tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3279887958085077691.post843745200888936469..comments2024-02-22T10:35:12.485-08:00Comments on Cultural Property Observer: Reaction to New York Times Article on Repatriation in the Age of ISISCultural Property Observerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05924359202414555962noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3279887958085077691.post-38310165642539079772015-04-01T23:01:35.847-07:002015-04-01T23:01:35.847-07:00The presumption of archaeologists (such as Ricardo...The presumption of archaeologists (such as Ricardo Elia) in assigning blame to collectors for all evils afflicting archaeology (and cultural heritage theft) is breathtaking, and is not sustained by any real or conclusive evidence linking illicit excavations in source states to activities of Western collectors. <br /><br />There is, instead, historical evidence indicating that channels for sale of the spoils of illicit excavations exist apart from their sale to European or North American collectors. <br /><br />While sale into these channels may be somewhat less lucrative than sales to channels reaching Western antiquities markets, no known factual evidence demonstrates that this becomes any significant disincentive to illicit excavations.<br /><br />The eagerness with which archaeologists blame Western collectors for problems in controlling cultural heritage theft in "source states" may be ascribed to two causes: <br /><br />First, there is the ideological bias of many archaeologists against private collecting of antiquities, and the trade that supplies it.<br /><br />Second, archaeology is not a "hard science" and the standards of proof required in the physical sciences are not regarded as necessary for an archaeologist to draw conclusions.<br /><br />While this leads to many interesting and informative conjectures regarding interpretation of data (excavated artifacts and their context), such conclusions are not proven in the way interpretation of data is proven in the physical sciences.<br /><br />As a result there is a tendency for "weight of opinion" to become the standard for acceptance of a thesis. But "weight of opinion" can be wrong. I believe that to be the case with regard to the as yet unproven conjecture that European and North American antiquities collectors are the root cause of illicit excavations in the Mideast and other source nations.<br /><br />Surely the vilification and attacks now being aimed at realizing the goal of regulatory suppression of antiquities collecting demand a more solid foundation than this unproven conjecture.Dave Welshhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07255744164675503973noreply@blogger.com