The Forum

006

Preserving the World’s Archaeological Heritage

I used to think we should return antiquities to where they were found.

However, after reading the July/August 2003 issue, with articles on the damage to the Iraqi museum (Francis Deblauwe, “Plundering the Past: The Rape of Iraq’s National Museum”), the destruction of the Alexandria Library (J. Harold Ellens, “The Destruction of the Great Library at Alexandria”) and the earthquake that destroyed the Cypriot city of Kourion (David Soren, “Death at Kourion”), I have changed my mind. It is better and safer for important archaeological objects to be held in different parts of the world—just as it is better and safer not to put all your eggs in one basket.

The Alexandria Library Lives On

Mr. Ellens’s suggestion that the dispersal of the Alexandria Library stimulated Islamic scholarship is extremely interesting. More work should be done to find actual evidence demonstrating this possibility. Certainly the knowledge contained in that library’s collection would have been enormously attractive to a people who cherished the written word.

A Violent History

J. Harold Ellens does not mention that the Alexandria Library sustained severe damage on at least two occasions before it was finally dismantled in the seventh century C.E. In 47 B.C.E., as Julius Caesar was besieging the city, a fire destroyed some 40,000 parchment rolls. And in 273 C.E. the library’s collection was damaged (though we do not know to what extent) when the emperor Aurelian put down a rebellion.

Probably of greater significance, however, were the events of the late fourth century C.E., when the Byzantine emperor Theodosius I (c. 379–395 C.E.) ordered the bishop of Alexandria, Theophilus, to destroy the Serapeion (the lending branch of the library). This event, which helped relegate Western civilization to the Dark Ages, was noted by the historian (and protégé of St. Augustine) Paulus Orosius, who in 415 C.E. ruefully described the library’s empty shelves.

Mr. Ellens is right: Much of what has been salvaged from classical culture is the result of the avidity for learning in the Arab world during the Middle Ages.

Why Blame the Arabs?

When the caliph Omar arrived in Alexandria in the mid-seventh century A.D., there was no remnant of the library. It had been destroyed 250 years earlier by a mob of fanatical Christians led on by the Archbishop Theophilus. This occurred during the reign of Emperor Theodosius “the Great,” who had heathen temples destroyed. Since the library was housed in the magnificent temple of Jupiter Serapis, it was not spared.

008

J. Harold Ellens replies:

Indeed, the Alexandria Library had a traumatic (as well as a brilliant) career.

In 391 A.D. the Serapeion was destroyed, along with the 50,000 volumes housed there, by a mob of fanatical monks incited by Theophilus. However, it appears that the library’s principal collection remained intact.

Fortunately, when Theophilus’s successor, the bishop Cyril of Alexandria, murdered the pagan female philosopher Hypatia, no library holdings were destroyed.

The library was still functioning when the Arabs arrived in the seventh century A.D. We have every reason to believe that its one million scrolls were still there. The Arabs’ subsequent golden age was a flowering of science, intellectual pursuits and culture that arose from the influences of the enormous resources carried off to Baghdad and other caliphate libraries from Alexandria and other lesser sources.

All this is documented in my book The Ancient Library of Alexandria and Early Christian Theological Development, Occasional Paper Series 27 (Claremont, CA: Institute for Antiquity and Christianity, Claremont Graduate University, 1993).

Cyprus in Archaeology and Politics

As director of the Department of Antiquities in Cyprus, and as an archaeologist, I would like to comment on some of the points raised by Hershel Shanks in Editors’ Page, “Crossing Over on Cyprus: Can Archaeology Bridge the Divide?”

You state that the importance of Cyprus in antiquity “has been somewhat exaggerated” because of Vassos Karageorghis’s publications. The importance of Cyprus in antiquity is demonstrated not principally through excavations on the island itself but through Cypriot finds in the eastern, central and even western Mediterranean—for example, in the Bronze Age shipwrecks found in the Mediterranean basin. The dating of Bronze Age sites in the eastern Mediterranean is mostly based on Cypriot imports. Cyprus played a significant role in the region during the Bronze Age. (In fact, Cyprus was well known for its rich deposits of copper, one of the ingredients, along with tin, of Bronze Age bronze.)

Cyprus’s role did not diminish in the Iron Age. Quite the contrary. The island was very important to the Phoenicians and the Greeks. Cyprus was a kind of melting pot of cultures.

As to the questions you raised about crossing the “green line” between southern and northern Cyprus, I was unsure whether or not to respond. In the end, I decided that your editorial was a challenge that should not remain unanswered.

My problem was that you addressed your letters to an archaeologist in the Republic of Cyprus (namely me, as director of the Department of Antiquities) and to a politician in the North. Whereas I could respond to your question—“Can Archaeology Bridge the Divide?”—as an archaeologist, Mr. Ahmet Erdengiz, director of political affairs in the North, can only respond as a politician. [Ahmet Erdengiz is not an archaeologist and holds no archaeological position.—Ed.]

In fact, we do meet with our Turkish Cypriot colleagues and discuss a number of issues of mutual interest.

In a recent interview published in a Turkish Cypriot newspaper, I announced my readiness to give up my authority and transfer the responsibility of preserving the island’s archaeological sites and monuments to NGOs [Non-Governmental Organizations]. In this way, I suggested, we could keep politics from hindering efforts to preserve archaeological sites. The North rejected my proposal, showing that they are not so much interested in archaeological preservation as in political recognition.

Hershel Shanks replies:

Director Hadjisavvas is of course correct about Cyprus’s importance in antiquity. My statement that its importance has been somewhat exaggerated because of Vassos Karagheorgis’s publications was my backhanded (and apparently unsuccessful) way of 010recognizing the bountiful and superb qualities of those publications.

In his interview with the Turkish Cypriot newspaper that Mr. Hadjisavvas refers to in his letter, he “declared his department’s readiness to work with its Turkish Cypriot counterpart to help to conserve sites in the North, which … are in urgent need of attention.” Preserving these sites is a collective responsibility, Mr. Hadjisavvas said, so people “in the South and the North will work together.”

This response of Mr. Hadjisavvas is welcome and hopeful news.

Unfortunately, Archaeology Odyssey has received no reply from Ahmet Erdengiz, who was our escort in the north. We did receive a response, however, from the representative in Washington of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, Osman Ertug, who, alas, is not as forthcoming as Mr. Hadjisavvas. Mr. Ertug wrote:

“Personally, I believe that it may be too early for an ‘archaeological exchange’ but I will let our authorities decide on that. In this fast-changing environment, who knows? … To end on a positive note, I think new ‘openings’ by our side may be in the offing. Keep an eye out.”

We have heard nothing since. But we will be listening—and watching. At this point, given Mr. Hadjisavvas’s openhanded reply, the ball is now in northern Cyprus’s court. When we were in northern Cyprus, the impression we were given was that southern Cyprus was the obstacle, not wanting to take any step that might imply recognition of the north. Now it would appear that the north is hesitating to come forward, at least in the archaeological arena.

Sealed in Time

I was moved by the description and photo of the young family found in the ruins at Kourion, Cyprus (David Soren, “Death at Kourion,” AO 06:04). The image of this young couple’s demise, sealed in time, is haunting and inspirational. We should all honor their everlasting devotion.

The Tablet, Not the Ark

One quibble with your fine story on Axum (Tom Verde, “City of Obelisks,” Destinations, AO 06:04): The Ethiopian Orthodox Church does not maintain that it has the Ark, but it does believe that it has the Tablet of Moses taken from the Ark in Jerusalem. In the Ethiopian language, Amharic, the word tabot, which means “tablet,” is usually mistranslated as “ark,” so that the outside world thinks that the Ethiopians claim to possess the Ark.

The tabot at Axum is so sacred that no one but its guardian, who is appointed for life, is supposed to see it. If you ask the guardian to describe the tabot, he will tell you that it is a single piece of stone upon which are inscribed the Ten Commandments God gave to Moses—though the Bible clearly states that Moses placed two tablets in the Ark.

Disrespecting Vivien

In reading your amusing and informative article “Excavating Hollywood,” AO 06:04, by Jeremy Geltzer, my pleasure snags on one point. I feel compelled to take issue with your dismissal of Vivien Leigh, who made an altogether delicious feline-queen in Caesar and Cleopatra (1946). The entire production—the sets, the costumes, the perfectly cast actors—was stupendous. The lavishness of the film raised a ruckus in post-World War II Britain, which was still enduring rationing. But this version of George Bernard Shaw’s Caesar and Cleopatra re-established British cinema as second to none.

Despite this disagreement on matters of taste, I enjoyed the article and look forward to more reel history.

Preserving the World’s Archaeological Heritage
I used to think we should return antiquities to where they were found.