In recent literature on the restitution of Nazi-looted art, reference can be found to notions of morality as impetus for the return of cultural property to claimants who, although they may be able to evidence their ownership to an object, are stymied by onerous legal frameworks. With such claims, it is often the recognition of a moral entitlement or obligation that leads to a resolution regarding restitution. This conflation of morality with justice seems to have taken hold, in particular, with the articulation of the Washington Principles in 1998, which call on nation-states to create alternative dispute resolution processes for the fair and just resolution of Nazi-looted art claims. In determining what is fair and just in the resolution of these looted art claims, regard is often made to the strength of a party’s moral claim to the property. The exercise of notions of morality is often seen as resulting in a fair and just outcome, linking morality with the fair and just solution of such cultural property claims. But, it is justice on what ground? Is morality the proper yardstick by which to determine whether outcomes of restitution claims are just and fair? This article explores the use of morality and offers an argument that it should not be the basis on which entitlement should be determined, primarily due to its amorphous nature and undefined relationship to justice. This is further supported by a claimant narrative suggesting that concepts of reconciliation and procedural fairness are of concern to claimants rather than recognition of moral entitlement. Having regard to these concerns, the article recognizes a need for a new conceptual framework from which to assess the delivery of the just and fair solution and that reflects these concerns.

Between the 1960s and 1980s, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) launched a number of international salvage campaigns at the behest of its member states, the most notable being the Nubian Monuments Campaign. Saving ancient monuments and discovering archaeological sites in Egypt and Sudan was viewed as a landmark in twentieth-century heritage conservation and international co-operation; it was never to be repeated again. Requests for assistance continued, yet the campaigns were configured as conservation missions rather than integrated field projects. In retrospect, this action delimited UNESCO’s goals to bridge education, science, and culture and, ultimately, impacted the potential of cross-cultural dialogue and partnerships afforded by archaeological field research. This article focuses on UNESCO’s International Campaign for the Safeguarding of Moenjodaro (1974–97) and traces the role of experts, both archaeological and hydrological, within UNESCO’s mission. It uncovers the organization’s handling of the monumental challenges and long-term effects of a multimillion-dollar salvage effort. In doing so, the article reveals the early role of prominent archaeologists Mortimer Wheeler and John Otis Brew, the ideological shift at UNESCO from archaeological research to monumentality and preservation, and the tensions that emerged as world heritage was reimagined.

Archaeological looting correlates with a number of problems, including the destruction of stratigraphic data and the damage and loss of artifacts. Looting is also understood to generate revenue, but systematic analysis of this issue is challenged by its opacity: how can we study the economic effects of archaeological looting when the practice is rarely directly observable? To address this problem, we estimate the market value of archaeological sites where artifacts have been previously excavated and documented, using a machine-learning approach. The first step uses 41,587 sales of objects from 33 firms to train an algorithm to predict the distribution channel, lot packaging, and estimated sale price of objects based on their observable characteristics. The second step uses the trained algorithm to estimate the value of sites in which a large number of artifacts have been legally excavated and documented. We make an out-of-sample prediction on two Syrian sites, Tell Bi’a and Dura Europos.

The aim of this article is to examine how the requirement in the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization’s 2003 Convention for the Safeguarding of Intangible Cultural Heritage (ICHC) to ensure the effective involvement of local communities, groups, and individuals (as well as experts, centers of expertise, and research institutions) in the implementation of the Convention can be put into better effect in its international operation. Although examples exist of international treaties that involve non-governmental and other civil society bodies in their implementation at the international level, mostly with regard to Indigenous peoples, the mechanisms for such involvement are still underdeveloped and not wholly satisfactory. Since it has proved difficult to put community participation at the intergovernmental level into practice within the framework of the ICHC, the author seeks to identify approaches that can be usefully employed in the treaty—in particular, by considering participatory models found in other international treaty frameworks in the heritage and environmental protection law fields.

This article addresses a methodological lacuna in studies of African cultural property: states are rarely subjected to the same detailed ethnographic enquiry as communities local to heritage sites. I argue that this is the result of historical circumstances and disciplinary trends treating states as nebulous “up there” entities distinct from the grassroots—and, thus, subject to different modes of enquiry. I demonstrate a corrective approach through a historical ethnographic examination of the government of Lesotho’s archives, examining a period from 1991 to 1993 that saw early efforts to create a national monument at Thaba Bosiu. This detailed view reveals habits of thinking about heritage among bureaucrat-intellectuals, administrators, and international consultants. It offers new insights into how state actors articulated visions for new industries, public participation, and spirituality in public life as well as how to demonstrate incapacity to secure future development funds.

The antiquities trade is the subject of contentious debate. The anti-trade position stems from a long unquestioned stance within academia that private ownership of antiquities inherently results in archaeological site destruction and the loss of valuable data. However, there is little data to support this notion. It also ignores the enormous contributions to our shared knowledge of the past that have been made through art collecting and museum acquisitions. The narrative that the destruction of ancient sites is directly tied to Western demand for ancient art is overly simplistic. Despite the ongoing destruction in the Middle East and North African region, virtually no artifacts from there have entered the Western trade in recent years. Opportunistic treasure hunting by desperate locals and intentional destruction of ancient objects for religious reasons cannot be curtailed by increased legislation in Western nations. Fetishizing mundane ubiquitous antiquities as sacrosanct objects of great national importance that must be retained within modern borders in a globalized world and demanding criminalization of the legitimate international art trade are counterproductive. In many archaeologically rich countries, antiquities are regarded as items to sell to foreigners at best or sacrilegious objects to be destroyed at worst. The free trade in cultural objects is itself an institution that needs to be protected. An open legitimate trade in antiquities is now more than ever necessary to ensure the preservation and dissemination of worldwide cultural property.

Discussions about looted antiquities often focus on large, culturally and monetarily valuable items. Nevertheless, it is clear that mundane small finds, which sell for relatively small amounts, account for a large portion of the global market in antiquities. This article highlights two types of small artifacts—namely, cylinder seals and coins, presumed to come from Syria and Iraq and offered for sale by online vendors. We argue that the number of cylinder seals and coins sold on the Internet has increased steadily since 2011, reaching a peak in 2016–17. This shows that the trade in Iraqi and Syrian antiquities has shifted from big-ticket items sold in traditional brick-and-mortar shops to small items readily available on the Internet for modest prices. The continuing growth of the online market in antiquities is having a devastating effect on the archaeological sites in Iraq and Syria as increasing demand fuels further looting in the region.

This article explores critical directions in the study of cultural heritage and, in particular, food heritage research. Its goal is to deliver insight into local perspectives produced outside mainstream heritage organizations. Strategies implemented jointly by peasant farmers of rural Peru and non-governmental organizations committed to promoting cultural resurgence show how food discloses the symbiotic relation between nature and culture in these indigenous worlds, and allows for claims grounded in social, political, and economic imaginaries. The initiatives described in this article develop within transnational networks of partners and interlocutors but outside of universalist pretensions. They constitute food heritage that differs from that of global cultural actors such as the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization and the United Nations by addressing only the needs of local communities and not complying with mechanisms that bring prestige and revenues to states and powerful cultural entrepreneurs. Globally nurtured, but locally implemented, these locally based initiatives seek out and take advantage of opportunities in strategic, proactive fashions.

Metal detecting is a popular hobby in England and Wales, and, since 1997, over 1.3 million finds have been recorded by the Portable Antiquities Scheme (PAS), a scheme to encourage the voluntary recording of artifacts found by the public. The metal detector can be a useful archaeological tool when used lawfully and responsibly; however, it is also a tool that is used for illicit purposes by individuals and groups wishing to obtain artifacts from archaeological sites on which they have no permission to detect. Information on the number and nature of incidents of illicit metal detecting, however, is difficult to collate owing both to the nature of the crime and to the way it is recorded (or not) by law enforcement authorities. In this article, we examine the strengths and limitations of the available official and unofficial sources on illicit metal detecting in England and Wales and explore the potential they have to tell us about current trends in this form of heritage crime. The first unofficial source is a list of incidents reported to Historic England, which contains basic information on 276 incidents recorded between 2010 and 2017. The second source is the result of a survey of the PAS’s finds liaison officers regarding the extent to which they assisted law enforcement authorities for the years from 2015 to 2017. Both sources were then contrasted with a freedom of information request that was sent to all 49 police forces in the United Kingdom. Although there are some synergies between the unofficial and official sources, the lack of detail in any one dataset makes them of limited use in demonstrating trends in the macro- and micro-scales of time and place. Accordingly, many of the issues highlighted in this article could be resolved by devising a better system for police record keeping of metal detecting offences.

Scholars argue for greater law enforcement resources for art fraud and forgery investigations, yet these victims rarely report their victimization. While fraud victims generally report at lower rates than street crimes, statistics show they do come forward. Using Niels Christie’s ideal victim theory, this article will argue that art fraud victims occupy a lower position in a hierarchy of victims—where some are more worthy of justice, social support, and public sympathy—than those of other kinds of fraud. This may be due to their perceived personal shortcomings and participation in a market that leaves openings for fraud. Public antipathy toward art fraud victims and the silence of the art community may contribute to what many view as insufficient law enforcement resources for investigations because of the collaborative nature of community policing in many Western countries. Increased reporting and communication with law enforcement could address this problematic cycle.

On 30 September 2015, the government of Eritrea issued Proclamation no. 177/2015, the Cultural and Natural Heritage Proclamation of Eritrea, to govern the country’s cultural and natural heritage. Instrumental in the inscription of the nation’s capital, Asmara, in the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization’s World Heritage List, the Proclamation simultaneously governs cultural (tangible and intangible) and natural heritage. The author, the main drafter of the Proclamation, discusses issues and alternatives that were debated during the drafting process, lists the key issues in relation to implementation of the Proclamation, and suggests recommendations on the way forward.

The antiquities catalogues of major auction houses comprise an accessible long-term source of information about the auction market in antiquities and the market in antiquities more generally. The information contained in these catalogues has been used to investigate the nature and scale of the market and to assess the impact of legal and normative measures of market control. But, by way of two case studies, referencing Iraqi and Cambodian material sold at the New York branch of Sotheby’s, this article argues that, while auction catalogues do provide an invaluable source of information for investigating the antiquities market, it can be misleading. Changing material or monetary statistics might reflect commercial factors unrelated to market control. For more reliable research, long-term auction data should be contextualized with information available from other sources.

The return of cultural objects lost as a result of colonial rule is a controversial issue. A common response is: “it was legal at the time” and, therefore, not a legal issue. But is that so? This article argues that it is not a lack of legal norms that explains this belated discussion but, rather, the asymmetrical application of norms. Moreover, a human rights law approach, focusing on the heritage aspect of cultural objects for people today—instead of a sole focus on property title—offers useful tools to structure this field. To illustrate these points, a case concerning an African ancestral sculpture today known as the “Bangwa Queen” will be assessed on its merits under international law. The Bangwa Queen is of spiritual importance to the Bangwa, a people indigenous to the western part of Cameroon. She was taken as part of a collection of so-called lefem figures by German colonizers in 1899 and is currently part of a French museum collection.

In Latin America, conflict-of-law norms have not appropriately considered the cultural diversity that exists in their legal systems. However, developments towards the recognition of Indigenous peoples’ human rights, at the international and national levels, impose the task of considering such diversity. In that regard, within the conflict-of-law realm, interpersonal law offers a useful perspective. This article proposes a conflict-of-law rule that can contribute to clarity and legal certainty, offering a sound way of dealing at the national level with Indigenous peoples’ claims for restitution of property with a cultural value for them, which is framed in international instruments on human rights.

Provenance, the ownership history of an artifact or work of art, has become one of the primary mechanisms for determining the legal status and authenticity of a cultural object. Professional associations, including museum organizations, have adopted the “1970 standard” as a means to prevent the acquisition of an ancient object from promoting the looting of archaeological sites, which is driven by the economic gains realized through the international market. The Association of Art Museum Directors (AAMD), one of the museum world’s most influential professional organizations, requires its members to list the ancient artworks and artifacts that they have acquired after 2008 that do not conform to the 1970 standard in an online object registry. The study presented here of the AAMD’s Object Registry for New Acquisitions of Archaeological Material and Works of Ancient Art analyzes the extent to which AAMD member museums do not comply with the 1970 standard and, perhaps of greater significance, the weaknesses in the provenance information on which they rely in acquiring such works. I argue that systematic recurrences of inadequate provenance certitude are symptomatic of the larger problem of methodology and standards of evidence in claiming documented provenance. A museum’s acceptance of possibly unverifiable provenance documentation and, therefore, its acquisition of an object that may have been recently looted, in turn, impose a negative externality on society through the loss of information about our past caused by the looting of archaeological sites.

The following article considers the approach taken by the courts of the United States in claims concerning issues of state immunity and private international law with respect to the expropriation and restitution of cultural property, primarily in the context of Nazi Germany. It can be seen that the US courts have interpreted the provisions under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act so as to significantly widen the scope for individuals to bring claims against states and state entities in circumstances where the case, and the property concerned, has little or no connection with the jurisdiction and which at their core are domestic disputes.

The Khmer Rouge’s impact on Cambodia’s ancient heritage has been understudied. There are, at present, no major resources that explicitly present a centralized compilation of data or information regarding the relationship between the communist regime and the temples of Angkor nor the various damaging effects that a decade of internecine upheavals have had on the monuments. This absence of primary material is surprising considering the extensive archaeological and conservational work that has taken place in Cambodia, and not to mention the international fascination with Angkor. This article aims to take the first steps in redressing this palpable gap in the literature—it is a brief inquiry into the cause and effect of damage, desecration, and destruction committed to the major Angkorian monuments and the treatment of Cambodia’s ancient, tangible heritage by successive political regimes. It also attempts to deal with the inadequate nature of existing documentation that has hindered any analysis of the issues at hand. I restrict my attention to the Buddhist complexes in Cambodia with a focus on four phases of violence: “Operation Menu” or the American bombardment of 1969–70; the Cambodian Civil War, 1970–75; Democratic Kampuchea’s occupancy of power, 1975–79; and the Vietnamese invasion of 1978–79. In regard to what exactly happened to these monumental complexes at the hands of the Khmer Rouge, I have covered structural damage from conventional weaponry; the use, and, in most cases, misuse, of the temples by various political factions (including strategic, practical and quotidian, and propagandistic use); and the effect of conservation interruption and looting. In light of the recent destruction of cultural heritage in the ongoing conflicts in Syria and Iraq and the recent conflict in Mali, these issues remain perpetually relevant in world affairs.