Trade Professionals Speak Common Sense

The Ivory Tower academics of the archaeological lobby often speak about requiring "provenance information" and "export certificates" as proof that items are not the products of recent looting. However, those with actual practical experience in the international trade of cultural goods have once again demonstrated that coming up with such documentation is easier said than done.

Numismatic professional Alfredo de la Fe has written about the lack of provenance information for most coins and antiquities dealer James Ede has explained the impossible task of supplying export certificates that simply don't exist.

Hopefully, decision makers will give much needed consideration to these practical concerns raised by those in the know.

The Archaeological Lobby and Export Certificates

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?