Why Size Matters

.
Over on Looting Matters is a lively discussion of the size of the market in illicitly-obtained antiquities (The scale of the market). It seems the main group of people taking part in the discussion are collectors, who are anxious to play down Gill's estimate (according to which the market is "worth 100 million dollars annually"). One dealer, Wayne Sayles joins in:

What does it matter? Even a common ancient coin worth $5 on the world market is "priceless" in the eyes of archaeologists and the sycophant press. The size of the market is just hyperbole.

No, no it is not. If the global market in illicit antiquities was worth 5000 dollars annually (within an art market worth billions), society would be justified in not investing many resources to fight it. If it is worth 5 million dollars annually it would be less justifiable. Gill suggests the market in tainted antiquities is worth twenty times that amount - in which case it is obvious than minimal investment of resources is not going to deal with the problem. It therefore is important to identify the scale and nature of the problem in order to deal with it.

Sayles, suggests that the problem is due to archaeological hyperbole which regards what he sees as a five-buck piece of merchandise as (")priceless(") information. I do not see the reason for the inverted commas, how would he price information? Coin dealers do in the US. It costs "too much" to provide their customers with items with full collecting histories, which is why (they say) they do not do it.

Sayles ridicules the archaeological concerns about the sale of a five-buck coin. But what Sayles is saying is that priceless information about the past is destroyed by plundering sites for collectables so dealers like him can earn a measly five bucks? Well, obviously that is an unacceptable situation, especially when Sayles is one of those fighting for his "right" to do that, and to block any attempts made by the US government to clean up the US market in dugup antiquities. Disgusting.

The looting of sites like Archar (Bulgaria) on an industrial sale produces not single coins ("worth five bucks") but produces bucketfuls of ancient artefacts (read:"archaeological evidence") from which middlemen and dealers sort the five-buck coins from that which they can sell for bigger money. The five-buck coin (and "minor artefacts for reasonable prices") often trotted out by these people are the by-products of a larger process. A process of destruction.

A process of destruction which, whatever the precise value, is generating big money. It should be stressed that this trade exists because of the money it can generate - not because the people involved in it are interested in "preserving the past" still less preserving information about the past which can be gained from the study of the archaeological record.

Sayles' view is typical of the wholly object-centred approach US (usually) collectors have to what they persist in calling the "cultural property debate", when it is a resource conservation issue.

Let us also remember that the antiquities trade does not exist solely on the basis that there is a constant flow of people with bulging wallets walking into Mr Grebkash and Runn's coin shop and buying one ten thousand dollar coin after another. The quickly- shifted cheaper coins and minor antiquities and 'partifacts' are not a negligent factor in the cashflow processes of many a dealer in dugup antiquities whose stock will often contain items of a variety of price ranges for this reason. If there were a dearth of these "reasonably priced" coins on the market, then many dealers would go out of business and fewer people would take up collecting. But of course it is the numbers of such coins on the market that keeps the prices down, and here it is the metal detector which is the cause of this glut.
.