To: e.d.wardini@easteur-orient.uio.no (Elie Wardini)
From: HHC@ivip.frw.uva.nl
Date: 21 Sep 94 14:45:15 MET-1
Subject: Re: Ancient Beirut vs Beirut development



Hi, when I entered the ANE list again after my return from downtown
Birut I was surprised to read your letters of concern to Michel Edde,
minister of Culture.

    As far as I know are all authorities involved in the
reconstruction of downtown Beirut encouraging archeological research.
As the leader of a mission in charge of Bey 008 I must also stress
that the use of draglines and loaders should not be a horrifying
idea. The use of these machines is common practice in archeological
fieldwork in many parts of the world. Without these machines we would
not have been able to expose 2000 square meter of Ancient Beirut.

In the exposure of 2000 sqm. we were able to trace the remains of a
quarrying site, semi-subterranean houses, a 6th millennium urban
villa, street, and part of a second villa, and the remains of the 11th
century city wall.

Throughout the excavated sequence it became clear thet every
recponstruction of Berytus has resulted in the destruction of earlier
material. The intentions of the present developpers are clearly
defined: exposure of all ancient remains before the development
starts, evaluation of the exposed remains and integration of valuable
remains into the future architectural plans.

If we agree on the fact that `archeology is systematic destruction'
we have to admit that by excavating ancient Beirut, the archeologists
are the destructors. The `treaty of Malta' says the developer of a
piece of land with archeological potential should allow and
contribute to the archeological research. All authroities and
companies involved in the reconstruction of downtown Beirut respect
these guidelines.

Hans H. Curvers
IPP, University of Amsterdam
e-mail: hhc@ivip.frw.uva.nl