tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8174756573570334952.post4882461902373635902..comments2024-03-27T04:46:33.198-07:00Comments on Portable Antiquity Collecting and Heritage Issues: Talking Rot About "Rot at the Top"Paul Barfordhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10443302899233809948noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8174756573570334952.post-22993791009445889362010-08-21T04:09:28.272-07:002010-08-21T04:09:28.272-07:00Well, more to the point to establish a "patte...Well, more to the point to establish a "pattern" really requires them to show that the cases they discuss (literally FIVE between 1996 and 2008) are a substantial portion of the cases where confiscations were involved. I.e., that they are not missing out hunks of information on cases which conform to those laws. As we know from the newspapers it is simply not true that there have been little more than "five" cases in that period. There have been about four or five in the last month or so. <br /><br />They have not demonstrated that there is a "pattern" (still less, have they "unveiled" it). What they've shown is that there are isolated incidences, and I really do not see why that is surprising. <br /><br />If they want to see law upheld, they really ought to look at the sentencing of the Four Corners looting cases and the sad little plea bargains that are being allowed there making a mockery of ARPA.Paul Barfordhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10443302899233809948noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8174756573570334952.post-83726682218322903592010-08-21T03:52:34.648-07:002010-08-21T03:52:34.648-07:00Paul
you make a good point about carelessness by t...Paul<br />you make a good point about carelessness by the authors of the draft article. What other inaccuracies are lurking their piece?<br />DavidDavid Gillhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13164794689385933318noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8174756573570334952.post-77327215611778832762010-08-21T03:38:38.298-07:002010-08-21T03:38:38.298-07:00"Serious" I presume. I think they are in..."Serious" I presume. I think they are intellectually dishonest over at least one point (see my comments earlier) and the question is of course whther their error over the identity of this individual was deliberate or not. Are they trying to conceal the identity of the importer who it seems has been in trouble over illegal imports before, or is it a careless mistake? In either case, can we trust that the rest of the presentation is accurate? <br /><br />Coineys do, but that does not mean to say that the thinking public does.Paul Barfordhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10443302899233809948noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8174756573570334952.post-57847141326289705092010-08-21T03:33:56.249-07:002010-08-21T03:33:56.249-07:00Paul
My post expanded reflected on one aspect of t...Paul<br />My <a href="http://lootingmatters.blogspot.com/2010/08/miami-law-missing-ethical-point.html" rel="nofollow">post</a> expanded reflected on one aspect of the paper, the Egyptian coffin seized in Miami. The draft article (it is not a finished piece of research as far as I can see) contains a series error as it misidentifies the importer; I reflect on this <a href="http://lootingmatters.blogspot.com/2010/08/miami-law-correction.html" rel="nofollow">here</a>. <br />Best wishes<br />DavidDavid Gillhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13164794689385933318noreply@blogger.com