and http://www.artsjournal.com/culturegrrl/2012/02/culturegrrl_qa_with_incoming_g_1.html
Yet, the recently adopted 1970 date is an artificial construct solely based on the vintage of the UNESCO Convention. The only reason the AAMD adopted it was due to pressure from the archaeological lobby.
But what has the AAMD and its members received in return? Long term loans? Not without paying the substantial costs associated with them, including transportation, insurance and restoration fees.
And how does this really fit with the mission of museums to preserve artifacts for future generations if they are not able to accession many artifacts just because they lack a documentary history stretching back to 1970?
And has adoption of this rule staunched looting in source countries? As Potts suggests, of course not.