Babylon was one of the great cities of the ancient world; for 1500 years it was dominant in southern Mesopotamia. In the present time, the site is representative of the way society interacts with archaeological finds, particularly those of great importance to certain cultures. Babylon was largely destroyed long ago, but the massive site still has archaeological and political significance.
Before the latest war in Iraq, archaeologists called for a concerted effort to be made to identify and preserve archaeological sites to forestall damage in a war. This was ignored for the most part. However, this is against the image that the U.S. wants to have: protectors and benefactors of mankind in general. According to President Eisenhower, the U.S. will find “ historical monuments and cultural centers that symbolize to the world all that we are fighting to preserve.” The U.S. strives to preserve culture, to protect society from the forces of destruction. At least, that is the image desired. According to this image, then, Babylon and other similar centers should have been respected and protected. However, there is an extenuating circumstance in the case of Babylon itself.
Saddam Hussein, in the style of all despots, endeavored to validate his rulership by associating himself with the glorious past, and paying homage to the past. In the process, he built a palace in (or on) Babylon, purportedly approximating the original structure. This grand gesture was hailed by the Iraqi citizens, who also hearken back to their ancestors’ glory. Thus the site of Babylon is no longer an ancient work, but now more associated with Hussein than the past. The ancient remains are few, now; most of the important artifacts were long since removed.
In response to this, the Marines are using the site as their primary base in central Iraq. This is rather a political statement in itself, rather than an effort to redress the archaeological wrongs perpetrated by Saddam Hussein. In fact, the troops themselves have shown little respect for the importance of the site. The site has been treated as simply a base, and nothing more—soil mixed with artifacts has been used for sandbags, and soil has been moved in. Roads and parking lots have been built. The U.S. troops have shown themselves worse than Saddam Hussein, who at least paid lip service to history in the reconstruction. The troops have paid attention only to politics, and not to history.
What should be done now? Should Saddam’s palace be removed, and the site be restored to its former state? Many Iraqis appreciate the palace as an honor to the ancients, so its removal would be unpopular. I think that the U.S. army should stop using the site as a base, but that careful consideration about removing the palace should be taken. Saddam built the palace for his own glory, and his name is everywhere. Should that remain? It would not be good. And yet, who else would spend the money for reconstruction? If financing could be obtained for a more accurate reconstruction, I would say that the palace should be removed; if not, leave it for now. It would be politically inexpedient to remove something so respected by the Iraqis as perhaps one of the few good things done by the past regime.
Babylon is a site of strong symbolism because of its past greatness as the most powerful city in the world. Because of that, great care should have been taken in protecting it during the war. Despite Saddam Hussein’s disfigurement of the site by the pseudo-historical reconstruction, it is still worthy of respect. To that end, the site should be vacated by U.S. troops despite its significance as one of Saddam’s palaces. If possible, the present reconstruction should be remodeled to be more accurate and to remove Saddam’s influence, but until then, the site should be simply protected.