Iran opens dam that archaeologists say could harm ancient sites

[Primus Pilus]

Iran on Thursday began filling a dam despite warnings from archaeologists that its reservoir will flood newly discovered antiquities and could damage Iran's grandest site, the ancient Persian capital of Persepolis.

 

At the inauguration ceremony, attended by Energy Ministry officials, pipes were opened for water to start flowing into an artificial lake created by the dam spanning the Sivand River, 840 kilometers (520 miles) south of the capital, Tehran. The lake waters will be used for irrigation for the area's farmlands...

 

Int. Herald Tribune

[Gaius Octavius]

Calls to mind what the Taliban did to the Buddhist statues and also the Aswan High Dam.

Edited April 20, 2007 by Gaius Octavius

[Nephele]

From the article: "The Iranian government has not shown much concern for ancient Persian sites, unlike the country's more recent Islamic monuments."

 

In NYC there are quite a number of Iranian immigrants who insist on identifying themselves as "Persians" -- not "Iranians". They don't do so out of fear of anti-Iranian sentiment over here. They proudly identify themselves as Persians because of their political dissent with their country of origin, and also because they no longer ethnically identify with the nation Iran as it exists today.

 

So, I'm not at all surprised that the present government of Iran is planning to destroy these ancient Persian sites, while going out of their way to preserve the more recent Islamic monuments. This all sounds more politically motivated, to me, than economically motivated.

 

-- Nephele

[Gaius Octavius]

This all sounds more politically motivated, to me, than economically motivated.

-- Nephele

 

Perhaps there is little concern for these pre-Moslem treasures on account of religion.

[The Augusta]

From the article: "The Iranian government has not shown much concern for ancient Persian sites, unlike the country's more recent Islamic monuments."

 

In NYC there are quite a number of Iranian immigrants who insist on identifying themselves as "Persians" -- not "Iranians". They don't do so out of fear of anti-Iranian sentiment over here. They proudly identify themselves as Persians because of their political dissent with their country of origin, and also because they no longer ethnically identify with the nation Iran as it exists today.

 

So, I'm not at all surprised that the present government of Iran is planning to destroy these ancient Persian sites, while going out of their way to preserve the more recent Islamic monuments. This all sounds more politically motivated, to me, than economically motivated.

 

-- Nephele

 

How right you are, Nephele. I have a work colleague whose husband is Iranian and insists on calling himself Persian too.

 

But this latest piece of hamfisted policy by old Ahmadinnerjacket doesn't surprise me in the slightest. To me it equals the insane actions of Saddam in inscibing his name on the bricks used to restore Nebuchadnezzar's palace.

[Northern Neil]

At least the Pathans of Afghanistan were destroying something which was not part of their cultural ancestry - not that this qualifies their act of vandalism. The thing that saddens me is that these sites represent the history of the Iranians - or Persians themselves. They are destroying history which is directly relevent to themselves, in much the same way as the early Christians destroyed classical statues and temples in the Dark ages. In future decades or centuries, when Islam has emerged from the angry and retrograde mindset into which it currently seems to be sinking and returned to the enlightened form it took in the 9th - 11th centuries, future Iranians will despise the small mindedness of this policy.

[The Augusta]

At least the Pathans of Afghanistan were destroying something which was not part of their cultural ancestry - not that this qualifies their act of vandalism. The thing that saddens me is that these sites represent the history of the Iranians - or Persians themselves. They are destroying history which is directly relevent to themselves, in much the same way as the early Christians destroyed classical statues and temples in the Dark ages. In future decades or centuries, when Islam has emerged from the angry and retrograde mindset into which it currently seems to be sinking and returned to the enlightened form it took in the 9th - 11th centuries, future Iranians will despise the small mindedness of this policy.

 

Indeed - and as Islam lags some 600 years behind Christianity, I suppose it is not too far-fetched to say that they are experiencing some sort of dark age now! But I am beside myself about this. I mean - Persepolis, of all places! Even Alexander's fires did not totally erase it. In fact, I have read that his burning of the capital did actually help to preserve some stone structures. However, mentioning Alexander has just lit something in my mind. He set fire to Persepolis as a symbolic act of propaganda to show that Darius' empire was gone and he was now the one and only High King. I wonder if the present Iranian government have a similar thing in mind - and, as you pointed out Neil - the Christians no doubt destroyed all reminders of 'paganism' from the same standpoint. Are the leaders of the Islamic Republic making some sort of statement here?

[Rameses the Great]

No one there cares. Since the bringing of Islam to Iran they feel they don't need anything else. If they want to destroy their past by all means let them, let them.

[Northern Neil]

...However, their past is also ours, and their own descendents may hate them for their follies. It will be a world tragedy if these sites are destroyed.

[Gaius Octavius]

The Turks and the Chinese have done the same thing recently. Upon reflexion, this does present a problem. Shall modern advancement be hindered by ancient sites? Then, again, dams in the USA are being removed for ecological reasons.

[Divi Filius]

Since the bringing of Islam to Iran they feel they don't need anything else.

 

I would say that its their contemporary mindset, more then anything else. Otherwise these structures would not have lasted as long as they did.

[Horatius]

If you read the article it actually says it COULD damage Persepolis indirectly "there are also concerns that humidity, spreading through underground waters from the dam, could damage the nearby Persepolis." Certainly nothing like the Taliban who went out of there way to dynamite the Buddhas of Bamyan or even the Vatican which built a parking lot over Roman ruins http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/546208.stm . I'd like to read some other points of view before I would jump to conclusions. I can't see where they are quite as callous about their history as some posters are making out at least. There are only a few places where you can build a dam for it to be effective. Hard to believe they are just building it to eradicate their history out of sheer vindictiveness with no benefit at all to modern day society. The Wiki article on it at least seems to be a bit more balanced. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sivand_Dam

[DecimusCaesar]

I think that historically the Iranians never showed much interest in Ancient Persian monuments. According to an article I read a while ago - perhaps the New York Book Review - the Iranians did'nt care for their pre-Islamic history (this was during the nineteenth century). I believe that only European scholars showed an interest in Ancient Persia, mostly because of Herodotus and the Empire's connection with the birth story of Western Civilisation. Later on, during the twentieth century the Iranians started showing an interest in Ancient Persia, while Cyrus the Great and other figures became national heroes.

 

It's sad therefore that some Iranians have returned to their previous attitiude on ancient history. I hope that the structures remain intact or that the government changes their minds. I'm glad that I went to see the Persian Exhibition at the British Museum.

[Gardapthia]

It sure is ironic that while the Iranians seem to show little interest in their pre-Islamic heritage, that they were quick to be critical of how the Persians were portrayed in the recent movie, 300.

[Northern Neil]

It sure is ironic that while the Iranians seem to show little interest in their pre-Islamic heritage, that they were quick to be critical of how the Persians were portrayed in the recent movie, 300.

 

Well, yes - the Persians were definitely the 'baddies' in that movie. No one wants their country to be the baddies in a movie, whether it is 300, or Mel Gibson's 'Patriot'. In both movies, there is a naive polarisation of history, and a lack of acknowledgement (in the first instance) that many Greeks fought willingly in the Persian army, and that (in the second) 'American' families of several generations standing fought for the Brits, and that Englishmen resident in America for only a few years fought with the Americans.

 

But, as Horatius says, the Iranians are not the only ones who destroy their history for short - term gain. We Brits happily plough new roads through vulnerable archaeology on a daily basis so we can continue to drive everywhere in this tiny congested island of ours. The Iranians are doing this to produce electricity and irrigation. We do this so wealthy commuters can knock 30 minutes off their driving time to work, whilst living north of London, where larger houses are cheaper. Who are the greater Phillistines?