The idea that collector drive the looting is widely believed and certainly widely promoted by the anti collecting faction. For it to actually be true there are two things which must also be true.He does not enlarge on these points, and presumably expects us to believe that he has proof that 'these statements are false'. I think though the trick is in the terminology he uses. in this blog I have proposed calling the subject of concern 'Collection-driven Exploitation of the Archaeological (or historical if you like) record (CDE). Using my term would mean that both of those statements are true - and it is up to Mr Kokotailon to show why my term is an invalid one. I bet he can't.
1) before collecting got going in a significant way, say before the 16th century, There was no looting.
2) if all collecting ended tomorrow looting would instantly end.
If one or both of these statements is false. The original statement must also be false and ending collecting will not solve the problem.
I really do not accept that nonsense claptrap of collectors that 'sites were looted in the past before collecting began'. that is nonsense - because if it were true, we would not have any archaeological sites of the prehistoric, Roman, Early Medieval and Medieval periods art all to excavate, would weZ? Self evident nonsense. Of course then the idiot collector or two will pipe up that ('as everybody knows') 'pharaohs' tombs were robbed in antiquity'. They are talking about the Valley of the Kings, and yes some tombs were opened (generally in times of conflict when the site was not being effectively guarded) but the tomb robbing of the late 18th, 19th and 20th dynasties was not 'collection driven exploitation'. Very many ancient Egyptian tombs were not raided and remained untouched to be explored by antiquaries. The same goes for ancient prehistoric burial mounds right across much of western Europe. The richly equipped tombs around most Roman towns (in their millions) remained intact until relatively recent times, the same goes for Early medieval equipped graves of the Migration period and Viking Age and som on. It simply is not true to claim that 'looting' of ancient sites was a general process, on the contrary, where it occurs it is generally a sign of social stress or conflict.
Likewise I would like to hear Mr Kokotailo's explanation of why his own statement that 'if all collecting ended tomorrow collection-driven exploitation of archaeological record would instantly end' is in some way 'false' Of course only an idiot would claim that it is a false statement.
Once again, the typical pro-collecting arguments and pseudo-justifications turmn out on closer examination to be shallow-minded tosh promoted by people who are too lazy to think them through properly (or cynically assume that their listeners are). Once again we see that there is absolutely no point in trying to discuss anything in a rational manner with collectors and their mouthpieces, because, by the glib constant repetition of pathetically thin and stereotypically xenophobic, orientalist arguments about the allegedly strange people that are the citizens of the source countries they are robbing of their heritage, these people are simply alienating themselves from any meaningful heritage debate.
Vignette: Turtle smugglers turtle-smuggle because turtle-smuggling is what turtle smugglers do. It has got nothing to do with the fact people buy the turtles at the other end of the chain of supply says dealer Kokotailo.
.jpg)
No comments:
Post a Comment