[MSN] Query: Ban Chiang

[MSN]

________________________________

From: mailman-bounces at te.verweg.com [mailto:mailman-bounces at te.verweg.com]
On Behalf Of Mark Rose
Sent: Sunday, March 02, 2008 4:37 AM
To: msn-list-owner at te.verweg.com
Subject: Ban Chiang

Dear MSN list,

A recent post by Peter K. Tompa about Ban Chiang artifacts notes a possible
description of a (single?) pottery piece in 1896. This is supposed to be
relevant to the current investigation about museum acquistions in so u thern
California, though the post notes other muesums with Ban Chiang artifacts.

My question for the poster, and the list in general, is what relevance is
the 1896 description, valid or not? Morerover, much of the investigation of
museum acquisitions in southern California relates to tax fraud--something
that is independent of whether Ban Chiang was described in 1896, 1956, 2006,
etc.

Please note that the poster, Mr. Tompa
(http://www.accg.us/about/officers/peter-tompa), "is an attorney residing in
the Washington, D.C. area. His practice includes providing advice and
lobbying services to clients related to the trade in cultural artifacts."

I'm happy that Mr. Tompa is willing to share his opinions in this forum, but
would appreciate it if his thoughts (and those of any other contributors)
were expressed FULLY and CONCISELY. As a lawyer, perhaps he can explain the
import of an 1896 description of Ban Chiang artifacts on a tax fraud case in
2008. That would be interesting.

Mark Rose (writing as an individual, though employed byt the Archaeological
Inst. of America)