[meteorite-list] meteorite-list] Lorton Meteorite (Schmitt is wrong)(NO your wrong)
From: Shawn Alan <photophlow_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Sun, 7 Feb 2010 19:22:32 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <588193.2924.qm_at_web113601.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Martin, I like your insight but to ignore or suggest what should be placed on the list even though it pertains to meteorites is wrong from this statement you made.... " That is a problem, fully ignored, but nevertheless real. Therefore I think it's not so good, to spread that Schmitt article around. O.k. a normal curator will be well aware of the problem, but past showed, that it isn't granted that all are really normal...." http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?bibcode=2002M%26PSB..37....5S&db_key=AST&page_ind=0&plate_select=NO&data_type=GIF&type=SCREEN_GIF&classic=YES Thank Shawn Alan ? [meteorite-list] Lorton Meteorite (Schmitt is wrong)(NO your wrong) Martin Altmann altmann at meteorite-martin.de Sun Feb 7 18:53:51 EST 2010 Previous message: [meteorite-list] Lorton Meteorite (Schmitt is wrong)(NO your wrong) Next message: [meteorite-list] Dawn Journal - January 30, 2010 Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] Hi Shawn, I was referring to the UNESCO convention of 1970, which indeed is a different kettle of fish, than regional states or federal laws, like in the Lorton case. Whether landowner, landlord, lodger, finder, keeper is the owner. Nevertheless that UNESCO-thing is a more serious one, cause in case, it says what a owner is allowed to do with his property or not, and hence would be affect the free meteorite trade of collectors, scientists, nations. Furthermore the UNESCO-convention if applied on meteorite could lead also to stricter regional laws, cause the clercs, politicians or whoever could get the impression, that meteorites would be cultural items. (Look, China e.g. made laws for fossils, which vitually are making all fossils property of the state and if there is a private ownership, the owner is allowed only to sell to the state). And Schmitt is suggesting of the UNESCO convention automatically protecting ALL meteorites (of those 90 countries which had ratified, when he published his article). And that is simply not true - you have only to read the fulltext of the convention. Meteorites aren't mentioned at all, neither they seem to meet the definition of "cultural" heritage, given there. And the only case they are indeed protected by the UNESCO convention is: A) if they are part of a scientific collection & B) if they are listed explicitely in the individual national catalogues of items of the cultural heritage, with each signing nation has to make. Aaaaand, Schmitt fully forgets the UNIDROIT convention. It is very dangerous for most countries, to declare meteorites as heritage, and it would be a great disservice, if they would do so. Why? Here weg go: http://www.unidroit.org/English/conventions/1995culturalproperty/1995cultura lproperty-e.htm See? If meteorites are cultural heritage by means of the 1970 convention, then they would be also subject to the UNIDROIT convention. And then it can happen, that the day will come that Australia, Algeria, China, Oman, Argentina.. will knock on the door, to say: "Give us our meteorites back". As they are doing already with artefacts, aboriginal stuff, with fossils, with art, with archaeological items ect. And then we would have to dissolve the great collections, especially in the meteorite poor countries. We would have to dissolve London, Vienna, Paris, New York, partially also the Smithonian collection... Because for the most meteorites from the last 200 years, they all simply have no proof, that they were once legally exported. Simple theoretical example: A meteorite shower, called Pultusk. The village museum of Pultusk hasn't any nice Pultusks. If UK would have meteorites in their heritage lists, the village museum could address quickly to the ministry, to make an affair of states out of the case. Pultusk - shortly after it felt, Mr.Krantz was travelling there, a mineral dealer, and hunted and bought stones from the locals, as many as he could get. Just like the meteorite dealers of our times, no difference. Krantz took them home to Bonn, Germany and sold them to quite all big collections of these times. The curator would have to rummage the archives of the London collection, and if he's lucky he will find an old invoice, or a budget notation, but a proof, that the Pultusks in the London collection were once legally removed from Poland or from Germany - he or she won't find? Why? Because before (and of course also after) the foofaraw with Australia and Canada began, no scientist, no curator, no dealer, no collector cared for export papers for meteorites - because nobody could have the idea, that once in future, papers for something like - and don't forget, we're taking about really whack objects, where still today almost nobody globally seen is interested in - one once would need papers! That is a problem, fully ignored, but nevertheless real. Therefore I think it's not so good, to spread that Schmitt article around. O.k. a normal curator will be well aware of the problem, but past showed, that it isn't granted that all are really normal.... Best! Martin -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- Von: meteorite-list-bounces at meteoritecentral.com [mailto:meteorite-list-bounces at meteoritecentral.com] Im Auftrag von Shawn Alan Gesendet: Sonntag, 7. Februar 2010 21:34 An: meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com Betreff: [meteorite-list] Lorton Meteorite (Schmitt is wrong)(NO your wrong) Martin/List Stated by Martin...... "Hello Shawn, please don't use that article from Schmitt any longer, because it is incorrect and misleading." Here is the misleading article link http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?bibcode=2002M% 26PSB..37....5S&db_key=AST&page_ind=0&plate_select=NO&data_type=GIF&type=SCR EEN_GIF&classic=YES Martin I am glad you think its misleading I guess when you read the article you also read the part where Schmitt wrote about "General Comments on Find Ownership" where he stated... "The above illustrations indicate the wide range of rules about ownership of meteorite between countries. Each legal system is unique, but in general terms in most places the landownerer of the place of find owns the meteorite." http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?bibcode=2002M% 26PSB..37....5S&db_key=AST&page_ind=3&plate_select=NO&data_type=GIF&type=SCR EEN_GIF&classic=YES He further goes on and in his conclusion and states..... "Meteorite ownership law varies widely." http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?bibcode=2002M% 26PSB..37....5S&db_key=AST&page_ind=5&plate_select=NO&data_type=GIF&type=SCR EEN_GIF&classic=YES By the?quotes I can infer that Schmitt has suggested that these "LAWS" vary from country to country and from state to state so people might want to check with their local laws on property rights. Lastly, Martin you stated "So we should avoid the term "ethics", in the meteorite laws debate."..... O should we? I am confused by your should state. I thought ?this website is set up for discussions on meteorites? I think in the future you might want?to consider your?choice of words directed to the list. The article?by Schmitt, I will continue?to post as a reference?when law topics come up or when you decide to publish an article?in Meteorite & Planetary Science that debunks Schmitts Article. ? Thank you Shawn Alan [meteorite-list] Lorton Meteorite (Schmitt is wrong) Martin Altmann altmann at meteorite-martin.de Sun Feb 7 11:12:32 EST 2010 Hello Shawn, please don't use that article from Schmitt any longer, because it is incorrect and misleading. Schmitt writes (with a quotation, where he left out the most important words), that the UNESCO convention of 1970 would include meteorites. And inanother place: "This Convention, ratified by over 90 states, provides for tracking and retrieving from reciprocating states, cultural property including meteorites." That is wrong. Full stop. The point about Switzerland is wrong too. Huh, would have to rummage my old emails, I once occupied myself with that Schmitt-topic... A here it is one o them (see below)... (Perhaps I should add, that also technically the UNESCO convention can't protect anything, because - as given in the text of the convention - it has to be ratified by each nation first, and each nation individually has to create an individual list of items of their national heritage. Only if that has happened and if meteorites are found in the individual national heritage lists (like e.g. in Australia) the convention is effective). And anyway, other meteorite laws... In most constitutional countries personal property belongs to the strongest personal rights and is especially protected. In such countries od rule of law, disappropriation (with ot without compensation) by a state or to limit the use of a property (like e.g. to forbid to sell to other countries) is grave intervention of the individual personal rights, which, if done, requires a especially strong resons, usually the pubic weal or interest. You know, cases of land dissapropriation for building a highway ect. In most of these constitutional nations, legislation and judicature are separated. So not the law is decisive - a judge or a court have to decide. Furthermore such constitutional countries do have a interdiction of arbitrary laws, laws made for only a single case are not effective. Such laws can exist, but a court has to decide and it is also possible to proof them by a court, whether they are constitutional or not. So. If e.g. a country like Switzerland or Denmark, where only every 30 or 80 years a meteorite falls, would have a special meteorite law (which they don't have), it would be highly doubtful, whether that law would be valuable. And if a country has a law, which allows a disappropriation by or a right of preemption by (like Switzerland has) or a compulsory sale of a meteorite to the state, because it is an object of high public or scientific importance or interest, this interest has to be justified and proven. Switzerland e.g. would have most probably difficulties to do that. If one sees, that the state wasn't willing to preserve the historical Bally-meteorite-collection, the most important meteorite collection of Switzerland and that no single public institute took advantage from the preemption to buy it, when it was liquidated a few years ago, or if one keeps in mind, that no official efforts to find the meteorite of the Lake Constance fireball were undertaken (e.g. in Romania the state was hunting for the last fireballs) and if one sees, that Switzerland made no use of that very law with the large rock crystal, found in Switzerland by commercial rock hunters, but will buy it from them for several millions, than a Suisse court most probably would state, that a meteorite isn't of the necessary importance, the law requires. Or in other words, a confused meteoricist can have as many laws for meteorites as he wants, whether these laws are valid at all or in the very individual case - in most constitutional countries will have to decide a judge. I'm convinced, that in some countries, the meteorite laws are in that respect somewhat problematic, to express it politely. Problem is, that most of these people who are producing meteorites in finding them, are to civilized to waste their time with such rubbish, to fight in court for stones, and so theses laws never were proven, whether they are valid or constitutional at all. Anyway, as doubtful some meteorite laws, I think meanwhile most see, that meteorite laws in general have a very negative effect. In Australia e.g.the strain to science is so high, that first voices appear, to revise the laws, that finally again meteorites will be found there again. Here a suggestion to revise the laws from Pickard of the Bathurst observatory. http://www.arts.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0008/88073/bathurst-observator y.pdf Perhaps, in the end, in my eyes that laws debate isn't a discussion about ethics, as it sometimes is imposed. Yesterday I googled for the Chinese law for protection of cultural relics, whether meteorites could be afflicted too. (You know, China asks everywhere its fossils back). There I stumbled by chance over a Presidental Decree from the Philippines of 1974 (!) - who would ever known, that since 36 years meteorites, tektites, the rizalites, Anda-tektites from the Philippines are cultural property... A decree from the dictator Marcos. I highly doubt, that this person can be regarded as an ethical instance. And that unethical laws can exist, that we do know especially in Germany, if we think back to the Nazi-laws of disappropriation. So we should avoid the term "ethics", in the meteorite laws debate. Best! Martin ..... Good evening again, at the moment I feel a little bit taken for a fool. May you help me? We read and hear often in such discussions, that some nations tell that meteorites fall under the UNESCO Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property, as reasons for respective laws. Like e.g. McEwens, Schmitt & Barristers herald with a chest note of firm conviction as a fact in their paper of 2001 about meteorite laws: "This Convention, ratified by over 90 states, provides for tracking and retrieving from reciprocating states, cultural property including meteorites." http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/metsoc2001/pdf/5150.pdf Well, therefore I read now the convention (in German and in English). "including meteorites" is untrue. Meteorites are NOT mentioned in the convention, with no single word at all. And here is the wording of the definition of such "cultural property", synonym with "cultural heritage" later in the text of the convention. Quote: "Article 1 For the purposes of this Convention, the term `cultural property' means property which, on religious or secular grounds, is specifically designated by each State as being of importance for archaeology, prehistory, history, literature, art or science..." Followed by a catalogue of items of such cultural property. A catalogue is a list. The intention to list all items as completely as possible is perceptible in the sometimes detailed way of description. Quote continued: "... and which belongs to the following categories: (a) Rare collections and specimens of fauna, flora, minerals and anatomy, and objects of palaeontological interest; (b) property relating to history, including the history of science and technology and military and social history, to the life of national leaders, thinkers, scientists and artist and to events of national importance; (c) products of archaeological excavations (including regular and clandestine) or of archaeological discoveries ; (d) elements of artistic or historical monuments or archaeological sites which have been dismembered; (e) antiquities more than one hundred years old, such as inscriptions, coins and engraved seals; (f) objects of ethnological interest; (g) property of artistic interest, such as: (i) pictures, paintings and drawings produced entirely by hand on any support and in any material (excluding industrial designs and manu-factured articles decorated by hand); (ii) original works of statuary art and sculpture in any material; (iii) original engravings, prints and lithographs ; (iv) original artistic assemblages and montages in any material; (h) rare manuscripts and incunabula, old books, documents and publications of special interest (historical, artistic, scientific, literary, etc.) singly or in collections ; (i) postage, revenue and similar stamps, singly or in collections; (j) archives, including sound, photographic and cinematographic archives; (k) articles of furniture more than one hundred years old and old musical instruments." Where are the meteorites? Central point of the convention is the "cultural heritage". See also: "Article 4 The States Parties to this Convention recognize that for the purpose of the Convention property which belongs to the following categories forms part of the cultural heritage of each State: (a) Cultural property created by the individual or collective genius of nationals of the State concerned, and cultural property of importance to the State concerned created within the territory of that State by foreign nationals or stateless persons resident within such territory; (b) cultural property found within the national territory; (c) cultural property acquired by archaeological, ethnological or natural science missions, with the consent of the competent authorities of the country of origin of such property; (d) cultural property which has been the subject of a freely agreed exchange; (e) cultural property received as a gift or purchased legally with the consent of the competent authorities of the country of origin of such property." Please can someone help me, what the exact semantics and meaning of the English word "heritage" is? The German version of the convention has the word "Erbe" for "heritage". "Erbe" means the object, that is given from an antecessor to his progeny, it is something inherited, it originated in past, the factor of time is in that word. Heritage is something long-standing, traditional, passed-down, heirs inherit a heritage. And here we are? The only word in the convention, which could be so overstretched, that one could tear it over meteorites is "(a) Rare collections and specimens of fauna, flora, MINERALS and anatomy, and objects of palaeontological interest" That sentence, especially if you read the other points (b) to (e) is there to avoid, that parts of museum collections will be trafficked. Well, is there anybody out, who can enlighten me, how a new fall of a meteorite - hence an object, that since beginnings of the solar system had no contact with humans or Earth at all, can be a priori part of the cultural heritage of a country?? Where are the cultural properties of a stone, which is lying unnoticed by mankind, animals, dinosaurs in the wasteland and which hadn't formed the landscape? Why the Antarctic finds then aren't protected as cultural heritage? How a stone, where nobody knows, whether it is a meteorite or terrestrial, can be exported illegally, if only later in a lab it is positively tested and recognized as meteorite? Did someone write a poem about Hughes 057? Do we have any nomad songs about NWA 2487? When Tagish Lake felt, were there a sect crawling out the bushes: The prophecy is fulfilled? When happened the fall of Carancas? 100 years ago? If a nomad pics up a black stone, is this than a cultural act? Stays the stone cultural property, if it was no meteorite but a sandstone? Please Jerry, don't paint any meteorite falls anymore, the stones will be immediately cultural heritage. Here is the full text of the convention: http://portal.unesco.org/en/ev.php-URL_ID=13039&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION= 201.html I personally see another interesting point. The convention was passed in 1970. The earliest article, bemoaning that there are meteorites dealt and where a prohibitive legislation was demanded, I could found in internet, stem from 1991. Maybe someone could find some earlier ones? Else one is tempted to get an impression, that in the early 90ies scientist found out, ooops, there are private individuals finding a lot of new meteorites, let's get them all! And others will tell: Sounds like trivial greed. I for my part think, that the effort to try refer to the convention, is ridiculous. It never was made, nor meant for meteorites. The only straws to clutch at, is the single word "minerals", torn out of the context. With that construction, the export of coal, oil and cement would fall under the Convention of Cultural Property too. (Note the title, it says "Ownership"...see my last post). To pretend, that meteorites would be covered by the convention, is absolutely inappropriate. Therefore the respective countries should make a national lex meteoritica each or they should let it be. -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- Von: meteorite-list-bounces at meteoritecentral.com [mailto:meteorite-list-bounces at meteoritecentral.com] Im Auftrag von Shawn Alan Gesendet: Sonntag, 7. Februar 2010 02:27 An: meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com; astroroks at hotmail.com Betreff: [meteorite-list] Lorton Meteorite Dennis/List Click on the link below and this might help with laws on ownership of meteorites. Shawn Alan http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?bibcode=2002M% 26PSB..37....5S&db_key=AST&page_ind=0&plate_select=NO&data_type=GIF&type=SCR EEN_GIF&classic=YES [meteorite-list] Lorton Meteorite Dennis Miller astroroks at hotmail.com Sat Feb 6 19:53:51 EST 2010 Previous message: [meteorite-list] Lorton Meteorite Next message: [meteorite-list] Odd UNWA Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- I am an uninformed reader but, where can I find these "Meteorite Laws"? I usually only carry a copy of the Federal Regulations Title 43 Part 8360, that allows me to remove mineral specimens from public lands, should I run into an agent who is not familiar with the law. But, I am not familiar with "Meteorite Laws". I know that Michelle Knapps had no trouble claiming and selling the Peekskill meteorite. Just need to know where to find these said new laws.. Thanks! Miss seeing everyone in Tucson. Had to have a Knee tune up after tromping around Egypt. Dennis ---------------------------------------- > From: prairiecactus at rtcol.com > To: meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com > Date: Fri, 5 Feb 2010 21:39:46 -0500 > Subject: [meteorite-list] Lorton Meteorite > > Hiya Carl, gun lovers and haters: > > I was merely stating the law as it now stands. If a meteorite falls on your > property, you own it. An open and shut case. If the Smithsonian wants to > appeal to the Supreme Court, the Court could possibly rule that current > meteorite laws are unconstitutional. It's extremely unlikely they would hear > the case. It's highly unlikely even a Circuit judge would strike down > current meteorite laws as unconstitutional. Or any judge for that matter. > The Smithsonian has the lawyers and the funding of the federal gov't backing > them, they could try to argue the laws are unconstitutional, highly unlikely > as there is practically no chance they would win. > > What they could do is go straight to the President and get either a > presidential decree or have the Justice Dep't write some memos like they > did legalizing torture. Again not a chance. > > More likely they could get a Congressman to introduce a bill changing the > meteorite laws, but it would never make it out of the first round of > sub-committes. > > Possession might be nine tenths of the law, but I'll be dollars to donuts > the Smithsonian gives it back. > > > Phil Whitmer > > ______________________________________________ > Visit the Archives at http://www.meteoritecentral.com/mailing-list-archives.html > Meteorite-list mailing list > Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com > http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list _________________________________________________________________ Hotmail: Free, trusted and rich email service. http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/201469228/direct/01/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- Previous message: [meteorite-list] Lorton Meteorite Next message: [meteorite-list] Odd UNWA Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- More information about the Meteorite-list mailing list ______________________________________________ Visit the Archives at http://www.meteoritecentral.com/mailing-list-archives.html Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list Previous message: [meteorite-list] Lorton Meteorite Next message: [meteorite-list] Tucson show on facebook Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] More information about the Meteorite-list mailing list ______________________________________________ Visit the Archives at http://www.meteoritecentral.com/mailing-list-archives.html Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list Previous message: [meteorite-list] Lorton Meteorite (Schmitt is wrong)(NO your wrong) Next message: [meteorite-list] Dawn Journal - January 30, 2010 Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] More information about the Meteorite-list mailing list ? ? Received on Sun 07 Feb 2010 10:22:32 PM PST |
 StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit Yahoo MyWeb
|