Coin dealer Dave Welsh in a message cross-posted, as is his wont, to sundry antiquitist discussion lists takes a chunk of my post about "Wagsant" out of context and then solemnly intones:
It's hardly surprising to learn that Mr. Barford would "like to see a few US coin dealers in a Turkish or Bulgarian jail for knowingly handling stolen property)." Those who have read what he has to say over the years can hardly have any illusions regarding how he views anyone who deals in antiquities. From Mr. Barford's one-sided anticollecting perspective, dealing in or collecting unprovenanced portable antiquities such as ancient coins is a crime, and such objects are by definition "stolen property".Golly, another sleight of hand. Let it be noted the word "a few" does not mean (in my vocabulary at least) "anyone who does something". If somebody has been knowingly handling stolen goods and this has been contributing to destruction of the archaeological record, I would like to see them face the consequences. No matter how unfashionable that might seem to be to a 'Merkin, well aware of the Four Corners sentencing fiasco in their own "Land of The Free".
Mr Welsh seems not to want to notice the link I gave that part of my text - to the US authorities luring a German dealer who'd been smuggling (spiders) into the US and locking him up. We know too of the poor lady who suffered an agonising death in an American jail when she too was arrested for alleged indirect involvement in an antiquity smuggling case. From a chance remark of Zahi Hawass it looks very much like they were trying to do the same to an antiquities dealer based in Dubai earlier on this year. Why cannot a US dealer dealing in stolen goods not have to face a penalty abroad for what they've been doing? Because they are American?
If a dodgy dealer is brought before a court and convicted of having knowingly handled stolen goods (for example their computer hard discs and other business records contain information unequivocally pointing to that), then I would like to ask fellow dealer Welsh, what is "anti-collecting" about saying they should pay the penalty? Surely is that not what all truly responsible dealers and collectors would say? Or not? If not, then to what degree is their "responsibility" only declarative?
Mr Welsh gives the impression here that he thinks US dealers caught handling stolen antiquities should NOT go to jail, and that it is "anti-collecting" to suggest they should. Is that really his position as an officer of the ACCG and a dealer in dug up antiquities?
The dealer furthermore - and wholly provocatively - suggests to his readers that:
From Mr. Barford's one-sided anticollecting perspective, dealing in or collecting unprovenanced portable antiquities such as ancient coins is a crime, and such objects are by definition "stolen property".No. Actually I think (that among other places) my position on that is adequately enough explained in the VERY SAME POST from which Welsh extracts his "shock-horror" story - he just has not read into it deeply enough. Why don't you learn to read (with understanding) Mr Welsh before you presume to tell others what I mean to say? What a sad farce and total indictment of the US higher education system this is turning out to be.
Sadly, if putting away dodgy dealers is considered by dealers' lobbyists as "anti-collecting" and signing MOUs to prevent illegally exported coins from being imported into the USA is considered by dealers' lobbyists as "anti-collecting", what does that say about the current state of antiquity collecting in the USA? Or perhaps (truly) responsible collectors might wish to distance themselves from the way certain dealers' lobbyists are speaking for them. Do US collectors really want to see dodgy dealers walk free and buy illegally exported and looted archaeological material?
.jpg)
No comments:
Post a Comment