ILLICID Report some Recommendations

According to Naomi Rea's article in ArtNet.com (Naomi Rea,  'almost 98 Percent of ‘Eastern Mediterranean’ Antiquities Sold in Germany Area of Questionable Origin, a New Report Has Found', ArtNet News April 6, 2020), the ILLICID report made a number of recommendations on dealing with the movement of unpapered artefacts and the current form of the international antiqities market. Obviously, there need to be fundamental changes in the way this trade operates, and the report makes a series of recommendations, including the initiation of public awareness campaigns, as well as expanding research and training in provenance research.

It makes a number of suggestions how transparency can be achieved

First, it suggests that all trade publications after 1945 should be digitized for wider accessibility, and that any existing documentation about objects offered for sale that demonstrates their legal provenance or export is made public at the time of sale. It also recommends setting up a database of known or allegedly counterfeited cultural goods. Another resource that it suggests is a “transparency register” that would record all archeological cultural assets that can be legally traded, regardless of whether they are currently on the market. Such a register could function as a certification system for potentially legally tradable goods, modeled after the system that was introduced to crack down on the trade in blood diamonds. 

Hmm.
- Who is going to do the digitisation of 'the trade publications' (which? Just the ones published in Germany) and what actually will that achieve when the vast bulk of material on the market is never mentioned in any of it and coming from all over the world? Who would use it and for what?
- Any "existing documentation about objects offered for sale that demonstrates their legal provenance or export" should already be being "made public at the time of sale". It is what makes them "licit" (UNESCO 1970 Convention Art 3) [saleable] in the first place. Anything that has no such documentation should not be being offered or acquired.
- a database of fakes? Good luck with that! On what basis would these objects be defined? Again, who would compile it and who would adjudicate? Who would maintain it, and who would use it and what for? Again, who pays for it, what actually is the purpose?
- this transparency register, it seems to me that ILLICID haven't really taken into account what that market looks like today. On what basis would these objects be defined? Again, who would compile it and who would adjudicate? Who would maintain it, and who would use it and what for? Again, who pays for it, what actually is the purpose? Completely bonkers idea.

Ms Rea ends her article with the fluffy:

Many collectors buy in good faith and are dedicated to conserving ancient artifacts. Nevertheless, the difficult issues relating to provenance, and the connection of the black market to terrorist financing, is leading many to ask the serious question: should private collectors be allowed to buy antiquities at all?  

If collectors are buying in good faith they can only be considered as not only gullible, but ignorant of the current state of the no-questions-asked  market, already well and widely documented. They are not 'conserving'  artefacts as evidence, but rather as emotive trophy objects that are a projection of their own needs and nature (greedy self-centred bastards is what it says to many of us). But I like that last bit. And it seems to me that here is the key to the whole question. Let us not STOP private collecting, but make it uncompromisingly conditional on having a certain range of paperwork for each and every object held (defined by law) and making it available on request/inspection.