3 ms·

Because when they're sold on the black market, they don't usually maintain an accurate archaeological context. To give an example, a particular Roman coin migh

Because when they're sold on the black market, they don't usually maintain an accurate archaeological context. To give an example, a particular Roman coin might be only moderately rare and valuable but finding it in a context where you can determine the date and place it was dropped and who might have owned it is valuable information that doesn't usually follow black market artefacts around (because it's proof of a crime). If private collectors wanted to buy these things after they've been dug up and catalogued and somehow that tracking data could follow the object so that we still have it 100 years from now nobody would care.

thaumasiotes 12y ago
> finding it in a context where you can determine the date and place it was dropped and who might have owned it is valuable information that doesn't usually follow black market artefacts around (because it's proof of a crime) Is it? I'd guess that that sort of information doesn't follow black market artifacts around because the black market is just generally shady. I'd expect that any evidence of crime would quickly wash out, for the following reason: I recall reading a post on Language Log (here: http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=4120 http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=4120 ) about finding a cuneiform tablet at an "estate sale" in Seattle. The author brought it to an expert on the ancient near east and was surprised to have it confirmed as genuine. There were indignant comments on the post, to the effect that obviously nobody in the US could legitimately own a cuneiform tablet from ancient Mesopotamia. So why wasn't this guy violating the law? And the very sensible answer was that a law prohibiting the ownership of old objects would mainly have the effect that people fearing discovery would destroy their antiquities, simultaneously removing all evidence of any putative crime and preventing anyone from ever learning anything from what used to be a (semi-)valuable artifact. It's harder to destroy a metal coin than a block of clay, but most artifacts, like bones, statues, and inscriptions, don't pose such difficulties. Is it really illegal to own an old coin while not being illegal to own an old document? edit: rereading the comments, it seems that owning these old things frequently is illegal, although interestingly owning the same item might or might not be illegal depending on the details of how you obtained it (not the details of where it came from). But I'll leave my comment up because I think the ideas expressed have some merit, although they don't entirely source to the comment thread that I "remembered" them from, and are a little more hypothetical and less factual than I originally thought.
- toyg 12y ago
  In most countries, the law will not punish citizens for owning artifacts, just force a surrender of such material to authorities (with various degrees of compensation, depending on the country). This is done exactly to avoid the risk of destruction. Buying and selling outright are banned only in order to guarantee preservation of artifacts; and if you ban an economic transaction, you have to make sure that there is an economic punishment that is greater than the expected profit, of course, in order to align incentives -- that is inevitable.
- Mvandenbergh 12y ago
  >And the very sensible answer was that a law prohibiting the ownership of old objects would mainly have the effect that people fearing discovery would destroy their antiquities, simultaneously removing all evidence of any putative crime and preventing anyone from ever learning anything from what used to be a (semi-)valuable artifact. If the owner had a record of exactly where it had been taken from, what other objects were found alongside it (and where those objects were now) and other contextual information then it would implicate whoever dug it up in the first place, which in most places is a crime. You could argue that maybe we should make it a crime to excavate or sell an artefact without that record and make the actual digging legal. That would probably run into some issues of practicality though.
Mvandenbergh 12y ago
To give a concrete example of this, fragments of Roman amphorae (wine vessels) are pretty common and not super valuable unless they're very unusual. Roman amphorae found in South India tell us something about long distance trade in the classical world.

thaumasiotes 12y ago

> finding it in a context where you can determine the date and place it was dropped and who might have owned it is valuable information that doesn't usually follow black market artefacts around (because it's proof of a crime) Is it? I'd guess that that sort of information doesn't follow black market artifacts around because the black market is just generally shady. I'd expect that any evidence of crime would quickly wash out, for the following reason: I recall reading a post on Language Log (here: http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=4120 http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=4120 ) about finding a cuneiform tablet at an "estate sale" in Seattle. The author brought it to an expert on the ancient near east and was surprised to have it confirmed as genuine. There were indignant comments on the post, to the effect that obviously nobody in the US could legitimately own a cuneiform tablet from ancient Mesopotamia. So why wasn't this guy violating the law? And the very sensible answer was that a law prohibiting the ownership of old objects would mainly have the effect that people fearing discovery would destroy their antiquities, simultaneously removing all evidence of any putative crime and preventing anyone from ever learning anything from what used to be a (semi-)valuable artifact. It's harder to destroy a metal coin than a block of clay, but most artifacts, like bones, statues, and inscriptions, don't pose such difficulties. Is it really illegal to own an old coin while not being illegal to own an old document? edit: rereading the comments, it seems that owning these old things frequently is illegal, although interestingly owning the same item might or might not be illegal depending on the details of how you obtained it (not the details of where it came from). But I'll leave my comment up because I think the ideas expressed have some merit, although they don't entirely source to the comment thread that I "remembered" them from, and are a little more hypothetical and less factual than I originally thought.

toyg 12y ago
In most countries, the law will not punish citizens for owning artifacts, just force a surrender of such material to authorities (with various degrees of compensation, depending on the country). This is done exactly to avoid the risk of destruction. Buying and selling outright are banned only in order to guarantee preservation of artifacts; and if you ban an economic transaction, you have to make sure that there is an economic punishment that is greater than the expected profit, of course, in order to align incentives -- that is inevitable.
Mvandenbergh 12y ago
>And the very sensible answer was that a law prohibiting the ownership of old objects would mainly have the effect that people fearing discovery would destroy their antiquities, simultaneously removing all evidence of any putative crime and preventing anyone from ever learning anything from what used to be a (semi-)valuable artifact. If the owner had a record of exactly where it had been taken from, what other objects were found alongside it (and where those objects were now) and other contextual information then it would implicate whoever dug it up in the first place, which in most places is a crime. You could argue that maybe we should make it a crime to excavate or sell an artefact without that record and make the actual digging legal. That would probably run into some issues of practicality though.

Mvandenbergh 12y ago

To give a concrete example of this, fragments of Roman amphorae (wine vessels) are pretty common and not super valuable unless they're very unusual. Roman amphorae found in South India tell us something about long distance trade in the classical world.