I figured that since there is no class tonight due to the long weekend, I'd like to address a question that Dr. Greene posed last week when we were discussing the antiquities trade and private collectors. She asked: Do we need fewer laws and less enforcement, or more laws and more enforcement?
Ideally, I would say it's preferable to have fewer, un/less ambiguous laws, and more enforcement of said laws than more laws which are not as well enforced.
Take for instance the poaching of endangered species in Africa and Asia. The law is simple: do not kill, maim, or dismember these species (such as elephants, panda bears, tigers etc).
The enforcement of this one, seemingly simple law is, however, not so simple at all.
How difficult could it be?!
Well, that's where the problem really lies. That it IS difficult to enforce these laws, as much for endangered species as it is for the illegal antiquities trade.
Ideally, if we educate individuals to be moral and to know what is right from wrong, they should follow the law without it needing to be strictly enforced. They would just do it because, well, it's what's right. But sadly, while we humans love to preach our values, morality, and superiority, we very few of us are morally upright citizens all the time, and some offenses are much greater than others.
So, since this educational approach sadly only affects part of the population, the rest of the population must be closely monitored for the laws to be upheld.
For poaching, this means setting up perimeters to sanctuaries, tracking the wild animals, having park rangers monitoring the areas constantly, and setting up export and import regulations, among other things.
Again returning to an ideal scenario, if absolutely everything was documented by export and import regulations, these would be an extra security measure on top of the monitoring of sanctuaries because, if you catch a huge elephant tusk being exported from a country in Africa, then you know that poaching has occurred, and the country would then be notified of the illegal action, with the individual paying the penalty.
But sadly, it is simply impossible for customs agents to go through absolutely everything that ever enters or exits a country, just as it is impossible to tag every single endangered animal and to secure every single meter of wildlife preserve. And that is why illegal poaching still occurs and people still get away with it: because the laws, no matter how many or how few, are difficult to enforce.
The same can be said of the antiquities trade. In a way, antiquities are exactly like our endangered animals, except we can't really count how many are still below the earth, waiting to be discovered. We can't have guards at every single gate of every archaeological site combing through everything visitors bring in and out. Even more difficult would be to have protection for sites that have yet to be identified! This would literally require placing some sort of security (guards, camera...) every couple of meters around entire countries, especially antiquities-rich countries such as Greece, Turkey and Italy. This is simply not possible.
In this situation, too, ideally, these looted items would all be caught as they were being exported, and if not at export, then at import, at which point the individual exporting or importing them would be held accountable for their provenience and provenance. Anything short of an official report of excavation or solid provenance, and that individual should be held accountable for his or her crimes.
In the end, it doesn't matter how many laws you do or do not have. In order for change to really occur, these laws must be enforced- by countries, communities, and individuals.
Ideally, I would say it's preferable to have fewer, un/less ambiguous laws, and more enforcement of said laws than more laws which are not as well enforced.
Take for instance the poaching of endangered species in Africa and Asia. The law is simple: do not kill, maim, or dismember these species (such as elephants, panda bears, tigers etc).
 |
| Siberian Tiger, a critically endangered subspecies of tiger. Doesn't this face look like it's worth saving?! |
How difficult could it be?!
Well, that's where the problem really lies. That it IS difficult to enforce these laws, as much for endangered species as it is for the illegal antiquities trade.
Ideally, if we educate individuals to be moral and to know what is right from wrong, they should follow the law without it needing to be strictly enforced. They would just do it because, well, it's what's right. But sadly, while we humans love to preach our values, morality, and superiority, we very few of us are morally upright citizens all the time, and some offenses are much greater than others.
So, since this educational approach sadly only affects part of the population, the rest of the population must be closely monitored for the laws to be upheld.
For poaching, this means setting up perimeters to sanctuaries, tracking the wild animals, having park rangers monitoring the areas constantly, and setting up export and import regulations, among other things.
Again returning to an ideal scenario, if absolutely everything was documented by export and import regulations, these would be an extra security measure on top of the monitoring of sanctuaries because, if you catch a huge elephant tusk being exported from a country in Africa, then you know that poaching has occurred, and the country would then be notified of the illegal action, with the individual paying the penalty.
But sadly, it is simply impossible for customs agents to go through absolutely everything that ever enters or exits a country, just as it is impossible to tag every single endangered animal and to secure every single meter of wildlife preserve. And that is why illegal poaching still occurs and people still get away with it: because the laws, no matter how many or how few, are difficult to enforce.
The same can be said of the antiquities trade. In a way, antiquities are exactly like our endangered animals, except we can't really count how many are still below the earth, waiting to be discovered. We can't have guards at every single gate of every archaeological site combing through everything visitors bring in and out. Even more difficult would be to have protection for sites that have yet to be identified! This would literally require placing some sort of security (guards, camera...) every couple of meters around entire countries, especially antiquities-rich countries such as Greece, Turkey and Italy. This is simply not possible.
In this situation, too, ideally, these looted items would all be caught as they were being exported, and if not at export, then at import, at which point the individual exporting or importing them would be held accountable for their provenience and provenance. Anything short of an official report of excavation or solid provenance, and that individual should be held accountable for his or her crimes.
 |
| Quartz Crystal Duck Bowl from Grave Circle B, Mycenae Doesn't this face, too, look like it's worth saving? |
In the end, it doesn't matter how many laws you do or do not have. In order for change to really occur, these laws must be enforced- by countries, communities, and individuals.
No comments:
Post a Comment