Archaeology and policy-making on the protection and valorization of cultural heritage. Reflections “from the field”

1. CReW
Cultural Relations at Work - Jean Monnet project
Reinforcing cooperation on cultural heritage in the EU Neighborhood South
The Royal Society, London
(October 22-23, 2018)
Archaeology and policy-making on the protection and valorization of cultural heritage.
Reflections “from the field”
Speaker: Prof. David Mattingly, University of Leicester
My talk provided an archaeological perspective, based on more than 30 years of working in North
African and Middle Eastern countries. I started as a Roman archaeologist, but my interest has grown
a lot wider than that chronologically and geographically. Today we face I think the greatest crisis in
heritage protection across the MENA region. I am briefly going to look at the dimensions of this crisis
which goes far beyond the most publicized acts of individual destruction that we tend to see on our
TVs. I am going to show you, using a project I am involved in, something of the challenges in
delivering what is needed if we are to enhance protection of the threatened cultural heritage.
I think that part of the problem lies in the agenda and values imposed by Europeans and other
outside interests onto the MENA region and its cultural heritage. I believe that influencing policy-
makers within the MENA region, supporting the heritage agencies and programs of public education
remain fundamental for cultural heritage protection, and in many ways more relevant than single
projects on “save this monument” or “produce the best laser reproduction of this other monument”.
The typical images of the cultural crisis the we tend to see depict, for example, the destruction of the
Temple of Bel in Palmyra, or the shocking evidence of looting in Dura Europos (Syria). Some of
these can be classified according to International Law as War crimes, crimes against humanity. In
what follows, I do not mean to diminish the severity of this link between conflict and heritage crime,
but I want to highlight that there are other dimensions to the crisis that we face, and that policy-
makers also need to engage with. One of the problems that I see is that our governments are very
interested in taking actions that involve prestigious sites and media-friendly stories, but there is less
interest in engaging with wider dimensions of the heritage issues.
Accompanying much of the destruction and looting there has been a huge surge in illicit antiquity
trade in recent years, boosted also by the looting of museums in a number of countries. We have
seen an incremental leap in clandestine excavations and in trafficking, not just by organized criminal
groups feeding terrorist organizations and other actors, but also by ordinary families whose
livelihoods have been put at risk by the instability. In the response of European countries to the crisis,
there has been a lot of talk, but really too little action on some aspects. It is undeniable that we have
seen an explosion of material from the MENA region on the antiquities market in the last three years
and actually comparatively little strong action.
As I said, most of the media attention has focused on the easy to understand stories of damage and
destruction that result directly from conflict, but I think in many ways it is a wider story of the
weakening of political and legal authority in many MENA countries that is actually fueling a larger
scale of damage. In part this is through an easing of normal planning and development control to
the extent that these are no longer operating effectively in many of these countries. Many MENA
countries have quite strong antiquities laws, but the application of those laws has become

2. increasingly difficult. If you couple that with the reality of drastically underfunded and demoralized
antiquities services/heritage agencies, you outline another dimension of this crisis. I think again EU
policy-makers and international organizations like UNESCO have been incredibly ineffective in
dealing with the developing scale of the crisis. There have been many workshops in attractive places
bringing together heritage experts from around the world and heritage professionals from MENA
countries, but there has been remarkably little follow up action from those sorts of meeting. In many
ways, I feel a bit like a climate scientist observing the signs of the environmental catastrophe in the
field and reporting back to a still skeptical world that does not recognize climate change.
I want to talk you a bit about the EAMENA project (Endangered Archaeology in the MENA region).
It started in 2015 and will run to at least 2020. It involves three UK universities (Oxford, Leicester,
and Durham) and it deals with over 20 countries of the MENA region. We have funding from the
ARCADIA Fund and the Cultural Protection Fund managed by the British Council. The project has
been using remote sensing, especially high resolution satellite imagery to identify and monitor
threats to the conservation of cultural heritage across the region. One of the problems of a lot of
MENA countries is that they lack a formal database of their heritage assets; we are not seeking to
impose a new standard database on them but we are hoping that some of the partners will find the
database that we have developed, and that exists in an Arabic version, useful for their work. More
importantly, the approach and the methods that we are advocating are not just about the recording
of sites but also the active monitoring of threats to those sites and destruction of those sites. The
success of this project would be that we are completely superfluous in a few years from now, we
hope that these countries will develop enhanced capacity to undertake this sort of work on the
appropriate scale. There is also a part of the project that focuses on looting and illicit trafficking of
antiquities.
Dimensions of Crisis and Stakeholders
• Destruction and damage of heritage assets in conflict or following conflict
• Weakened political authority in many MENA countries since 2011 has reduced control of
development and accelerated destruction
• Heritage neglected area in international peace-making efforts
• Major heritage agencies like UNESCO, ICCROM etc ill-equipped for scale of emergency
– much talk, but less effective action (resource issues)
• Media and popular focus on violent and ideological destruction (ISIS etc) – but missing
the menace of uncontrolled modernity
• Lack of joined up discussion between diverse stake-holders – international and national
heritage agencies, police and customs agencies, auction houses, academic experts,
foreign missions, museum specialists, diplomats, policymakers
Figure 1. Dimensions of Crisis and Stakeholders. Original contribution by Prof. David Mattingly

3. So far, we created a database of more than 200,000 sites across the region. The overall numbers
are not so important except to say that we actually have quite a wide sample now of data on sites
and on condition assessments that allow us to make some initial commentaries on the sorts of factors
that are leading to damage and destruction of sites across the region.
The EAMENA project also focuses on training and capacity building, and this is the area where the
project is supported by the Cultural Protection Fund. We have a cycle of training workshops in eight
countries (Tunisia, Libya, Palestine, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Jordan, and Egypt). We are in the process
of training 140 heritage professionals to: discover and catalogue previously unknown cultural
heritage sites, monitor the current condition of known cultural heritage sites, identify the causes of
damage to cultural heritage sites, and possible future threats to their ongoing preservation, master
image interpretation, mapping, database entry and data management, GIS, GPS, threat & damage
monitoring. We are also going to take 70 of those and give them a higher level of training. What this
activity reveals to us is first the real need for these skills, we have had a tremendous response to
our training, but equally not all the trainees are going back into an infrastructure which can fully
support this sort of work, they do not all have the wifi connectivity and the technological back-up
required to operate. Their budgets for equipment may be too small. We had also been working hard
to follow one of the BC’s directives which is about increasing support for a diverse group force; for
example in Tunisia we worked with professionals coming from all over the country with a good
balance of women and men on the training.
EAMENA objectives:
• Identify, understand and monitor the endangered archaeology of MENA region
• Document archaeological sites in the MENA region and record damage and threats
• Construction of a database using the open-source Arches software - over 200,000
records, detailed analysis of specific causes of damage
• Training programme with MENA heritage partners, to empower heritage professionals in
the region
• Engagement with national heritage agencies to promote adoption of EAMENA approach
and data structures, threat monitoring in national heritage records
• Collaborate to protect and conserve MENA’s archaeological heritage
• Raise awareness of the heritage with policy makers and encourage informed debate
among population at large
• Assist customs and law enforcement agencies tackling looting and the illegal trade in
antiquities
Figure 2. EAMENA objectives. Original contribution by Prof. David Mattingly

4. Besides the collateral damages of conflicts, there are also more targeted and specific forms of
damage, such as iconoclastic attacks against Islamic shrines. In Libya, for instance, one of our case
studies demonstrated that of a dataset of 656 shrines identified from an exhaustive search of satellite
imagery, 490 (75%) have been totally destroyed or badly damaged between 2011 and 2016. A whole
range of Islamic archaeology that represents a key aspect of the history and culture of this region is
now lost.
Going back to the nature of the threats to heritage, I think there are two things that are at play here;
on the one hand conflict is an obvious cause of damage to cultural heritage; but on the other hand,
processes of modernity are equally destructive in many of these countries. Let’s look to these factors
related to threats to cultural heritage. One of the things that our satellite image research has shown
is the richness of archaeology where there was no recorded archaeology before. At the same time,
recording these sites on the satellite imagery and going back to previous versions of the imagery,
we found that sites are disappearing or getting eroded at a remarkably fast pace. If we look at the
causes of this damage, it is not always due to conflict. It is also about illegal urban development
causing disturbance, or agricultural expansion and land grabbing which is causing this damage
because it is completely unregulated. If we look at our large dataset, we see an enormous volume
of damage to the heritage assets of the MENA region, and the primary causes of that are agricultural
expansion, urban expansion, lack of planning regulations. Looting and vandalism and conflict come
slightly further down the order. Alongside these main issues, there are some really important
secondary issues related to the chronic underfunding of the heritage agencies, which means that
they are underequipped, and undertrained. There is also poor enforcement of antiquity laws, and a
lack of direct engagement of policy-makers, and a substantial level of public apathy or antagonism
to cultural heritage. This also needs addressing, particularly through educational schemes.
EAMENA methodology
Image interpretation using
trained interpreters
Database recording using
standardised terminologies
Training courses to recruit
additional skilled
interpreters
Database and training
materials translated into
Arabic
Figure 3. EAMENA Methodology.
Original contribution by Prof. David
Mattingly
Figure 4. Dimensions of endangered archaeology. Original contribution by
Prof. David Mattingly

5. As for agendas and perceptions, this is where we need to hold our hands up as Western
archaeologists and specialists working in this region, by acknowledging that we have not helped the
situation by the agendas of study that we have traditionally promoted. There are sensitivities in
Islamic areas about pre-Islamic culture. How heritage is contested or respected differs to European
understanding of that. There is a tendency for those on the ground to see Westerners imposing a
view of what should be valued, so we need to take care to decolonialize our agendas. There is also
a continuing importance in this area of foreign missions carrying out archaeological research and
this is both a benefit and an obstacle, as there is this dependence on research money coming
through these machines.
Concerning the resourcing of national heritage agencies and how we influence policy-makers, there
is not a quick fix to this. Not only we do need more money invested in these local organizations but
we also need to build the capacity within them to carry out the work to the standard that at the
moment is often being provided by foreign missions. In a lot of the MENA countries as well there is
a hard division line between standing building heritage and archaeological sites. This highlights a
lack of joined-up thinking in a lot of these areas. There has also been far too much a focus in the
Western response to the crisis at the level of world heritage and prestigious sites (such as World
Heritage sites) and not enough attention to the wider archaeological management in the region.
There are other factors impacting on the activities of national heritage agencies. In most MENA
countries, heritage is not a priority area of government spending; therefore, some agencies prefer to
maintain basic service and staffing levels at the expense of training and capacity building. Moreover,
poor internet connectivity limits the use of new technology, such as a fully functioning digital
database of heritage assets. Finally, poor resources has generated some over-reliance in the past
on foreign mission funding for research excavations.
Finally, I think the future of the MENA heritage is a bigger problem than us simply identifying where
enhanced protection is needed at a site or the development of better cooperation with and between
heritage agencies. It’s about engaging with the broader community and creating a joined-up heritage
cycle in which ordinary people have a much greater understanding of their heritage. Until we get to
that, we are not going to change the behavior of citizens. Another part of our project is in fact to
improve public education and we have to date designed 7 exhibitions that are going to go to our
partner countries, ideally for display in multiple schools and small-scale civic spaces. These
exhibitions are designed to be easily transportable and erectable. What’s really encouraging is that,
Main issues causing damage:
• Agricultural expansion
• Urban expansion
• Mining/infrastructure projects
• Lack of planning regulation
• Looting and vandalism
• Conflict
Mitigation strategies:
• Recording of archaeological sites before
they are gone
• Improve condition/threat monitoring of
heritage assets
• Training of heritage professionals
Secondary issues causing damage:
• Chronic underfunding of heritage agencies
• Poor enforcement of antiquities laws
• Lack of engagement of policymakers
• Public apathy or antagonism to cultural
heritage
Mitigation strategies:
• Enhancement of funding and competence
of heritage agencies
• Influence policy makers
• Strengthen legal sanctions
• Invest in public heritage education
Figure 5. Issues causing damage to cultural heritage and mitigation strategies. Original contribution by Prof. David
Mattingly

6. for Libya for example, we were planning to send two exhibitions, and they already asked for other
copies, as they see it as really important tool. Thank you.