The Deceits Behind Lobbying for No-Questions-Asked Antiquity Dealing

.
Both sides of the portable antiquities debate accuse the other side of misleading their readers, both sides claim the verbal opposition is making a noble cause look bad (the White Hat Guys say the lobbyists for the no-questions-asked are misrepresenting the nature of that market, the Black Hat Guys say the preservationists do not recognise the "benefits" that no-questions-asked collecting bring to the world). Let us have a look at how they go about constructing their argument. My text is the latest post ('Witches, Warlocks and Trolls', Mar 26, 2012) on coin dealer and lobbyist Wayne Sayles' blog. Here it can be clearly seen how the readers attention is misdirected by sleight-of-hand from a fuller understanding of the issues. This is typical of everything the whole group write, so worth a little attention.

The Convention
For dugup dealer Wayne Sayles, the year 1970 "witnessed the apogee of [...] cultural extremism in the world". By this he means that the 1970 UNESCO Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property was written. According to the dealer, this Convention to regulate the illicit trade in cultural property was created by "persuasive fanatics that lacked common sense and foresight" and it was a "social outrage" which "totally ignored the basic rights of individuals". He says for some reason that "stewardship of [cultural] preservation is not a fitting topic for government intervention". Eh?

Somehow I think Mr Sayles is looking at a different version of the text of that Convention or looking at it in a different way from the rest of us. Like a number of other conventions of the same genre, it talks of simple things, like education, the universal values of culture and the right of nations to define and protect their own cultural heritage. Like the other international documents of this type, it urges governments to protect the cultural heritage for its citizens and the rest of us. I really do not see where anybody who claims to be "interested in culture" (and goes on to the extent Mr Sayles does about the role of individuals in its stewardship and protection) can take exception to a convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property. What is the problem to an entirely licit trade? I can see where it might be a problem for dodgy dealers who want to 'cut corners', but this would not be anyone with whom Mr Sayles would want to be seen keeping company, would it?

Sayles has some problems with calling a spade a spade. He writes:

Pressure from the archaeological community led to U.S. legislation implementing the UNESCO convention's resolution regarding import, export and ownership of cultural property.

We do not have to take his word for it, let us just remind ourselves of the proper title: "Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property". Not "import, export and ownership of cultural property" but the "illicit import, export and transfer of ownership of cultural property" (the convention does not deal at all with "ownership of cultural property" per se). It seems clear that the coin dealer is trying to mislead his readers as to what it is the US legislation concerns: illicit dealings in cultural property (and so not just dugup antiquities, but stolen paintings, silverware, church fittings and Napoleon memorabilia etc.).

The Opposition

Dugup coin dealer Sayles insists that back in Ronald Reagan's day: "The U.S. law, however, did not give carte blanche to the warlocks of self-righteousness. Specific protections within the law provided barriers to excess", so presumably allowed a little bit of illicit trade to continue? How so? He deplores:

The ink was hardly dry on the UNESCO resolution before the crusade against private collecting began, [...] Today, the level of attacks against those who oppose national control of their personal cultural freedom [to benefit from the illicit trade in antiquities - PMB] has seriously escalated and that "crusade" is being led by ultraists.

There is in fact no "crusade against private collecting" any more than questioning some of the acquisitions of US museums in recent years is a "crusade against museums". Both are an attempt to raise awareness about the illicit trade in dugup antiquities. Obviously a campaign which is hitting home.

The Wedge

Despite what dugup dealer Sayles asserts, it is not the Convention to combat the illicit trade in antiquities which [in the US] has driven, as Sayles would have it, "a deep and perhaps permanent wedge between archaeology, museums and the private sector of collectors and independent scholars". It is the refusal of US dealers and collectors (both of whom like to think of themselves as "independent scholars") to face up to their responsibilities in the light of the continuing and perhaps even escalating illicit trade in antiquities.

That's what the wedge is. It is between those who admit there is a problem, and - "personality defects" or not - are determined not to let it pass without comment and to do something about the issue, and those who try to pretend (and persuade others) that there is "no problem" and refuse to contemplate doing anything about it. The latter want us to believe that they are supplied harmlessly and sustainably by the coin elves. Now it seems they are claiming that looting and smuggling of dugup antiquities are myths created by "Trolls with personality disorders". They do love their myth-making and fairy tales, do coineys.

Sayles bemoans the fact that:

All of the advocates in this confrontation suffer from the breakdown of interchange in ideas and knowledge that the pre-UNESCO world enjoyed.

Well, we have seen the level of argument the coineys can offer as justification of maintaining the no-questions-asked status quo and their inability to back up their statements when challenged. I do not know if this means they are stuck in the 1960s, pre-Convention world, but it is clear that there is nothing to regret that there is these days their is limited interchange of their ideas and knowledge due to their insistence on maintaining their hobby in the same modus operandi as pertained in the nineteenth century ("goes back to Plutarch don't y' know"). They are isolating themselves by their refusal to drag themselves out of the nineteenth century into the modern world with its modern problems (including the current form of the antiquities market). And there are many examples which show clearly that, instead of the objective truth, they are backing up their position and trying to drum up support by employing misdirection and deceit.