The Ethics of Collecting

[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 ........