04-04-2014, 11:44 AM
Aha. I now recommend you even more to read what is written on the site you find behind the link.
Just brief: If some idiot with a metal detector destroyed the stratigraphy of an ancient site "somewhere in Anatolia" for the few bucks your coins are worth, then, well...
For your coins: If they come from Anatolia, then they are most certainly looted. At least in regard of the laws of Turkey, which is sort of responsible for Anatolia. As the laws of the country the items come from are those that count, well. But it still is not about those laws.
=> It is about provenance. In an archaeological context. The rule is there to help preventing the sale of such objects ("artifacts"). Coins are artifacts, too.
Just brief: If some idiot with a metal detector destroyed the stratigraphy of an ancient site "somewhere in Anatolia" for the few bucks your coins are worth, then, well...
Quote:I meant what counts as looting and legally obtaining is based on that particular country's lawsYes, I understood that, and it is not really news, but it still does not relate at all to what I wrote or to what rule #4 says.
For your coins: If they come from Anatolia, then they are most certainly looted. At least in regard of the laws of Turkey, which is sort of responsible for Anatolia. As the laws of the country the items come from are those that count, well. But it still is not about those laws.
=> It is about provenance. In an archaeological context. The rule is there to help preventing the sale of such objects ("artifacts"). Coins are artifacts, too.
Christian K.
No reconstruendum => No reconstruction.
Ut desint vires, tamen est laudanda voluntas.
No reconstruendum => No reconstruction.
Ut desint vires, tamen est laudanda voluntas.
