.
Alfredo De La Fe (Imperial coins) offers what he labels "A Peak (sic) Under the Hood of an Archaeo-Extremist", but readers of this blog need not bother peeking, it's just cuts and pastes from this blog, his comments on my reference to some of his contributions to the thread on the Weiss case on Moneta-L. Mind you he missed off the last one - presumably deliberately.
His "point" in effect was that Dr Weiss was a victim and looting archaeological sites is a natural human condition and we cannot stop it (ergo, if you can't beat them, join them, I guess he's saying). I dispute that this is the case. I do not think looting has been as widespread in history as the dugup dealers claim. In the United States of America, when did the looting of Native American sites in the desert begin in earnest? Two thousand years "BCE", or when US museums and collectors started interesting themselves in what their Redskin neighbours had been putting in their graves? In Britain, when did it begin on a scale even half as massive as today? In 1066 or with the introduction (from the USA!) of the metal detector in the 1970s?
As part of the dealers' arguments in favour of stopping the fight against looting is the fundamental mantra that the severity of the legal sanctions for looting make no difference. I disagree, in countries where there are stronger legal sanctions for certain ("natural") activities, somehow it does seem to be the case that frequencies are much lower than in countries that enforce none. I used the frequency of adultery in countries that enforce legislation punishing it as an example. If metal detector use were illegal in the UK, would there still be 10-16000 metal detectorists there? Or would the number drop to those (" a minority" we are told) who use them in defiance of the law?
I think (since waiting for people involved in antiquity trading and collecting to clean up their own act is futile, they will not) we need stronger legislation to regulate the transfer of ownership of archaeological material. I believe this will considerably reduce the number of transactions involving illegally obtained material. I really see nothing "extreme" in that. The more extreme view is presented instead by a blogger from De La Fe's own stable, ACCG-supporting coin collector with conviction Jorg Lueke ("Solving Looting in Authoritarian Source Countries" A Historical Perspective Sunday, February 26, 2012) that however expresses the more extreme view
UPDATE 11.07.2012:
I see that over on their forum, the intellectually-challenged are discussing DeaLa AlFe's comments, complete with grocers' apostrophe plural: "[Moneta-L] Apparently we should all be fitted for Burqa's", ("figurative Burqa's" (sic), that is). I guess it is expecting too much to imagine that any US dugup coin collector on that discussion list might take a look at the context of what I said...
Alfredo De La Fe (Imperial coins) offers what he labels "A Peak (sic) Under the Hood of an Archaeo-Extremist", but readers of this blog need not bother peeking, it's just cuts and pastes from this blog, his comments on my reference to some of his contributions to the thread on the Weiss case on Moneta-L. Mind you he missed off the last one - presumably deliberately.
His "point" in effect was that Dr Weiss was a victim and looting archaeological sites is a natural human condition and we cannot stop it (ergo, if you can't beat them, join them, I guess he's saying). I dispute that this is the case. I do not think looting has been as widespread in history as the dugup dealers claim. In the United States of America, when did the looting of Native American sites in the desert begin in earnest? Two thousand years "BCE", or when US museums and collectors started interesting themselves in what their Redskin neighbours had been putting in their graves? In Britain, when did it begin on a scale even half as massive as today? In 1066 or with the introduction (from the USA!) of the metal detector in the 1970s?
As part of the dealers' arguments in favour of stopping the fight against looting is the fundamental mantra that the severity of the legal sanctions for looting make no difference. I disagree, in countries where there are stronger legal sanctions for certain ("natural") activities, somehow it does seem to be the case that frequencies are much lower than in countries that enforce none. I used the frequency of adultery in countries that enforce legislation punishing it as an example. If metal detector use were illegal in the UK, would there still be 10-16000 metal detectorists there? Or would the number drop to those (" a minority" we are told) who use them in defiance of the law?
I think (since waiting for people involved in antiquity trading and collecting to clean up their own act is futile, they will not) we need stronger legislation to regulate the transfer of ownership of archaeological material. I believe this will considerably reduce the number of transactions involving illegally obtained material. I really see nothing "extreme" in that. The more extreme view is presented instead by a blogger from De La Fe's own stable, ACCG-supporting coin collector with conviction Jorg Lueke ("Solving Looting in Authoritarian Source Countries" A Historical Perspective Sunday, February 26, 2012) that however expresses the more extreme view
Rather than ineffectual import restrictions and inane blogs it seems to me the best solution is rather quite simple: Have those countries ban metal detecting. Why not embrace the authoritarian approach and create a solution matching the philosophy of the state. After the first few detectorists are shot looting will quickly cease.There are no comments on this from fellow ACCG supporters, does this mean they agree with (Tompa's call on Cyprus and Bulgaria to get tough with metal detectorists for example) or are aghast at such a suggestion from one in their ranks? I am surprised that De La Fe is not tempted to "take a peek under Lueke's bonnet" (sorry: "hood").
UPDATE 11.07.2012:
I see that over on their forum, the intellectually-challenged are discussing DeaLa AlFe's comments, complete with grocers' apostrophe plural: "[Moneta-L] Apparently we should all be fitted for Burqa's", ("figurative Burqa's" (sic), that is). I guess it is expecting too much to imagine that any US dugup coin collector on that discussion list might take a look at the context of what I said...
1 comment:
I am disallowing a comment by Alfredo De La Fe, as it was all about adultery, rather than on the topic of "extremist" approaches to the preservation of the archaeological heritage.
I suggest if the New York dealer wants to find out about adultery, there is plenty in the internet on the topic. If he wants to pick a fight with stereotypes of Muslims, I suggest he does it somewhere else.
This is a blog about portable antiquities collecting and heritage issues.
Post a Comment