To better understand why destroying ancient cultural heritage sites and artifacts can be considered a form of ethnic cleansing, turn to Social Identity Theory. As described by Danielle Renee Clark (2014), “Social identity theory is the social psychological process that prompts group affiliation and identity formation, intergroup conflict, and subsequently fosters links between groups and any relevant cultural heritage property. ” (Clark, 2014, 9) Membership to a group is sought out to form a selfidentity, while group identity is developed through intragroup cohesion (i. e. shared culture).
“Membership in a group leads to the systematic comparison, differentiation, and derogation of other groups. ” (Stein, 1996, 94) When groups – through subsequent comparison and need for differentiation between us/them – escalate to conflict, to the point where dehumanization and demonization occur, the stage is set for atrocities such as human rights violations, genocide, and ethnic cleansing. (Clark, 2014; Stein, 1996) Archaeological features and artifacts not only represent culture of a group, but can also hold part of their social and cultural identity. Cultural heritage property that serves to embody painful collective memories or moments of shared achievement become part of a group’s repertoire. ” (Clark, 2014, ##)
Chapman (1994) discussed this concept when describing the destruction of cultural heritage during the Yugoslav Wars in the early 1990s by stating, “Time is captured through persistence of cultural form, in material culture of all kinds… Cultural identity… is forged through association with the monuments and artefacts of past ancestors… ” (Chapman, 1994, 120) When individuals and/or roups maintain identities through these heritage features and artifacts, these items then become a tool to distinguish between cultural insiders and outsiders. HISTORY OF CULTURAL HERITAGE PRESERVATION LAWS One of the first documented instances of the desire to protect cultural art happened during the Renaissance, gaining momentum during the 16th and 17th centuries through the works of international writers. However, this desire was not just a western concept, but was also considered by non-western civilizations pre-dating the Renaissance.
Islamic law dating back to 632-634 AD, mandates the obligation to distinguish between military and non-military objects. “In accordance with the orders of the first Caliph Abu Bakr, attacks should be ‘strickly confined to military targets’ (i. e. , objects that by their nature or use are intended for the pursuit of hostilities). Thus, the Islamic concept presumes ‘all objects to be civilian unless proven otherwise. ” (Singer, 2015, ##)
The development of actual written law for the protection of cultural heritage came in 1863. Due to the Civil War, the United States (U. S. became the first nation to codify the protection of cultural sites in order to preserve sites that were considered crucial to maintaining national identity. This was known as the Liber Code, which created specific protections for museums, churches, hospitals, and other establishments deemed necessary to cultural identity. International agreements soon followed, and “came to govern the conduct of war. ” (He, 2015, ##)
In 1899 and 1907, the Hague Conventions were signed, including laws and customs of war on land, recognizing the guiding principles of warfare needed to be the protection of istorical and cultural heritage sites. (He, 2015) Additional treaties were established and sign around the globe, including the Treaty of Versailles, requiring specific cultural items to be returned to their original nations; and the ‘Roerich Pact’ – otherwise known as the Treaty on the Protection of Artistic and Scientific Institutions and Historic Monuments – which declared historic monuments and buildings (such as museums) to be considered neutral in all armed conflicts, making them exempt from military use and targeting. (He, 2015; O’Keefe, 2006)
World War II (WWII) catapulted the preservation of cultural heritage into the spotlight as Hitler both ordered the destruction of historical sites in order to decrease morale of his opponents), and the creation of trophy brigades’ that were ordered to seize specific pieces of art to relocate to Germany, as well as destroy any artwork Hitler deemed degenerate. Multiple key figures from the international community responded. In the U. S. , General Dwight D. Eisenhower ordered that when targeting historical sites, military personnel needed to show necessity over convenience.
Furthermore, in preparation for the June 6th, 1944 ‘D-Day’ attacks, he issued a memorandum instructing that any historical monuments encountered were a representation of the very culture and heritage that they were fighting to preserve and thus should not be destroyed. In addition, Pope Pius XII, knowing that Rome was a key strategic target, implored both sides to protect and preserve the religious and historical sites in, and around, Rome, arguing that the destruction of the city would defeat the purpose of conquering it. He, 2015) In the aftermath of WWII, a new international agreement – the 1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict – was created by the new developed United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) to prevent future destruction of cultural heritage sites by building upon the many international agreements regarding protection of cultural property already in place. He, 2015)
The term ‘cultural property’ was specifically used to collectively designate monuments, buildings, and objects in an international agreement, and was the first time the term was used in an international agreement. It is defined in the agreement as including both moveable and immovable property. (Oyer, 1999) The preamble of the agreement states, “Damages to cultural property belonging to any people whatsoever means damage to the cultural heritage of all mankind, since each people makes its contributions to the culture of the world. (He, 2015) The agreement included wording (including terminology such as “unavoidable” and “imperative”) that allowed for protection to be waived if they could demonstrate military necessity.
Many have taken issue and pointed out flaws in the 1954 Hague Convention agreement, such as: the lack of definition for military necessity; that the U. S. signed but did not ratify (signaling possible non-support) until 1999; divergences with religious laws (e. . , Islamic Law); and while the agreement covers external and internal conflicts, the Second Protocol does not cover extremist groups. (He, 2015) For example, in 2001, the Taliban demolished the two Bamiyan Buddha statues in Afghanistan. These statues were carved by Buddhist monks between the third and sixth centuries C. E. , one of which was the tallest known Buddha in the world at 55 meters tall. Clark, 2014) They were a pilgrimage site for Buddhists, and although Buddhism had not been practiced in the Bamiyan Valley for centuries, the local (predominately) Shia Muslim communities valued the statues. (He, 2014; Clark 2014)
“The Hazara people, an ethnic minority in Afghanistan, established cultural links to the colossal Buddhas in their valley, usurping them into their own folkloric tradition and building from the physiological ties between themselves and the statues. ” (Clark, 2014, 2) The Taliban states they demolished the statues on the basis of dolatry (in Islamic law), which was affirmed by their Supreme Court. (He, 2015) After the destruction of the Bamiyan Buddhas in Afghanistan in 2001, the 2003 General Conference of UNESCO adopted a declaration concerning the intentional destruction of cultural heritage, requesting that nations – in both conflict and peacetime – “take all appropriate measures to prevent, avoid, stop and suppress acts of intentional destruction of cultural heritage, wherever such heritage is located. (Boylan, 1993; Singer, 2015)
Additionally, Article VI emphasizes that “a State that intentionally destroys or intentionally fails to take appropriate measures to prohibit, prevent, stop and punish any intentional destruction of cultural heritage of great importance for humanity, whether or not it is inscribed on a list maintained by UNESCO or another international organization, bears the responsibility for such destruction, to the extent provided for by international law. ” (World Heritage Challenges for the Millennium, 2007: 67)
