The Forum

006

Advertising Antiquities

Although I enjoy the articles in your magazine, I cannot in good conscience renew my subscription. Archaeology Odyssey carries advertisements for ancient antiquities and therefore promotes the market for archaeologically derived items. From personal experience, I know that the uncontrolled mining of archaeological sites for antiquities destroys the information contained in them for all of posterity. I cannot support a magazine that supports this destruction of the past.

We, too, deplore the destruction of archaeological sites, and we feel that those who knowingly traffic in illegal antiquities should be punished, perhaps even imprisoned. However, during the last few decades—a period in which many countries have imposed an outright ban on the selling of cultural property—the looting of archaeological sites and the trade in illegal antiquities have increased. Our position, then, is that this policy clearly is not working and should be reformed. The reforms we advocate would include the sale of certain duplicates found in great numbers (some coins, say), as well as other limited market solutions.—Ed.

Get the Facts Right!

I am writing in response to your editorial “Defining Ethics: When Morality Becomes Moralism,” AO 04:05. Although I am a member of the Governing Board of the Archaeological Institute of America (AIA), the opinions I express here are my own and do not represent a response from the AIA.

As you have noted in numerous editorials, there is no easy solution to the problem of the antiquities trade. However, you have consistently misrepresented (knowingly or not) the AIA’s position on this matter. The AIA’s Code of Ethics states that members should, among other things, “refuse to participate in the trade in undocumented antiquities and refrain from activities that enhance the commercial value of such objects.” This document represents the official policy of the AIA and sets a standard of ethical behavior, especially for professional members of the AIA (that is, professional archaeologists). Everyone nominated to the Governing Board of the AIA (as well as those presenting papers at the annual meeting) must sign the Code of Ethics and agree to uphold its principles. In contrast, members of the AIA are not required to sign the Code of Ethics, although obviously the AIA hopes they will uphold its principles.

A scholar who was recently nominated (and subsequently elected) to the Governing Board of the AIA resigned from the editorial committee of Archaeology Odyssey. He chose to resign in order to run for an elected position on this board. This is because the appearance of his name on the masthead of your magazine, which carries advertisements for antiquities (most, if not all, of which are by definition illegally excavated), was viewed by the AIA as legitimizing the sale and 008enhancing the commercial value of these objects. In contrast, the fact that I and other members of the Governing Board of the AIA have published articles in your journals (which include Biblical Archaeology Review and Bible Review) does not mean that we endorse your editorial positions or policies!

I would like to end by stating that I disagree with your position on the antiquities trade. As a pottery specialist, I study the ancient vases and potsherds stored in the basements of antiquities departments, museums and other facilities. It is essential that these objects remain in storage (instead of being sold off to private collectors, as you advocate), where they can remain accessible for study by specialists even after they have been published.

In addition, I find your argument that we should allow the sale and publication of illegally excavated antiquities specious. If we follow your line of reasoning, we should also accept the purchase and use of illegal drugs—after all, if they are already on the market, why shouldn’t we allow drugs to be purchased and used? Instead, I believe that education is the solution to the problem of the antiquities trade. I believe that we need to make the public understand the irreparable damage that is done to archaeological sites (a cultural heritage that belongs to all of us!) simply to feed the antiquities market, and we need to make the public aware that the vast majority of antiquities offered for sale come from illegal excavations.

I am not naïve enough to believe that we can ever completely eliminate the market in illegal antiquities (just as we cannot completely eliminate the drug market). But in my opinion, through education, we can reduce the demand.

We did not intend to mislead. We were under the mistaken impression that the AIA’s Code of Ethics was more broadly applicable—to the membership at large, rather than just to its governing board—even though only the board is required to sign it.—Ed.

Consider the Reader

Please make it standard practice to include in every map an indication of distance, either in miles or kilometers. Also, wherever possible an indication of size in a photograph of an artifact would be most helpful.

These are excellent suggestions, and we shall do our best to follow them.—Ed.

Vilifying Alexander

In “Alexander in the East,” AO 04:04, Frank Holt falls prey to the popular myth that Alexander’s goal was to conquer the entire inhabited earth. We have no dependable evidence, however, that such a thought ever entered Alexander’s head. What we do know is that he was able to unify the Greek coalition and keep it unified by defeating the Persian army in the field, on its own terrain. His goal was to render the Persian Empire, which had ravaged Greek lands in the fifth century B.C.E., unable to repeat its plundering. For this he crossed the Hellespont in 334 B.C.E.; for this he rescued the Greek colonies in Asia Minor and defeated Persian armies at Granicus; and for this he fought, and beat, the Persian emperor 056Darius at Gaugamela two years later.

Alexander then continued east because the Persian Empire extended as far as the Khyber Pass in northwest India. As Rekha Morris (“Imagining Buddha,” AO 04:04) writes in the same issue: “Inscriptions from the Persian Achaemenid period indicate that Gandhara was incorporated into Darius I’s empire around 515 B.C.E. The area remained under Persian domination until the campaigns of Alexander in 327 and 326 B.C.E.” Alexander was forced to continue the campaign to the Indus River to reduce the Persian potential for regrouping and counterattack.

Holt expresses surprise at Alexander’s behavior after defeating Poros’s infantry and elephant corps at the Hydaspes River in India: “Alexander rewarded the rajah’s bravery by restoring his throne, a rare outcome indeed for an ancient battle.” But it was typical of Alexander to appoint indigenous leaders to run their territories as he moved on to new conquests. He tended to leave behind a trusted Greek general to manage the local garrison and treasury, giving both the local leader and the Greek manager specific instructions. Occasionally, he punished one of these Greeks for mishandling money or power, but rarely did he find it necessary to punish the indigenes, who felt fortunate to retain their positions and care for their local populations under this new emperor.

Finally, Holt declares that Alexander, under the stress of the eastern campaign, cracked and killed his close friend Cleitus at a dinner party. The best reading of the record indicates that both men were profoundly drunk, not an uncommon thing for them. There is no indication that would justify the claim that he had a psychological breakdown. As long as he lived Alexander grieved the death of this friend of his youth and faithful comrade in arms.

Frank Holt replies:

Professor Ellens apparently has not read Arrian, our best ancient source on Alexander, when he complains that we have “no dependable evidence” for the conqueror’s unlimited ambition. Arrian’s informed opinion is quite clear (for example, in Anabasis 7.1.4) on the king’s goal of world conquest, and it can be traced back to the first-hand testimony of Alexander’s compatriot Aristobulus, who wrote that “The truth is, Alexander meant to conquer everything” (quoted in Strabo, Geography 16.1.11). Ellens’s opinion that the king’s goal was merely to render the Persians incapable of plundering Greece, or later to regroup, makes no sense: After there was no longer an Achaemenid Empire to harass the Greeks, why should Alexander push his troops beyond the Beas? And why should Alexander, at the time of his death, still be raising large armies and preparing to conquer Arabia (whatever one thinks of other reported plans, such as the circumnavigation of Africa and the invasion of the western Mediterranean)?

Regarding Alexander’s magnanimity to Poros, my point was that in ancient warfare it was rare for winners to restore losers to the throne. Ellens observes that this practice was not uncommon in the case of Alexander, but he is mistaken. Here are the fates of some kings and commanders captured by Alexander: Bessus was tortured and executed; Ariamazes and his kin were crucified; Batis was tortured to death; and Musicanus and his Brahman advisors were hanged. This is an expected pattern of ancient military retribution, against which stands the remarkable case of Porus.

Ellens is also wrong about the Persian satraps: Some who meekly surrendered their provinces (quite unlike the belligerent Porus and his kingdom) were kept in their bureaucratic (not royal) posts as a temporary expedient. The fact is, only three such satraps survived in their positions at the end of Alexander’s reign (and one of them was his father-in-law). Many (including Oxydates, Satibarzanes, Arsaces, Tyriespis, Abulites, Astaspes, Oryxines and Autophradates) were cashiered or executed by Alexander.

Finally, I never said that Alexander suffered a “psychological breakdown”—only that during the 057long and costly central Asian campaign, the king “cracked” under the strain and killed his friend Cleitus. This was clearly a momentary but monstrous lapse of self-control, and the king later sorely regretted that he had snapped. That Alexander and Cleitus were “profoundly drunk” at the time was a direct result of the battle stress I mentioned, a normal escape from the strain of war; but it certainly was not common for the king to slay friends and (perhaps) attempt suicide. Call it what you will, but Alexander lost control while drunk and under extreme duress and committed a horrid crime.

Don’t Misquote Cato

Your magazine is the best historical magazine I’ve ever read. In Arthur Segal’s article on Leptis Magna (“Leptis Magna: Jewel of the Maghreb,&rd AO 04:04), however, I found a common mistake. The article states that Cato’s famous refrain was Carthago delenda est, which means “Carthage is already destroyed.” These are not Cato’s words but probably the message Scipio Africanus sent to Rome after Carthage was indeed destroyed. Cato would have said something like Censeo Carthago esse delendam (“I think that Carthage must be destroyed”).

Classical scholar Elizabeth Lyding Will, professor emeritus at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst, replies:

Mr. Parakhin has forgotten about the second, or passive, periphrastic conjugation, which combines the gerundive (ending in -ndus, -nda, -ndum) with forms of the verb “to be” (esse), in order to express necessity or obligation. Censeo Carthaginem delendam esse (“I think that Carthage must be destroyed”) is thus the indirect statement of the direct statement Carthago delenda est (“Carthage must be destroyed”—not Mr. Parakhin’s “Carthage has been destroyed,” which would be Carthago deleta est).

Since Cato is said to have expressed the sentiment at the end of every speech he made to the Roman Senate, we can assume that he sometimes used the direct statement and sometimes the indirect, just for variation.

Neopolis

I had thought the linguistic sloppiness of BAR would not infect AO, but I was mistaken. Your beautiful July/August 2001 issue is marred by a ridiculous statement: “They [the Phoenician Carthaginians] bestowed on their city the rather prosaic name of Hadash Ir, or New City.”

The name “Carthage” is a Latin corruption of the Phoenician Qarat-hadsht: A “Carthaginian” is called QRTHDSHTI in an inscription from Kittion in Cyprus. The first element is QARAT (ancient QARATU/QARITU as found at Ugarit), which is cognate to Hebrew QIRIYYA (“town” or “citadel”). The second element is the common Semitic adjective HDSH (new). The Phoenicians did not seem to mind a cluster of consonants, so they did not usually insert helping vowels.

There is an Assyrian transcription of this name in the inscriptions of Esarhaddon (680–669 B.C.), namely Qar-ti-kha-da-as-ti. All this information can be found in the entry on “Carthage” by Colin M. Wells in the Oxford Encyclopedia of Near Eastern Archaeology (Oxford Univ. Press, 1997).

Advertising Antiquities