quote:A senior US marine officer says he is willing to apologise for the damage caused by his troops to the ancient Iraqi site of Babylon.
US forces built a helicopter pad on the ancient ruins and filled their sandbags with archaeological material in the months following the 2003 invasion.
posted
I wish I knew more about this. What kind of archaeological materials are we talking about? Was it stuff that would have looked like rubble to the soldiers? If not that's horrifying.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Speaking as someone who has worked at an archaeological site, the military had no business building a helicoptor pad anywhere NEAR the ancient city of Babylon. At an excavation ANYTHING could be of historical significance including what color a particular layer of dirt is. If they filled their sandbags with local sand they may have destroyed an entire period (or at least a sizable chunk of one). It's a loss that is irreperable.
Posts: 1214 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
andi330 -- I think that's a given. What would be MOST upsetting in an already really crummy situation is if the soldiers did their destruction in a knowing fashion. Like "oh look, here's a bas-relief mural, let's use it for a coffee table." Versus "oh, crud, you mean that by using that sand we messed up the layering at an important site?"
Granted, it should not have happened at all. Now, I'd just like to find out how bad it is, and what level of stupidity (purposeful or accidental) was most in evidence.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, as you could see from the picture with the article Bob linked, at least parts of Babylon today do not look like a pile of rubble you can mistake for anything other than Babylon. Beginning in the early '80s, Saddam Hussein had workers rebuilding it. [Which, I understand, is also a big no no in the world of archeology.] However, not all of the site has been "restored;" I suppose it is still vaguely possible for the "Oh, crud" scenerio. I'm kind of doubting that though, with as high profile a site as Babylon.
posted
Actually, rebuilding archaological sites is not taboo provided that it is done correctly. Many famous archaeological sites have areas (and even whole sites) that have been rebuilt. Sepphoris, in the Bet Netopha Valley outside of Nazareth in Israel for example. The key is to ensure that anything that has yet to be excavated is left untouched. I have no idea what precautions were in place at Babylon during what rebuilding was completed.
The lifetime of most sites excavation periods runs approximately 5-10 years. Note that I said most not all. Some sites are continually under excavation. The reason that most sites close down after 5 or 10 years is that since there are always new advancements in methodology of archaeology large parts of sites are left unexcavated, in the hopes that future advancements will allow for better findings and better preservation in the future.
Posts: 1214 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
