The Guardian Newspaper reports on what an UCL archaeologist saw when he walked around antiquities stores in London. And what did he find? Well, the same kinds of small antiquities from the Middle East that have been sold there for generations.
Yet, now in some academic circles they are called "blood antiquities." This, of course, provides the perfect excuse for the usual suspects to declaim on the supposed evils of the antiquities trade and try to justify a major change in our great Anglo-American legal traditions that presumes innocence rather than guilt-- something to think about on this Independence Day.
There is even an image of that that infamous coin struck in Apamea millenia ago. Though the Guardian quoted archaeo-blogger Sam Hardy, it evidently did not bother to check Hardy's blog that raised serious questions about whether the coin is as advertised out of a war zone.
More tabloid journalism at its worst.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Ah Peter:
The Guardian is not a tabloid, rather a Lefty broadsheet rag...say no more, eh?
Regards
John Howland
England
Thank you. A distinction without a difference then.
At least one member of the archaeological blogosphere appears to agree about this article: https://mobile.twitter.com/DrDonnaYates/status/617298842317385728
In any event, it's not so much a liberal/conservative issue but a media trust issue. How they could picture that coin again and suggest it was looted by ISIS is beyond me.
In the US, trust in newspapers continues to drop precipitously: http://www.gallup.com/poll/171740/americans-confidence-news-media-remains-low.aspx
No wonder.
Post a Comment