Financing the Saving of the Past

Dave Welsh has some typically relevant views on the issue of financing the saving of the past. He makes reference to Mr Maupin's excellent idea of raising money from the sale of redundant antiquities in museum storerooms. He adds:

A great deal has been said in the archaeological blogosphere regarding ethical objections to selling artifacts. The perspective upon which this "moral judgement" is based appears to be a belief that unearthed artifacts are inherently the common property of all mankind, and should not be owned, or traded in, by private individuals. [...] It isn't clear to what extent [...] believers in the "iniquity" of private ownership of artifacts and the existing antiquities trade realize the economic, social and political implications of their perspective.

Mr Welsh raises a crucial question which it seems the blinkered ideologues in the archaeological world opposed to private collecting have not asked themselves, if their possession by private collectors, and exchanges via the antiquities trade, are deemed to be "unethical", who provides the custody, storage and display of ancient art and artifacts?

There seems to be general agreement that existing institutional resources, such as museums and universities, are overburdened and unable to take on responsibility for additional holdings without increased funding. It also seems apparent that throughout the world, governments are likewise overburdened, and unable to take on responsibility for increasing funding to existing institutional curation resources, or creating new public resources. Doing so would require cutting back services in other important areas, or increasing taxes which are already perceived as being too high. So who will pay for the custody, storage and display of artifacts, if private collectors, the antiquities trade and privately held museums are deemed to be "ethically unacceptable?"

Confiscation of material currently held by collectors and circulating in the trade, if anti-collecting archeologists get their way, would lead to excessive burdens on the state.  As a consequence, Dave Welsh makes the important point:

It seems to this observer that such theorizing upon the "ethics" of private ownership of antiquities, and the antiquities trade, without providing any workable fiscal alternative is not an acceptable basis for public policy decisions, and that government officials should not accept arguments based upon "moral theorizing" of this sort without first determining and making responsible provision for the consequent financial, social and political effects.

He is absolutely right. Those who want to abolish private collecting need first to address the consequences.