Documenting military occupation on archaeological sites (original) (raw)
Related papers
Archaeological Heritage as a Target during War
The European Archaeologist, 2022
The conflict in Ukraine has caused the large-scale destruction of historical landscapes. Thousands of archaeological sites—both those undergoing archaeological investigations as well as ones that had yet to be opened—have been damaged. Currently, cultural heritage protection activities in Ukraine focus mainly on ‘visible’ objects, such as architectural monuments, religious and historical buildings and objects of monumental art. Monitoring the state of archaeological heritage objects in Ukraine is a challenge. The search for and recognition of sites is difficult because they exist in an ‘unmanifested’ state. The vast majority of archaeological sites are not included on the State Register of Immovable Monuments of Ukraine. Moreover, the necessary monument protection measures are not applied consistently throughout all territories. The specificity of archaeological sites is that their discovery is often directly related to catastrophic events: in the current case, the destruction of landscape resulting from military operations.
Over the last decades, archaeological heritage has suffered considerably from threats caused by armed conflict. The destruction of Bamiyan's Buddhas in Afghanistan, the Iraqi museums ransacking and looting and, more recently, the destruction of Palmyra by Daesh (also referred to as IS, ISIS or ISIL) are among the most famous examples. Before they were damaged, the public did not know most of these heritage sites, which, nevertheless, were appropriated as symbols of Western values against the ideology of Islamic extremists. UNESCO defined the deliberate destruction of Syria's cultural heritage as a war crime and the academic world is launching several projects aiming at preserving endangered archaeological heritage. At the same time, antiquity trafficking from Syria and Iraq to Europe and United States represents one of the most relevant revenues for Daesh. The debate on the notion of appropriation and ownership, the role of a globalized scientific archaeology and the impact of armed conflict on archaeological practice are topics that this issue of Ex Novo wants to address. We will welcome papers exploring the various ways the past is remembered, recovered, created, and used. In particular, we want to discuss the role of archaeology in present-day conflicts and its function as peacekeeping tool or as a weapon of war.
Journal of Field Archaeology, 2018
Remote survey using high-resolution satellite images allows archaeologists to study ancient landscapes in regions made inaccessible by ongoing conflict as well as in regions located between zones of better archaeological knowledge. Such studies frequently suffer from a lack of chronological information. This paper presents the results of remote landscape survey in the territory of Spin Boldak (“white desert”) in Kandahar province, Afghanistan, and methodological efforts to detangle the chronology of a landscape made inaccessible by conflict. The studied region crosscuts several environmental zones (desert, alluvial plain, river, and hills) and lies within an important corridor of movement toward mountain passes on the Afghanistan–Pakistan border. Morphological comparisons of surveyed sites to better-documented examples and synthesis of data from a variety of sources allow us to draw chronological and taphonomic conclusions about three types of documented sites: fortified enclosures, caravanserai, and mobile pastoral camps. These methods provide time depth to our understanding of the remotely-mapped landscape and allow us to consider Spin Boldak as a place shaped by local and regional historical processes rather than merely as a timeless thoroughfare between more intensively inhabited locales.
Journal of Cultural Heritage, 2018
Analysis of spatial and temporal patterns in looting and destruction at archaeological sites using satellite imagery has become a focus of multiple research groups working on cultural heritage in conflict zones, especially in areas controlled by the Islamic State in Syria and Iraq. In this paper, we apply similar methods to investigate looting and destruction at archaeological sites in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, where Taliban-related cultural heritage destruction events have also frequently made international headlines. Using the time depth provided by high-resolution, time-stamped DigitalGlobe satellite and BuckEye aerial images as well as CORONA and other historical satellite images and maps, we quantitatively document spatial and temporal patterns in destruction from looting, agricultural activity, military occupation, urban growth, mining, and other kinds of development at over 1000 previously known archaeological sites across Afghanistan. This analysis indicates that several common narratives about cultural heritage destruction in Afghanistan may require revision. Specifically, we conclude that significant amounts of systematic looting of archaeological sites in Afghanistan already occurred before Taliban-related conflicts, that there has been little increase in systematic looting in Taliban-controlled areas post-2001, and that the most pressing threats to Afghanistan's heritage sites come from development activities, including agricultural expansion, urban growth, and future mining. The analysis demonstrates that the situation in Afghanistan both parallels and contrasts with that seen in the post-Arab-Spring Middle East.
Relations between Archaeologists and the Military in the Case of Iraq Foreword
2009
The complex and emotive issues surrounding ‘engagement’ by archaeologists with the military have been recently and vocally aired in a number of different professional forums and media. The Papers from the Institute of Archaeology (PIA) forum editor felt that this topic deserved greater illustration – for and by some of the archaeologists involved – as a series of strongly voiced opinions, some informed and some less so, has been expressed on the open weblist of the World Archaeological Congress (WAC). Dr John Curtis, Keeper of the Department of the Middle East at the British Museum, was approached and kindly agreed to be the PIA Forum Primary Correspondent, as, despite both public and vocal opposition to military action in Iraq prior to the recent invasion, he found himself and his institution playing an active role in attempting to ameliorate the situation regarding further destruction of Iraq’s cultural heritage and heritage institutions and working with and alongside the British ...
Introduction: Conflict Landscapes and Archaeology from Above
Conflict Landscapes and Archaeology from Above Edited by Birger Stichelbaut and David Cowley, 2016
Modern conflict archaeology is a relatively new field of practice, but one that has rapidly demonstrated the value of archaeological perspectives in offering unique sources of knowledge and insights that enrich our understanding of the materiality of war. The rapid developments in conflict archaeology as an area of specialist practice are a reflection of the synergies between different perspectives and backgrounds, drawing on archaeological methods and thinking, and including historians, geographers and museum curators, to name a few (Saunders 2002, 2012). This volume reflects that mix of disciplines, but focuses on the contribution of an airborne and remote sensing perspective set within a broad framework that includes geophysical survey, documentary and historical sources, bodily engagement, and dissemination and public engagement. With this focus the volume draws on the well-established sources of the aerial photographic record and geophysical survey, and includes contributions that demonstrate the power of high resolution topographic data from Airborne Laser Scanning (ALS). These are among the building blocks for strong landscape-based narratives that explore place and process from many perspectives, illustrating the richness of the integrated perspective on conflict landscapes that is at the heart of this volume.