Patterns of looting in southern IraqElizabeth C. Stone*

The archaeological sites of Iraq, precious for their bearing on human history, became especiallyvulnerable to looters during two wars. Much of the looting evidence has been anecdotal up to now,but here satellite imagery has been employed to show which sites were looted and when. Sites ofall sizes from late Uruk to early Islamic were targeted for their high value artefacts, particularlyjust before and after the 2003 invasion. The author comments that the 'total area looted... wasmany times greater than all the archaeological investigations ever conducted in southern Iraq andmust have yielded tablets, coins, cylinder seals, statues, terracottas, bronzes and other objects inthe hundreds of thousands'.

Keywords: Iraq, Wilaya, Uruk, Larsa, Babylon, Islam

Introduction

Southern Iraq, sometimes called the 'cradle of civilisation', witnessed the world's first cities,writing, professional art and many other manifestations of complex society. Moreover,its unique combination of well preserved archaeological remains together with cuneiformtablets makes ancienr Mesopotamia potentially the most knowable of all early civilisations.This archaeological heritage was well protected before the first Gulf War, but the subsequenteconomic embargo led to a dramatic reduction in the funding and personnel of the IraqiDepartment of Antiquities, leaving Mesopotamian archaeological sites largely unprotected.The pillaging of sites, especially in the south, has been reported sporadically since themid-1990s, and received greater attention following the invasion of Iraq in the spring of2003. Photographic evidence of significant damage to the major sites of Isin, Umma, Ummal-Aqarib, Zabalam, Tell Schmid, Bad Tibira. Abbas al-Kurdi and Mashkan-shapir, manyof which were supposed to have site guards, was obtained by three helicopter overflightsbetween May 2003 and January 2004. Visitors to Adab, Umm el-Hafriyat, Nippur, Larsa,and several other less well known sites in the Nasariyah area also reported significantdamage (Gibson 2003; Lawler 2003; Figure 1). These largely anecdotal reports lefi; openkey questions regarding the looting: Was it restricted to the largest sites, or were sites of allsizes affected? What role does the distribution of the modern population within Iraq playin the damage to sites? Are looters selectively targeting sites dating to particular periods andtherefore likely to generate particular kinds of artefacts? What was the effect of the 2003invasion and its aftermath on the looting of archaeological sites?

The availability of high resolution commercial satellite imagery makes it possible to beginto provide answers to these questions. Here I report the results of high resolution DigitalGlobe imagery used to investigate patterns of archaeological site looting in southern Iraq

* Department of Anthropology, SUNY, Stony Brook, NY I ¡794-4364, USA (Email: estone@notes.cc.sunysh.edu)

Received: 28 June 2007; Accepted: 13 September 2007; Revised: 24 September 2007

ANTIQUITY 82 (2008): 125-138

125

o

Patterns of looting in souther?: Iraq

Figure I. The results aj bottrig at Larsa {photo^aph taken by the author in 2003).

both before and after the 2003 war. Data from more than 1900 sites were investigated todetermine how their location within the plain, their size and the date of their dominantsurface assemblage affected the Hkelihood of looting. More hmited data were developed onthe timing of the looting by comparing imagery from both before and after the 2003 invasionof Iraq. The study focused on the geographic area included within the archaeological surveysconducted by Robert McC. Adams in the Nippur area (Adams 1981), by Henry Wright inthe vicinity of Eridu (Wright 1981), and by Adams and Hans Nissen (1972) around Uruk.rhe reasons behind this focus are twofold: all of the sites with anecdotal reports of significantlooting were within this area, and this same area had been imaged at 60cm resolution bythe Digital Globe Corporation.

Iraq became a high priority for the Digital Globe Corporation when war v/as imminent,and a majority of our images were acquired either immediately before the 2003 war orduring che following summer. Images were taken only sporadically in 2002. and after 2004.All imagery used in this study was acquired by the spring of 2006, so the latest imageavailable for this study dates to early in 2006. A total of 9729km' of imagery was examined,within which 0.87 per cent was occupied by known archaeological sites. Only rarely isthere imagery dated more than a year apart for any one site; nevertheless, more than onethird of the sites have multiple images taken at least a month apart. The surveys recordeddata on 1838 sites, almost all ofwhich have been located within the imagery and form

126

Elizabeth C. Stone

che database for this study. Those sites surveyed but not included are the few apparentlydestroyed by modern construction and those in the Eridu Basin located beyond the rangeof Digital Globes coverage. There are 1760 sites in our database which had been recordedin the Uruk, Nippur and Eridu surveys and were located on the Digital Globe imagery. Wealso have imagery for part ofthe area surveyed by Abdel-Amir Hamdani, the archaeologicalinspector for Dhi Qar Governorate, adding another 189 sites to our database for a total of1949 sites.

Locating the sites and identifying lootingIhe first step in the analysis was to locate each site recorded in the surveys on the satellitephotographs. Since the Nippur, Uruk and Eridu surveys were conducted long before theadvent of GPS or even accurate maps, the locations are not precise. In most instances it waspossible to identify the larger sites both by their size and shape and by their location relativeto landscape features recorded both in the survey maps and on our imagery. These sites _served as anchors for locating the smaller sites in their vicinity. But much ofthe deep desert 2was imaged only in the summer of 2003, leaving some sites obscured by blowing sand. Some uwinter shots were cloudy. Sites covered in dunes are difficult to pick out - unless, of course, ^they happen to have been looted, and some low sites have been ploughed over. Nevertheless,I feel confident that we identified correctly at least 95 per cent ofthe published sites. Thosesites whose locations were difficult to identify were in an area where there were no lootedsites and either within dune fields or in areas that have now been ploughed. Thus, even iftheir exact location is in error, the data on whether or not they were looted is not.

Looting holes vary in their density, distribution and visual traces. Some sites had only asingle hole, others thousands; in some the holes varied in size and shape, in others (almostalways the larger sites) they were more regular; in some the looting was fresh, with sharpedges casting deep shadows, in others they were old and erosion had softened their edgesand partially filled in the holes. In Figure 2, the February and December 2003 images giveevidence of fresh looting, based on the sharp edges ofthe holes and the dark shadows withinthem. By contrast, many of the same holes seen in earlier imagery are difficult or impo-ssible to make out in the August 2003 and September 2005 imagery, with only the largestholes still casting deep shadows. Both weather and light conditions varied from image toimage. We therefore had to rely on a visual estimate, taking into consideration the sizeofthe site, the spacing of looting holes in different areas and their spatial distribution. Itwas only at the end of this project that we digitised the margins of each site to arrive at amore accurate size estimate than was available from the publications. During this processwe made new estimates of the amount of looting at each site and compared these withthose recorded earlier. Apart from those sites examined at the outset ofthe project (wherecorrections needed to be made), the two estimates were generally consistent, and wherethere were discrepancies, they were within 10 per cent of each other. All such estimates weremade hy the author, it must be stressed that these estimates reflect only the area covered bylooting holes, not their depth.

Measuring the circumference of a site can be very easy in some instances, but in manycases the boundary of the site fades into the surrounding landscape, and boundaries of

127

Patterns of looting in southern Iraq

Kisurra[August 200:

0 125 250 500 750metres

Phi Qar Survey 238: Tell al-UolwiyatI February 2 0 0 3 H Í B ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ H ¡August 2003|

0 50 100 200 300metres

Figure 2. Digital Globe imagery showing (top) Kisurra, and (bottom) Tellal-Uolwiyat over time.

128

Elizabeth C. Stone

Table 1. Site size and looting.

Size (ha)

0.1-3.03.15.35.4-8.99.0-15.515.6-3131.1-8787.1 300300.1-600

# Sites

10394102301487432104

% Sites looted

28.87%45.61%50.00%57.43%66.22%78.12%90.00%50.00%

Total ha

15831654158616801624165014441785

% of ha looted

5.05%7.68%8.01%3.18%

11.76%19.94%26.39%10.76%

Mean % looted

15.32%16.95%15.82%15.53%17.94%25.52%28.56%25.50%

some sites have been encroached upon by recent agriculture. In these instances we used therecords ofthe dimensions ofthe sites recorded in the publications as a guide. However, insome cases, especially where looting is present, it became clear that some sites were actuallylarger than had been recorded at the time ofthe ground survey. These more or less accurate "Oevaluations oí site size made it possible to divide the sites into eight groups of site sizes (see -CTable 1). This record of site size could also be combined with the estimate of how much of .^the site was looted to develop ati estimate ofthe hectarage of site surface destroyed for eachlooted site.

Additional data were derived from the publications ofthe surveys. The date of each site'slast fluorescence was used as a means of predicting the dominant surface deposit accessibleto looters. We were also able to assign the major period of occupation to two sites which werenot subjected to an intense surface collection by Adams, Nissen or Wright, Abu Salabikhand Lagash. Adams (1981: 294) discusses the assessment made by Vaughn Crawford forAbu Salabikh, and the intensive surface survey conducted at Lagash by Elizabeth Carteretal. (1989-90) permits the data from Lagash to be included in our analysis. This approachis certainly crude. In some instances, for example, an early site with a Parthian cemeterywould be recorded with the early date - since this is certainly the dominant assemblage,even though the cemetery was perhaps more likely to attract looters. However, it seemedbest to be consistent and not cherry-pick the data. Because the Dhi Qar survey recordedonly presence/absence information on the dates of occupation, its sites were omitted in ourinvestigation into the time periods of interest to the looters. Also omitted were the sites inthe Nippur survey (Adams 1981: 256, 265-6, 280, 293-4) that were derived from the IraqiDepartment of Antiquities Inspectorate of Surveys records, but not visited and thereforenot subjected to a more in-depth analysis by Adams.

Temporal data were obtained from nearly 50 per cent of the sites with images datedmore than one month apart. Here the differences between the sites in various images wereexamined and any changes in the amount of looting between images and how fresh thelooting holes appeared in each image were recorded.

Looting trends and modern population (Figure 3)Modern population density is highest near the Tigris, Euphrates and Gharraf rivers. Ourarchaeological data, however, come from areas which were well-watered in antiquity but were

129

Patterns of looting in southern Iraq

LootingIntensity• 1 -10%

> n - 2 0 %

• 21-30%

» 31-40%

41-50%

51-80%

61 .70%

71 -80%

91 -95%

HectaresLooted

0 1 - 2 0 0

20 1 - 40 0

40 1 - 60 0

60 1 - 80 00

80.1 • 100.0

100 1 - 120,0

120,1-140 0

140.1 -160,0

160.1-180,0

180.1 -2O0.0

Looting Intensity

Figure 3. (a) Intensity of site looting (percentage of the site covered in looting holes) mapped against a 10km neighbourhoodanalysis of modern population data from Iraq, (b) Hectares looted mapped over a ¡0km neighbourhood analysis of modernpopulation data from Iraq, (c) The date of available Distal Globe Quickbird Imagery. Data on modern populations weretaken from the LandScanTM Global Population Database. Oak Ridge (TN): Oak Ridge National Laboratory. Available athttp://www. omLgov/landscan/.

mostly desert in the 1960s and 1970s, although the Dhi Qar survey includes sites locatedwell within the modern irrigated zone. The most intensely looted sites - as measured by thepercentage covered in looting holes - are in the central part of our study area (Figure 3a). Inthe areas to the north, south, east and to a lesser extent west, fewer sites have suffered fromlooting and the degree of looting is less severe. Intense looting is most common close to theboundaries between the settled area and the desert, a pattern seen even more clearly in thelocation of those sites with the most looted hectares - the large, heavily looted sites (Figure3b). It seems reasonable to conclude that those sites selected for intense activity were farenough away from modern settlement that this activity could be carried out unmolested,yet close enough to attract a large labour force.

Looting trends and site size (Figures 4 and 5)The vast majority of sites excavated by archaeologists in southern Iraq have been large, almostall wirh surface areas of over 40ha. Moreover, the three helicopter trips noted above targeted

130

Elizabeth C. Stone

J

i

5= ^ o .sO O O OOO O) •>- o

oT

o0

c T* ^o

o

o

o o

m <o

o•

rsi

''í "í lOui (O ^

4 4 6fO lO O)

Figure 4. Looting of sites dating from the Early 'Uhaid through Ur lU-ljirsa periü<h.

131

Patterns of looting in southern Iraq

IV

i

"o o «I

o.

•

40%

o•

co

•

50%

oo

TO)

•

60%

ooc

o

oO_ l

ctí0)

Q.

£?o

' -

(0.co

o

o

GO

OM

•

(0.C

oöoCO

mx:

00.0

ro m 03

ro in O)

N

Figure 5. Looting of sites dating from the Old Babylonian through Late Islamic periods.

132

Elizabeth C. Stone

known, large sites {often the same ones), leaving the impression that it was these sites, andnot their smaller contemporaries, that were the focus of the most intense looting. Sincesmall sites have rarely been subjected to formal excavation, we remain largely in the dark asto whether these smaller sites are likely to contain the kinds of objects that interest looters.Traditionally archaeologists and Assyriologists {e.g. Pollock 1999: 60-83) have interpretedthese as having been populated by a rural population who lacked rhe wealth and privilegesof their urban counterparts, but others (e.g. Posrgate 1991: 83) suggest that the rural areaswere more strongly integrated with the urban-dominated culture. Certainly some smallsites outside of the geographic area of concern here (al-Gailani 1965; Baqir 1946; 1959;Hamoodi 1990; Hussein 1999-2000; 2001-2002; Kepinski-Lecomte 1992; Mustafa 1949).mostly dating to the second millennium BC, have been excavated and yielded materialremains that differ little from their larger contemporaries {Malko 2006), but it is not clearwhether such relatively rich rural sites existed at other times and places. Therefore, since itcan be taken as axiomatic that sites will only be looted if they contain objects of interestto collectors, information on whether the small sites suffered similar patterns of looting as _the larger ones not only tells us something about the illegal antiquities trade, but also of the ®degree of differentiation or integration of rural life in ancient Mesopotamia. S

The size data recorded for all ofthe sites in our study-those from the Nippur, Uruk, Eridu Äand Dhi Qar surveys - allow an evaluation ofthe degree to which the looters selected largesites over their smaller counterparts. Table 1 shows that the percentage of looted sites in eachsize category increases with site size, with the exception ofthe largest sites, where local guardshave often been effective at protecting the sites. Only four sites fall into this category, Uruk,Larsa, Lagash and Girsu. Of these only at Larsa, where the guard was murdered during the1991 uprising, has large scale looting taken place. Although the two per cent of sites over31ha in size were certainly more aggressively targeted, no significant difference in lootingintensity can be determined among the various size categories below that. Indeed, there islittle difference in the percentage of site hectares that were looted or the looting intensity(the percentage of each site that was looted) between the various site size categories up to31 ha. This suggests that at least some very small sites were considered a valuable source forantiquities - some so much so that their surfaces are almost completely covered in lootingholes.

Archaeological periods targeted by the looters (Figures 4 and 5)

A key question for this study is whether there exist other factors, beyond site size andlocation, which drove the looting in southern Iraq. Is the looting of archaeological sites inthis area random, or are sites selected because they have accessible material from periodsespecially likely to yield marketable antiquities? We should also examine whether the periodof occupation affected the degree to which small sites were looted. To answer chis, wewill look only at the sites recorded in the Nippur. Uruk and Eridu survey areas where anassessment ofthe dominant surface assemblage can be made.

Temporal data for the Uruk and Nippur survey sites is provided in a consistent mannerby Adams {1981). Wright (1981), however, used different criteria, with the result thathe grouped some periods together which were distinguished by Adams. This results in

133

Patterns of looting in southern Iraq

Table 2. Period of occupation and looting.

Mean %Mean site looting Total ha. % ha. % of all Mean area

Period # Sites size (ha) % looted on sites looted looted looted ha. looted (ha)

Early UbaidLate UbaidEarly UrukMiddle UrukLate UrukJemdet-NasrEarlyDynastic IEarly Dynastic II-IIIAkkadianUr III LarsaOld BabylonianKassiteMiddle BabylonianNeo-BabylonianAcbaemenidParthianSassanianEarly IslamicMiddle IslamicLate Islamic

26

2515765151175

10071

124575672

292353229

811!

1.453.032.952.444.263.376.86

122.1616.1215.7811.895.586.094.184.024.965.915.942.34

33.39

0%6%6%1%

12%13%21%65%66%25%27%18%23%

3%12%10%7%5%2%4%

0.0%11.7%31.2%9.0%

21.2%21.7%14.2%19.3%54.0%23.2%20.0%18.8%18.0%11.9%20.9%18.2%13.2%11.6%2.1%

10.3%

01.154.090.46

40.1422.4373.8377.5152.97

389.27225.71126.9178.836.86

35.42150.03144.2665.150.42

15.24

0.00%6.32%5.54%1.26%

12.40%13.05%21.09%5.77%

65.72%24.67%26.74%18.34%22.70%

2.93%12.24%10.36%6.91%4.79%2.25%4.15%

0.00%0.08%0.27%0.03%2.67%1.49%4.90%4.92%3.52%

25.85%] 4.99%8.43%5.23%0.46%2.35%9.96%9.58%4.33%0.03%1.01%

0.000.380.820.231.291.022.317.05

13.247.635.792.703.150.43I.Ol1.191.060.900.060.61

an apparent absence of sites dating to Early Uruk, Middle Uruk, Achaemenid, Parthian,Middle and Late Islamic periods for the Eridu Basin. Lagash has been included in thisanalysis even though it was only visited during the Dhi Qar survey since the intense surfacesurvey conducted by Elizabeth Carter et al. (1989-90) allows us to date its predominantsurface collection to the later Early Dynastic period.

Not unexpectedly, early sites dating to the Ubaid and the earlier Uruk periods (Figure 4;Table 2), which lack the cylinder seals, tablets, statuary, coins and other elaborate objectswhich seem to be of interest to collectors, show relatively low levels of looting. This begins tochange in the Late Uruk and Jemdet-Nasr, where the sites between 3 and 9ha in size receivethe greatest attention, and at sites dating to Early Dynastic 1. This intensity increased stillmore at the later Early Dynastic and especially Akkadian sites. All but one of the six siteswith Akkadian surface material showed evidence For recent looting. But the value accordedto Akkadian artefacts is nothing new since many of these sites had already suffered theattention of looters as long as four decades ago (Adams 1981: 276, 284; Adams & Nissen1972: 224). This was only very rarely the case for sites dating to other periods, and wherepresent, was generally associated with cemeteries. Intense looting is also seen at many ofthesites dating from Ur III through Middle Babylonian periods (Figure 5), where attention isfocused both on the larger sites, and on those less than 9ha in size. Neo-Babylonian sites,though common, were left largely intact. A second peak in looting is seen at Achaemenidand Parthian sites, while Sassanian and especially later Islamic sites are less disturbed.

134

Elizabeth C. Stone

These data indicate that the date of the surface assemblages of sites docs indeed have aprofound impact on their likelihood of being looted. Those sites apt to yield the best cylinderseals (Akkadian), cuneiform tablets (Ur III, Old Babylonian) and early coins (Achaemenid,Parthian) show much more evidence for looting than other periods. There is, however,the issue of site size to be considered here. Within the heavily looted Akkadian throughMiddle Babylonian sites, there is some emphasis on Ur Hi to Larsa and Kassite period sitesbelow 5ha in size, and especially those below 9ha, although most attention was still paid tothe larger sites. For the Achaemenid and Parthian periods looters emphasised larger sites,whereas there was more emphasis on small sites dating to the subsequent Sassanian atidEarly Islamic times. Altogether, our data suggest considerable selectivity in the sites whichwere targeted.

The chronology of lootingOfthe 1949 sites examined, only 743 can be seen in more than one ¡mage, and of those, _ .only 213 were looted, representing 26 per cent of all looted sites. Our attempt to understand 2when the looting occurred is therefore based oti a more limited sample than was available for QJthe rest of the analysis presemed here. Although only213 sites cati be used in this endeavour, !Ssome sites were imaged more than a month apart as many as five times. We therefore havea total of 348 pairs of images taken at different times at individual sites.

As noted above. Digital Globe imagery provides sufficient detail to allow fresh looting tobe distinguished from older activity on the basis ofthe sharpness ofthe sides ofthe holes. Fortbe earliest image of each site we therefore recorded whether or not it had been looted andif so whether these traces were old or recent. For subsequent images, we recorded any visiblechanges, again distinguishing between fresh and older lootitig. The imagery has sufficientclarity that it is possible to compare pairs of ¡mages hole by hole to determine whether anynew activity had taken place. Where older holes were re-excavated, which has certainly beendocumented by journalists who have visited the sites (Joanne Farchakh-Bajjaly,/>írí. comm.),recent activity is often v¡s¡ble ¡n the form of freshly dug earth which is darker than the restofthe surface ofthe site.

Our data suggest that the mass of small to medium sized sites lying unguarded in thecountryside were treated differently from the large, well-known sites, all of which hadsite guards, some more effective than others. The many small and medium s¡zed sitesshow evidence of intense looting immediately before the war, suggesting that the threatof hostilities - and presumably the mistaken expectation of increased security thereafter -stimulated an unprecedented level of activity. Of the 114 looted sites that had multipleimagery and were imaged in February 2003, 85 per cent show evidence of fresh looting.ln the immediate post-war period, by contrast, most of these sites show little change andthe holes that were visible in the earlier imagery have been eroded. Although the sample issmall, it appears that as the summer oF2003 progressed, looting resumed at some ofthe sitesthat had been attacked before the war, although at least two-thirds remained untouched.Some sites show evidence for intense looting in the autumn of 2003, but this seems tohave died down again later. The rare instances where we have multiple images of lootedsites beginning by early 2003 and continuing ¡nto 2004-6 suggest that there was little

135

Patterns of looting in southern Iraq

looting at these smaller sites during the last part of our time sample. It should be noted,however, that most of this more recent imagery comes from the Dhi Qar province whichis the one place where extensive efforts to limit the looting were conducted hy the ItalianCarabinieri.

These observations do not apply to the major sites, where we can bring to bearresources other than the Digital Globe imagery. Many were pictured between 2000and 2001 in archaeological site protection planning maps provided hy the CoalitionProvisional Authority, Ministrj'^ of Culture, and featured in the helicopter photographstaken by John Russell and the Italian Carabinieri between the autumn of 2003 and January2004.

The major sites fall into three categories: those that had heen excavated for decadeshy foreign archaeologists, those left unattended except for a few site guards, and thoseexcavated year round hetween 1999 and 2002 for their protection. In the latter instance, theDepartment of Antiquities sent permanent teams to work at some of those sites most badlylooted during the embargo period, on the principle, which worked, that the presence ofarchaeologists at sites not only discourages looters but also provides legitimate employmentfor the local workforce.

It is perhaps not surprising that among the major sites excavated hy foreign expeditionsNippur and Uruk have fared best, perhaps because of their long history of employing localresidents. There was only minor damage at Nippur and none at Uruk. By contrast, Larsa,2 site excavated for decades hy the French but whose guard had heen murdered during the1991 uprising, was very badly damaged (Figure 1). The eastern half of this ancient city wasbulldozed, and when the National Geographic group visited the site in May 2003, there wasample evidence of recent looting on the western half {Lawler 2003). No other site in oursample has anything like this evidence for the use of earth moving machinery for looting,although we do encounter occasional hackhoe cuts, and at some smaller sites in the easternportion of the Dhi Qar survey area machinery designed to stabilise dunes seems also tohave heen used to aid the looters. Eridu Survey site 13 (Wright 1981: 338), a small earlysecond-millennium BC site located just to the east ofthe boundary ofthe Tallil Air Base(near Ur), was completely flattened between August 2004 and August 2005 as part ofthedevelopment ofthe base.

The damage to Isin, a site excavated hy the Germans has been widely reported. TheUNESCO group who visited the site in June 2003 reported that looters were tunnellingdown to reach lower levels (M. Van hs%y pers. comm.). This deep looting can be identifiedin the Digital Globe imagery both hy the larger size and blackness ofthe holes and hy thedarker colour of the excavated soil. Isin is the only site where this is evident. The deeplooting seems to have commenced in February 2003 and accelerated immediately followingthe war.

Looting had begun at Mashkan-shapir by 2001 and its cemetery and neighhouring areaswere targeted, almost certainly in the months preceding the war. The photographs takenhy John Russell in January of 2004 reveal the devastation vividly, hut indicate that lootingsubsequent to the outbreak ofthe war has heen minor.

As described above, in 1999 the Department of Antiquities initiated a programme ofyear-round excavations at some of the major sites which had experienced severe looting

136

Elizabeth C. Stone

after 1994. When these expeditions were withdrawn late in 2002 as war loomed, thelooters moved back, and inflicted further damage on the important late third to earlysecond-millennium sites of Wilaya, Umma, and Umm al-Aqarib. Zabalam and Tell Schmidhad already been very extensively looted before the Iraqi rescue excavations and subsequentlooting has not expanded the area under attack.

Of the major sites which had been left largely untended, Bad Tibera was already largelydestroyed by the eve of the war, and Kissura, which had suffered one wave of lootingbefore the end of 2000, experienced a second, much more devastating attack betweenFebruary and August 2003 (Figure 2a). Some sites, like Shuruppak, had suffered onlyscattered looting before the war, but we have no subsequent imagery and do not know theirfate.

ConclusionsSite looting in Iraq has been pervasive, with sites of all sizes and periods affected. Emphasis,however, has been on the largest sites and those dating to periods most likely to generatecylinder seals, cuneiform tablets, and, to a lesser extent, early coins.

The spatial distribution of the looting - concentrated as it is in the central part ofour study area - suggests that many interesting sites still have intact surfaces available forinvestigation in areas like central Babylonia and the Eridu Basin which have been less badlyhit. If order can be re-established, a large-scale, internationally aided, rescue programmemight still be able to recover useful information from the sites in the heartland of ancientSumen

There are some indications that looting of the mass of small and medium-sized siteshas died down since 2003, and perhaps the market for Mesopotamian portable antiquitieshas finally been saturated. This would not be surprising; the total area of intensive lootingadds up to 15.75km" - an area many times greater than all archaeological investigationsever conducted in southern Iraq - and must have yielded tablets, coins, cylinder seals,statues, terracottas, bronzes and other objects in the hundreds of thousands. It remains to beseen how the unbaked clay tablets, always fragile when removed from their archaeologicalmatrices, survive prolonged clandestine storage in buildings which almost certainly lacktemperature and humidity controls. It is also not clear whether the illicit market is largeenough to absorb this quantity of material. If not, the archaeological and Assyriologicalcommunities will need to develop a rescue programme designed to recover, conserve andeventually return these materials to Iraq.

Contextual information is irretrievably lost for those objects which have been exportedfrom Iraq, but even more material must still lie within the spoil heaps left next to the lootingholes at the sites. It is expected that these are full of potsherds and broken objects, but it isless clear whether unbaked tablets would have survived such partial reburial. Nevertheless adetailed study ofthe spatial distribution of the material from the dumps could recover someinformation from this disaster. This research should include not only the large cities butalso those small sites that were heavily looted. The very fact of their attracting the attentionofthe looters suggests that they were rich in artefacts, and their investigation could redress

137

Patterns of looting in southern Iraq

the excessive emphasis on large sites chat has characterised Mesopotamian archaeology tothis day.

Acknowledgements

The Quickbird imagery was purchased using funds provided by the National Geographic Society, the NationalEndowment for the Humanities, the State Department, rhe Joiikowslcy Family Foundation, the National ScienceFoundation and private donations.

ReferencesADAM.S. R. M C C . 1981. Heartland of Cities. Chicago:

University of C h i c ; ^ Press.

ADAMS. R. M C C . & H.J. NISSEN. 1972. Uruk

Countryside. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

AL- GAILANI. L. 1965. 'lell edh-Dhibai. Sumer 21:33-40.

BAQIR, T . 1946. Tell Harmal: preliminary report. Sumer2: 22-30.

-1948. Excavations at Harmal. Sumer A: 137-39.

CARTER. E . , J . BLACK & J. KENOVEH. 1989-1990.

A surface survey of Lagash, al-Hiba, 1984: shellartifacts from Lagash, al-Pliba; inscribed objectsfrom Lagash, al-Hiba and Girsu. Sumer 66: 60-83.

GIBSON, M C G . 2003. From the prevention measures tothe fact-finding mission. Museum International55/3-4: 108-18.

HAMOODI. K.K. 1990. The excavation.̂ at lell Ohibai.

Sumer 46: 91.

HUSSEIN, L M . 1999-2000. Excavations in Tell Harmal:spring 1997. 5«mfr 50: 61.

-2001/2002. Excavations in "fell Harmal: fall 1998.Sumer S\: 114-22.

KEPINSKI-LECOMTE. C. 1992. Haradum L Paris:Recherche sur les Civilisations.

LAWLER. A. 2003. Beyond the looting. NationalGeographic (October): 58-75.

MALKO. H . 2006. A comparison ofthe social andeconomic organization of cities and smallsettlements in Mesopotamia. Unpublished MAdissertation, Stony Brook University.

MUSTAFA, M.A. 1949. SoundiEig at Tell Dhibai. Sumer5: 173-86.

POLLOCK, S. 1999. Ancient Mesopotamia. Cambridge:Cambridge University I'rcss.

PosTGATF., J.N. 1991. Early Mesopotamia. I.ondon:Routledge.

WRIGHT, H . T . 1981. The southern margins of Sumer:archaeological survey in the area of Eridu and Ur,Appendix in R. McC. Adams Hearthind of Cities:295-346. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

¡38