Sandy–Agreed.

“It seems the Saudi State has no respect for history or the billions of dollars and work that goes waste every time this structure is destroyed and renovated for some petty reason like secluding the women.”

Which dealt specifically with the Kaaba in Mecca. Not even one example of the “every time” it is destroyed or renovated for a “petty” reason.

It would seem another of your negative sweeping statements, where denigrating Saudi is more important than anything real. Which is quite funny really. There is actually quite alot one could reasonably critisize- but you always stray into things you make up.

Trying to manage a city is even worse. Do I preserve this 2nd C. BCE house or do I put in a water line to serve 300K people?

Even more complex, just which historical period should be preserved? In many parts of the world, historic structures are found layer upon layer. Schliemann is criticized for plowing through six layers of historic Troy to get to what he considered ‘the Troy’ of the Iliad. Turned out he overshot and destroyed much of what he was actually looking for.

Which do you preserve? You’ve got a 19th C. site on top of an 18th C. site on top of a 17th C. site. You can exhibit only one, after all, as physics gets in the way of two objects occupying the same space.

Speaking of space, while Saudi Arabia may be big, the area around the Haram is not. It’s quite finite. That’s at least in part why it’s surrounded by high-rises–which, incidentally, replaced single-story structures.

I do stand corrected about 20th C. destruction of tombs. Again, one may not agree (as I don’t) that buildings and other historic sites provide a ‘breeding ground’ for heresy, but it’s not an irrational argument, just not a good one.

Sadly for Saudi Arabia, the early part of the 19th century, when Archeology was becoming an interest for Europeans, was characterized by tribal warfare between the Al-Wahhab and tribes of the Hijaz. As you point out, like other warriors and conquerors, the religious symbols of the conquered were destroyed by the Al Wahhab during the First Saudi State. Meanwhile, the British were, in their colonies, sharing their new found love of archeology, and establishing institutions, learned journals, etc.

In the later part of the 19th century one Dr James Burgess was both president of one such institute and founder of one such journal:

The founding of the journal Indian Antiquary in 1872 by James Burgess enabled publication of important inscriptions and their decipherment by scholars like Buhler and Fleet, Eggeling and Rice, Bhandarkar and Indraji. from the History of the Archeological Survey of India (ASI founded by the British in 1784).

A great-great (etc) someone of yours?

Well, at least in Europe they don’t have space. Countries are quite small in size – some countries are smaller than the big cities in India. Saudi Arabia doesn’t have any problem of space. In India, heritage archaeological sites protected by the Archaeological Survey of India are preserved by all means, no matter what the cost. Still, it is unfortunate that we are not able to preserve many other sites. But it is certainly not the Indian government’s policy to go all out and desecrate and destroy the monuments.

In Saudi Arabia it is a conscious, vicious Sate policy and it shows the kind of society the Saudi society is.

There can be no excuse for building public toilets over the graves of early and respected figures of Islam. This is not progress, this shows a diseased society going decadent. Public toilets can be built elsewhere and there is no need to destroy these graves in the name of progress.

Yes, whether from 18th century CE, 8th century CE or 8000 BCE – all archaeological monuments are precious and they must be preserved by all sensitive societies. Progress need not be at the cost of archaeological sites.

Please John, for heaven’s sake don’t defend the indefensible.

Jay,
Yes the destruction of Bamiyan Buddhas is deplorable. So is the destruction of the archaeological sites in Iraq.

Something that really shocked me when I saw it was the National Museum in Riyadh. The first exhibits are on the pre-Islamic periods. They are professionally done with no scurrilous annotation, no religious ‘message’ attached.

Iconoclasty is not restricted to Arabs or Muslims; you’re absolutely right. The word itself comes from the Greek and Greek experiences, but it’s thrown its weight around in Europe and Russia as well. Out of ignorance, I don’t know whether it has in Asia. I suspect, too, that one could include the Conquistadores who demolished ‘pagan’ imagery because it didn’t fit in well with the Catholicism they were pushing in Latin America.

In re: Crazy People. Yes, and no culture, religion, or country has a corner on the market. There’s a saying from northern England: “There’s nowt so strange as folk”. That, too, is simply part of what humanity includes.

Certainly, some locations that were revered by some Muslims have been destroyed in the name of religious orthodoxy (as described by Saudis). Others were destroyed in the name of development and expansion. Now, one can surely argue whether this was wise or not, but that’s also a question that the Saudi gov’t needed to answer. Is it more important to have an 18th C Turkish fort in Mecca or a new set of apartment blocks and hotels and new roads? The Grand Mosque (and the Prophet’s Mosque in Medinah) are living entities, not precious bijou in a glass case. They either continue to grow–hopefully, smartly–or they cease to function. That’s a trade-off, but not necessarily a nefarious one. Of course, some will see it as nefarious, forever and always.

Historical preservation is nice, but it can also kill progress. I’ve an acquaintance who’s a civil engineer in the city of Rome. Sometimes, during the construction of a project, his workers will come across ruins. If he went according to the book, he’d have to call in the official antiquities people, stop construction for perhaps five or more years, and cost his workers their jobs. Instead, he calls ‘friendly archeologists’ who will tell him whether what’s been uncovered is truly important. If not, then work continues, the antiquities are either destroyed or sold, and projects like sewerage pipelines get built.

I consider this a price of progress. Others, I’m sure, consider it blasphemy of a secular sort, if not out-and-out criminal behavior. Trading off two valuable things isn’t easy.

Unfortunately this attitude is not confined to Arabia. Note the destruction of the Bamiyan Buddhas in Afghanistan or the Swat Buddha in Pakistan. I once read an article by an Egyptian radical saying that when they (the brotherhood?) come to power, they are going to take care of the Sphinx. Would they do that? Don’t know.

There are some really crazy people in this world.

The culprits have been not only the clerics but the royal family has supported such moves.

Contrary to the belief, the destructions have continued well into the 21st century.

There is no point in saying now the royal family wants to have an archaeological interest – who is going to bring back all the sites that have been destroyed? Who is going to rebuild the history that has been wiped out? How is the royal family going to atone for it?

Those who are under the wrong impression that the royal family has any regard for the history and archaeology of Saudi Arabia may see this link – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destruction_of_sites_associated_with_early_Islam