Cultural heritage, 'attacking protected areas is an instrument of geopolitics'

Destroying for ideological reasons, for profit or just to make a spectacle of destruction: attacks on cultural heritage are in effect instruments of war. In 2014, in Syria, Isis decreed the systematic destruction of all churches inMosul, mausoleums and pilgrimage sites (also Muslim). "Since the systematic destruction of archaeological sites in Iraq began in 2014 and 2015, the UN has intervened with resolutions condemning these incidents and reiterating the prohibition of illicit trafficking. This was no small problem, because at that time a lot of material left for Turkey, then Europe and America'. She is Cristina Tonghini, professor of Archaeology and History of Islamic Art at Ca' Foscari University in Venice, who has conducted archaeological research in Jordan, Syria and Yemen.

Professor, is it possible to quantify the cultural loss of a country at war?

"It is easier in the case of the destruction of monuments or places, less so in the case of the clandestine trafficking of movable property. The moment there is Isis, the war in Syria, the war in Iraq... the borders become permeable, and the inhabitants themselves come to traffle clandestinely to earn some money. Some scholars have tried to quantify the extent of looting of archaeological sites during the war in Syria. Satellite photos show the sites devastated by the amount of clandestine excavation in different areas: those controlled by the regime, rebels or Isis. The flagship of eastern archaeology, the site of Ebla (today Tell Mardikh), has not been spared. In Syria and Iraq, so rich in archaeology, the location of the main sites is well known; often the very people who had worked there returned during the conflict to engage in looting'.

As far as direct attacks on places are concerned, is law enough to avert them?

"It is very articulate, the result of deep reflection by the international community. One of the big problems is that not all sovereign states have ratified the Hague Convention and the various protocols. Among them is, for example, Israel. It depends on who the parties are. In the first Gulf War, the United States and England, although they had not ratified the protocols, refrained from bombing Ur and Nineveh believing that they were applying a customary rule that requires respect for cultural heritage. In the case of the looting of the Baghdad museum in 2003, on the other hand, when the US-led Western coalition invaded the country, the necessary steps were not taken to place the cultural heritage under protection, as Hague law would require. Thus the museum was looted, despite the fact that the law stipulates that the responsibility for the protection of the heritage lies with the occupants'.