.
I
n the context of a discussion about the US reaction to information about ongoing (or not) looting of archaeological sites in Egypt, New York cultural property lawyer William G. Pearlstein writes on Peter Tompa's Cultural Property Observer blog about the import of illegally exported archaeological items: [US] Customs does not seem to be constrained at all from seizing objects of even minimal value. Nevertheless, the archeological lobby persists in deriding the deterrent effect of US and criminal and customs laws on prospective US importers. [...] It's yet another demonstration of how completely out of touch they are with reality and how utterly ignorant they are of the workings of the market. They exist in a strange private nether world, devoid of sun, light and air, fencing against shadows on the wall. If anyone is blowing smoke it's Patty G[erstenblith] and her chorus at AIA. The only question is which end it's coming from.The response to the amount of freshly "surfaced" material on the US market with no documentation of licit origins and legal import is itself derisive. We are well enough acquainted with the "workings of the market" to know that among this stuff is probably a considerable amount of freshly dugup and illegally exported material. Yes, US criminal and customs laws as currently applied are having next to no effect on the incentive the lack of transparency on this market provides for criminal activity of looters and smugglers.
As for who is 'out of touch', we might consider the comment of another "cultural property lawyer" who says that if the US introduces restrictions on artefacts illegally exported from Egypt:
"yet another collecting area will likely become off limits to all those but the wealthy who can afford to purchase the limited number of artifacts with detailed collecting histories".Export licences, Mr Tompa, export licences. They have nothing to do with "collecting histories" - but should be at the beginning of every decent one.
[By the way - and still on the topic of "the workings of the market": If these collecting histories really do boost value, why are collectors and dealers so intent on discarding this information every time all but a few objects change hands? Or are there collecting histories that would not 'enhance value' too and are best kept quiet?]