Politics aside, I feel the dividing line is between removing something from an archeological site or existing ritual site in a context where the presence of the item adds information, and buying something that has been circulating in the market place. Even buying an antique from a village market from someone who had it in the family for a few generations is not the same as stealing it from a temple. If a villager sells a family heirloom, they lose some personal history, but information about the artifact and its provenance now has the chance to reach the larger world and make us all culturally richer for it.
Proper archeology concerns museums and national governments and should not involve collectors too much. Artifacts clearly excavated but with no provenance, are in a bit of a moral grey zone. No new information would be lost, but feeding demand could potentially lead to more looting.
Where I strongly disagree with those who question ethnographic collecting is with nationalists who think that, for example, Japanese swords or Chinese swords in private ownership should all be owned by members of the same ethnicity as their provenance. The ethnicity of private owners has no bearing on the appreciation of beauty or the knowledge an antique sword can bring. Moreover forbidding the spread of cultural information and the artifacts that go with it leads to xenophobic isolation instead of appreciation for new forms and aesthetics developed outside a European context.
What I would like to see is more museums working with the international collecting community. That way when Hong Kong collectors snap up all the really good Chinese pieces, I still would have a chance of seeing them at the Met someday.
Josh
|