…I just twittered a SAFECORNER post that has to do with FAKES on the Antiquities Market, and it has gotten me thinking: IF people were some how able to create accurate and authentic reproductions of ancient relics that are free of temporal or stylistic inconsistencies (already kind of a pipe dream), would it be entirely wrong to use these reproductions as teaching tools? Could they be put on display at at museums as long as they were clearly labelled as reproductions in order not to mislead the public?
I think it could be an interesting way to make sure authentic artifacts are not put in harms way. In addition, the idea that they could be used to deter real looting is more than a little intriguing.
Then again, IF they could be used as a mechanism to stop actual looting, how would we go about establishing it? I would like to learn more about the role of forgeries on the antiquities market and whether or not they are truly as insidious as some people claim they are, and if there is really some kind of untapped cultural heritage protection tool that we can begin to exploit…
What are your thoughts?
Buyers of antiquities are interested in the real thing. Introducing high-quality fakes raises the cost of determining what the real thing is. That cost, in principle, could be high enough to drive most potential buyers out of the market. But if there is still a core of rich collectors who can afford to pay for authentication, and who are willing and able to pay millions for a single piece, the incentive of a big payday will probably be enough to keep many diggers digging.
Hm…. Thanks for the comment! It certainly seems to be an problem full of contradictions and hidden pitfalls.
Now I’m wondering about the production side of things. How much more does it take to be a producer of forgeries than to be a looter? To be great at either “occupation,” I suppose, takes skill, determination, and not a small amount of ingenuity.