Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-lpg2g Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-15T12:19:23.958Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

U.S. Policy, Cultural Heritage, and U.S. Borders

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 July 2012

Christina Luke
Christina Luke
Affiliation:
Boston University; University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology. Email: cluke@bu.edu
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article situates the discussion of illicit trafficking in antiquities in the context of the relationship between the U.S. Departments of State and Homeland Security. The main argument is that U.S. cultural heritage policy is part of a broader agenda of political discourse that links matters of heritage to wider concerns of security. If the underlying goal of the U.S. State Department is mutual understanding through open dialogue, how can initiatives that focus on the criminal networks and security, efforts tackled by the Department of Homeland Security, contribute to building a positive image for the United States abroad? Here I explore strategic aspects of U.S. cultural policies and federally supported programs aimed at mitigating against the illicit trade in antiquities as part of building and maintaining cultural relations.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
International Journal of Cultural Property , Volume 19 , Issue 2 , May 2012, pp. 175 - 196
Copyright
Copyright © International Cultural Property Society 2012

INTRODUCTION

Much has been written about the various U.S. legal instruments that may implicate someone in nefarious activity related to the plunder of archaeological sites and the illicit trade in antiquities, yet little has been written about the role of the U.S. Departments of State and Homeland Security with regard to U.S. foreign policy and matters of cultural heritage and the U.S. border. Opportunities to engage with local communities and ministries of culture in-country often come via cultural heritage projects, such as archaeological expeditions, museum exhibitions, and historic preservation programs. For this reason, the U.S. State Department taps cultural heritage as a resource in fostering mutual understanding and people-to-people relationships as part of its core cultural diplomacy programs.Footnote 1 In addition, there are targeted initiatives aimed at policing the movement of objects in order to thwart illicit trafficking, especially as objects move across borders. The cultural heritage initiatives between the U.S. Departments of State and Homeland Security demonstrate a U.S. policy focused on long-term cultural relations and defense and national security.

In this essay, I first explore U.S. foreign cultural policy and diplomacy through the lens of cultural heritage. I then summarize the role of the Department of Homeland Security in cultural heritage matters, especially U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and Immigration Customs Enforcement (ICE). This framework sets the stage for my analysis of funded projects and programs by the Cultural Antiquities Task Force (CATF), located in the Cultural Heritage Center at the U.S. State Department, especially one training program at the Cultural Heritage Center at the University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology.

SMART POWER, CULTURAL DIPLOMACY, AND POLICY

Joseph Nye tells us that smart power is the ability to combine soft and hard power to create a strategy to win hearts and minds. Culture for Nye is among the most important avenues for pursuing this goal. In this way, cultural diplomacy forms a viable platform to reach various interest groups in order to demonstrate that the United States seeks to understand cultural differences while promoting democratic ideals. Furthermore, the ability to implement soft power effectively in order to achieve the desired results reflects positively (or negatively) on a state's legitimacy. The U.S. State Department's Cultural Heritage Center focuses on how to harness heritage proactively and politically to work toward promoting democratic ideals through long-term U.S. cultural relations with foreign entities. Establishment of partnerships aimed at long-term collaboration reveals the success of the State Department in negotiating once turbulent waters.Footnote 2

Archaeologists negotiate the halls of the ministry of culture to secure permits for excavation and survey; and they establish in-country networks over years of sustained fieldwork, especially in countries where archaeological concessions/permits are awarded to specific institutions, individuals, and/or nation states for a multiyear period. Today most of the objects from archaeological fieldwork are kept in-country, formal partage having ended decades ago. The official research strategy of the field archaeologist is scientific context and knowledge about the past; other interest groups have strategically appropriated archaeological information to promote national identity, foster a sense of (local) community, and help brand a site or region for economic development such as UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization) World Heritage Site enhancement. In so doing, cultural heritage holds strategic value to mitigate against violence because it offers ways to frame positive narratives in postconflict situations as well as real potential for stimulating economic interests.Footnote 3

Because museums, archaeological sites, and other heritage landscapes are used to define and shape how history is presented and political sovereignty justified,Footnote 4 nation states increasingly support policies to keep objects of cultural heritage within national boundaries. For this reason, programs aimed at protection and presentation are increasingly common because leaders recognize the value of objects as part of building social cohesion. The plunder of a landscape or thefts from cultural institutions, thus, may contribute to a general feeling of abandonment and moral bankruptcy. When plundered objects make their way into western cultural institutions and/or individual private collections, there are increasingly harsh reactions on the international stage to abolish cultural imperialism dictated on western terms. Furthermore, the illicit networks associated with the trade continue to be a political liability for many nation states seeking to harness the value of heritage. In areas of conflict, objects and structures associated with specific groups become targets, with the opposing group seeking to destabilize social and economic networks as well as political infrastructure through destruction of cultural heritage. Under these conditions the illicit trade in antiquities may flourish and become woven into the fabric of illicit networks associated with narcotics and weapons.Footnote 5

A focus on reducing the illicit trade in antiquities and providing protection to cultural monuments stems from a firm belief that cultural heritage provides a benefit to society, rather than a risk to it. In framing this issue, UNESCO and the Council of Europe have put forth conventions and recommendations that aim to foster respect of and appreciation for natural and cultural heritage and its value to society. Of specific interest are recent programs by the Council of Europe that seek to incorporate heritage in conflict resolution in order to reduce the risk of future violence. While the attempt to thwart the illicit trade in antiquities constitutes only the aftermath of a series of social and political networks, it is believed to be a necessary approach and one that may serve to expose other dubious activities precisely because illicit networks are inherently flexible, and thus as viable routes are choked, others open.Footnote 6

Over the years, the United States has been steadfast in its commitment, through both military might and carefully executed diplomacy, to policies that focus on national security and defense. Following the Bush era, the Obama administration has continued to support efforts aimed at shoring up U.S. borders.Footnote 7 While rarely the topic of front-page news, the illicit trade in antiquities constitutes one aspect of border security for the U.S. State Department. Unlike the trade in narcotics and weapons, however, the efforts focused on the illicit trade in antiquities often result in high-level repatriations of material to foreign ministries. The restitution of objects offers a channel for positive diplomatic exchange, exemplified in the 24 February 2012 press release regarding return of material to Guatemala: “‘Through the facilitation and enforcement of U.S. trade laws, these artifacts will provide the people of Guatemala a key to their past,’ said Customs and Border Protection Assistant Commissioner for International Affairs Charles E. Stallworth II. ‘Customs and Border Protection is pleased to work in partnership with Immigration and Customs Enforcement to enforce U.S. customs law and to return priceless artifacts to their lawful owner.’”

ICE's position on the value embedded in the restitution of cultural heritage has remained steady for almost a decade. Among the reasons justifying repatriation for ICE in 2008 was that “a nation's culture is not for sale,” which followed a 2004 statement that foreshadowed future collaboration: “It is my pleasure to return these cultural treasures to the people of Peru on behalf of the United States,” said Assistant Secretary Garcia. “These items are not souvenirs to be sold to the highest bidder, but priceless treasures that hold an important place in Peruvian culture. ICE will do everything in its power to apprehend those who rob and profit from the sale of a nation's heritage.” Peruvian Ambassador Eduardo Ferrero's response further demonstrates the diplomatic significance of the event:

This brief ceremony is another example of the true collaboration between two governments mutually interested in absolute respect of the cultural identity of their peoples…. Without the collaboration of the United States government, the Department of State, and in particular Immigration Customs Enforcement represented here by Assistant Secretary Michael Garcia, our country would not be able by itself to recover these pieces that have an enormous historical value, even greater than economic worth.Footnote 8

ICE's Office of International Affairs, Multilateral Operations and Programs Unit has handled the restitution of objects. Under the reconfigured section of ICE Homeland Security Investigations (HSI), the Cultural Property Art and Antiquities Program will take the future lead. This program is an integral part of ICE because pursuing art and antiquities cases, according to the program's web site, “promote[s] goodwill with foreign governments and citizens.” Conversations with ICE officials confirmed that these events facilitate future partnerships involving matters of national security. Depending on the relative interest of the case, repatriations may occur at the respective embassy (or consulate) or another appropriate cultural institution. Then, once in-country (legally), there is often a local event, described to me as a “welcome-home ceremony.”

ICE's position mirrors the cultural policy put forth by U.S. Congress and implemented through the Cultural Heritage Center, located in the Office of Policy and Evaluation in the Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs at the U.S. State Department. According to the official web site, “The Cultural Heritage Center supports the foreign affairs functions of the U.S. State Department related to the protection and preservation of cultural heritage. It serves as a center of expertise on global cultural heritage protection issues.” Based on the programs listed, the center provides support for in-country programs that aim to strengthen the appreciation and preservation of as well as knowledge about places of heritage and associated objects, especially in countries of strategic U.S. interest such as Iraq; in addition, the Center's activities focus on protection of sites and cultural institutions as well as efforts to reduce the illicit trade in antiquities. The center achieves these goals through (among other programs) the Ambassadors Fund for Cultural Preservation, the Cultural Antiquities Task Force (CATF), and the Cultural Property Implementation Act (CPIA)—the U.S. implementing legislation for the 1970 UNESCO Convention on Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Cultural Property.Footnote 9 Implementation of the 1970 UNESCO Convention represented, according to U.S. Congress, an important step in furthering “foreign relations, including our international cultural relations.”

Under section 2602 of the CPIA (19 U.S.C. §§ 2601-13) a country may request a memorandum of understanding (MoU) with the United States. If the request is successful (a lengthy process), Article I of the MoU will pertain to import restrictions on archaeological and/or ethnological materials in jeopardy from pillage. The U.S. Department of Homeland Security implements the import restrictions, published in the Federal Register Notice. Article II of the MoU will pertain to recommendations for a variety of programs and policies aimed at fostering awareness and protection of heritage in-country, including consultation with security sectors, nongovernmental organizations, and museums, especially for up-to-date inventories. In addition, museum-to-museum long-term loans have become a staple of memoranda, the underlying premise to encourage people-to-people programs.Footnote 10 At this time the United States has memoranda under the CPIA with El Salvador, Guatemala, Nicaragua, and Honduras in Central America; Peru, Bolivia, and Colombia in South America; Mali in Africa; Cyprus, Italy, and Greece in the Mediterranean; Iraq in the Middle East; Cambodia and China in Asia; a memorandum with Canada has expired. Agreements with Belize and Bulgaria are under consideration.

While the U.S. State Department has focused on implementing the 1970 UNESCO Convention (i.e., the CPIA), other nations have galvanized their efforts to seek restitution of objects. Once an uphill legal battle with limited support from Washington, foreign countries are flexing their political muscle in the cultural sphere. In September 2011 the upper half of the Weary Herakles joined its lower half in the Republic of Turkey, having been separated years prior and ultimately finding its way to the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston. This effort followed the German repatriation of sculpture from Hattuşa, also to the Republic of Turkey. The current hardline policy for repatriation of material that Turkish officials believe rightfully belongs in Turkey shows no signs of abating. While some are flabbergasted by Turkish statements regarding a halt to all future “cultural collaborations” with countries holding materials from Anatolian soil, others anticipated (and anticipate) such requests in light of preparations for celebration of the 100th year of the founding of the Republic of Turkey (2023) as well as Turkey's growing power on the political stage. Cultural heritage has taken on an increasingly prominent role in a country's soft power;Footnote 11 it reflects a failure on the part of the U.S. government (and other governments) to appreciate and understand Turkey's desire to be treated with respect and equality.

New negotiating models for the restitution of objects and long-term loans that seek to foster collaboration are evidence that such thorny issues command strategic, diplomatic attention on the global stage. In the case of Peru, the return of the Hingham Bingham collection (housed at Yale University) to Peru resulted in a formal international center set up to establish Yale–Peruvian collaboration.Footnote 12 Furthermore, the museum community, represented by the Association of American Museum Directors at the public sessions of the respective initial and renewal requests of memoranda under the CPIA, continues to support long-term loans as a viable option for access to material, first established under the United States–Italy MoU. As prominent U.S. institutions (e.g., the Getty, Metropolitan Museum of Art, and Museum of Fine Arts in Boston) slowly, but surely, admit defeat in the sphere of ownership (and thus enter into collaborative relationships), so, too, is U.S. law enforcement showing increased vigilance. The State Department has had to balance a dual policy focused on encouraging collaboration through cultural exchanges while simultaneously quelling the illicit trade in antiquities that crosses U.S. borders.

Ramping up security at U.S. borders as it pertains to illicit antiquities has become easier in the last decade owing to an increasingly robust file of U.S. case law that recognizes foreign national ownership laws.Footnote 13 The crackdown has impacted not only cultural institutions, but also U.S. citizens. When found in violation of foreign heritage laws, citizens may be subject to investigation and prosecution. This process, however, can be very lengthy. Furthermore, the U.S. border has many entry points, and unlike the clear-cut nature of U.S. guidelines and legal instruments with regard to the illicit traffic in people, narcotics or weapons (and a host of other commodities), the regulations with regard to importing antiquities have varied considerably over the years, despite the links between illicit cultural heritage networks and other criminal networks. Over the last decade U.S. Congress increased funding to the State Department to support efforts aimed at bringing awareness to categories of objects likely to be looted from heritage landscapes: the Image Databases associated with the respective MoUs as well as the International Council of Museum Red Lists (see below), the Ambassadors Fund (notably projects that assist in the creation of inventories of known collections, improvement of museum facilities, and exhibition of objects), and the UNESCO heritage law database (creating a global portal for access to legal instruments). In addition, training programs that focus on cultural heritage have been designed (and implemented) for CBP and ICE, both in the Department of Homeland Security.

THE ANTIQUITIES TRADE AND THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY: CBP AND ICEFootnote 14

CBP handles the frontline of the U.S. border and has search and seizure authority. CBP counsel provides an umbrella for all sections of CBP, working closely with CBP Headquarters in Washington, DC. CBP officers clear passengers and merchandise through the U.S. border (land, sea, and air) and collect duty (under the Harmonized Tariff System). When a CBP officer interdicts cultural heritage, a series of contacts are made, all within a set supervisory hierarchy, including CBP counsel and import specialists. CBP import specialists are trained in specific categories of commodities/merchandise, including the relevant regulations and policies.Footnote 15 Import specialists who handle antiquities tend to be trained in fine art and antiques. In addition, CBP Fines, Penalties and Forfeiture works closely with (depending on the port) experts, often appraisers, to assess penalties against importers who violate U.S. law. When working on a case, an import specialist (and his or her respective team) may work closely with CBP counsel, the assistant United States attorney (AUSA) assigned to the case, and other experts (e.g., collectors, dealers, archaeologists, conservators, and art historians). Ideally, the interagency networking also involves ICE attaché offices, INTERPOL, and the U.S. State Department (U.S. embassies and other sections).Footnote 16 The ICE Cultural Property Art and Antiquities Program takes the lead on these cases. ICE special agents-in-charge are trained in cultural property issues (see below).Footnote 17

Of specific interest to import specialists and ICE special agents is the potential application of foreign national heritage ownership laws at the U.S. border under the U.S. National Stolen Property Act. In general, it is difficult to claim ignorance of regulations pertaining to the illicit possession of narcotics or a weapon; yet, despite the 1970 UNESCO Convention and prolonged public exposure of the topic of looting and the antiquities trade, officers, agents, and attorneys report frequent claims of ignorance with regard to the illicit possession of heritage.Footnote 18 In addition, the “culture of the port” and its respective region play a significant role in the enforcement of regulations and policies. In the past some ports supported a policy of outside examination: Materials were taken directly to the importer's place of business to await examination by a CBP import specialist or an ICE agent.

Customs brokers, too, are part of this network. They function independently from CBP and ICE (i.e., outside of the U.S. government), work on behalf of an importer, and in general, understand the system for moving goods through borders. During the period between shipment and delivery of antiquities, the line between who is responsible for the shipment “in bond” and proper title is easily blurred.Footnote 19 In addition, as Kersel points out, the differences and ambiguities of policies and regulations makes it possible that in the process of transshipment of antiquities may move among licit and illicit spheres.Footnote 20

Accounts from dealers and collectors gathered by Kersel, Mackenzie, Watson and Todeschini, and Felch and Frammolino,Footnote 21 among others, illustrate that people involved in the trade in antiquities are often very much aware of the reprehensible activities that they or others may be associated with as well as loopholes for evading regulations, including affidavits under section 2606(c) of the CPIA: definition of satisfactory evidence.Footnote 22 The complexities of the CPIA, especially the affidavit and the various categories of objects and the different dates of enforcement for each respective country, according to ICE and CBP, make it cumbersome legislation for purposes of pursuing a formal investigation. Smuggling statutes provide more direct and familiar approaches to tackling an investigation into the illicit trade and thus are considered to be more “agent friendly.” If an importer fails to declare material properly, fails to provide a full inventory of merchandise, lists a false country of origin; inflates or devalues the market value of the object(s), or knowingly imports illicit merchandise, he or she has violated a number of boiler plate smuggling statutes and he or she may be in violation of the National Stolen Property Act—all regardless of whether a country has a MoU with the United States under the CPIA.Footnote 23

CULTURAL ANTIQUITIES TASK FORCE, CULTURAL HERITAGE CENTER, U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT

After the looting of the Iraqi National Museum and archaeological sites in the wake of the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003, a congressional mandate was issued to create a Cultural Antiquities Task Force (CATF) as part of the U.S. State Department's “Diplomatic and Consular programs.” The CATF or “Special Projects” was given an administrative home in the State Department's Cultural Heritage Center. The Center oversees the Ambassadors Fund for Cultural Preservation and the Cultural Property Advisory Committee, best known for the bilateral agreements under the CPIA (see above).

The initial funding of the CATF was to be $500,000. Senate Report 108-144 highlights the intended original focus, which is:

to conduct training for embassy staff to be sensitive to local and regional antiquities and forms of cultural expression, to survey press and police reports pertaining to the preservation or theft of antiquities or forms of cultural expression, and to provide effective reporting to chiefs of mission and bureau heads on the preservation of the antiquities and cultures of host nations. The Task Force should coordinate closely with the Department's Art Theft Program and the President's Cultural Property Advisory Committee.

The first mission of the CATF, lumped under the heading in the Senate report of “Looting of Iraqi National Antiquities,” was to coordinate with various law enforcement agencies to thwart further harm to cultural heritage within the modern boundary of Iraq; to create a database of people known to participate in the trade of “any foreign country's historically or culturally significant works, including persons who knowingly sell or auction such works”; to assist in the creation of a database of items stolen from Iraq; and “to help ensure U.S. cooperation on international efforts to account for and recover such works.”Footnote 24

In the House Report (108-792), the aim and funding of the CATF shifted. The amount doubled from $500,000 to $1,000,000. What is more, the language specific to research into plunder and policies, the training of U.S. Embassy staff, and a direct linkage to the Presidential Cultural Property Committee were cut. The redefined mandate of the CATF was “to coordinate with all relevant Federal law enforcement and cultural agencies to prevent further looting and promote preservation of Iraq's historically and culturally significant works” and to create a database of persons involved in the trade and make the appropriate changes to the U.S. visa policies.Footnote 25 In 2007 the CATF was again funded at $1,000,000, and the aim was to continue “efforts initiated in 2004 to support local governments, museums, preservationists, and law enforcement to protect, recover, and restore cultural antiquities and sites worldwide, particularly in Iraq and Afghanistan.”Footnote 26 In 2010 the line item read:

Cultural Heritage—The Committee recommends $7,500,000 to preserve cultural heritage, of which $6,000,000 is for the Ambassador's Fund for Cultural Preservation and $1,000,000 is for the Cultural Antiquities Task Force. This is an increase of $1,000,000 above the budget request, to support at least two large projects of historic cultural significance. The Department of State should consult with the Committee prior to the obligation of funds.Footnote 27

The 2011 and 2012 budgets also allotted $1,000,000 for initiatives and programs of the CATF as well as additional support for the Ambassadors Fund. The 2012 budget, however, provided new language justifying the expenditure: “The Committee recognizes the important public diplomacy role of this program, as well as its contribution in preserving some of the world's irreplaceable cultural antiquities.”Footnote 28 Over time, these two initiatives have come to represent the bookends of the State Department's international cultural policy: a very public, open face through the Ambassadors Fund and a clear emphasis on security through the CATF. Yet, as discussed above, for the CATF to meet its goals, interagency partnerships are required. To this end, we see parallel efforts by Department of Homeland Security: “Investigate Cultural Antiquity Trafficking and Coordinate Repatriation: The FY 2012 Budget continues to support ICE seizures and repatriation of cultural property, art and antiquities illegally imported into the United States and the investigation of illegal trafficking of artwork, especially works that have been reported lost or stolen.”

Special Projects

Much of the programming funded by the CATF is listed by the State Department's Cultural Heritage Center under Special Projects. The ICOM (International Council of Museums) Red List and the UNESCO heritage law database are two key initiatives (see below) that have tangible deliverables (e.g., brochures and web sites) that can be distributed to and used by agencies, institutions, communities, and individuals. CATF training programs focused on security methods have been conducted in Mexico, Honduras, Columbia, and Cambodia: The last three countries have bilateral agreements under the CPIA, and the program in Mexico included members from Central America, where several countries have bilateral agreements under the CPIA.Footnote 29 We can look to Article II of the respective bilateral agreements to find language that sets the stage for the training programs. Under the 2008 Cambodia agreement, it is Article II (C) that supports such training: “The Government of the United States of America shall use its best efforts to facilitate technical assistance in cultural resource management and security to the Government of the Kingdom of Cambodia, as appropriate under existing programs in the public and/or private sectors.” Similar calls for security training are found under the current agreements: Honduran–U.S. MoU (Article II (B)), Italian–U.S. MoU (Article II)(B), China–U.S. MoU (Article II(5)), Colombia–U.S. MoU (Article II (C)).Footnote 30 In addition, there is an interagency agreement between the U.S. State Department and the U.S. National Park Service to provide training for archaeological site management in Afghanistan and other links with various institutions to do the same in Iraq. Yet, the largest and most steadfast program of the CATF to date focuses on training U.S. ICE Agents (2005 to present), with a coordinated program for Customs and Border Patrol (2005–2010).

Training CBP and ICE: University of Pennsylvania Cultural Heritage Center Program

In 2005 the Cultural Heritage Center at the University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology launched a program to train CBP officers at ports of entry.Footnote 31 Major funding for the program came through the CATF. After pilot programs in New York (JFK) and Newark airports, it became clear that while CBP officers could search for material at the border, a full investigation (detention as well as seizure) could not move forward without the cooperation of ICE and AUSAs. Because training of CBP necessitated cooperation with ICE and AUSAs, Penn, in close consultation with the U.S. Departments of State and Homeland Security, developed an intensive ICE-only training program and a port-of-entry program for CBP.

In August 2008, the Cultural Heritage Center at Penn was informed that DHS-ICE had issued a national mandate for two ICE agents from each special agent-in-charge office in the United States to attend the program, offered several times each year. The ICE component was designed around the need to introduce ICE special agents conducting investigations of cultural heritage (archaeological and ethnographic materials) and relevant case law. Program facilitators and speakers included members of the University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. The goal from the start was to have AUSAs from the respective regions attend the training sessions in order to facilitate opportunities for focused dialogue and professional networking, especially for law enforcement and AUSAs to engage with experts in the field of cultural heritage.

The training focused on the respective bilateral agreements of the CPIA, the Red Lists, the UNESCO database and national and international legal instruments, as well as overarching protocols and policies regarding the management of cultural heritage in the international sphere. Over the course of two days, ICE agents heard lectures; toured the collections and exhibitions; received instruction in object and photographic handling; and engaged with experts in the fields of law, security, museums, and field archaeology. A practicum was added as a way to pull together the various components: Teams worked through hypothetical cases in order to understand how the various aspects fit together.

A CBP program complemented the ICE component. Under the CBP program training programs were conducted at U.S. ports of entry. During morning and/or afternoon sessions, various members of CBP, ICE, and other constituencies (such as the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), AUSAs as well as local experts or institutions focused on cultural heritage) participated in presentations and discussions. Because the sessions were conducted at ports of entry, the audience tended to be much larger than the Penn–ICE sessions (e.g., the logistics and time commitment of attending were minimal). In most ports between 30 and 80 members were trained, compared with 12 to 18 ICE/AUSAs in a Penn–ICE session.

In order to broaden the international focus, Penn requested to include members of the foreign service, especially Cultural Affairs Officers and ICE attachés; yet both Departments (State and Homeland Security) felt that the focus on ICE and CBP was sufficient. Broadening the trainee scope would have fulfilled the original mandate of the CATF, which recommended that U.S. embassy staff members to be trained in matters of “cultural expression” and “on the preservation of the antiquities and cultures of host nations.” In a period when the Department of Defense focused (and continues to focus) on cultural awareness programming,Footnote 32 area-specific training in cultural property issues have been(and certainly still could be) of benefit to U.S. embassies in order to ensure a consistent understanding of U.S. policies with regard to the preservation of cultural sites and objects in-country. Furthermore, such policies would have offered (and certainly still could) connections between the respective Ministry of Culture (or equivalent entities) and the security sectors. In building these linkages, the people-to-people component of public and cultural diplomacy would have been expanded and the networks that would have been put into place could now be part of a global strategy that includes Red Lists and the UNESCO heritage law database.

ICOM Red Lists

The CATF/Special Projects supported a number of other programs during this period that directly impacted the implementation of the Penn Cultural Heritage Center program; and in turn, the Penn Cultural Heritage Center program provided additional guidance for the CATF programs/projects to work toward implementing a global initiative. The ICOM Red Lists served as key documents distributed to participants. The intent of the Red Lists is “to assist museums, collectors, dealers in art and antiquities, and customs and other law enforcement officials in recognizing objects that may have been looted and illicitly exported.”Footnote 33 Recent Red Lists all correspond to countries that have bilateral agreements under the U.S. CPIA (e.g., Cambodia, Peru, and China) and/or countries of strategic U.S. interest (e.g., Afghanistan, Egypt, and Iraq). A very useful aspect of the Red Lists (and the ICOM web site) is the list of contacts, policies, and legal instruments of the respective country or region (located on the back flap of each Red List).

For the Penn training programs, the ICOM Red Lists provided contacts in-country as well as visual illustrations of categories of objects likely to be looted. While the Red Lists duplicate the efforts of the State Department's Cultural Heritage Center online image databases, they do provide additional linkages with ICOM. The interagency framework creates opportunities for dialogue between cultural experts and the security sectors, connections that may prove to be advantageous in other security-related situations.

Red List brochures and web site links also form a critical component in other training programs, such as the November 2009 European Commission Euromed Heritage 4 UNESCO workshop, Preventing and Fighting Illicit Traffic in Cultural Property, focused on “strengthening the institutional and legal framework.” According to the conference papers, discussion was to focus on how and if Red Lists were distributed as well as on their importance for cross-border cooperation to raise public awareness and work with the World Customs Organization and countries with which bilateral agreements may be sought (e.g., Switzerland).

UNESCO Heritage Law Database

Another major program supported by the CATF and the State Department is the UNESCO heritage law database. The hard power aspect of heritage security involves checking and securing U.S. borders with legal muscle. This process moves forward with greater efficiency if the respective legal instruments can be located relatively quickly. The UNESCO heritage law database is especially important for investigating the application of the U.S. National Stolen Property Act, particularly to check if the respective national heritage law has a clear ownership (rather than or in addition to an export) clause. During the first ICE–Penn sessions, this resource was in preparation and the CATF sought feedback from Penn program participants. By the close of the ICE/CBP Penn program, brochures about the UNESCO resource, also funded in part by the CATF, were distributed at training sessions.

In addition to Penn programs, the database has been a key focus for other training programs, such as “Capacity Building” workshops by UNESCO: 2009 programs in Beirut (Lebanon), Italy (Vicenza), and several in African countries; and 2010 training workshops in Mongolia, Bahrain, the Gulf States, Yemen, and Rome (for Latin American countries).Footnote 34 The UNESCO heritage law database is not only a strategic tool in training programs but also provides a primary research tool for national and international scholars and practitioners focused on heritage law. In these ways, the database actively shapes the official, global discourse and pedagogy for cultural heritage law as well as aiding in security efforts aimed at stopping the illicit trade of national patrimony.

DISCUSSION

The Penn Cultural Heritage Center program represented a collaborative program between the U.S. Departments of Homeland Security and State, a necessary approach because of the organizational structure of the U.S. border: The U.S. Department of Homeland Security is responsible for implementation of U.S. law and policy at the U.S. borders; and the trade in antiquities constitutes a complex mosaic of actors and legal frameworks to follow, including import restrictions under the various MoUs and smuggling statutes. Yet, far from being necessary because of the organizational structure alone, the Penn program also supported the multidimensional image of the new diplomacy and soft power agendas of the Obama administration.

Putting into place policies that focus on a unified U.S. response to the international trade in cultural objects sends an unambiguous message to those engaged in shady networks that the United States will not offer a safe haven for an illicit market for archaeological and ethnographic materials. To this end, Penn drew from ongoing initiatives of the State Department as well as the Penn community (curators and researchers in the museum as well as Art History, Archaeology, and Anthropology faculty, among others) of experts to develop a program that served this goal. The issues faced immediately at the outset forced the CATF's administrators to concede with Penn that a onetime training program would not be sufficient to meet the congressional mandate, as evidenced by the pilot programs in Newark and JFK. Penn negotiated with the Department of Homeland Security to design a viable program that would link CBP and ICE. As the frontline, CBP required targeted, focused training that dovetailed with border-specific behavior. To most effectively meet this need, Penn conducted the training sessions at the border. In contrast, ICE required a program that not only facilitated professional connections among special agents (ICE), but also addressed the international sphere. In this case, it made sense to bring ICE agents together in a workshop setting.

Introducing the nuance and diplomacy of cultural heritage to both CBP and ICE required discussion of U.S. cultural policy in the context of international relations. That is, a firm national policy of tightening the porous nature of U.S. borders and the movement of antiquities requires U.S. law enforcement to consider the importance of plundered and stolen cultural heritage to specific nation states as not merely illicit commodities, but property of another sovereign. For the purpose of maintaining open dialogue through this softer cultural arena, U.S. heritage practitioners working abroad as well as in U.S. cultural institutions that engage with foreign cultural institutions (i.e., museums and ministries of culture) are confronted with much greater tenacity and resistance to collaborative initiatives if porous U.S. borders facilitate unfettered trade in illicit materials from within their national borders. In this way, those involved in cultural activities that include things and places linked to and/or based in foreign countries are obliged to exercise great diplomacy in negotiating access to and/or restitution of cultural heritage or face unhindered statements of national sovereignty that become mired in honor with no concessions possible. Failed negotiations will result in the cessation of dialogue and cultural connections.

Cultural heritage represents not only things and places, but also the turn-key to efficient and productive cultural diplomacy that builds long-term relationships through archaeological programs, restoration projects, and museum exhibitions. U.S. cultural diplomacy initiatives that recognize the value of cultural heritage on a global scale thereby establish working dialogues for current and future collaboration and interagency consultation with countries (and their respective entities) responsible for managing cultural assets. With cultural diplomacy an increasingly strategic component for solidifying international relations—for the United States and other countries—a multidimensional approach to the protection, preservation, and presentation of heritage will be necessary (if not officially mandated). Seen in this light, U.S. support for quelling the trade in illicit antiquities is motivated by proactive strategies that see cultural heritage as a strategic element in the diplomatic toolkit. A consistent U.S. policy enforced at U.S. borders that aims to mitigate against future risk to U.S. foreign relations and security thus includes protocols for illicit cultural heritage and U.S. border control.

Footnotes

1. For discussion of the trade in antiquities, see Brodie et al., Archaeology, Cultural Heritage; Cuno, Who Owns Antiquity?; Gerstenblith, “Schultz and Barakat”; Gerstenblith, “Controlling the International Market”; Mackenzie, “The Market as Criminal,” Pearlstein, “Claims for the Repatriation”; Stone and Farchakh Bajjaly, Destruction of Cultural Heritage. A general discussion of the United States 1991 Customs Directive can be found in the draft paper posted by Urice with Adler, “Unveiling Executive Branch's Extralegal.” Note that the 1991 directive is drastically outdated, particularly in light of the formation of the Department of Homeland Security (the Directive focuses on the duties of legacy U.S. Customs). There are numerous cultural diplomacy programs and pots of money. Examples include the State Department supported programs including the U.S. Speaker Program in the Office of Citizen Exchanges, the Fulbright Program, Council for American Overseas Research Centers, and the U.S. Ambassadors Fund for Cultural Preservation. In addition, the National Endowment for the Humanities, the National Science Foundation, the U.S. Agency for International Development, and collaborative linkages with UNESCO World Heritage sites support the cultural heritage enterprise. For a preliminary discussion of a few of these programs as they relate specifically to archaeology, see Luke, “The Science Behind U.S. Smart Power”; Luke and Kersel U.S. Cultural Diplomacy.

2. Joseph Nye is the mind behind the soft power paradigm. See Nye, The Future of Power; “Soft Power and American Foreign Policy”; and “Public Diplomacy and Soft Power.” For discussion of cultural (and public) diplomacy, see Arndt, First Resort of Kings; Hope, “Public Diplomacy and Local Staff”; Kovach, “Out from Under the Proscenium”; McClory, The New Persuaders; Mulcahy, “Cultural Policy”; Schneider and Nelson, Mightier than the Sword. U.S. State Department, Cultural Diplomacy. The case for long-term cultural diplomacy is not new. For post-WWII implementation, see Frankel, Neglected Aspect of Foreign Affairs; Frankel, “Multipurpose Diplomacy.” Studies that address how arts and humanities contribute to civil society include Calhoun, Nations Matter; Van Gorp, “A European Cultural Identity?”; Randel, “The Public Good.” For a discussion of these concepts as they relate broadly to U.S. policies and archaeology, see Luke and Kersel, U.S. Cultural Diplomacy; Kersel and Luke, “Archaeology of Trauma”; Brand, “Development in Wadi Rum?”; Scham, “Diplomacy and Desired Pasts.” For a discussion of economic development and formal UNESCO policies, see the 2011 UNESCO Audit report.

3. For a discussion of partage, see Goode, Negotiating for the Past. For analysis of cultural policies in Europe, the Middle East, and northern Africa, see Serhan and Ayça İnce, Introduction to Cultural Policy; Harmersveld, Cultural Policies. Recent research on cultural heritage and UNESCO includes Meskell, “The Rush to Inscribe”; Nielsen “UNESCO and the ‘Right’ Kind of Culture”; Ryan and Silvanto, “World Heritage List.” Literature on cultural heritage and traumascapes includes Kersel and Luke, “Archaeology of Trauma”; Stein, “Trauma and Origins”; Tumarkin, Traumascapes; De Jong and Rowlands, “Introduction: Post-Conflict Heritage”; Brown and Bergo, The Trauma Controversy.

4. The literature here is vast. Representative studies include Bernhardsson, Reclaiming a Plundered Past; Brading, Origins of Mexican Nationalism; Díaz-Andreu and Champion, Nationalism and Archaeology; Foro and Rey, “Archaeology without Identity?”; Goode, Negotiating for the Past; Kurin, Reflections; Reid, Whose Pharaohs?; Scham, “Disinheriting Heritage”; Smith, Uses of Heritage.

5. There is growing literature on links to organized crime and the trade in illicit antiquities; see Center for the Study of Democracy, Organized Crime in Bulgaria; Hardy, “Interrogating Archaeological Ethics”; Bligh, “Countering Illicit Traffic”; Bowman, “Transnational Crimes.” Bligh argues that narcotics and weapons are separate networks; yet the research of Bowman suggests otherwise. See also Nemeth, “Art-Intelligence Programs;” Nemeth, “Collecting Cultural Intelligence”; Proulx, “Organized Criminal Involvement.”

6. There have been (and continue to be) many targeted programs launched by the Council of Europe to integrate South East Europe under the “European” umbrella. Two such programs are the European Commission–Council of Europe Joint Programme, Integrated Rehabilitation Project. For discussion of licit and illicit borders, see Kersel, “Transcending Borders”; Mackenzie, Going, Going, Gone.

7. For discussion of U.S. national security as the U.S. foreign policy, see Bacevich, Washington Rules; Christie, United States Foreign Policy. The issue of border security has been regular national news for the last decade. For some scholarly discussion of this issue in a post-911 world, see Jones, “Border Security”; Obama, National Security.

8. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, “ICE and CBP Return Artifacts”; Lush, “Antiquities Smuggling”; U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, “ICE Returns Ancient Artifacts.”

9. The United States implemented the 1970 UNESCO Convention in 1983 under the Cultural Property Implementation Act (CPIA). Two articles of the 1970 UNESCO Convention are implemented under the CPIA. Article 7b applies to materials stolen from public collections; if an object is stolen from a known public collection, and the respective collection is found in a country that is party to the 1970 UNESCO Convention (and Article 7b is recognized), then the date upon which both countries became party to 1970 UNESCO is applicable at the U.S. border under the Cultural Property Implementation Act (19 USC § 2607).

The object(s) likely to have been plundered from undocumented locations are covered under Article 9 of the 1970 UNESCO Convention. For the CPIA to applicable at the U.S. border, the United States and the respective country must have a formal bilateral agreement (a memorandum of understanding, or MoU); the date upon which the agreement went into force is the relevant date of enforcement (19 USC § 2606). Agreements last for a period five years and may be renewed (indefinitely); emergency agreements are good for five years and may only be extended for an additional three years. In all cases, there are corresponding lists of designated categories of materials that are covered. The complexities associated with the CPIA, according to many trainees, make it a cumbersome legal instrument.

10. The U.S.–Italy MoU was the first to focus on long-term loans; see Magness-Gardiner, “Long-term Archaeological Loans.” For analysis of the precedent set by this specific program, see Luke and Kersel, U.S. Cultural Diplomacy; Kersel and Luke, “Archaeology of Trauma.”

11. See Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, Weary Herakles. For return of the Hattusa Sphinx, see Justice and Development Party, Republic of Turkey, Sphinx of Hattusa Back in Turkey. For April 2012 news regarding the future of cultural collaborations, see Anatolian News Agency, “Symposium Discusses Museums and Archaeology.” Hurriyet Daily News, 16 April 2012. For discussion of soft power and Turkey, see Kalin,“Soft Power”; McClory, The New Persuaders.

12. See UNSAAC–Yale University, Memorandum of Understanding.

13. For successful cases under the National Stolen Property Act, see Egyptian Ownership law: U.S. v. Schultz, 333 F.3d 393 (2d Cir. 2003); Mexican Ownership Law: U.S. v. McClain 593 F.2d 658 (5th Cir. 1979); Guatemalan Ownership Law: U.S. v. Hollinshead 495 F.2d 1154 (9th Cir. 1974) (only section 2314); Statute of Limitations and Turkish Ownership Law: Republic of Turkey v. Metropolitan Museum of Art 762 F. Supp. 44 (S.D.N.Y. 1990); Republic of Turkey v. OKS Partners (D. Mass. 1994). For unsuccessful cases, see Government of Peru v. Johnson, 720 F. Supp. 810, 814 (C.D. Cal. 1989); Republic of Croatia v. The Trustee of the Marquess of Northampton (Sesvo Treasture) 1987 Settlement, 610 N.Y.S. 2d, 263 (1st Dept. 1994). For the Archaeological Resources Protection Act, see U.S. v. Melnikas (no published opinion on application of ARPA); U.S. v. An Archaic Etruscan Pottery Ceremonial Vase, 96 Civ. 9437 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 12, 1996). There are also a number of cases under various smuggling statutes. For cases under 18 U.S.C. § 542 and 5545, see U.S. v. An Antique Platter of Gold, 184 F.3d 131 (2d Cir. 1999) [Steinhardt case]; and U.S. v. Hall 104. F. 475 (Ohio 6th Cir. 2004).

14. Prior to the formation of the Department of Homeland Security, there was the U.S. Customs Service, now commonly referred to as “Legacy Customs.”

15. For discussion of antiquities as commodities, see Bligh Reference Bligh2009. CBP has a national import specialist located in New York City who sets U.S. guidelines regarding a variety of commodities and oversees all import specialists.

16. The cases in Los Angeles and Chicago involving material from Thailand illustrate the involvement of ICE when material is in the United States (legally or illegally). For review of the case (yet not necessarily the involvement of ICE), see Vitale, “War on Antiquities.”

17. The cases in Los Angeles and Chicago involving material from Thailand illustrate the involvement of ICE when material is in the United States (legally or illegally). For review of the case (yet not necessarily the involvement of ICE), see Vitale, “War on Antiquities.”

18. See Jalelian, “Theft of Art.” The topic of the illicit trade in antiquities has been a frequent topic over the years on covers and pages of magazines: Time, Newsweek, The Economist, The New Yorker, Newsweek, and National Geographic; major newspapers: the New York Times, Los Angeles Times, Boston Globe, and others; books written for public audiences, often reviewed on National Public Radio (NPR), such as Atwood, Stealing History; Waxman, Loot; Bogdanos, Thieves of Baghdad; and the abundance of literature in the scholarly realm, notably in the International Journal of Cultural Property; Art, Antiquities and Law; and the Archaeological Heritage and Ethics (formerly the Antiquities Market) column of the Journal of Field Archaeology.

19. For a discussion of bond shipments, see Grainger, “Customs and Trade Facilitation.” Grainger does not cover antiquities per se.

20. Kersel, “Transcending Borders” and License to Sell.

21. Mackenzie, Going, Going, Gone. Watson and Todeschini, The Medici Conspiracy; Felch and Frammolino, Chasing Aphrodite.

22. From 19 U.S.C. section 2606: Import Restrictions: “The importer can make a declaration under oath that “to the best of his knowledge—(i) the material was exported from the State Party not less than ten years before the date of entry into the United States, and (ii) neither such importer or person (or any related person) contracted for or acquired an interest, directly or indirectly, in such material more than one year before the date of entry of the material.” In addition, there must be “a statement provided by the consignor, or person who sold the material to the importer, which states the date, or, if not known, his belief, that the material was exported from the State Party not less than ten years before the date of entry into the United States, and the reasons on which the statement is based.” The importer has 90 days (or longer, if approval is given) to produce the documentation or the material will be subject to seizure and forfeiture.

23. The details of civil and criminal violations of smuggling statutes are too vast to describe here. That said, it should be noted that civil forfeiture as well as criminal violation (usually based on evidence of intent to conspire) can be pursued under smuggling statues (in addition to the criminal National Stolen Property Act). See Forfeiture under 19 USC § 1497; 19 USC §1595a(c)—Importation contrary to Law; 19 USC §1595a(d)—Export contrary to Law; 18 USC § 545—Smuggling Statute provides for forfeiture; 18 USC § 981—Civil Forfeiture; 18 USC § 982—Criminal Forfeiture. See Criminal Violations under 18 U.S.C. § 541—Entry of Goods Falsely Classified; 18 U.S.C. § 542—Entry of Goods by Means of False Statements; 18 U.S.C. § 545—Smuggling Goods Into the United States; 18 U.S.C. § 554—Smuggling Goods From the United States; 18 U.S.C. § 1001—False Statements; 2006 Patriot Act.

24. In addition, according to the Senate Report, people associated with the trade in antiquities were likely to have a difficult time obtaining U.S. visas, if a visa was to be issued at all. For full details, see Senate Report 108–144 for the Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and related agencies appropriation bill, 2004.

25. House Report 108-792—Making appropriations for foreign operations, expert financing, and related programs for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2005, and for other purposes.

26. Senate Report 109-277—State Department, foreign operations, and related programs appropriations bill, 2007.

27. Senate Report 111-44 State Department, foreign operations, and related programs appropriations bill, 2010.

28. Senate reports 111-237 and 112-85 both list annual funding for the Cultural Antiquities Task Force at US$1,000,000.

29. UNESCO lists the Mexico program as well as other programs in its 2011 toolkit. See the “Document and Training” section of the 2011 toolkit: Convention for the fight against the illicit trafficking of cultural property: The Fight Against the Illicit Trafficking of Cultural Objects: the 1970 Convention: Past and Future: Information Kit.

30. For links to the current (and past) memoranda of understanding, see International Cultural Property Protection, Cultural Heritage Office, U.S. State Department, ⟨http://exchanges.state.gov/heritage/culprop.html⟩ accessed 16 April 2012.

31. I (the author) directed this program. The Cultural Heritage Center at the University of Pennsylvania was formed in 2008, under the direction of Richard Leventhal.

32. See Rush, Archaeology, Cultural Heritage.

33. Red List, “Cambodian Antiquities at Risk.”

34. See UNESCO, Capacity Building Workshops.

References

Arndt, Richard T.The First Resort of Kings: American Cultural Diplomacy in the Twentieth Century. Washington, DC: Potomac Books, 2005.Google Scholar
Atwood, Roger. Stealing History: Tomb Raiders, Smugglers, and the Looting of the Ancient World. New York: St. Martin's Press, 2004.Google Scholar
Bacevich, Andrew. Washington Rules: America's Path to Permanent War. New York: Metropolitan Books, 2010.Google Scholar
Bernhardsson, Magnus T.Reclaiming a Plundered Past: Archaeology and Nation Building in Modern Iraq. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press, 2005.Google Scholar
Bligh, Alexander. “Countering Illicit Traffic of Cultural Heritage in the Mediterranean Region.” International Journal of Intelligence and CounterIntelligence 23 (2009): 148–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bogdanos, Mat. Thieves of Baghdad: One Marine's Passion to Recover the World's Greatest Stolen Treasures. New York: Bloomsbury, 2005.Google Scholar
Bowman, Blythe A. “Transnational Crimes Against Culture: Looting at Archaeological Sites and the ‘Gray’ Market in Antiquities.” Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice 24 (2008): 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brading, D. A.The Origins of Mexican Nationalism. Cambridge: Centre of Latin-American Studies, 1985.Google Scholar
Brand, Laurie. “Development in Wadi Rum? State Bureaucracy, External Funders, and Civil Society.” International Journal of Middle East Studies 33 (2001): 571–590.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brodie, Neil J., Kersel, Morag M., Luke, Christina, and Tubb, Kathryn Walker. Archaeology, Cultural Heritage and the Antiquities Trade. Gainesville: University Press of Florida, 2006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, Kristen, and Bergo, Bettina. The Trauma Controversy. Albany, NY: SUNY Press, 2009.Google Scholar
Calhoun, Craig. Nations Matter: Culture, History and the Cosmopolitan Dream. New York: Routledge, 2007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Center for the Study of Democracy. Organized Crime in Bulgaria: Markets and Trends. Sofia: Center for the Study of Democracy, London and New York, 2007.Google Scholar
Christie, Kenneth. United States Foreign Policy and National Identity in the Twenty-First Century. Routledge Studies in U.S. Foreign Policy series. New York, 2008.Google Scholar
Council of Europe. Framework Convention on the Value of Cultural Heritage for Society. Strasbourg: Council of Europe, 2005.Google Scholar
Cuno, James. Who Owns Antiquity? Museums and the Battle over Our Ancient Heritage. Princeton, NJ: University of Princeton Press, 2008.Google Scholar
De Jong, Ferdinand, and Rowlands, Michael. “Introduction: Post-Conflict Heritage.” Journal of Material Culture 13 (2008): 131–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Díaz-Andreu, M. “Internationalism in the Invisible College: Political Ideologies and Friendships in Archaeology.” Journal of Social Archaeology 7 (2007): 29–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Díaz-Andreu, M.A World History of Nineteenth-Century Archaeology. Nationalism, Colonialism and the Past. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Díaz-Andreu, M., and Champion, T.. Nationalism and Archaeology in Europe. London: Westview Press, 1996.Google Scholar
European Commission—Council of Europe Joint Programme. Integrated Rehabilitation Project Plan/Survey of the Architectural and Archaeological Heritage (IRPP/SAAH). Serbia and Montenegro (Serbia), March 2004.Google Scholar
Felch, Jason, and Frammolino, Ralph. Chasing Aphrodite: The Hunt for Looted Antiquities at the World's Richest Museum. New York: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2011.Google Scholar
Final Report of the Audit of the Global Strategy and the PACT initiative. 2011. Independent Evaluation by the UNESCO external auditor. Volume 1: Implementation of the Global Strategy for the Credible, Balanced, and Representative World Heritage List. Office of the External Auditor for the United Nations Scientific, Educational and Cultural Organization.Google Scholar
Foro, Phillippe, and Rey, Sarah. “Archaeology Without Identity? Antiquity and French Archaeological Research Around the Mediterranean (1850–1945).” Fragmenta 2, no. 2 (2008): 95–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frankel, Charles. The Neglected Aspect of Foreign Affairs. American Educational and Cultural Policy Abroad. Washington DC: The Brookings Institution, 1965.Google Scholar
Frankel, Charles. “Multipurpose Diplomacy: Culture, Information and Foreign Policy.” Public Administration Review 29 (1969): 593–600.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gerstenblith, Patty. “Controlling the International Market in Antiquities: Reducing the Harm, Preserving the Past.” Chicago Journal of International Law 8 (2007): 169–95.Google Scholar
Gerstenblith, Patty. “Schultz and Barakat: Universal Recognition of National Ownership of Antiquities.” Art Antiquity & Law 14 (2009): 21–48.Google Scholar
Goode, James. Negotiating for the Past: Archaeology, Nationalism, and Diplomacy in the Middle East, 1919–1941. Austin: University of Texas Press, 2007.Google Scholar
Grainger, A. “Customs and Trade Facilitation: From Concepts to Implementation.” World Customs Journal 2 (2008): 17–30.Google Scholar
Hardy, Samuel Andrew. Interrogating Archaeological Ethics in Conflict Zones: Cultural Heritage Work in Cyprus. Ph.D. dissertation. University of Sussex, 2010.Google Scholar
Harmersveld, Ineke Van. Cultural Policies in Algeria, Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Morocco, Palestine, Syria and Tunisia. An Introduction. Amsterdam: BOEKMANSTUDIES, 2010.Google Scholar
Hope, Stacy. “Public Diplomacy and Local Staff: The Cornerstone of Long-Term Relationship Building.” Public Diplomacy Magazine (Winter 2009): 53–59.Google Scholar
Jalelian, Lincoln. “Theft of Art, Antiquities, Cultural Property and the ‘Deliberate Ignorance’ Defense.” Criminal Law Bulletin 48 (2012):1–13.Google Scholar
Jones, Reece. “Border Security, 9/11 and the Enclosure of Civilization.” The Geographic Journal 177 (2011): 213–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Justice and Development Party, Republic of Turkey. Sphinx of Hattusa Back in Turkey. ⟨http://www.akparti.org.tr/english/haberler/sphinx-of-hattusa-back-in-turkey/11278⟩ accessed 15 April 2012.Google Scholar
Kalin, İbrahim. “Soft Power and Public Diplomacy in Turkey.” Perceptions XVI, no. 3 (2011): 5–23.Google Scholar
Kersel, Morag M. License to Sell: The Trade of Antiquities in Israel. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Cambridge, 2006.Google Scholar
Kersel, Morag M. “Transcending Borders: Objects on the Move.” Archaeologies. Journal of the World Archaeological Congress 3 (2007): 81–98.Google Scholar
Kersel, Morag M. “A Focus on the Demand Side of the Antiquities Equation.” Near Eastern Archaeology 71 (2008): 230–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kersel, Morag, and Luke, Christina, “The Archaeology of Trauma.” Introduction to “Communities and Archaeology under the Soufriere Hills Volcano on Montserrat, West Indies,” by Krysta Ryzewski, John F. Cherry, Thomas P. Leppard, and Elizabeth Murphy. Archaeological Heritage and Ethics Column, Journal of Field Archaeology 37(2), in press.Google Scholar
Kovach, Peter. “Out from Under the Proscenium: A Paradigm for U.S. Cultural Diplomacy.” Public Diplomacy Magazine (Winter 2010): 70–74.Google Scholar
Kurin, Richard. Reflections of a Culture Broker: A View from the Smithsonian. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press, 1997.Google Scholar
Luke, Christina. “The Science Behind U.S. Smart Power in Honduras: Archaeological Heritage Diplomacy.” Diplomacy & Statecraft 23 (2012): 110–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Luke, Christina, and Kersel, Morag. U.S. Cultural Diplomacy: Soft Power, Hard Heritage. New York: Routlege, forthcoming.Google Scholar
Lush, Tamara. “Antiquities Smuggling: Growing problem at US ports.” The Associated Press, 14 September 2008.Google Scholar
Mackenzie, Simon. Going, Going, Gone: Regulating the Market in Illicit Antiquities. Leicester, UK: Institute of Art and Law, 2005.Google Scholar
Mackenzie, Simon. “The Market as Criminal and Criminals in the Market: Reducing Opportunities for Organised Crime in the International Antiquities Market.” In Crime in the Art and Antiquities World: Illegal Trafficking in Cultural Property, Part 1, edited by Manacorda, Stefano and Chappell, Duncan, 69–85. New York: Springer, 2011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Magness-Gardiner, Bonnie. “Long-Term Archaeological Loans from Italy: Summary of Roundtable Discussions.” American Journal of Archaeology 107 (2003): 477–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McClory, Jonathan. The New Persuaders: An International Ranking of Soft Power. London: Institute for Government, 2010.Google Scholar
Meskell, Lynn. “The Rush to Inscribe: Reflections on the 35th Session of the World Heritage Committee, UNESCO Paris, 2011.” Archaeological Heritage and Ethics Column, Journal of Field Archaeology 37(2): 145–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mulcahy, Kevin. “Cultural Policy: Definitions and Theoretical Approaches.” The Journal of Arts Management, Law and Society 35 (2006): 319–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Museum of Fine Arts, Boston. Weary Herakles ⟨http://www.mfa.org/collections/provenance/weary-herakles⟩ accessed 20 March 2012.Google Scholar
Nemeth, Erik. “Art-Intelligence Programs: The Relevance of the Clandestine Art World to Foreign Intelligence.” International Journal of Intelligence and CounterIntelligence 21 (2008): 355–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nemeth, Erik. “Collecting Cultural Intelligence: The Tactical Value of Cultural Property.” International Journal of Intelligence and CounterIntelligence 24 (2011): 217–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nielsen, Bjarke. “UNESCO and the ‘Right’ Kind of Culture: Bureaucratic Production and Articulation.” Critique of Anthropology 31 (2011): 273–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nye, Joseph S. Jr. “Soft Power and American Foreign Policy.” Political Science Quarterly 119 (2004): 255–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nye, Joseph S. Jr. “Public Diplomacy and Soft Power.” The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 616 (2008): 94–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nye, Joseph S. Jr.The Future of Power. New York: Public Affairs, 2011.Google Scholar
Obama, Barack. National Security Strategy of the United States. Washington, DC: Daine, 2010.Google Scholar
Pearlstein, William. “Claims for the Repatriation of Cultural Property: Prospects for a Managed Antiquities Market.” Law and Policy in International Business 28 (1996): 123–50.Google Scholar
Proulx, Blythe. “Organized Criminal Involvement in the Illicit Antiquities Trade.” Trends in Organized Crime 14 (2011): 1–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Randel, Don M. “The Public Good: Knowledge as the Foundation for a Democratic Society.” Dædalus (Winter 2009): 8–12.Google Scholar
Red List. “Cambodian Antiquities at Risk.” International Council of Museums ⟨http://archives.icom.museum/redlist/cambodia/en/index.htm⟩.Google Scholar
Reid, Malcolm. Whose Pharaohs?: Archaeology, Museums, and Egyptian Identity from Napoleon to World War I. Los Angeles: University of California Press, 2003.Google Scholar
Rush, Laurie. Archaeology, Cultural Heritage and the Military. Woodbridge, UK: Boydell Press, 2010.Google Scholar
Ryan, Jason, and Silvanto, Sari. “The World Heritage List: The Making and Management of a Brand.” Place Branding and Public Diplomacy 5 (2009): 290–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scham, Sandra. “Disinheriting Heritage: Explorations in the Contentious History of Archaeology in the Middle East.” In Archaeology and the Postcolonial Critique, edited by Liebmann, M. and Rizvi, U. Z., 165–76. Walnut Creek, CA: Altamira Press, 2008.Google Scholar
Scham, Sandra. “Diplomacy and Desired Pasts.” Journal of Social Archaeology 9 (2009): 163–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schneider, Cynthia, and Nelson, Kristina. Mightier than the Sword: Arts and Culture in the U.S. Muslim World Relationship. Washington, DC: The Saban Center for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institution, 2009.Google Scholar
Serhan, Ada, and İnce, H. Ayça. Introduction to Cultural Policy in Turkey. Istanbul: Istanbul Bilgi University Press, 2009.Google Scholar
Smith, Laurajane. Uses of Heritage. New York: Routledge, 2006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stein, Arlene. “Trauma and Origins: Post-Holocaust Genealogists and the Work of Memory.” Qualitative Sociology 32 (2009): 293–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stone, Peter, and Bajjaly, Joanne Farchakh. The Destruction of Cultural Heritage in Iraq. Woodbridge, UK: Boydell Press, 2008.Google Scholar
Tumarkin, M.. Traumascapes. Melbourne: Melbourne University Press.2005.Google Scholar
UNESCO 2011 toolkit: Convention for the fight against the illicit trafficking of cultural property: The Fight Against the Illicit Trafficking of Cultural Objects: the 1970 Convention: Past and Future: Information Kit.Google Scholar
UNESCO. Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property. Paris: UNESCO, 1970.Google Scholar
UNESCO. Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage. Paris: UNESCO, 1972.Google Scholar
UNESCO. Capacity Building Workshops. ⟨http://www.unesco.org/new/en/culture/themes/movable-heritage-and-museums/illicit-traffic-of-cultural-property/capacity-building/⟩ accessed 10 April 2012.Google Scholar
UNSAAC–Yale University. Memorandum of Understanding Regarding the UNSAAC–Yale University International Center for the Study of Machu Picchu and Inca Culture, 2011 ⟨http://opac.yale.edu/peru/english/⟩.Google Scholar
Urice, Stephen K., Adler, with Andrew L.. “Unveiling the Executive Branch's Extralegal Cultural Property Policy.” In MiamiLaw Research Paper Series, 2010 ⟨http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstractid=1658519&download=yes⟩.Google Scholar
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. “ICE Returns Ancient Artifacts to Peruvian Government Valued at More than $1 Million, Nearly All Are Precolumbian.” News Release, 30 April 2004 ⟨http://eca.state.gov/icpp/peru-ice04.html⟩.Google Scholar
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. “ICE and CBP Return Illegally Exported Cultural Artifacts to Guatemala.” News Release, 24 February 2012 ⟨http://www.ice.gov/news/releases/1202/120224washingtondc.htm⟩.Google Scholar
U.S. State Department. Cultural Diplomacy: The Linchpin of Public Diplomacy. Washington, DC: Advisory Committee on Cultural Diplomacy Report, 2005.Google Scholar
Van Gorp, Bouke, and Renes, Hans. “A European Cultural Identity? Heritage and Shared Histories in the European Union,” Tijdschrift voor economische en sociale geografie 98(2006): 407–415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vitale, Katherine D. “The War on Antiquities: United States Law and Foreign Cultural Property.” Notre Dame Law Review 84 (2008): 101–40.Google Scholar
Watson, Peter, and Todeschini, Cecilia. The Medici Conspiracy: The Illicit Journey of Looted Antiquities—From Italy's Tomb Raiders to the World's Greatest Museums. New York: Public Affairs, 2006.Google Scholar
Waxman, Sharon. Loot: The Battle over the Stolen Treasures of the Ancient World. New York: Times Books, 2008.Google Scholar