The big picture: protection of cultural material.

Holder, Frederick Christopher

INTRODUCTION

Cultural material conservation and restoration, as it involves chemical and physical properties of paintings, books, metal objects and so on, can be quite technical, and so successful conservation entails competent scientific and methodological approaches. Beyond such obvious practical aspects, though, there are more abstract prerequisites which permit an environment conducive to effective cultural conservation: an official legal and political regime that ensures security; public attitudes and interest; and a philosophical underpinning (with respect to why and how to conserve).

This article, in addressing the big picture of what respectively threatens and promotes the goal of conservation, will concentrate upon these more abstract factors. The worst barriers to this consist of war and conflict, due to the clear physical threat they present, while the most effective means by which to support conservation include international legal conventions (as well as governmental backing), as these constrain the abuse of heritage material. These are strongly interconnected as war and conflict have typically acted as the catalyst for enhanced legal protection, especially for international law from the seventeenth century onwards. In addition, there have been several professional codes of principles established to regulate cultural protection, but it is only those principles and rhetoric deemed important enough to have the force of law behind them that are most worth considering.

The philosophical goals lying behind cultural protection are arguably equally important to the law that has been implemented to achieve it, because they strongly determine the way that artefacts are viewed and used, including influencing the law. Thus it is also useful to consider the corresponding evolution in how cultural protection has been comprehended and to examine how perceptions of cultural items and sites have developed over time. This starts from the classical period, when artefacts and sites were not seen as being particularly special and were essentially viewed as unremarkable property, and reaches to the present, when they are typically viewed as being much more exceptional.

EARLY ATTITUDES TO CULTURAL PROTECTION

It is clear that conflict-related cultural destruction and theft has presented a perennial problem, beginning with the classical era from which the earliest references to conflict-related looting and destruction survive. At that time it was seen as legitimate behaviour. Aristotle argued that it was 'common agreement' that cultural spoils 'captured in war are said to be the property of the captors'. (1) Plato articulated a similar position, asserting that 'all those goods which were the property of the vanquished become the property of the victor'. (2) The Roman Empire conducted substantial looting of its occupied areas under its precept of Corpus Juris, which specified that objects seized in war become the property of the captors. (3)

However, these issues generally received notable attention and significance only after the mediaeval period, at least in Europe, even though cultural destruction was obviously a major problem during that time. The preservation of classical culture moved to the peripheries, to more remote monasteries such as in Wales and Ireland, (4) as well as in Spain, (5) or was taken up externally by Arabic scholars. (6) It was primarily with the Renaissance that cultural preservation again began to be addressed--the rediscovery of interest and awareness of classical heritage along with the development of a market for artefacts during the fourteenth century was what inspired the Renaissance. (7) Pillaging was, however, also still common during conflicts in the Renaissance period and cultural despoliation regularly occurred later, in the Thirty Years War. (8) In all of these cases, theft and sacking were considered to be legitimate parts of war and the inviolability of cultural property would have been an alien concept.

THE EVOLUTION TOWARDS MODERN CULTURAL PROTECTION

Throughout the early seventeenth century, interest in antiquarianism became quite widespread throughout Europe and the market for artefacts continued to expand. (9) It is likely that this was followed by political and legal attention. For instance, the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648 to settle the Thirty Years War undertook what may be the first rudimentary attempt to address cultural restitution with its proviso in Article CXIV that 'the Records, Writings and Documents, and other Moveables, be also restor'd; as likewise the Cannon found at the taking of the Places, and which are still in being. But they shall be allow'd to carry off with them, and cause to be carry'd off, such as have been brought thither from other parts after the taking of the Places, or have been taken in Battels, with all the Carriages of War, and what belongs thereunto'. (10)

This passage indicates that this treaty did not recognise the safeguarding of heritage sites and materials as a goal important in its own right but rather as an extension of regular property rights. Its wording in its last portion also suggests it differentiated between material 'legitimately' held by a civil authority and what was previously, and probably illegally, seized from 'other parts' as well as what was held by civil structures and had been taken from conquered military forces the latter had presumably removed earlier. In any case, several European states were interested in Greek heritage sites and materials and began removing material from there through both trade and plunder. For instance, Venetian forces during a conflict with the Ottomans briefly occupied Athens and removed Greek artefacts. (11) This act would have probably been considered permissible under the terms of Westphalia as they were taken from an area under military control. The trade in cultural material that also occurred, although undertaken while Greece was occupied by the Ottomans, was also likely deemed acceptable. Such trade, and frequent plundering, persisted over the following centuries.

Napoleon engaged in substantial looting during his conquests. As a result, when after his defeat in 1815 the Congress of Vienna was set up to restore Europe to its pre-Napoleonic form, it considered the problem of restitution for his pillaged collection. These efforts were the first modern legal process to consider this and were formulated on the ancient concept of 'restitus', where all stolen items were to be returned to their respective country of origin prior to the theft. There were limits to this, however, as the country which had it before removal was not necessarily the original owner. (12) In that respect, it was a courtesy extended mostly to European states and not intended to be universally applied. Furthermore, as with the Treaty of Westphalia, it was an issue of simple property rights, rather than special consideration of cultural goods and there was not, as yet, a philosophy articulating cultural protection.

The US Civil War was marked by horrendous acts of civilian destruction, which in turn prompted progress towards wartime cultural protection. Abraham Lincoln assigned Dr Francis Lieber, a professor at the Columbia College in New York, to devise the 'Lieber Code', a code of instructions to govern the US military's behaviour during conflict. Articles 34 to 36 pertained to cultural works and institutions, but 35 and 36 are particularly notable. Article 35 specified that 'Classical works of art, libraries, scientific collections, or precious instruments ... must be secured against all avoidable injury, even when they are contained in fortified places whilst besieged or bombarded'. Article 36 stated that such works as discussed in the previous Article should never be 'privately appropriated, or wantonly destroyed or injured'. (13) This emphasis upon cultural and educational institutions was driven by the ideals of the Enlightenment as a means to making warfare more humane for civilians. (14)

THE METHODOLOGY AND PHILOSOPHY OF CULTURAL PROTECTION EMERGES

It was, of course, more than just war which affected cultural preservation, and the Enlightenment, with respect to the concept of 'cultural continuity', was a particularly crucial factor in the development of conservation. (15) However, the technical aspects of cultural material conservation also developed significantly during the nineteenth century, as did society's and the general public's appreciation for it, especially in terms of architecture. An early instance was the issue of the city walls of York which the local authorities wanted to demolish in the early nineteenth century. This prompted significant opposition and, in the 1820s, with the involvement of newspapers, the public became deeply concerned. This led to the creation of the Yorkshire Philosophical Society in 1922, which was founded to defend the city walls and other historic sites. (16) This is also apparent in the rise of such bodies as the Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings in 1877, founded by William Morris and Philip Webb, (17) as well as in the efforts of Eugene Emmanuel Viollet-le-Duc on the restoration of mediaeval buildings, including the Notre Dame Cathedral in France (although his work was not universally welcomed). (18) There was also Friedrich Rathgen, who was a pioneer from the late 1880s onwards in the preservation of artefacts through scientific and systematic methods. (19) The general public's involvement was also equally notable throughout Europe in the nineteenth century. (20)

The interest of writers and philosophers in cultural protection was also pronounced during the nineteenth century. From the 1820s, Victor Hugo agitated for heritage protection in both his poetry and prose. He argued that monuments reflected the society's wealth and labelled those who attacked conservation as vandals. (21) Nietzsche also had a significant impact upon cultural protection due to his views about the relativity of cultural values as espoused in his concept of 'Der Ubermensch' in 1883. He contended that the absolute and universal values derived from religion had been substituted with values that were instead the result of human culture. This required people to assume responsibility for their own existence, and they did this by creating their own principles. As a result, values became a product of society, and both the identification of one's heritage and its protection followed because of their importance as influences upon society. (22) With the engagement of the public and intellectuals, the stage was set for significantly enhanced cultural protection.

THE TWENTIETH CENTURY: THE ZENITH OF WAR AND CULTURAL PROTECTION

The Lieber Code became the foundation for the Brussels Conference in 1874 which drafted a declaration that stipulated cultural and educational property, including that owned by the state, should be viewed as private property and therefore should be exempt from confiscation. While its declaration was not ratified, it along with the Lieber Code shaped the 1880 Oxford Manual issued by the Institute of International Law to codify rules for behaviour during land warfare. This was followed by the 1899 and 1907 Hague Conferences which were designed to produce a standard code of warfare and to minimise its destructiveness. The 1907 Hague Conference was the more effective one, ratifying Convention No. 4--the Laws and Customs of War on Land--which included provisions that advanced international law governing the protection of property, (23) namely outlawing pillaging, detailing occupiers' responsibility regarding safeguarding occupied states' infrastructures and prohibiting seizure or destruction of properties relating to religions, charities and educational, artistic and scientific institutions. (24)

This agreement was ratified by Britain, Germany, France, Russia and the United States, but its principles were largely ignored during the First World War or became a pretext to remove sensitive objects for 'safe-keeping'. The 1918 Treaty of Versailles used the stipulations of the Laws and Customs of War on Land to make Germany return all artworks looted between 1914 and 1918 and to compel the return of items removed in previous conflicts, like the Franco-Prussian War of 1870-71, and even of items which were obtained legitimately. (25) In this it became an instrument of revenge, which likely undermined the ideal of cultural protection and increased the likelihood of further retaliation.

The Second World War may well have marked the worst instances of international cultural destruction, although it also reflected the first detailed strategies to safeguard cultural items within war; it was rather schizophrenic in this respect. The Third Reich and the Soviets engaged in substantial looting, but all participants demonstrated little discretion in attacking culturally sensitive sites like cathedrals, monasteries, museums and so on. The Germans began their organised looting with the Jews in Germany and carried out methodical looting and malicious destruction. (26) It is estimated that over 22,000 art objects were removed from galleries, museums and libraries throughout Europe. (27) The Soviets exacted a heavy vengeance upon the conquered Germans in 1945, confiscating artworks and other cultural material; but they also undertook significant looting throughout Eastern Europe. (28)

Even during the war, though, the combatants made at the very least a pretence of safeguarding heritage sites. For instance, the British, after being accused by Italy of damaging Roman ruins in North Africa in 1941, prepared for the protection and restitution of cultural pieces. (29) In addition, in 1942 the US, USSR and representatives from the exiled governments began negotiating a joint policy to deal with stolen cultural items as they were found and as restitution became feasible. This was specified in the final draft of the Inter-Allied Declaration Against Acts of Dispossession Committed in Territories under Enemy Occupation or Control, enacted on 5 January 1943, but it proved to be difficult to obtain agreement from all of the participants, and tensions led to major conflict over it and it was never effective. (30)

Contemporaneously, powerful figures within the US lobbied for a cultural policy to govern the conduct of US forces and the restitution of pillaged material. This culminated in the Roberts Commission that prepared extensive information for the military to enable these goals. (31) This Commission was named after its Chairman, Owen J Roberts, a Justice of the United States Supreme Court, and was founded by President Roosevelt in August 1943 in response to requests from officials of the US' major art museums, galleries and cultural associations. It was chiefly responsible for getting the US War Department to establish a Monuments, Fine Arts and Archives section (MFAA) within the Supreme Headquarters of the Allied Expeditionary Force to oversee the protection and recovery of cultural objects in war-affected areas, under the auspices of the War Department's Civil Affairs Division (CAD) which was established on 1 March 1943. (32)

The Roberts Commission also proposed appointees to the MFAA with expertise in fields like archives, archaeology, architecture, sculpture and painting, which were considered to be significant. The Commission consisted of 350 special members of the US and other military forces, incorporating art historians, museum curators, artists, architects and other specialists. These tasks were implemented with a fair amount of success (given the difficult circumstances faced) by the Monuments, Fine Arts and Archives Section of the Supreme Headquarters. (33) The MFAA section was extremely important in avoiding direct conflict-related destruction in its highlighting of areas that needed to be protected, as well as in its overseeing of the safety of both buildings and collections during and after the battles. Beyond this, after the end of the war the MFAA was involved in the recovery and restitution of looted and plundered cultural material. (34)

The massive atrocities of the Second World War provoked major reform to civilian protection, which included implicitly safeguarding cultural property. These improvements were detailed in the Geneva Conventions of 1949 which reaffirmed the protection of civilian property expounded in the 1899 and 1907 Hague Conventions. However, they did not explicitly address the protection of cultural property, but relied upon earlier agreements incorporated within the Geneva Convention structure. Protections provided for civilian property were viewed as necessarily including cultural objects, perhaps returning to the equivalence of cultural and ordinary property. For instance, Article 53 of the Geneva Convention, relating to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War (Geneva Convention IV), prescribes the 'destruction' of civilian property, albeit contingent upon military necessity. As this relates to destruction, though, it leaves open the ability of occupying powers to requisition or confiscate property for military purposes, although pillaging was still prohibited in Article 33. (35)

The Hague Convention of 1954 for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict strove to address the destruction of cultural property in the Second World War, and provided lofty appraisals of cultural materials. This is evident starting with its preamble, which asserts that 'damage to cultural property belonging to any people whatsoever means damage to the cultural heritage of all mankind, since each people makes its contribution to the culture of the world', and 'the preservation of the cultural heritage is of great importance for all peoples of the world and [it] is important that this heritage should receive international protection'. (36) It also stated that, for such protection to be effective, it would have to be arranged at both the national and the international levels, as well as be 'organised in time of peace'. (37)

The Hague Convention provided a definition of 'cultural property'--the first international agreement to do so. It specified that it comes under three categories: '(1) both immovable and movable items which are themselves of intrinsic artistic, historic, scientific or other cultural value such as historic monuments, works of art or scientific collections, (2) premises used for the housing of movable cultural property, such as museums, libraries and archive premises, and (3) centres containing monuments' such as important historic cities or archaeological zones'. (38) These were detailed classifications covering the important heritage institutions, but its consideration of what constituted protection was less particular. It referred to safeguarding and planning, in times of peace, for the potential of conflict-related damage. Planning in periods of conflict was less clearly termed as 'respect', which was given to mean an emphasis on avoiding proscribed activities, rather than on undertaking active efforts to safeguard material during conflict. (39)

In any case, the 1954 Hague Convention has clearly not been entirely successful in influencing international cultural protection. Within the last twenty years, there has been the looting of the Kuwait Museum in 1990, the shelling of Dubrovnik, Croatia in 1991 and Mostar in Bosnia in 1993, countless other incidents throughout the former Yugoslavian states, the destruction of the Bamiyan Buddhas in Afghanistan in 2001 and the sacking of Afghanistan's national museum, and finally the looting and damage that occurred in Iraq in 2003 and beyond at the hands of Iraqis and Coalition forces.

The events in Kuwait, Croatia, Bosnia, Serbia and Afghanistan in the 1990s demonstrate another longstanding problem facing cultural protection: namely cultural destruction or looting to debase communities and stamp authority over them, which relates to public attitudes. This is an ancient practice; the Romans frequently applied it as war booty, where it served the dual purpose of bolstering Romans and humiliating those they had conquered (in addition to the obvious financial benefit). Much more recently, the Second World War is another example of a situation where looting and destruction were implemented for reasons of domination and debasement. This would have been a significant factor in the German seizures directed against the French, Polish, Russians and, of course, Jews, while the Russians repaid the Germans in kind.

Iraqi actions during the 1990 invasion of Kuwait suggested comparable motivations targeted at public attitudes, albeit negatively. The Iraqis stole approximately 20,000 art objects from the Kuwait National Museum, including its valuable Islamic art collection, and located tanks at archaeological sites on Kuwait's Failaka Island, where Sumerian, Hellenistic and Byzantine relics had been excavated. They also committed arson on Kuwaiti museums. (40) Similarly, in the conflicts throughout the former Yugoslavia, there was severe ethnic conflict in which several culturally sensitive sites were destroyed. These actions lowered the morale of the victims and added to the prestige of the perpetrators.

After the invasion of Iraq, approximately 15,000 artefacts were stolen, including fine antiquities like ritual vessels, heads from sculptures, amulets, Assyrian ivories and more than 5,000 cylinder seals. (41) In addition, there were several other cultural collections that were affected by both looting and arson by Iraqis, including the National Library and Archive, the Iraqi Royal Archives and the Qur'ans Library in the Ministry of Religious Endowment. (42)

Prior to this, the Archaeological Institute of America in its annual meeting in December 2002 highlighted the looting after the 1991 Iraq War as a warning. (43) Furthermore, the Society for American Archaeology wrote to Donald Rumsfeld in February 2003 about the 'widespread looting of museums and archaeological sites' after the 1991 Gulf War, and asked that the US take precautions in line with 'the 1954 Convention or the 1999 Protocol .... and, in the case of an occupation, that the military establish units tasked with protection of Iraq's cultural heritage, including museums, libraries, archaeological sites, and other cultural institutions. These units should ensure that looting does not occur'. The International Committee of the Blue Shield, Archaeological Institute of America and the American Association for Research in Baghdad Archaeology made similar warnings. (44) Unfortunately, these were largely ignored.

Iraq demonstrates another issue endangering cultural protection, coopting heritage items to invoke public pride and gain politically. Saddam Hussein used ancient Iraqi history and culture for his own stature, featuring his image next to important Iraqi historical locations and individuals like Nebuchadnezzar. However, this was more likely to have demeaned Iraq's ancient heritage than to have improved Saddam Hussein's standing. Instead, Donny George, former Director-General of the Iraqi State Board of Antiquities, stated that artefacts became identified with the Baathist Regime, provoking widespread theft and destruction. (45)

LESSONS FROM IRAQ

It is evident that the Coalition forces had serious difficulties in ensuring the safety of heritage sites and that the military generally remains limited in its ability to handle such matters. One answer to this is engagement between the military and archaeological and cultural professionals. Furthermore, securing government support for conservation requires cooperating with government bodies, including the military; this is a contentious view. John Curtis, Keeper at the Department of the Middle East in the British Museum, argued that there should be no collaboration, at least in the preparation stage. He refused when approached to do so with respect to Iraq, as he thought preparing a list of sensitive sites would justify the inevitable destruction of non-indicated sites and signify approval of the military operation. Despite this, he indicated willingness to assist in post-conflict efforts, citing the examples of the military bases at Babylon or around Ur, situations which greater cooperation could have avoided. (46)

Peter Stone, Professor of Heritage Studies at Newcastle University in the United Kingdom, was less selective. In 2003 he reluctantly agreed to a request from the UK Ministry of Defence to identify Iraqi sites requiring protection, seeing it as the best of a bad situation, and while he disagreed with the war, he believed that it was desirable to 'help mitigate the damage'. He thought it was better to permanently work with the military in order to be seen as serious by it and in order to 'make sure they and politicians know the importance of cultural heritage'. (47)

Another method for influencing the military is training, which the US military has begun for individuals being deployed to the Middle East. One was the In Theatre Heritage Training for Deploying Personnel, arranged by Dr Laurie W Rush, Cultural Resources Manager at Fort Drum, in conjunction with Saving Antiquities for Everyone, Dr Roger Ulrich of Dartmouth College and Dr James Zeidler of the Colorado State University Centre for the Environmental Management of Military Lands and the Archaeological Institute of America. It details Iraq's archaeological significance, international cultural conventions, how to identify archaeological sites, awareness of not using heavy machinery on sensitive sites and the connection between illegal artefacts trade and insurgents (an obvious concern to the military). It is also involved the development of a website to reinforce the military's duty to protect artefacts. (48) This website's language is quite notable and commendable, as it asserts that 'respecting and safeguarding cultural property is both a treaty obligation and a legal requirement. Every square foot of earth at an archaeological, cultural heritage or religious site is significant'. (49)

Collaborating with the military runs the risk of being identified with it or being seen to be endorsing military action, thus alienating the public and being shut out of strategic target communities. However, not participating is unlikely to prevent conflict and will only mean sacrificing useful influence and advice. Ordinary members of the armed forces are vital to ensuring heritage protection, as they are the ones who encounter them. Instilling appreciation of cultural issues within the armed forces is vital in minimising damage in conflict; avoiding contact with them would be counterproductive.

There have been notable incidents of cultural vandalism in Afghanistan: the shelling of the Bamiyan Buddhas in 2001 and the sacking of Afghanistan's national museum over an extended period. This destruction underscores the connection between people's welfare and cultural protection in times of hardship. Taliban leader Omar Mullah purportedly told the UNESCO Director that he could not understand the West's concern for the Bamiyan Buddhas when UN sanctions were causing the deaths of thousands of Afghani children. (50) The Taliban destroyed the Buddhas to highlight this point. The ongoing sacking of the museum was also made more likely by poverty. Of course, the destruction of the statues was unjustified and the Taliban's iconoclastic views would have likely eventually resulted in their demolition, but Mullah's statement should be considered. It is a major tenet of conservation philosophy that the spiritual and cultural value of a heritage item is an overriding concern, but the perception that cultural heritage takes priority over a community's interests can result in harm to cultural items.

As Gandhi (purportedly) stated, 'Poverty is the worst form of violence' (51); this may be simplistic, but effective cultural protection is unlikely where communities are suffering from deprivation. While earlier conventions treated cultural property as an augmentation of regular property rights, later treaties reflected a philosophy that stressed the special nature of cultural material. As an emphasis upon cultural property may sometimes cause offence, such as when the local attitude to such items may be ambivalent, the earlier approach might be preferable. Heritage is important and deserves special protection, but one should realise the potential associated cost of causing the perception that cultural material takes priority over people. At best, this will prompt the disturbance and plundering of archaeological sites, and all of the loss of important archaeological information that this denotes. At worst, it will cause hostility and the type of devastation seen in Afghanistan.

To avoid this and to ensure public support, it would be wise to ensure that the populations directly benefit from the protection of their resources, including financially. To work towards this, it is advisable for cultural professionals to consult and collaborate with humanitarian workers, given the latter's success with working with communities, to benefit from their experience and contacts. If people associate archaeological activities and cultural protection with humanitarian aid, it is bound to engender good relations, which would not only reduce potential harm to archaeological sites but also encourage these communities to contribute local knowledge to and cooperate with such projects. This is not an original strategy, but it does seem to be one which has not been applied enough.

Having said this, though, artefacts frequently have an important spiritual or mystical element to them, and this rightly must also be considered, even though it will occasionally run counter to the goal of cultural preservation. This is unfortunate, but unavoidable. Such sensitivity is not only philosophically essential, but also extremely important in terms of what is practicable, as to ignore this is to risk alienating the traditional owners and lose access to them and the information they have. Without that, materials become meaningless and unknowable.

Another main conservation precept is that public access must be maintained, but this is arguably overstated. As long as even one person has access to an item, and the object remains protected, that item remains preserved, with possibility for others to have access to it later, when the situation changes. There are acceptable alternatives. For instance, a complete, accurate replica of the threatened Ice Age Lascaux cave-paintings in France exists for the public to view in order to safeguard the original paintings. (52) Technology offers other possibilities where access to heritage collection is problematic, in the form of virtual museums with collections displayed online. One such effort is the Virtual Museum of Iraq organised by Italian Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche (National Research Council), with support from the Italian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, which allows one to 'digitally explore' the museum's collection. (53) Other institutions displaying collections online include the Powerhouse Museum in Sydney, the State Hermitage Museum in Saint Petersburg, the British Museum and many more besides. (54) What is of far greater concern is the huge amount of material, literally kilometres' worth of shelf space, that goes not catalogued and unobserved in archives, libraries, museums and other cultural institutions which may become unusable without ever having been viewed.

CONCLUSION

To reiterate, the big picture in this context concerns understanding the factors affecting cultural materials' conservation and restoration. Overall, these conflicting influences have currently left conservation in a better position, but conservation is still quite a neglected discipline that deserves a lot more attention. It is, at least in principle, supported by several important international agreements and legal conventions, but these are clearly often disregarded. It needs to be regulated by more enforceable legal codes, and to receive more effective political and institutional support. An underlying philosophy is surely important, but it can perhaps occasionally be limiting and counterproductive. If all of these various issues can be balanced against one another, its prospects should be positive.

ENDNOTES

(1) Alexander S Frid, 'The common heritage doctrine and the treatment of cultural property', 3, http://www.urop.uci.edu/journal/journal98/AlexFrid/page01.html. Accessed 5 June 2010.

(2) Matthew K Steen, 'Collateral damage: The destruction and looting of cultural property in armed conflict', http://works.bepress.com/matthew_steen/1. Accessed 2 June 2010.

(3) Frid.

(4) Eoin MacNeill, 'Beginnings of Latin culture in Ireland: Part II', Studies: An Irish Quarterly Review, vol.20, no.79, 1931, 460.

(5) Hugh Graham, 'Irish monks and the transmission of learning', The Catholic Historical Review, vol.11, no.3, 1925, 431.

(6) George Makdisi, 'Scholasticism and humanism in classical Islam and the Christian West', Journal of the American Oriental Society, vol.109, no.2, 1989, 175.

(7) Jukka Jokilehto, A History of Architectural Conservation: The Contribution of English, French, German and Italian Thought Towards an International Approach to the Conservation of Cultural Property, D Phil thesis, University of York, 1986, 34.

(8) Michael J Kurtz, America and the Return of Nazi Contraband: The Recovery of Europe's Cultural Treasures, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2006, 4.

(9) Jokilehto, A History, 62.

(10) Lillian Goldman Law Library, Yale Law School, 'The Avalon Project', http://avalon.law.yale.edu/17th_century/westphal.asp. Accessed 2 June 2010.

(11) Jokilehto, A History, 63.

(12) Kurtz, 6.

(13) International Committee of the Red Cross, 'International humanitarian law-treaties and documents', http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/FULL/110?OpenDocument. Accessed 2 June 2010.

(14) Burrus M Carnahan, 'Lincoln, Lieber and the laws of war: The origins and limits of the principle of military necessity', The American Journal of International Law, vol.92, no.2, 1998, 213.

(15) Henry Cleere, 'Introduction: The rationale of archaeological heritage management', in Henry Cleere (ed.), Archaeological Heritage Management in the Modern World, Unwin Hyman, London, 1989, 7.

(16) Jokilehto, A History, 239.

(17) Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings, 'History of the SPAB', http://www.spab.org.uk/what-is-spab-/history-of-the-spab/. Accessed 2 September 2010.

(18) Daniel D Reiff, 'Viollet le Duc and historic restoration: The west portals of Notre-Dame', Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians, vol.30, no.1, 1971, 17.

(19) Mark Gilberg, 'Friedrich Rathgen: The father of modern archaeological conservation', Journal of the American Institute for Conservation, vol.26, no.2, 1987, 106.

(20) Jokilehto, A History, 244, 255, 266.

(21) Jokilehto, A History, 267.

(22) Jukka Jokilehto, 'Conservation concepts', in John Ashurst (ed.), In Conservation of Ruins, Elsevier, Amsterdam, 2007, 3.

(23) Kurtz, 7.

(24) Kurtz, 8.

(25) Kurtz, 9.

(26) Kurtz, 24, 26-7.

(27) Lawrence M Kaye, 'What can and should be done', Cardozo Law Review, vol.20, no.2, 1998, 657.

(28) Kurtz, 179.

(29) Kurtz, 43.

(30) Kurtz, 44-8.

(31) Kurtz, 49-56.

(32) Charles J Kunzelman, 'Some trials, tribulations, and successes of the monuments: Fine arts and archives teams in the European theatre during WWII', Military Affairs, vol.52, no.2, 1988, 56.

(33) Ronald H Bailey, 'Saving Private Rembrandt', World War II, vol.22, no.2, 2007, 50.

(34) Patrick J Boylan, 'The concept of cultural protection in times of armed conflict: From the crusades to the new millennium', in Neil Brodie and Kathryn Walker Tubb (eds), Illicit Antiquities: The Theft of Culture and the Extinction of Archaeology, Routledge, London, 2001, 60.

(35) Ana F Vrdoljak, 'Cultural heritage in human rights and humanitarian law', in O Ben-Naftali (ed.), Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law Collected Courses of the Academy of European Law, vol.XIX, no.1, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2010, http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1014& context=ana_filipa_vrdoljak. Accessed 16 May 2010.

(36) International Council on Monuments and Sites, 'The International Council on Monuments and Sites', http://www.icomos.org/ hague/HaguePreamble.html. Accessed 7 May 2010.

(37) International Council on Monuments and Sites.

(38) Boylan, 63.

(39) Boylan, 64.

(40) Alan Riding, 'Kuwait, lost items and a blackened museum are effects of earlier war', New York Times, 11 May 2003, 16.

(41) Robert M Poole, 'Looting Iraq', Smithsonian, vol.38, no.11, 2008, 53.

(42) Lawrence Rothfield, 'The rape of Mesopotamia: Behind the looting of the Iraq Museum', University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 2009, 110.

(43) Rothfield, 48.

(44) Rothfield, 84.

(45) Kristin M Romey, 'Archaeology at war', Archaeology, vol.60, no.3, http://www.archaeology.org/0705/abstracts/insider.html. Accessed 28 May 2010.

(46) John Curtis, 'Relations between archaeologists and the military in the case of Iraq', Papers from the Institute of Archaeology, vol.19, http://pia-journal.co.uk/index.php/pia/issue/view/23. Accessed 20 May 2010.

(47) Tiffany Jenkins, 'Conflicting aims', Museums Journal, vol.110, no.3, http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php/site/article/8524/. Accessed 21 May 2010.

(48) US DOD Legacy funded in theatre heritage training project, AIA Troop Lecture Eustis DVD.

(49) US Undersecretary of Defense Legacy Resource Management Program, Washington, DC, 'Ten things you should do (and not do)', http://www.cemml.colostate.edu/cultural/09476/iraqofftenthings.html. Accessed 14 May 2010.

(50) Mike Rowlands, 'Response to "Relations between archaeologists and the military in the case of Iraq"', Papers from the Institute of Archaeology, vol.19, http://pia-journal.co.uk/index.php/pia/article/viewArticle/163/235. Accessed 28 May 2010.

(51) David Gordon, 'Measuring child poverty and deprivation', 2, University of Southampton, https://www.soton.ac.uk/socsci/ghp3/course/unicefdocs/ Measuring%20Child%20Poverty%20and%20Deprivation.pdf. Accessed 9 November 2010.

(52) Jean-Francois Tournepiche, 'Faux Lascaux', Natural History, vol.102, no.4, 1993, 72.

(53) Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche, 'Virtual museum of Iraq', http://www.virtualmuseumiraq.cnr.it/homeENG.htm. Accessed 20 May 2010.

(54) See www.powerhousemuseum.com/collection/database/, www.hermitagemuseum.org/html_En/02/hm2_0.html and www.britishmuseum.org/research/search_the_collection_database.aspx

Frederick Christopher Holder

Cultural Materials Conservation