In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

  • Dispossessing Archaeology
  • Yasir Suleiman, FRSE, Professor
James F. Goode , Negotiating for the Past: Archaeology, Nationalism and Diplomacy in the Middle East, 1991–1941 (Austin: University of Texas Press, 2007). Pp. 293. Paperback. ISBN 978-0-292-71498-4. DOI: 10.3366/E1474947508000115

Based on archival sources in Arabic, Persian, Turkish, English, French and German, this book provides a riveting narrative of the connections between archaeology, diplomacy and the rise of nationalism in four Middle Eastern countries in the first half of the twentieth century: Turkey, Egypt, Iran and Iraq. The story that emerges in all four cases is one of breathtaking archaeological discoveries whose significance in the scientific field is blighted by the shameful machinations of archaeologists and diplomats to rob the emerging countries of the Middle East of the treasures of their hidden past. A visit to the British Museum, the Louvre, the Metropolitan Museum of Art or the Oriental Institute Museum at the University of Chicago is sufficient to show the extent to which this process of plundering the East to enrich the West with archaeological objects of great antiquity has been practised by archaeologists who were aided and abetted by diplomats, rich patrons and political figures. The book provides a highly readable account of these systematic acts of cultural theft against the background of rising nationalism that in the end led to a stop in the outflow of these objects under the guise of agreements that made 'robbery' a legal act.

The story that emerges shows how differences in power relations were exploited to obtain digging and division rights that favoured the non-national over the national. In Qajar Iran at the beginning of the twentieth century, the French had an almost complete monopoly over archaeological excavations in the country, the terms of which gave them the full right to take ownership of all they found without reimbursing Iran in any way for what they took, except for the gold that they unearthed. In Egypt, Turkey and Iraq the story was only a little better at the start of the period covered in the book. In reading about how this was done, we learn how archaeology was in some cases an extension of diplomacy and how diplomacy was used to press the case for an exploitative archaeology that had little or no respect for the natives, their culture or heritage. Archaeology in this respect was in tune with the Orientalist discourse and practices of its age: it had to dehumanise the natives to make the act of robbing them of antiquities of their past a legitimate practice. Open racism towards the Turks, Persians, Egyptians and Iraqis was the norm, and this was most blatantly displayed in private correspondence which forms an important part of the archival material of the book.

The archaeologists, supported by diplomatic activity, asserted that transferring the ownership of archaeological objects to Western museums was justified because the archaeological discoveries the Western archaeologists had made belonged to the whole of humanity and helped unearth the roots of Western civilisation to which they thought they had a strong claim. Connections between these discoveries and the Bible were therefore used to press claims of extra-territorial ownership. To make this dose of self-serving intellectual acrobatics palatable to the natives, the archaeologists and diplomats made the point that the display of Eastern antiquities in Western museums would encourage tourism to the countries of the East and, therefore, benefit their ailing economies. While this was and remains true, the scale of archaeological transfer in both the quantity and quality of antiquities went far beyond any decent attempt to make this claim stick. The archaeologists also argued that the transfer of antiquities to Western museums was justified by the lack of interest in archaeology in the countries under study and the fact that the countries concerned lacked the necessary museums and scientific expertise to house and protect these treasures. While this was also true, the transfer of antiquities to the West was not seen as a temporary measure until such a time when these antiquities could be returned to their home countries, but as one of taking possession of these objects permanently, of dispossessing the 'natives' of the...

pdf

Share