Re: "Artifacts", etc.

Posted by Anejo Joe from 97.myrtlebeach-01rs13-14rt.sc.dial-access.att.net on April 08, 1999 at 05:03:26:

In Reply to: Re: "Artifacts", etc. posted by Michaelson on April 07, 1999 at 13:22:15:

: : Hi all,
: : Re: the links for "genuine and fake" artifacts on some pages...
: : While the films are most fun, the actual antiquities trade is anything but that. Selling real "pieces of history" only encourages more looting and the destruction of archaeological sites. I don't want to preach to those whom I assume are the converted, but it seems to me that web-links to "real-life" antiquities dealers on IJ pages cannot but mock archaeology and probably project a rather dismal image of the merits of IJ movies. Hope you find the following interesting and can forgive the length of post. Cheers.

: : There is a plethora of artifact-trading sites. Some have pages where
: : ethics and practices are sometimes debated:
: : http://www.arrowheads.com/
: : http://www.tribalarts.com/weboard/webboard.html
: : see also:
: : http://www.webring.org/cgi-bin/webring?ring=heath;list
: : for a listing of traders.

: : For the heritage-minded side of the looting/antiquities trade, see:
: : http://www.unesco.org/culture/legalprotection/theft/theft.htm
: : http://www.usia.gov/education/culprop/
: : http://193.123.144.14/interpol.com
: : http://www.upenn.edu/museum/Moche/looting.html
: : http://maya-archaeology.org/html/law.html
: : http://www.museum-security.org/
: : http://www.nitehawk.com/alleycat/artifact.html

: : A news item for a laugh:
: : http://www.sdearthtimes.com/et1095/et1095s11.html

: Jim, I noticed no one picked up your "gauntlet" regarding your subject. Though this topic has been debated before on this forum, and to be frank it is also one of those that is never quite solved, I'll play the devils advocate here if I may just to balance the argument....I'm not sure to whom you're referred to as the "converted" regarding the collection of antiquities for private collections. There are indeed bad apples in every craft and retail circles, but you can't just go and paint everyone with such a broad paint brush as all being the evil ones promoting "grave robbing". This debate is the very one ongoing between Bob Ballard, the discoverer of the Titanic and the R.M.S. Titanic inc., group filer of record on the wreck regarding the removal of that ships artifacts and their selling the coal from it's bunkers and seafloor to finance their "dig". By who's ethics are we going by? This is such a deep and constantly moving topic that it is taught at universitites all over the world, including the campus I work at. There is no one good solid answer regarding what is considered a "collectable", and what is considered museum quality discoveries that require only scientific research and should totally stay out of the hands of the collector, let alone the ethics of how they were obtained. This debate has swung back and forth for generations. Let's face it, the extreme hard core claim that nothing should be removed from a known or discovered grave site what so ever, even eliminating the scientific research angle. There are those at the extreme other end of the scale who state that any and all items found are subject to sale since it would not impact the parties uncovered anyway. They're dead, what do they care. I believe there should be a balance between the scientific circles and the true collector of artifacts (the public) who collect the pieces as art and history items to be studied and passed down to their own circles of study, not just totally under the control of the scientific community. This is just my spin on the topic. Any thoughts anyone? Regards. Michaelson

--------------------------------

In many cases, such as Roman coins, there is such a supply that their value is only to those people who enjoy collecting such things. Museums don't want them. They have too many already. The same could be said of mummys from Egypt. At one time there was an industry converting the mummys to fertilizer. But there is only one mummy of Tut. That makes it special. That separates the artifact from the fertilizer. I think most of the dealers I have seen are selling fertilizer. Those selling the "real" artifacts probably do not advertise for obvious reasons.

Follow Ups:

Post a Followup:

Name:    
E-Mail:  
Subject: 
Comments:

: : : Hi all,
: : : Re: the links for "genuine and fake" artifacts on some pages...
: : : While the films are most fun, the actual antiquities trade is anything but that.  Selling real "pieces of history" only encourages more looting and the destruction of archaeological sites.  I don't want to preach to those whom I assume are the converted, but it seems to me that web-links to "real-life" antiquities dealers on IJ pages cannot but mock archaeology and probably project a rather dismal image of the merits of IJ movies.  Hope you find the following interesting and can forgive the length of post.  Cheers.

: : : There is a plethora of artifact-trading sites.  Some have pages where
: : : ethics and practices are sometimes debated:
: : : http://www.arrowheads.com/
: : : http://www.tribalarts.com/weboard/webboard.html
: : : see also:
: : : http://www.webring.org/cgi-bin/webring?ring=heath;list
: : : for a listing of traders.

: : : For the heritage-minded side of the looting/antiquities trade, see:
: : : http://www.unesco.org/culture/legalprotection/theft/theft.htm
: : : http://www.usia.gov/education/culprop/
: : : http://193.123.144.14/interpol.com
: : : http://www.upenn.edu/museum/Moche/looting.html
: : : http://maya-archaeology.org/html/law.html
: : : http://www.museum-security.org/
: : : http://www.nitehawk.com/alleycat/artifact.html

: : : A news item for a laugh:
: : : http://www.sdearthtimes.com/et1095/et1095s11.html

: : Jim, I noticed no one picked up your "gauntlet" regarding your subject. Though this topic has been debated before on this forum, and to be frank it is also one of those that is never quite solved, I'll play the devils advocate here if I may just to balance the argument....I'm not sure to whom you're referred to as the "converted" regarding the collection of antiquities for private collections. There are indeed bad apples in every craft and retail circles, but you can't just go and paint everyone with such a broad paint brush as all being the evil ones promoting "grave robbing". This debate is the very one ongoing between Bob Ballard, the discoverer of the Titanic and the R.M.S. Titanic inc., group filer of record on the wreck regarding the removal of that ships artifacts and their selling the coal from it's bunkers and seafloor to finance their "dig". By who's ethics are we going by? This is such a deep and constantly moving topic that it is taught at universitites all over the world, including the campus I work at. There is no one good solid answer regarding what is considered a "collectable", and what is considered museum quality discoveries that require only scientific research and should totally stay out of the hands of the collector, let alone the ethics of how they were obtained. This debate has swung back and forth for generations. Let's face it, the extreme hard core claim that nothing should be removed from a known or discovered grave site what so ever, even eliminating the scientific research angle. There are those at the extreme other end of the scale who state that any and all items found are subject to sale since it would not impact the parties uncovered anyway. They're dead, what do they care. I believe there should be a balance between the scientific circles and the true collector of artifacts (the public) who collect the pieces as art and history items to be studied and passed down to their own circles of study, not just totally under the control of the scientific community. This is just my spin on the topic. Any thoughts anyone? Regards. Michaelson

: --------------------------------

: In many cases, such as Roman coins, there is such a supply that their value is only to those people who enjoy collecting such things.  Museums don't want them.  They have too many already.  The same could be said of mummys from Egypt.  At one time there was an industry converting the mummys to fertilizer.  But there is only one mummy of Tut.  That makes it special.  That separates the artifact from the fertilizer.  I think most of the dealers I have seen are selling fertilizer.  Those selling the "real" artifacts probably do not advertise for obvious reasons.

Optional:

Link URL:   
Link Title: 
Image URL:

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ The Indyfan Forum ] [ FAQ ]