Sticks v. Stones
3
Regulation of the fossil trade
Regulation of the antiquities trade
South America
...but fossils as CULTURAL?
Private Property
State Ownership
Private Property
Same-ish
Mineral Rights
- Archaeological objects can be owned in some circumstances
- Those circumstances depend on the jurisdiction
- Often sale and export is possible, but not always
- All undiscovered archaeological objects are property of the nation
- Private guardianship but not private ownership
- Object cannot be sold
- Objects can never be permanently exported, ever
=
- Fossils classified as minerals
- One individual/group may own the land, another may own mineral rights
Almost every country in South America has blanket state ownership of both fossils and artefacts.
That is what the laws say!
We don't enforce export law of other countries unless there is a bilateral import agreement
Proving that an unprovenienced artefact is "stolen" is impossible
In England and Wales (but not Scotland) fossils found on the surface of even private property are considered 'abandoned' under the law and are up for grabs by anyone.
The Illicit Trade in Antiquities:
Trafficking Culture
The Fossil Trade: Basics
Conflicts in legislating Archaeology and Palaentology together
A Contentious Issue
Evaluating Regulatory Response:
ANY non-pro excavation of archaeological material is bad for archaeology
- Fundamentally destructive
- Based on a foundation of multi-jurisdictional law-breaking
- Regulation of antiquities trafficking networks understudied
- Problem ill-defined and difficult to evaluate regulatory results
responsible traders may further the discipline
irresponsible traders cause great harm
What can we learn from research into parallel illicit markets?
Non-pro extraction of fossils is VITAL to palaeontology
- Palaeontological context isn't as small-scale and sensitive
- Academics are unable to extract many fossils and depend on commercial mining
Apamea, Syria After
Apamea, Syria Before
Institutions feel they don't have the financial means to compete with private collectors for key specimens
Absent from prior illicit antiquities research!
A difference in academic expectation
Fossil Smuggling:
The Fossil Trade: Basics
Poor collection of fossils:
A parallel illicit market?
Sticks v. Stones:
Illegally excavated
- loss of useful contextual data
- can damage both specimens and localities
Commercialization and regulation of palaeontological and archaeological material
Ocucaje, Peru
Palaeontologists want ANYONE to expose fossils, record where they were found,
let scientists have a look, and to make the important ones publicly accessible.
Trafficked internationally
Lack of regulation:
Sold at auction
Ross A. Elgin
Donna Yates
Museums
Scottish Centre for Crime and Justice Research
University of Glasgow
donna.yates@glasgow.ac.uk
Department of Geology
Staatliches Museum für Naturkunde Karlsruhe
rosselgin@googlemail.com
Private collections
- overcollecting
- ambiguity over
collection location
- specimens move out of developing world
Illicit vs. illegal issues
Dealer shows
The Fossil Trade: Basics
Difference in how we view collectors
Our Goals Today:
Palaeontologists:
Archaeologists:
People still remove fossils for sale...
Individuals and commercial companies locate and prepare fossils for legal sale.
Collectors who share their specimens facilitate academic work
Collectors are criminals and we don't see points of compromise
- Overview of illicit trade in palaeontological material
- Conflict in classing fossils as 'cultural'
- Benefits/drawbacks of combined law
- What is next?
Rarer vertebrates command large prices on the market
Most sales are of common fossils
but laws and attitudes have changed
The illicit market for fossils works in much the same way.
Possible drawbacks of combined legislation:
Possible benefits of combined legislation:
Ideally Palaeontologists want access
Do these reflect the same illicit market, parallel illicit markets, or totally different illicit markets?
Streamlining
...to see the fossils and study them, not necessarily to excavate them
Combined legislation isn't responsive legislation
archaeology = "cultural"
palaeontology = "natural"
Ideally Archaeologists want context
We believe that this is an important and practical distinction.
We see these objects as fundamentally different but those enforcing the law don't. A law that is too complicated for those that enforce it to understand is not useful.
Legislation can't be so broad that it isn't meaningful or modifiable
...to preserve the integrity of archaeological association until professional excavation
These are two different but parallel markets.
We need to study fossil trafficking
- Regulation with limited academic input
- We don't have numbers or data
- No comparative legal survey