The Symbolic Meaning of Mosques in Iraq: Cultural Heritage Turned Political Identity – Ashton

Robert Bevan discusses in his book The Destruction of Memory, that “It is the ever-changing meanings brought to brick and stone, rather than some inbuilt quality of the materials or the way in which they are assembled, that need to be emphasized.” My paper examines the way in which mosques in Iraq have become highly places of highly political meanings due to attacks, raids, lootings and other destruction during the Iraq War and U.S. occupation of Iraq. I examine three particular mosques which each have run a different course throughout U.S. occupation in Iraq.

The Golden Mosque of Samarra, or the Askariya Shrine, is a 1000 year old mosque, famous for its beautiful architecture, as well as its historical importance to Islam. The mosque holds the tomb of the tenth and eleventh imams, and was the place of the disappearance of the twelfth imam, the “hidden imam,” who, according to Islamic faith, is still living and the time when he resurfaces will mark the beginning of the end of the world. In February 2006, the golden dome was destroyed in a bombing planted by Al Qaeda, strategically placed in this Shiite mosque (located in a mostly Sunni area) to start civil war in Iraq. The attack created chaos on the verge of civil war between the two Islamic groups, but now the rebuilding process has brought the neighborhood together, of which the mosque is now a symbol.

The Abu Hanifa Mosque, about 5 miles from Baghdad, was the stage for a U.S. raiding in November 2004, in which several civilians were killed while at prayer. The raid has caused great anti-American sentiment, and efforts to protect the mosque have made the mosque a symbol in the community for the anti-American feeling that has become widespread in Iraq, and throughout Iraq.

Saddam Hussein’s “Mother of All Battles” Mosque was built with many military allusions, and appears to be a shrine to himself and the victory of the Gulf War. The minarets of the mosque resemble rifles and scud missiles, several of which reach a height of 43 meters to represent the 43 days of conflict with the U.S. during the Gulf War. The mosque’s confused message of worship for the Islamic faith and Saddam may be represented in the 600 page Koran, written in Saddam’s blood, located in one of the minarets. After the fall of the regime, the mosque is subject to new interpretation, although it too has become a symbol for the American presence in Iraq and the turmoil of the times.

All share in common the way in which, though built as monuments of religion and cultural heritage, they have been transformed into political symbols due to the atrocities commit to them or around them during U.S. occupation.

Pictures:

Golden Mosque of Samarra (before destruction on left, after on right); http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/13/world/middleeast/13cnd-samarra.html

Abu Hanifa Mosque; http://www.iraqwho.com/Tourism_Center_Religious.asp

Saddam’s “Mother of All Battles” Mosque; http://www.ifapray.org/archive/NFOW/NFOW2003/Jan-June%202003/Saddam%27s%20Mosque%20of%20War%20-%20April%2013,%202003.html

Links:

"New Role for Mosques in Iraq," BBC News Article -- http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2962083.stm

"Rebuilding Hope" Video about Golden Mosque of Samarra -- http://dalje.com/tv/en/index.php?id=10218s3e1fb92977350

Native American Conservation & Repatriation-- Cummings

**The Tlingit totem pole in the Peabody Museum before its repatriation

In my paper I discuss issues such as the way Native American museum objects are viewed, who and how to handle items during conservation, and the idea of repatriation. In each section I discuss general issues, specific spinoff issues and possible ways to deal with them. When I started my research I found that readily available information on these issues was generalized and I was still left with questions I wanted answered. This inspired me to create my own questions. I was fortunate enough to speak to a few conservators and specialists whose experiences and opinions greatly form the basis of my essay. Special thanks to Cara Fama, Research Specialist in the Repatriation Department at the NMAI, Maryland; Ricky Lightfoot, ex-president of Crow Canyon Archaeological Center in Colorado; Kelly McHugh, NMAI conservator who worked on the Alaska Heritage Center project; and Lisa Young, Assistant Research Scientist in the Museum of Anthropology at the University of Michigan.

One issue was how museums and Native Americans understand objects. This includes the intangible vs. tangible debate, but also whether the public has a right to view these objects, and how to deal with conflicting views between Native Americans in different tribes or within the same tribe. Museums need to understand the importance of the intangible while Native Americans need to understand museums have to follow their own set of protocols. One protocol is the Freedom of Information act which forces museums to give information about objects even if museums remove them from display. Disputes between tribes will always be complicated in that choosing one over the other or even a compromise will cause problems.

My next issue was conservation. Dilemmas include who is allowed to handle the objects, what happens when Native American necessities contradict the practice of conservation and how conservators are expected to display and do their work. Some tribes require that only men or non-menstruating women conserve the art which especially difficult at places like NMAI where most of the conservators are women. Ceremonial maintenance like feeding or praying should be done by the tribe. Polly Nordstrand of the Hopi tribe once said, “In many Indian communities, some knowledge is seen as a privilege for the few, not a right for all”. (Ogden, 6) Some objects like totem poles are meant to deteriorate and return to the earth. A successful compromise is the Tlingit totem pole which was returned to Alaska in exchange for a modern one created by a traditional carver. The best compromise of display is an exhibit opens on May 22, 2010 at the Alaska Heritage Center. A special case and mounting system was created to traditionally exhibit objects, but will move the selected object to a controlled room to be handled and touched. Classes allow native Alaskans to learn traditional crafts by examining these objects.

Repatriation was my third issue. We must not forget the strain NAGPRA put on native people. Not all tribes had the time or money in the early 90’s to accept all items. It also brings up the issues of whether Native Americans are given an unfair advantage, what happens to the repatriated items, and the idea of reburying the dead. Not many religions have a protocol for reburying the dead. While tribes may want their ancestors’ remains back, sometimes they force others to rebury their dead or ignore the issue deeming the remains too spiritually damaged to repatriate.

The main thing I’ve learned is that even though consultations may be expensive and time consuming, their occurrence can result in extremely important answers for everyone involved. These answers can be translated into actions that benefit both museums and Native Americans. Every source I found or have talked to agreed on the need for consultations. These conferences can facilitate conservation in other forms of art like modern art. It is the necessary catalyst in the progression of this ever-changing field.

*Ed Tiulana, Cultural Programs Coordinator at the Alaska Heritage Center, teaching a native art class

Links:

http://www.firstalaskansmagazine.com/index.php?issue=02-2009&story=relics
** http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/2001/07.19/28-totempole.html
* http://www.alaskanative.net/en/home/

The Parthenon under construction
The Paintings at Knossos

Novik:

Gabi Dolff-Bonekaemper writes in a Getty Conservation Institute newsletter that the feeling generated at a sight has been described as the ‘genius loci’, or the spirit of the sight. This spirit “is often hard to describe… it makes people feel that they share past experiences, as if there were a direct access to history.” Is it possible to ensure that future generations can experience these sites in the same way our ancestors have? Do the costs of preserving an ancient site outweigh the benefits? Although it can be argued that the reconstruction of archaeological sites is unauthentic, restoration efforts should be employed as often as possible in order for the site to continue to transmit some semblance of its original message.

The Roman Colosseum has endured many centuries of wear and destruction. These days, it is estimated that only 20% of the original structure survives. In 1973 conservators began an $18 million dollar project to stabilize the amphitheater so that it was safe for tourists. However, they decided not to rebuild any of the theatre; all efforts are focused on excavation and restoration. Does the presence of a somewhat empty shell of the once magnificent structure keep the ruin from transmitting its history and its message?

The Grecian Parthenon is employing a method called anastylosis in which original material is used to reconstruct an ancient structure. However, often the original material is not available, or sturdy enough to support the ancient temple. In these cases, ancient material is filled with new Pentelic marble to provide stability, and scientists have recently determined that modern materials such as titanium clamps are more durable then iron in the maritime climate. Because the architects realize that the use of new material in the reconstruction is not ideal, the focus on the aspect of reversibility so that their actions can be mended in the future.This method of reconstruction seems to be a beneficial step up from the mere stabilization of the Roman Colosseum. The architects and conservators are rebuilding with as much original material as possible, and taking the idea of reversibility into account. The drawbacks, however, are also clear. The original conservators ripped any trace of non-classical stylistic elements from the site, limiting our current historical view. Centuries of material and evidence were removed in order to project a Parthenon that existed for a very limited amount of time. Does the removal of this evidence hide the truth from viewers? Is it projecting an untrue temple?

Knossos is the site of an ancient palace on the island of Crete. The site had been excavated multiple times throughout history, but in 1900, archaeologist Sir Arthur Evans took over the excavations. Although Evans was highly enthusiastic about the Minoan culture, he was largely self-taught, and not always scientifically precise. Evans hired artists and architects to restore the rooms he excavated. He dubbed the process ‘reconstitution’, claiming that he was preserving the site through reconstruction. Evans employed artists to reconstitute the throne room, however it is clear to modern archaeologists that these paintings are not based on any evidence, and are purely the imaginings of the artist. Much of the site seems to be influenced by styles popular during Evan's time such as art deco. Similar to the problems surrounding the reconstruction of the Parthenon, Knossos is a multi-period site that has been reduced to one point in history. In addition to this, the point in history that Sir Arthur Evans chose may have never existed, further complicating the quest for truth.

Now that we have looked at situations in which reconstruction is problematic, let us review its benefits. As in the case of the Parthenon and the Colosseum, these ancient sites provide society with a renewed sense of pride and nationalism. They are symbols for the country and for its rich history. Since these sights are such strong historic symbols, they also attract a lot of people, boosting local economy and recognition. Reconstruction lures these tourists to the site and also helps to ensure the preservation of the site for future tourists. Reconstruction can also serve as research for ancient building methods, which leads to an addition to the general knowledge of the world. These sites function as entertainment to modern tourists, and for that reason it is too idealistic to assume that they will continue to transmit their message in this age of technology. Archaeological sites must adapt to the changing tastes and fleeing attention spans of the modern world. However, it is immensely important to maintain scientific and factual integrity, and the concept of reversibility must always be taken into consideration. But in this age, there is nothing wrong with a gimmick. If a site needs to reconstruct in order to interest and educate the new generations, then it is step that should be taken. Yet it is important that the site looks back to the methods employed previously, and that they learn from the mistakes we have investigated.

Images: http://images.cdn.fotopedia.com/flickr-2921956987-image.jpg,http://www.utexas.edu/courses/introtogreece/lect20/dbParthenonConstruction.jpg

The Power of Hate-Barr

When the Croatians and Serbs retracted from the Bosnian Parliament in the October of 1991 to create their own assemblies, the initial step to undermining the thousands of years of Serbian, Croatian, and Muslim co-existence had been taken. This symbolic initiativethat divided the three ethnicities on a political level foreshadowed the future animosity, which caused rampant destruction in the civil war, which raged from 1992-1995. Death, demolition, and deteriorating infrastructure characterized the situation. While all sides hold responsibility for some of the carnage, the Serbs in particular engaged in ethnic cleansing, rape, and conducting large prison camps where inmates were tortured and executed. However, it was not just people who were victimized by this conflict. The Serbs and the Croats also sought to destroy Bosnia’s rich and diverse heritage; thus many important monuments such as the Stari Most, the National and University Library of Bosnia and Herzegovina in Sarajevo, and the Ferhadija Mosque were targeted as testaments to Bosnia’s multicultural and Ottoman traditions. Both the ruin and the reconstruction of these historic sites emphasize the tense atmosphere that remains in the country despite the official commitment to reconciliation.

Built in 1566 by Ottoman architect Mimar Harjrudin, the Stari Most was feat of engineering genius. Teenagers, travelers, lovers, and businessmen gathered on this beloved bridge that represented the link between the East and West as well as the connection between the Catholic Croats and Bosnian Muslims. It was the Stari Most’s multi-cultural connotation that incited the nationalistic Croatian military to destroy the architectural wonder on November 9, 1993. Both the international community and the residents of Mostar decided to spend 15.5 million dollars to create an exact replica of the bridge. Unfortunately, many of the original stones had pitted and corroded causing the Turkish construction firm to cut new blocks from the same quarry. The project was completed in 2004 and was supported by most of the town that wanted the tourists the bridge would bring to the town. Years of war and its aftermath economically devastated the city. Only a few Croatian extremists balked that the bridge was not a symbol of the town and was “not worth the finger of one Croat soldier.” However, the Stari Most has not healed the wounds that many people hoped that it would. The Bosnian and Croatian sides run separate municipal services and rarely interact, especially at night. Visitors come to see the bridge, not the hurt that continues to tear the sides apart so have done little to mend the emotional scars.

Likewise, the National and University Library of Bosnia and Herzegovina, founded in 1945, also suffered as a result of its cosmopolitan significance. This major collection occupied the Vajencia, a Moorish-Revival building constructed in 1896, which embodied both Austrian-Hungarian and Islamic influences. Soon after its completion, the building was regarded for its beauty. The Vajencia served a variety of functions and finally become the home of the library in 1951. Between 1945 and 1992, the facility amassed more than three million item including manuscripts and volumes written in languages of the ethnicities and creeds that have shaped Bosnia. Like the Stari most, the library’s diverse collection sparked the anger of the radical Serbian leader, Nikola Koljevic, who resented the scholarship, Ottoman influence, and variety of cultures the institution represented. Thus, on August 25, 1992, Ratko Mladic troops shelled the library. Many locals tried to save the collection, but only ten percent of the collection was recovered. Sadly, the reconstruction of the library has been plagued with difficulties including financial and logistical problems. Dr. Eunes Kujundzic, the director of the National andnd University Library of Bosnia and Herzegovina, has stressed the urgency to rebuild. UNESCO and the European Union greatly contributed to renovating the Vajencia but faulty finances have stalled the initiative. The library is operating out of academic buildings of the University of Sarajevo with less space and less staff members. Many nations have donated services and money to restoring the collection. Harvard and Yale in particular have worked to create a master bibliography of the library’s holdings, and some countries have helped train staff members with new technologies. These positive steps are overshadowed by the lingering question of whether the library is going to be relocated in the Vajencia and the fact that thousands of documents and records will never be able to be recovered. This loss of materials and former glory is a tragic result of the conflict.

While the Serbians attacked cultural heritage landmarks, they particularly sought to obliterate the mosques. The Ferhadija Mosque had been an emblem of Banja Luka for both Muslim and Christian citizens. On May 7, 1993, the Bosnian Serbs detonated this important structure with plastic explosives and a slow blowing fuse. It was especially important for the extreme Serbs to raze the site and then later try to shape a new history that left the Ferhadija Mosque out of photographs and documents, thus attempting to form a purified past and future. The Muslim citizens immediately started to push for the reconstruction of the mosque, but they encountered significant resistance and discrimination despite the approval of global organizations and the United States. The May 2001 riot attested to this active and violent prejudice that persisted after the war. Finally, the Bosnian government granted the Muslims the permission to reconstruct their mosque, which uses traditional methods and sixty percent of the original materials. It can be deemed as a success but not a victory untainted by the strong hatred of the Bosnian Serbian leaders and population.

Each of these sites represents Bosnia past, but as their reconstruction exemplifies, stones and mortar cannot completely erase the burdens and discord between the groups. Bosnia’s culture changed with the war,and the challenges with reinstating these monuments reflects this reality. It should be noted that the Ferhadja Mosque received the most vehement contention, which accentuates the ant-Muslim feeling that permeates the nation.

The pictures were found at:

http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://johnfenzel.typepad.com/.a/6a00d83451608369e201156fd3839b970b-500wi&imgrefurl=http://johnfenzel.typepad.com/john_fenzels_blog/2009/04/balkan-redux.html&usg=__TgSxt3wu_XyG1-gtBwogR1CMCPs=&h=375&w=500&sz=131&hl=en&start=3&sig2=kpzq8MvSBJWKV042-WC5lQ&um=1&itbs=1&tbnid=KPgrmYj2UBranM:&tbnh=98&tbnw=130&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dstari%2BMost%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26client%3Dsafari%26sa%3DN%26rls%3Den%26tbs%3Disch:1&ei=uTDnS4OEMcT7lweirIzxBg

http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://snorkig.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/p90289-mostar_bosnia_herzegovina-stari_most.jpg&imgrefurl=http://snorkig.wordpress.com/2009/11/09/9-november/&usg=__zZBtNQMroqjApvWSFgsp3CsvyMw=&h=474&w=332&sz=24&hl=en&start=12&sig2=wDebKdwfpIwiDtGQwdJfrQ&um=1&itbs=1&tbnid=HythwkxE4BDTvM:&tbnh=129&tbnw=90&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dstari%2BMost%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26client%3Dsafari%26sa%3DG%26rls%3Den%26tbs%3Disch:1&ei=BDHnS_OfCsXflgf0qJzfBg

http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://faculty.ksu.edu.sa/Alghailani/Pictures%2520Library/Ferhadija.jpg&imgrefurl=http://faculty.ksu.edu.sa/Alghailani/Pictures%2520Library/Forms/DispForm.aspx%3FID%3D9&usg=__Qea8e3WfoXRgo-fTjjLwKaVs-HE=&h=300&w=210&sz=27&hl=en&start=1&sig2=itwXxa1c5rmjimbCbVwqjQ&um=1&itbs=1&tbnid=tJeknjGco-ODdM:&tbnh=116&tbnw=81&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dferhadija%2Bmosque%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26client%3Dsafari%26sa%3DX%26rls%3Den%26tbs%3Disch:1&ei=SjHnS-qtBYGdlge48KjzBg

http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.pri.org/theworld/files/images/fragments.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.pri.org/theworld/%3Fq%3Dnode/20348&usg=__XK0K22bIVTEzAzuzidpi9W5lEcw=&h=300&w=400&sz=95&hl=en&start=10&sig2=6iw7UzuO0yDDau6ETYLxkw&um=1&itbs=1&tbnid=l9IOcTCXsBUYIM:&tbnh=93&tbnw=124&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dferhadija%2Bmosque%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26client%3Dsafari%26sa%3DX%26rls%3Den%26tbs%3Disch:1&ei=SjHnS-qtBYGdlge48KjzBg

http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.richardsilverstein.com/tikun_olam/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/sarajevo-library-serotta.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.richardsilverstein.com/tikun_olam/2008/09/07/centropas-images-of-a-lost-world-balkan-sephardic-life/&usg=__xUxt2jxyKWjIqQm5c3ZDBVHHC_M=&h=312&w=315&sz=27&hl=en&start=12&sig2=OWGfnm-iBnAfFPzWlbeUGw&um=1&itbs=1&tbnid=LoRqaM6EgpMJ-M:&tbnh=116&tbnw=117&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dlibrary%2Bof%2Bsarajevo%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26client%3Dsafari%26sa%3DG%26rls%3Den%26tbs%3Disch:1&ei=rTHnS-KvAoWdlgfuwIzuBg

http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://images.nextstop.com/__ns1__66019e95-2bf5-4eb7-b219-ab3aac630cc4_240_219&imgrefurl=http://www.nextstop.com/p/uISWXBlko2Q/vjecnica/&usg=__o0h7Xr1NGTXe8y-cysuBJK-zHNE=&h=219&w=240&sz=14&hl=en&start=25&sig2=fgXGhg-mad1qvFMvFK4Y7A&um=1&itbs=1&tbnid=_531_B2q4HP2uM:&tbnh=100&tbnw=110&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dlibrary%2Bof%2Bsarajevo%26start%3D20%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26client%3Dsafari%26sa%3DN%26rls%3Den%26ndsp%3D20%26tbs%3Disch:1&ei=5jHnS7GTCIT6lweC_5TgBg

How “Universal” is Cultural Heritage? How Do We Consume Art? -- Martinek

This week’s articles focus on where the allegiance of a conservator lies with respect to the heritage of cultural objects. The articles suggest that there are three main parties to be considered (the museum, the viewer/public, and the object itself), but focus mainly on two (the museum seems to be grouped with the object). In his article, “Historic Stewardship and the Amateur Tradition”, David Lowenthal highlights the “integrity of the object” and the need to preserve the true heritage of that object instead of endowing it with “some quasi-divine sanctity”.

STONEHENGE, an important but badly-managed heritage site

All of the articles emphasize the importance of making sources of significant heritage accessible to the public, which can’t be done if conservators are so worried about protecting the object that they build a wall between “academic” and “active” life (Lowenthal). All material is meant to disintegrate eventually over time, and while a conservator must consider the “sustainability” of an object it is important to “enable its use” for people now (Corruchaga). Do you agree? Should a conservator’s first priority be to the people or to the object and the museum which wishes to protect it? How can a museum attract people if it prefers the object’s physical preservation over the integrity of the experience people gain from interacting with it?

Elizabeth Pye points out how important and beneficial it is for people to be able to hold objects. There is an “element of exploration and discovery” that we can only find when we employ our hands, for “our facility with tools…mark us as human”. Where do human nature and emotion fit in? How important are they in preserving the integrity of heritage?

What happens when we are not only forbidden from touching the object, but from even seeing it, as in the case of many indigenous Australian sites? Andrew Thorn explores the idea of the conservator as “visitor”, an outsider who cannot possibly understand or fully appreciate the integrity of the piece that must be conserved because it is not allowed. Is it still possible for the object to maintain its integrity in this instance? How about with non-indigenous viewers? Is there a responsibility to them? Who decides and why?

Lowenthal states that “we may be more caring stewards of things” when we realize that they cannot last forever – maybe this holds true for things that we can never fully understand as well.

indigenous drawings at KADAKU, an indigenous site that is working to satisfy cultural wishes and tourist curiousity

This may also be the case in instances where we can see the object, but it is not the original. Corruchaga and Monforte talk about how public understanding and appreciation grew for Altamira when the original site had to be closed down and people had to replicate their experience in the Neocave. Even though it is not the original, the replica is effective in maintaining the integrity of the site because it shows how fragile heritage is and helps people understand the changes over time that the cave went through over time – also while allowing the site to be preserved without disturbance as well.

Most of the articles seemed to suggest that a conservator’s allegiance lay first and foremost with the object, but is this always the case? As Balachandran pointed out, where there is no provenience or site information known, preserving an artifact may actually ruin its integrity. Can we say where a conservator’s allegiance should lie (with the museum, the object, or the public and their desire to experience the object…), or are there certain instances when one party may hold more weight than another?