7. Conclusion

Stolen goods may always have been intrinsically valuable, but it is only when they are stolen that they become objects of detection. At the same time they may also be subjects of detection, in that an object which is stolen can tell us much both about its original possessor and about the motives and circumstances of the person who steals it. Pearls which are passed from mother-in-law to daughter-in-law are signals of fecundity which pass judgement on ageing skin and sagging bodies. Jewellery detects women in other ways too: pearls mean purity so are given for weddings, but they may also mean tears; rubies and emeralds are rewards for sexual favours, so they adorn but also condemn, and they may be accompanied by startling histories of crime which both enhance and taint them. There is a sense in which all valuables potentially lessen the value of those who own them. Almost no stolen object is desired for its own sake; Uncle Tom really wants the silver cow creamer and Raffles loves the St Agnes cup, but in the vast majority of cases jewellery, rare books and objets d’art are taken either to be turned into money or to score off another person such as a rival collector. In this sense stolen goods are not a good in themselves but a sign of lack or inadequacy, and the stolen object belittles and exposes the person who steals it as much as it enriches them.