Zilhao's statements

Robert G. Bednarik auranet@optusnet.com.au

Guadiana petroglyph

This petroglyph is among thousands currently being destroyed

This site contains published statements by the former director of IPA, relating to his involvement in the Guadiana controversy, as well as other relevant documents

To verify the authenticity of any statement attributed here to Dr Zilhao, please contact
Joao Zilhao
Rua Prof. Joao Barreira, Porta C, 3H
1600-634 Telheiras
Portugal
joao.zilhao@mail.telepac.pt

________________________________________________________________________

International Union for Prehistoric and Protohistoric Sciences motion for the Guadiana rock art in Portugal
7 September 2001

MOTION
Lors de la reunion du Conseil Permanent du vendredi 7 septembre 2001, reunie a Liege (Belgique), la motion suivante a ete proposee et acceptee. Par la suite, elle a ete presente lors de l'Assemble generale de l'UISPP, tenue a Bruxelles le samedi 8 septembre.
L'U.I.S.P.P. a ete informee par le reseau Euro-PreArt (lors du colloque 8.1. du XIVeme congres de l'UISPP) du fait que plus de 600 roches gravees ont ete trouvees dans la vallee de la Guadiana, dans une zone qui sera noyee par les eaux du barrage d'Alqueva. L'U.I.S.P.P. estime que tout doit etre fait pour que les gravures soient exhaustivement inventoriees et que leur etude systematique ait lieu avant que le barrage ne puisse finalement etre mis en fonction.
L'U.I.S.P.P estime que le complexe rupestre de la Guadiana, par la quantite de roches deja trouvees, par leur diversite stylistique et chronologique (comprenant des gravures du Paleolithique superieur, du Neolithique et du Chalcolithique) constitue un ensemble d'importance majeure, et ouvre de nouvelles voies pour la comprehension de l'anthropisation du territoire, notamment par le fait d'elargir la vision de l'art paleolithique en plein air, de souligner la continuite de l'occupation de certains espaces sacres, ou de mettre en evidence l'association de l'art a l'expansion de l'agro-pastoralisme.
L'U.I.S.P.P. estime que les equipes travaillant dans la vallee de la Guadiana, pour le sauvetage de cet important patrimoine prehistorique europeen, doivent recevoir tous les moyens pour mener leur tache a bon terme. En particulier, l'U.I.SP.P. consid're qu' une solide coordination du travail scientifique des deux cotes de la frontiere entre le Portugal et l'Espagne, avec une definition des methodes d'enregistrement, est fondamentale pour garantir les futures operations et publications. L'U.I.S.P.P estime aussi que la diffusion de l'information sur ce complexe d'art prehistorique doit etre menee des a present. Enfin, l'U.I.S.P.P. se met a la disposition des equipes travaillant sur le terrain pour les aider dans la mesure de ses propres ressources et competences. En particulier, l'U.I.S.P.P. accepte l'invitation d'EuroPreArt pour qu'une Commission Internationale se deplace a la Guadiana. Cette Commission sera composee de messieurs Jean Bourgeois, Marcel Otte et Muiris O'Sullivan.
Motion lue et approuvee en Assemblee generale a Bruxelles, a l’occasion du XIVème congres mondial de l'U.I.S.P.P., le samedi 8 septembre 2001.

English abstract
The UISSP (International Union of Prehistoric and Protohistoric Sciences), during its last congress at Liege (Belgium), asked for a complete and exhaustive study of the Guadiana rock art complex before the flooding of the area by the Alqueva dam. This complex is judged as being of a primary importance for understanding the Palaeolithic open air rock art and the association between the art and the extension of the Neolithic agro-pastoralism. The UISPP asks for a close coordination and for a definition of a common recording method regarding both the Portuguese and the Spanish side. Finally the UISPP establishes an International Commission for the Guadiana rock art. The commission is formed by Jean Bourgeois, Marcel Otte and Muiris O'Sullivan.
Below is the response to this motion by the Director of the IPA, whose organisation has since 1996 failed to take any interest in the Guadiana valley rock art and has approved its destruction:

_________________________________________________________________________

Response by the Director of the Instituto Portugues de Arqueologia

It is clear that the UISPP is 'intervening', and that the Commission has an inspective nature. Given that this is its mandate, it becomes relevant to discuss the process through which it came into being. Here are the facts:

(1) The UISPP decided that its intervention was necessary in a given country, without first conferring with the colleagues from that country who were members of the Permanent Council at the time of the decision. I have since resigned, but I was a member of the Council then, and I was present in the Liege conference. Apparently, however, no one in the directive bodies of the UISPP thought that it was a good idea to discuss the topic with me before deciding anything, in spite of the fact that I had alerted the UISPP President himself to the need for following proper procedure.
(2) The UISPP decided that its intervention was neces-sary in a given country, without first asking that country's archaeological authorities for information on the matters relating to the intervention. This is in spite of the fact that the person most responsible for that country's archaeology was a member of the Permanent Council, and that he had already made himself available to provide any information the UISPP might require.
(3) The UISPP decided to send an inspective commission to a given country, without first asking that country's professional associations and administrative authorities whether they agreed that such an inspection was necessa-ry or welcome.
(4) The UISPP decided that such a commission would visit archaeological sites in the country without first asking the colleagues in charge of research at those sites whether they agreed to the visit and authorised it.
(5) The UISPP decided on the dates upon which the in-spection would take place without first conferring with the colleagues and institutions concerned whether they would be available in those dates in case the commission decided that it needed to consult with them.
(6) The UISPP decided to send a commission to inspect on a rock art situation, but the commission itself is composed of colleagues with no known experience in rock art studies and from countries where rock art is virtually non-existent.

I must also note that the UISPP apparently does not know the meaning of the word 'invitation'. An individual or an institution can only be invited to Portugal if some Portuguese person or Portuguese institution with jurisdiction asks them to come. In this context, a 'network' of whatever nature and composition does not qualify as a host. The 'International Commission' may travel freely in Portugal, as stipulated by the Schengen agreements, but it will not be able to state that it was invited.
I will stop here. I believe this is sufficient to define the extremely dangerous precedents that are being set. I can only explain the behaviour of the UISPP under the assumption that its directive bodies believe that they have some kind of God-given right to go around the world spreading the Gospel of what they think is the right thing to do. Personally, on the merits of the Alqueva situation alone, I would have ignored the UISPP Commission, given that its scientific credentials are nil. But the precedent should worry us all, and I feel that it is my duty to explain to all those concerned by the Alqueva or the activities of the UISPP why such 'Inter-national Commissions' should not be tolerated. Watch out, you could be next.
This turn of events is very unfortunate for two other reasons. First, at the national level, because it only serves to create confusion, and boost a rejection of archaeology by the media and the public - 'those folks who never know what exactly it is they want and are always fighting each other anyway'. The first elements of such a rejection are already there, and this only serves to undermine the authority of the IPA and other heritage agencies to implement the kinds of procedures dictated by the Malta convention with regard to rescue archaeology. Second, at the international level, because archaeological heritage is not properly looked after in most parts of the world (just to give an example, Belgium, the country of origin of two of the members of the UISPP Commission, is probably the only country in Europe that lacks proper and specific legislation for the protection of archaeological heritage), and because conflicts such as those created by the situation in the Coa valley in 1994-95 may arise again, in Portugal or elsewhere. That is bound to happen, and international action by the profession is bound to be necessary again. These kinds of 'International Commissions' only serve to undermine the potential success of such future initiatives.
Portugal is a very open country, where archaeologists from different nationalities have always been welcome and where many research projects are conducted by foreigners with no restrictions whatsoever. At our invitation, or at their request, many colleagues from different countries have already visited the Alqueva, or worked there. The year 2000 Annual Meeting of the European Association of Archaeologists, held in Lisbon, offered participants the opportunity of a pre-Conference excursion to the Alqueva, so that the work carried out there could be presented and discussed. All colleagues who wish to come and see with their own eyes what is being done will be welcome. But we will not accept 'inspections' by 'Commissions' that lack any legitimacy and that are constituted on the basis of a shocking ignorance of the basic rules of courtesy, not to mention those of professional ethics.
To conclude, I hope I have been able to clarify my point of view concerning the situation at Alqueva, the reasons why I find the behaviour of the UISPP in this affair unacceptable, and the reasons why I resigned from its Permanent Council. In some aspects, those who claim that the Alqueva is a second Coa do have a point. But, as a great nineteenth century social scientist put it, when history repeats itself, the first time it's a tragedy, the second time it's a comedy.

Lisbon, 19 September 2001
Joao Zilhao

_________________________________________________________________________

Response by the President of IFRAO

4 March 2002
Open letter to Dr Joao Zilhao
Director of the Instituto Portugues de Arqueologia (IPA)

Sir,

Like all others concerned with the study and preservation of rock art, I am appalled by the recent developments in the Guadiana valley of southern Portugal. The Alqueva dam was, I believe, first mooted in 1952, and impact studies in the valley began about 1985. Two years after the 1995 defeat by IFRAO of the proposed Coa dam, your government decided to create Europe's largest man-made lake in the Guadiana valley. As Director of IPA you are ultimately responsible for the fate of Portuguese rock art, and you oversee the work of CNART, the National Centre of Rock Art. Indeed, both organisations were established specifically as a result of the Côa debacle (in which you were involved, and your decision to scrub the Coa petroglyphs with wooden tools and chemicals was already severely criticised in 1996), and to avoid a repetition of such unfortunate developments. Your brief as the most senior archaeologist of your country was clear enough.

As you said yourself, 'when history repeats itself, the first time it's a tragedy, the second time it's a comedy'. But what happened in the Guadiana valley under your jurisdiction is not a comedy, it is an unbelievable tragedy. Even after the painful experience on the Coa, you still allowed the Alqueva dam to proceed without any attempt to check the valley for rock art. You had a large team of archaeologists, a hundred people in your own words, conducting surveys and salvage work in the valley for many years. We are told that they did not find the rock art in all these years, and you yourself claimed publicly that this must have been because the sites were covered by river sand. But, Sir, we are talking about more than 600 sites, one of the three largest concentrations of rock art in Europe! Are you saying that for sixteen years, these 600 sites were covered by sand, and in 2001 they were all miraculously uncovered? It was an environmentalist NGO called Liga para a Proteccao da Natureza who blew the whistle in April 2001, after receiving an anonymous tip-off that there was a vast corpus of rock art in the valley.

There are two basic differences between the Coa and the Guadiana. First, the latter's rock art body is many times the size of the Côa rock art, and therefore more important to preserve. Yet you, as the country's senior administrator protecting its rock art, have publicly stated that the Guadiana rock art is not worthy of preservation. Second, while we were able to stop the Coa dam after 'only' a hundred million dollars had been spent on dam construction, the much larger Alqueva dam was completed after the rock art was announced, and is now operational. It seems to me that we have two possible outcomes now: either the project is abandoned at a horrendous cost to your country, which means that someone has to accept responsibility for the waste of billions of dollars because IPA and CNART failed in their duties. Alternatively, the dam will be filled and the rock art buried, first under water, then under billions of tonnes of silt and gravel. Someone then has to accept responsibility for the destruction of Portugal's greatest rock art complex. Who, in your opinion, should accept this responsibility? Perhaps Antonio Carlos Silva, who worked under your supervision and has already resigned? Or perhaps the former Minister for Culture, your previous superior who was removed from office a few weeks after the Guadiana rock art was announced? Or perhaps the Director of CNART, Antonio Martinho Baptista, should be the sacrificial lamb?

I think not. Executive responsibility rests squarely with you, Sir, and the honourable thing to do is to accept that you have well and truly failed. Moreover, there is another reason why you need to resign: for the sake of Portuguese archaeology. Ever since you rose to prominence in 1995, through the Coa controversy which you so skilfully used for your own advancement, you have left a trail of bitterness. Your style of academic debate, on so many occasions, has been a low point in Portuguese archaeology. The personal abuse that you have heaped on every scholar who dared to disagree with you is only exceeded by your vilification of any organisation that dared to question you. When the UISPP, on whose Permanent Council you held a position for many years, wanted to conduct a fact-finding mission in the Guadiana valley, you resigned in disgust and published an angry diatribe against its commission, accusing it of incompetence. Your use of the term 'incompetence' also defines how you feel about any colleague who disagrees with you academically. Consider for instance these extracts from your published response to Professors Tattersall and Swartz, when you discuss their views of the Lagar Velho skeletal remains:

'Their paper is replete with mis-information, mis-use of cladistic and anatomical terminology, mis-quotes, mis-representations, poor logic, general incompetence ... which reveal primarily their ignorance ... nothing in this abysmal piece of scholarship serves to refute our basic premise ... is an inappropriate, inaccurate, and unethical critique of our article ... their attempt at refutation of the admixture hypothesis is pitiful ... a serious breach of scientific etiquette ... they are simply ignorant ... they are intellectually dishonest. Any combination of these interpretations reflects a fundamental incompetence and an attitude which have no place in scientific discourse on human evolution.'

There is nothing unusual about this characterisation of the work of two opponents (who, one needs to consider, are among the world's foremost scholars in their field) by you, the same vocabulary can be found in any published debates you participated in. Still on the same topic, here are two samples of what you wrote to Professors Raposo and Bicho:

'Our reading of the intermediate sections of his comment leads us to believe that Raposo's initial statement of incompetence should have been a lot more generous in scope.
We regret the insinuation and must stress that questioning the professional ethics of colleagues is not a constructive approach to debate.'

Dozens if not hundreds of scholars have had similar experiences with you, which is why you are now finding yourself in court with various colleagues accusing you of defamation, and why Portuguese embassies and your government have been bombarded with letters of complaint about your conduct.

IFRAO has long been a prime target of your ire, and in 1998 you publicly described this organisation as 'a bunch of loonies'. We are not hurt by this, we wear the label as a compliment, finding ourselves in distinguished company. As a matter of fact, some of us sign ourselves as 'your fellow loony', so this is not an issue we are concerned about. What does concern us is the effect of your conduct on Portuguese archaeology: how can your discipline be taken serious if it is presided over by a man of your standards?

Sir, for the sake of Portuguese archaeology, and particularly for the sake of your country's rock art, please make room for someone more suitable for the high office you hold.

Respectfully,
Robert G. Bednarik
President of IFRAO

[Professor Zilhao resigned on 7 May 2002.]

See also Undertaker of Guadiana rock art, PDF file, 237 KB.

This Webpage has been created using the my connected community (mc2) Webpage generator.
my connected community (mc2) is funded by the Victorian Government and coordinated by VICNET