I thought there would have been more chat about this one in the blogosphere, but unless I've missed it (and probably have) the response to Hershel Shanks' suggestion a couple of weeks ago in regards to how to deal with the trafficking of antiquities has been a resounding round of indifference. Shanks begins by pointing out the two "stupid" and "stupider" policies of assorted archaeological organizations in regards to illicit antiquities, to wit:
1. Don't buy looted antiquities (presumably directed at museums).
2. Don't allow scholars to research/publish looted objects (not sure about that one).
Here's what Shanks suggests:
Wow ... that's a solution that may have worked back in the days of Howard Carter, but there seems to be a glaring bit of blindness here ... there ain't an archaeological nation on earth which doesn't lay claim to anything dug out of its soil -- and that's backed by all sorts of legislation and UN conventions yadda yadda yadda. So even if archaeologists could sell what they dug up, the country of origin would have a prior claim to it.
Actually, when I began reading Shanks' article I was kind of hoping he'd propose something Portable Antiquities Scheme-like and in theory, that would be a better option and potentially could work. You could even insert professional archaeologists into the mix, although I think there needs to be some formal definitions of what/who a professional archaeologist is ...
First Person: A Radical Proposal (BAR)
UPDATE:
I did miss Paul Barford's postings (and the subsequent discussion in comments on this):
"Stupid archaeologists": why don't they join the looters?
1. Don't buy looted antiquities (presumably directed at museums).
2. Don't allow scholars to research/publish looted objects (not sure about that one).
Here's what Shanks suggests:
Compete with the looters. Professional archaeologists should professionally excavate areas subject to looting—and fund their excavations by selling the “loot.” After all, we are assured by Giorgio Gligoris, “profits are phenomenal.” The “loot” from these professional excavations must, of course, be available for study and publication. And we will always know where they are in an open market—just as we know about the location of a Renoir painting.
Moreover, much of this professionally excavated loot will end up in museums. Indeed, museums will be some of the prime purchasers—with money provided by their benefactors. Other pieces will later be donated to museums by private purchasers. Such gifts provide the donor with a tax deduction in many countries—a nice inducement.
Wow ... that's a solution that may have worked back in the days of Howard Carter, but there seems to be a glaring bit of blindness here ... there ain't an archaeological nation on earth which doesn't lay claim to anything dug out of its soil -- and that's backed by all sorts of legislation and UN conventions yadda yadda yadda. So even if archaeologists could sell what they dug up, the country of origin would have a prior claim to it.
Actually, when I began reading Shanks' article I was kind of hoping he'd propose something Portable Antiquities Scheme-like and in theory, that would be a better option and potentially could work. You could even insert professional archaeologists into the mix, although I think there needs to be some formal definitions of what/who a professional archaeologist is ...
First Person: A Radical Proposal (BAR)
UPDATE:
I did miss Paul Barford's postings (and the subsequent discussion in comments on this):
"Stupid archaeologists": why don't they join the looters?