April 2016; Kriss 26 April 2016. 29  Despite a promise from IDA to share their 3D model (Bond 22 September 2016) it remains unavailable. In contrast, the #NewPalmyra project offers downloadable copies of all its models online. 30  Heathcote 19 April 2016. 31  Crichton 1990. 32  Brusius 25 April 2016; Bond 22 September 2016; Kamash 2017; Munawar 2017, 2019; Huntsman and Kamash forthcoming. 33  Trafalgar Square is a nationalistic space featuring not only Nelson’s Column, a symbol of imperialism and British military strength, but also the National Gallery, an institution promoting a euro-centric canon of painting (see Mace 1976; Kamash 2017, p. 216; Brusius forthcoming). 34  Kamash 2017, p. 617. 28

206

A. VAN DE VEN

Institute of Classical Studies describes this treatment of heritage as zombification.35 She asserts these types of reconstructions completely negate the actual conditions of these monuments as ongoing transformations and spaces steeped in memory, instead pretending that they are still alive in a fixed past state and are thus easily replaceable. Her analysis is echoed by the work of Kalman who notes the destructive nature of reconstructions in conflict zones, as they obliterate traces of trauma, truncating any potential for reconciliation.36 The video of the reconstructed arch was a significant but contested addition to the Syria exhibition. The curatorial team felt it was important to be transparent about the problematic context and methodology of the arch’s reconstruction, but also wanted to address its wider public reception. Ultimately, the arch’s value was left as an open question to the visitor, as the label highlighted both sides, presenting it as a symbol of solidarity or as an exercise in digital colonialism and ‘Disneyfication’. One element of the reproduction that the exhibition could have been clearer and more critical about is the misinformation surrounding the replica’s accuracy. The official story on the day was that “the 5.5m-high replica was made by machines carving the stone to the exact shape and design of the original arch.”37 However, given the method of fabrication, 3D machine reproductions from a uniform resin approximation of Egyptian marble in contrast to the hand-cut original, this statement was, of course, an over-exaggeration.38 In their desire to create an idealised version that could demonstrate their technological mastery, the physicality of the original was lost, with no indication of this difference to a wider public. While I do not wish to downplay the benefits of digital recording and preservation, I do want to highlight how this narrative of exact rebuilding is ultimately misleading and counterproductive. Archaeology is (ideally) the well-recorded de-construction of a site, an act that irreversibly alters the site’s fabric making. To continue with another quote from Michael Crichton: we can never fully “re-create the past” as “the past [is] gone,” we can only ever “reconstruct … a version of the past.”39 The placement of the photograph of the standing Arch of Triumph alongside the reconstruction video was an attempt to encourage comparison. A visitor who was familiar with the original could immediately spot the physical discrepancies between the two forms. However, these differences would not have been evident to other viewers. Actively pointing out the discrepancies, rather than subtly hinting at them could have prompted a greater debate about reconstruction and authenticity, two significant themes for the future of (Syrian) heritage management.

35  Kamash 24 September 2018. This will also be discussed in Kamash’ upcoming book Time for Healing: Cultural Heritage in Post-Conflict Syria and Iraq, to be published by Manchester University Press. 36  Kalman 2017, p. 538; Munawar 2019, p. 153. 37  Turner 19 April 2016. 38  Lowe 2016. 39  Crichton 1990.

MEMORIES OF EXCAVATIONS PAST

HERITAGE AND

207

HUMAN LIVES

Of course, the IDA team were not the first to reconstruct elements of Palmyra. In his review of the newly constructed Trafalgar Square arch, journalist Simon Jenkins compares the work of the IDA with that of “the French Archaeologists who, in the last century, re-erected Palmyra’s colonnade.”40 This is a reference to little-known events of French Mandate Syria, when the living city of Tadmur was emptied of its inhabitants in 1929 in order to facilitate extensive excavations and reconstructions of the Roman era ruins, in a choice to preserve a non-existent past over a living present.41 Cornelius Holtorf states in an article on the nature of conservation that “when we manage specific heritage and determine strategies and practices of conservation, we are really managing ideas about the relations between past, present and future.”42 By determining our strategies through static preservation or wholesale reconstruction of particular internationally valued sites, we are asserting the idea that heritage is a finite resource that exists only in the past in those things we deem significant now. It allows little space for alternative conceptions of value or indeed practices focusing on living heritage and continuous use. The focus on preservation and wholeness in heritage studies has been acknowledged by many scholars as being distinctly Euro-American in its approach.43 The “moral imperative”44 of preservation linked to ideas of universal heritage is a product of late 19th–early 20th century thinking, but it persists to this day. For this author, one key regret, looking back at the exhibition two years on, is its failure to fully address this bias. The panels describing each of the sites, including that of Palmyra, focused on single periods of ancient history, and provided no in-depth look on any wider chronologies. The panel on “Palmyra before the conflict”, elides the complex and multiperiod site in service of a narrative that exalts “the resurrected Roman city”.45 Only cursory mentions of a longer history are included. The labels of the exhibition instead focused on the Roman imperial period as that of Palmyra’s “greatest development”. Though the text goes on to focus on how this development was ensured by indigenous culture, it still carries an inherent value judgement about Palmyra’s history beyond the rule of Zenobia. The site holds traces of the widespread conversion to Christianity in the fourth and fifth centuries, from frescoes in the Temple of Bel to stone inscriptions belonging to a Christian cemetery.46 In the following centuries, temples transformed further into mosques, with colonnades functioning as souqs for ongoing trade.47 Fortresses were constructed and the city was partially demolished several times in the revolts and conquests of the 8th to 13th centuries. Throughout all this the site remained inhabited, primarily within fortified areas such as the temple of Bel. In the late 19th century and the early 1920s, these areas were supplemented

40

 Jenkins 29 March 2016.  Neep 2012; Shaw 2018; Brusius forthcoming. 42  Holtorf 2014, p. 7. 43  Byrne 1991; Holtorf 2014; Winter 2012; Vidal and Dias 2015; DeSilvey 2017. 44  Fairclough 2009, p. 158. 45  Shaw 2018, p. 161. 46  Intagliata 2018, pp. 49–65. 47  Genequand 2008; Intagliata 2018, pp. 65–67. 41

208

A. VAN DE VEN

by a number of garrisons wanting to keep control over local populations.48 By downplaying the post-classical life of the site, the exhibition erases the rich history reflected in the archaeology and in the people who settled within and around it. The panel dedicated to the “documentation” of Palmyra by European visitors is susceptible to similar criticisms. The text went from a visit in 1691 to the most recent excavations without reference to local perceptions of the site. No mention was made of any Arab historians or scholars who wrote of Palmyra and its history, referring to it by its local name of Tadmor.49 The main focus of the panel instead was on the work of classicist Robert Wood, who worked with wealthy dilettante James Dawkins and architect Giovanni Battista Borra to measure and record the monuments in 1751. No mention was made of the antiquarian habits of these visitors, who not only deprived the site of many artefacts but also wrote demeaning passages about the local population50 when they proved a hindrance to the group’s artefact collecting.51 The panel moved on to briefly mention Victorian-era developments, adventure books and photographs before finally settling on the archaeological expeditions undertaken by several foreign teams. It could have been improved by including mentions of the colonialist origins of archaeology in the region, the forcible resettling of the village of Palmyra, the local workmen who aided on the excavations, or the partage system ensuring a steady flow of artefacts leaving Syria for foreign collections. The decisions on what to include were made based on space constraints and priority was given to recognisable names and popular stories in order to speak to the Classics and Archaeology Gallery’s primary audience of students, academics and history enthusiasts. However, rather than “[rescuing] from oblivion the magnificence of Palmyra,”52 this strategy inadvertently had the opposite effect, contributing to the silencing of local history.53 This kind of engagement with heritage contributes to an ongoing and “deliberate unseeing … of the very people who inhabited the landscape.”54 Too often this selective framing extends all the way up to present-day inhabitants of the region. In these accounts, Da’esh, despite being the villains of the story, are given more agency than the Syrians themselves who appear as passive as the historic monuments bearing witness to the conflict. However, it is not the monuments that are resisting their own destruction, it is the people of Syria who are continuously fighting for them, despite the ongoing danger to their own lives. The exhibition acknowledged this sacrifice in several places, referencing local efforts to record standing heritage sites and document ongoing destruction. This sacrifice is made even more tangible by the panel dedicated to the previous Director of Palmyra Antiquities Department and Museums, Khaled al Assa’ad. His death in Palmyra on 18 August 2015 at the hands of Da’esh terrorists marked a deep personal loss for several members of the Australian-Syrian excavation teams who considered him both an esteemed colleague and a friend. In his story,

48

 Neep 2012, pp. 142–147.  A famous example is Ayyubid historian Abulfeda. 50  Wood 1753. 51  Aruz 2018, p. 16; Baird and Kamash 2019, pp. 10–11. 52  Wood 1753. 53  Mason and Sayner 2019, p. 7. 54  Baird and Kamash 2019, pp. 19–20. 49

MEMORIES OF EXCAVATIONS PAST

209

the loss of heritage and human life became deeply entwined. By allowing time to dwell on this single instance of mourning, the exhibition cuts through the overwhelming and numbing effects that the conflict has had on international onlookers. In that single panel, rather than focusing on the “cultural heritage of humanity”,55 the exhibition stopped to consider the immense significance of a single person’s life.

LOOKING TO THE

PAST AND TO THE FUTURE

Rather than approaching Syrian archaeology as a distant object of study, the University of Melbourne exhibition attempted to bring the ancient heritage in this region to light for an Australian audience. As far as museum visitation numbers were concerned, the Syria exhibition was a resounding success, drawing 16,190 visitors to the Classics and Archaeology Gallery, making it the second most popular exhibition in the gallery’s run, coming in just 651 visitors short of the leading exhibition, Mummymania.56 Its positive reception in the media proved that the exhibition had succeeded in its aims. Penny Webb of The Sydney Morning Herald described the exhibition as “poignantly life-affirming”, a celebration of “the diligence of Melbourne University archaeologists.”57 Similarly, Christopher Allen in his review highlights how the exhibition and its materials “speak of an attitude of care and respect, a humble devotion to recovering even the faintest traces of the lives of people who came before us.”58 The latter review points to the exhibition as a ‘contact zone’, where “people geographically and historically separated come into contact with each other and establish ongoing relations.”59 In this contact zone, the sherds of pottery, inconspicuous lamps and figurines highlight an emotional engagement with Syria’s present as well as a contextual understanding of the nation’s fragmented past. At the same time, the artefacts and tools on display bear witness to the careful process of archaeological fieldwork. Rather than reflecting pride, the meticulous measurements, extensive notes and detailed illustrations that make up the archaeological record give us a sense of the affection felt by the archaeologists for their site. As stated above, while the exhibition was powerful in its ability to build empathy through display, it still struggled at times to meet standards for inclusivity. As James Clifford already warned in his 1997 chapter, “contact work in a museum … goes beyond consultation and sensitivity,” it should be based in “active collaboration and a sharing of authority.”60 This requires a profound change to how we construct our heritage narratives. In this sense, the Syria exhibition touched on a number of challenging issues, including colonialism, inclusivity and ethical reconstruction, but failed to give them the depth, space and focus they deserved to have lasting impact. Museums and universities have an important role to 55

 Fiol and Tabet 2018, p. 5.  Van de Ven and Jamieson 2018, p. 221. 57  Webb 27 April 2017. 58  Allen 1 July 2017. 59  Clifford 1997, p. 192; Stevenson 2015, p. 11. 60  Clifford 1997, p. 210. 56

A. VAN DE VEN

210

play in the “transformation process to post-conflict society.”61 However, they can only achieve this goal if they choose to embrace multi-vocal, people-centred and future-oriented approaches.62 By critically questioning our own narratives, as I have attempted to do in this paper, we can move to creating a more dialogic and open engagement with heritage in conflict zones and ensure our positive contribution to re-building efforts.

BIBLIOGRAPHY ABDO, R., ISMAIL, S. and AHMED, A. 2017 The Archaeological Sites in the middle Euphrates Valley, Vol. 3. The Authority of Tourism and Protection. http://desteya-shunwaran.com/ar/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/ The-archaeological-sites-in-the-middle.pdf (25 July 2019) ALJAWABRA, A. 2018 “Heritage, Conflict and Reconstructions: From Reconstructing Monuments to Reconstructing Societies,” ICOMOS University Forum 1: 1–18. ALLEN, C. 2017 Devoted to the Past. The Weekend Australian newspaper (30 June – 1 July 2017). ARUZ, J., ed. 2018 Palmyra: Mirage in the Desert. New York: Met Publications. BAIRD, J. and KAMASH, Z. 2019 “Remembering Roman Syria: Valuing Tadmor-Palmyra from ‘Discovery’ to Destruction,” Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies 62(1): 1–29. BEVAN, R. 2016 Should We Celebrate a Replica of the Destroyed Palmyra Arch? London Evening Standard. 25 April 2016. http://www.standard.co.uk/lifestyle/design/should-wecelebrate-a-replicaof-the-destroyed-palmyra-arch-a3233496.html (2 August 2019) BOND, S. 2016 The Ethics Of 3D-Printing Syria’s Cultural Heritage. Forbes. 22 September 2016. https://www.forbes.com/sites/drsarahbond/2016/09/22/does-nycs-new-3d-printedpalmyra-arch-celebrate-syria-or-just-engage-in-digital-colonialism/#3ad7cfd277db (27 July 2019) BOYLE, D. 2016 Palmyra’s Arch of Triumph rises again in London’s Trafalgar Square after being destroyed by Isil. The Telegraph. 20 April 2016. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/ news/2016/04/19/palmyras-arch-of-triumph-rises-again-in-londons-trafalgar-square/ (27 July 2019) BROWN, M. 2016 Palmyra’s Arch of Triumph recreated in Trafalgar Square. The Guardian. 19 April 2016. https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2016/apr/19/palmyras-triumphal-archrecreated-in-trafalgar-square (2 August 2019) BRUSIUS, M. 2016 The Middle East heritage debate is becoming worryingly colonial. The Conversation. 25 April 2016. https://theconversation.com/the-middle-east-heritage-debate-is-becoming-worryingly-colonial-57679 (2 August 2019) forthcoming Displaying, Hiding and Replacing Artefacts. On Connecting the Ancient and the Modern Middle East in Museums and Public Space.

61

 Aljawabra 2018, p. 14; Kanjou 2018.  Aljawabra 2018, p. 14.

62

MEMORIES OF EXCAVATIONS PAST

BYRNE, D. 1991

211

“Western hegemony in archaeological heritage management,” History and Anthropology 5(2): 269–276.

CLARKE G. W. 2001 “A Seleucid Governor’s Palace: Jebel Khalid on the Euphrates,” in The Royal Palace Institution in the First Millennium BC, edited by I. Nielsen, pp. 215–247. Aarhus: Aarhus University Press. 2002 “The Governor’s Palace, Acropolis, Jebel Khalid,” in Jebel Khalid on the Euphrates. Report on Excavations 1986–1996, edited by G. W. Clarke, pp. 25–48. Sydney: Meditarch. 2014 “The Jebel Khalid Temple: Continuity and Change,” in Religious Identities in the Levant from Alexander to Muhammed: Continuity and Change, edited by R. Raja, A. Lichtenberger and M. Blömer, pp. 142–155. Turnhout: Brepols. 2016 Jebel Khalid on the Euphrates, Volume 5. Report on Excavations 2000–2010. Sydney: Meditarch. CLARKE G. W. and JACKSON, H. 2016 “Evaluating Cultural and Ethnic Identities from Archaeological Remains: the case of Hellenistic Jebel Khalid,” in Aspects of the Roman East, Papers in Honour of Professor Sir Fergus Millar, edited by S. N. C. Lieu and P. McKechnie, pp. 97–110. Turnhout: Brepols. CLIFFORD, J. 1997 “Museums as Contact Zones,” in Routes: Travel and Translation in the Late Twentieth Century, edited by J. Clifford, pp. 188–197. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. COATES, C. 2019 The social impact of museums working with refugees and migrants. MuseumNext. 30 July 2019. https://www.museumnext.com/article/the-social-impact-of-museumsworking-with-refugees-and-migrants/ (1 August2019) CRICHTON, M. 1990 Jurassic Park. New York: Random House. DESILVEY, C. 2017 Curated Decay: Heritage Beyond Saving. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. DOWNES, N. 2018 Listen to Her! Egypt’s women fight for their rights. UCL. 25 September 2018. https://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/2018/sep/listen-her-egypts-women-fight-their-rights (30 July 2019) FAIRCLOUGH, G. 2009 “Conservation and the British,” in Defining Moments: Dramatic Archaeologies of the Twentieth-Century, edited by J. Schofield, pp. 157–164. Oxford: Archaeopress. FIOL, M. and TABET, Y. 2018 Five Years of Conflict—The State of Cultural Heritage in the Ancient City of Aleppo. Paris, Geneva: UNESCO, UNISAT. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000265826 GENEQUAND, D. 2008 “An early Islamic mosque in Palmyra,” Levant 40: 3–15. GOLDING, V. and MODEST, W., eds. 2013 Museums and Communities. Curators, Collections and Collaboration. London: Bloomsbury Academic. HEATHCOTE, E. 2016 Ghost of Palmyra’s arch rises in Trafalgar Square. Financial Times. 19 April 2016. https://www.ft.com/content/70a7d9fe-0545-11e6-a70d-4e39ac32c284 (2 August 2019) HOLTORF, C. 2014 “The Preservation Paradigm in Heritage Management,” in The Encyclopedia of Global Archaeology, edited by C. Smith, pp. 6128–6131. New York: Springer.

212

A. VAN DE VEN

HUNTSMAN, T. and KAMASH, Z. forthcoming “Conflict and Context: A Response to Recent Digital Archaeological Initiatives for At-Risk Cultural Heritage,” Antiquity 371. INTAGLIATA, E. E. 2018 Palmyra after Zenobia AD 273–750: An Archaeological and Historical Reappraisal. Oxford: Oxbow Books. JENKINS, S. 2016 After Palmyra, the message to Isis: what you destroy, we will rebuild. The Guardian. 29 March 2016. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/mar/29/palmyramessage-isis-islamic-state-jihadis-orgy-destruction-heritage-restored (3 August 2019) JONES, J. 2016 Palmyra must not be fixed. History would never forgive us. The Guardian. 11 April 2016. https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/jonathanjonesblog/2016/apr/11/palmyra-isissyria-restored-3d-printers-vandalism (2 August 2019) JOYCE, R. 2002 The Languages of Archaeology: Dialogue, Narrative, and Writing. Oxford: John Wiley and Sons Ltd. KALMAN, H. 2017 “Destruction, Mitigation, and Reconciliation of Cultural Heritage,” International Journal of Heritage Studies 23(6): 538–555. KAMASH, Z. 2017 “Postcard to Palmyra: Bringing the public into debates over post-conflict reconstruction in the Middle East,” World Archaeology 49(5): 608–622. 2018 The Ghost of Palmyra Yet-to-Come?: Exploring Memory, People and Place in PostConflict Reconstruction, Classical Archaeology in the Modern Middle East: Conflicts and Communities. London: Institute for Classical Studies. 24 September 2018. KANJOU, Y. 2018 “The Role of the Local Community and Museums in the Renaissance of Syrian Cultural Heritage,” Journal of Eastern Mediterranean Archaeology and Heritage Studies 6(4): 375–391. KELMAN, J. 1908 From Damascus to Palmyra. London: Adam and Charles Black. KRISS, S. 2016 Why Recreating the Palmyra Arch Is Smug, Hypocritical, and Tacky. Vice. 26 April 2016. https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/xd7ngw/palmyras-arch-trafalgar-square-dubainew-york (2 August 2019) LOWE, A. 2016 IDA Palmyra Arch Copy. Factum Foundation. http://www.factumfoundation.org/ pag/236/IDA-Palmyra-Arch-copy (2 August 2019) LYNCH, B. 2019 “‘I’m gonna do something’: Moving beyond talk in the museum,” in Museum Activism, edited by R. R. Janes and R. Sandell, pp. 115–126. New York: Routledge. MACE, R. 1976 Trafalgar Square: Emblem of Empire. London: Lawrence and Wishart Ltd. MASON, R. and SAYNER, J. 2019 “Bringing museal silence into focus: eight ways of thinking about silence in museums,” International Journal of Heritage Studies 25(1): 5–20. MORRILL, G. L. 1924 Primrose Paths from Paris to Palmyra. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. MULDER, S. 2017 “Imagining localities of antiquity in Islamic societies,” International Journal of Islamic Architecture 6(2): 229–254. MUNAWAR, N. A. 2017 “Reconstructing cultural heritage in conflict zones: should Palmyra be reconstructed?,” EX NOVO Journal of Archaeology 2: 123–129.

MEMORIES OF EXCAVATIONS PAST

2019 NEEP, D. 2012 ONCIUL, B. 2015

213

“Competing Heritage: Curating the Post-Conflict Heritage of Roman Syria,” Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies 62(1): 142–165. Occupying Syria under the French Mandate: Insurgency, Space, and State Formation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Museums, Heritage and Indigenous Voice: Decolonizing Engagement. New York: Routledge. ONCIUL, B., HAWKE, S. and STEFANO, M., eds. 2017 Engaging Heritage, Engaging Communities. Woodbridge: Boydell Press. PEERS, L. and BROWN, A. K., eds. 2003 Museums and Source Communities: A Routledge Reader. New York: Routledge PUJOL, L., ROUSSOU, M., POULO, S., BALET, O., VAYANOU, M. and IOANNIDIS, Y. 2013 “Personalizing Interactive Digital Storytelling in Archaeological Museums: the CHESS Project,” in Archaeology in the Digital Era. Papers from the 40th Annual Conference of Computer Applications and Quantitative Methods in Archaeology (CAA), edited by G. Earl, T. Sly, A. Chrysanthi, P. Murrieta-Flores, C. Papadopoulos, I. Romanowska and D. Wheatley, pp. 77–90. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. RICHARDSON, N. 2016 The Arch of Triumph of Palmyra is recreated in London - 1,800 years after it was built. The Telegraph. 18 April 2016. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04/08/ why-the-arch-of-triumph-of-palmyra-is-being-recreated-in-london/ (2 August 2019) RIGGS, C. 2018 Photographing Tutankhamun: Archaeology, Ancient Egypt, and the Archive. London: Bloomsbury. SANDAHL, J. 2019 “Curating Across the Colonial Divides,” in Curatopia: Museums and the Future of Curatorship, edited by P. Schorch and C. McCarthy, pp. 72–89. Manchester: Manchester University Press. SHAW, W. M. K. 2018 “Preserving preservation. Maintaining meaning in museum storage,” in Museum Storage and Meaning: Tales from the Crypt, edited by M. Brusius and K. Singh, pp. 153–168. Abingdon and New York: Routledge Psychology Press. SIMPSON, M. G. 2001 Making Representations: Museums in the Post-Colonial Era. New York: Routledge Psychology Press. STEVENSON, A. 2015 “Egyptian Archaeology and the Museum,” Oxford Handbooks Online. https://www. oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199935413.001.0001/oxfordhb9780199935413-e-25 (28 July 2019) STEVENSON, A. and WILLIAMS, A. forthcoming Anthropological Blind-Spots: Ancient Egypt in the Ethnographic Museum. TRENDALL, A. D. 1942 “Bust of a Lady from Palmyra,” in The Shellal Mosaic: and other Classical Antiquities in the Australian War Memorial, edited by A. D. Trendall, pp. 26–27. Canberra: Australian War Memorial. TULLY, G. 2011 “Re-presenting Ancient Egypt: Reengaging Communities through Collaborative Archaeological Methodologies for Museum Displays,” Cambridge Archaeological Review 26(2): 137–152. 2017 “Re-imagining Egypt: Artefacts, Contemporary Art and Community Engagement in the Museum,” in Engaging Heritage, Engaging Communities, edited by B. Onciul, S. Hawke and M. Stefano, pp. 91–106. Woodbridge: Boydell Press. TURNER, L. 2016 Palmyra’s Arch of Triumph recreated in London. BBC News. 19 April 2016. https:// www.bbc.com/news/uk-36070721 (2 August 2019)

214 USHMM 2017

A. VAN DE VEN

Syria: Please Don’t Forget Us. United States Holocaust Memorial Museum. https:// www.ushmm.org/information/exhibitions/museum-exhibitions/syria-please-dontforget-us (27 July 2019) VAN DE VEN, A. and JAMIESON, A. 2018 “Beyond Display: Curriculum and Community Engagement with Middle Eastern Collections in a University Museum,” in Museums and the Ancient Middle East: Curatorial Practice and Audiences, edited by G. Emberling and L. Petit, pp. 210–224. London: Routledge. VIDAL, F. and DIAS, N., eds. 2015 Endangerment Biodiversity and Culture. London: Routledge. WEBB, P. 2017 Compelling stories from Syria and detention. The Sydney Morning Herald. 27 April 2017. https://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/art-and-design/compelling-stories-fromsyria-and-detention-20170427-gvthtc.html (4 August 2019) WINTER, T. 2012 “Heritage in Asia: Converging forces, conflicting values,” in The Routledge Handbook of Heritage in Asia, edited by T. Winter and P. Daly, pp. 1–34. London: Routledge. WOOD, R. 1753 The Ruins of Palmyra, Otherwise Tedmor in the Desart. London: Robert Wood. ZARADONA, J. A. G., ALBARRÁN-TORRES, C. and ISAKHAN, B. 2018 “Digitally Mediated Iconoclasm: the Islamic State and the war on cultural heritage,” International Journal of Heritage Studies 24(6): 649–671. ZALUT, L. 2018 “Interpreting Trauma, Memory, and Lived Experience in Museums and Historic Sites,” Journal of Museum Education 43(1): 4–6.

CHAPTER 18

RESPONDING TO CULTURAL HERITAGE DESTRUCTION IN CONFLICT: DIGITAL INITIATIVES Sophie RUSSELL Classics and Archaeology, School of Historical and Philosophical Studies, The University of Melbourne, Australia E-mail: [email protected]

ABSTRACT This paper seeks to join a growing field of scholarship that critically examines the responses of the international heritage community to targeted cultural heritage destruction in Iraq and Syria. In particular, it offers preliminary commentary on initiatives that, whilst relatively small in number, have received significant public attention: the digitisation of cultural heritage affected by conflict. This includes reflections on decision-making, collaboration, and representation in the work of heritage digitisation initiatives. It discusses problems with ‘universal’ heritage narratives, limitations for meaningful impact, and the importance of collaboration with in-country colleagues and communities. It highlights the benefits of projects that have prioritised training, education and consultation in their modus operandi and offers further suggestions for adding value to digital heritage in conflict. This includes digital recording as standard archaeological practice, the inclusion of multi-vocal features in recording processes, and the recognition of intangible heritage as an essential component of heritage value.*

INTRODUCTION First and foremost, this paper laments the distressing humanitarian crisis in both Syria and Iraq that has led to widespread human suffering, displacement and loss. It also emphasises that all discussions relating to the management of cultural heritage in conflict are most valuable when they consider, where possible, the experiences, opinions and values of living populations most affected by the destruction of heritage. It is hoped that this publication of the Marburg and Melbourne papers will showcase some of those experiences, opinions and values as they relate to events affecting cultural heritage of Iraq and Syria in recent years. The targeted destruction of cultural heritage across the region by Daesh1 has presented both

* The author would like to thank Andrew Jamieson for his support in the formulation of this paper, and for his exceptional efforts to publish this monograph. Thank you also to Gemma Lee who provided helpful feedback on this paper. Any errors remaining in this text are my own. 1  In this paper, ‘Daesh’ refers to militarised proto-state groups that operated in Iraq and Syria from 2014 to early 2019 under various names including Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) and the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS).

216

S. RUSSELL

unprecedented2 and familiar3 challenges for those working on the protection of cultural heritage in a context that is increasingly recognised as cultural genocide.4 The social, political and economic implications of Daesh’s campaign to erase the cultural memory of minority groups in the region, capitalise on the sale of illicit antiquities and flood headlines with heritage propaganda have been topics of interest in the growing field of academic research on the management of heritage in conflict.5 This paper seeks to join a growing number of studies that critically examine the responses of the international heritage community to these events.6 In particular, this paper will focus on initiatives that work to digitise heritage affected by conflict. These initiatives are relatively small in number, however have received significant public attention. Information on the technological aspects of this subject, namely photogrammetry and laser scanning, is widely available and will not be discussed in detail here. Instead, this paper offers preliminary commentary on the impact and value of international heritage digitisation projects as a counter-effort to cultural heritage destruction. Digital heritage – the representation and archiving of heritage objects and places in virtual space – is a growing area of scholarship within the digital humanities. Broadly speaking, this includes research on digital heritage as it relates to museum experience, teaching and learning, data analysis and collection management.7 For archaeologists, digital technologies have become increasingly popular for recording and understanding processes of change on heritage objects and sites.8 Most relevant to this paper is the use of photogrammetry (calculating measurements from photography) and laser scanning (or LiDAR light detection and ranging) to produce virtual three-dimensional interactive models of archaeological sites and objects – technologies that are more accessible, user friendly and cost-effective than ever before. It is not surprising then, that these technologies have also been employed in relation to cultural heritage that is affected by conflict. A number of initiatives have emerged over the past decade with the explicit mission of digitising heritage sites that have been affected by conflict in the Middle East. Together these projects constitute a relatively small subset of responses to heritage in conflict; for example, only ten three-dimensional imaging projects are listed in the latest Heritage for Peace summary of responses to the Syrian heritage crisis.9 However, likely owing to the highly engaging nature of these initiatives, they have attracted considerable public attention in social and news media. The impact of these projects in the context of current critiques of international responses to the Syrian and Iraqi heritage crisis has received less attention. 2

 The global broadcast of cultural heritage destruction on social media was an unprecedented component of Daesh’s operations in Syria and Iraq and presents unique concerns for the role heritage in conflict. On this topic, see Harmansah 2015; Smith et al. 2016; Zarandona et al. 2018. 3  The targeted destruction of cultural heritage as a military strategy or tool of social oppression is not historically unique to the actions of Daesh in Syria and Iraq. Bevan (2016) provides a compelling introduction to this wide topic. 4  Bevan 2016, p. 11; Isakhan 2018, p. 349; Smith et al. 2016, p. 182. 5  Isakhan 2018. 6  Scholarship that evaluates the international response to Daesh includes Cunliffe et al. 2016, pp. 19–23; Lababidi and Qassar 2016; Al Quntar and Daniels 2016; Jamieson and Russell 2019. 7  See Evans and Daly (2006) on the ways in which digital technologies have been used in archaeological practice. 8  Evans and Daly 2006. 9  Leckie et al. 2017, pp. 28–33.

RESPONDING TO CULTURAL HERITAGE DESTRUCTION IN CONFLICT

WHAT IS

217

THE DIGITISATION OF HERITAGE IN CONFLICT?

The digitisation of heritage can be understood as an exercise in high-tech, spatially accurate documentation. Photogrammetric software, or for a greater cost laser scanners, allow users to construct photorealistic three-dimensional models of built heritage places and objects. The result is an interactive, detailed representation of the shape, texture and relative size of the subject matter in virtual space. These models can also be georeferenced – positioned in virtual space according to real world coordinates. Models generated in this fashion can be distinguished from creative or interpretative graphic designs of heritage places because they provide precise information about the location, dimensions and spatial relationships of the recorded heritage. Like other forms of at-risk heritage documentation, three-dimensional heritage models preserve a digital likeness of a heritage site that can be consulted if the physical place is damaged. In particular, the resulting ‘archive’ from this method is highly engaging. The interactive nature of these platforms often allows users to rotate and scale the model using a web browser. Further applications of this technology include the creation of virtual or augmented reality experiences. In 2016, for example, non-profit organisation Rekrei recreated the Mosul Museum as a 360-degree virtual museum experience that can be explored using YouTube, or in virtual reality.10 This remarkable accomplishment was achieved by crowdsourcing images of the museum and its contents taken prior to the deliberate destruction of the collection by Daesh in 2015. Many digital initiatives, discussed further below, also suggest that high-quality modelling can inform the physical reconstructions of damaged heritage places, either in their original location or in a museum setting. Undoubtedly, the use of these technologies provides an exceptional level of three-dimensional documentation that in some respects surpasses traditional site documentation.

DECISION-MAKING FOR

MANAGING HERITAGE IN CONFLICT

Cultural heritage sites do not represent isolated remnants of a distant past that can be considered regrettable yet unavoidable collateral damage in modern conflict. Rather, they act as intergenerational transmitters of cultural knowledge that hold significance for living populations. Importantly, cultural heritage sites can simultaneously represent multiple meanings to a diverse array of local, national and international stakeholders. These might include religious, social, academic, political, economic, military or artistic value. It is these, at times contested, values that make heritage places particularly vulnerable during conflict. How these values are recorded, reproduced or accessed has the ability to directly impact cultural memory and contemporary identity. With this in mind, who has and who should have the authority to make decisions about heritage is an essential consideration for bestpractice heritage management. This paper concurs with other scholarship on this subject

10  The Economist 20 May 2016. Further information about this project can be found on the Rekrei webpage www.rekrei.org

218

S. RUSSELL

that collaboration with local communities11 and local heritage professionals is critical to the effective and ethical management of heritage in conflict.12 Local heritage professionals, in addition to other persons who reside, work, worship, socialise, or otherwise spend significant time in proximity to endangered heritage sites, are the best immediate defence against heritage destruction. These ‘first responders’ are positioned to make decisions about heritage in crisis with first-hand knowledge about the heritage site, available resources and prospective risks. No less significantly, prioritising the voices of local populations and local heritage professionals is a critical step in recognising Syrian and Iraqi ownership over Syrian and Iraqi heritage. It is essential that this ownership is acknowledged and reflected in heritage decision-making when international projects respond to heritage in crisis. This is no less true when it comes to digital heritage recording. It is important here to emphasise that the digitisation of heritage is not an objective process implemented by impartial actors. Fig. 1 lists a number of opportunities for decision-making throughout the digitisation process. Whoever possesses the authority to make these decisions shapes the way in which heritage is represented, archived, and understood. It is critical that local voices are included and prioritised in this process. However, in their critique of international responses to the Syrian heritage crisis, Al Quntar and Daniels note that ‘[a] significant gap exists between international knowledge about heritage in this crisis and the immediate needs of Syrian heritage professionals.’13 The disconnect between foreign initiatives and local needs identified by Al Quntar and Daniels can also be examined in the context of heritage digitisation responses.

MODUS

OPERANDI AND DECISION-MAKING IN FIVE PROMINENT INITIATIVES

Five digitisation initiatives will be discussed here relating to their mode of operation, decision-making processes and efforts for local collaboration, where this information is available. These initiatives have been selected for the publicity surrounding their work, and are largely based in the English-speaking Western world – with the exception of #NewPalmyra, discussed further below – and include: CyArk, Iconem, the Million Image Database, Rekrei and #NewPalmyra. The extent to which these initiatives collaborate with local partners and the language around this work varies between projects. CyArk, Iconem and the Million Image Database operate out of the United States, France and the United Kingdom respectively. Both Rekrei and #NewPalmyra are primarily online platforms, although Rekrei was developed by scholars in Western Europe and the current director of #NewPalmyra appears to be based in the United States.14 Non-profit organisation CyArk, founded by Iraqi 11  The author acknowledges that using the phrase ‘local communities’ risks oversimplifying the diversity of stakeholders in cultural heritage management. Here, it is used to refer to persons who reside, work, worship, socialise or otherwise spend a significant amount of time in geographic proximity to a cultural heritage place. These persons do not necessarily share experiences of heritage place, nor do they necessarily present homogenous expectations for heritage management. 12  Perring and van der Linde 2009, p. 209; Al Quntar and Daniels 2016, p. 388; Isakhan and Meskell 2019, p. 1200; Kanjou 2018, pp. 375–391. 13  Al Quntar and Daniels 2016, p. 381. 14  Information about these projects has been obtained from publicly available webpages. Further details can be found at www.rekrei.org for Rekrei, and at www.newpalmyra.org for #NewPalmyra.

RESPONDING TO CULTURAL HERITAGE DESTRUCTION IN CONFLICT

Stage of production

219

Opportunities for decision-making in the process of generating a 3D model

Capturing the data

Which heritage site/s should be prioritised for digitisation? Where are the boundaries of the site? What features of the site will recorded or omitted? Will a colour chart be used? Will targets be used for georeferencing? If so, where? What equipment will be used for capturing the data, and how can it best be employed? E.g. digital camera, 3D laser scanner, Unmanned Aerial Vehicles. Digital storage and transfer Will the data be stored remotely or locally? What systems will be used for storing data? E.g. filenames, language, metadata. Who can access and edit this data? How will the data be transferred from the field to a secure location for processing? Generating the model Will any originally captured images be edited? E.g. colour graded, masked. Which parts of the originally captured data set will be used or discarded? What settings will be selected for photo alignment, dense point cloud, mesh, and texture generation? What process will be used to correct irregularities in the model? How will accurate colour be determined in the case of laser scanning? Will the model be georeferenced? Using what projection? What metadata or other contextual information will be associated with the model, if any? In what language? Access and use How is the model and associated metadata stored or displayed for use by others? Who has access to what kind of information about the model? E.g. viewing and manipulating the model, original data sets, location information or other contextual information. Is there anyone who is not able to access the model? Who can edit the model? Are there any proprietary or technological restrictions on how the dataset can be used or accessed by members of the public? Fig. 1. Opportunities for decision-making in the process of digitising heritage.

ex-patriate Ben Kacyra and Barbara Kacyra in 2003, and French start-up Iconem, founded in 2013 by Yves Ubelmann, operate on a fly-in-fly-out (FIFO) basis where a small team of international staff members spend short-term periods in the host country with the primary purpose of capturing data for the digitisation process.15 The extent to which local partners are acknowledged differs significantly between these organisations. CyArk recognises specific 15  Information about these projects has been obtained from publicly available webpages. Further details can be found at www.cyark.org for CyArk, and at www.iconem.com for Iconem.

220

S. RUSSELL

Fig. 2. CyArk’s comprehensive data capture and archival process (Further information about this process can be found at www.cyark.org/recovery).

local partners in every site listing consulted for this analysis, in addition to offering one-day workshops for site managers on each project they accept.16 Additionally, CyArk provides the most insight into their processes for storing, archiving and processing data, with clear pathways for accessing their raw data through the Open Heritage 3D initiative (Fig. 2).17 The transparency offered by CyArk in this regard demonstrates an awareness about heritage decision-making processes and language around heritage management that is often absent in other projects. Iconem, for example, operates on a similar FIFO model as CyArk, but provides less information about local partners or internal processes. Relevant ‘Actors’ are listed for each project, although in several cases these partners are local French cultural institutions (such as École française d’Athènes and the French Institute of Myanmar) or French funding bodies (such as ARPAMED Archéologie & Patrimoine en Méditerranée or the IRAA Institut de Recherche sur l’Architecture Antique).18 The organisation does state on their webpage that they provide training and equipment to local partners; however, specific examples of this, or anything more than few-and-far-between generalised references to local collaboration, are not provided. Iconem also states that they are creating the ‘first public database for massive 3D heritage site models: The World Heritage Database,’ which will involve digitising a further 300 heritage sites over four years and provide ‘knowledge freely accessible to everyone.’19 At present however, only eight of the reported 100 already documented heritage sites are accessible on Iconem’s website, and it is not yet clear how this database will function, nor if it will integrate with existing global digital heritage databases such as Open Heritage 3D. Significantly, though less visible on the initiative’s website, 16

 Further information about this process can be found at www.cyark.org/conservation  Further information about this process can be found at www.cyark.org/recovery 18  Site listings can be viewed at www.iconem.com 19  Iconem English language public brochure, obtained online from www.iconem.com 17

RESPONDING TO CULTURAL HERITAGE DESTRUCTION IN CONFLICT

221

Iconem is a for-profit organisation, and it is the company’s clients who determine how Iconem’s data is used and accessed.20 In this scenario, transparency of decision-making over heritage representation is even more pertinent, though not provided. Rekrei, a non-profit founded initially as Project Mosul in 2015 by Matthew Vincent and Chance Coughenour from the Initial Training Network for Digital Cultural Heritage project, crowdsources images from the public to create three-dimensional models.21 This format does not require in-country data collection, and the project acts as a host for public three-dimensional imaging. Members of the public are invited to provide images to the site, and to voluntarily create three-dimensional models made available through the platform Sketchfab. Sketchfab, it should be noted, is a widely used for-profit platform that allows users to freely publish, or buy and sell, three-dimensional content.22 The information included in Rekrei’s models, and how this data is used, is at the discretion of public users who are identifiable by their Sketchfab user profiles. Similarly, the Million Image Database project, operated by the Institute for Digital Archaeology, also crowdsources images from the public for archiving and three-dimensional model production.23 Further to this, the project provided proprietary 3D cameras to volunteers throughout the Middle East and North Africa to capture data for their archive, although further information on the number of cameras circulated, volumes of data collected or number of volunteers who contributed is not readily available. The database itself primarily consists of 2D or anaglyph 3D images, with basic information provided about each site and no information provided about the source of each image. Raw point cloud data or interactive three-dimensional models do not appear to be publicly available, and it is not clear how many or which sites have been digitised in this way. The #NewPalmyra effort has created various digital records, including three-dimensional models of Palmyra, and of the five initiatives considered here, is notable as a Syrian-born initiative. The project was established to continue the work of Palestinian-Syrian softwaredeveloper and activist Bassel Khartabil, who was detained and later executed by the Syrian government in 2015.24 The website hosts downloadable models of major structural features at Palmyra, and provides links to various events, exhibitions and publications that have used this data – including Rekrei and the Institute of Digital Archaeology. The project has since expanded under the directorship of Barry Threw with the launch of a new open access platform, Artifaq, in April 2019.25 Unfortunately, a focus on Syrian knowledge and cultural heritage is diminished in the current iteration of this project. Rebuilding Notre Dame is the new catchcry for rallying contributions to Artifaq, although the platform is primarily designed for cataloguing artwork – an endeavour that may not suit the very different needs 20  Iconem’s English language public brochure states that ‘Clients will determine whether or not, and if so how, they would like their models to be uploaded to the platform.’ Obtained online from www.iconem.com 21  Further information about this project can be found on the Rekrei webpage www.rekrei.org 22  Further information about this platform can be found on the Sketchfab webpage www.sketchfab.com 23  Further information about this project can be found on the Million Image Database webpage www.millionimage.org.uk and the Institute for Digital Archaeology webpage www.digitalarchaeology.org.uk 24  McKernan 2 August 2017. 25  The homepage for the #NewPalmyra project (www.newpalmyra.org) currently directs users to the new platform Artifaq (www.artifaq.io).

222

S. RUSSELL

of archaeological cultural heritage. It is not clear how this platform is engaged with threedimensional modelling, reconstruction or endangered cultural heritage. Transparency of digitisation processes, funding, personnel and collaborators is variable among these projects, yet critical to understanding the way in which heritage is reproduced. In particular, visible engagement with and formal recognition of local partners, when it is safe for them to be identified, is essential. The absence of visible engagement with local partners by some organisations becomes particularly problematic when we consider the historical narrative of heritage management in the Middle East.

CONTEXTUALISING THE WESTERN ‘SAVIOUR’

OF

EASTERN

HERITAGE

The practice of archaeology in the Middle East cannot be understood without acknowledging its origins in harmful Western colonial ambitions of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.26 Archaeological scholarship of the past half century has explored the ways in which imperialist narratives and systems remain a pervasive enforcer of structural violence within archaeological practice, in addition to exploring theoretical and practical means of challenging discourses of colonialism.27 Near Eastern archaeologists from Western institutions (including this author) have an ethical obligation to actively critique the remnants of imperialist discourse in our discipline, in addition to approaching archaeological practice with a consciousness of contemporary power structures. Public archaeology, co-production of knowledge and attention to marginalised voices of past and present are just some of the ways in which archaeologists are working to dismantle imperialist structures within archaeology. The collaboration by archaeologists with military bodies in particular has propelled a number publications on the social, political and professional obligations in the discipline.28 Archaeologists who have cooperated with contentious political regimes have also attracted criticism and stirred debate.29 Like archaeological projects, heritage digitisation initiatives are also working with cultural heritage in this highly political space and warrant engagement with wider ethical discussions on the role of Western institutions in the management of Middle Eastern heritage. The actions of digital initiatives present parallel ethical concerns, however largely go unmentioned in these discussions. For example, several projects have collaborated with Bashar al Assad’s government in Syria, and Iconem has received direct funding from the French military for FIFO data capture with high-end, proprietary equipment.30 26

 Bernbeck 2012, p. 88; Perring and van der Linde 2009, p. 201; Mourad 2007, pp. 151–67; Meskell 1998.  Mourad 2007, pp. 151–67; Hamilakis 2009, pp. 39–65; Pappa 2018, pp. 9–36; Bernbeck 2012, pp. 87–105. 28  Hamilakis 2009, pp. 39–65; Bernbeck 2012, pp. 97–99; Stone 2011; Perring and van der Linde 2009, pp. 197–211. 29  Jamieson and Russell 2019, p. 275. 30  The Art Newspaper (Sharpe 2017, pp. 1–5) reported in 2017 that a joint project between Iconem, Sketchfab and the French Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS) had received a $1.1 million grant from the French ministry of defence to fund a three-year project titled BIG3D which would work to ‘democratise the technology used to digitally document heritage sites threatened by war’ and ‘widen access to this 3D data, so that it can be used by troops on the ground and scholars via their laptops anywhere to assess 27

RESPONDING TO CULTURAL HERITAGE DESTRUCTION IN CONFLICT

223

The modus operandi of a FIFO expert also presents a concerning image of benevolent colonialism, particularly when frequently publicised under the rhetoric of Western experts ‘saving’ Middle Eastern heritage.31 Yves Ubelmann, from Iconem, is a serial offender for perpetuating a Western saviour complex. According to an interview entitled ‘The man bringing ancient ruins back to life,’ Ubelmann is apparently single-handedly restoring the heritage of the Middle East by flying renegade drones over Daesh-occupied territory. Interviewer Susannah Hickling writes: ‘Ubelmann now wants to train more local archaeologists to use photogrammetry and help local people understand how precious their heritage is. “I’m working for the future and not for the past,” he explains. “I’m documenting moments in history that can be used by generations to come.”’32

What about people living in the present? The problematic image presented here is of under-trained archaeologists and a local population who is oblivious to the value of their own heritage. It should be noted here that Ubelmann himself is trained as an architect, and Iconem’s listed employees include engineers, ‘photogrammetry experts,’ graphic designers and management personnel – and no visible expertise in cultural heritage management. The rhetoric of Ubelmann veers concerningly towards imperial sentiments critiqued by Bruce Trigger in his 1984 article “Alternative Archaeologies: Nationalist, Colonialist, Imperialist”: ‘[the] achievements of ancient Near Eastern civilisations were appropriated for western Europe by claiming that western Europeans rather than the people who lived in the Near East today were their true spiritual heirs.’33

With a well-known history of highly problematic engagement with Middle Eastern heritage by Western Europeans, it is critical that any assistance provided by foreign projects does not reproduce the harmful language and attitudes of imperialism and cultural elitism.

PROTECTING A ‘UNIVERSAL’

HUMAN HERITAGE

Several heritage digitisation initiatives discussed in this paper publicise their work as an exercise in preserving a universal human heritage. ‘Our world’s cultural heritage is threatened … [a] Symbol of humanity’s great cultural diversity, the awe-inspiring archaeological site Palmyra in Syria was desecrated by the Islamic State in 2016.’34

the condition of monuments and sites at risk.’ No further information on the BIG3D project since its announcement in 2017 could be found for this paper. 31  Examples of headlines with this rhetoric include ‘Save the Syrian Heritage: technologies to document Palmyra and endangered world heritage’ (Archeomatica 3 September 2017) and ‘A French startup is using drones and AI to save the world’s architectural heritage’ (Zeiba 12 April 2019). On the problems associated with this rhetoric, see Hamilakis (2009, p. 42) and Pappa (2018, pp. 9–36). 32  As reported by Hickling (accessed 22 October 2019). 33  Trigger 1984, p. 365. 34  Iconem English language public brochure, obtained online from www.iconem.com

224

S. RUSSELL

‘Our goal is to create a permanent, open-access archive of humanity’s history as represented by the things we build.’35 ‘Rekrei means recreate in Esperanto, a language that was constructed for the purpose of international universality.’36 ‘By using digital techniques to map and preserve monuments and other aspects of shared human history, we are able to ensure that nobody can deny history or dictate that their narrative or ideology stands above the shared story of all humanity and our shared aspiration to live together in harmony.’37

The concept of universal heritage is recognisable as the language used in many international heritage protection bodies, most plainly by UNESCO, and is certainly not a unique feature of heritage digitisation projects. In the context of this analysis, however, these assertions also act as a problematic statement of ownership by initiatives that are not necessarily international in scope or personnel. Statements of universal ownership minimises the authority of Syrians and Iraqis over Syrian or Iraqi heritage. Instead, heritage ownership is placed in the hands of a non-partisan, a-political humankind, and uncomfortable conversations about white saviourism can be sidelined in service of a presupposed politically neutral greater good. ‘While there are those who seek to encourage us to forget the past – to forget the shared history that unites us – we are dedicated to ensuring that the visual reminders that keep that history alive remain a part of the human experience.’38

It is not clear how the Middle Eastern and North African heritage referenced in this statement by the Million Image Database represents a shared human history, nor what makes it unifying. In fact, as has already been discussed, the ‘shared’ history of European engagement with Middle Eastern heritage is a highly problematic and divisive one. Omitting any recognition of this pre-existing history in favour of a universal human experience paves the road for further injustice. Erich Hatala Matthes articulates this concern as follows: ‘There is a worry that digital scanning efforts will recapitulate colonial museum practices that have involved the illicit acquisition of objects from dominated cultural groups, and the retention and control of those objects under the banner of preservation.’39

Lamenting the destruction of ‘human’ heritage marginalises and obscures the far greater impact of heritage loss on communities who possess a geographic, religious or ancestral association with that heritage. Protestations of outrage from a western audience, who may never have heard of these heritage sites until they appeared in ruins on their evening news, are distasteful and insensitive when the impact on Syrian and Iraqi communities goes unacknowledged. Universalising the ownership of Syrian and Iraqi heritage also feeds directly into Daesh’s sophisticated propaganda machine that was, in some part, designed to 35

 Excerpt from the Million Image Database webpage ‘Our Mission.’ See www.millionimage.org.uk  Excerpt from the Rekrei webpage ‘About.’ See www.rekrei.org 37  His Excellency Mohammed Abdullah Al Gergawi, Minister of Cabinet Affairs and The Future, United Arab Emirates, as cited on the Million Image Database webpage ‘Our Mission.’ See www.millionimage.org.uk 38  Excerpt from the Institute for Digital Archaeology webpage (www.digitalarchaeology.org.uk) in reference to the Million Image Database project. 39  Shein 2019, p. 16. 36

RESPONDING TO CULTURAL HERITAGE DESTRUCTION IN CONFLICT

225

Fig. 3. Boris Johnson attends the unveiling of a replica of Palmyra’s Triumphal Arch in 2016, reproduced using 3D imagery by the Institute for Digital Archaeology in Trafalgar Square (Image copyright: Justin Tallis Agence France-Presse).

antagonise Western cultural sensibilities.40 Furthermore, universal heritage can also be understood as a cornerstone of cultural appropriation. This became particularly evident in responses to the Institute of Digital Archaeology’s construction of a £100 000 replica of Palmyra’s Triumphal Arch in London’s Trafalgar Square from three-dimensional imagery (Fig. 3).41 The reproduction of Syrian heritage, decontextualized and ascribed new meaning as a symbol of free-speech and anti-terrorism42 for consumption by the British public, certainly warrants concern of cultural appropriation. In response to the reconstruction, artist Morehshin Allahyari asserts that ‘[this] is about histories, about institutional relationships. We have to talk about power … [we] cannot talk about ISIS without talking about the relationships within a cycle of capitalism and imperialism and war.’43 Mirjam Brusius from the University of Oxford raised similar concerns about colonial rhetoric and the London 40  For an analysis of Daesh’s social media campaign see Harmansah 2015; Smith et al. 2016; Zarandona et al. 2018. 41  Turner 19 April 2016. 42  Turner (19 April 2016) reports that founder and executive director of the Institute for Digital Archaeology Roger Michel ‘hoped “anybody who appreciates free speech” would understand why it was so important to recreate the arch,’ and that Boris Johnson, mayor of London at that time, expressed to a crowd at the unveiling of the arch that they were gathered “in defiance of the barbarians” in reference to Daesh. 43  Communicated in an interview to online arts and culture publication Hyperallergic, as reported by Voon (19 April 2016).

S. RUSSELL

226

reconstruction of Palmyra, in particular drawing attention to the destructive impact previous archaeological endeavours have had on local residents.44 In response to the accusation of colonialism, Director of Technology at the Institute for Digital Archaeology Alexy Karenowska stated: ‘a Western organization is not being imperialist by simply offering help… No one would criticize a Western humanitarian organization, I don’t think, trying to help in a difficult situation… Western intervention can be a very good thing if it comes in concert with close consultation with everybody involved, and it does not become a Western effort but very much a joint effort.’45

In response to other concerns46 that the reproduction reinforced pro-Syrian-regime propaganda, Karenowska further stated: Our focus is entirely on the betterment of archaeology and cultural heritage… We do not take a political position of any kind nor is it our place to comment on political issues.47

Asserting a position of political neutrality is tone deaf to several decades of cultural heritage scholarship that rejects professional neutrality and emphasises the importance of politically conscious practice.48 Concerns over ‘universal heritage’ as a tool for Western cultural appropriation of heritage places are not new, nor are they limited to heritage in conflict.49 Feeding problematic imperialistic narratives is not only unethical heritage management, it is also profoundly unhelpful at protecting heritage – and more importantly, people – in crisis.

TANGIBLE IMPACT Best practice aside, is digitising heritage a worthwhile and meaningful use of the limited resources, funding and time that is available to protect heritage in conflict? A simple answer to this question is beyond the authority of this paper, however some concerns about the value of digitising heritage in conflict will be discussed here. It has already been stated that heritage digitisation is an exercise in highly detailed documentation. We should also note that several initiatives capitalise on the engaging nature of digital heritage to raise public awareness about endangered heritage. In fact, the largest volume of responses to the heritage crisis in Syria and Iraq can been characterised as documentation and awareness-raising initiatives.50

44  Brusius (26 April 2016) writes ‘If [the reconstruction of Palmyra] goes ahead, it will not be the first time Palmyra has been rebuilt. Historians have shown that in the early 20th century, inhabitants were relocated from the ancient ruins to a new site outside of the town under the French Mandate. This became Tadmur, now infamous for being home to a notorious prison and political torture. Once they were out, the village inside the ruins was destroyed to make way for the archaeological excavations and the reconstruction of the ruins of the ancient site.’ 45  Communicated in an interview to online arts and culture publication Hyperallergic, as reported by Voon (19 April 2016). 46  Taylor 21 April 2016. 47  As reported by Taylor (21 April 2016). 48  On this, see Perring and van der Linde 2009, pp. 197–211. 49  Bernbeck 2012, p. 100; Pappa 2018, pp. 19, 27–29. 50  Al Quntar and Daniels 2016, p. 382.

RESPONDING TO CULTURAL HERITAGE DESTRUCTION IN CONFLICT

227

Collecting and circulating information about endangered heritage can incentivise action and inform recovery efforts; however, the extent to which this has resulted in quantifiable action for the heritage of Syria and Iraq is difficult to determine. Al Quntar and Daniels provide an excellent assessment of documentation and awareness-raising initiatives, noting that: ‘… documentation and public-awareness projects do not translate easily into humanitarian actions that can safeguard either the professional community of Syrian heritage experts – who are themselves exposed to great personal danger – or at-risk cultural heritage.’51

In fact, raising the international profile of highly significant heritage sites is particularly ill-advised in the context of Daesh’s pursuit of global headlines, and there is some suggestion that doing so increases their risk of destruction.52 At present, there is little evidence to suggest that digital models have been used to inform physical reconstructions in either Syria or Iraq, although promisingly they have been used to inform conservation decisions elsewhere.53 Whether or not damaged heritage sites in Syria and Iraq should be reconstructed, and in what way, has been a subject of debate. Emma Cunliffe provides insightful reflections on this topic regarding authenticity, the ‘Disneyfication’ of heritage, and prospects for memorialisation.54 In reference to reconstructing Palmyra, Jonathan Jones writes the following: ‘in our age of digital scanning, satellite photography and 3D printing, it is tempting to succumb to the delusion that every ruin can be restored… History is not like that. The Isis attack on Palmyra was not a counterfactual fantasy. It really occurred. This 21st-century tragedy is part of Palmyra’s history now. This too, for the sake of truth and as a warning to the future, must be preserved.’55

Information available on the websites of the five initiatives previously discussed suggests that to date, digitised Syrian and Iraqi heritage has been principally used for public displays, museum exhibitions, artistic expression and political statements in Western nations. Threedimensional printed heritage has also been creatively employed to challenge western heritage narratives and Daesh – see for example US-based Iranian artist and activist Morehshin Allahyari’s work Material Speculation: ISIS (2015–2016).56 Information about how the datasets of promising open-access digital heritage archives are being used, and by whom, is not yet available; though we can hope that assessing the impact of these resources will become a point of interest for heritage scholarship as they grow. Certainly, increasing online accessibility to cultural knowledge is globalising cultural heritage like never before. It should be noted, however, that navigating these databases does require, at its most basic level, access to a device, the internet, and some knowledge of the English language, presenting an accessibility barrier for many people around the globe. All being considered, it is difficult to see how these initiatives have directly benefited Syrian and Iraqi communities, who are of course the most affected by the loss of their heritage. 51

 Al Quntar and Daniels 2016, p. 391.  On this discussion see Felch and Varoutsikos 2016; Cunliffe and Curini 2018, p. 1107; Al Quntar and Daniels 2016, p. 384. 53  CyArk provides some examples of conservation projects that have been informed by their work. See www.cyark.org/conservation 54  Cunliffe 31 March 2016. 55  Jones 11 April 2016. 56  Thompson 2018, pp. 48–50. For further information on Allahyari’s work visit www.morehshin.com 52

S. RUSSELL

228 ARCHAEOLOGICAL BENEFITS

From an archaeological perspective, the benefits of three-dimensional models for researching sites that have been damaged by conflict are comparable to standard archaeological photographic and mapping documentation. This includes a record of the size, shape, spatial arrangement and construction materials of built heritage, in addition to any iconography or inscriptions that may be visible. Features that are difficult to distinguish from their surrounding environment – such as an inscription that has been worn almost flat, structural wear and tear, or slight variations in colour, may not be effectively captured using photogrammetry or LiDAR. Naturally, unexcavated archaeological material that is below the surface is not captured – though it can be disturbed by conflict. The representation of built archaeological heritage in conflict digitisation initiatives typically only contains basic contextual information. A common archetype presents an interactive model in blank digital space, with basic information such as the site name, location, historical culture or time period. The potential for this information to significantly inform future research is limited, particularly where more detailed archaeological records are already in existence. That said, digital records of smaller, less understood, and lower profile archaeological sites could be valuable for future research. These places are highly susceptible to eradication from illegal excavations and natural weathering processes during periods of social and political instability, and records of these places may not yet exist in scholarship. For example, the destruction of at least six Sufi shrines in Fallujah in August 2015 garnered the second-largest surge of online support for Daesh, but were unable to be identified by scholars due a lack of existing documentation.57 Meanwhile, there is a significant and wasteful duplication of efforts to digitise high-profile UNESCO world heritage listed sites. Palmyra, for example, has been modelled by many different projects since 2005. Recording the immense number of understudied archaeological heritage in the region is well beyond the current purview of most heritage digitization organisations, however this is certainly something that long-term archaeological projects could incorporate into standard practice once they return to the region. Additionally, placing digitisation resources and training in the hands of local communities could also contribute to documenting understudied, endangered heritage.

WHAT

CANNOT BE DIGITISED?

‘their memories are now saved forever’58

Lastly, it is important to acknowledge that three-dimensional models of endangered heritage sites do not or cannot capture many intangible features of heritage, features which often give heritage its social, religious, historical or archaeological value. For example, topography, landscape, viewpoints and other natural features are highly relevant to interpreting human actions in the ancient past. Experiencing the scale of monumental architecture first-hand can 57

 Cunliffe and Curini 2018, p. 1107.  Yves Ubelmann, in an interview to Archeomatica (3 September 2017, p. 32).

58

RESPONDING TO CULTURAL HERITAGE DESTRUCTION IN CONFLICT

229

aid our understanding of expressions of power and control. Sensory experiences such as sound, smell, texture and climate also greatly inform our experience of place both past and present. Significantly, intangible heritage practices that are observed in built heritage places, such as religious worship, storytelling, food consumption or craftsmanship, are critical to the contemporary value of many heritage sites. Community identity, ancestral connection to place and personal memories that are tied to heritage are also highly significant aspects of heritage value that may not transfer in the digital record. Recognising that these characteristics of built heritage have not been or cannot be preserved in the digital world is critical, especially when these features are often the very thing that gives heritage its meaning. Additionally, recognising the impact of conflict on intangible heritage practices is critical to fully comprehending the purpose and impact of cultural heritage destruction. Publicizing the ability of digitisation to preserve Syrian and Iraqi heritage, without recording intangible aspects, reduces the significance of a place to point clouds and geometry.

LOOKING FORWARD: TRAINING, ARCHAEOLOGICAL PRACTICE AND

HOLISTIC HERITAGE

There are several ways that heritage digitisation projects acting as a response to heritage in conflict can grow. First and foremost, acknowledged collaboration with local partners by international projects is critical and should be a priority. There are a number of ways international colleagues can support in-country digitisation efforts according to available funding and resources both in-country and abroad. Options include providing funding, equipment, expertise, access to (sometimes expensive) software and remote data storage. At its most basic level, however, built heritage can be digitised using a camera phone and freely available online software, and need not be restricted to those with the budgets for laser scanners and software engineers. Training and supporting the needs of local colleagues has been recognised as one of the most effective ways to address heritage in conflict, however it was one of the least common categories of response to the heritage crisis in Iraq and Syria.59 Not only does this reaffirm local decision-making over heritage but it also supports building disaster preparedness for the future. Increasingly accessible and engaging technologies in the heritage field could provide excellent opportunities for providing support to local colleagues from abroad. Additionally, archaeologists are well positioned to meaningfully contribute to this field. As scholars of both the humanities and the sciences, archaeologists have access to expertise in heritage value, critical heritage studies and geomatics. Recording destructive processes – excavation – is a key part of archaeological expertise, and many archaeologists already use photogrammetry and LiDAR in their own fieldwork projects. Incorporating digitisation, particularly lower-cost photogrammetry, into standard archaeological practice reduces the need for ‘emergency’ and reactionary digitisation of endangered heritage. Here too, local collaboration is essential, and is already commonly discussed (though not 59

 Al Quntar and Daniels 2016, p. 388; Kanjou 2018, pp. 375–391; Perring and van der Linde 2009, p. 209; Isakhan and Meskell 2019, p. 1200; Cunliffe and Curini 2018, p. 1107.

230

S. RUSSELL

universally practised) within the discipline. Collaboration by archaeologists with wider digital heritage enterprises could also help the discipline to keep pace with technological advancements and contribute scholarly research into the possible benefits of digital heritage – in conflict or elsewise. Lastly, a combination of technological and cultural heritage expertise could greatly assist in producing more holistic digital copies of heritage places. The significance of intangible heritage was previously mentioned. How might we go about including intangible features into digital records? For example, this could include the recording of sounds; music, animals, rushing water, traffic. It could involve recording oral history, interviews that share personal memories or religious significance. Landscapes and topography also add greater context to a heritage place. One significant benefit of digital space is its limitless capacity for storing data. It can accommodate multiple meanings, and plurality in historical or contemporary perspectives on heritage. The process of creating such a multi-layered digital landscape necessitates serious engagement with the significance of a heritage site, and the people who value it most. CyArk has made positive steps in this regard with its comprehensive list of classroom lesson plans, ‘in depth’ site descriptions, and most recently a retelling of the Stonewall riots from five different individuals in augmented reality.60 Additionally, Syrian new-media artist Ayman Alalao incorporated data from #NewPalmyra with sound, augmented reality and a storybook concept to create an engaging journey through Palmyra.61 Finally, community engagement with heritage in and of itself has been recognised as one of the best contributing factors to long-term heritage preservation and post-conflict recovery.62 In this sense, perhaps the collaborative and inclusionary process of digitising a heritage site, and not the final result of a digital model, is a means of safeguarding cultural heritage.

CONCLUSIONS As the destruction of heritage places in Iraq and Syria by Daesh fades from global headlines, scholars continue to share reflections on the strength of the international response to these events. Like other response types, heritage digitisation projects have produced commendable outcomes in documentation and heritage engagement, with admirable technological achievements. However, a number of questions remain about the impact of these efforts. This paper raised some of these concerns relating to collaboration, narrative, decision-making and intangible heritage. Nevertheless, the field of digital heritage is growing at a rapid pace, offering innovative ways of representing, experiencing and understanding heritage. This presents unique opportunities for producing highly engaging, accessible and multi-vocal representations of endangered heritage. To utilise these opportunities 60  CyArk’s multi-perspective digital recreation of the Stonewall riots was created in collaboration with the Huffington Post and can be accessed on the HuffPost iOS app. CyArk’s classroom activities are freely accessible online here: www.cyark.org/discovery/lessonplans 61  Alalao’s work can be viewed here: www.aymanalao.com/wp/public/palmyra-sy 62  On post-conflict recovery and cultural heritage see Newson and Young 2017, and the Heritage Cycle framework proposed by Thurley (2005, p. 26).

RESPONDING TO CULTURAL HERITAGE DESTRUCTION IN CONFLICT

231

ethically and effectively, however, we must engage in at times difficult conversations about heritage ownership and access. As our understanding of the effects and purpose of cultural heritage destruction advances, so too should our ability to generate meaningful international counter-measures. Assessing the impact of these actions is critical to improving our capacity for responding to future heritage crises – it is hoped that this paper contributes to those reflections.

BIBLIOGRAPHY AL QUNTAR, S. and DANIELS, B. I. 2016 “Responses to the destruction of Syrian cultural heritage: a critical review of current efforts,” International Journal of Islamic Architecture 5(2): 381–397. ARCHEOMATICA 2017 Save the Syrian heritage: Technologies to document Palmyra and endangered world heritage. 3 September 2017. www.mediageo.it/ojs/index.php/archeomatica/article/ view/1483 (10 September 2019) BERNBECK, R. 2012 “The political dimension of archaeological practices,” in A Companion to the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East, edited by D. T. Potts, pp. 87–105. Malden MA: Wiley-Blackwell. BEVAN, R. 2016 The Destruction of Memory: Architecture at War, 2nd ed. London: Reaktion Books. BRUSIUS, M. 2016 The Middle East heritage debate is becoming worryingly colonial. 26 April 2016. www.theconversation.com/the-middle-east-heritage-debate-is-becoming-worryinglycolonial-57679 (11 October 2019) CUNLIFFE, E. 2016 Should we 3D print a new Palmyra? 31 March 2016. www.theconversation.com/ should-we-3d-print-a-new-palmyra-57014 (22 October 2019) CUNLIFFE, E. and CURINI, L. 2018 “ISIS and heritage destruction: a sentiment analysis,” Antiquity 92(364): 1094–1111. CUNLIFFE, E., MUHESEN, N. and LOSTAL, M. 2016 “The destruction of cultural property in the Syrian conflict: legal implications and obligations,” International Journal of Cultural Property 23(1): 1–31. EVANS, T. L. and DALY, P., eds. 2006 Digital Archaeology: Bridging Method and Theory. New York and London: Routledge. FELCH, J. and VAROUTSIKOS, B. 2016 The lessons of Palmyra: Islamic state and iconoclasm in the era of clickbait. 6 April 2016. www.theartnewspaper.com/comment/the-lessons-of-palmyra-islamic-state-andiconoclasm-in-the-era-of-clickbait (21 October 2019) HAMILAKIS, Y. 2009 “The ‘war on terror’ and the military-archaeology complex: Iraq, ethics, and neocolonialism,” Archaeologies 5(1): 39–65. HARMANSAH, O. 2015 “ISIS, heritage, and the spectacles of destruction in the global media,” Near Eastern Archaeology 78(3): 170–177. HICKLING, S. The man brining ancient ruins back to life. www.readersdigest.co.uk/inspire/life/theman-bringing-ancient-ruins-back-to-life (22 October 2019). ISAKHAN, B. 2018 “How to interpret ISIS’s heritage destruction,” Current History 117(803): 344–349.

232

S. RUSSELL

ISAKHAN, B. and MESKELL, L. 2019 “UNESCO’s project to ‘Revive the Spirit of Mosul’: Iraqi and Syrian opinion on heritage reconstruction after the Islamic State,” International Journal of Heritage Studies 25(11): 1189–1204. JAMIESON, A. and RUSSELL, S. 2019 “Responding to Syria’s cultural heritage in crisis: A case study,” Ancient Near Eastern Studies 56: 267–288. JONES, J. 2016 Palmyra must not be fixed. History would never forgive us. 11 April 2016. www. theguardian.com/artanddesign/jonathanjonesblog/2016/apr/11/palmyra-isis-syriarestored-3d-printers-vandalism (22 October 2019) KANJOU, Y. 2018 “The role of the local community and museums in the renaissance of Syrian cultural heritage,” Journal of Eastern Mediterranean Archaeology and Heritage Studies 6(4): 375–391. LABABIDI, R. and QASSAR, H. 2016 “Did they really forget how to do it? Iraq, Syria, and the international response to protect a shared heritage,” Journal of Eastern Mediterranean Archaeology and Heritage Studies 4(4): 341–362. LECKIE, L., CUNLIFFE, E. and VAROUTSIKOS, B. 2017 Towards a Protection of the Syrian Cultural Heritage: A Summary of the National and International Responses (October 2015 – December 2016). Vol. 4. Girona: Heritage for Peace. MCKERNAN, B. 2017 Bassel Khartabil Safadi dead: One of Syria’s most famous activists has been executed in prison, widow confirms. 2 August 2017. www.independent.co.uk/news/world/ middle-east/bassel-khartabil-safadi-executed-syria-activist-dead-prison-widow-confirms-democracy-adra-damascus-a7872771 (22 October 2019) MESKELL, L. 1998 “Archaeology matters,” in Archaeology Under Fire: Nationalism, Politics and Heritage in the Eastern Mediterranean and Middle East, edited by L. Meskell, pp. 1–12. London: Routledge. MOURAD, T. O. 2007 “An ethical archaeology in the Near East: Confronting empire, war and colonization,” in Archaeology and Capitalism: From Ethics to Politics, edited by Y. Hamilakis and P. Duke, pp. 151–167. Walnut Creek CA: Left Coast Press (One World Archaeology Series 54). NEWSON, P. and YOUNG, R., eds. 2018 Post Conflict Archaeology and Cultural Heritage: Rebuilding Knowledge, Memory and Community from War-Damaged Material Culture. New York and London: Routledge. PAPPA, E. 2018 “Depoliticizing archaeology for constructing pasts and presents: Cultural heritage, war, and the West,” Radical History Review 30: 9–43. PERRING, D. and VAN DER LINDE, S. 2009 “The politics and practice of archaeology in conflict,” Conservation and Management of Archaeological Sites 11(3–4): 197–213. SHARPE, E. 2017 “French military funds high-tech fight to protect heritage,” The Art Newspaper 26(291): 1–5. SHEIN, E. 2019 “Who owns 3D scans of historic sites?,” Communications of the ACM 62(1): 15–17. SMITH, C., BURKE, H., DE LEIUEN, C. and JACKSON, G. 2016 “The Islamic State’s symbolic war: Da’esh’s socially mediated terrorism as a threat to cultural heritage,” Journal of Social Archaeology 16(2): 164–188.

RESPONDING TO CULTURAL HERITAGE DESTRUCTION IN CONFLICT

233

STONE, P., ed. 2011 Cultural Heritage, Ethics, and the Military. Woodbridge: The Boydell Press (Heritage Matters 4). TAYLOR, A. 2016 The problem with rebuilding a Palmyra ruin destroyed by ISIS – does it simply help Assad? 21 April 2016. www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2016/04/20/ the-problem-with-rebuilding-a-roman-ruin-destroyed-by-isis-does-it-simply-helpassad/ (22 October 2019) THE ECONOMIST 2016 Introducing “RecoVR Mosul” The Economist’s first VR experience. 20 May 2016. www.economist.com/prospero/2016/05/20/introducing-recovr-mosul-the-economists-first-vr-experience (21 October 2019) THOMPSON, E. L. 2018 “Recreating the past in our own image: Contemporary artists’ reactions to the digitization of threatened cultural heritage sites in the Middle East,” Future Anterior: Journal of Historic Preservation, History, Theory, and Criticism 15(1): 45–56. THURLEY, S. 2005 “Into the future: Our strategy for 2005–2010,” Conservation Bulletin 49: 26–27. TRIGGER, B. G. 1984 “Alternative archaeologies: Nationalist, colonialist, imperialist,” Man 19(3): 355–370. TURNER, L. 2016 Palmyra’s arch recreated in London. 19 April 2016. www.bbc.com/news/uk-36070721 (17 October 2019) VOON, C. 2016 What’s the Value of Recreating the Palmyra Arch with Digital Technology? 19 April 2016. https://hyperallergic.com/292006/whats-the-value-of-recreating-the-palmyra-archwith-digital-technology/ (22 October 2019) ZARANDONA, J. A. G., ALBARRÁN-TORRES, C. and ISAKHAN, B. 2018 “Digitally mediated iconoclasm: The Islamic State and the war on cultural heritage,” International Journal of Heritage Studies 24(6): 649–671. ZEIBA, D. 2019 A French startup is using drones and AI to save the world’s architectural heritage. 12 April 2019. https://archpaper.com/2019/04/iconem/ (22 October 2019)

APPENDIX

THE SITES AND ORGANISATIONS DISCUSSED BY THE AUTHORS IN THIS VOLUME CHAPTER 1 Frank BRAEMER sites / monuments organisations / institutions / projects

INTRODUCTORY NOTE TO MARBURG WORKSHOP Syrian and Iraqi heritage SHIRIN (Syria); RASHID (Iraq)

CHAPTER 2 Roger MATTHEWS sites / monuments organisations / institutions / projects

HERITAGE IN CONFLICT: PERSPECTIVES FROM IRAQ northern Iraq, Mosul, Al-Nuri Mosque, Al-Hadba Minaret RASHID International (Research, Assessment, Safeguarding the Heritage of Iraq in Danger); Monuments of Mosul in Danger project; UNESCO’s Revive the Spirit of Mosul project; government of Iraq; 1999 Second Protocol to the 1954 Hague Convention; The Fund for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict; Third Cycle of the Universal Periodic Review of Iraq’s human rights in 2019; United Nations (UNGA 2015)

CHAPTER 3 Saad Abbas ISMAIL sites / monuments organisations / institutions / projects

RECOVERING STOLEN ARTEFACTS: A CASE STUDY Qamishli Asayish forces; Anti-Organised Crime section; Authority of Tourism and Protection of Antiquities; SHIRIN

CHAPTER 4 Suleiman Al-Issa AL-SAMADI sites / monuments organisations / institutions / projects

CONFLICT AND HERITAGE: THE MODEL OF BOSRA AL-SHAM Bosra al-Sham (Damascus, Homs, Aleppo, Palmyra and Idlib) World Heritage List; Department of Antiquities of Bosra al-Sham; (#Unit4Heritage) UNESCO

CHAPTER 5 Yasser DALLAL sites / monuments organisations / institutions / projects

PROTECTING CULTURAL HERITAGE IN TIMES OF CONFLICT Aleppo, Old City Archaeology Department of the Free Aleppo Governorate Council; The Syrian Association for Preservation of Archaeology and Heritage; World Heritage List; Association for the Protection of Syrian Archaeology (APSA)

236

APPENDIX

CHAPTER 6 Mohamad FAKHRO sites / monuments organisations / institutions / projects

PROTECTION MEASURES TAKEN BY MUSEUMS DURING THE SYRIAN WAR: THE NATIONAL MUSEUM OF ALEPPO AS A MODEL National Museum of Aleppo, Syrian national and regional museums: Damascus, Aleppo, Bosra, Daraa, Deir ez-Zur, Hama, Homs, Idleb, Palmyra, Latakia, Quneitra, Al-Raqqa, Sweida, Tartus International Council of Museums (ICOM); Directorate General of Antiquities and Museums (DGAM); UNESCO; Syrian Association for Preserving Archaeology and Heritage (SAPAH); the Department of Archaeology of [the Free City of] Aleppo (DAA); Idleb Antiquities Centre and the Syrian Heritage Centre; Authority of Tourism and Protection of Antiquities in Al-Jazira; United Nations and the Security Council; ICOM ‘Emergency Red List of Syrian Cultural Objects at Risk’; SHIRIN; Digital Inventories of Museums of Syria (DIMS) project; UNESCO’s List of World Heritage in Danger; staff of the Directorate of Antiquities and Museums of Aleppo; Archaeology Department, University of Aleppo

CHAPTER 7 Youssef KANJOU sites / monuments organisations / institutions / projects

OLD ALEPPO CITY UNDER FIRE: THE ‘REAL’ SITUATION AND FUTURE SALVATION Aleppo Old City Syrian Directorate General of Antiquities and Museums (DGAM); United Nations Institute for Training and Research (UNITR); Operational Satellite Applications Programme (UNOSAT); Aleppo Antiquity Department; University of Aleppo; Association of Al Adeyat (Archaeological Society)

CHAPTER 8 Isber SABRINE and Emma CUNLIFFE sites / monuments organisations / institutions / projects

PROTECTING HERITAGE AND OTHERS IN SYRIA: THE WORK OF HERITAGE FOR PEACE Syrian Heritage International Organisations (IOs); Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs); Heritage for Peace (HfP); Syrian Heritage Law Training (SHELTr) project; Save Muslim Heritage; the Gerda Henkel Foundation; Directorate General of Antiquities and Museums (DGAM)

CHAPTER 9 Olivier NIEUWENHUYSE, Khaled HIATLIH, Ayham AL-FAKHRI and Rasha HAQI sites / monuments organisations / institutions / projects

FOCUS RAQQA: DUTCH-SYRIAN INITIATIVES SAFEGUARDING SYRIAN ARCHAEOLOGICAL HERITAGE

Raqqa, Tell Sabi Abyad, Tell Hammam et-Turkman Directorate General of Antiquities and Museums (DGAM); Centre for Global Heritage and Development (Netherlands); Allard Pierson Museum, Amsterdam; University of Amsterdam; University of Durham; Endangered Archaeology in the Middle East and North Africa (EAMENA); Technical University of Delft; the Interdisciplinary Centre for Scientific Computing (IWR) at the University of Heidelberg; Raqqa Museum; National Museum in Damascus; SHIRIN; Authority for Tourism and Protections of Archaeology (ATPA); Central Bank of Raqqa; Deutsches Archäologisches Institut Berlin; Interpol; Leiden University’s Faculty of Archaeology

THE SITES AND ORGANISATIONS DISCUSSED BY THE AUTHORS

237

CHAPTER 10 Graeme W. CLARKE SYRIA: ANCIENT HISTORY – MODERN CONFLICT EXHIBITION OPENING ADDRESS sites / monuments Syria, ‘The Big Bend’ of the Euphrates River Valley, El-Qitar, Tell Halula, Wadi Abu Qalqal, Jerf al-Ahmar, Til Barsib/Tell Ahmar, Jebel Khalid organisations / UNESCO; University of Melbourne; Australian National University institutions / projects CHAPTER 11 Ross BURNS sites / monuments organisations / institutions / projects

ALEPPO AND PALMYRA: HOW MONUMENTS WERE WEAPONISED IN THE SYRIAN CONFLICT Aleppo, Palmyra Convention on Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict; Article 16 of Protocol II of the Geneva Conventions; Directorate General of Antiquities and Museums in Damascus; Directorate General of Monuments and Museums

CHAPTER 12 Marilyn C. TRUSCOTT sites / monuments organisations / institutions / projects

COMMUNITY CONNECTIONS TO CULTURAL HERITAGE: CONTINUITY, RECONNECTION AND RECOVERY Palmyra, Ancient City of Damascus, Ancient City of Bosra, Site of Palmyra, Ancient City of Aleppo, Crac des Chevaliers, Qal’at Salat el-Din, Ancient Villages of Northern Syria UNESCO; Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage 1972 (the World Heritage Convention); World Heritage and Sustainable Development: The Role of Local Communities; World Bank; World Archaeological Congress (WAC); International Committee on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS); World Heritage in Danger List; The World Archaeological Congress First Code of Ethics; ICOMOS’ Charter for the Protection and the Management of the Archaeological Heritage; Australia ICOMOS; Burra Charter; UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples; World Heritage Indigenous Peoples Forum; World Heritage Indigenous Peoples Council of Experts (WHIPCOE); World Heritage Committee; African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights; University of Madrid; Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage; Syrian Government; National Higher Steering Committee for the Restoration of the Ancient City of Aleppo; Aga Khan Foundation for Culture; Center for Conflict Negotiation and Recovery; Syria Ministry of Culture, Directorate General of Antiquities and Museums; UNESCO’s Observatory of Cultural Heritage; Hekkaya Project undertaken by Syrians for Heritage (SIMAT); Oxfam

CHAPTER 13 Fiona HILL sites / monuments organisations / institutions / projects

SYRIA’S CULTURAL HERITAGE: LIFE AS IT IS Tadmor (Palmyra), Deir ez-Zur, Hama, Menbij, Jerablous, Damascus, Aleppo, Syrian Euphrates River valley, Qala’at Najem (Qalat Najm), Tishreen Dam, Jezira, Wadi Tishreen, Maalula Free Syrian Army (FSA); ‘Operation Euphrates Shield’; USA military; Facebook; Syria’s Minister for Tourism; UNESCO World Heritage Centre; US State Department; Aleppo University; Syrian Arab News Agency (SANA); Al Jazeera; Syria Trust for Development; Al Hakawati project financed by the Swedish Postcode Lottery

238

APPENDIX

CHAPTER 14 José Antonio GONZÁLEZ ZARANDONA sites / monuments organisations / institutions / projects

BETWEEN DEATH AND TABOO: HERITAGE DESTRUCTION IN THE DIGITAL TURN heritage in Iraq and Syria, Buddhas of Bamiyan Afghanistan, Tadmor (Palmyra), Nimrud, Mosul, Hatra Islamic State; IS; US Army; Getty Institute online exhibition “The Legacy of Ancient Palmyra”; Association for the Protection of Syrian Archaeology (APSA), the Directorate General of Antiquities and Museums (DGAM); Raqqa is Slowly Being Slaughtered, the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights (SOHR)

CHAPTER 15 Heather JACKSON and Andrew JAMIESON sites / monuments organisations / institutions / projects

CASE STUDIES: THE AUSTRALIAN EXCAVATIONS AT JEBEL KHALID AND TELL AHMAR IN SYRIA PRE- AND POST-CONFLICT middle and upper Euphrates River valley, Jebel Khalid, Tell Ahmar, El-Qitar, Tabqa Dam, Qala’at Najem, Raqqa Australian National University; University of Melbourne; Liège University; University of Sydney; Directorate General of Antiquities and Museums (DGAM); UNESCO, Islamic State (also known as IS, ISIS, ISIL or Da’esh); International Syrian Congress of Archaeology and Cultural heritage (ISCACH); Authority of Tourism and Protection of Antiquities in the Al Jazira Canton; International Congress on the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East (ICAANE); SHIRIN (Syrian Heritage in Danger: An International Research Initiative and Network) International; SHIRIN Australia; Ian Potter Museum of Art; Melbourne Social Equity Institute; Asylum Seeker Resource Centre and Refugee Council

CHAPTER 16 Anas AL KHABOUR sites / monuments

organisations / institutions / projects

RAQQA: A HISTORY OF THE DESTRUCTION OF CULTURAL HERITAGE Raqqa, Abbasid palaces, ceramic workshops, Raqqa museum, Tell Bi’a (“Tuttul”), Nikephorion, Abbasid city, Omayyad capital Damascus, modern Raqqa, Abbasid city wall, Abbassid industrial area, Omayyad mosque al-Munaitir, Ja’bar Museum and the Folkloric Museum, Museum of Ja’bar Citadel, Tell Bi’a, Tell Hammam et-Turkman, Tell Sabi Abyad, Abbassid Mosque, shrine of Ibrahim al-Khalil in Tell Abyad, Syriac Church of the Annunciation (Kanisat al-Bishara), Catholic Church of the Resurrection (Kanisat al-Qiama), Clock Square (Dawar al-Sa’a) “Islamic State” in Iraq and in Syria (ISIS); German Archaeological Institute (Deutsches Archäologisches Institut, DAI), Directorate General of Antiquities and Museums (DGAM); Syrian Department of Archaeology; German Archaeological Institute, Damascus Branch; The Department of Antiquities and Museums of Raqqa; International Congress on the History and Archaeology of Raqqa; Central Bank; Nusra Front (Jabhat al-Nusra); al-Qaida; ISIS or DAESH (Daulat al Islam fi al-‘iraq wa al-Sham); Syrian Antiquities Law; Battalion of al-Kansa (Katibat al Khansa’); USA-supported forces of the Syrian Democratic Force

THE SITES AND ORGANISATIONS DISCUSSED BY THE AUTHORS

239

CHAPTER 17 Annelies VAN DE VEN sites / monuments organisations / institutions / projects

MEMORIES OF EXCAVATIONS PAST: REVISITING THE SYRIA EXHIBITION AT THE UNIVERSITY OF MELBOURNE TWO YEARS ON Palmyrene bust of Hagar, Tishrin and Tabqa dams, Middle Euphrates valley, El-Qitar, Til Barsib/Tell Ahmar, Jebel Khalid, Abu Qalqal, Palmyra, Temple of Bel Ian Potter Museum of Art; University of Melbourne; Australian War Memorial; Brooklyn Museum; United States Holocaust Museum; Aga Khan Museum; The Getty Villa; Museum of Islamic Art Qatar; Pergamonmuseum; Asylum Seeker Resource Centre; Refugee Council; Petrie Museum; Institute for Digital Archaeology; Director of Palmyra Antiquities Department and Museums, Khaled al Assa’ad; Institute of Classical Studies

CHAPTER 18 Sophie RUSSELL sites / monuments organisations / institutions / projects

RESPONDING TO CULTURAL HERITAGE DESTRUCTION IN CONFLICT: DIGITAL INITIATIVES cultural heritage across Iraq and Syria, Mosul Museum, Palmyra Daesh; Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) and the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS); Heritage for Peace; CyArk; Iconem; the Million Image Database; Rekrei; #NewPalmyra; Open Heritage 3D initiative; École française d’Athènes and the French Institute of Myanmar; ARPAMED Archéologie & Patrimoine en Méditerranée or the IRAA Institut de Recherche sur l’Architecture Antique; World Heritage Database; Initial Training Network for Digital Cultural Heritage project; Institute for Digital Archaeology; Artifaq, French military; UNESCO; University of Oxford; Archeomatica; Heritage Cycle framework

ANCIENT NEAR EASTERN STUDIES (FORMERLY ABR-NAHRAIN) Supplement Series Series Editors: Andrew Jamieson & Claudia Sagona

 1. 2.  3. 4.  5.

6.  7.  8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13.

14.

15. 16. 17.

Mayer L.A., Bibliography of the Samaritans, 1964, 50 p. Bunnens G., Tell Ahmar, 1988 Season, 1990, 151 p. Muraoka T., Studies in Qumran Aramaic, 1992, 167 p. Muraoka T., Studies in Ancient Hebrew Semantics, 1995, VIII — 107 p. Bunnens G., Cultural Interaction in the Ancient Near East. Papers Read at a Symposium Held at the University of Melbourne, Department of Classics and Archaeology (29-30 September 1994), 1996, VIII — 155 p. Muraoka T., Semantics of Ancient Hebrew, 1998, 151 p. Bunnens G., Essays on Syria in the Iron Age, 2000, X — 557 p. Adamthwaite M.R., Late Hittite Emar. The Chronology, Synchronisms and SocioPolitical Aspects of a Late Bronze Age Fortress Town, 2001, XXIV — 294 p. Sagona C., The Archaeology of Punic Malta, 2002, XIV — 1165 p. Sagona C., Punic Antiquities of Malta and Other Ancient Artefacts Held in Ecclesiastic and Private Collections, 2003, XXII — 374 p. Hopkins L., Archaeology at the North-East Anatolian Frontier, VI. An Ethnoarchaeological Study of Sos Höyük and Yigittasi Village, 2003, XXVII — 184 p. Sagona A., A View from the Highlands: Archaeological Studies in Honour of Charles Burney, 2004, XX — 743 p. McConchie M., Archaeology at the North-East Anatolian Frontier, V. Iron Technology and Iron-making Communities of the First Millennium BC, 2004, XXIV — 393 p. Sagona A., Sagona C., Archaeology at the North-East Anatolian Frontier, I. An Historical Geography and a Field Survey of the Bayburt Province, 2004, XXIV — 600 p. Çilingiroğlu A., Derin Z., Abay E., Sağlamtimur H., Kayan İ., Ulucak Höyük. Excavations Conducted between 1995 and 2002, 2004, XII — 162 p. Payne M., Urartian Measures of Volume, 2005, XX — 387 p. Stoop-van Paridon P.W.T., The Song of Songs. A Philological Analysis of the the Hebrew Book jiriwe riw, 2005, XVI — 540 p.

30 EURO 38 EURO 45 EURO 35 EURO

40 EURO 35 EURO 105 EURO 70 EURO 160 EURO 105 EURO 90 EURO 120 EURO

90 EURO

110 EURO 60 EURO 95 EURO 90 EURO

18. Sagona C., Vella Gregory I., Bugeja A., Punic Antiquities of Malta and Other Ancient Artefacts Held in Private Collections, 2, 2006, XXII — 276 p. 77 EURO 19. Sagona A., Abramishvili M., Archaeology in Southern Caucasus: Perspectives from Georgia, 2008, VIII — 477 p. 94 EURO 20. Çilingiroğlu A., Sagona A., Anatolian Iron Ages 6: The Proceedings of the Sixth Anatolian Iron Ages Colloquium Held at Eskişehir, 16-20 August 2004, 2007, X — 348 p. 85 EURO 21. Azize J., Weeks N., Gilgameš and the World of Assyria. Proceedings of the Conference Held at the Mandelbaum House, The University of Sydney, 21-23 July 2004, 2007, VIII — 240 p. 84 EURO 22. Wightman G., Sacred Spaces. Religious Architecture in the Ancient World, 2007, XX — 1156 p. 120 EURO 23. Aitken J.K., The Semantics of Blessing and Cursing in Ancient Hebrew, 2007, XVI — 306 p. 85 EURO 24. Steiner M., van der Steen E.J., Sacred and Sweet. Studies on the Material Culture of Tell Deir ꜤAlla and Tell Abu Sarbut, 2008, VIII — 286 p. 85 EURO 25. Yagodin V.N., Betts A.V.G., Blau S., Ancient Nomads of the Aralo-Caspian Region. The Duana Archaeological Complex, 2007, VIII — 138 p. 65 EURO 26. McGeough K., Exchange Relationships at Ugarit, 2007, XVIII — 438 p. 95 EURO 27. Rubinson K.S., Sagona A., Ceramics in Transitions. Chalcolithic Through Iron Age in the Highlands of the Southern Caucasus and Anatolia, 2008, VI — 364 p. 90 EURO 28. Sagona C., Beyond the Homeland: Markers in Phoenician Chronology, 2008, VIII — 655 p. 98 EURO 29. Bienkowski P., Studies on Iron Age Moab and Neighbouring Areas in Honour of Michèle Daviau, 2009, XIV — 273 p. 87 EURO 30. Kuty R.J., Studies in the Syntax of Targums Jonathan to Samuel, 2010, XIV — 285 p. 85 EURO 31. Redford S., Ergin N., Perceptions of the Past in the Turkish Republic: Classical and Byzantine Periods, 2010, X — 236 p. 79 EURO 32. McGeough K., Smith M.S., Ugaritic Economic Tablets. Text, Translation and Notes, 2011, XXVI — 625 p. 98 EURO 33. Hartley J.E., The Semantics of Ancient Hebrew Colour Lexemes, 2010, XVI — 247 p. 78 EURO 34. Connor S.E., A Promethean Legacy: Late Quaternary Vegetation History of Southern Georgia, the Caucasus, 2011, XII — 419 p. 94 EURO 35. Jamieson A., Tell Ahmar III. Neo-Assyrian Pottery from Area C, 2012, XVIII — 385 p. 105 EURO 36. Sagona C., Ceramics of the Phoenician-Punic World: Collected Essays, 2011, X — 450 p. 95 EURO

37. Ergin N., Bathing Culture of Anatolian Civilizations: Architecture, History, and Imagination, 2011, X — 329 p. 38. Muraoka T., A Grammar of Qumran Aramaic, 2011, XLVI — 285 p. 39. Çilingiroğlu A., Sagona A., Anatolian Iron Ages 7: The Proceedings of the Seventh Anatolian Iron Ages Colloquium Held at Edirne, 19-24 April 2010, 2012, X — 332 p. 40. Redford S., Ergin N., Cities and Citadels in Turkey: From the Iron Age to the Seljuks, 2013, X — 346 p. 41. Summers G.D., Yanik Tepe, Northwestern Iran. The Early Trans-Caucasian Period. Stratigraphy and Architecture, 2013, XXXII — 217 p. 42. Yener K.A., Across the Border. Late Bronze-Iron Age Relations between Syria and Anatolia, 2013, VIII — 542 p. 43. Pappa E., Early Iron Age Exchange in the West: Phoenicians in the Mediterranean and the Atlantic, 2013, XX — 373 p. 44. De Cupere B., Linseele V., Hamilton-Dyer S., Archaeozoology of the Near East X: Proceedings of the Tenth International Symposium on the Archaeozoology of South-Western Asia and Adjacent Areas, 2013, X — 420 p. 45. Tebes J.M., Unearthing the Wilderness. Studies in the History and Archaeology of the Negev and Edom in the Iron Age, 2014, X — 306 p. 46. Kennedy M., The Late Third Millennium BCE in the Upper Orontes Valley, Syria. Ceramics, Chronology and Cultural Connections, 2015, XXII — 495 p. 47. Magdalino P., Ergin N., Istanbul and Water, 2015, X — 274 p. 48. Bonanno A., Vella N.C., Tas-Silġ, Marsaxlokk (Malta) I. Archaeological Excavations Conducted by the University of Malta, 1996-2005, 2015, XXXII — 496 p. 49. Bonanno A., Vella N.C., Tas-Silġ, Marsaxlokk (Malta) II. Archaeological Excavations Conducted by the University of Malta, 1996-2005, 2015, XXXII — 666 p. 50. Mizzi D., Vella N.C., Zammit M.R., “What Mean these Stones?” (Joshua 4:6, 21). Essays on Texts, Philology, and Archaeology in Honour of Anthony J. Frendo, 2017, VI — 286 p. 51. Thys-Şenocak, L., Of Vines and Wines. The Production and Consumption of Wine in Anatolian Civilizations through the Ages, 2017, VIII — 235 p. 52. Muraoka T., Jacob of Serugh’s Hexaemeron, 2018, XVI — 229 p. 53. Verduci J.A., Metal Jewellery of the Southern Levant and its Western Neighbours. Cross-Cultural Influences in the Early Iron Age Eastern Mediterranean, 2018, XVIII — 435 p. 54. Vella N.C., Frendo A.J., Vella H.C.R., The Lure of the Antique. Essays on Malta and Mediterranean Archaeology in Honour of Anthony Bonanno, 2018, VIII — 391 p.

84 EURO 70 EURO

87 EURO 86 EURO 89 EURO 98 EURO 98 EURO

105 EURO 90 EURO 110 EURO 95 EURO

105 EURO

120 EURO

115 EURO 98 EURO 98 EURO

130 EURO

110 EURO

55. Yener K.A., Ingman T., Alalakh and its Neighbours, 2020, VIII — 481 p. 120 EURO 56. Jasmin M., de Miroschedji P., Fouilles de Tel Yarmouth (1980-2009). Rapport final. Volume 1: Les fouilles sur l’acropole, 2020, XXXII — 582 p. 160 EURO

PRINTED ON PERMANENT PAPER

• IMPRIME

SUR PAPIER PERMANENT

N.V. PEETERS S.A., WAROTSTRAAT

• GEDRUKT

OP DUURZAAM PAPIER

50, B-3020 HERENT

- ISO 9706