|American bollocks but|
are they "illicit"?
Interesting how the term "illicit" which was used in the UNESCO Convention to mean an artifact that was exported in violation of law has been transformed by the archaeological lobby to refer to "undocumented" artifacts, i.e., those lacking export permits. More than a few jumps in logic there.The question is who is abandoning logic there. Peter Tompa is simply copy and pasting Dealer Dave's assertion. I doubt he has "observed' anything of the kind at first hand himself. Has he himself actually read the criminologist Simon MacKenzie's June 2014 text 'Illicit Antiquities' to which Welsh refers? Can he tell us what he sees wrong or "unethical" with it? Mackenzie quite clearly writes "Not all unprovenanced or unprovenienced antiquities will fall into this category, but some will".
Where in fact does Mr Tompa see anyone in the archaeological world using the term "illicit artefacts' as a synonym for "undocumented artifacts lacking export permits"?? Mr Tompa seems to be ragtagging along and making a false accusation like the rest of his fellows and metal detecting sidekicks. Unless he can prove otherwise: Googling "illicit artefacts" gets 545 hits and "illicit artifacts", 4720- what percentage of these are written within "the archaeology lobby" and how many of those use the term in the manner which Peter Tompa alleges in his generalisation? Because Simon Mackenzie certainly does not - but he is a criminologist anyway. Come on Mr Tompa, back up what you say. Fifteen examples if you please.