the fate of Iraq's antiquities
A few weeks ago an article appeared in the Wall Street Journal titled “So Much for the ‘Looted Sites’” and claiming that there has been no significant looting of the invaluable antiquities of Iraq since the U. S. invasion began. Today, however, I read an article in The New York Review of Books called “The Devastation of Iraq’s Past” that argues, in some detail, the opposite. Hugh Eakin, the author, admits (though only in a footnote) that the looting was “selective” and that some large sites have remained untouched, but claims that there is overwhelming evidence of widespread looting and destruction. Eakin refers us to what looks like an authoritative treatment of these issues, a series of reports by scholars of the British Museum, the most recent of them having been issued in June. I’ll be reading these with care, hoping to get an accurate picture from people who don’t have a political dog in this fight. But maybe everyone has a political dog in this fight.
That someone’s politics could bee advanced by there being or not being looting in a war zone demonstrates yet again how childish politics makes people. I keep hoping for adult politicians but maybe instead I should be applying my mad zen acceptance skilz to this particular area of human activity.
— cw · Aug 16, 03:26 AM · #
I care deeply about antiquities and general order, but the looting that really mattered is the looting that caused the greatest difficulties for the immediate occupation: the utter ransacking of government buildings. Government offices literally had piping removed from the walls, and an enormous amount of civilian infrastructure was destroyed. No one questions that looting, and that was far more devastating for Iraq.
— Freddie · Aug 16, 03:41 AM · #