I was interested in Larry Rothfeld's comment to the SAFE Corner article discussed in the post above this:
This is a hopeful development. Certainly it would be a great advancement if archaeologists could be trained to gather evidence of looting that would actually be of use to bring looters to justice. The sad fact buried in the story, however, is that archaeologists are being "deputized" because there are only three historic preservation officers responsible for policing three million acres.
The United States (at least according to its coin collectors) has a very paternalistic not to say colonial attitude to other people's efforts to protect their cultural property from looting and illegal export. US dealers and collectors and their lawyers insist that the USA reserves the right to refuse to help a fellow member state of the 1970 UNESCO Convention if the later cannot satisfy the US that it is taking the "right" (in the arbitrary eyes of the US alone) steps to protect its cultural heritage. One might wonder by what right the USA assumes the mantle of world police in this regard when it is reported that there are reports of looting of archaeological sites in one national park almost monthly, every day protected archaeological sites are being looted (while other sites are unprotected totally) and that there are not enough people to police areas rich in archaeology like the Wayne national Forest and many other areas of the United States.
US collectors insist that setting up new legislation like the British Treasure Act and a concurrent Portable Antiquities Scheme would solve problems of site preservation and dealing with the illicit market in other countries. Would it solve America's problems of site preservation and dealing with the illicit market? It is odd that we hear virtually nothing from the coiney "collectors' rights" crowd on exploring this topic. Why not?
.
.jpg)
2 comments:
"US collectors insist that setting up new legislation like the British Treasure Act and a concurrent Portable Antiquities Scheme would solve problems of site preservation"
I hear this said constantly over here. Yet can anyone point to instances of site preservation engendered by PAS or the Treasure Act?
Why would a reporting scheme persuade someone not to wreck a site? And when would the offer of a legit Treasure Act reward in preference to a risky EBay listing persuade someone not to go nighthawking on a scheduled site?
I think the answer is that there is no credible connection between the two schemes and site preservation is there? The reporting of Treasure has increased greatly since the Treasure Act but all that means is that people are taking the rewards not that they are not finding the stuff.
And of course, a nice simple risk-free reward system is going to persuade most rational nighthawks to step up their production line isn't it? Or am I not allowed to say the taxpayer is encouraging crime as surely as supply follows demand and goods follow customers? Too awful to face?
Let's test the theory. Let's offer a legal bounty for stag's antlers or elephants tusks and see what happens to the supply side.
I should have added -
.... and if at the end of the year we can produce a glossy brochure showing a big pile of antlers we can congatulate ourselves on how many stags we've conserved - and the antler dealers over the water can pretend they believe it too!
It seems to me there are very few people in the antler community - whether dealers, collectors or recorders who aren't being deliberately hypocritical about the whole process.
Post a Comment