Archaeology in this country is suffering from a serious lack of governmental funding and reform and ineffective implementation of the Constitution’s explicit laws.
It seems extremely paradoxical to discuss the problems of archaeology in Lebanon when considering the high prestige and importance that historical sites pose in the marketing of Lebanon abroad.
For such a small country, Lebanon has an extraordinary amount of historical remains left by Phoenicians, Romans, early Christians and Muslims, yet this abundance of accessible history is far from being utilized, according to Helen Sader, professor of archaeology at the American University of Beirut.
The problem, as with so many issues, lies at the feet of the government.
The current antiquities law was established under the French Mandate in 1926, replacing the Ottoman law, and was amended into its current form in 1933.
“It is this law that is still valid today with very minor modifications. This law is a good law, and has enough to protect the antiquities,” Sader said. “The problem is not so much with the law itself, which does need updating, but with implementation. Had the government followed the law, nothing of what is happening today would have happened.”
What is currently occurring is a result of serious under-resourcing, which has led to important sites being neglected or even closed in certain cases.
Another consequence is that there are no archaeological surveys for the whole of Lebanon, and no systematic surveys of ancient sites for the South, Mount Lebanon, or the coast. In the mountains no surveys have been carried out whatsoever, other than of the Roman temples in the 1920’s by a group of German archaeologists.
Sader explained that “it is a problem of politics, and of the internal apparatus of the department of antiquities. In 1966, the directorate general of antiquities was created, but this law fell short of its aim. It could not build a department of antiquities to meet the challenges of growing archaeological activity in the country, and the law came with very modest objectives.
The then-director of antiquities had his own traditional conception of archaeology, meaning every dig was run by one man and his army of workers. In this law, he thought that five trained archaeologists and 10 trainee assistants were enough to cover the five administrative areas of the country. This is still the policy today, but 15 archaeologists are only good for one dig, not for the whole of Lebanon.”
In comparative terms, she said, the Museum of London has 200 archaeologists working within the British capital alone.
A further example of under-resourcing, is that there is one archaeologist working in the Bekaa Valley, which alone, according to a survey carried out in the 1960s, has 505 sites.
“We do not have the required human potential for archaeology, and the second problem is money,” Sader continued. “Archaeology is a public enterprise, and is the responsibility of the department of antiquities. Even if you do not have enough people in your department, you can always hire freelance workers. Neither the Lebanese administrative laws allow that to happen, nor the department of antiquities has the means for such a policy,” she said.
An obvious solution would be to charge entrance fees to historic sites, but sites are “the responsibility of the Tourism Ministry, which, like all administrations, is banned from collecting money. The ministry cannot make money or profit, so much of the fundraising is through NGOs. However, NGOs cannot be relied upon and this is not what is needed. The structure of archaeology in Lebanon suffers from an old traditional view of archaeology, and from the state of the administration.”
The department of antiquities has been shifted around different ministries in the last 50 years. Initially it started under the Education Ministry, but was transferred to the Tourism Ministry in the 1960s.
“This increased the allocated money, but only to tourist attractions on the coast and Baalbek. Tourism was the sole focus; they completely neglected scientific archaeological research. Now, archaeology is part of the Culture Ministry, but this only exists on paper.”
Regarding urban planning for Beirut after the war, Sader said that the government did not take archaeology into consideration. “They planned as if Beirut was built in the Sahara, the government knew and they have no excuse.”
Sader further explained that “if there was a government policy concerning archaeological heritage, and if they were serious in protecting the Lebanese national heritage, we would be in a better position. Our major problem is that we have authorities who are not interested in protecting or planning for our national heritage. This is the least of their responsibilities, and archaeology is at the bottom of their priorities.”
Asked whether the pillaging of historical sites is still occurring, Sader said there appears to have been a sharp decrease since the end of the civil war, but dealing in antiquities still occurs, as it is legal but restricted: “Punishments that exist in Syria or Turkey are not present here, although destroying a site is a penal offense.”