The basements of museums are simply not large enough to store the artifacts that are likely to be discovered in the future. There is not enough money even to catalogue the finds; as a result， they cannot be found again and become as inaccessible as if they had never been discovered. Indeed， with the help of a computer， sold artifacts could be more accessible than are the pieces stored in bulging museum basements. Prior to sale， each could be photographed and the list of the purchasers could be maintained on the computer. A purchaser could even be required to agree to return the piece if it should become needed for scientific purposes.
It would be unrealistic to suggest that illegal digging would stop if artifacts were sold on the open market. But the demand for the clandestine product would be substantially reduced. Who would want an unmarked pot when another was available whose provenance was known， and that was dated stratigraphically （stratigraphy： n.地層學(xué)， 地層中的巖石組成） by the professional archaeologist who excavated it？
1. The primary purpose of the passage is to propose
（A） an alternative to museum display of artifacts
（B） a way to curb illegal digging while benefiting the archaeological profession
（C） a way to distinguish artifacts with scientific value from those that have no such value
（D） the governmental regulation of archaeological sites
（E） a new system for cataloguing duplicate artifacts
2. The author implies that all of the following statements about duplicate artifacts are true EXCEPT：
（A） A market for such artifacts already exists.
（B） Such artifacts seldom have scientific value.
（C） There is likely to be a continuing supply of such artifacts.
（D） Museums are well supplied with examples of such artifacts.
（E） Such artifacts frequently exceed in quality those already catalogued in museum collections.