M. Porcius Cato Posted June 24, 2009 Report Share Posted June 24, 2009 A lovely, very thoughtful piece in Archaeology on the salutary effects of Ebay for the world's antiquities. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Primus Pilus Posted June 24, 2009 Report Share Posted June 24, 2009 A lovely, very thoughtful piece in Archaeology on the salutary effects of Ebay for the world's antiquities. A truly fascinating article. He does seem to be heavily focused on South American antiquities though (surely his personal area of expertise), and while he does mention other artifacts, I wonder if the same sort of results are occurring in other archaeological theaters or areas of study (ie numismatics). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sylla Posted June 24, 2009 Report Share Posted June 24, 2009 A lovely, very thoughtful piece in Archaeology on the salutary effects of Ebay for the world's antiquities. A truly fascinating article. He does seem to be heavily focused on South American antiquities though (surely his personal area of expertise), and while he does mention other artifacts, I wonder if the same sort of results are occurring in other archaeological theaters or areas of study (ie numismatics). Let me see if I got it right: based on the anecdotic account of a personal series, the projection of the illegal international archaeological trade market is expected to be the mutual neutralization of two international felonies (forgery and looting) pushed by the invisible hand... Frankly, the capitalist-anarchist utopian (or dystopian?) solution seems a little too naive to me; the old-fashioned hard policy of the Israeli government might be a better tested alternative. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M. Porcius Cato Posted June 24, 2009 Author Report Share Posted June 24, 2009 Let me see if I got it right: based on the anecdotic account of a personal series, the projection of the illegal international archaeological trade market is expected to be the mutual neutralization of two international felonies (forgery and looting) pushed by the invisible hand... Nope, you don't have it right. Here's the explanation from the article: Because the eBay phenomenon has substantially reduced total costs by eliminating middlemen, brick-and-mortar stores, high-priced dealers, and other marginal expenses, the local eBayers and craftsmen can make more money cranking out cheap fakes than they can by spending days or weeks digging around looking for the real thing. It is true that many former and potential looters lack the skills to make their own artifacts. But the value of their illicit digging decreases every time someone buys a "genuine" Moche pot for $35, plus shipping and handling. In other words, because the low-end antiquities market has been flooded with fakes that people buy for a fraction of what a genuine object would cost, the value of the real artifacts has gone down as well, making old-fashioned looting less lucrative. The value of real antiquities is also impacted by the increased risk that the object for sale is a fake. The likelihood of reselling an authentic artifact for more money is diminished each year as more fakes are produced. Rather than mutual neutralization, forgers drive out looters by undercutting their prices due to a fixed, competitive advantage. This is basic economics, and it doesn't have anything to do with "anarcho-capitalism". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sylla Posted June 24, 2009 Report Share Posted June 24, 2009 Rather than mutual neutralization, forgers drive out looters by undercutting their prices due to a fixed, competitive advantage. This is basic economics, and it doesn't have anything to do with "anarcho-capitalism". I see; one felony (forgery) is promoted at the expense of another (looting) as long as the consumers remain unable to distinguish the real issues from the forgeries; after that, basic economics will promote looting again.I stand corrected; thanks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M. Porcius Cato Posted June 25, 2009 Author Report Share Posted June 25, 2009 I see; one felony (forgery) is promoted at the expense of another (looting) as long as the consumers remain unable to distinguish the real issues from the forgeries; after that, basic economics will promote looting again.I stand corrected; thanks. How's that? Why would basic economics promote looting again? That makes no sense. Given the costs and risks of locating, securing, smuggling, and finding a buyer for authentic antiquities (which the buyer still doesn't know to be real), the price of authentic antiquities has always been much higher than the cost of fake antiquities. I can see why there would be a pressure to make fakes as realistic as possible, but as long as making realistic fakes is cheaper than looting the real thing, the forgers would seem to have a permanent competitive advantage. As far as I can tell, looting -- not forging -- hurts archaeology, which is presumably why forging is only a Class B misdemeanor (not felony) in all the U.S. states I know of. It's true that the scoundrels who think they're buying real antiquities are being defrauded, but so what? Is consumer protection to be valued over the protection of antiquities? Given the inability of even a police state like North Korea to stop the black market from operating, I seriously doubt that there is any set of laws or procedures draconian enough to achieve for archaeology what the forgers have done peacefully and for free. Maybe you're just a fan of the police state, Sylla? As for me, I'm much happier with the success of the "invisible hand" than the iron fist. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sylla Posted June 25, 2009 Report Share Posted June 25, 2009 How's that? Why would basic economics promote looting again? That makes no sense. Given the costs and risks of locating, securing, smuggling, and finding a buyer for authentic antiquities (which the buyer still doesn't know to be real), the price of authentic antiquities has always been much higher than the cost of fake antiquities. I can see why there would be a pressure to make fakes as realistic as possible, but as long as making realistic fakes is cheaper than looting the real thing, the forgers would seem to have a permanent competitive advantage. As far as I can tell, looting -- not forging -- hurts archaeology, which is presumably why forging is only a Class B misdemeanor (not felony) in all the U.S. states I know of. It's true that the scoundrels who think they're buying real antiquities are being defrauded, but so what? Is consumer protection to be valued over the protection of antiquities? Given the inability of even a police state like North Korea to stop the black market from operating, I seriously doubt that there is any set of laws or procedures draconian enough to achieve for archaeology what the forgers have done peacefully and for free. Maybe you're just a fan of the police state, Sylla? As for me, I'm much happier with the success of the "invisible hand" than the iron fist. As far as I can tell, fraud is a felony (in some states depending on the charge). Depending on the specifics, other offenses may be added. In any case, the obvious moral of Mr. Stanish's article is that it would be really dumb to buy any "archaeological piece" via eBay. Charles Stanish of UCLA's Cotsen Institute of Archaeology covers his mouth in laughter as he spots an obviously fake artifact online. What these consumers want , as any other consumer, is obviously the genuinel issue; what evidence would you require to consider a purported archaeological piece as authenticated? Would actual physical evidence of looting help? A scholar's opinion? Whatever your answer might be, it's rather obvious that archaeological looting is rampant worldwide; maybe the free entrepeneur looters are simply not aware of the basic free market mechanics. Regarding the Classical area, ROMAN LOOTING IN THE BALKANS has been a critical problem for years, as it has been repeatedly posted here in UNRV. Maybe we should give the free market some credit; buyers might be not so naive after all. From the first link in this post: "Usher Lieberman, an EBay spokesman, says that if fake antiquities were as rampant as Stanish claims, buyers would complain and EBay would police the problem as it does when corporations alert it that knockoffs of their brands are being sold as authentic. "We take very seriously any claims that items sold on the site aren't genuine. . . . This isn't something we're hearing a lot about."... New York City archaeologist Oscar White Muscarella, author of "The Lie Became Great," a book on forgeries from the ancient Near East, is an acerbic foe of the antiquities trade, but he doesn't buy Stanish's thesis that the existence of more and better fakes means less looting. "The guy who has money and a lust for antiquities is going to buy them," Muscarella says. "What's going to decrease plundering is not forgeries, it's only if governments take more action.".... Jerome M. Eisenberg, an antiquities dealer since 1954, says his Royal Athena Galleries in New York is not hurting, with annual sales in the tens of millions of dollars, including an Internet trade that has "increased exponentially" over the past few years. Stanish is right about what's happening on EBay, says Eisenberg, who also enjoys watching "just for fun" to see how people are getting fleeced. "But anybody with a decent amount of intelligence isn't going to buy on EBay unless they know who they're dealing with." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.