To pre-empt a possible objection, I should point out that the scheme was never intended to satisfy (or replace) the demand for a cut-off date based on the UNESCO Convention 1970, the year accepted by most museums and archaeological organisations as the date beyond which no antiquity should be acquired without an Export Licence from the country in which the antiquity was found. Neither is the scheme intended as a carte blanche amnesty.
The scheme is designed as a goodwill gesture that will accomplish three objectives ...
- Being able to distinguish between artefacts that have been circulating for years and those that have been freshly dug up
- Diminishing the destruction caused by ongoing looting by being able to avoid making any contribution to it
- Public Relations: dealers and collectors would be seen to be actively doing their part to preserve the archaeological heritage – a far better image than the current one of being perceived by many as selfishly contributing to its destruction
In other words, the scheme is a start in the right direction. And who knows what the situation will be in twenty or thirty years time? Certainly, an artefact that has been conscientiously recorded in the database is likely to be far better regarded than one whose owner didn't bother and left it without any demonstrable collecting history at all.
But the response from the antiquities trade (both auction houses and dealers) has so far been unanimous in one respect: the silence is deafening. I summed up three consequences of that cavalier attitude. It might be worth pondering them - particularly my third point. Time is running out.