Fascinating program. The Greek government desperately wants the "Elgin Marbles" back from England, but if Lord Elgin hadn't taken them, they'd probably be in ruins since the Greeks had been using the Parthenon for artillery target practice. Until recently, with the rise of Dr. Hawass in Egypt, the Egyptian Museum was dusty and neglected. He has advanced the field of Egyptology and preserving his country's heritage. Before Dr. Hawass, ancient Egyptian artifacts were best preserved elsewhere.He has a list of major artifacts he would like to see returned to Egypt. We'll see if that ever happens.
Oh, and who looted the Baghdad museum? The museum in Kabul? Iraqis and Afghanis. If they didin't care enough about their own heritage to preserve it, then some one else had to. Sorry, but my sentiments are entirely with Jonathan Tokeley Perry.

Loved the totally unmined irony of a foreign invader, who abandoned his assigned mission in the country he invaded (without legal basis) to go to the rescue of artifacts, so self-righteously condemning the other fellow. So is the principle that controls that one must defer to the government of another country, even if its decision is to destroy artifacts under its control, unless you first invade that country,remove its government, then replace that government's discretion with your own?

Listening to Tokeley-Parry liken his "rescue mission" to spiritual orgasm gives me creeps. This is colonialism with the old attitude "We know what's best for you, you uncivilized savages." I agree with Bogdanos's view that this is a crime and should be stopped.

The show resonates with me even though my experience is on a much smaller scale. During the war in my former country (Bosnia), I had high-ranking UN official come to my house and ask me to sell him a painting he liked for $10. I said jokingly "You can only get it for free." Needless to say, he accepted it and asked for a written statement that I had given it to him as a present. Sadly, he was not the only rescuer of the art from my walls and saviour of Sarajevo artists offering token sums that could buy us a 100 grams of sugar. What was their rationale? I know the value of art and it is wasted on you in this hellhole. Or, you are going to die anyway, so why should you care?

Mr. Parry, I completely and utterly agree with your views on artifacts being more important than the corruption and the selfishness of government around the world, or just Egypt perhaps, may I ask if that conviction for saving those still endangered artifacts has remained in you yet? If it has, then have you any plans for securing new found artifacts within the world which are in danger. Of Course, I'm not talking about your previous methods (hahaha), but through perhaps more legitimate ways, perhaps even through the UN? Though I'm sure you may not believe that anything will happen through them, but I wonder what's better in this case, doing nothing or doing something (which I personally believe) has a good chance of succeeding (The UN or some similar international organization will eventually gain a lot of power soon).

I can understand how naive I sound. But, there will never be any safe relic or artifact in this world until it's out of the hands of people who don't even believe in how important they are. And that doesn't change even for places like England or France, or any who have still shown interest right now. I am strictly referring to the government in-charge, of course.

Pardon me, if you're already retired or planning something different entirely. I only hope there are other people like you or like Mr. Bogdanos who might pursue to secure and save the artifact of our humanities' past.

This was really good radio. Thank you for producing it.

I bet that Jonathan Parry will be quite proud to tell his grandchildren about this, and I for one would be so excited and proud to hear it from a grandparent or mine. Stealing goods from someone's house to sell them so's you can make some moola is not nearly comparable to rescuing antiquties; and while I do feel that Europe has plundered many antiquities, and I am uncomfortable gazing at Ancient Egyptian mummies housed in glass in NYC for millions to gawk at, I would rather that than obliteration of these things altogether. It is not arrogance to acknowledge what events have proven: these antiquities are not safe under certain political climates. I hate to think of what was lost when the US invaded Baghdad.

It's a pity, as K remarks, that the form of the interviews---we being on different continents---didn't allow us to respond to questions from each other. I suspect, despite Matthew Bogdanos's rather scathing dismissal, that we have a deal in common---we both want to insure that as many antiquities get through to an uncertain future, despite the political vagaries of the present. He may even accept that the brandished sentiments of national governments, especially if they happen to be intemperate military regimes, should be taken with a sizeable pinch of salt. For example, several of the world's leading archaeologists, including the leading Egyptologist in England, Professor John Harris (retired), have taken my book RESCUING THE PAST as the definitive proof that the Egyptians are neither inclined nor qualified to look after their antiquities, and that they are deliberately using them up as a resource, much like a bed of coal or an oilfield---exposing the sites to mass tourism to earn hard currency, whilst knowing that in so doing they are destroying them.

I'd only mention that the widespread looting of previously un-excavated sites in Iraq, between the two Wars, and the consistent depletion of the closed-for-the-duration museum before the second War, were both of them under the supervision of Uday Hussein, who was presumably using this as a means to generate currency for the State, to beat the embargo (rather than for personal enrichment). This may be denied by the hot-under-the-collar brigade, but it it simply the common-sense reading of the known facts (which, by the way, have been disingenuously denied by some who ought to know better).

I'd like to ask Matthew Bogdanos two questions---two thought-experiments:

[ 1 ] If he were in my position, in Egypt during the First Gulf War, and was confronted by the builder with the just-unearthed Head of Amenhoptep IIIrd, and if he was informed as categorically as I was that, if it could not be sold, it would be concreted into the foundations of the building and thereby lost for ever, what would HE have done? Denounced the builder to the authorities, and seen him jailed and bankrupted, and the head almost certainly sold into Europe by the corrupt Generals in the Antiquities Police? Held his nose in the air, and allowed it to be destroyed? Or just b ought it and tried to get it out and to safety, knowing that it could always be returned to Egypt, eventually, with such publicity as would ensure it stayed there, and was well treated?

[ 2 ] As the Taliban were approaching Kabul, those who knew their dogma also suspected that they'd destroy the contents of the Kabul Museum. The Director of the museum had repeatedly and with increasing desperation appealed to UNESCO to help evacuate the contents, to save them from their fate, and a group of Afghans in exile had prepared for their safe reception and storage for the duration. But UNESCO refused, on the grounds that they "did not believe in removing antiquities from their countries of origin, or in any way condoning such removals". If Matthew Bogdanos had been there, would he have considered aiding their removal to safety by 'smuggling' them out, with the Director's approval, or would he have at least condoned such an attempt? I know what I would have done...

As it happened, the entire collections that mattered were destroyed---and these were the only collections of the relevant cultures, now lost for ever...

As I say, I'd hope that Matthew Bogdanos is sensitive enough in his thinking to agree with me over these two examples. And that proves that the world is not all black and white, and that men of good will ---even tho' they be separated by intransigent doctrine---can easily find a common ground. And in that case, perhaps he would think again about calling me a common criminal? After all, I haven't called HIM a prig, or absurd, with all those medals in his chest...