U.S. Policy, Cultural Heritage,and U.S. BordersChristina Luke*

Abstract: This article situates the discussion of illicit trafficking in antiquitiesin the context of the relationship between the U.S. Departments of State andHomeland Security. The main argument is that U.S. cultural heritage policy ispart of a broader agenda of political discourse that links matters of heritage towider concerns of security. If the underlying goal of the U.S. State Departmentis mutual understanding through open dialogue, how can initiatives that focuson the criminal networks and security, efforts tackled by the Department ofHomeland Security, contribute to building a positive image for the UnitedStates abroad? Here I explore strategic aspects of U.S. cultural policies andfederally supported programs aimed at mitigating against the illicit trade inantiquities as part of building and maintaining cultural relations.

INTRODUCTION

Much has been written about the various U.S. legal instruments that may impli-cate someone in nefarious activity related to the plunder of archaeological sitesand the illicit trade in antiquities, yet little has been written about the role of theU.S. Departments of State and Homeland Security with regard to U.S. foreign pol-icy and matters of cultural heritage and the U.S. border. Opportunities to engagewith local communities and ministries of culture in-country often come via cul-tural heritage projects, such as archaeological expeditions, museum exhibitions,and historic preservation programs. For this reason, the U.S. State Department

*Boston University; University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology. Email:cluke@bu.edu

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS: I would like to thank Morag Kersel and Brian Daniels for their commentson earlier versions of this article. In addition, the comments of two anonymous reviewers were ex-tremely helpful.

International Journal of Cultural Property (2012) 19:175–196. Printed in the USA.Copyright © 2012 International Cultural Property Societydoi:10.1017/S094073911200015X

175

taps cultural heritage as a resource in fostering mutual understanding and people-to-people relationships as part of its core cultural diplomacy programs.1 In addi-tion, there are targeted initiatives aimed at policing the movement of objects inorder to thwart illicit trafficking, especially as objects move across borders. Thecultural heritage initiatives between the U.S. Departments of State and HomelandSecurity demonstrate a U.S. policy focused on long-term cultural relations anddefense and national security.

In this essay, I first explore U.S. foreign cultural policy and diplomacy throughthe lens of cultural heritage. I then summarize the role of the Department of Home-land Security in cultural heritage matters, especially U.S. Customs and Border Pro-tection (CBP) and Immigration Customs Enforcement (ICE). This framework setsthe stage for my analysis of funded projects and programs by the Cultural Antiq-uities Task Force (CATF), located in the Cultural Heritage Center at the U.S. StateDepartment, especially one training program at the Cultural Heritage Center atthe 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 powerto create a strategy to win hearts and minds. Culture for Nye is among the mostimportant avenues for pursuing this goal. In this way, cultural diplomacy forms aviable platform to reach various interest groups in order to demonstrate that theUnited States seeks to understand cultural differences while promoting demo-cratic ideals. Furthermore, the ability to implement soft power effectively in orderto achieve the desired results reflects positively (or negatively) on a state’s legiti-macy. The U.S. State Department’s Cultural Heritage Center focuses on how toharness heritage proactively and politically to work toward promoting democraticideals through long-term U.S. cultural relations with foreign entities. Establish-ment of partnerships aimed at long-term collaboration reveals the success of theState Department in negotiating once turbulent waters.2

Archaeologists negotiate the halls of the ministry of culture to secure permitsfor excavation and survey; and they establish in-country networks over years ofsustained fieldwork, especially in countries where archaeological concessions/permits are awarded to specific institutions, individuals, and/or nation states for amultiyear period. Today most of the objects from archaeological fieldwork are keptin-country, formal partage having ended decades ago. The official research strat-egy of the field archaeologist is scientific context and knowledge about the past;other interest groups have strategically appropriated archaeological informationto promote national identity, foster a sense of (local) community, and help branda site or region for economic development such as UNESCO (United Nations Ed-ucational, Scientific and Cultural Organization) World Heritage Site enhance-ment. In so doing, cultural heritage holds strategic value to mitigate against violence

176 CHRISTINA LUKE

because it offers ways to frame positive narratives in postconflict situations as wellas real potential for stimulating economic interests.3

Because museums, archaeological sites, and other heritage landscapes are used todefine and shape how history is presented and political sovereignty justified,4 na-tion states increasingly support policies to keep objects of cultural heritage withinnational boundaries. For this reason, programs aimed at protection and presenta-tion are increasingly common because leaders recognize the value of objects as partof building social cohesion. The plunder of a landscape or thefts from cultural in-stitutions, thus, may contribute to a general feeling of abandonment and moral bank-ruptcy. When plundered objects make their way into western cultural institutionsand/or individual private collections, there are increasingly harsh reactions on theinternational stage to abolish cultural imperialism dictated on western terms. Fur-thermore, the illicit networks associated with the trade continue to be a political li-ability for many nation states seeking to harness the value of heritage. In areas ofconflict, objects and structures associated with specific groups become targets, withthe opposing group seeking to destabilize social and economic networks as well aspolitical infrastructure through destruction of cultural heritage. Under these con-ditions the illicit trade in antiquities may flourish and become woven into the fab-ric of illicit networks associated with narcotics and weapons.5

A focus on reducing the illicit trade in antiquities and providing protection tocultural monuments stems from a firm belief that cultural heritage provides a ben-efit to society, rather than a risk to it. In framing this issue, UNESCO and theCouncil of Europe have put forth conventions and recommendations that aim tofoster respect of and appreciation for natural and cultural heritage and its value tosociety. Of specific interest are recent programs by the Council of Europe thatseek to incorporate heritage in conflict resolution in order to reduce the risk offuture violence. While the attempt to thwart the illicit trade in antiquities consti-tutes only the aftermath of a series of social and political networks, it is believedto be a necessary approach and one that may serve to expose other dubious ac-tivities precisely because illicit networks are inherently flexible, and thus as viableroutes are choked, others open.6

Over the years, the United States has been steadfast in its commitment, throughboth military might and carefully executed diplomacy, to policies that focus onnational security and defense. Following the Bush era, the Obama administrationhas continued to support efforts aimed at shoring up U.S. borders.7 While rarelythe topic of front-page news, the illicit trade in antiquities constitutes one aspectof border security for the U.S. State Department. Unlike the trade in narcotics andweapons, however, the efforts focused on the illicit trade in antiquities often resultin high-level repatriations of material to foreign ministries. The restitution of ob-jects offers a channel for positive diplomatic exchange, exemplified in the 24 Feb-ruary 2012 press release regarding return of material to Guatemala: “‘Throughthe facilitation and enforcement of U.S. trade laws, these artifacts will provide thepeople of Guatemala a key to their past,’ said Customs and Border Protection As-

U.S. POLICY, CULTURAL HERITAGE, AND U.S. BORDERS 177

sistant Commissioner for International Affairs Charles E. Stallworth II. ‘Customsand Border Protection is pleased to work in partnership with Immigration andCustoms Enforcement to enforce U.S. customs law and to return priceless artifactsto their lawful owner.’”

ICE’s position on the value embedded in the restitution of cultural heritage hasremained steady for almost a decade. Among the reasons justifying repatriationfor ICE in 2008 was that “a nation’s culture is not for sale,” which followed a 2004statement that foreshadowed future collaboration: “It is my pleasure to return thesecultural treasures to the people of Peru on behalf of the United States,” said As-sistant Secretary Garcia. “These items are not souvenirs to be sold to the highestbidder, 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 fromthe sale of a nation’s heritage.” Peruvian Ambassador Eduardo Ferrero’s responsefurther demonstrates the diplomatic significance of the event:

This brief ceremony is another example of the true collaboration be-tween two governments mutually interested in absolute respect of thecultural identity of their peoples. . . . Without the collaboration of theUnited States government, the Department of State, and in particularImmigration Customs Enforcement represented here by Assistant Sec-retary Michael Garcia, our country would not be able by itself to recoverthese pieces that have an enormous historical value, even greater thaneconomic worth.8

ICE’s Office of International Affairs, Multilateral Operations and Programs Unithas handled the restitution of objects. Under the reconfigured section of ICE Home-land Security Investigations (HSI), the Cultural Property Art and Antiquities Pro-gram will take the future lead. This program is an integral part of ICE becausepursuing art and antiquities cases, according to the program’s web site, “pro-mote[s] goodwill with foreign governments and citizens.” Conversations with ICEofficials confirmed that these events facilitate future partnerships involving mat-ters of national security. Depending on the relative interest of the case, repatria-tions may occur at the respective embassy (or consulate) or another appropriatecultural 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 im-plemented through the Cultural Heritage Center, located in the Office of Policyand Evaluation in the Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs at the U.S. StateDepartment. According to the official web site, “The Cultural Heritage Center sup-ports the foreign affairs functions of the U.S. State Department related to the pro-tection and preservation of cultural heritage. It serves as a center of expertise onglobal cultural heritage protection issues.” Based on the programs listed, the cen-ter provides support for in-country programs that aim to strengthen the appreci-ation and preservation of as well as knowledge about places of heritage andassociated objects, especially in countries of strategic U.S. interest such as Iraq; in

178 CHRISTINA LUKE

addition, the Center’s activities focus on protection of sites and cultural institu-tions as well as efforts to reduce the illicit trade in antiquities. The center achievesthese goals through (among other programs) the Ambassadors Fund for CulturalPreservation, the Cultural Antiquities Task Force (CATF), and the Cultural Prop-erty Implementation Act (CPIA)—the U.S. implementing legislation for the 1970UNESCO Convention on Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Exportand Transfer of Cultural Property.9 Implementation of the 1970 UNESCO Con-vention 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 amemorandum of understanding (MoU) with the United States. If the request is suc-cessful (a lengthy process), Article I of the MoU will pertain to import restrictionson archaeological and/or ethnological materials in jeopardy from pillage. The U.S.Department of Homeland Security implements the import restrictions, publishedin the Federal Register Notice. Article II of the MoU will pertain to recommenda-tions for a variety of programs and policies aimed at fostering awareness and pro-tection of heritage in-country, including consultation with security sectors,nongovernmental organizations, and museums, especially for up-to-date invento-ries. In addition, museum-to-museum long-term loans have become a staple ofmemoranda, the underlying premise to encourage people-to-people programs.10 Atthis time the United States has memoranda under the CPIA with El Salvador, Gua-temala, Nicaragua, and Honduras in Central America; Peru, Bolivia, and Colombiain 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 Can-ada has expired. Agreements with Belize and Bulgaria are under consideration.

While the U.S. State Department has focused on implementing the 1970UNESCO Convention (i.e., the CPIA), other nations have galvanized their ef-forts to seek restitution of objects. Once an uphill legal battle with limited sup-port from Washington, foreign countries are flexing their political muscle in thecultural sphere. In September 2011 the upper half of the Weary Herakles joinedits lower half in the Republic of Turkey, having been separated years prior andultimately finding its way to the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston. This effort fol-lowed the German repatriation of sculpture from Hattusa, also to the Republicof Turkey. The current hardline policy for repatriation of material that Turkishofficials believe rightfully belongs in Turkey shows no signs of abating. Whilesome 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 cel-ebration of the 100th year of the founding of the Republic of Turkey (2023) aswell as Turkey’s growing power on the political stage. Cultural heritage has takenon an increasingly prominent role in a country’s soft power;11 it reflects a failureon the part of the U.S. government (and other governments) to appreciate andunderstand Turkey’s desire to be treated with respect and equality.

U.S. POLICY, CULTURAL HERITAGE, AND U.S. BORDERS 179

New negotiating models for the restitution of objects and long-term loans thatseek to foster collaboration are evidence that such thorny issues command stra-tegic, diplomatic attention on the global stage. In the case of Peru, the return ofthe Hingham Bingham collection (housed at Yale University) to Peru resulted in aformal international center set up to establish Yale–Peruvian collaboration.12 Fur-thermore, the museum community, represented by the Association of AmericanMuseum Directors at the public sessions of the respective initial and renewal re-quests of memoranda under the CPIA, continues to support long-term loans as aviable option for access to material, first established under the United States–ItalyMoU. As prominent U.S. institutions (e.g., the Getty, Metropolitan Museum ofArt, and Museum of Fine Arts in Boston) slowly, but surely, admit defeat in thesphere of ownership (and thus enter into collaborative relationships), so, too, isU.S. law enforcement showing increased vigilance. The State Department has hadto balance a dual policy focused on encouraging collaboration through culturalexchanges while simultaneously quelling the illicit trade in antiquities that crossesU.S. borders.

Ramping up security at U.S. borders as it pertains to illicit antiquities has be-come easier in the last decade owing to an increasingly robust file of U.S. case lawthat recognizes foreign national ownership laws.13 The crackdown has impactednot only cultural institutions, but also U.S. citizens. When found in violation offoreign heritage laws, citizens may be subject to investigation and prosecution.This process, however, can be very lengthy. Furthermore, the U.S. border has manyentry points, and unlike the clear-cut nature of U.S. guidelines and legal instru-ments with regard to the illicit traffic in people, narcotics or weapons (and a hostof other commodities), the regulations with regard to importing antiquities havevaried considerably over the years, despite the links between illicit cultural heri-tage networks and other criminal networks. Over the last decade U.S. Congressincreased funding to the State Department to support efforts aimed at bringingawareness to categories of objects likely to be looted from heritage landscapes: theImage Databases associated with the respective MoUs as well as the InternationalCouncil of Museum Red Lists (see below), the Ambassadors Fund (notably projectsthat assist in the creation of inventories of known collections, improvement ofmuseum facilities, and exhibition of objects), and the UNESCO heritage law data-base (creating a global portal for access to legal instruments). In addition, trainingprograms 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 OFHOMELAND SECURITY: CBP AND ICE14

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

180 CHRISTINA LUKE

CBP Headquarters in Washington, DC. CBP officers clear passengers and mer-chandise through the U.S. border (land, sea, and air) and collect duty (under theHarmonized Tariff System). When a CBP officer interdicts cultural heritage, a se-ries of contacts are made, all within a set supervisory hierarchy, including CBPcounsel and import specialists. CBP import specialists are trained in specific cat-egories of commodities/merchandise, including the relevant regulations and pol-icies.15 Import specialists who handle antiquities tend to be trained in fine art andantiques. In addition, CBP Fines, Penalties and Forfeiture works closely with (de-pending on the port) experts, often appraisers, to assess penalties against import-ers who violate U.S. law. When working on a case, an import specialist (and his orher respective team) may work closely with CBP counsel, the assistant United Statesattorney (AUSA) assigned to the case, and other experts (e.g., collectors, dealers,archaeologists, conservators, and art historians). Ideally, the interagency network-ing also involves ICE attaché offices, INTERPOL, and the U.S. State Department(U.S. embassies and other sections).16 The ICE Cultural Property Art and Antiq-uities Program takes the lead on these cases. ICE special agents-in-charge are trainedin cultural property issues (see below).17

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

Customs brokers, too, are part of this network. They function independentlyfrom CBP and ICE (i.e., outside of the U.S. government), work on behalf of animporter, and in general, understand the system for moving goods through bor-ders. During the period between shipment and delivery of antiquities, the linebetween who is responsible for the shipment “in bond” and proper title is easilyblurred.19 In addition, as Kersel points out, the differences and ambiguities of pol-icies and regulations makes it possible that in the process of transshipment of an-tiquities may move among licit and illicit spheres.20

Accounts from dealers and collectors gathered by Kersel, Mackenzie, Watsonand Todeschini, and Felch and Frammolino,21 among others, illustrate that peopleinvolved in the trade in antiquities are often very much aware of the reprehensibleactivities that they or others may be associated with as well as loopholes for evad-ing regulations, including affidavits under section 2606(c) of the CPIA: definitionof satisfactory evidence.22 The complexities of the CPIA, especially the affidavitand the various categories of objects and the different dates of enforcement for

U.S. POLICY, CULTURAL HERITAGE, AND U.S. BORDERS 181

each respective country, according to ICE and CBP, make it cumbersome legisla-tion for purposes of pursuing a formal investigation. Smuggling statutes providemore direct and familiar approaches to tackling an investigation into the illicittrade and thus are considered to be more “agent friendly.” If an importer fails todeclare material properly, fails to provide a full inventory of merchandise, lists afalse country of origin; inflates or devalues the market value of the object(s), orknowingly imports illicit merchandise, he or she has violated a number of boilerplate smuggling statutes and he or she may be in violation of the National StolenProperty Act—all regardless of whether a country has a MoU with the UnitedStates under the CPIA.23

CULTURAL ANTIQUITIES TASK FORCE, CULTURAL HERITAGECENTER, U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT

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

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

to conduct training for embassy staff to be sensitive to local and re-gional antiquities and forms of cultural expression, to survey press andpolice reports pertaining to the preservation or theft of antiquities orforms of cultural expression, and to provide effective reporting to chiefsof mission and bureau heads on the preservation of the antiquities andcultures of host nations. The Task Force should coordinate closely withthe Department’s Art Theft Program and the President’s Cultural Prop-erty 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 en-forcement agencies to thwart further harm to cultural heritage within the modernboundary of Iraq; to create a database of people known to participate in the tradeof “any foreign country’s historically or culturally significant works, including per-sons who knowingly sell or auction such works”; to assist in the creation of adatabase of items stolen from Iraq; and “to help ensure U.S. cooperation on in-ternational efforts to account for and recover such works.”24

In the House Report (108-792), the aim and funding of the CATF shifted. Theamount doubled from $500,000 to $1,000,000. What is more, the language spe-

182 CHRISTINA LUKE

cific to research into plunder and policies, the training of U.S. Embassy staff, anda direct linkage to the Presidential Cultural Property Committee were cut. Theredefined mandate of the CATF was “to coordinate with all relevant Federal lawenforcement and cultural agencies to prevent further looting and promote pres-ervation of Iraq’s historically and culturally significant works” and to create a data-base of persons involved in the trade and make the appropriate changes to theU.S. visa policies.25 In 2007 the CATF was again funded at $1,000,000, and theaim was to continue “efforts initiated in 2004 to support local governments, mu-seums, preservationists, and law enforcement to protect, recover, and restore cul-tural antiquities and sites worldwide, particularly in Iraq and Afghanistan.”26 In2010 the line item read:

Cultural Heritage—The Committee recommends $7,500,000 to pre-serve cultural heritage, of which $6,000,000 is for the Ambassador’s Fundfor Cultural Preservation and $1,000,000 is for the Cultural AntiquitiesTask 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 tothe obligation of funds.27

The 2011 and 2012 budgets also allotted $1,000,000 for initiatives and pro-grams of the CATF as well as additional support for the Ambassadors Fund. The2012 budget, however, provided new language justifying the expenditure: “TheCommittee recognizes the important public diplomacy role of this program, aswell as its contribution in preserving some of the world’s irreplaceable culturalantiquities.”28 Over time, these two initiatives have come to represent the bookendsof the State Department’s international cultural policy: a very public, open facethrough the Ambassadors Fund and a clear emphasis on security through the CATF.Yet, as discussed above, for the CATF to meet its goals, interagency partnershipsare required. To this end, we see parallel efforts by Department of Homeland Se-curity: “Investigate Cultural Antiquity Trafficking and Coordinate Repatriation: TheFY 2012 Budget continues to support ICE seizures and repatriation of culturalproperty, art and antiquities illegally imported into the United States and the in-vestigation of illegal trafficking of artwork, especially works that have been re-ported lost or stolen.”

Special Projects

Much of the programming funded by the CATF is listed by the State Department’sCultural Heritage Center under Special Projects. The ICOM (International Coun-cil of Museums) Red List and the UNESCO heritage law database are two keyinitiatives (see below) that have tangible deliverables (e.g., brochures and web sites)that can be distributed to and used by agencies, institutions, communities, andindividuals. CATF training programs focused on security methods have been con-ducted in Mexico, Honduras, Columbia, and Cambodia: The last three countries

U.S. POLICY, CULTURAL HERITAGE, AND U.S. BORDERS 183

have bilateral agreements under the CPIA, and the program in Mexico includedmembers from Central America, where several countries have bilateral agree-ments under the CPIA.29 We can look to Article II of the respective bilateral agree-ments to find language that sets the stage for the training programs. Under the2008 Cambodia agreement, it is Article II (C) that supports such training: “TheGovernment of the United States of America shall use its best efforts to facilitatetechnical assistance in cultural resource management and security to the Govern-ment of the Kingdom of Cambodia, as appropriate under existing programs inthe public and/or private sectors.” Similar calls for security training are found underthe 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)).30 In addition, there is an interagency agreement between the U.S. State De-partment and the U.S. National Park Service to provide training for archaeologi-cal site management in Afghanistan and other links with various institutions todo the same in Iraq. Yet, the largest and most steadfast program of the CATF todate focuses on training U.S. ICE Agents (2005 to present), with a coordinatedprogram for Customs and Border Patrol (2005–2010).

Training CBP and ICE: University of Pennsylvania CulturalHeritage Center Program

In 2005 the Cultural Heritage Center at the University of Pennsylvania Museum ofArchaeology and Anthropology launched a program to train CBP officers at portsof entry.31 Major funding for the program came through the CATF. After pilot pro-grams in New York (JFK) and Newark airports, it became clear that while CBP of-ficers could search for material at the border, a full investigation (detention as wellas seizure) could not move forward without the cooperation of ICE and AUSAs. Be-cause training of CBP necessitated cooperation with ICE and AUSAs, Penn, in closeconsultation with the U.S. Departments of State and Homeland Security, devel-oped 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 timeseach year. The ICE component was designed around the need to introduce ICEspecial agents conducting investigations of cultural heritage (archaeological andethnographic materials) and relevant case law. Program facilitators and speakersincluded members of the University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology andAnthropology and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. The goal from thestart was to have AUSAs from the respective regions attend the training sessions inorder to facilitate opportunities for focused dialogue and professional network-ing, especially for law enforcement and AUSAs to engage with experts in the fieldof cultural heritage.

184 CHRISTINA LUKE

The training focused on the respective bilateral agreements of the CPIA, theRed Lists, the UNESCO database and national and international legal instru-ments, as well as overarching protocols and policies regarding the management ofcultural heritage in the international sphere. Over the course of two days, ICEagents heard lectures; toured the collections and exhibitions; received instructionin object and photographic handling; and engaged with experts in the fields oflaw, security, museums, and field archaeology. A practicum was added as a way topull together the various components: Teams worked through hypothetical casesin order to understand how the various aspects fit together.

A CBP program complemented the ICE component. Under the CBP programtraining programs were conducted at U.S. ports of entry. During morning and/orafternoon sessions, various members of CBP, ICE, and other constituencies (suchas the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), AUSAs as well as local experts orinstitutions focused on cultural heritage) participated in presentations and dis-cussions. Because the sessions were conducted at ports of entry, the audience tendedto be much larger than the Penn–ICE sessions (e.g., the logistics and time com-mitment of attending were minimal). In most ports between 30 and 80 memberswere trained, compared with 12 to 18 ICE/AUSAs in a Penn–ICE session.

In order to broaden the international focus, Penn requested to include mem-bers of the foreign service, especially Cultural Affairs Officers and ICE attachés;yet both Departments (State and Homeland Security) felt that the focus on ICEand CBP was sufficient. Broadening the trainee scope would have fulfilled the orig-inal mandate of the CATF, which recommended that U.S. embassy staff membersto be trained in matters of “cultural expression” and “on the preservation of theantiquities and cultures of host nations.” In a period when the Department ofDefense focused (and continues to focus) on cultural awareness programming,32

area-specific training in cultural property issues have been(and certainly still couldbe) of benefit to U.S. embassies in order to ensure a consistent understanding ofU.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 compo-nent of public and cultural diplomacy would have been expanded and the net-works that would have been put into place could now be part of a global strategythat includes Red Lists and the UNESCO heritage law database.

ICOM Red Lists

The CATF/Special Projects supported a number of other programs during thisperiod that directly impacted the implementation of the Penn Cultural HeritageCenter program; and in turn, the Penn Cultural Heritage Center program pro-vided additional guidance for the CATF programs/projects to work toward im-plementing a global initiative. The ICOM Red Lists served as key documents

U.S. POLICY, CULTURAL HERITAGE, AND U.S. BORDERS 185

distributed to participants. The intent of the Red Lists is “to assist museums, col-lectors, dealers in art and antiquities, and customs and other law enforcement of-ficials in recognizing objects that may have been looted and illicitly exported.”33

Recent Red Lists all correspond to countries that have bilateral agreements underthe U.S. CPIA (e.g., Cambodia, Peru, and China) and/or countries of strategicU.S. interest (e.g., Afghanistan, Egypt, and Iraq). A very useful aspect of the RedLists (and the ICOM web site) is the list of contacts, policies, and legal instru-ments of the respective country or region (located on the back flap of each RedList).

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 Her-itage Center online image databases, they do provide additional linkages withICOM. The interagency framework creates opportunities for dialogue between cul-tural experts and the security sectors, connections that may prove to be advanta-geous in other security-related situations.

Red List brochures and web site links also form a critical component in othertraining programs, such as the November 2009 European Commission EuromedHeritage 4 UNESCO workshop, Preventing and Fighting Illicit Traffic in CulturalProperty, focused on “strengthening the institutional and legal framework.” Ac-cording to the conference papers, discussion was to focus on how and if Red Listswere distributed as well as on their importance for cross-border cooperation toraise public awareness and work with the World Customs Organization and coun-tries 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 theUNESCO heritage law database. The hard power aspect of heritage security in-volves checking and securing U.S. borders with legal muscle. This process movesforward with greater efficiency if the respective legal instruments can be locatedrelatively quickly. The UNESCO heritage law database is especially important forinvestigating the application of the U.S. National Stolen Property Act, particularlyto check if the respective national heritage law has a clear ownership (rather thanor in addition to an export) clause. During the first ICE–Penn sessions, this re-source was in preparation and the CATF sought feedback from Penn programparticipants. By the close of the ICE/CBP Penn program, brochures about theUNESCO resource, also funded in part by the CATF, were distributed at trainingsessions.

In addition to Penn programs, the database has been a key focus for other train-ing programs, such as “Capacity Building” workshops by UNESCO: 2009 pro-grams in Beirut (Lebanon), Italy (Vicenza), and several in African countries; and2010 training workshops in Mongolia, Bahrain, the Gulf States, Yemen, and Rome

186 CHRISTINA LUKE

(for Latin American countries).34 The UNESCO heritage law database is not onlya strategic tool in training programs but also provides a primary research tool fornational and international scholars and practitioners focused on heritage law. Inthese ways, the database actively shapes the official, global discourse and pedagogyfor cultural heritage law as well as aiding in security efforts aimed at stopping theillicit trade of national patrimony.

DISCUSSION

The Penn Cultural Heritage Center program represented a collaborative programbetween the U.S. Departments of Homeland Security and State, a necessary ap-proach because of the organizational structure of the U.S. border: The U.S. De-partment of Homeland Security is responsible for implementation of U.S. law andpolicy at the U.S. borders; and the trade in antiquities constitutes a complex mo-saic of actors and legal frameworks to follow, including import restrictions underthe various MoUs and smuggling statutes. Yet, far from being necessary because ofthe organizational structure alone, the Penn program also supported the multi-dimensional image of the new diplomacy and soft power agendas of the Obamaadministration.

Putting into place policies that focus on a unified U.S. response to the inter-national trade in cultural objects sends an unambiguous message to those en-gaged in shady networks that the United States will not offer a safe haven for anillicit market for archaeological and ethnographic materials. To this end, Penn drewfrom ongoing initiatives of the State Department as well as the Penn community(curators and researchers in the museum as well as Art History, Archaeology, andAnthropology faculty, among others) of experts to develop a program that servedthis goal. The issues faced immediately at the outset forced the CATF’s adminis-trators to concede with Penn that a onetime training program would not be suf-ficient to meet the congressional mandate, as evidenced by the pilot programs inNewark and JFK. Penn negotiated with the Department of Homeland Security todesign a viable program that would link CBP and ICE. As the frontline, CBP re-quired targeted, focused training that dovetailed with border-specific behavior. Tomost effectively meet this need, Penn conducted the training sessions at the bor-der. In contrast, ICE required a program that not only facilitated professional con-nections 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 andICE required discussion of U.S. cultural policy in the context of international re-lations. That is, a firm national policy of tightening the porous nature of U.S. bor-ders and the movement of antiquities requires U.S. law enforcement to considerthe importance of plundered and stolen cultural heritage to specific nation statesas not merely illicit commodities, but property of another sovereign. For the pur-

U.S. POLICY, CULTURAL HERITAGE, AND U.S. BORDERS 187

pose of maintaining open dialogue through this softer cultural arena, U.S. heri-tage practitioners working abroad as well as in U.S. cultural institutions that engagewith foreign cultural institutions (i.e., museums and ministries of culture) are con-fronted with much greater tenacity and resistance to collaborative initiatives if po-rous U.S. borders facilitate unfettered trade in illicit materials from within theirnational borders. In this way, those involved in cultural activities that include thingsand places linked to and/or based in foreign countries are obliged to exercise greatdiplomacy in negotiating access to and/or restitution of cultural heritage or faceunhindered statements of national sovereignty that become mired in honor withno concessions possible. Failed negotiations will result in the cessation of dialogueand cultural connections.

Cultural heritage represents not only things and places, but also the turn-key toefficient and productive cultural diplomacy that builds long-term relationshipsthrough archaeological programs, restoration projects, and museum exhibitions.U.S. cultural diplomacy initiatives that recognize the value of cultural heritage ona global scale thereby establish working dialogues for current and future collabo-ration and interagency consultation with countries (and their respective entities)responsible for managing cultural assets. With cultural diplomacy an increasinglystrategic component for solidifying international relations—for the United Statesand other countries—a multidimensional approach to the protection, preserva-tion, 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 moti-vated by proactive strategies that see cultural heritage as a strategic element in thediplomatic toolkit. A consistent U.S. policy enforced at U.S. borders that aims tomitigate against future risk to U.S. foreign relations and security thus includesprotocols for illicit cultural heritage and U.S. border control.

ENDNOTES

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 InternationalMarket”; Mackenzie, “The Market as Criminal,” Pearlstein, “Claims for the Repatriation”; Stone andFarchakh Bajjaly, Destruction of Cultural Heritage. A general discussion of the United States 1991 Cus-toms Directive can be found in the draft paper posted by Urice with Adler,“Unveiling Executive Branch’sExtralegal.” Note that the 1991 directive is drastically outdated, particularly in light of the formationof the Department of Homeland Security (the Directive focuses on the duties of legacy U.S. Cus-toms). There are numerous cultural diplomacy programs and pots of money. Examples include the StateDepartment supported programs including the U.S. Speaker Program in the Office of Citizen Ex-changes, the Fulbright Program, Council for American Overseas Research Centers, and the U.S. Am-bassadors Fund for Cultural Preservation. In addition, the National Endowment for the Humanities,the National Science Foundation, the U.S. Agency for International Development, and collaborativelinkages with UNESCO World Heritage sites support the cultural heritage enterprise. For a prelimi-nary discussion of a few of these programs as they relate specifically to archaeology, see Luke,“The Sci-ence 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; “SoftPower and American Foreign Policy”; and “Public Diplomacy and Soft Power.” For discussion of

188 CHRISTINA LUKE

cultural (and public) diplomacy, see Arndt, First Resort of Kings; Hope, “Public Diplomacy and LocalStaff”; Kovach, “Out from Under the Proscenium”; McClory, The New Persuaders; Mulcahy, “Cul-tural Policy”; Schneider and Nelson, Mightier than the Sword. U.S. State Department, Cultural Di-plomacy. The case for long-term cultural diplomacy is not new. For post-WWII implementation, seeFrankel, Neglected Aspect of Foreign Affairs; Frankel, “Multipurpose Diplomacy.” Studies that addresshow arts and humanities contribute to civil society include Calhoun, Nations Matter; Van Gorp, “AEuropean Cultural Identity?”; Randel, “The Public Good.” For a discussion of these concepts as theyrelate broadly to U.S. policies and archaeology, see Luke and Kersel, U.S. Cultural Diplomacy; Kerseland Luke, “Archaeology of Trauma”; Brand, “Development in Wadi Rum?”; Scham, “Diplomacy andDesired Pasts.” For a discussion of economic development and formal UNESCO policies, see the2011 UNESCO Audit report.

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

4. The literature here is vast. Representative studies include Bernhardsson, Reclaiming a PlunderedPast; Brading, Origins of Mexican Nationalism; Díaz-Andreu and Champion, Nationalism and Ar-chaeology; 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; seeCenter for the Study of Democracy, Organized Crime in Bulgaria; Hardy, “Interrogating Archaeo-logical Ethics”; Bligh, “Countering Illicit Traffic”; Bowman, “Transnational Crimes.” Bligh arguesthat 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 ofEurope to integrate South East Europe under the “European” umbrella. Two such programs are theEuropean Commission–Council of Europe Joint Programme, Integrated Rehabilitation Project. Fordiscussion 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, WashingtonRules; Christie, United States Foreign Policy. The issue of border security has been regular nationalnews 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, “Antiq-uities Smuggling”; U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, “ICE Returns Ancient Artifacts.”

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

The object(s) likely to have been plundered from undocumented locations are covered underArticle 9 of the 1970 UNESCO Convention. For the CPIA to applicable at the U.S. border, the UnitedStates and the respective country must have a formal bilateral agreement (a memorandum of un-derstanding, or MoU); the date upon which the agreement went into force is the relevant date ofenforcement (19 USC § 2606). Agreements last for a period five years and may be renewed (indef-initely); emergency agreements are good for five years and may only be extended for an additionalthree years. In all cases, there are corresponding lists of designated categories of materials that are

U.S. POLICY, CULTURAL HERITAGE, AND U.S. BORDERS 189

covered. The complexities associated with the CPIA, according to many trainees, make it a cumber-some 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 andKersel, 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 Jus-tice and Development Party, Republic of Turkey, Sphinx of Hattusa Back in Turkey. For April 2012news regarding the future of cultural collaborations, see Anatolian News Agency, “Symposium Dis-cusses Museums and Archaeology.” Hurriyet Daily News, 16 April 2012. For discussion of soft powerand 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) (onlysection 2314); Statute of Limitations and Turkish Ownership Law: Republic of Turkey v. MetropolitanMuseum 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 Cer-emonial Vase, 96 Civ. 9437 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 12, 1996). There are also a number of cases under varioussmuggling 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. CustomsService, now commonly referred to as “Legacy Customs.”

15. For discussion of antiquities as commodities, see Bligh 2009. CBP has a national import spe-cialist located in New York City who sets U.S. guidelines regarding a variety of commodities andoversees all import specialists.

16. The cases in Los Angeles and Chicago involving material from Thailand illustrate the involve-ment of ICE when material is in the United States (legally or illegally). For review of the case (yetnot necessarily the involvement of ICE), see Vitale, “War on Antiquities.”

17. The cases in Los Angeles and Chicago involving material from Thailand illustrate the involve-ment of ICE when material is in the United States (legally or illegally). For review of the case (yetnot 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 frequenttopic over the years on covers and pages of magazines: Time, Newsweek, The Economist, The NewYorker, 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 PublicRadio (NPR), such as Atwood, Stealing History; Waxman, Loot; Bogdanos, Thieves of Baghdad; andthe abundance of literature in the scholarly realm, notably in the International Journal of CulturalProperty; Art, Antiquities and Law; and the Archaeological Heritage and Ethics (formerly the Antiq-uities Market) column of the Journal of Field Archaeology.

19. For a discussion of bond shipments, see Grainger, “Customs and Trade Facilitation.” Graingerdoes 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 lessthan ten years before the date of entry into the United States, and (ii) neither such importer orperson (or any related person) contracted for or acquired an interest, directly or indirectly, in suchmaterial more than one year before the date of entry of the material.” In addition, there must be “astatement provided by the consignor, or person who sold the material to the importer, which states

190 CHRISTINA LUKE

the date, or, if not known, his belief, that the material was exported from the State Party not lessthan ten years before the date of entry into the United States, and the reasons on which the state-ment is based.” The importer has 90 days (or longer, if approval is given) to produce the documen-tation 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 onevidence of intent to conspire) can be pursued under smuggling statues (in addition to the criminalNational Stolen Property Act). See Forfeiture under 19 USC § 1497; 19 USC §1595a(c)—Importationcontrary to Law; 19 USC §1595a(d)—Export contrary to Law; 18 USC § 545—Smuggling Statuteprovides for forfeiture; 18 USC § 981—Civil Forfeiture; 18 USC § 982—Criminal Forfeiture. SeeCriminal 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 UnitedStates; 18 U.S.C. § 554—Smuggling Goods From the United States; 18 U.S.C. § 1001—False State-ments; 2006 Patriot Act.

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

25. House Report 108-792—Making appropriations for foreign operations, expert financing, andrelated 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 appro-priations bill, 2007.

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

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

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

30. For links to the current (and past) memoranda of understanding, see International CulturalProperty 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 Penn-sylvania 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.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Arndt, Richard T. The First Resort of Kings: American Cultural Diplomacy in the Twentieth Century.Washington, DC: Potomac Books, 2005.

Atwood, Roger. Stealing History: Tomb Raiders, Smugglers, and the Looting of the Ancient World. NewYork: St. Martin’s Press, 2004.

Bacevich, Andrew. Washington Rules: America’s Path to Permanent War. New York: Metropolitan Books,2010.

Bernhardsson, Magnus T. Reclaiming a Plundered Past: Archaeology and Nation Building in ModernIraq. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press, 2005.

U.S. POLICY, CULTURAL HERITAGE, AND U.S. BORDERS 191

Bligh, Alexander. “Countering Illicit Traffic of Cultural Heritage in the Mediterranean Region.” In-ternational Journal of Intelligence and CounterIntelligence 23 (2009): 148–165.

Bogdanos, Mat. Thieves of Baghdad: One Marine’s Passion to Recover the World’s Greatest Stolen Trea-sures. New York: Bloomsbury, 2005.

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.

Brading, D. A. The Origins of Mexican Nationalism. Cambridge: Centre of Latin-American Studies,1985.

Brand, Laurie. “Development in Wadi Rum? State Bureaucracy, External Funders, and Civil Society.”International Journal of Middle East Studies 33 (2001): 571–590.

Brodie, Neil J., Morag M. Kersel, Christina Luke, and Kathryn Walker Tubb. Archaeology, CulturalHeritage and the Antiquities Trade. Gainesville: University Press of Florida, 2006.

Brown, Kristen, and Bettina Bergo. The Trauma Controversy. Albany, NY: SUNY Press, 2009.

Calhoun, Craig. Nations Matter: Culture, History and the Cosmopolitan Dream. New York: Routledge,2007.

Center for the Study of Democracy. Organized Crime in Bulgaria: Markets and Trends. Sofia: Centerfor the Study of Democracy, London and New York, 2007.

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.

Council of Europe. Framework Convention on the Value of Cultural Heritage for Society. Strasbourg:Council of Europe, 2005.

Cuno, James. Who Owns Antiquity? Museums and the Battle over Our Ancient Heritage. Princeton,NJ: University of Princeton Press, 2008.

De Jong, Ferdinand, and Michael Rowlands. “Introduction: Post-Conflict Heritage.” Journal of Ma-terial Culture 13 (2008): 131–34.

Díaz-Andreu, M. “Internationalism in the Invisible College: Political Ideologies and Friendships inArchaeology.” Journal of Social Archaeology 7 (2007): 29–48.

———. A World History of Nineteenth-Century Archaeology. Nationalism, Colonialism and the Past.Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007.

Díaz-Andreu, M., and T. Champion. Nationalism and Archaeology in Europe. London: Westview Press,1996.

European Commission—Council of Europe Joint Programme. Integrated Rehabilitation Project Plan/Survey of the Architectural and Archaeological Heritage (IRPP/SAAH). Serbia and Montenegro (Ser-bia), March 2004.

Felch, Jason and Ralph Frammolino. Chasing Aphrodite: The Hunt for Looted Antiquities at the World’sRichest Museum. New York: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2011.

Final Report of the Audit of the Global Strategy and the PACT initiative. 2011. Independent Evaluationby the UNESCO external auditor. Volume 1: Implementation of the Global Strategy for the Credible,

192 CHRISTINA LUKE

Balanced, and Representative World Heritage List. Office of the External Auditor for the United Na-tions Scientific, Educational and Cultural Organization.

Foro, Phillippe, and Sarah Rey. “Archaeology Without Identity? Antiquity and French ArchaeologicalResearch Around the Mediterranean (1850–1945).” Fragmenta 2, no. 2 (2008): 95–107.

Frankel, Charles. The Neglected Aspect of Foreign Affairs. American Educational and Cultural PolicyAbroad. Washington DC: The Brookings Institution, 1965.

———. “Multipurpose Diplomacy: Culture, Information and Foreign Policy.” Public AdministrationReview 29 (1969): 593–600.

Gerstenblith, Patty. “Controlling the International Market in Antiquities: Reducing the Harm, Pre-serving the Past.” Chicago Journal of International Law 8 (2007): 169–95.

———. “Schultz and Barakat: Universal Recognition of National Ownership of Antiquities.” Art An-tiquity & Law 14 (2009): 21–48.

Goode, James. Negotiating for the Past: Archaeology, Nationalism, and Diplomacy in the Middle East,1919–1941. Austin: University of Texas Press, 2007.

Grainger, A. “Customs and Trade Facilitation: From Concepts to Implementation.” World CustomsJournal 2 (2008): 17–30.

Hardy, Samuel Andrew. Interrogating Archaeological Ethics in Conflict Zones: Cultural Heritage Workin Cyprus. Ph.D. dissertation. University of Sussex, 2010.

Harmersveld, Ineke Van. Cultural Policies in Algeria, Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Morocco, Palestine, Syriaand Tunisia. An Introduction. Amsterdam: BOEKMANSTUDIES, 2010.

Hope, Stacy. “Public Diplomacy and Local Staff: The Cornerstone of Long-Term Relationship Build-ing.” Public Diplomacy Magazine (Winter 2009): 53–59.

Jalelian, Lincoln. “Theft of Art, Antiquities, Cultural Property and the ‘Deliberate Ignorance’ De-fense.” Criminal Law Bulletin 48 (2012):1–13.

Jones, Reece. “Border Security, 9/11 and the Enclosure of Civilization.” The Geographic Journal 177(2011): 213–17.

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.

Kalin, Ibrahim. “Soft Power and Public Diplomacy in Turkey.” Perceptions XVI, no. 3 (2011): 5–23.

Kersel, Morag M. License to Sell: The Trade of Antiquities in Israel. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation,University of Cambridge, 2006.

———. “Transcending Borders: Objects on the Move.” Archaeologies. Journal of the World Archaeo-logical Congress 3 (2007): 81–98.

———. “A Focus on the Demand Side of the Antiquities Equation.” Near Eastern Archaeology 71(2008): 230–33.

Kersel, Morag, and Christina Luke, “The Archaeology of Trauma.” Introduction to “Communitiesand 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 Col-umn, Journal of Field Archaeology 37(2), in press.

U.S. POLICY, CULTURAL HERITAGE, AND U.S. BORDERS 193

Kovach, Peter. “Out from Under the Proscenium: A Paradigm for U.S. Cultural Diplomacy.” PublicDiplomacy Magazine (winter 2010): 70–74.

Kurin, Richard. Reflections of a Culture Broker: A View from the Smithsonian. Washington, DC: Smith-sonian Institution Press, 1997.

Luke, Christina. “The Science Behind U.S. Smart Power in Honduras: Archaeological Heritage Di-plomacy.” Diplomacy & Statecraft 23 (2012): 110–39.

Luke, Christina, and Morag Kersel. U.S. Cultural Diplomacy: Soft Power, Hard Heritage. New York:Routlege, forthcoming.

Lush, Tamara. “Antiquities Smuggling: Growing problem at US ports.” The Associated Press, 14 Sep-tember 2008.

Mackenzie, Simon. Going, Going, Gone: Regulating the Market in Illicit Antiquities. Leicester, UK:Institute of Art and Law, 2005.

———. “The Market as Criminal and Criminals in the Market: Reducing Opportunities for Orga-nised Crime in the International Antiquities Market.” In Crime in the Art and Antiquities World:Illegal Trafficking in Cultural Property, Part 1, edited by Stefano Manacorda and Duncan Chappell,69–85. New York: Springer, 2011.

Magness-Gardiner, Bonnie. “Long-Term Archaeological Loans from Italy: Summary of RoundtableDiscussions.” American Journal of Archaeology 107 (2003): 477–81.

McClory, Jonathan. The New Persuaders: An International Ranking of Soft Power. London: Institutefor Government, 2010.

Meskell, Lynn. “The Rush to Inscribe: Reflections on the 35th Session of the World Heritage Com-mittee, UNESCO Paris, 2011.” Archaeological Heritage and Ethics Column, Journal of Field Archae-ology 37, no. 2 (2012): 145–151.

Mulcahy, Kevin. “Cultural Policy: Definitions and Theoretical Approaches.” The Journal of Arts Man-agement, Law and Society 35 (2006): 319–30.

Museum of Fine Arts, Boston. Weary Herakles �http://www.mfa.org/collections/provenance/weary-herakles� accessed 20 March 2012.

Nemeth, Erik. “Art-Intelligence Programs: The Relevance of the Clandestine Art World to ForeignIntelligence.” International Journal of Intelligence and CounterIntelligence 21 (2008): 355–74.

———. “Collecting Cultural Intelligence: The Tactical Value of Cultural Property.” International Jour-nal of Intelligence and CounterIntelligence 24 (2011): 217–38.

Nielsen, Bjarke. “UNESCO and the ‘Right’ Kind of Culture: Bureaucratic Production and Articula-tion.” Critique of Anthropology 31 (2011): 273–92.

Nye, Joseph S., Jr. “Soft Power and American Foreign Policy.” Political Science Quarterly 119 (2004):255–70.

———. “Public Diplomacy and Soft Power.” The Annals of the American Academy of Political andSocial Science 616 (2008): 94–109.

———. The Future of Power. New York: Public Affairs, 2011.

Obama, Barack. National Security Strategy of the United States. Washington, DC: Daine, 2010.

194 CHRISTINA LUKE

Pearlstein, William. “Claims for the Repatriation of Cultural Property: Prospects for a Managed An-tiquities Market.” Law and Policy in International Business 28 (1996): 123–50.

Proulx, Blythe. “Organized Criminal Involvement in the Illicit Antiquities Trade.” Trends in Orga-nized Crime 14 (2011): 1–29.

Randel, Don M. “The Public Good: Knowledge as the Foundation for a Democratic Society.” Dædalus(Winter 2009): 8–12.

Red List. “Cambodian Antiquities at Risk.” International Council of Museums �http://archives.icom.museum/redlist/cambodia/en/index.htm�.

Reid, Malcolm. Whose Pharaohs?: Archaeology, Museums, and Egyptian Identity from Napoleon to WorldWar I. Los Angeles: University of California Press, 2003.

Rush, Laurie. Archaeology, Cultural Heritage and the Military. Woodbridge, UK: Boydell Press, 2010.

Ryan, Jason, and Sari Silvanto. “The World Heritage List: The Making and Management of a Brand.”Place Branding and Public Diplomacy 5 (2009): 290–301.

Scham, Sandra. “Disinheriting Heritage: Explorations in the Contentious History of Archaeology inthe Middle East.” In Archaeology and the Postcolonial Critique, edited by M. Liebmann and U. Z.Rizvi, 165–76. Walnut Creek, CA: Altamira Press, 2008.

———. “Diplomacy and Desired Pasts.” Journal of Social Archaeology 9 (2009): 163–99.

Schneider, Cynthia, and Kristina Nelson. Mightier than the Sword: Arts and Culture in the U.S. Mus-lim World Relationship. Washington, DC: The Saban Center for Middle East Policy at the BrookingsInstitution, 2009.

Serhan, Ada, and H. Ayça Ince. Introduction to Cultural Policy in Turkey. Istanbul: Istanbul Bilgi Uni-versity Press, 2009.

Smith, Laurajane. Uses of Heritage. New York: Routledge, 2006.

Stein, Arlene. “Trauma and Origins: Post-Holocaust Genealogists and the Work of Memory.” Qual-itative Sociology 32 (2009): 293–309.

Stone, Peter, and Joanne Farchakh Bajjaly. The Destruction of Cultural Heritage in Iraq. Woodbridge,UK: Boydell Press, 2008.

Tumarkin, M. Traumascapes. Melbourne: Melbourne University Press, 2005.

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.

UNESCO. Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Trans-fer of Ownership of Cultural Property. Paris: UNESCO, 1970.

———. Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage. Paris:UNESCO, 1972.

———. 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.

U.S. POLICY, CULTURAL HERITAGE, AND U.S. BORDERS 195

UNSAAC–Yale University. Memorandum of Understanding Regarding the UNSAAC–Yale UniversityInternational Center for the Study of Machu Picchu and Inca Culture, 2011 �http://opac.yale.edu/peru/english/�.

Urice, Stephen K., with Andrew L. Adler. “Unveiling the Executive Branch’s Extralegal Cultural Prop-erty Policy.” In MiamiLaw Research Paper Series, 2010 �http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstractid�1658519&download�yes�.

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. “ICE Returns Ancient Artifacts to Peruvian Govern-ment Valued at More than $1 Million, Nearly All Are Precolumbian.” News Release, 30 April 2004�http://eca.state.gov/icpp/peru-ice04.html�.

———. “ICE and CBP Return Illegally Exported Cultural Artifacts to Guatemala.” News Release, 24February 2012 �http://www.ice.gov/news/releases/1202/120224washingtondc.htm�.

U.S. State Department. Cultural Diplomacy: The Linchpin of Public Diplomacy. Washington, DC: Ad-visory Committee on Cultural Diplomacy Report, 2005.

Van Gorp, Bouke, and Hans Renes. “A European Cultural Identity? Heritage and Shared Histories inthe European Union,” Tijdschrift voor economische en sociale geografie 98(2006): 407–415.

Vitale, Katherine D. “The War on Antiquities: United States Law and Foreign Cultural Property.”Notre Dame Law Review 84 (2008): 101–40.

Watson, Peter, and Cecilia Todeschini. 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.

Waxman, Sharon. Loot: The Battle over the Stolen Treasures of the Ancient World. New York: TimesBooks, 2008.

196 CHRISTINA LUKE