"Nationalists", animalists and arborealists

To be honest I am getting a bit bored with the uncritical way collectors in general (and the gatherers of heaps of decontextualised dug-up ancient coins in particular) refer automatically to all who think ill of the illicit export of illegally excavated antiquities as "nationalists". They got this from flicking through Cuno's book, but really seem to have been unable to critically reflect on what they are asked to believe.

We are talking about illegal export. I do not know whether collectors would agree, but it seems pretty reasonable to me that states should be able to determine what should pass across its borders and under what conditions. So when a nation (the USA for example) declares the export of a certain technology impermissable, is that too reprehensibly "nationalist" in the eyes of an antiquity collector? Or the movement of underage girls as sex slaves across the border, pornography or poached ivory, those too are "nationalist" policies? What makes restriction on certain items "nationalist" in the eyes of the coineys etc., while others are not?

To take the argument further, are all who oppose unrestricted commercial whaling (I'm one) "animalists"? Those who oppose unrestricted commercial logging in various parts of the world (I do) "arborealists"? Those who (like me) oppose the avoidable pollution of our inland waterways by commercial concerns "hydrologists"? It seems to me that those who gaily throw about the "nationalist" label for those who would like to see an end to the no-questions-asked trading in illcitly antiquities alongside the others really have no idea what they are writing about. Or indeed what the terms they use actually mean and articulate with the real world.

To want to restrict the trade in illicitly obtained antiquities is not "nationalist", or even "archaeologist", but since the resource is finite (non-renewable) and fragile, it is a conservationist, preservationist and environmentalist approach. Why can it not be recognised by the dealers and supporters that what the people on this side of the fence are urging is an ethical, responsible, proactively Green approach to the archaeological record, its wise use in a sustainable manner? Traders in illicitly obtained artefacts ripped from archaeological sites are like those who trade in poached ivory. Nobody calls wildlife preservationists "nationalists" because they oppose the removal of poached ivory across international borders and call for the punshment of those responsible. Do they? Perhaps a coiney can point me to where wildlife preservationists are thus labelled by the poachers.

Very often if we examine the context of their words, the pro-collecting writer labelling their opponents as "nationalists" is confusing two separate issues, that of protecting the archaeological record against illicit commercial exploitation, and the "repatriation issue". Introducing the latter confusion is a favourite rhetorical ploy of no-questions-asked antiquity dealers and their supporters.

What we see being repatriated at the moment are artefacts which have been stopped at the borders and found to be deficient in the supporting documentation that they wwere legitimately acquired. In other words, in the eyes of the law, they are regarded as illegally exported from the country of origin. After that has been ascertained, the objects are returned to the place whence they came (after that has been established at public cost). To represent, as the dealers' lobby currently does, the struggle against the trade in illicitly obtained artefacts merely as some desire of some "nationalists" to send all artefacts back to their source country is a gross oversimplification which is simply an insult to the inelligence of their readers. Or are the lobbyists and those that listen to them so challenged intellectually, that they actually do believe this is true?


Vignette: lone survivor Presumably the collectors' lobby would say the "arboreal nationalists" got there too late (?).