First of all: one must wonder which role source countries played in establishing these guidelines. It seems none.
The new guidelines may mean a tightening of earlier guidelines but once again really create a lot of room for acquiring illicit antiquities for as long as there is ‘proof’ – there are too many examples of forged provenances – that these antiquities left the country of origin before 1970.
In other words: anything illicitly excavated and smuggled out the country of origin is licit in the eyes of the Association of Art Museum Directors (membership from United States, Canada, and Mexico).
What is the difference between “should not normally acquire a work”…. and “should not acquire a work”…..? Offers the use of the word “normally” an escape?
What does this mean: “Provides a specific framework for members to evaluate the circumstances under which a work that does not have a complete ownership history dating to 1970 may be considered for acquisition.” In the statement is no information whatsoever about this specific framework
Read the full statement at: