Fig.2.

Search
results show a
list of catalog
records found
with brief
descriptions and
image thumbnails.
Fig. 3. User
clicks on object
title to view a
higher resolution
image and additional catalog
record details.

action in the hands of Colonel Jefferson Daviss

First Mississippi Volunteer Infantry Regiment
during the Mexican War.
How can a museum protect sensitive or
unedited catalog details from being displayed
to the public?

The institution displays only a selected subset of the data. The institution can determine
which fields are shown and which records are displayed. The staff can edit records with public
viewing in mind and make those edited records
available. The public then sees only the appropriate
portions of the selected records on the web site.
Summary

As Internet facilities improve in speed and

become available to more and more people

around the world, this new forum will become

increasingly important as a way to interpret collections and educate the public. For today, images
and text are still the only practical visual media
for most Internet users. However, in the near
future, sound and video presentations will
become more common. As museums automate
collections and describe them in images and text,
they must always keep in mind their public audience. It is likely that what they write today will
be read by the world tomorrow!
________________________
David L. Edwards is President of Re:discovery Software,
Inc., Charlottesville, Virginia.
Lynn F. Black is a computer specialist with the Museum
Management Program, National Park Service,
Washington, DC.

Maria Papageorge Kouroupas

The International Pillage

of Cultural Property

his year marks the 30th anniversary of UNESCOs Convention

on the Means of Prohibiting the
Illicit Import, Export and
Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property.
Adopted in 1970, this treaty forms the largest
and longest standing framework for international
cooperation in the ongoing effort to reduce the
incentive for further pillage of archeological sites
and of ethnological objects important to the traditional practices of indigenous and cultural
groups around the world. So far, 91 countries
68

have become party to the Convention, including

the United States. Countries differ in their implementation of the Convention, the United States
having perhaps the most unique approach as set
forth in the 1983 Convention on Cultural
Property Implementation Act. The administrative
apparatus for this U.S. government effort originally resided at the former U.S. Information
Agency, but since October 1, 1999, is the
domain of the U.S. Department of State where
the president has delegated his decision-making
responsibilities. The enforcement function
CRM No 52000

remains with the U.S. Customs Service of the

Department of the Treasury. The review and recommendation functions under the 1983 Act are
vested in the Cultural Property Advisory
Committee, which is appointed by the president
and administered by the Department of State.
The U.S. implementing legislation is a
means of responding to petitions from other
countries seeking U.S. import restrictions on
archeological or ethnological material, the pillage
of which places their cultural patrimony in jeopardy. As perhaps the worlds largest art market,
the U.S. is a significant destination for cultural
property pillaged from other countries.
Therefore, the U.S. effort under the 1970
Convention as implemented by the Cultural
Property Implementation Act, is to reduce the
incentive for further pillage of archeological or
ethnological materials. However, when Congress
considered UNESCO Convention implementing
legislation it viewed the problem of pillage
through a domestic lens as well, and concluded
that the interest of the United States in this matter extends beyond our import market and our
interest in fostering careful study of foreign cultures. In recent years, the increasing interest in
Native American, Hawaiian, and Alaskan artifacts concomitantly has spurred the pillaging of
U.S. historic sites. The destruction of such sites
and the disappearance of the historic record evidenced by the articles found in them has given
rise to a profound national interest in joining
other countries to control the trafficking of such
articles in international commerce.
It is worth noting that the first country to
request assistance from the U.S. under the
Convention and the U.S. Cultural Property
Implementation Act was Canada, a country with
which we share not only a long open border, but
also a rich Native and non-Native heritage.
Mindful of the precedental nature of this request,
as the first to be considered under the Act, significant time and attention were devoted to the
issue of appropriate statutory interpretation.
Toward that end, the U.S. government sought a
legal opinion from the Department of Justice and
carefully considered the views offered by sectors
of the interested public before rendering a determination. Finally, in 1997, the two countries
entered into a bilateral cultural property agreement that imposes U.S. import restrictions on
certain categories of archeological and ethnological material representing the following cultural
CRM No 52000

groups: Inuit, Subarctic Indian, Northwest Coast

Indian, Plateau Indian, Plains Indian, and
Woodlands Indian. It also covers archeological
material (at least 250 years old) from historic
shipwrecks and other underwater historic sites. A
reciprocal provision in the agreement, drafted in
consultation with the National Park Service, recognizes the existence of U.S. laws that protect
archeological resources and Native American cultural objects as well as historic shipwrecks, and
offers Canadas pledge to cooperate with the U.S.
government in recovering objects that have
entered Canada illicitly.
As is the case with all import restrictions
imposed by the U.S., on a country-by-country
basis, those objects that represent categories designated as restricted may not enter the U.S. after
the effective date of the import restriction unless
accompanied by an export certificate issued by
the country of origin. This designated list is published in the Federal Register by the U.S. Customs
Service. If restricted objects arrive in the U.S.
without an export certificate or verifiable documentation showing that the object left the country of origin prior to the import restriction, then
it may be returned to the country of origin. A
designated list is representative and formulated
from knowledge about documented materials in
public and private collections. What is already
out of the ground, such as Maya polychrome
terra cottas, Djenne clay figures, or gold Moche
jewelry, assists us in knowing what may still
remain in context until, hopefully, systematic
archeological excavations are undertaken.
The paramount importance of documentation with respect to the movement of cultural
objects is evident to museum curators and others
whose task it is to care for them. But documentation is anathema to those who wish to perpetuate
an illicit trade in artifacts, for it is the large supply of pillaged archeological and ethnological
material that is undocumented that feeds the
clandestine tradean activity with few risks balanced against the likelihood of high gain. By
reducing the appearance in the U.S. of illicitly
traded material, opportunities are then created to
explore access to this material under legal and
safe circumstances for educational, scientific and
cultural purposesa goal that is envisioned in
the Cultural Property Implementation Act.
To promote the importance of documentation, it is generally the practice of the U.S. to
encourage countries with which it enters into
69

bilateral cultural property agreements that

impose import restrictions, to register objects
already in public and private collections.
Increasingly, new national patrimony laws mandate this practice while forbidding the further
expansion of private collections. But to implement such a mandate requires a clearly defined
framework, trained personnel, and support
mechanisms that are not readily available in most
source countries. The challenge is to find ways to
support countries needing to fulfill the documentation requirements of their laws. Such documentation would include the recording of
looted material, of course, but for the sake of
beginning to draw the net around private collections of looted objects, as most source countries
wish to do, it is a prudent course.
With the recent development of Object
ID, there seems little excuse today for allowing
cultural objects to go undocumented. Object ID
is the result of years of careful research, consultation, and analysis conducted by the then Getty
Information Institute (now in the hands of the
Council on the Prevention of Art Theft
[COPAT] in London) in collaboration with
museums, cultural heritage organizations, the art
trade, insurance companies and appraisers, and
police and customs organizations. It is an international standard for recording unique identifying information about a particular object of art
or antiquity. Primarily developed as a means of
identifying and recovering stolen cultural
objects, Object ID is a simple tool based on a
common sense approach to recording data about
a particular object. Available in many languages
and widely adopted already, it can be implemented with pencil and paper or through the use
of the most sophisticated database.
Object ID is even useful in the description
of classes of objects as opposed to individual
objects that comprise a particular collection. For
example, it is incorporated in the image database
developed by the Cultural Property office of the
Department of State to provide museums, collectors, law enforcement entities, and others with
information about the classes of objects that are
restricted from entry into the U.S. This database
is part of a comprehensive web site
<http://exchanges.state.gov/education/culprop>
about U.S. implementation of the 1970
UNESCO Convention. Information can be
found on this site about U.S. emergency import
restrictions and bilateral agreements with coun70

tries like Cyprus, Cambodia, Canada, Peru,

Guatemala, El Salvador, and Mali. An agreement
is pending with Nicaragua, and requests from
Italy and Bolivia are being processed.
As the ultimate repository for most movable cultural property, museums can influence
more scrupulous trading and collecting practices
by adopting stronger acquisitions policies that
require verifiable documentation associated with
their purchases or gifts. Shortly after the
UNESCO Convention was first adopted,
numerous university museums embraced policies
that do not permit the acquisition of objects that
left the country of origin prior to 1970. Others
adopted similar policies at the time the U.S.
implementing legislation went into effect in
1983. Such policies, as that of the Smithsonian
Institution, reflect the spirit of the 1970
UNESCO Convention. By exceeding the legal
threshold they demonstrate a strong ethical
stance against any collecting practice that would
promote further looting. This posture promotes
a licit trade in documented material, an activity
the U.S. Cultural Property Act supports.
But most private museums in the U.S. that
are inclined to collect antiquities do not have
such policies. One, the J. Paul Getty Museum,
stands out as a relatively new exception. In 1995,
the Getty Museum revised its acquisitions policy
with a provision on documented provenance
that establishes 1995 as its threshold year. It
reads, proposed acquisitions must come from
established, well-documented (i.e., published)
collections. Publication must precede the date of
adoption of these revisions, November 1995.
Thus, the Getty profoundly altered its collecting
practice and has created a net through which
recently looted antiquities will not pass.
Of the codes of ethics crafted by professional organizations, that of the International
Council of Museums (ICOM) seems to set the
highest threshold of professional and institutional responsibility. Museums should recognize
the relationship between the marketplace and the
initial and often destructive taking of an object
for the commercial market, and must recognize
that it is highly unethical for a museum to support in any way, whether directly or indirectly,
that illicit market. The code also provides that a
museum should not acquire an object that may
have been exported from its country of origin in
violation of that countrys export laws. In practice, it is believed that European museums are
CRM No 52000

more likely to adhere to the ICOM policy than

museums in the U.S. which follow the less stringent codes set by the American Association of
Museums and the Association of Art Museum
Directors.
ICOM has become highly activist in the
international fight against illicit trafficking in
cultural property by producing a series of handbooks on looting in Africa, Latin America, and
Cambodia (Angkor). Entitled One Hundred
Missing Objects, these handbooks have been
directly responsible for the recovery of numerous
objects that had been stolen or pillaged from
their countries of origin. At least one has been
located in an American museum and voluntarily
returned. Another recent step ICOM has taken
in this fight is the signing of memoranda of
understanding with the World Customs
Organization and INTERPOL. These agreements will strengthen cooperation between
museum professionals and law enforcement with
respect to training and the sharing of information. The latest move on the part of ICOM is a
new web site known as the Red List
(<http://www.icom.org/redlist/>), which posts
categories of African archeological objects that
are vulnerable to looting today. Recognizing that
heightened awareness is a major tool in the
struggle to reduce pillage, the Red List is
intended to inform art dealers, auction houses,
museums, police, and customs officials worldwide about looting in Africa and the types of
objects being illicitly taken from context and
entered onto the market.
Technological advances, such as the
Internet; developments, such as Object ID;
heightened public awareness; and a more
engaged and knowledgeable law enforcement
community, are all new and effective tools in
combating pillage. Institutions and individuals
alike are challenged to act responsibly as stewards
in the care of the worlds cultural heritage, for as
we all know, this heritage is composed of unique
and irreplaceable representations of humankind.
Stewardship obligates us, in whatever part of the
world we occupy, to document for posterity,
essential information drawn from the undisturbed context of these non-renewable resources.
The Aymara Indians of Coroma, Bolivia, whose
ancient ceremonial textiles were systematically
removed from their bundles under clandestine
circumstances and entered onto the U.S. and

CRM No 52000

Canadian markets, have now documented their

remaining textiles and placed them in safekeeping. They have done this for the sake of centuries
of tradition, which they wish to preserve and
perpetuate for generations to follow.
The local residents of the renowned archeological region of Sipan in Peru, once the looters,
are now stewards of the royal Moche tombs
found there. They now understand the longterm benefit to having a scientifically unearthed
site and local museum to house the documented
treasures of their ancestor, the Lord of Sipan.
The Malians of Djenne, through cultural missions assigned there by the National Museum in
Bamako, have discovered not only the intrinsic
value of objects representing their heritage, but
also the long-term value of protecting and
recording their cultural heritage so that its testimony is not rendered mute because of looting.
El Salvador now has a new National Museum
only a few years ago it had noneand is engaged
in the long task of documenting its collection.
These are some of the benefits that accrue
to those nations with which the United States
engages in cultural property protection within
the framework of the 1970 UNESCO
Convention. Emboldened by U.S. willingness to
cooperate in protecting their heritage, countries
quickly realize they are the stakeholders and have
embraced the opportunity to pursue sustainable
strategies for safeguarding their national patrimony together with stepped-up legal measures.
It is a slow but steady, country by country progression, as is the participation in the 1970
Convention by other major art-importing countries. In that regard, the dynamic is shifting in
favor of wider participation now that France has
entered the Convention and implementing legislation is being prepared by Switzerland and
Japan. It must be noted, too, that the United
Kingdom is holding public hearings on this matter this spring. As more market countries are
added to the framework, perhaps opportunities
will open up for the U.S. to recover its pillaged
cultural property abroad, for, as noted earlier,
...the increasing interest in Native American,
Hawaiian, and Alaskan artifacts...has spurred the
pillaging of U.S. historic sites.

_______________
Maria Papageorge Kouroupas is the Executive Director,
Cultural Property Advisory Committee, U.S. Department
of State, Washington, DC.

71