[meteorite-list] meteorite-list] Lorton Meteorite (Schmitt is wrong)(NO your wrong)
Martin, I like your insight but to ignore or suggest what should be placed on the list even though it pertains to meteorites is wrong from this statement you made " That is a problem, fully ignored, but nevertheless real. Therefore I think it's not so good, to spread that Schmitt article around. O.k. a normal curator will be well aware of the problem, but past showed, that it isn't granted that all are really normal" http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?bibcode=2002M%26PSB..375S&db_key=AST&page_ind=0&plate_select=NO&data_type=GIF&type=SCREEN_GIF&classic=YES Thank Shawn Alan [meteorite-list] Lorton Meteorite (Schmitt is wrong)(NO your wrong) Martin Altmann altmann at meteorite-martin.de Sun Feb 7 18:53:51 EST 2010 Previous message: [meteorite-list] Lorton Meteorite (Schmitt is wrong)(NO your wrong) Next message: [meteorite-list] Dawn Journal - January 30, 2010 Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] Hi Shawn, I was referring to the UNESCO convention of 1970, which indeed is a different kettle of fish, than regional states or federal laws, like in the Lorton case. Whether landowner, landlord, lodger, finder, keeper is the owner. Nevertheless that UNESCO-thing is a more serious one, cause in case, it says what a owner is allowed to do with his property or not, and hence would be affect the free meteorite trade of collectors, scientists, nations. Furthermore the UNESCO-convention if applied on meteorite could lead also to stricter regional laws, cause the clercs, politicians or whoever could get the impression, that meteorites would be cultural items. (Look, China e.g. made laws for fossils, which vitually are making all fossils property of the state and if there is a private ownership, the owner is allowed only to sell to the state). And Schmitt is suggesting of the UNESCO convention automatically protecting ALL meteorites (of those 90 countries which had ratified, when he published his article). And that is simply not true - you have only to read the fulltext of the convention. Meteorites aren't mentioned at all, neither they seem to meet the definition of "cultural" heritage, given there. And the only case they are indeed protected by the UNESCO convention is: A) if they are part of a scientific collection & B) if they are listed explicitely in the individual national catalogues of items of the cultural heritage, with each signing nation has to make. And, Schmitt fully forgets the UNIDROIT convention. It is very dangerous for most countries, to declare meteorites as heritage, and it would be a great disservice, if they would do so. Why? Here weg go: http://www.unidroit.org/English/conventions/1995culturalproperty/1995cultura lproperty-e.htm See? If meteorites are cultural heritage by means of the 1970 convention, then they would be also subject to the UNIDROIT convention. And then it can happen, that the day will come that Australia, Algeria, China, Oman, Argentina.. will knock on the door, to say: "Give us our meteorites back". As they are doing already with artefacts, aboriginal stuff, with fossils, with art, with archaeological items ect. And then we would have to dissolve the great collections, especially in the meteorite poor countries. We would have to dissolve London, Vienna, Paris, New York, partially also the Smithonian collection... Because for the most meteorites from the last 200 years, they all simply have no proof, that they were once legally exported. Simple theoretical example: A meteorite shower, called Pultusk. The village museum of Pultusk hasn't any nice Pultusks. If UK would have meteorites in their heritage lists, the village museum could address quickly to the ministry, to make an affair of states out of the case. Pultusk - shortly after it felt, Mr.Krantz was travelling there, a mineral dealer, and hunted and bought stones from the locals, as many as he could get. Just like the meteorite dealers of our times, no difference. Krantz took them home to Bonn, Germany and sold them to quite all big collections of these times. The curator would have to rummage the archives of the London collection, and if he's lucky he will find an old invoice, or a budget notation, but a proof, that the Pultusks in the London collection were once legally removed from Poland or from Germany - he or she won't find? Why? Because before (and of course also after) the foofaraw with Australia and Canada began, no scientist, no curator, no dealer, no collector cared for export papers for meteorites - because nobody could have the idea, that once in future, papers for something like - and don't forget, we're taking about really whack objects, where still today almost nobody globally seen is interested in - one once would need papers!
Re: [meteorite-list] Lorton Meteorite (Schmitt is wrong)(NO your wrong)
Hi Shawn, I was referring to the UNESCO convention of 1970, which indeed is a different kettle of fish, than regional states or federal laws, like in the Lorton case. Whether landowner, landlord, lodger, finder, keeper is the owner. Nevertheless that UNESCO-thing is a more serious one, cause in case, it says what a owner is allowed to do with his property or not, and hence would be affect the free meteorite trade of collectors, scientists, nations. Furthermore the UNESCO-convention if applied on meteorite could lead also to stricter regional laws, cause the clercs, politicians or whoever could get the impression, that meteorites would be cultural items. (Look, China e.g. made laws for fossils, which vitually are making all fossils property of the state and if there is a private ownership, the owner is allowed only to sell to the state). And Schmitt is suggesting of the UNESCO convention automatically protecting ALL meteorites (of those 90 countries which had ratified, when he published his article). And that is simply not true - you have only to read the fulltext of the convention. Meteorites aren't mentioned at all, neither they seem to meet the definition of "cultural" heritage, given there. And the only case they are indeed protected by the UNESCO convention is: A) if they are part of a scientific collection & B) if they are listed explicitely in the individual national catalogues of items of the cultural heritage, with each signing nation has to make. And, Schmitt fully forgets the UNIDROIT convention. It is very dangerous for most countries, to declare meteorites as heritage, and it would be a great disservice, if they would do so. Why? Here weg go: http://www.unidroit.org/English/conventions/1995culturalproperty/1995cultura lproperty-e.htm See? If meteorites are cultural heritage by means of the 1970 convention, then they would be also subject to the UNIDROIT convention. And then it can happen, that the day will come that Australia, Algeria, China, Oman, Argentina.. will knock on the door, to say: "Give us our meteorites back". As they are doing already with artefacts, aboriginal stuff, with fossils, with art, with archaeological items ect. And then we would have to dissolve the great collections, especially in the meteorite poor countries. We would have to dissolve London, Vienna, Paris, New York, partially also the Smithonian collection... Because for the most meteorites from the last 200 years, they all simply have no proof, that they were once legally exported. Simple theoretical example: A meteorite shower, called Pultusk. The village museum of Pultusk hasn't any nice Pultusks. If UK would have meteorites in their heritage lists, the village museum could address quickly to the ministry, to make an affair of states out of the case. Pultusk - shortly after it felt, Mr.Krantz was travelling there, a mineral dealer, and hunted and bought stones from the locals, as many as he could get. Just like the meteorite dealers of our times, no difference. Krantz took them home to Bonn, Germany and sold them to quite all big collections of these times. The curator would have to rummage the archives of the London collection, and if he's lucky he will find an old invoice, or a budget notation, but a proof, that the Pultusks in the London collection were once legally removed from Poland or from Germany - he or she won't find? Why? Because before (and of course also after) the foofaraw with Australia and Canada began, no scientist, no curator, no dealer, no collector cared for export papers for meteorites - because nobody could have the idea, that once in future, papers for something like - and don't forget, we're taking about really whack objects, where still today almost nobody globally seen is interested in - one once would need papers! That is a problem, fully ignored, but nevertheless real. Therefore I think it's not so good, to spread that Schmitt article around. O.k. a normal curator will be well aware of the problem, but past showed, that it isn't granted that all are really normal Best! Martin -Ursprüngliche Nachricht- Von: meteorite-list-boun...@meteoritecentral.com [mailto:meteorite-list-boun...@meteoritecentral.com] Im Auftrag von Shawn Alan Gesendet: Sonntag, 7. Februar 2010 21:34 An: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Betreff: [meteorite-list] Lorton Meteorite (Schmitt is wrong)(NO your wrong) Martin/List Stated by Martin.. "Hello Shawn, please don't use that article from Schmitt any longer, because it is incorrect and misleading." Here is the misleading article link http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?bibcode=2002M% 26PSB..375S&db_key=AST&page_ind=0&plate_select=NO&data_type=GIF&type=SCR EEN_GIF&classic=YES Martin I am glad you think its misleading I guess when you read the article you also read
[meteorite-list] Lorton Meteorite (Schmitt is wrong)(NO your wrong)
Martin/List Stated by Martin.. "Hello Shawn, please don't use that article from Schmitt any longer, because it is incorrect and misleading." Here is the misleading article link http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?bibcode=2002M%26PSB..375S&db_key=AST&page_ind=0&plate_select=NO&data_type=GIF&type=SCREEN_GIF&classic=YES Martin I am glad you think its misleading I guess when you read the article you also read the part where Schmitt wrote about "General Comments on Find Ownership" where he stated... "The above illustrations indicate the wide range of rules about ownership of meteorite between countries. Each legal system is unique, but in general terms in most places the landownerer of the place of find owns the meteorite." http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?bibcode=2002M%26PSB..375S&db_key=AST&page_ind=3&plate_select=NO&data_type=GIF&type=SCREEN_GIF&classic=YES He further goes on and in his conclusion and states. "Meteorite ownership law varies widely." http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?bibcode=2002M%26PSB..375S&db_key=AST&page_ind=5&plate_select=NO&data_type=GIF&type=SCREEN_GIF&classic=YES By the quotes I can infer that Schmitt has suggested that these "LAWS" vary from country to country and from state to state so people might want to check with their local laws on property rights. Lastly, Martin you stated "So we should avoid the term "ethics", in the meteorite laws debate.". O should we? I am confused by your should state. I thought this website is set up for discussions on meteorites? I think in the future you might want to consider your choice of words directed to the list. The article by Schmitt, I will continue to post as a reference when law topics come up or when you decide to publish an article in Meteorite & Planetary Science that debunks Schmitts Article. Thank you Shawn Alan [meteorite-list] Lorton Meteorite (Schmitt is wrong) Martin Altmann altmann at meteorite-martin.de Sun Feb 7 11:12:32 EST 2010 Hello Shawn, please don't use that article from Schmitt any longer, because it is incorrect and misleading. Schmitt writes (with a quotation, where he left out the most important words), that the UNESCO convention of 1970 would include meteorites. And inanother place: "This Convention, ratified by over 90 states, provides for tracking and retrieving from reciprocating states, cultural property including meteorites." That is wrong. Full stop. The point about Switzerland is wrong too. Huh, would have to rummage my old emails, I once occupied myself with that Schmitt-topic... A here it is one o them (see below)... (Perhaps I should add, that also technically the UNESCO convention can't protect anything, because - as given in the text of the convention - it has to be ratified by each nation first, and each nation individually has to create an individual list of items of their national heritage. Only if that has happened and if meteorites are found in the individual national heritage lists (like e.g. in Australia) the convention is effective). And anyway, other meteorite laws... In most constitutional countries personal property belongs to the strongest personal rights and is especially protected. In such countries od rule of law, disappropriation (with ot without compensation) by a state or to limit the use of a property (like e.g. to forbid to sell to other countries) is grave intervention of the individual personal rights, which, if done, requires a especially strong resons, usually the pubic weal or interest. You know, cases of land dissapropriation for building a highway ect. In most of these constitutional nations, legislation and judicature are separated. So not the law is decisive - a judge or a court have to decide. Furthermore such constitutional countries do have a interdiction of arbitrary laws, laws made for only a single case are not effective. Such laws can exist, but a court has to decide and it is also possible to proof them by a court, whether they are constitutional or not. So. If e.g. a country like Switzerland or Denmark, where only every 30 or 80 years a meteorite falls, would have a special meteorite law (which they don't have), it would be highly doubtful, whether that law would be valuable. And if a country has a law, which allows a disappropriation by or a right of preemption by (like Switzerland has) or a compulsory sale of a meteorite to the state, because it is an object of high public or scientific importance or interest, this interest has to be justified and proven. Switzerland e.g. would have most probably difficulties to do that. If one sees, that the state wasn't willing to preserve the historical Bally-meteorite-collection, the most important meteorite collection of Switzerland and that no single public institute took advantage from the preemption to buy it, when
