[meteorite-list] Technical question about NomCom and Bulletin

From: Martin Altmann <altmann_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Sun, 6 Jun 2010 17:55:31 +0200
Message-ID: <004101cb0590$b1fba680$6502a8c0_at_name86d88d87e2>

Hello Jason,

I'd prefer, if you could write your postings without imputations.

There is certainly a difference between demonstrating the effects and
consequences of unhandy laws for research and institutional, private and
national collecting, plus the warning to commit the same mistakes again and
again

and the call for breaching laws.

Best,
Martin



-----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht-----
Von: meteorite-list-bounces at meteoritecentral.com
[mailto:meteorite-list-bounces at meteoritecentral.com] Im Auftrag von Jason
Utas
Gesendet: Sonntag, 6. Juni 2010 07:25
An: Michael Blood; Meteorite-list
Betreff: Re: [meteorite-list] Technical question about NomCom and Bulletin

Martin, Michael, All,
It's an easy question to answer. When you buy a meteorite, do you
care that it's official and will be in the next bulletin or catalog?
Many collectors are more willing to buy official meteorites - or are
willing to pay more for them - because there's simply more information
about them available online and elsewhere. They're official. It's
provenance.

As Martin has made painfully clear with his previous set of posts on
the issue, meteorites are now being brought out of wherever they are
found in large part by dealers and collectors, who are oftentimes
looking to turn a profit from selling their finds. And while I have
no problem with that, Martin seems to advocate violating national laws
in the process.

So, by approving those meteorites that have been illegally exported,
the Nomenclature Committee is in effect financially supporting the
illegal export of meteorites from countries where it is prohibited.
Think about it; if the Committee/Society were to go through with this,
no one would get any new official (or provisional?) numbers for Omani
stones. It would be harder to sell them as unnumbered
Shisr/Dhofar/etc stones, or something along those lines.

Granted, they would undoubtedly still sell, but probably for less than
they already do.

Of course if that were to happen, I have little doubt that dealers
would simply start falsifying coordinates (even more than is already
being done by *some* hunters to hide the find locations of valuable
stones) to put them in legal hunting areas, so the probably wouldn't
accomplish anything anyways.

But since many of the ordinary chondrites being found in legal places
aren't being analyzed because no one wants to bother -- and the rare
ones will be scientifically described regardless of whether or not
they are official -- I don't see any real problem with this. After
all, plenty of NWA's (literally thousands) are analyzed by labs and
then never submitted formally. They remain in effect "undescribed"
stones, even though the labwork has been done on them, because they
are ordinary chondrites and no one seems to care about whether or not
they get published. Take a look at the bulletin if you don't believe
me. By the time you get to NWA 200 (not even the thousands!), half of
them are simply provisional numbers without classifications.

Perhaps I should address the issue more clearly.

> If I write an article verifying a gold artifact was found in
> The tomb of thus & such a pharaoh in Egypt, am I somehow
> "contributing to" the act of someone stealing it, if, in fact, someone
> Did steal it?

No, but if you try to sell the object on the open market, knowing full
well that it was exported illegally from Egypt, should you
1) Be able to say that it's an "official" meteorite even though it was
exported in violation of a national law, and
2) Add that sort of credibility to the stone when you're trying to
sell it for a profit

The problem is that people are illegally taking these meteorites out
of Oman and then selling them, and the Nomenclature Committee is
approving these meteorites as official when they are in effect
illegally exported contraband.

It would be akin to a company willing to run tests on and certify the
authenticity of black market antiquities.

And, in case you haven't been watching the news, items of
archaeological and cultural relevance that have been stolen from
various countries over the past several hundred years have been
getting claimed and returned to their countries of origin.

<http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/ET-Cetera/articleshow/5999090.cms>

<http://www.observer.com/2010/digging-past>

As you can see, this *is* something of an issue -- but the debate
mainly focuses on pieces of art that were stolen when laws were not in
place regarding these artifacts' exportation.

The situation with meteorites is much more black and white.

No country is trying to claim meteorites that were exported before
laws like Oman's and Australia's were in place. They seem to accept
that those meteorites have gone, and they're not coming back. What
we're saying is that the Nomenclature committee, because they provide
a service to dealers by verifying and providing an easy way to
authenticate a given meteorite, which makes them easier to sell,
should perhaps not allow the submission of illegally exported
materials of great scientific value. The work on them can still be
done by labs if they choose to do it, and the papers will still be
written, but the service provided by the Nomenclature Committee of
having this information posted online would not be done, so that the
private sector would...well, it would be a much riskier thing to buy.

So, should they allow for the submission of illegally exported
meteorites? I don't know. What if I went to Antarctica on a
self-funded mission, found some stones, and brought them back. Would
the Nomm. Comm. approve them? Would the US government arrest me?
What about Oman? Why does it seem so much more...illegal...to go to
Antarctica?
...Why do we seem to care less about Omani laws than our own?

I don't know...but I have the feeling that the people on the board
know all about this, and that they just need to sort out what the true
goals of the Meteoritical Society should be. Perhaps it should be
"above" all of this legislative hubbub, but...by fostering such
practices, in my opinion, they wind up on the low side by promoting
what is technically the illegal marketing of stolen goods.

Tough call.

Regards,

Jason
Received on Sun 06 Jun 2010 11:55:31 AM PDT