Afghanistan: A ‘monuments woman’ whose mission is to save the arts and culture

Laura Tedesco has been working with the U.S. government to save cultural treasures in Afghanistan. Photo Courtesy Laura Tedesco

Many people first learned about the Monuments Men of World War II by reading Robert M. Edsel’s book about them, or seeing the 2014 film “Monuments Men.”
Of course there were many heroic women who also helped protect the cultural treasures of Europe from Hitler, Goering and others.
But the book and the film were primarily concerned with the men who were in charge of the American team tasked with finding and saving some of the great works of Western art.
A new podcast is out now called “Monuments Woman,” and it features an ongoing conversation between two experts in Afghan art and cultural treasures. The idea for the podcast came from producer/director/writer Christian Bruun (whose film “Calendar Girl” is proving to be one of the big draws for this year’s online Berkshire International Film Festival).
When he was living in New York City, Brunn became friends with both George Gavrilis and Laura Tedesco. Tedesco is now an archaeologist and anthropologist working with the U.S. Department of State’s Bureau of South and Central Asian Affairs. Her main area of expertise is Afghanistan. She is the Monuments Woman around whom the podcast is organized.
She and Gavrilis became friends through their shared interest in cultural history in general and Afghanistan in particular; and it was Bruun who came up with the idea that they should team up and do a podcast (the first that Bruun has worked on).
“The idea had been floating around for a while,” Bruun said. “Laura has had the idea in her mind for 10 years that these treasures need to be talked about and not forgotten.”
Gavrilis did a nine-hour oral history interview with Tedesco in spring. The initial idea was to create a documentary format, with narration and a story line.
“But we realized what we had, with the intimacy of these conversations between two friends” and decided to run them in more of an interview style.
This has also allowed the trio to continue to make new episodes; the eighth was “dropped” last week and so far a total of 15 have been recorded. The conversations are all done with a sophisticated virtual conversation software that allows Gavrilis (who is in New York City) and Tedesco (who is in Charleston, S.C.) to speak as though they are sitting side by side. The podcast production company does an initial edit and then Bruun (who is in Los Angeles) listens and makes notes before the final episode is released.
When the first episodes were made, there was some knowledge that the U.S. would withdraw soon from Afghanistan. But there is an immediacy to the events that have followed, with Gavrilis and Tedesco talking about current events as they also talk about ancient history, noting in one episode that Kandahar has just been seized by the Taliban.
Some of the conversation centers around Tedesco’s own life and her decision to travel to a dangerous part of the world while her children are still young. But most of the conversation is about the beauty of Afghanistan and its people and culture — and the threat that exists to both with the takeover by the Taliban.
In an email conversation last week, Tedesco said she can’t comment on what could happen now that the Taliban has returned to power. She did add some details about her work:
“I moved to Kabul in July of 2010 and lived there full time for 16 months. In the winter of 2011, I returned to the States to continue working for the U.S. Dept of State’s Bureau of South and Central Asian Affairs in Washington, D.C., and I traveled to Afghanistan every few months. In total I have made 45 trips to Afghanistan in the past 9 years.”
As the show continues, the conversation goes from more general observations about the nation and its history (including a spree of destruction of statues and other cultural treasures by the Taliban in the 1990s) to more specific observations about particular regions and works of art.
Bruun, who primarily makes documentary films, thinks that the podcast will likely become a film — which would allow the audience to actually see the places and works of art that Tedesco is describing.
The question is whether those works of art will still be around when it’s possible for film crews to return to Afghanistan. Some of course can be seen in photographs. But it’s possible that the descriptions Tedesco shares in Monuments Woman will be the last evidence of many of these works.
Bruun feels hopeful that some of the works will be preserved.
“It’s not an abandoned mission,” he said. “Laura is in South Carolina but she is still working for the government. There is an intent and desire to keep going.”
Of course, as the lives of many Afghanistan natives — especially those who helped the U.S. — are being brutally ended, there is the question of whether art matters anymore. This is one of the topics that Gavrilis and Tedesco discuss. There is no obvious answer; it’s worth listening to hear the thoughtful discussion.
This is an updated version of the story in the Sept. 9 Lakeville Journal.
State Sen. Stephen Harding
NEW MILFORD — State Sen. and Minority Leader Stephen Harding announced Jan. 20 the launch of his re-election campaign for the state’s 30th Senate District.
Harding was first elected to the State Senate in November 2022. He previously served in the House beginning in 2015. He is an attorney from New Milford.
In his campaign announcement, he said, “There is still important work to do to make Connecticut more affordable, government more accountable, and create economic opportunity. I’m running for reelection to continue standing up for our communities, listening to residents, and delivering real results.”
As of late January, no publicly listed challenger has filed to run against him.
The 30th District includes Bethlehem, Brookfield, Cornwall, Falls Village, Goshen, Kent, Litchfield, Morris, New Fairfield, New Milford, North Canaan, Salisbury, Sharon, Sherman, Warren, Washington, Winchester and part of Torrington.
MILLERTON — James (Jimmy) Cookingham, 51, a lifelong local resident, passed away on Jan. 19, 2026.
James was born on April 17, 1972 in Sharon, the son of Robert Cookingham and the late Joanne Cookingham.
He attended Webutuck Central School.
Jimmy was an avid farmer since a very young age at Daisey Hill and eventually had joint ownership of Daisey Hill Farm in Millerton with his wife Jessica.
He took great pride in growing pumpkins and sweet corn.
He was very outdoorsy and besides farming, loved to ride four wheelers, fish, and deer hunt. He also loved to make a roaring bonfire.
He was a farmer, friend, husband, father, son and brother. He will be missed by many.
He is survived by his father, Robert Cookingham, wife Jessica (Ball) Cookingham, daughters, Hailey Cookingham-Loiodice (Matt), Taylor Ellis-Tanner (Jimmy) and sister Brenda Valyou, as well as many cousins, nieces and nephews.
He is predeceased by his mother, Joanne (Palmer) Cookingham.
His daughter, Hailey, will always keep his legacy alive by their father-daughter antics, such as their handshake, nicknames and making “quacking noises” at each other.
Services/Memorials will be held at a later date.
The Kenny Funeral Home has care of arrangements.
Telecom Reg’s Best Kept On the Books
When Connecticut land-use commissions update their regulations, it seems like a no-brainer to jettison old telecommunications regulations adopted decades ago during a short-lived period when municipalities had authority to regulate second generation (2G) transmissions prior to the Connecticut Siting Council (CSC) being ordered by a state court in 2000 to regulate all cell tower infrastructure as “functionally equivalent” services.
It is far better to update those regs instead, especially for macro-towers given new technologies like small cells. Even though only ‘advisory’ to the CSC, the preferences of towns by law must be taken into consideration in CSC decision making. Detailed telecom regs – not just a general wish list -- are evidence that a town has put considerable thought into where they prefer such infrastructure be sited without prohibiting service that many – though not all – citizens want and that first responders rely on for public safety.
Such regs come in handy when egregious tower sites are proposed in sensitive areas, typically on private land. The regs are a town’s first line of defense, especially when cross referenced to plans of conservation and development, P&Z regulations, and wetlands setbacks. They identify how/where the town plans to intersect with the CSC process. They are also a roadmap for service providers regarding preferred sites and sometimes less neighborhood contention. In fact, to have no telecom regs can weaken a town’s rights to protect environmental, scenic, and historic assets, and serve up whole neighborhoods to unnecessary overlapping coverage and corporate overreach. Such regs are unique to every town and should not follow anyone else’s boiler plate, especially industry’s.
Connecticut is the only state that has a centralized siting entity for cell towers. The good news is that applicants must prove need for new tower sites in an evidentiary proceeding and any decisions have the weight of the state behind them. The bad news is that the CSC used to be far less industry-friendly and rote in their reviews, which now resemble a check list. There is an operative assumption at CSC that if an applicant wants a tower, they must need it, otherwise why spend significant money to run the approval gauntlet? This reflects a subtle shift over the years at CSC from sincere willingness to protect the environment toward minimal tweaking of bad applications with minor changes. The bottom line is that towns really cannot rely on the CSC to do all the work for them.
What CSC issues telecom providers is a “certificate of environmental compatibility” after an evidentiary proceeding (not unlike a court case) with intervenors, parties, expert witnesses, and the service provider’s technical pro’s sworn in and subject to cross examination. Service providers get to do the same with any opposition from intervenor/party participants – like towns and citizens -- and their experts. It’s an impressive process whose ultimate goal is the fine balancing between allowing adequate/reliable public services and protecting state ecology with minimal damage to scenic, historic, and recreational values. They unfortunately often fall short of their mandate – like approving cell towers with diesel generators over town aquifers -- evidenced by CSC only rejecting about five cell towers in the past 15-20 years.
The CSC was founded in 1972 and clarified its mission in the 1980’s to prevent the state from being carved up willy-nilly by gas pipelines, high tension corridors, and broadcast towers. With the sudden proliferation of cell towers beginning in late 1990’s, it became the most sued agency in Connecticut by both an arrogant upstart industry if applications were denied and by towns/citizens when bad sites were forced on them. CSC gradually formed a defensive posture that drives their decisions toward industry with deeper pockets and attorneys on retainer.
For citizens, nothing can wreck one’s day like the CSC. It behooves towns to protect what little toolkit they have, and understand the legal parameters of the CSC’s playing field. The CSC is not a “normal” government agency where municipal/citizen redress is based on logic and local support. Their process is largely immune to everything but specific kinds of evidence – like town regs with setbacks/fall zones, radio frequency transmission signal strengths, sensitive areas identified, and detailed wildlife inventory, among others.
There is a current cell tower fight involving two intervening towns -- Washington and Warren; both with good cell tower regs – over a tower site within 1200’ of a Montessori School, near Steep Rock’s nature preserves with comprehensive geology/wildlife databases that include endangered, threatened and special concern flora and fauna, on established federal/state migratory bird flyways, within throwing distance to a historic site capable of being listed on the Underground Railroad, and with an access road on a blind curve entering a state highway that will permanently damage wetlands, vernal pools, and core forests. There are well credentialed environmental experts, including Dr. Michael Klemens, former chair of Salisbury’s P&Z, as well as the former director of migratory bird management at the US Fish and Wildlife Service, and an RF engineer testifying to alternative approaches, plus three attorneys representing intervenors. It is the most professional challenge I have seen at CSC since Falls Village successfully mounted one that protected Robbins Swamps several years ago.
The hearing is ongoing, with uncertain results. To see what it takes today to stop an inappropriate tower siting, see Docket #543 under “Pending Matters” at https://portal.ct.gov/csc before removing local cell tower regs – the lowest hanging fruit that any town can possess in case it’s needed.
B, Blake Levitt is the Communications Director at The Berkshire-Litchfield Environmental Council. She writes about how technology affects biology.