3 ms·
...assuming that they knew they were looted. You could make a case that, yes of course these items were looted, and they turned a blind eye to that. But you c
by taborj 6y ago
...assuming that they knew they were looted. You could make a case that, yes of course these items were looted, and they turned a blind eye to that. But you could also make a case that they trusted a 3rd party to validate the artifacts.
Don't forget this is the group that voluntarily funded research that eventually proved some of their most prized possessions were, in fact, forgeries[0], so we have to assume they have at least a modicum of ethics.
[0] https://www.nationalgeographic.com/history/2020/03/museum-of-the-bible-dead-sea-scrolls-forgeries/ https://www.nationalgeographic.com/history/2020/03/museum-of...
- claudeganon 6y agoIt’s not a modicum of ethics, it’s ass-covering in the case of legal challenges from the countries where these items were looted. After several high-profile antiquities cases in the early 90s and 2000s, and a federal precedent out of New York, every museum was forced to do this kind of bare minimum due diligence to avoid prosecution. Prior to this, they were being brazenly in bed with organized criminal networks in buying this stuff.
- _jal 6y agoThey may have a moral code, but it is the sort of code that is OK with illegally smuggling artifacts that their own hired experts and lawyers were concerned were looted. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hobby_Lobby_smuggling_scandal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hobby_Lobby_smuggling_scandal I'd suggest being open about forgery shows they're interested in getting their money's worth from their feeders.
- rsynnott 6y ago> But you could also make a case that they trusted a 3rd party to validate the artifacts. Given the nature of the business, that would have been breathtakingly naive of them. There's a certain point at which naivety isn't credible.