Does the archaeological lobby only raise the issue of "export certificates" just to make themselves "sound reasonable" or as a useful cudgel against collectors or dealers?
Archaeo-blogger Paul Barford loves to reference them, even where he knows or should know countries like Cyprus don't issue them for "their own" artifacts. And now, archaeologist Donna Yates seems disappointed to learn after first taking National Geographic to task on the subject that Israel does not require permits for exports of ancient glass shards that are being given new life as jewelry. Indeed, Yates apparently agrees with scholar Morag Kersel's view that there is "no justification" for Israel's position, presumably because it allows such material to be legally exported without a license and sold.
So, does the archaeological lobby respect a UNESCO State Party's views on "export certificates" at all times or only where it's convenient to do so?