I asked anti-American, anti-collector Paul Barford a simple question in the comments section to a recent post where he quotes a US Customs official as suggesting that exporting coins from Bulgaria constituted "cultural theft." He's chosen not to post my question on his blog (despite claiming he posts all comments) or answer my simple question so I'll ask it here.
How can a Bulgarian coin imported into the US be considered "stolen" cultural property of Bulgaria when the exact same types of coins are legally available for sale there?
This, of course, is more a question for US Customs than for Mr. Barford. If the US Customs official in question believes that any illegal export from Bulgaria constitutes a theft, that would be contrary to the US law he has sworn to uphold. While Bulgaria has asked the US to impose import restrictions on cultural goods, that request has not yet been acted upon by the US State Department and US Customs. And even if import restrictions are imposed, illegal import does not constitute theft under any application of US law. Rather, import without the appropriate documentation would constitute a violation of the import controls of the Cultural Property Implementation Act. There is a difference between illegal export, illegal export and theft, despite what some archaeologists (and apparently some US Customs officials) believe.
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 United States License.
A Web Log Championing the Longstanding Interests of Collectors in the Preservation, Study, Display and Enjoyment of Cultural Artifacts Against an "Archaeology Over All" Perspective
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 United States License.
StatCounter
FEEDJIT Live Traffic Map
FEEDJIT Live Page Popularity
Blog Archive
-
▼
2013
(176)
-
▼
September
(13)
- Antiquities Openly Available for Sale in Afghanist...
- ACCG Files Amended Answer
- ICOM Publishes Red List
- Upcoming CPAC Meeting to Discuss Renewal and Possi...
- Peruvian Officials Look the Other Way
- Unprovenanced Egyptian artifacts for Sale in Washi...
- Cambodian Import Restrictions Extended as Forfeitu...
- Doing Justice or Pressing an Agenda?
- Anti-Americanism and the Archaeological Blogosphere
- Pining for the Old Days?
- Where Antiquities Have No Value
- No Answer
- Another Significant Find Reported as Anti-Collecto...
-
▼
September
(13)
About Me
- Cultural Property Observer
- Washington, DC, United States
- Peter Tompa has collected ancient coins for almost 50 years. He has written and lectured about cultural property issues for a decade. He is a contributor to a chapter on numismatics in K. Fitz Gibbon ed., "Who Owns the Past?" (Rutgers 2005). He has lobbied members of the U.S. Congress and the Executive Branch in an effort to ensure that the small businesses of the numismatic trade receive fair treatment from federal regulators. He currently serves as a board member of the Cultural Policy Research Institute and the Ancient Coin Collectors Guild. He also has been a co-chair of the American Bar Association's Art & Cultural Heritage Law Committee. His advocacy has received notice in the media, including the New York Times, the New Yorker, the Art Newspaper and the Voice of America. He hopes his views as a collector and lawyer will provide a counterpoint to the "archaeology over all" perspective found in most blogs about cultural property issues. This Web page is a public resource for general information and opinion about cultural property issues, and is not intended to be a source for legal advice. Opinions expressed here are the author's own.
4 comments:
I was out this morning. So, if the ongoing investigation brings one or more US coin dealers to court, you will defend them (if asked) using that defence?
This really is getting rather repetive, you seem unable to take new facts on board.
Last time we discussed this, I gave you the link to the updated law. Did you read it? Here is is again:
http://www.unesco.org/culture/natlaws/media/pdf/bulgaria/bulgaria_culturalheritageact_2009_entof.pdf
[ ]Promulgated, SG, No. 19/13.03.2009,[...] amended and supplemented, SG No. 82/26.10.2012, effective
26.11.2012]
Look at Art. 1, 2, 7(4), 93-5, collections: 97(6), 98(3), 108-110 etc.
It seems to me you are wrong to suggest that a Bulgarian collector can operate in the same way as a US one. You see they need much more documentation to make their items licit, pieces of paper documenting collecting history.
To support a claim of theft, under US law the foreign law must vest clear title in the State and that law must be actively enforced. I don't view the provisions you cite as doing that and there remains a free trade in such coins in Bulgaria, so the point stands.
The point *does not 'stand'* because it seems to me that you have not actually read the act with any thoroughness:
"How can a Bulgarian coin imported into the US be considered "stolen" cultural property of Bulgaria when the exact same types of coins are legally available for sale there?"
They are only legally on sale under the specific conditions set out in Bulgarian law, which you seem to wilfully be ignoring.
I really cannot see how you determine that Bulgarian law does not "vest clear title in the State". It quite clearly does. Read it again. Look for example at the section on "archaeological survey". Look at Art 93(3) if in any doubt.
You need to re-read the Second Circuit's decision in the Schultz case. Contrast Egypt's approach to antiquities with Bulgaria's. They are fundamentally different, particularly when you compare Egypt's approach to antiquities and Bulgaria's approach to coins. I see no indication Bulgaria vests title in all coins in the State-- possession and ownership by individuals is allowed. The fact that there may be some conditions is irrelevant to the legal analysis.
Post a Comment