Tuesday, 9 May 2017

Dealing in Unpapered Artefacts, not Facts


A US dugup antiquities dealer admits online that:
https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-UWzKkuv1K_4/V9JnCLPxBKI/AAAAAAAAdTY/EVVdneTYryUUbv9FlyJff50NGrOdVs4GQCLcB/s1600/images.jpg
carrying on the international trade in antiquities would be practically impossible, if "full documentation proving 'licit' origin" is required.
This is an industry where, according to the same dealer, licitness is determined by feelings rather than hard documented proof. Hardly 'scientific', is it?

Anyway, such a dealer will be risking it if he tries to sell his unpapered artefacts in countries applying legislation implementing the 2017 Nicosia Convention.

The one that is engaged in 'misrepresentation and deception' as Dealer Cave puts it is the shopkeeper himself, representing unpapered artefacts as fully licit by 21st century standards for one, and secondly interpreting the current writer's blog as an attempt to 'suppress collecting' rather than clean up the market. The latter is of course is what is needed. People who purvey unpapered artefacts will have to adapt their business methods (I use the term loosely) to the changing world they want to continue to function in. Do we see any evidence that individuals like Dealer Dave understand that?

No comments:

 
Creative Commons License
Ten utwór jest dostępny na licencji Creative Commons Uznanie autorstwa-Bez utworów zależnych 3.0 Unported.