American Politics, the American Public, and the Protection of Cultural Heritage: An Analysis of the U.S. – Cyprus Cultural Property Agreement

ABSTRACT

In 1999, the United States adopted emergency restrictions on the import of Byzantine cultural material from Cyprus. That initial action has evolved into a long-standing memorandum of understanding that includes archaeological as well as ethnological materials. Recognizing the political climate in which U.S. law and the initial emergency measures were enacted and how the memorandum interacts with current social and political conditions, the authors argue that both U.S. policy and American attitudes toward antiquities trafficking and cultural heritage protection need to change.

KEYWORDS:

• Memoranda of understanding
• heritage protection
• antiquities law
• cultural property agreements
• Cypriot cultural heritage
• international policy

Introduction

Who owns the past and the ways in which that ownership is negotiated and maintained has come more into the public eye in recent years through publications such as Dan Hicks’ Brutish Museums: The Benin Bronzes, Colonial Violence and Cultural Restitution (2020), which highlighted the role of violent colonialism in the creation and maintenance of cultural institutions across Europe at the expense of less powerful nations and put forth restitution and repatriation as possible avenues towards reparation. There have also been infamous cases of destruction and damage to cultural heritage sites in conflict zones, such as Palmyra in Syria and more recently in Ukraine, where UNESCO has verified damage to 327 sites since the Russian invasion in February 2022 (UNESCO 2022).

While it is beyond the scope of this article to discuss the myriad ways in which the loss of cultural material is a detriment to local and global societies, it is necessary to mention at least a few. To begin with, when the context for an artifact is lost (either through looting or when it is sold illegally and thus its provenance is intentionally muddied) the information and its inherent value are often lost. This is especially important with regard to archaeological material, as much of the information that is possible to glean from an artifact is based upon the context in which it is discovered. In archaeology, context refers to not only the temporal and geographic location from which an item was excavated, but also the type of site, the orientation of the artifact within the site, and the stratification, which can give us insight into usage patterns of the entire site.

Without this information, an artifact loses not only its own significance, but also its relational significance to the place and time of its creation and to other artifacts, becoming a material orphan. Furthermore, the illegal removal, destruction, or sale of cultural material can have effects upon contemporary social cohesion, identity, and overall well-being of stakeholder communities, which bodies such as the European Union have taken regular steps to safeguard (Council of Europe 1999, 2005, 2017, 2019). Losing signifiers of social and personal identity can cause emotional reactions similar to grief, mourning, and depression which can occur on a community-wide level (Viejo-Rose 2011). The destruction of cultural heritage is classified as a war crime and it is considered a key factor in attempts to erase and eradicate social, ethnic, and cultural groups (United Nations 1998). Finally, the illegal sale of antiquities has also been shown to directly fund violent extremism across the world, a fact that needs little explanation of its negative effects locally and globally (Paul 2018, 4). Although it is undeniably in the best interest of the global community to proactively tackle and combat these occurrences and markets wherever they arise, bilateral cultural property agreements (CPAs),¹ a mechanism employed by the United States to restrict the influx of stolen artifacts from other countries into its art market, the largest in the world, lacks the necessary vigor and the practical applicability.

This article examines CPAs through an exploration of the agreement between Cyprus and the United States, which has been in place for over 20 years. The authors explore the political situation in Cyprus which posed a dire threat to its cultural heritage, necessitating action from the international community, with a particular expectation of the U.S; the implementation of import restrictions through the CPA; and the public reaction available through testimony to the CPA in the U.S. over time. Through this analysis, the authors argue that it is not only U.S. law and policy and cultural heritage protection that need updating, but also broader American attitudes toward this pursuit.

Political Context of Threats to Cultural Heritage in Cyprus in the Twentieth Century

Cyprus is an island in the far eastern Mediterranean and where, according to Hesiod, Aphrodite took her first steps on land (Hesiod, Theogony 1.200). It is geographically closer to Turkey, Lebanon, and Syria than to any other Greek-speaking island. It has a rich archaeological record and a thriving contemporary culture that includes a highly regarded academic community which produces excellent research related to cultural heritage, among other things. However, Cyprus has also suffered intercommunal violence and partition in recent history which has left it open to criminal acts against its heritage including destruction of sites and looting of portable material.

In the wake of independence from Britain, achieved in 1960, intercommunal violence between the Greek-Cypriot and Turkish-Cypriot communities flared. This was against the political backdrop of ongoing posturing between Greece and Turkey. In 1974 a coup (backed by the Greek military junta) attempted to overthrow the constitutional Cypriot government. This gave Turkey the excuse it needed to invade and occupy the northern third of the island, over which it maintains control to this day (Stavrinides 1999, 72). Following interventions by the United Nations (United Nations Security Council 1975) and the creation of a buffer zone, there was a population exchange. With very few exceptions, the Turkish-Cypriot population was relocated to the northern, occupied territories and the Greek-Cypriots were relocated to the Republic, each resettling in the deserted homes and villages of the other, or else into refugee settlements (Antoniadou and Knapp 1995, 23; Bryant 2014, 681).²

The buffer zone has divided the Republic of Cyprus with the northern area occupied by Turkish-aligned Cypriots since 1974. Today the buffer zone is controlled and monitored by the United Nations Peacekeeping Force in Cyprus (UNFICYP) and extends 180 km over the island, ranging from kilometers wide down to a few meters. UNFICYP (n.d.) estimates that “[a]pproximately 1,000 incidents occur within the buffer zone each year, ranging from name-calling to unauthorized use of firearms.” Starting in 2003, crossing the border at designated checkpoints became possible and there are now eight crossing points across the buffer zone, including two in the British Base Area located in the southeast and three in the country’s capital of Nicosia. As the political situation stagnates in Cyprus, it continues to affect the cultural heritage of the island in many ways. From a logistical standpoint, it appears impossible to maintain archaeological and historical sites located within the buffer zone, and they tend to fall into disrepair without designated caretakers. Traveling through the buffer zone can be difficult, and information, data, and resources related to cultural heritage are not exchanged between the Republic of Cyprus and the Turkish-occupied areas. The constant threat of conflict puts sites and museums across the island at risk.

The most visible effects on Cypriot cultural heritage have been the closure of northern Cyprus to foreign archaeologists (including, or rather especially, Greek-Cypriots) and the systematic looting and destruction of sites in the north (Antoniadou and Knapp 1995). This has had, in Antoniadou and Knapp’s words, “dramatic and likely irreversible consequences for Cyprus’ cultural heritage and for archaeological research on the island” (1995, 23). Not only does it force the archaeological record of the island to remain incomplete and geographically limited, but it also means that reexaminations of northern sites must rely on existing material without the opportunity to expand and diversify their datasets.

Beyond logistical complications presented by the buffer zone, there are ideological implications for cultural heritage on the island, as differing identities continue to be crafted using heritage as evidence and support for conflicting histories. This division has led to a lack of a unified Cypriot national identity, further emphasized by the physical splitting of the land. The Republic of Cyprus tends to promote a connection to ancient Greece, in terms of chosen sites for excavation and tourism and historical narrative. The Turkish de facto government presents a different story, highlighting examples of all other cultures that have had a presence on Cyprus, deliberately ignoring or minimizing the Greek presence. Choices on both sides of the border have led to a decline in care of cultural heritage that falls outside the favored narrative.

In 1989, the well-publicized court case, Autocephalous Greek-Orthodox Church of Cyprus and the Republic of Cyprus v. Goldberg, centered on the ownership of the Kanakaria mosaics and how it came to pass that Cypriot cultural material, from the occupied territories, was offered for sale in Indiana. The decision in the Cypriot church’s favor politically vindicated the church and the Republic. Furthermore, the District Court also recognized the Republic of Cyprus as the sole legitimate government on the island and directly referenced Turkey’s (and its de facto government in northern Cyprus) involvement in the illicit theft and trafficking of Cypriot cultural property post-1974, especially that which was perceived as “Greek” (Autocephalous Ch. v. Godlberg Feldman 1990; Erikson 2015; O'Connell-Schizas 2014, 20). This case was reported both domestically (most notably in the New Yorker magazine) and internationally, bringing Cyprus’ political circumstances and the role of its cultural heritage back into the public consciousness (Hoefstadter 1992).

In 1990, the European Community (known as the European Union since 1993) announced that the Republic of Cyprus would be formally considered for membership. In 1994, the EU announced that Cyprus would be included in the next enlargement of the bloc, and in addition, it would restrict the import of goods of all types from the occupied territories of Cyprus (Talmon 2001, 736). Then in 1995, the European High Court ruled that Turkey was an occupying force in Northern Cyprus in the case Loizidou v. Turkey, 40/1993/435/514, Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights, 23 February 1995. The decision stated that Titina Loizidou, a refugee from Kyrenia, had been unlawfully denied control of her property by Turkey (Spies 1997, 665). That same year, an international protest in Cyprus involving a motorcycle ride across the border ended in the death of one protestor and left roughly 30 others injured (New York Times, 12 August 1996). In 1997, the Cypriot Missile Crisis began when Cyprus announced plans to purchase missiles from Russia, as a part of a “get tough on Turkey” political agenda. The crisis was only resolved in 1998 through a convoluted agreement process, which ended with Greece agreeing to station the missiles on Crete instead, placing them too far away to reach Cyprus (Drake 1998).

Throughout this period, politics in the Mediterranean were colored by the considerable animosity towards the United States in Greece, due largely (and understandably) to the United States’ support of the military junta that ruled Greece from 1967 to 1974, the war in Kosovo, and “The Cyprus Problem” i.e., the ongoing occupation of the island and the United States’ ambivalence to it (Lacey 1999; Michas 2002, 94). In this politically fraught environment, the United States was looking for ways to ease tensions with Greece. In this light, granting initial emergency measures to Cyprus, brought to limit the import of Cypriot cultural materials to the United States, from Cyprus can be seen as part of a larger scheme of soft-power cultural diplomacy in the region (Luke and Kersel 2013). It is of note that it began with Byzantine religious material, which the powerful Orthodox Church of Cyprus was, and continues to be, extremely invested in protecting. Much of Greek and Cypriot international policy was based on shared religious ideology (support of Serbia through the dissolution of Yugoslavia in the 1990s being a prime example) and protecting cultural patrimony in this way can be seen as a move towards improving relations with both Greece and Cyprus.

These are not presented as definitive causes, but instead as contextualization and contributing factors. The exact extent of their contribution is impossible to know, but they created the foundation from which one of the longest-standing CPAs has arisen.

The U.S. – Cyprus Cultural Property Agreement

After becoming one of the first market countries to ratify the 1970 UNESCO Convention (UNESCO 1970), the United States implemented the convention in domestic legislation through the passing of the Convention on Cultural Property Implementation Act in 1982 (for a discussion of the 1970 UNESCO Convention and U.S. implementation, see Gerstenblith 2017; Kuzma 2019). Under this legislation, the U.S can enter into CPAs with other state parties to the 1970 Convention to restrict the import of illicitly exported cultural property, among other obligations. Each CPA must be requested through a bureaucratic process governed by the CPIA, which includes a review by a presidentially appointed committee that accepts public comment and must be renewed every 5 years. The requirement for public comment is not in the statute but has been offered since the early 2000s.

In 1999, the United States first issued import restrictions on illegally exported cultural material from Cyprus, who had ratified the 1970 UNESCO convention in 1979 (UNESCO 2019). These were emergency restrictions that were specifically concerned with the import of Byzantine ecclesiastical and ritual ethnographic material (Department of State 1999). In 2002, the first CPA between Cyprus and the United States was signed, and it expanded the original emergency measures to include Pre-Classical and Classical Cypriot archaeological material, ranging in date from approximately the eighth millennium BCE to approximately 330 CE (Department of State 2002). It has been renewed every 5 years since then, often with amendments to expand the material that is protected. The 2007 renewal saw the expansion of the time period defined as Byzantine, expanding it both earlier and later so that it encompasses the fourth century BCE and the fifteenth century CE. This renewal also included the near-total ban of coin imports of all time periods, a fact which will become pertinent later in this paper (Department of Homeland Security; Bureau of Customs and Border Protection; Department of the Treasury 2007). In 2012, the renewal included ecclesiastical and ritual ethnographic material from the post-Byzantine period, 1500–1800 CE (Department of State and Embassy of Cyprus 2002). The CPA was renewed again in 2017 (Department of State 2017), and in 2022 (Department of State 2022).

Since the United States is the largest art market in the world (McAndrew 2022, 16), it has a particular opportunity to make a difference in the dynamics of the overall market that it must embrace fully. As such, CPAs between the United States and foreign governments (in this case, Cyprus) are important tools to fight the illicit trade in antiquities globally. That said, the limited implementation of the 1970 Convention by the U.S. through the CPIA, which, as discussed by Gerstenblith (2017), was mired in Congress from its inception by political influence of powerful antiquities collectors, creates a burdensome process for foreign governments, including the requirement for renewal every 5 years. In addition, the limited country-by-country approach to import restrictions that do not necessarily effectively cut off the flow of illicit artifacts to U.S. markets, as ancient cultures do not always align with modern nation states. These issues point to areas swhere the policy could be strengthened or improved, however, data on the implementation of the CPAs would help strengthen the argument for updating the law.

It is difficult to assess the effectiveness of the implementation of the CPAs, as the United States does not comprehensively report publicly on seizures of antiquities made under the CPAs (Gerstenblith 2017). That said, since the legislation took effect in 1983, there has been a global increase and shift in the ways that crime and conflict are enacted – more organized crime, more non-state-based conflict, and increased terrorism (United Nations 2022). These changes are deeply intertwined with advances in technology which continue to outpace legislation and political maneuvers. The ubiquity of the internet and social media, and the role that they play in every aspect of modern life, including the illicit antiquities trade, could not have been predicted in 1970 (Brodie et al. 2022, 121; Paul 2018). Therefore, standards to which the heritage sector, particularly the U.S. as a major market, should be held must also change.

The year and political circumstances in which the CPIA took effect demand a reevaluation of the law that would be best informed by data on the effectiveness of the agreements over time. As it stands now, the CPIA limits the U.S. ability to proactively and effectively protect cultural heritage and indicates a larger, political indifference toward fighting antiquities trafficking. While data on seizures made under CPAs are not publicly available, written public comment on the agreements and their renewal every 5 years are now accessible online. From an analysis of the public comment on the U.S.-Cyprus agreement over time, the authors see that this indifference is also reflected in sectors of the American public.

Public Comment Analysis

Every time the U.S. government receives a request from a Government for a CPA, or a CPA is due to be renewed, there is an opportunity for the public to submit written comments in favor or against U.S. entering or reentering the agreement. The written public comments are available to download at the Department of State’s (2021) website. However, the organization of these comments is not based on content, but instead comments are listed chronologically by their post-date, with no reference to their content or the identity of the commenter. It was therefore necessary for the authors to download, read and collate the comments individually. Each comment could be determined to either be in support of renewal or against it and, while there were differences of opinion on what the implications of the renewal may mean, all of the comments fell into one of these two categories. The vast majority of the contributions were not anonymised (though that is an available option) and, while the authors recognize that self-reported names are not a universal signifier of gender, ethnicity, or any other identity, some larger trends can be identified from those contributors who included their names, or organizations where an individual signed on their behalf.

From an analysis of the comments, the perception of antiquities protection as an elitist concern is demonstrated in the American public’s opposition to Cyprus’ CPA renewal. Indeed, antiquities, and their protection, have long been perceived as a distant issue for governments and political institutions. This is in part because antiquities, and knowledge about them, have been viewed as an elite pursuit, in part stemming from its roots in antiquarianism (which was an elite pursuit) and followed through its continued alignment with academic institutions, which have not always been inclusive. The most vocal opposition to CPAs and restriction on the trade in antiquities in general come in the form of a numerous amount of submissions from private coin collectors, who often depict themselves as combating elitism. Coin collectors and coin collecting associations have expressed their aversion to import restrictions because they do not allow private (non-academic or institutional) individuals to own artifacts.

There is a clear paradox in this argument, considering that those who have the time and money to spend on collecting as a hobby are almost certainly the same people who could (if they chose) frequent museums. Nonetheless, there have been several lawsuits brought by various coin collecting interests with the intention of ending import restrictions, or at least exempting coins (Ancient Coin Collectors Guild v. United States 2018, and the preceding district and appeals court cases are such an example). In Ancient Coin Collectors Guild v. United States, citing the CPIA, the United States Customs and Border Control seized a shipment of Cypriot and Chinese coins, which the Ancient Coin Collectors Guild had imported illegally with the express intent of bringing a lawsuit and challenging the import restrictions. The Guild was unsuccessful at all levels of the judicial system and eventually was left with no further possible action when the United States Supreme Court denied their petition for a review. While in court the Guild argued that the coins could only be restricted from import if they were first discovered after import, already in the U.S. and that in this instance the government could not prove that the coins were first discovered in Cyprus or China. However, in the context of the 2021 public comment period (postponed to early 2022) for Cyprus’ CPA renewal, the coin collectors’ primary argument was that coins are almost always discovered in places other than their place of origin and therefore have already been disturbed and are of no use to archaeological or historical research.³ According to the Guild, since coins by their very nature are not one of a kind, there is also no need for their inclusion in the designated lists. This of course is completely and demonstrably incorrect. Coins are one of the most accurately datable artifacts and thus are invaluable to reconstructing timelines of sites and objects, regardless of their proximity to their place of origin (Department of State 2021).

In the most recent public comment period on the renewal of Cyprus’ CPA, there was also a distinct gender divide which provides an interesting window into wider attitudinal trends. All of those who spoke against the renewal were men and the majority (though not the totality) who spoke in favor were women. This was also reflected, though not as starkly, in the written comments section, which is also public (Department of State 2021). Many of the women who spoke and wrote in favor of the renewal were speaking on behalf of academic and educational institutions or included in their response references to their own high level of education. That more women than ever before are participating in third-level education, both as students, educators, and researchers, is an important aspect of this dynamic (Parker 2021). The term “epistemic exclusion” has been used to reference scholarly delegitimization of types of research that are dominated by marginalized and minority groups (in this case women) and might offer one answer to why combatting antiquities trafficking is often forced to take a backseat to other forms of illegal activities, though it is clearly a multilayered and deeply entangled problem (Covarrubias, Newton, and Glass 2021).

Conclusions

The authors recognize the limitations of our own dataset but believe that it nonetheless offers valuable insights into the attitudes and perceptions surrounding antiquities protection and the Cyprus-U.S. CPA. Despite its limited scope, the data do reveal several notable patterns and trends, shedding light on public sentiments and potential areas of concern. The dataset primarily consists of public comments on the renewal of the agreement and may not provide a comprehensive view of the entire population's opinions. However, the consistency of certain themes and arguments within these comments cannot be dismissed. These findings reveal that even within the limited sample, there is a meaningful divergence of views that reflects broader perspectives on antiquities protection and the relevance of the agreement.

While there have been significant changes in cultural heritage practices, especially in the past 30 years, this perception of cultural heritage as an elitist concern persists. U.S. politics often calls upon rhetoric that eschews anything that might appear to reference privilege or social class or suggest establishment values and so heritage protection is not seen as an issue that carries political weight. However, disregard for heritage protection has very real consequences and small groups of people with interests going against the general good gain traction because of this misperception that the general public is uninterested. This perceived disinterest is compounded by a wider mistrust of academic expertise, which was much discussed in relation to the medical field during the COVID-19 pandemic (O'Keefe 2020) but exists and is increasing across disciplines. While limiting the illicit antiquities trade is not exclusively academic nor is it only important to academia, it is often seen as such, perpetuating the belief that antiquities and their protection have nothing to do with people who are not wealthy, powerful, and well-educated. The epistemic exclusion of certain research areas, as indicated by the data, suggests that antiquities trafficking often takes a backseat to other illegal activities. This underscores a need for not only legal but also cultural and academic reforms that elevate the importance of cultural heritage preservation in broader discussions on crime and societal well-being. Therefore, we conclude that it is not only the U.S. law and policy that needs to be reconsidered, updated, and strengthened. It is indeed the entire American attitude towards antiquities trafficking, cultural heritage practitioners, and the role the U.S. market plays in the destruction of international cultural heritage.

Disclosure Statement

Eleanor recently completed her doctoral research, based at Trinity College Dublin, she has received funding and support for other aspects of her research from the AG Leventis Foundation and the Cyprus American Archaeological Research Institute. Helena is Director of Programs for the Antiquities Coalition, which, since its founding in 2014, has championed the closing of US borders to illicit antiquities through tools such as Cultural Property Agreements.

Notes

1 We will refer to the agreements as CPAs throughout the article.

2 One exception is the Greek-Cypriot community that has remained in the Karpass Peninsula, geographically and politically isolated from the rest of the island.

3 For this specific argument see the written comment submitted by the Ancient Coin Collectors Guild (DOS-2021-0032-0025).