tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5906697537521460183.post837850979400052383..comments2019-08-29T06:55:14.697-04:00Comments on Pieces of the Past: Ethical Antiquities Collecting: Why Do We Need An MOU?Robynhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06608773468731209060noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5906697537521460183.post-74967391555795294432010-10-09T12:42:43.424-04:002010-10-09T12:42:43.424-04:00Hi Ed,
Thanks for your comment, but I believe you...Hi Ed,<br /><br />Thanks for your comment, but I believe you are confused. Countries are losing their cultural heritage to foreigners for cash BECAUSE looting is tolerated(and sometimes encouraged) by the no questions asked market, not the other way around.<br /><br />You say you would support an MOU that included coins if it would stop smuggling, but that is exactly the intent of the MOU. The US has a huge market for antiquities, and if they were required to have documentation to enter this country, don't you think that would help to reduce the looting and smuggling by creating a smaller market for those items to be sold to?<br /><br />You also seem to be confused on your own position when you say that "lower prices will discourage diggers" in one place in your comment, but in another place you say, that "the price for provenanced antiquities goes up Yet the price of unprovenanced antiquities should go down. The differential creates bigger opportunities for criminals." If the sales price for unprovenanced item goes down then how is that an incentive to dig up more, or for dealers to sell those items?<br /><br />You also say at one point "If the source nearly dries up". Well,the whole point of all of this is so the sources won't "dry up", because that would mean that there are no archaeological sites left!<br /><br />I think that if the US denies this MOU, it would only increase resentment for the US because it would send a clear message that we don't care what damage is done to another country's cultural heritage through the actions of our citizens. It will not "incent governments to adopt private property rights for antiquities found on private land".<br /><br />You say I am working against your goals. What exactly are your goals, and how do you intend to acheive them?<br /><br />In any event, you've missed the whole point of my post. The point was that if the antiquities market had been willing to do the right thing on their own, MOUs such as this wouldn't be necessary.Robynhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06608773468731209060noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5906697537521460183.post-15330611905341630642010-10-07T09:36:56.602-04:002010-10-07T09:36:56.602-04:00Confiscatory laws in source countries *encourage* ...Confiscatory laws in source countries *encourage* looting. People tolerate looting because their choice is to lose the antiquities either to foreigners (for cash) or to some distant museum basement. This economic principal is called "tragedy of the commons."<br /><br />When England passed it's treasure law in the 1800s, at the request of members of the Royal Numismatic Society, it was to keep finders from melting down coins. Citizens need to be enticed to stand up to diggers and private ownership is the only proven enticement. Private ownership also has the benefit of reducing costs of enforcement. When England adopted treasure laws its GDP per capita was lower than Bulgaria's today; private ownership is a cheap effective looting deterrent.<br /><br />Many collectors oppose the MOU because they feel not having them will somehow incent governments to adopt private property rights for antiquities found on private land. These collectors ignore the possible good an MOU can do: disincenting buyers. If most buyers are afraid market prices for freshly dug antiquities should drop, and perhaps the lower prices will discourages diggers.<br /><br />I appose an MOU for coins because I expect unintended consequences. (I would support the MOU for coins if I thought it would stop smuggling and get finds into foreign regional museums.)<br /><br />If the source nearly dries up, the price for provenanced antiquities goes up. Yet the price of unprovenanced antiquities should go down. The differential creates bigger opportunities for criminals. More criminals is the last thing we need! Long-term it's very hard to predict how tinkering with penalties at one end effects incentives at the other end; I worry that your methods are working against your goals. Your methods are certainly working against my goals.<br /><br />- Ed SAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com