Prejudiced Philistines Representing Antiquities Trade Jest at Loss of Life

Time to Save Egyptian Antiquities?', Cultural Property Observer blog, Sunday, February 2, 2014). U" on his professional blog, Tompa makes a remark which probably was intended to come over as humorous:

The archaeological blogosphere has largely ignored the wanton destruction of artifacts in the Egyptian Islamic Museum.  

What tosh. This suggests that instead of keeping an eye on the social media of heritage, the only "observation" Cultural property Observer has been doing lately is of the inside of his lunchbox. He reckons the fact that a museum was caught in the cross blast from a massive terrorist bomb

"offer[s] precious little support for the proposition that "emergency import restrictions" and the like should be implemented to repatriate artifacts to Egypt [...]

One wonders whether, if there'd been a museum at the foot of the World Trade Centre crushed by falling debris on 9/11, would this jackass also have been writing only about a "wanton destruction of the Museum"?  Or is that only when it happens in the country of the brown-skinned folk? Then Washington lawyers representing the international coin dealers' associations would feel at ease "joking" about it?

Let us note that what emergency import restrictions do is regulate the movement of material into the country with regard to the legality of export (their purpose is - of course, lawyer people - regulation of entry, not "repatriation"). Many groups and individuals are involved in raising money by profiting from illegally moving items from one market to another. I'd not be at all surprised to find that this too goes for Ansar Beit al-Maqdis, the group most probably behind the attack. The way to hinder these groups from operating in this way (and thus raising money for explosives, weapons and lawyers) is to prevent them making money from smuggling - for example much wanted antiquities to no-questions-asking buyers. For the rest of us its a no-brainer.

The coin-dealers' associations' spokesman then brainlessly chortles on:

If anything, all this instead supports the proposition that important artifacts-- particularly those from Egypt's pre-Islamic past--should be sent out of the country for safekeeping while duplicates of less important material are sold on the open market to raise funds to help protect the rest.   Collectors and Museums in the United States, Europe and the Gulf States will no doubt be willing to help.   So let's all support the protection of Egyptian antiquities by seeing them safely out of Egypt as quickly as possible.  It's as simple as that. 

Quite what the point of that remark is, only Mr Tompa knows. It seems pretty retarded to me. What he is suggesting is that he and the people he represents would like to see countries such as Egypt denuded of "all important artefacts - particularly those from Egypt's pre-Islamic past" - but only for their safe-keeping we are asked to believe. The self-interest embedded in that comment hardly needs pointing out. But then, darker prejudices emerge. Why does this suggestion concern objects "particularly from Egypt's pre-Islamic past" when the coineys' argument stems from the fact that an important museum of Islamic objects was damaged?

Is Egypt's Islamic history not a vital part of world history? The Fatimids for example? I personally am 100% sure it is. Bigotted US collectors, driven by their own self-interest and greed may, as we constantly see, harbour animosity towards all other countries and cultures than "their own", and they may look down on Moslems and their history and culture, but actually I think that is merely an expression of their own unambitious intellectual level than anything we need pay attention to.

Vignette: staged photo.