I would call this bad info!
This old paper has come up several times and is garbage as far as I am concerned. The late Richard Norton was alarmed about how the UNESCO (laws?) were being twisted to include meteorites and rallied against it as soon as this infamous paper was published. As far as I know, the word "meteorite" is not mentioned in the original UNESCO works. I think self-appointed experts modified it after the fact without the advice of lawmakers. The only way I view a meteorite could be called cultural property is if it was either worshiped or converted to an artifact over 100 years ago. Meteorites that have had no interaction with human beings until they are found should be treated the same as rocks. If one of the purposes of UNESCO is to protect meteorites, then they should have been specifically mentioned in the documents. This being said, some countries specifically mention meteorites being off limits but then again, you have to be careful since the laws can and do vary for each province or state in foreign countries. Perhaps an unbiased international attorney or panel should investigate the laws since they affect all of us. Until then, use your best judgment. Best Regards, Adam ______________________________________________ Visit the Archives at http://www.meteoritecentral.com/mailing-list-archives.html Meteorite-list mailing list [email protected] http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
