I too was shocked by the three questions in the SAFE poll, the reaction was predictable. To reiterate: Question: “Should market countries stop buying antiquities from Egypt until order is restored?” there are three possible answers: No/ Yes/ Yes. Antiquities trade should stop, period. I voted for the second. Interestingly the 106 responses so far are fairly evenly spread. New York coin dealer Alfredo De La Fe sees something sinister in the third question ('Need proof that the radical archaeology movement wants to end the antiquities market?')
Quite often you hear from apologists and members [of] the radical archaeology movement that they do not want to bring an end to the antiquities trade, they just want a “licit” market that is properly regulated. My argument has been that this is nothing but a lie so that they do not appear to be taking an extreme position. Want proof?I do not know whether the creator of the poll really had in mind when formulating this question. Whether it means the whole trade in Egyptian antiquities or other ones too. Whether they had in mind the whole antiquities market, or just the no-questions-asked bit where freshly looted stuff snuggles down among the decontextualised stuff the origins of which nobody cares to enquire about. Or did they really did mean every single documentable Grand Tour and turn of the twentieth century tourist trophy antiquity still in private hands. Neither do I know who are the forty-odd members of the public who so far have voted for this option, or what they think the question means. What I think it does show is that there is a certain degree of public disquiet about the way the antiquities market handles the issues of the sales of archaeological material, and the damaging lack of transparency.
I would say the collectors are caught up in their own rhetoric. I personally would say that those who voted "yes, stop the entire antiquities trade, period" (if they mean it as such) are indeed somewhat radical in their outlook. The problem is that in antiquity-collector-speak a "radical" is anyone at all who looks askance at the current form of the global antiquities trade and would like to see it clean up its act. That is not (should not be) tantamount to saying it should be stopped. As should be clear from this blog, I am among the group that want to see it being done in a more open (less secretive) manner and with full transparency about where the individual items involved have actually come from (as full as possible documented provenance and collecting history). I want to see caring collectors acting responsibly and with full awareness of the consequences of handling material in the manner in which is currently the case. That may be idealistic, but it certainly is not "radical". That's the way we trade meat and used cars. By using the umbrella term "radical" however dealers like De La Fe wish to persuade the onlooker that any calls for restraint and transparency within the antiquities market are in some way tainted by radicalism, and he has his "proof" that among the group he labels as a whole "radicals" there are indeed some that express a radical view. But there are also those with more moderate views, I'd draw his attention to the fact that twice as many voters so far express support for a more limited approach.
But what is the problem? A group of people have expressed the opinion on a web-based forum that the "antiquities trade as a whole should be stopped, period". That's free speech for you, people have alternative views. These people however are entitled to have these views, express them, and the rest of us have the right to agree or disagree with them and debate the issues. There are two ways to deal with the problem, Mr De La Fe can call on all his collector mates to vote "no" in their thousands as if it was a CPAC "public consultation" to try and drown out the voice of those they disagree with (which is just another way of ignoring the problem and pretending it has gone away - a common antiquitist tactic). OR they can address the issue, find out why some people think this and address their issues with the current form of the trade in dugup antiquities. That of course they do not want to do, and in fact appear - for one reason or another - wholly incapable of doing.