Two relevant articles in the same issue of the New York Times. The first is on the front page, about a South African woman named Glynis Rhodes who walks the streets of Capetown distributing female condoms to “barely dressed” prostitutes. Ms. Rhodes demonstrates her wares by stretching the female condom to show how much stronger it is than a male condom and explains how to use it. “Persuading [prostitutes] to use condoms,” the article observes, “has notably reduced rates of AIDS infection.”
The second article, on page 7, describes a billboard program in Chicago offering drug-addicted women $200 in cash to have their “tubes tied.” Similar programs have been adopted in California, Florida and Minnesota in an effort to prevent “crack babies,” babies with a drug addiction, from being born.
What is the relevance of these programs to a magazine like Archaeology Odyssey?
Simply this: I suppose it could be argued that the distribution of female condoms only encourages prostitution, that it enables these women to ply their trade in relative safety, that more women will become prostitutes if they know it can be done without the danger of AIDS and that we should work to eliminate prostitution, not make it safer.
Similarly, it could be argued that the women who take up the $200 offer—they are already drug-addicted—will simply use the money to buy more drugs, that instead of giving them drug money, we should be helping to cure their addiction.
What these programs represent is a practical response to a difficult situation. Sure, it would be better to eliminate prostitution. Sure, it would be better to cure these women of their drug addiction. But as a practical matter, no one knows how to do it. Better to do something that will alleviate some aspect of the problem.
Are you beginning to get the relevance? Of course, it would be better to stop archaeological looting. And we should continue to do everything practical to stop it at the source. But in the real world there is no way to stop it completely. It can’t be done.
Isn’t it better, then, to do what we can in a practical way? We think it is. That is why we have recommended practical steps, recognizing that campaigns to put antiquities dealers out of business and to discourage private ownership by vilifying collectors have not had any significant effect on looting. The fact is, looting is a worse scourge than ever.
What can be done?
Sell duplicates that we have in the thousands—like jugs and oil lamps—in bulging storerooms of national antiquities authorities. In this way, we may well reduce looting by competing with the looters. If people can buy certified antiquities from government agencies, they will be much less likely to buy them from dealers who buy them from looters—thus looting these common artifacts will no longer be profitable. Will it work? At least try it. It’s a little 060like seeing whether distributing free female condoms to prostitutes will cut down on AIDS.
Where huge fields are being looted (as, for example, in southern Italy, Jordan and the West Bank), hire the looters so that the sites will be scientifically excavated under archaeological supervision, and then finance the excavations by selling some of the excavated artifacts. In this way, the sites will be scientifically excavated and studied.
Stop trashing dealers and collectors. Enlist them in the campaign. Encourage them to ransom important artifacts that become available on the market. Honor them when they make important pieces available to the scholarly community for study, when they exhibit their works of art or contribute them to a museum or university. Encourage collectors to support excavations at sites being looted by assuring them that they will be able to display some of the finds in their own homes.
If these concrete proposals are like paying drug-addicted women to have their tubes tied, so be it.
Two relevant articles in the same issue of the New York Times. The first is on the front page, about a South African woman named Glynis Rhodes who walks the streets of Capetown distributing female condoms to “barely dressed” prostitutes. Ms. Rhodes demonstrates her wares by stretching the female condom to show how much stronger it is than a male condom and explains how to use it. “Persuading [prostitutes] to use condoms,” the article observes, “has notably reduced rates of AIDS infection.” The second article, on page 7, describes a billboard program in Chicago offering drug-addicted women $200 in […]
You have already read your free article for this month. Please join the BAS Library or become an All Access member of BAS to gain full access to this article and so much more.
