The archaeological blogosphere has started to react to Jason Felch's expose of the gross exaggeration behind the claim that looted antiquities represent ISIS' most significant funding source, behind "hot oil."
While some responsible parties question the wisdom of "cooking the books" others such as Larry Rothfield suggest lying is fine as long as it raises awareness of the issue and helps move the archaeological lobby's legislative agenda forward.
And then far off in Poland, one archaeological blogger misses the point altogether. No, the issue is not the need for more scrutiny of the already much scrutinized antiquities trade, but rather the need for at least some scrutiny on the claims of the archaeological lobby, particularly where they are used to justify import restrictions and funding decisions.
Arthur Houghton asked me to post this:
ReplyDelete"Larry Rothfield said that? A scholar? If he did he should have his mouth washed out with soap. But I like Larry. So perhaps he should be questioned as to what he said and what he meant. The remark is the equivalent of Goldwater's "Extremism in the cause of Liberty is no vice." Which he later claimed was misunderstood. Misunderstood? Can you query Larry and ask if he was misunderstood? I confess to being appalled.
Thank you,
Arthur"
I am NOT saying lying is okay if it leads to good results. I am against lying. I am also in favor of accuracy to the maximum degree it is possible to attain accuracy. I am an academic, which means I love truth. I am simply saying that it is just a fact that inaccurate description nonetheless sometimes does lead to good results. This is especially the case when the inaccuracy draws attention to a more general situation which is undoubtedly true, i.e., that even if antiquities aren’t the second largest source of revenue for ISIS they ARE a source of revenue for ISIS, and lots of antiquities are being looted in areas under ISIS control). It does not make philosophical sense to argue we should be against inaccuracy on the consequentialist grounds that it always leads to bad policymaking. There are other (nonconsequentialist) grounds for being against inaccuracy that are philosophically firmer grounds.
ReplyDeleteI would like to know whether my friends on the collecting side think I am wrong to believe that antiquities are a source of revenue for ISIS, or that I am wrong to believe that lots of antiquities are being looted in areas under ISIS control -- as well as in areas under the control of Assad. That after all is the key issue to get settled, no?
Larry, it still seems like you may be wanting to have it both ways. As for looting, it would appear based on satellite imagery and other reports that there is both looting and destruction caused by all sides to the conflict. That is a sad fact. The question is whether any of the material that has been looted is appearing in Western markets in quantity (that does not appear to be the case) and whether major changes in German and US law are necessary or desirable. My concern is that the proposals being made are much more likely to damage legitimate collecting and all the benefits it brings in terms of preservation of artifacts and promotion of cultural understanding than it is to stop material looted from Syria.
ReplyDeleteArthur Houghton asked me to post this:
ReplyDelete"Peter, I am afraid our friend Larry Rothfield is deeply conflicted. On one hand he assures us that lying is unacceptable (I am so happy to know this!), but on the other supports "inaccuracy" to good purpose and can't quite get away from the fact that the many inaccuracies that surround the Syrian antiquities issue are either willful (that is, equivalent to lying) or willfully unfounded (which is equivalent to mendacious error). Larry asks whether he is wrong to believe that antiquities are a source of revenue for ISIS. Let's say sure -- but there is no evidence to suggest that they are significant in comparison to ISIS's principal revenue sources -- external oil sales, taxation, road taxes and customs levies, banking, gasoline sales and distribution, or any of the countless ways that money can be made in Syria on a routine, daily and truly significant basis. Larry doesn't know much about Syrian antiquities, so perhaps he should be forgiven for believing there are vast riches under the ground, ripe to be dug out and sold. That's not the case, and he should know this and try to find out a little more, unless he really is wedded to the questionable view that really good things that can result from willful ignorance.
To be clear, a mistruth, whether willful (a lie) or not (obtuseness) in the service of a good cause is still a mistruth. Larry claims that as an academic he loves the truth. Good, so be it. Recognizing that he is a little beyond his depth, he should now take the opportunity to correct himself.
Larry?
Warm regards,
Arthur"