Lecture and latest news on Persepolis archive lawsuits

THE PERSEPOLIS CUNEIFORM ARCHIVE CONTROVERSY was the subject of a recent lecture at the University of Pennsylvania:

Iran Gambles with its Cultural Heritage in U.S. Lawsuits

Apr 29, 2010 E.E. Mazier (Suite101.com)
By remaining passive in U.S. lawsuits that may force the sale of the Persepolis Fortification Tablets, Iran may lose a major historical artifact.

By failing to take seriously lawsuits against it in the United States, Iran risks losing a major component of its cultural heritage. That was the underlying message of an April 27, 2010 lecture by Matthew W. Stolper at the University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology in Philadelphia. The lecture was titled ""Persian Antiquities in Crisis: the Persepolis Tablets at the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago." Stolper is professor of Assyriology at the Institute.

[...]

The tablets are now the prize in a tug of war between survivors and families of victims of two horrific bombing incidents on one side and museums, universities, and scholars on the other side.
Iran Ignored Underlying Lawsuits by Blast Victims

In one lawsuit in federal court, the plaintiffs sued Iran for funding Hamas, the accused mastermind of a 1997 triple-suicide bombing in a Jerusalem shopping area. In a separate federal action, another set of plaintiffs sued Iran for aiding Hezbollah in the 1987 bombing of U.S. Marines barracks in Beirut. The actions were filed under the Foreign Sovereign Immunity Act as amended by the U.S. Congress in 1996 to allow Americans to sue foreign countries that commit or support terrorist acts and that are officially listed as state sponsors of terrorism. Since 1984, the United States has designated Iran a state sponsor of terrorism.

[...]

Iran failed to respond to either lawsuit. Consequently, the plaintiffs in the Jerusalem bombing case won a $412 million default judgment against the country in 2003, while the plaintiffs in the Beirut bombing case were granted a $2.65 billion default judgment in 2007.

[...]

In response to audience questions after his lecture, Stolper noted that the entry of the default judgments means that the central issue is whether artifacts of great cultural and historical significance not only to Iran but also the rest of the world can be sold off, most likely in pieces, to the highest bidders.

While sympathetic to the plight of the plaintiffs, several of whom were severely injured in the blasts and have recovered very little compensation, Stolper and other scholars decry the legal attempt to raid the collections of museums and institutions and the precedent this would set if successful. One concern is that countries would no longer want to participate in cultural exchanges out of fear of losing priceless artifacts in similar court actions. As to the Persepolis Fortification Tablets, Stolper and others contend that the tablets are most valuable if kept intact because this is the only way to get a big-picture view of daily life in the ancient Persian empire.

[...]

Stolper also told the audience that Iran has attorneys in the post-judgment actions, but he described a surprising lack of knowledge about the cases by Iranian officials in the United States. In fact, he is concerned that Iran may walk away from the proceedings.

"If the Iranians do not stay in the case, it becomes a second default judgment after their day in court, which [from a judicial viewpoint] is almost insurmountable,." Stolper said.

[...]

That doesn't sound good. I have every sympathy for the terrorism victims and no love for the current Iranian regime, but I think Professor Stolper is right. For much more on this, see here and keep following the links.