Ancient city of Babylon damaged

[Meadmaker]

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/story.jsp?story=687309

This sort of thing really makes me mad, and I don't even live there.

I'll have more to say later, but the article basically says that US and Polish troops have wreaked extreme havoc at the site. Meanwhile, the guy in charge says it would have been even worse if US troops hadn't been there. That is so pathetic. He basically says if US troops hadn't occupied, pave, bulldozed, and carted away large amounts of archeologically important artifacts, looters would have carried them away.

Can't he think real, real, hard and come up with a third option?

[Rob Lister]

Perhaps not one that would have been less objectionable to him.

I see where you are going.
Do you see where I am going?

Exclude your opinion.
Exclude my opinon.
Consider his opinion.

[Elind]

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/story.jsp?story=687309

This sort of thing really makes me mad, and I don't even live there.

I'll have more to say later, but the article basically says that US and Polish troops have wreaked extreme havoc at the site.


I suggest that you may perhaps be suffering a little from a symptom called "knee jerk".

There hardly a square inch of territory in that part of the world that doesn't have artifacts buried somewhere. The question is whether or not a particular area is exceptionally significant and new, or not.

How many Iraqi tourists do you think wandered around before this?

"Saddam himself had not helped. He had much of the ancient site rebuilt and developed as a tourist site as part of efforts to portray himself as Nebuchadnezzar's modern successor and turn Mesopotamia once more into a regional superpower. He built a contemporary ziggurat-shaped palace nearby and carved out an underground car park among archeological deposits."

Extreme Havoc? I like to think I'm a skeptic about what I read in the newspapers when it comes to "opinion" columns in particular, and this is an opinion.

[a_unique_person]

So you are equating the US forces to Saddam?

[Elind]

So you are equating the US forces to Saddam?

Wow. Cool example of knee jerk for sure. Much more illustrative than the previous one.

Doesn't matter who the parties were, in this case. The principle, which obviously escapes you, is that it is much ado about nothing, except to those with a political agenda. But why do I bother to try to explain that, fool?

[Meadmaker]

Perhaps not one that would have been less objectionable to him.

I see where you are going.
Do you see where I am going?

Exclude your opinion.
Exclude my opinon.
Consider his opinion.

No. I don't see where you are going. Unless you are saying that one shouldn't blame the commander at the scene, who had a job to do with a particular set of resources, and for whom the lives of his people were even more significant than some old pavement. If that's where you are going, then I agree. You can't blame the guy on the scene.

For me, though, this goes back to the immediate aftermath of the war and the looting of the Baghdad Museum. When the war started, I was cautiously optimistic. I didn't believe any of the "blood for oil" rhetoric. I thought it was a darned good thing to overthrow a dictator and put in a democracy.

I was a bit skeptical that such a thing was possible, though. However, I figured that the folks at the White House had some darned good advisors with great intelligence at their disposal, and they wouldn't have started the whole thing if they weren't extremely confident they could get the job done.

It was the museum looting that first made me think that something was going horribly wrong. Watching the spin after the looting began, and specifically with regard to the museum, it was pretty clear that the official spokesmen were completely blindsided by this, and they really didn't see it as much of a problem. It was obvious they had no plans to protect the sites, and they didn't think it was their problem. The oil fields, yes, but museums? Nah.

It was the first sign, for me, that there might be some incompetence at work here. Sure, they could win the war, but could they make good on the rest? Did they know what they were stepping into? Did they have the right number of people? Or were they just arrogant twits with a "can do" attitude born not out of a fierce determination to overcome all odds, but out of just plain arrogance?

I fear the latter.

This article played into that feeling on my part. It appeared that they were just treating some old place as a low priority. I must admit, I initially focused on the first part of the article that made it sound pretty bad, but then went back and looked at the lower part and, reading between the lines, maybe I reached a hasty conclusion. I admit that I had visions of soldiers scraping up pavement around old buildings and throwing them into sandbags. Well, maybe what the article really says is that the whole darned desert might have artifacts in it, and you can't shovel sand without maybe turning up some pottery. If that's the case, I can understand why someone might have a problem, but there does need to be a certain amount of realism involved.

I'll have to look into this more.

[Meadmaker]

I found the report, by a guy named Curtis, on which this article was based. After reading it, I would say things are pretty bad, although not quite as bad as the editorial writer makes it sound.

The worst damage seems to have come from digging trenches through the site. The sand and soil dug up to make those trenches contained a lot of cuneiform tablet fragments.

The civilian contractors who dug those trenches were from Kellogg, Brown, and Root, a Haliburton subsidiary, IIRC.

[a_unique_person]

Wow. Cool example of knee jerk for sure. Much more illustrative than the previous one.

Doesn't matter who the parties were, in this case. The principle, which obviously escapes you, is that it is much ado about nothing, except to those with a political agenda. But why do I bother to try to explain that, fool?

Babylon is one of the earliest places where civilisation was born, if not the earliest.

[Elind]

Babylon is one of the earliest places where civilisation was born, if not the earliest.
Yes, I think I said the equivalent to that already. So? Do you think all the people who live there never dig holes in the ground? Do you think they haven't been doing that for the past thousands of years? There are countless sites that fit the same description, but you only get your knickers in a twist if some outsiders move some dirt, hardly major construction at that, and probably all the dirt is still there.

I'm saying this smells of much ado.

[geni]

Yes, I think I said the equivalent to that already. So? Do you think all the people who live there never dig holes in the ground? Do you think they haven't been doing that for the past thousands of years? There are countless sites that fit the same description, but you only get your knickers in a twist if some outsiders move some dirt, hardly major construction at that, and probably all the dirt is still there.

I'm saying this smells of much ado.

No one lives there. Locals are unlikely to be much of a problem. While there is stuff of interests to archelogists anything nickable is long gone. Babylon isn't the oldest city of course. To start with Sumur predates it.

[Zbu]

I found the report, by a guy named Curtis, on which this article was based. After reading it, I would say things are pretty bad, although not quite as bad as the editorial writer makes it sound.

The worst damage seems to have come from digging trenches through the site. The sand and soil dug up to make those trenches contained a lot of cuneiform tablet fragments.

The civilian contractors who dug those trenches were from Kellogg, Brown, and Root, a Haliburton subsidiary, IIRC.

Sadly enough I took a course this semester in Epics and we read the Penguin translation of Gilgamesh which was quite neat but also showed me the importance of those tablets that Haliburton destroyed. I would say that's extremely tragic but considering everything that's happening in Iraq, it just seems to be one more to throw on the pile. :(

[Meadmaker]

There are countless sites that fit the same description, but you only get your knickers in a twist if some outsiders move some dirt, hardly major construction at that, and probably all the dirt is still there.

I'm saying this smells of much ado.

What constitutes "major"? A helicopter landing pad, several trenches, new parking lots a fuel depot and a large number of concrete barriers.

All the dirt is still there. It's in big piles, with cuneiform writing fragments in it. A whole lot of new dirt, sand, and gravel is also there.

Much ado about nothing? I guess it's a matter of perspective, but I will bet that a local construction firm could have been hired to do the same jobs, and they would have been able to accomplish the same tasks but

1. At a lower cost.
2. With greater sensitivity to the importance of the site.'
3. While employing some of the 50% (or thereabouts) male unemployed in the country.
4. Without making those unemployed people very angry at the Americans who had no respect for their culture.

3 and 4 together might make them less likely to shoot at us.

That's what I mean about incompetence. It's not so much that irreparable harm is being done. It is, but when all things are said and done, vanished nations are a mystery to us, and so maybe we'll never know all there is to know about Babylon. That's history for you. However, the actions that were taken have predictable and easy to see consequences, but the morons running the war didn't notice.

If we had been talking about damage done to the site during the "major combat operations" that ended a month after they began, I would say c'est la guerre, but that's not what happened. After phase 1 of the war was over, they decided to expand the camp, and brought in earth moving equipment. Very bad idea.

[Crossbow]

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/story.jsp?story=687309

This sort of thing really makes me mad, and I don't even live there.

I'll have more to say later, but the article basically says that US and Polish troops have wreaked extreme havoc at the site. Meanwhile, the guy in charge says it would have been even worse if US troops hadn't been there. That is so pathetic. He basically says if US troops hadn't occupied, pave, bulldozed, and carted away large amounts of archeologically important artifacts, looters would have carried them away.

Can't he think real, real, hard and come up with a third option?

Well that just goes to show that those numerous historical artifacts must "hate our freedoms".

But seriously, it sure is a shame that these types of events have occurred after the invasion and that they could have been prevented if Bush & Co. had actually given some thought to what it was they were actually doing.

[Elind]

Sadly enough I took a course this semester in Epics and we read the Penguin translation of Gilgamesh which was quite neat but also showed me the importance of those tablets that Haliburton destroyed. I would say that's extremely tragic but considering everything that's happening in Iraq, it just seems to be one more to throw on the pile. :(

Look, I share your concern for ancient artifacts, but in this case I think that saying "the tablets that "Haliburton" destroyed" is emotive, nothing more.

Haliburton? I thought they were Poles?

Tablets? I thought there were some alleged fragments, along with all the other discarded shards of prior civilizations that you will probably find anywhere around there. Somehow I find it strange that such a prominent site has such important relics laying around in the street and no one considered them important until now, or bothered to pick them up if all it took was some shovelling.

Let's show a little skepticism shall we?;)

[Elind]

What constitutes "major"?

In truth, it is a subjective judgement.

[QUOTE] Much ado about nothing? I guess it's a matter of perspective, but I will bet that a local construction firm could have been hired to do the same jobs, and they would have been able to accomplish the same tasks but

1. At a lower cost.
2. With greater sensitivity to the importance of the site.'
3. While employing some of the 50% (or thereabouts) male unemployed in the country.
4. Without making those unemployed people very angry at the Americans who had no respect for their culture.

3 and 4 together might make them less likely to shoot at us.


1: If they had laid marble tile and installed modern bathroom perhaps, otherwise I doubt it.

2: I seriously doubt that the average Iraqi laborer has any more sensitivity about broken pottery than the average American would.

3: By having them do all construction on military bases? Bad idea.

4: I suspect the only anger comes from those already angry and looking for a new spin to make publicity about.

That's what I mean about incompetence. It's not so much that irreparable harm is being done. It is, but when all things are said and done, vanished nations are a mystery to us, and so maybe we'll never know all there is to know about Babylon. That's history for you. However, the actions that were taken have predictable and easy to see consequences, but the morons running the war didn't notice.

I agree, we will never know all there is to know; with or without a few tons of recently moved dirt. This is not a political isssue in my mind.

If we had been talking about damage done to the site during the "major combat operations" that ended a month after they began, I would say c'est la guerre, but that's not what happened. After phase 1 of the war was over, they decided to expand the camp, and brought in earth moving equipment. Very bad idea.

OK. It was a bad idea; or more likely it looked like just another dusty block with decrepid shacks and neither of the two archeologists with the Poles were there, and none of the locals knew or cared enough to point out that it was not a good place to dig.

I'm sure that there have been worse examples in this category, and the one that comes to mind was the blind stupidity that didn't plan for guards at the main museum the day they moved in.

This latest issue is, I repeat, much ado about doodoo.:rolleyes:

[Meadmaker]

This latest issue is, I repeat, much ado about doodoo.:rolleyes:

Well, there's a reason it was on the Drudge Report and not above the fold on the Washington Post. It's not exactly a crisis.

But it is, in my humble opinion, an illustration of a problem. After all the fuss over their failure at the museum, it didn't occur to anyone to say, "Hey, maybe we shouldn't take a back hoe to these areas around these old broken buildings."

A common accusation against Rumsfeld et. al. is that they are arrogant folks who don't learn from mistakes. They think that's unfair.