I was recently watching a History channel show on the black market for artifacts(3rd biggest black market next to drugs and arms) and how looting permanently loses invaluable historical information. The conclusion: more state efforts must be enacted to preserve history and knowledge. So I naturally got to thinking, why is the private acquisition of artifacts so destructive and how would the free market handle/aid archaelogy.
The most obvious reason to why looting is so destructive is that its illegal(I know noone anticipated this answer). Artifacts have to be smuggled, so they cannot be transported in the safest environments. Dealers also try to cover up the origin of some artifacts and destroy information so it cannot legally be traced back to a looted site. And looters have zero incentive to preserve historical information within the site.
Here's where it starts to get interesting. How could a free market better serve archaeology? Of course there would be a lot more 'looting', but in a free market, what's the difference between a looter and an archaeological excavation? They both seek to remove the artifacts, so how can archaeology benefit? More looting means more archaeological sites uncovered, which means more historical information can be gathered in a more timely manner.
Ah, but those evil looters will destroy precious information! But if it wasn't illegal, looters could inform archaeologists of their findings and allow them to gather all the information they want, provided the looters still retain the artifacts or sell them to the scientist. Looters would have an incentive to work with archaeologists, not against them. The looters get the artifact or money for it either way, the only difference is that they would now be able to get paid to allow scientists to examine the artifacts first.
So if the artifact trade were legalized, more sites would be uncovered, and destructive looting would plummet, leading to a vast increase in the acquisition of archaeological knowledge.
Now it seems the real question is: why does the state hate archaeology??
As a whole I do not think the free market could serve archeology better than a state, unless there was a great demand for it. That being said you mentioned it was the third lgst black market, it also started through private enterprise. Also more liberal policies in the world could lead to less bombings (such as in the Mid East) which would destroy less artifacts, greater prosperity which could lead to more opportunities for people, and most likely lead to greate technological innovations which may end up helping the field.
Like I said though, as a whole, I do not think the free market could compete with a determined state in archaeology, I do not think the field would go extinct or suffer catastrophic consequences though. Some "high demand" areas may even be better served such as Israel.
Let us look then and see, how they manage their concerns- they for whose cause we are to labor, devote ourselves, and grow enthusiastic
-Max Stirner, The Ego and His Own
Ludwig von Mises Institute | 518 West Magnolia Avenue | Auburn, Alabama 36832-4528
Phone: 334.321.2100 · Fax: 334.321.2119
contact@Mises.org | webmaster | AOL-IM MainMises
Mises.org sitemap