Transparency and the Demonstration of licitness in the Portable Antiquities Market

 

 Cultural Property Observer (attorney Peter Tompa) said...

The problem of course is that Mr. Barford and friends claim that any undocumented artifact is presumptively illicit-- when that is demonstrably untrue for lots of common artifacts in particular.

Then I fail to see what it is these people are pushing against. If it is demonstrable that an artefact is not illicit, then when it is passed on to a new owner documentation of that fact can go with it.  Problem solved.

But then it it fully truthful to claim what Mr Tompa just affirmed? Can the majority of dealers in portable antiquities demonstrate that they have verified that an artefact they have acquired entered the antiquities market and left the source country (as well as entered theirs) by licit channels? Maybe they can set our doubts to rest by from now on providing upfront in their sales offers information on what material they hold which documents their due diligence and can pass on to the purchaser.