Some "misleading flights of fancy" and Rat Droppings

.

Before repeatedly questioning my "credentials" as a blogger and representing what I say about the definition of cultural property on his discussion list as "misleading flights of fancy" maybe Mr Welsh would like to reread what I actually wrote, this time with understanding. That is the only basis on which there can be any reasonable discussion.

As I say, it is not for the foreign dealer or the US customs officer to decide if an object is legally exported from a source country, but the relevant authorities in the country of origin, by issue of an export licence.

With regard Welsh's other totally superfluous comments, when the USA acceded to the 1970 UNESCO treaty it did not put Art. 5 into action (it has no national antiquities service, and a totally different approach to the designation and protection of important cultural property, based on whose land it lies).

I am sure I am not the only one who is at a loss to know where Welsh is leading with his divigations about exporting (or is it importing?) ancient rat faeces. What is the precise point he is trying (and failing) to make?

PS. the bit of Article 1 of the 1970 Convention which Dave Welsh accuses me of "hiding" was actually quoted verbatim in the tenth paragraph of my original post; I can only assume he could not manage to read that far down.

Vignette: A bit of palaeocoprology 101 just for Mr Welsh who in his last couple of posts exhibits a growing interest in rodent (and perhaps lagomorphic?) faeces.