Archaeologica.org

http://apnews.excite.com/article/201502 ... ad99d.html

Leading U.S. museums have pledged not to exhibit unprovenanced artifacts that have surfaced in recent decades, as part of an effort over the last decade to discourage illicit antiquities trafficking. But cuneiform inscriptions have emerged as a notable exception, with some arguing these relics would be lost to history if they did not make it into scholarly hands.

"We are not interested in anything that is illegally acquired or sneaked out," said Amanda Weiss, director of the Bible Lands Museum Jerusalem.

"But it is the role of a museum to protect these pieces," she added. "It's what we are here for."

The plundering of antiquities in the war-torn Middle East has become a primary concern for the archaeological community, and some archaeologists even compare satellite images of sites in Iraq and Syria to moonscapes, after antiquities robbers went through them.

This is a tough situation.

I have mixed emotions on this subject.
I am a believer in the idea of capitalism.
If something is worth a given amount on the open market then more of it will be found.
(Oil is the classic example of this.)

Museums taking themselves out of the action sounds very righteous, but they are only a part of the buying market. The amount of valuable items in private hands,and the money to buy them (paintings, jewelry, archeology items) is a complete unknown. And, by definition, it cannot be controlled.

Those who wring their hands and cry about the lack of providence are the same that do not provide funds to find this stuff “in providence.”
And therefore these things would never see the light of day if it were not for the “black market.”

Maybe a kind of backdoor providence could be provided if graduate students would be allowed to accompany the “looters” and provide the item’s providence identity?

A GPS 3D location? “at location X and Y, at a depth of Z this was found.”

Of course, if the looter had a favorite “hunting ground,” he would have to be compensated for this disclosure. And protection from arrest.
And thus we are back to money.

So, I guess, in the end, the old sayings of “finders keepers” and “put up or shut up”
apply.

I recall Israel Finkelstein's comment from some years back that fraud was so rampant in the antiquities market that anything which did not come from a controlled dig was suspect. Of course, if some rich moron wants to waste money on a fraud it is no skin off my nose.

Yes, that is one opinion.
And it has some merit.
But you have to admit he had a bit of an interest in maintaining the “controlled dig” industry monopoly.

But the other side of the coin says that the technology has advanced to the point that today we can pretty well tell where something has come from without needing a video of it being dug out of a hole.

Of course, that assumes you Mom didn’t scrub it down with scouring powder while it sat on the tank of your toilet.

True for the artifact itself. The thing is that real archaeologists can tell much from the context in which a find is made. The looters destroy that context and any hope of learning more.

And then there is the question of who is going to pay for those tests to determine authenticity? I doubt Yuval Goren works for free.

It is true, you lose most, if not all, of the anthropology type data in an “un-providenced” artifact.
But that may be of no interest to a collector.
They may admire it for its stand alone beauty.

I am not sure about the archaeology type artifact collectors, but I seem to remember in the counterfeit “Old Masters” world one collector when given the news that a painting he paid multi bucks for was revealed to be a fake, was quoted as saying.
“Well , maybe it isn’t a real XXXX. But it is still a very good painting.”
That paintings market value may have actually gone up with that comment.
It was now a collectible as “the best counterfeit.”

I can see the argument on both sides.

But in the end I guess I come down on the open market side.

Not many of these people got to their financial level because they were adverse to taking on risk.
If someone wants to spend his hard earned money on a un-provedenced item, who are we to say he cannot do it.
It is his money.
He can gamble with it as he pleases.

To soothe my conscience I guess I would ask is that some agreement be made that the items be made available for non-destructive analysis when requested by an accredited requester.

But that may be of no interest to a collector.

Right.

That's why they should be shot.

Provenance...

The word is provenance, not providence...


prov·e·nance

ˈprävənəns/

noun

the place of origin or earliest known history of something.

"an orange rug of Iranian provenance"

synonyms:origin, source, place of origin; More

the beginning of something's existence; something's origin.

"they try to understand the whole universe, its provenance and fate"

a record of ownership of a work of art or an antique, used as a guide to authenticity or quality.

plural noun: provenances

"the manuscript has a distinguished provenance"

Those that blithely say “finders keepers “ ignore “ loser weepers “ .
When it is national heritage we all lose , except the finder/looter , they are also not quite so prepared to accept the equally rapacious “ fight you for it “ .

“The word is provenance, not providence... “

Sorry about that.
I could blame it on my spell checker, but…..

If these “looted” items were of value to the locals they wouldn’t be on the market.
The actions of the locals toward their museums doesn’t do much to provide confidence in the items being respected.
I don’t see much weeping on the losers part.
They are not fighting for them, they are saying “show me the money.”

The value of Cultural heritage is not measured by market values and it extends in to the future , you can't possibly know who will be deprived of it , only guess at the numbers .
Anyone who finds "finders keepers " acceptable in relation to cultural heritage will baulk at the similarly rapacious " fight you for it " .