Easter Island vandalization-Aarrr!

[M ELEY]

Did you hear about this idiot who chipped off a piece of earlobe from the Easter Island statue! I'm for collecting, but this goes too far! What a selfish jerk! At least they caught him. It's like the destruction of those huge 2000 year old Buddhas. Such a shame. To open up a discussion that I hope won't create any great controversy, when and what is OK to collect? Many of us have edged weapons with rhino hilts. Some have midaeval swords taken from burial vaults. Others collect Tibetan artifacts of human bone or American Indian scalps or S. Amer shrunken heads. So...what's taboo??

[VANDOO]

YEP THIS WILL BE A CONTROVERSIAL SUBJECT

I WOULD SAY THE GUY ON EASTER ISLAND VANDALIZED THE MOA AND WAS NOT A COLLECTOR BUT A KNUCKLE HEAD. THE GIANT BUDHAS WERE BLOWN UP BY RELIGIOUS EXTREMESTS SORT OF LIKE HOW SOME EARLY CHRISTIAN EXTREMESTS KNOCKED THE FACES OFF EVERY EGYPTIAN STATUE THEY COULD GET THEIR HANDS ON. PEOPLE HAVE BEEN DOING FOOLISH THINGS FROM THE BEGINNING AND I AM SURE WILL CONTINUE UNTIL THE END. EXTREME GROUPS ARE OFTEN OUT OF BALANCE WITH LOGIC AND USUALLY OUT OF CONTROL AND CAN DO A LOT OF HARM AS THEY STRIKE OUT AT EVERYTHING AROUND THEM WHILE THINKING THEY ARE IN THE RIGHT.

WE COLLECTORS HAVE A INTREST IN THE MANY THINGS THE WORLD PROVIDES AND HAVE CHANGED THE PRIMITAVE INSTINT TO COLLECT AND HOARD FOOD. SO WE COLLECT AND HOARD OTHER STUFF THIS IS GOOD BECAUSE WE PRESERVE THE THINGS WE COLLECT AND LEARN ABOUT THEM AND RECORD THE INFORMATION SO IT WON'T BE LOST. A COLLECTOR WITH PLENTY OF CASH WOULD HAVE JUST BOUGHT A MOA AND HAD IT MOVED CARFULLY TO A SAFE PLACE PREPARED FOR IT.

OF COURSE SOME WILL GET VERY ANGRY THAT SOMEONE WOULD MOVE ONE MOA FROM EASTER ISLAND EVEN IF THEY HAVE HUNDREDS MORE AND THEY WERE FALLING INTO THE SEA. THERE ARE STILL BAD FEELINGS ABOUT THE CARVEINGS FROM THE ACROPOLIS IN ATHENS BEING IN LONDON. BUT AT THE TIME THEY WERE TAKEN IT PROBABLY SAVED THEM FROM BEING DESTROYED AS SOME HAD ALREADY BEEN DESTROYED BY THE OCCUPING ARMY FOR FUN AND BULIDING MATERIALS. PERHAPS THEY WILL BE RETURNED SOME DAY BUT IN THE MANY YEARS IN LONDON VAST NUMBERS OF PEOPLE HAVE SEEN AND ENJOYED THEM. SO SOME GOOD HAS COME OF IT AS THEY WERE SAVED AND PRESERVED AND DISPLAYED FOR THE WORLD TO COME AND SEE THEM.
THERE ARE THOSE TODAY WHO FEEL THAT WE ALL SHOULD ALL BE FORCED TO DO AS THEY SAY AND THEY WOULD NOT ALLOW US MUCH. WE WOULD ALL HAVE TO BECOME VEGITARIANS, FREE ALL THE ANIMALS AND WEAR ONLY CLOTHES MADE FROM PLANTS, LIVE IN HOLES IN THE GROUND SO WE WOULD NOT NEED TO CUT THE TREES OR DIG UP THE EARTH TO MAKE CEMENT OR MINE METALS, COAL OR OIL. ABSOLUTELY NO COLLECTING JUST STAY ON THE PATH AND TAKE NOTHING EXCEPT AIR AND SUN AND LEAVE ONLY FOOTPRINTS.

[M ELEY]

Good points, Barry. Wow, I didn't know someone had actually bought a moa. I agree with you almost entirely, but of course, there is the issue of fairness when only the richest have access to some of these items ( He bought a moa???!!). Someday, I worry that a billionaire will purchase some large piece of the sky and we'll all have to pay to fly through it!

[Yannis]

Originally Posted by VANDOO

THERE ARE STILL BAD FEELINGS ABOUT THE CARVEINGS FROM THE ACROPOLIS IN ATHENS BEING IN LONDON. BUT AT THE TIME THEY WERE TAKEN IT PROBABLY SAVED THEM FROM BEING DESTROYED AS SOME HAD ALREADY BEEN DESTROYED BY THE OCCUPING ARMY FOR FUN AND BULIDING MATERIALS. PERHAPS THEY WILL BE RETURNED SOME DAY BUT IN THE MANY YEARS IN LONDON VAST NUMBERS OF PEOPLE HAVE SEEN AND ENJOYED THEM. SO SOME GOOD HAS COME OF IT AS THEY WERE SAVED AND PRESERVED AND DISPLAYED FOR THE WORLD TO COME AND SEE THEM.

This is the explanation the British use for Acropolis marbles. The pieces they got are part of a bigger complex of statues. The parts they are still in Greece are in better condition that the parts in the British museum. His curators for a lot of years used to rub with iron brush the marbles because they wanted them white!

As for Acropolis and weapons, its major destruction happened in 1687, when Morozini, from Venice, shot it with his cannons during a siege.

During the Greek revolution of 1821 it happened something extraordinary. Acropolis was under a siege (once again) and the Turkish guard was breaking the columns to extract the lead of their connections. They wanted the lead to make bullets for their flintlocks. The Greeks gave them bullets to shot just to avoid the destruction.

Also there is a famous phrase from Makrigiannis, a greek general of the revolution: "For these marbles we fight". So please, dont bite any word the British Museum sells on this matter, they just afraid that after Greece a lot of other countries will ask back the treasures that the colonial thiefs got. In this case there are a lot of British who say that the marbles must return.

[katana]

I can see this debate becoming 'political', countries accusing others of stealing their heritage and 'national treasures'. I feel that we should view the bigger picture.....the victorious always took the 'spoils' from the vanquished. This pattern has occured for millenia, it is in man's natural behaviour ...

In modern times 'money' is the new weapon of acquition .... in poorer countries, rich in history ....grave robbers etc. still exist whom are prepared to sell antiquities to unscruplious dealers ....to feed their famillies. They , of course, receive minimal payment......its these dealers who's mark-ups can easily be 1000 - 2000%....whom are the real villians.

[spiral]

yes it was always "to the victors the spoils. " Thats war even when the Greeks conquered half the known world & took whatever they desired.


Thats also why England & USA are full of Japanese swords, my local museam apparently even has George Washington’s Bible, captured by the 46th Foot in 1777.

Spiral

[dennee]

Defacing such a significant cultural resource is a disgrace and a crime.

As for what is actually taboo, it depends who you ask. The reason that some Tibetan artifacts are made of bone (skull cups and drums, bone aprons and femur trumpets, etc.) is because they represent the impermanence of all things and suggest that people should not be attached to objects or concepts. An interesting perspective for all collectors to consider! Of course, in practice, I think Tibetans have been somewhat ambivalent about such items; do they not matter, or should they be guarded as important religious objects?

[josh stout]

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

[VANDOO]

I DON'T KNOW IF ANYONE HAS BOUGHT A MOA I WAS USING THAT AS AN EXAMPLE OF WHAT A RICH COLLECTOR WOULD DO . I SUSPECT SOME MUSEUM OR RICH PERSON HAS TAKEN ONE IN THE PAST AND PERHAPS IT WAS DONATED TO SOME MUSEUM SOMEWHERE WHEN THE COLLECTOR DIED OR GOT OLDER AND DECIDED TO PART WITH IT.

OFTEN COMMON OBJECTS FOUND IN POOR AREAS HAVE NO VALUE AND ARE TREATED AS TRASH, THEY ONLY BECOME VALUABLE WHEN THERE IS A MARKET FOR THEM. FARMERS IN MID AND SOUTH AMERICA USED TO FIND LOTS OF ARTEFACTS IN THEIR FIELDS WHICH WERE REMOVED AND THROWN IN A DITCH OR USED FOR LANDFILL TO GET THEM OUT OF THE FIELD. ONE AREA IN CHINA HAD LOTS OF CHUNKS OF METEORITES IN THE FIELDS WHICH WERE REMOVED PILED UP AND USED FOR FENCES AND LANDFILL. FOR GENERATIONS THESE THINGS WERE WASTED OR DESTROYED UNTILL SOMEONE CAME ALONG AND OFFERED MONEY FOR THEM. THEN THEY WERE SOUGHT OUT AND TAKEN CARE OF SO THEY WOULD BRING THE BEST PRICE.
IN SOME AREAS THIS IS STILL TRUE A FRIEND OF MINE HIKING AROUND SOUTH AMERICA FOUND A LADY USING A OLD BOWL SHE HAD DUG UP IN THE GARDEN AS A WATER BOWL FOR HER DOG. IT HAD JAGUAR HEADS AND PAINTING STILL ON IT BUT WAS A BIT WORSE FOR THE WEAR OF BEING A DOGS BOWL.
IN MANY PARTS OF THE WORLD PEOPLE STILL LIVE IN THE OLD WAY AND MUST SPEND ALL THEIR TIME SURVIVING AND TAKING CARE OF THEIR FAMILYS. THE CROPS MUST BE PLANTED, HARVESTED AND STORED THE HOUSE AND ANIMALS MUST BE TAKEN CARE OF WHEN THE CHILDREN GROW UP A SUITABLE MATE MUST BE FOUND AND THE NEW FAMILY HELPED TO GET LAND AND HOUSE.
WE ALL HAVE TIME ON OUR HANDS AND DON'T HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT A BAD CROP, SOMETHING HAPPENING TO THE LIVESTOCK OR HOUSE WHICH COULD LEAD TO THE STARVATION OF THE FAMILY. PEOPLE LIVING LIKE THAT DON'T HAVE THE TIME TO COLLECT OR PAY MUCH ATTENTION TO THINGS THAT DON'T HELP THEM EARN A LIVEING. WE ARE LUCKY AS WE HAVE THE TIME TO GOOF OFF , COLLECT, STUDY AND TYPE ON THE COMPUTER.

[M ELEY]

I've read everyone's comments and, surprisingly, I agree with everyone despite different viewpoints. I guess in an ideal world, if discoveries in the modern era are found, those artifacts will hopefully be SHARED by both the finder and the host country (no more hauling away the pharoah's loot as in the past). I do think the finder should get a share of the find, however (think Mel Fisher and also this most recent treasure find that's causing so many bad feelings). The whole spoils of war and highest bidder think still turm my stomach, but that's part of life. I think the main emphasis in my orininal thread (sorry! Side-tracked ), was the destruction of the moa, or the Sphinx or the Acropolis, should have enormous penalties to dissuade it. If it's war, it should be a war crime. It's just like our namby-pamby laws with DUI. Overseas, the penalties are much harsher. Being a health-care provider, I can tell you the results of such activities. Same should go with the destruction of artifacts. I'm reminded of the American Art Deco period (1920's-30's) where many antiques were destroyed and made into 'objects de art'. I have seen Ming Dynasty bronze temple urns sawed in half and turned into lamps, swords cut down into candle sticks and in one of Fagan's catalogs, a 3 tiered lamp with welded Kula Khed helmets for shades. What a shame...

[Rick]

As I understand it the Village Elder where this crime ocurred was demanding the culprit's ear as compensation .

Too bad he did not get his way .

[katana]

I appreciate that the thread started with the story of an idiotic vandal ... but with various comments about ownership of cultural heritage etc I thought this may be relavent.....

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/7334229.stm

This is the same story reported in Canada, but this has responses from readers....

http://www.cbc.ca/arts/artdesign/sto...kh-armour.html

[fernando]

This type of ( forcingly political ) issues is allways amazing ... to give them a sporty name
Allways all parties trying to "bleech" the whatever raised examples to make their interests more benignous that those of the others, expelling any possible remorse from their own scene .
It's a bit like discussing the sex of virgins, as we say over here .
Eveybody sacks everything from everybody, as everybody sells everything to everybody; it's all a matter of context.
This is a dog world, that has allways been ruled by the law of the strongest.
As for collectors being the nice guys in the story, it depends on what they collect; there are even collectors of nations

[fearn]

Originally Posted by VANDOO

YEP THIS WILL BE A CONTROVERSIAL SUBJECT

[snip]
THERE ARE THOSE TODAY WHO FEEL THAT WE ALL SHOULD ALL BE FORCED TO DO AS THEY SAY AND THEY WOULD NOT ALLOW US MUCH. WE WOULD ALL HAVE TO BECOME VEGITARIANS, FREE ALL THE ANIMALS AND WEAR ONLY CLOTHES MADE FROM PLANTS, LIVE IN HOLES IN THE GROUND SO WE WOULD NOT NEED TO CUT THE TREES OR DIG UP THE EARTH TO MAKE CEMENT OR MINE METALS, COAL OR OIL. ABSOLUTELY NO COLLECTING JUST STAY ON THE PATH AND TAKE NOTHING EXCEPT AIR AND SUN AND LEAVE ONLY FOOTPRINTS.

I mostly agree with what Vandoo's saying about collecting, so I snipped that part out. The point he made here is telling though, and since it affects my everyday work and my current collecting, I thought I'd comment on it.

Right now, I'm working as an ecologist in a conservancy. Yes, we've got lots of "stay on the path and don't eat the plants" rules. Since I saw what the place was like before the rules came in, I hate to say it, but there's a reason for them. The problem is that if you have to deal with a mass of people, all too often, you have to impose draconian rules to restrain the idiots. At least half the people could be given more freedom, if they could somehow be distinguished from idiots. Problem is, they can't. Some of the idiots may even be running the place.

I'll drag this back to ethnographic weapons in a sec, but the real irony for me is that the conservancy land was inhabited for thousands of years before it became a nature conservancy. The natives ate the plants--they had to, or they would starve. Similarly, they took amazingly good care of the place--they had to, or they would starve. Nowdays, our well-being does not depend on taking care of the conservancy lands as a sustainable food supply, and so we're left with "stay on the path and don't eat the plants." The place doesn't look as good as it once did, but no one is willing to risk starvation to care for it properly.

Getting back to ethnographic weapons, the similarity between collecting and managing the conservancy is, in my view, alienation from the subject. To us collectors, these are objects. They used to be everyday tools, or weapons that protected your family, killed your enemies, or whatever. But for the most part, we don't use them that way. We put them in cases and haul them out every once in a while to look at them and clean the rust off. We're as alienated from our ethnographic weapons as are the people who walk down that path in the Conservancy, and don't eat the plants.

One way to end the alienation is to view ourselves as custodians of items. We're not the first owners, and if we value objects as artifacts, then we care for them and pass them along. This is one good way to be an responsible collector.

Another good way is to support traditional bladesmiths who still make these weapons, but that's another post.

My 0.00002 cents,

F

[A. G. Maisey]

This thread started as a comment on the relics at Easter Island. I guess we'd call these archaeological artifacts. They belong to a vanished culture and I think most people would like to see them stay where they are and be protected.

There has been comment on the Elgin Marbles. I'm not going to get involved in that blue, but I can draw a parallel with Jawa:- when they came to restore Candi Prambanan, they found that much of the cut stone had been removed to use in the nearby village for building material. The Candi had moved past its period of relevance for the people living around it, so they put the stone to good use as building materials for the living. I dare say we can find many similar examples across the world, for instance in China, where I understand that bricks from the Ming period wall were removed by locals to use as building materials. It seems to be a characteristic of mankind that we will destroy that which we think is useless or irrelevant, and replace it with that which we currently consider relevant and useful. Then a few generations later our descendants curse us for being barbarians.

But apart from this idea of preservation of architectural or archaeological relics, there is another question here.

If all relics of the past are considered as belonging to a defined ethnic group, culture, or society, where does that place the works of art of great artists of the past? Let's not limit our thinking here to just painters, but to sculptors and all forms of art. Works of art that are spread throughout the world, and that are regarded as the treasure of all mankind?

Now, if we consider these things as belonging to one specific group of people, how should we consider various technological advancements? Do these also belong to a single group of people?

What of intangible cultural property? Ideas, philosophies, and so on?

Yes, it is certain that many nations have laws in place that prevent the export of identified objects, such as items of cultural heritage, or works of art.

But is this justified?

Most particularly, is it justified in an age when national boundaries and national identities mean less with every passing day,

I'm afraid I could well be out of step with many of you people, but I see the national boundaries that are spread across our world as simply an extension of tribalism, and evidence of man's inability to cooperate with his neighbour. I have no doubt at all that with the development of human society, national boundaries will disappear, ethnicity will disappear and these objects that are currently being squabbled over in a way reminiscent of children squabbling over toys will be regarded as a common heritage of mankind.

However, my dream is probably a very long way into the future; in the meantime I believe that all of mankind has a duty to protect the creations and the heritage of not only the cultural group or society of which one is a part, but of all cultural groups.

Now, if this is so, how do the various governments across the world, who have no hesitation in destroying items which form a part of our common cultural heritage, excuse their actions?

Are they not acting in a way that is contrary to the best interests of civilization?

Are they not behaving in a fashion that is similar to that of the unlettered villagers who took the stone from Candi Prambanan?

At least these villagers had the excuse of ignorance, they knew no better. But our current politicians, leaders and law makers have had the benefit of very expensive educations, and they still act like unlettered barbarians.

I suppose we can only blame ourselves for this:- in most cases, we elected them.

[Yannis]

I feel I have to clear that: I have no problem that Nike of Samothrace is in Louvre museum and hundreds or thousands moving parts (like statues or objects) of Greek origin are out of Greece, as far as they are not recent illegal excavations.

But Elgin marbles is quite different story. They are part of Parthenon. I wonder how the Americans would react if it was missing the torch of Liberty statue...

[A. G. Maisey]

Be that as it Yannis my friend.

I will not get involved in that debate.

I apologise for using an Australian colloquialism:- "blue" in this context means argument.

I want no part of any discussion of the Elgins. Thank you very much.

[Mark]

Well though-out arguments on both sides. Pieces like the "Elgin" marbles, various obelisks, portions of the temples at Angkor, etc., are perhaps the hardest to address, as the point Yannis made is a very good one - they are part of a larger context that still exists in the country of origin. The trend that I see is that these are slowly being returned to their native lands, which personally I think is good, but only if they will be protected and made accessible by the public.

It is unfair, again in my own opinion, to demonize all collectors past and present as despoilers of others' cultures. While very likely that artifacts were taken home as trophies and/or curiosities, it is also true that for whatever reason they were taken, they were in many cases saved from destruction. Another trend that I see is people around the world who had previously not given much thought to their heritage now taking great interest and pride in it. The number of anthropologists and archeologists working in their own countries is always increasing, the ideal (to me) being that the past be studied by those to whom it most directly belongs (not exclusively, mind you, but in active part). Interest and pride in their Scythian heritage is spreading among Russians, of Meso- and South-American cultures among the indios, Khmer culture among the Cambodians, etc. It is fortunate, I think, that there was enough interest by someone to preserve whatever small portions of a foreign cultural heritage until the day were it can be accepted, understood, and appreciated, by the heirs.

Sometimes good things are done for the wrong reasons. They are still good things, though.