That phrase "you're either with us or against us", epitomised by a version in Bush’s speech against terrorism in 2001 but used throughout history, has always seemed to me to have overtones of the playground bully’s "you’re either part of my gang or you’re the enemy" mentality. It makes good rhetoric but its basic fallacy is soon revealed under close analysis. In reality there is nearly always a middle ground.
An example of a false dilemma has arisen in the world of antiquities and there is a danger of getting caught between the extremists.
On one side there are those extremists – typified by a few coin dealers – who advocate thoughtless collecting, demand that there must be no limit to a massive supply of fresh finds, even if it means ignoring or changing the law, pretend that their type of object has little to do with archaeology, downplay the importance of context, argue that ethics are irrelevant, and even take the heady stance that any restriction, no matter how sensible, is an attack on human rights.
On the other side are those extremists – typified by a few narrow academics – who seem to think that no object should be outside the country where it was found no matter how long it has been there, deem every undocumented object as ‘looted’ and insist that every artefact must have documentation for the past forty years regardless of circumstances, or think no artefact should be in private hands and would ban collecting altogether, in some cases even giving the impression that they would prefer to destroy objects rather than letting them fall into the hands of the great unwashed.
It is human nature that it will always be the extreme views that grab headlines; majority views are not sensational. But there is a real danger that even rational people get carried away by the propaganda and falsely see only two polarised camps; they may feel that they can belong only to one or the other. You're either with us or against us.
Are there really only two options? Ignore the propaganda, stand up to the playground bully tactics for a moment, and a whole new perspective emerges. In fact there is an enormous middle ground, the one that doesn’t grab headlines.
A favourite tactic of the camp defending the status quo in collecting is to portray those who question them as "radical archaeologists". The emotive word ‘radical’ implies extreme or fundamental change. In fact, the only real change that most
of those concerned about protecting a fragile archaeological resource are asking for is that those who wish to collect artefacts do so more thoughtfully and responsibly than they did in the past.
Is it really only archaeologists who want that change? Thoughtless collecting can easily lead to rampant destruction of the archaeological record. The archaeological record is the source of much of our knowledge of history. Are archaeologists the only
people who care about history? That seems a bit dismissive of the intellectual capacity of the rest of us.
A hackneyed tactic of those who would be happy to ban collecting altogether is to portray all
collectors as shallow and selfish individuals who are interested only in possessing pretty art objects to put on their mantelpiece, as fiends who will stop at nothing to acquire them. It conjures up an ugly picture but in reality a great many collectors are highly intelligent and kindhearted people with a deep passion for history and for the objects they own, and an altruistic desire to share that passion, often at considerable personal expense. Their genuine knowledge of the past frequently exceeds that of those who criticise them.
Such propagandist tactics can all too easily sway opinion. But neither of those two extreme camps represent or acknowledge the middle ground: the thousands of people, including many academics (and several archaeologists), who enjoy owning a few artefacts but do so responsibly because they also care about protecting the archaeological record.
Despite what the two polarised camps would like us to believe, it is not a question of Collectors vs. Academics. There are plenty of people who are both. It is a question of Extremists vs. Extremists – plus
a rather large middle ground. The views of the middle ground are un
extreme – so not very exciting or sensational – but perhaps it is time to publicise those views a bit more.