Stevie Miller makes an interesting comparison in a piece in Reason, The Dreadful Policies Halting Archeological Discoveries between England and Italy in their handling of the discovery of antiquities. First, he notes how new technologies are quite literally unearthing access to sacred texts and ancient cities. But then he remarks that there are few incentives for individuals to pursue the time-consuming search, Indiana Jones style.
To understand the dynamics, it is necessary to understand the groups. There are landowners who typically, through property rights, own objects found on their property. Antiquities are deemed a special type of thing, as they have a pubic significance.
The case of Italian antiquities policy is paradigmatic. Since the 1930s, Italy-along with Greece, Turkey, and Egypt-has vested ownership of all antiquities in the state. Commerce in freshly unearthed artifacts is outlawed, and unauthorized excavation is punishable by hefty fines and sometimes prison time. Even using a metal detector requires a permit.
I think most people would agree that these items, by nature, are jointly owned by the larger cultural group. So, it makes sense. But the asymmetric access to the buried items by landowners sets up an incentive for the private party to collect and hoard the artifacts. Laws that thwart natural incentives often encourage a black market, where the artifacts are sold.
British model provides a striking contrast. Since the 1996 Treasure Act, British law has required that significant archaeological finds be reported. Instead of simply seizing them, if the state wishes to retain an item, it must compensate the finder and landowner at its full market value.
The English allow actors to participate in the preservation of artifacts at the public level. Although they are individuals they act in the spirit of a team. They can also come in and out of service to the cause. Whereas in the Italian model, the artifacts are packed up and access is restricted.
One system recognizes two groups and two incentive structures. The other does not, which pushes actionable responses underground to a black market.
The Great Stagnation of physical archaeology is a choice. The failure of policymakers to get the basics right– to make physical archaeology worth anyone’s time– renders the richest landscapes fallow.

