.
.
Writing on my comments about the "two-minute" due diligence (I use the term loosely) that some antiquity dealers admit to practicing when they buy new stock , one of them writes on his blog about what he considers to be due diligence (see here and here). Those who like me think the antiquities market should be more transparent about the actual origins of the items sold on it are accused by the dealer of ignoring "the practical realities" involved in defining what constitutes responsible and ethical collecting of and dealing in dugup antiquities. I understand that dealers might currently experience some problems in actually admitting that they have no idea where the items they sell really have come from and how they came on the market, but the whole point surely is that - whatever no-questions-asked dealers and collectors may wish to be the case - it is self evident to the rest of us in order to avoid buying tainted stuff, they should have. The antiquity dealer expresses the view that: Mr. Barford does not ever want to see the concept of "ethical collecting" actually become politically or practically possible. It has always been his true goal to raise objections that cannot possibly be reconciled with practices normally followed in collecting and dealing in minor antiquities, including ancient coins. What is wrong, obstructive and unjustifiable in all this is not the concept of socially responsible antiquities collecting itself, but the unreasonable conditions its critics seek to impose. The public should realize that Mr. Barford and his like are doctrinaire conservatives, whose views cannot be altered by such insubstantial considerations as fact or practicality.
Actually I think it is antiquity dealers like Mr Welsh who do not ever want to see the concept of "ethical collecting" actually become politically or practically necessary. Throughout it has been the goal of dealers and their lobbyists to raise objections that ethical and responsible collecting cannot possibly be reconciled with the practices normally followed in collecting and dealing in dugup antiquities. In the face of the damage that the indiscriminate no-questions-asked commerce in antiquities is causing to the global archaeological record, this is wrong, obstructive and unjustifiable. There is nothing inherently impossible in the concept of socially responsible antiquities collecting. The problem lies in the doctrine of conservatism adopted by the dealers who attempt to cover up the reality that should continued social acceptance rely on the trade be restricted to material of verifiable legitimate origins, there are very good reasons why that trade will have difficulties sourcing that kind of material material. The public should realize why that is, what the "facts and practicalities" about the no-questions-asked market in antiquities actually are which create that problem. The public should realise that an important question to ask lobbyists arguing for a maintenance of the status quo in the commerce in archaeological finds and minimal attention to the collecting history of items involved is: how much of the no-questions-asked trade in dugup antiquities in fact is currently based on material of illicit origins?
Throughout the earlier pages of this blog I give my responses to the varied arguments advanced by both dealers and collectors that the quantities of material of illicit origin on the market are "minimal". In my opinion (and for the reasons set out at some length there) I think that the expansion of the market we see today is in fact largely based on material of illicit origin, in other words, being freshly removed from the archaeological record in considerable quantities. This is why I think if the archaeological resource is to be conserved as a source of information for future generations, it is a fundamental necessity that the political and practical difficulties of instilling the concept of ethical collecting be overcome and no-questions-asked dealing and collecting of antiquities excluded from polite society.
St Louis Art Museum did a "two-minute due diligence" on the Ka Nefer Nefer mask, as did the Getty buying its Euphronios vase and Morgantina Aphrodite, and we see what they ended up buying as a result. Now it is time for responsible and careful private collectors to insist on greter transparency and vetting on the antiquities market.
4 comments:
Welcome back Paul!
I see you're still considered wicked for wanting to reduce the amount of looted items being sold! Why are your loudest and bitterest critics dealers rather than collectors, archaeologists or even looters?
Anyhow, I find it's always worthwhile, whenever dealers go on about how their critics are unreasonable, to take what they say and substitute some other commodity for "minor antiquities”. The issues then become much clearer. Thus –
________________________________
“Mr. Barford does not ever want to see the concept of "ethical collecting" actually become politically or practically possible. It has always been his true goal to raise objections that cannot possibly be reconciled with practices normally followed in collecting and dealing in ivory that may or may not have been poached. What is wrong, obstructive and unjustifiable in all this is not the concept of socially responsible ivory collecting itself, but the unreasonable conditions its critics seek to impose. The public should realize that Mr. Barford and his like are doctrinaire conservatives, whose views cannot be altered by such insubstantial considerations as fact or practicality.”
________________________________
Or putting a 'sell by' date on packaged meat, imagine the practical difficulties involved having to mark each and every packet sold with one, and you'd even have to change the date from one date to the next. Absolutely unrealistic of the consumer to expect such transparency instead of just trusting the word of the supplier.
Or putting a 'sell by' date on packaged meat, imagine the practical difficulties involved having to mark each and every packet sold with one, and you'd even have to change the date from one date to the next. Absolutely unrealistic of the consumer to expect such transparency instead of just trusting the word of the supplier.
Or putting a 'sell by' date on packaged meat, imagine the practical difficulties involved having to mark each and every packet sold with one, and you'd even have to change the date from one date to the next. Absolutely unrealistic of the consumer to expect such transparency instead of just trusting the word of the supplier.
Post a Comment