tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8174756573570334952.post9012442236912898933..comments2024-03-27T04:46:33.198-07:00Comments on Portable Antiquity Collecting and Heritage Issues: Born in the USA: Portable Antiquities, Provenance and the Presidential BirthplacePaul Barfordhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10443302899233809948noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8174756573570334952.post-62138114979102446042009-03-28T05:46:00.000-07:002009-03-28T05:46:00.000-07:00“US collectors do not seem overly concerned to buy...“US collectors do not seem overly concerned to buy only portable antiquities with a clearly defined and precise provenance. Let's see some consistency in their claims about what the Consititution means to them.”<BR/><BR/>Or at least, let them understand the Constitution and the law have moved on.<BR/><BR/>At around the time of the 1970 UNESCO treaty and the Cultural Property Implementation Act “the sweeping notion of state ownership claims exemplified by the foreign cultural patrimony laws was alien to traditional American jurisprudence regarding the protection of private property holders’ rights.” That sounds rather familiar. Hasn’t that sort of talk been trotted out recently by people that deal? But things have changed. <BR/><BR/>United States v. McClain established that American citizens could be convicted under the National Stolen Property Act for violating another country’s laws regarding removal of cultural heritage “where that foreign law was unambiguous”. http://www.aam-us.org/pubs/mn/MN_ND06_antique-laws.cfm<BR/><BR/>In other words, if the foreign law is clear enough then “didn’t realise” is not a very good defence these days if the law abroad is clear, even if it is wrapped up in a self-serving code of ethics or a claim to professionalism or a flag. “Freedum” and “The ‘merican way” won’t wash any more, so says the Supreme Court.Marcus Preenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03603874627751387853noreply@blogger.com