## Facts

- The Government of Peru sued Benjamin Bishop Johnson, a U.S. collector and dealer in pre-Columbian antiquities, seeking return of eighty-nine artifacts seized from him by U.S. Customs.
- Peru asserted the artifacts were looted from Peruvian archaeological sites, unlawfully exported, and remained Peru’s property under Peruvian cultural property laws.
- Peru’s case relied primarily on expert testimony that the artifacts were of “Peruvian style and culture” and, in some instances, likely connected to particular Peruvian regions or sites.
- Peru lacked direct evidence of where the artifacts were excavated; Peru’s pleadings and proofs treated excavation in Peru largely as an inference.
- Peru’s own expert acknowledged that the relevant pre-Columbian cultures extended beyond modern Peru, and similar artifacts could originate in neighboring countries.
- Some customs-related documentation suggested Colombia as a possible origin for at least some items.
- On Peruvian law, Peru argued that statutes dating back to 1929 vested the state with ownership of certain unregistered pre-Columbian artifacts, but the proof showed a statutory change in 1985 creating a period in which private ownership of newly excavated artifacts was possible.
- Peru’s legal proof was weakened by testimony indicating the statutes permitted private possession and were not consistently enforced as state-vesting ownership laws.
- Johnson contended he purchased the artifacts in good faith and that Peru could not prove superior title or the artifacts’ excavation within Peru.

## Issues

1. Whether Peru proved the artifacts were excavated within the modern territorial boundaries of Peru.
2. Whether Peru proved that Peruvian law in effect at the relevant time clearly vested ownership of the artifacts in the Peruvian state in a manner cognizable in U.S. court.
3. Whether Peru could establish conversion and replevin based on proof of origin and superior ownership.

## Decision

- After a bench trial, the court entered judgment for Johnson.
- The court held Peru did not carry its burden to prove the artifacts were excavated in Peru, relying instead on stylistic and circumstantial evidence.
- The court held Peru also failed to prove a clear, vested state ownership interest under Peruvian law at the relevant time, given statutory changes, ambiguity, and evidence of treatment of the laws as export controls rather than ownership vesting.
- Because Peru failed to prove origin and superior title, it could not establish conversion or replevin, and the court denied return of the artifacts.

## Legal Principles

- A foreign sovereign seeking return of cultural objects through U.S. civil claims must prove both (a) the objects were taken from within its territory and (b) its domestic law clearly vested ownership in the state at the time of the taking.
- Stylistic or cultural affiliation evidence, without reliable proof of excavation within the claimant state’s modern borders, may be insufficient to establish territorial origin.
- Foreign cultural property statutes that function primarily as export restrictions, permit private ownership or possession, or are inconsistently enforced may be inadequate to show clear state title for U.S. conversion or replevin.
- The claimant bears the burden of proving superior ownership; absent that showing, a court will not order removal of property from a possessor who acquired it in apparent good faith.

## Conclusion

The court refused to order return of the seized artifacts because Peru failed to prove they were excavated in Peru and failed to show that Peruvian law clearly vested the state with ownership at the relevant time, defeating Peru’s conversion and replevin claims.


Gov’t of Peru v. Johnson, 720 F. Supp. 810 (C.D. Cal. 1989)