The 2003 US invasion of Iraq was a disaster for the country in terms of preserving their archaeological heritage. Looters stole 15,000 artifacts from the Baghdad museum in the chaos, of which only 25% have been recovered. Authorities have recovered 130,000 artifacts stolen from other places in Iraq, but tens of thousands of pieces are still missing.
Ten thousand of those stolen artifacts surfaced in the US following the 2003 invasion. Iraqi and US government officials have now reached a deal for those artifacts to be returned to Iraq by August 2014, an announcement made by Iraq’s senior ministry advisor Baha al-Mayahi. The catch? The artifacts must all be registered in an electronic archive at Cornell before their return.
The other catch? Nobody’s going to talk about how the artifacts got here.
Really? Is that good enough? Is Iraq’s consent to non-disclosure by the U.S. government enough? Or does the public have any interest in knowing why 10,000 stolen artifacts have resurfaced here?
Cultural Property & Archaeology Law 
Peter Tompa
August 1, 2013
Well, I’m not all that confident about Iraqi sources. However, transparency is a real problem in the State Department and US Customs Bureaucracy. To date, the government has been successful in stonewalling on how it came to be that import restrictions were imposed on Cypriot coins. It looks like it was based largely on cronyism of the sort one reads about in Cyprus, but we simply do not know the details because State won’t answer questions about it from Congress and the Courts to date have been loath to allow any real discovery.
archaeolaw
August 1, 2013
“The government that is big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take away everything you have.” Saw that quote in a shoe repair shop yesterday.
Peter Tompa
August 1, 2013
Wisdom from a small businessman (or woman). And quite true even in a small country like Cyprus these days. I read that to help fix the mess created by the bankers of the private Bank of Cyprus, the Cypriot Government has allowed the bank to take 48% of their depositor’s money Coincidentally, the bank was a bit player in the Cypriot coin decision, having supported the decision (to make it easier to buy for its own museum?). Wonder if they will be selling the collection?
archaeolaw
August 1, 2013
That’s really messed up! I can see how it might become necessary in dire times, but wow!
Peter Tompa
August 1, 2013
Here is the story: http://bostonherald.com/business/business_markets/2013/07/bank_of_cyprus_deposits_raid_boosts_finances
47.5% of deposits over 100,000 Euros. I suppose that protects most of the little guys, but wow is right.
Peter Tompa
August 15, 2013
Looks like this story actually relates to the Iraqi Jewish Archive, which raises a whole host of other issues, most notably why would you return artifacts of people who were hounded out of Iraq back to the nation that did the hounding? Why not give the material instead to the Iraqi Jewish community in exile?
archaeolaw
August 15, 2013
Hi Peter! We’ve repeatedly approved you to post comments without moderation; I don’t know why this doggone system doesn’t do it without my approval. I didn’t notice the connection though, that’s a great question although we both know the answer. Politics! Nations care about nations, not people.