The Ethics of Collecting

[ShayanMirza]

The more sales of ethnographic arms and armor I see, the more I am confronted with a question: is it ethical to take the arms and armor of a people, much of which was obtained during imperial occupation, and sell them for profit to private collectors?

I am conflicted on this. On the one hand it is wonderful that many people outside of the culture of origin get to experience this work. Some collectors exhibit their pieces in museums. Most, if not all, try to learn as much about their acquisition as they can, and the culture that produced it.

On the other hand, if that culture is deprived of its artifacts and material heritage to satisfy the market demand of a relatively small number of collectors, is the world the better for it? Does it truly promote education? Personally, I lean more towards this side of the spectrum on this issue. I have a historically relevant and martial family, from which many unique weapons are derived. To be honest, it annoys me to see the tools by which my ancestors conquered or died sold on eBay or weapons sites to American or European buyers, who may only view it as a typical piece of the such-and-such period, or have an interest in weaponry but no understanding of the significance the weapon truly had to the contemporaries or their ancestors.

There are cogent points to be made on both ends of the spectrum. Where do we draw the line between collecting the historic, and imperialistically plundering a foreign culture? Should native countries buy back their weapons? Should for imperial powers give back their nationally owned ethnographic weapons?

I know I feel I shouldn't have to pay some dealer $5000 or something for my own ancestors' weaponry!

What are your thoughts on this?

[Emanuel]

Hi ShayanMirza!
I have seen this question debated here before, and doubtless is has been debated in the old forum as well. I think that objects of all kinds have been stolen and looted from many peoples throughout man's history and used or sold elsewhere. The cultures from which these items come may even have sold them to acquire money, and indeed many were originally produced just to satisfy collectors demand. What is now revered as an antique weapon may have been made as an old "tourist knife". Now consider that presently, many cultures around the world do not have the interest in old weapons and traditions anymore, and if they do, they often lack the funds to sustain collections in musea. If a family is poor, it may certainly choose to sell an heirloom to survive. That item passes through many hands before reaching a final collector and staying there for a while.

If Europeans had not conquered, someone else always did, so the really valuable and precious items were always looted and given off as pretty things or as presents. European nations built large empires, so I think it is natural that they have large stocks of ethnographic artefacts, especially since they did have interest in mysterious "oriental" cultures.

In many places, weapons have always been recycled, either for their steel or for their precious decorations. This would continue if not for collectors who wanted to keep the weapon as it is.

I think that from the numerous discussions on this forum you can see that most members love to learn about the cultures that produced the weapons. These are certainly not just pretty things to put on walls.

As for ebay, consider that many people use it because they need the money. Whether they had an uncle who collected or stole the weapons and artefacts, they are now selling them because they are in need, not necessarily out of greed and desire for profit. Years ago, weapons that are nwo very expensive were sold for peanuts, and some still are.

I think that if not for collectors, a great deal of weapons, artefacts and knowledge would be lost
And I think most members here would sell a couple of their relatives to travel to the places that produced the weapons and learn about them
In some past discussions, some members even considered offering their collections back to the countries that produced them. But then, how would they be cared for? Musea care for valuable, unique pieces, not the regular simple examples that make up many of our collections.

Emanuel

[ShayanMirza]

I agree, collectors have certainly preserved much weaponry. However, shouldn't the native culture be able to view weapons that were often obtained from them under duress? And can't the native cultures preserve their own weaponry? If not for imperialism, I'm not sure there always would have been a need to relocate the weapons for "preservation."

For example, the recent exhibit in Macao on Asian weaponry, whatever people's politics on the issue, at least attempted to present foreign-owned native artifacts to their people of origin, which I find commendable.

Regarding the European and American collectors comment, I apologize for its controversial nature. However, it was not Middle Eastern or Asian empires that dominated the globe for two centuries. I am referring to the imperial holdovers present in collecting, which descend from the imperial eras of Britain, America, France, and a host of other European nations.

[ShayanMirza]

My apologies. I am quite simply peeved that I will have to buy my own ancestors' plundered weaponry back for an astronomical price. I should not have started this thread, and apologize for initiating it. It has little academic merit and is sure to bring up uncomfortable topics.

[Rick]

I think it's probably a good idea to lock this one ........

[Rick]

Originally Posted by ShayanMirza

The more sales of ethnographic arms and armor I see, the more I am confronted with a question: is it ethical to take the arms and armor of a people, much of which *was* obtained during imperial occupation, and sell them for profit to private collectors?

I think the key word here is "was" ; I'm not so sure that ethics are attached anymore to a confiscated weapon or a battlefield pick-up from the past.
Certainly we know the cultures that most of these pieces came from but only rarely do we know of the 'individual' owner/s.

I think that if posed 75 years ago this question would have been dismissed out of hand.
Of course some say that it is a different world now; but I strongly suspect that most cultures that have had any kind of martial history have taken and still posess weapons from cultures that they have clashed with in their history.

[Lew]

Originally Posted by ShayanMirza

To be honest, it angers me to see the tools by which my ancestors conquered or died sold on eBay or weapons sites to American or European buyers, who only view it as a typical piece of the such-and-such period, or think it looks pretty, or have an interest in weaponry but not so much the people to whom it mattered so much.

There are cogent points to be made on both ends of the spectrum. Where do we draw the line between collecting the historic, and imperialistically plundering a foreign culture?

What are your thoughts on this?

ShayanMirza

Your referrence to American and European buyers may not be taken in the proper light. I am sure there are plenty of Asian,African and Middle Eastern collectors out there from all of the world as you can plainly see from our membership that acquire antique weapons via the internet. I do not think this topic will end up going in the right direction so I suggest we do not persue this discussion any further.

Regards

Lew

[Rick]

I agree with you Lew.