[meteorite-list] Thank You - Was A fun Libyan Desert Glass Debate

From: minador <minador_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Sat Jun 12 07:30:14 2004
Message-ID: <023a01c45070$24e71620$ea78480c_at_s0024741812>

Keith wrote:

> I perfectly agree with you that there is
> ***nothing** illegal about picking up or collecting
> natural, unmodified pieces of LDG. My discussion had
> nothing to do with the collection of natural pieces of
> LDG. The only mention of this was that collecting of
> any kind in the area containing LDG was prohibited
> because of looting of ***artifacts*** in the strewn
> field area. In that case, the people collecting only
> LDG, not artifacts, were victims of the pothunter
> / arrowhead collector types.
>
> I fully agree that people should be able to collect
> and take home natural and unmodified pieces of LDG.
>

Keith,

So why bring this up on a meteorite list? We're not
hunting/trading/collecting/selling/studying archaeological artifacts...
That's another group isn't it?

> my bread and butter geologic work involving finding
> sand, gravel, and road fill for companies; generating
> oil and gas prospects, which I can sell

Some might consider those practices of yours as unethical or morally
bankrupt...

Though not me - just pointing out that it's easy to nitpick when it comes to
moral behaviour. I tend to live and let live - if some poor Arab can sell
some pieces of LDG for some barley and oil, that's fine by me... especially
pieces that are here today and buried for thousands of years tomorrow. The
same goes for mining oil, lead or what ever else people legally engage in to
put bread on their table. There are more significant artifacts/sites worthy
of study, so many in fact that it would probably take a thousand years to
study them all (and by that time they'll be studying us). I don't
see picking up flakes as immoral no matter how many academic eggheads say
so. Scientists don't have moral leg to stand on if you look at their past
behavior. Besides, I know numerous respected PhD's from research one
universities who don't agree with most of the current politically correct
rhetoric that infects many places of learning these days. I bet many of the
"respected" archaeologists you speak of have looted artifacts in their
collections, both private and institutional. Seems a bit hypocritical...

> prohibit the export of antiquities without permits. If a
> person doesn't have the paperwork, which documents
> that his Libyan desert glass artifact was exported legally,
> a case can be made that the artifact was exported in
> violation of either the laws of Egypt or Libya. Since
> legally exported artifact are suppose to be sold with
> documentation proving that they are legal, the lack of
> such, even if the result of negligence on the part of the
> person selling it to you failing to provide it, can be used
> to argue that the Libyan desert glass artifacts are illicit.
> It the owner that has to prove that an artifact was
> legally exported with a documented chain-of-custody
> going back to the person, who originally received the
> license to exported it. If a person doesn't have the
> paperwork and don't have this chain-of-custody, the
> person don't have the proof that artifact is legal and
> the country of origin, whether it be Egypt or Libya
> can reclaim it.

I think this is wrong. The dealers who were successfully prosecuted in the
US & England (for looting in Egypt) weren't successfully prosecuted because
they didn't have paperwork - pieces from old collections do not necessarily
have documentation. What nailed the case was the fact that they found the
detailed journal of the collector which revealed his activities. Most
importantly they found some stone reliefs/carvings in his house that were
hacked out of a monument. They were exact matches the reliefs that were
recently stolen from that monument. In addition, I'm pretty sure that you
face prosecution if you are in possession of items of $5,000 or more in
value.

> Again, someone needs to do a detail study of the antiquity
> laws of Egypt, Morocco, and Libya in reference to LEG
> artifacts. It seems like people are being much too
> complacent about the legally of collecting, buying, and
> selling these artifacts. Regardless of whether a minority
> of LDG artifacts might be legal, the overall illict trade
> in these artifacts is contributing to the destruction of
> valuable archaeological sites.

Again, I think the laws regarding the possession of "LDG artifacts" has no
bearing on the meteorite list. I'll just have to agree to disagree whether
the study of flake chippings "contribute to the destruction of valuable
archaeological sites". I don't know if I'm engaging in "flaming" here, but
I get frustrated with these chicken little/holier that thou arguments. And
I'm a bit fatigued after spending the night doing some stargazing and am
probably rambling. :-)

Respectfully,

Mark Bowling
Received on Sat 12 Jun 2004 07:26:33 AM PDT