Culture Heritage – Heritage and Destruction

Is there a difference in the destruction of the Great Wall of China verses the destruction of the Berlin Wall?  When is it ok to destroy heritage?  Does restoration justify destruction?  This post will explore some of these issues.

Everyone knows that archaeological excavation is destructive in nature.  The Rose Theatre here in London had its excavation stopped by the Arts because they feared the destruction of whatever remains there are of this important theatre where Shakespeare walked.  What remained?  Foundations only.  However, the remains of these types of theatres are very rare and the excavation of the remains would have provided much needed information about them.  For example, it is still not known how people reached the upper levels.  They obviously had to use stairs or ladders, but there is no physical evidence for either.  The excavation of the Rose might have provided that by revealing the existence of the suspected stair towers.  (For a modern example of these supposed towers see the reconstruction of the Globe Theatre on London’s River Walk).  Instead the remains were buried under dirt, concrete, and water.  You can visit the site but all you will see is a pond.

Most people (outside of the Pinheads in the Arts who stopped the Rose excavations) understand that responsible excavation is necessary destruction.  But what about the destruction of modern buildings to reconstruct the ancient as was done to build the Globe?  We all understand that the Berlin Wall was a simple of oppression and entrapment.  But few people realize that the Great Wall of China was the same to the people who lived then.  The atrocities connected with the Great Wall of China are astounding!  However, to touch it would be near anathema to most – me included.  Why?

The destruction of Saddam’s Palaces and statues was destruction of heritage because of what it symbolized, yet Auschwitz where millions were exterminated still stands.  To argue that ethically bad symbols need to be destroyed is not reality but is censorship and sanitation of history similar to what the Taliban did when they destroyed the Buddhas in Afghanistan or the Serbians who intentionally targeted more than 400 shells to the National Museum and Library in an attempt to erase evidence of other people’s culture.

While it is not realistic to save everything a decision needs to be made regarding what is “worthy” to be kept for posterity.  Some have questioned whether museums are really “temples where sacrifices are offered up as a way to apologize for the destruction of the past”.  This is certainly salvage language, but is it wrong?

Destruction is unfortunately a very real part of Ancient Egyptian history not only in the ancient past but also in the archaeologically more recent past.

There are two terms usually associated with heritage destruction: iconoclasm and iconoclash.  These were defined in our class in the following way…

Iconoclasm = when one knows what is happening and the motivation for the destruction is clear.

Iconoclash = when one does not know, one hesitates, or one is troubled by an action for which there is no way to know without further enquiry, whether something is destructive or constructive.

Unfortunately, issues in heritage studies are not clear.  We need to keep asking these questions and dialoguing in an effort to make better decisions for when history is destroyed for any reason it is lost forever.