The Most Common Arguments Against Ethical Collecting

The ethical collector, among other things, gives thought to what damage they are doing to the precious and finite historical record, and makes sure that all international laws and treaties were followed in the acqusition of that piece They ask the difficult questions of sellers regarding where the item comes from, and whether or not it has the necessary paperwork to show it was legally exported. An equally ethical seller will be happy to answer these questions and provide all documentation. (More on ethical sellers later)

I'll use this open question posted in the AncientArtifacts forum on yahoo since it seems to have many of the popular arguments all rolled into one:

For the Original post, see here: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Ancientartifacts/message/46994

For the original reply, see here: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Ancientartifacts/message/47002

"Hi this question is opened to everyone. I'm sure that most collections thats most of the "legal" antiques come from - do you think that the where obtained legally? Its not like the collector obtained the items any differently from the way we are obtaining it today- either way they came from looted tombs. The only difference is that after the 1960's or so - date put in place by the Egyptian government in terms of obtaining and buying Egyptian artifacts making it legal to buy items taken out of Egypt before the specified date. But I think we all fail to see the underlying factor that at one stage even stuff will a tracable provenance once was some"pirates booty".

At the end of the day its own to your own moral convictions whether you want to buy something or not, while knowing its history of acquisition.

Personally I think human nature to have something/ own something has led to this industry of buying artifacts. And all our past purchases in a way has indicted "there is a demand- now someone needs to supply".

As long as we want certian things, someone will make it there job to supply the demand no matter how. I don't think that not buying these items is clear cut solution. Someone else will scope this piece of history up , possibly not treat it well or even sell it on to someone else, eventaully a few years later making its way to your mantle piece / or another auction - with you not having the slightest clue of how its acquition started - (all you will be told was owned by an old man , now deceased " truth of the matter is in many cases people selling these items whom form part of the buying-selling chain don't really know that it was recently looted and as it passes from hand to hand it's looted history becomes more obscure until eventually it has a "provenance" - eg: from the collection of the late Mr. X- but whom did Mr. X get it from?, whom did the person whom sold it to Mr.X get it from, and so on ."

Here is the reply given:

"I'd like to answer your open question: I'll break it down into parts.

"I'm sure that most collections that's most of the "legal" antiques come from - do you think that the where obtained legally? Its not like the collector obtained the items any differently from the way we are obtaining it today- either ways they came from looted tombs."

Don't you think that's part of the problem? We can't continue, knowing what we know now about what we are doing to the historical record, to collect the way it has been done in the past.

"But I think we all fail to see the underlying factor that at one stage even stuff will a tracable provenance once was some"pirates booty""

No, no one fails to see that We can't change the past, but we, as responsible collectors, need to make sure that we are not continuing to contribute to looting now or in the future. We do that by buying items with legitimate provenance.

"As long as we want certain things, someone will make it there job to supply the demand no matter how."

That's true, there will always be irresponsible collectors to buy these items. As responsible collectors we need to make sure that we are not the ones buying them.

"Someone else will scope this piece of history up , possibly not treat it well or even sell it on to someone else"

Do you really think that justifies buying a recently looted item? Because someone else will just buy it anyway, so why not me? "I'll treat it better" has long been an argument of those not willing to report finds where required. Their theory is "it will just sit in a dusty store room anyway, I'll take better care of it, so I'll just keep it". Even for the average collector, "I'll treat it better" is not justification for buying a looted item.

"truth of the matter is in many cases people selling these items whom form part of the buying-selling chain don't really know that it was recently looted "

That wouldn't be true if they used due diligence BEFORE they buy the item. Ask questions of the seller. Ask for proof of offered provenance.

"as it passes from hand to hand it's looted history becomes more obscure until eventually it has a "provenance" - eg: from the collection of the late Mr. X-"

That's how it works. It's true that a large percentage of the items
out there were originally looted or stolen from legitimate digs, but as I said
earlier, we can't change the past. What we need to do now is change the way we
do things so that we don't continue to contribute to looting.

"but whom did Mr. X get it from?, whom did the person whom sold it to Mr. X get it from, and so on "

That's the importance of getting and passing on provenance, so we have this information going as far back as possible.

I think that this exchange shows clearly how collectors justify to themselves the "don't ask, don't tell" attitude that has been prevalent in the collecting community for far too long. It also shows just as clearly why those arguments fall short.

It's up to us, the collecting community as a whole, to change the way we do things so we are not continuing to contribute to the looting that has already done so much irreparable harm to our precious historical record.