Article 13 - another one we ignore.

Thinking about what Andrew McCabe wrote on the Moneta-L coin collectors' discussion forum about "not only have the massive Balkan finds of the 90's and 2000's gone unrecorded", I was put in mind of Article 13 of the 1970 UNESCO convention which reads:

The States Parties to this Convention also undertake, consistent with the laws of each State: (a) To prevent by all appropriate means transfers of ownership of cultural property likely to promote the illicit import or export of such property; (b) to ensure that their competent services co-operate in
facilitating the earliest possible restitution of illicitly exported cultural property to its rightful owner; (c) to admit actions for recovery of lost or stolen items of cultural property brought by or on behalf of the rightful owners ; (d) to recognize the indefeasible right of each State Party to this Convention to classify and declare certain cultural property as inalienable which should therefore ipso facto not be exported, and to facilitate recovery of such property by the State concerned in cases where it has been exported.

Both the United Kingdom and the USA are parties to this convention. So what are they actively doing "to prevent transfers of ownership of cultural property likely to promote the illicit import or export of such property"? Surely the appropriate means for this is to clamp down on the no-questions-asked trade within their own states in artefacts apparently or potentially coming from clandestine excavations and illicit transfer of ownership. I presume Mr Mc Cabe knows of these hoards because the coins from them were noticed appearing on the open market. So what was done about this in the countries where this was noted?

Did the dealers to whom this material being offered inform the proper authorities on those offering it to prevent illegal transfer of ownership? I imagine if they were walking through a shady district of town one night and a shady guy offers them sex with underage girls, whose photos (looking scared and lost) they pull out from under their coats these antiquityu dealers would not only refuse the offer, but one would hope the m oment they are round the corner would get on their mobile phones to the police to have them come and arrest the man and find out where the girls are. Wouldn't they? Frankly, I would not care to do any kind of business with an individual that I feel would not behave in that way - would you?

If somebody offers you stolen goods, do you buy them anyway because the price is tempting and "they are restricted by bad laws anyway" or should you report the vendor? Frankly, I would not care to do any kind of business with an individual that I feel would not behave in that way - would you?

But then who would one report them to? Now there is an interesting question. What actually is the UK doing to "prevent transfers of ownership of cultural property likely to promote the illicit import or export of such property" when objects are openly sold on eBay under the noses of the archaeological commununity and law enforcement agencies (and on an eBay policed by the PAS for goodness' sake !) when there is not a single element of the seller's description suggesting the objects are of legitimate origin - and some actually admitting that they are not? What actually is the British government waiting for to actually put their "Dealing in Cultural Objects (Offences) Act" into action? Since it was passed in 2003, many thousands of 'tainted' items have passed through the British antiquities market totally unchallenged. Now why, actually, is that?