The recent Kurdish parliamentary vote and the region’s enduring conflict with central Iraq represent only a small component of the nation’s worries. The current international concern with the protection of an archaeological site, when compared to the recent political developments in Iraq, is indicative of an international priority of archaeology and a romanticization of history over complex and occasionally unrelatable politics.. The case of Samarra should therefore encourage us to ask a simple question in future instances of archaeological decay in politically troubled countries: why are these sites in decay?

Without an understanding of the various challenges to Iraq today, it may seem heartening that the international archaeological community and UNESCO have risen such a clamor over the ancient Iraqi city of Samarra's deterioration. As locals can attest, authorities have enacted almost no regulations to protect the site from its daily wear-and-tear. Good intentions of UNESCO aside, there is something bitterly comical about their proclamation that the ruins should have been designated as a World Heritage Site back in 2007, as well as their ongoing calls for the Iraqi government to enact immediate preservative measures in Samarra. It’s almost as if the organization expects their proclamations to be treated as authoritative decrees, to be disobeyed at the Iraqi government’s peril. Furthermore, the situation seems to encapsulate a most western fetishization of middle eastern archaeology: the expression of outrage that such priceless remnants of antiquity are left to crumble without an understanding of the region’s troubles. Could there be political, cultural, economic or societal reasons that these sites can’t be protected?

....