[derbOac]

I think the message I've often heard is that looted objects are so obviously looted and subject to confiscation that there's now little demand for them. I took this article as a pushback against that idea. (Others are joking at the circularity of the title, but I think it's directly countering two assertions often made: that there's little actual trade in looted antiquities and art, and there's little trade because there's little demand, because the objects are obviously illegal and would have to be hidden, which defeats the purpose of having them.)

Whether there's been a change over time in this (signaling is now "I'm so wealthy and powerful I can own this without fear of reprisal or loss") or the message has always been incorrect, I'm not knowledgeable enough to say.