This article examines the Qhapaq Ñan Project in Peru and its unprecedented mobilization of heritage policymaking to foster a participatory approach. The World Heritage listing of the Qhapaq Ñan, or Inca road system, catalyzed a new ethos in the Peruvian cultural heritage sector, reflected in a cohesive set of values and practices centered on community participation. This study analyzes the crafting of a participatory approach within Peruvian national heritage regulations despite legal, technical, and ideological constraints, following the rationales and processes that challenged traditional material-centered paradigms. It focuses on how heritage specialists reimagined their ethical commitments in conceptualizing and implementing this framework. It further demonstrates how participatory practices intersect with official regulations and informal practices within pre-existing technical and normative structures, integrating elements such as benefits, consultation, and collaboration. Therefore, the adoption of the Qhapaq Ñan’s participatory approach is argued not merely as a passive compliance with intergovernmental policy recommendations but as an active assertion of ethical perspectives and practices by heritage specialists.

States have the sovereign right to pursue their social and economic development, often involving urbanization, industrialization, infrastructure development, and tourism promotion. Regrettably, these endeavors frequently lead to destruction or damage to the authenticity and integrity of their cultural heritage. In light of this, one might wonder whether and to what extent, under customary international law, states’ right to development must be harmonized with the need to preserve their own cultural heritage for the benefit of future generations. The present contribution examines various elements of international practice, including treaty practice, resolutions of international organizations, national legislation, and states’ conduct in actual cases to determine the existence of a customary prohibition or clear limits on damaging cultural heritage for social and economic development. It also reflects more broadly on the international regime for protecting cultural heritage during peacetime and the ambiguous relationship between the World Heritage Convention and customary law.

Museums are often considered to be spaces of the authentic, where the real, unique and original is exhibited, and where the accurate past is conveyed. By means of two watercraft, Nydam Boat and Kon-Tiki, it is illustrated how their materiality and authenticity are shaped by processes of musealization, reconstruction, restoration and ways of narrating the past and staging exhibits. While their substances remain present and perceptible, they are also subjected to material changes and changing perceptions over time. From a cultural constructivist perspective, it is illustrated how museum exhibits may be perceived as authentic and how this is related to their materials.

In 2021, the 44th session of the World Heritage Committee Meeting voted to list the Kaeng Krachan Forest Complex as a Natural World Heritage Site, seven years after it was first nominated for consideration by Thailand. A central point to the debate was concerns raised over human rights abuses relating to the Indigenous Karen people living inside the park boundaries. This paper undertakes an analysis of the World Heritage Committee discussion, unpacking key themes of Outstanding Universal Value, human rights, and the role of local communities to illustrate the impact that World Heritage – and the subsequent Authorized Heritage Discourse (AHD) it creates – can have on Indigenous communities.

In May 2021 a group of 96 classical antiquities was seized from Fordham University where they had formed part of their museum collection. The seizure was directly linked to the investigation by US authorities of objects that had been handled by the dealer Edoardo Almagià. The Fordham material was dominated by objects derived from Italy: Apulian, Campanian, and Paestan figure-decorated pottery; red-on-white ware associated with Crustumerium in Lazio; and Etruscan pottery, architectural terracottas, and terracotta votives. The objects were all donated to Fordham by William D. Walsh and had largely been acquired at auctions or through a narrow group of Manhattan galleries.

Cultural heritage preservation and protection are increasingly tethered to an international security agenda constituted across multilateral agencies. UNESCO and other organizations have securitized heritage, engaging in military training and peacekeeping, international law and prosecution, and cultural property protection. Following the events in Iraq and Syria, UN Security Council resolutions have instantiated norms of heritage violence, risk, and threat, while the Global War on Terror also interpolated looting, trafficking, and terror financing into a heritage-protection agenda. We compare these developments with our large-scale public opinion survey of Mosul and Aleppo residents’ experiences of heritage violence and the implications for security and reconstruction. While our results display potential overlaps with UNSC concerns, we suggest that site destruction and broader security concerns are understood differently on the ground, shaped by political and economic factors. We argue for a more humanitarian focus if any relationship between heritage, security, and, indeed, peacebuilding is to be forged.

Old collections, real or fake, are a basic part of the collection history of an antiquity or artwork. This article is a starting point for a study of the concept: how old collections are employed, what functions they have, and how fictitious old collections are chosen and constructed. To explore these concepts, the article considers the example of Cumberland Clark, an early 20th-century collector who serves as the putative origin of cuneiform tablets in a handful of present-day collections, most notably the Schøyen Collection. This article looks at the life and collections of Cumberland Clark, then argues that the Clark provenance for current collections is a fabrication, and concludes by looking at Clark in the context of other old collections in order to draw some lessons about fabricated provenance.

Given the varying degrees of importance that a holy place holds for different parties and the variety of laws used to regulate them, laws pertaining to holy places integrate a broad array of legal, political, social, religious, and economic interests. Acknowledging the difficulty of capturing a singular standard of protection merits examining different existing modalities to discern the means of protection for holy places.

A 2022 Israeli District Court case concerning ownership rights over a Russian Orthodox church in the Old City of Jerusalem shall provide the platform for scrutinizing the relevant laws and variety of interests at play for holy places in Israel, providing insights into the importance of accounting for divergent interests in the cultural heritage protection milieu. This article shall highlight the approaches used towards holy place protection in a difficult and complex context, Israel, to better understand heritage protection methods for unique or significant cultural sites in other regions.

During the Syrian war, many archaeological sites were subjected to systematic looting and destruction, often on a massive scale. Among the casualties of this looting is a colossal basalt statue of a lion that was located at the archaeological site of Ain Dara in northwest Syria. The lion of Ain Dara is a prominent local symbol and of great importance for the collective memory of northwest Syria, especially for the people of Wadi Afrin. Its disappearance will also have serious repercussions for the local economy as it was, in the past, an important tourist attraction. In this article, we investigate how the statue was stolen, why it was stolen, and where it is now. By using the lion statue of Ain Dara as a case study, we aim to shed more general light on the networks responsible for looting and trafficking Syrian antiquities, the factors that have enabled their growth during the conflict, and the role of civil society organizations in reducing their harmful impact on the cultural community of the Syrian people.

A growing number of institutions that hold cultural heritage artifacts are now considering voluntary repatriations in which they choose to return an artifact despite unfilled gaps in their knowledge of its ownership history. But how are institutions to judge whether it is more probable that such gaps conceal theft and illicit export or are innocuous? Attempting to answer this question for Nepal, we examine published and archival records to trace the history of the growth in collecting of Nepali cultural heritage in the United States, with special attention to a 1964 exhibition at New York’s Asia Society Gallery, “The Art of Nepal,” and the activity of the New York dealers Nasli and Alice Heeramaneck. We conclude that the majority of Nepali heritage items in America entered after Nepal prohibited their export.

“Sovereign Objects: International Dimensions of Indigenous Repatriation in Canada” explores the complexities of cultural repatriation in Canadian museums, advocating for its recognition as an international issue. By framing repatriation this way, the study acknowledges Indigenous sovereignty and aligns with international legal standards such as the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP). The international approach enhances political, social, and cultural outcomes for First Nations peoples, providing a robust legal framework and fostering greater recognition of Indigenous nations as sovereign entities. The manuscript highlights the importance of acknowledging the distinct cultural and political status of Indigenous communities, supported by historical treaties and contemporary legal recognition. It provides case studies, such as the repatriation of human remains from the Royal Ontario Museum to the Rainy River First Nations, to illustrate the practical application of these principles. The study also critically examines the challenges of adopting the discourse of “nations,” including the technical, political, social, and cultural expectations involved. By redefining repatriation as an international issue, this research promotes a deeper understanding of Indigenous sovereignty and facilitates more effective and culturally sensitive repatriation efforts. The manuscript argues that such an approach is essential for ensuring that repatriation processes are respectful, equitable, and aligned with the unique governance structures of Indigenous communities.

The so-called “Prakhon Chai Hoard” is one of Southeast Asia’s most infamous cases of looting. The story begins in 1964 when a cache of Buddhist bronzes from Northeast Thailand appeared on the international art market via the auction house Spink & Son, London. They quickly ended up in museums and private collections throughout the US and Europe. The exact findspot was unclear but soon became associated with an unidentified temple in Prakhon Chai district in Buriram province. The moniker “Prakhon Chai Hoard/bronzes” subsequently took hold, becoming commonplace in museum displays, dealer/auction house catalogs, and art historical discourse. However, in 2002, it was revealed the temple in question was Plai Bat II in Lahan Sai district.

This article untangles the many myths and misunderstandings surrounding this act of looting. It does so by reviewing the extant literature in light of information revealed by criminal investigations into the late Douglas Latchford from 2012 onwards, and presenting conclusions drawn from our decade-long documentation of villager testimonies at Plai Bat II (2014–2024).

In the late nineteenth century, Western Powers launched military campaigns in sub-Saharan Africa resulting in the colonization of vast territories and the spoliation of cultural property. To justify the conquest, they asserted the supremacy of Western culture and disregarded principles of international law in their dealings with African states, communities, and individuals. This article examines colonialist legal justifications such as the denial of statehood of pre-colonial sub-Saharan African societies, the notion that conquest and spoliation were justifiable, and the belief that African legal systems lacked concepts of property. The article details why these arguments contradict well-established nineteenth-century legal principles, particularly state sovereignty and private property, which together form the conceptual basis for the prohibition of spoliation. The universal nature of those principles allows for the nondiscriminatory application and interpretation of historical law and consequently the protection of African pre-colonial states and private as well as public cultural property.

The debates on the ownership of contested cultural objects bring forth questions regarding the representation of history. But might these debates also lead to the fabrication of history? Previous research has analyzed how the British Museum’s anti-restitution position contributes to its distortion of British (Museum) history. Instead, this article considers if – and, if so, how – history is distorted to argue for restitution. It examines the eulogized publication The Brutish Museums (2020) by Oxford professor Dan Hicks asking whether his claims regarding British mass atrocities in the conquest of Benin in 1897 can be substantiated by the documentary evidence. The investigation shows that this is not the case. The article also scrutinizes what the source material reveals about the death toll of the events of 1897. The results of the inquiry question oversimplified notions about culprits and victims in the wake of colonial conquest. It is argued that an incomplete understanding of the past impairs efforts to repair past wrongs and that questions about the ownership of colonial collections could productively be linked with questions about the representation of history, such as whose and which histories are told – or not – through contested objects.

In their 2022 publication in this journal, Suber and colleagues attempt to apply crime mapping to the illicit trade of cultural objects from the Middle East to establish a causal relationship between conflict and heritage looting. The article calls for comments by readers on the methodological approaches and results (p. 559). This commentary addresses the article’s shortcomings, specifically highlighting its inadequate grounding in existing literature, methodological limitations, and problematic data approach.

The International Journal of Cultural Property (IJCP) is proud to award yearly the Pierre Lalive and John Henry Merryman Fellowship in Art and Cultural Heritage Law, hosted by the International Cultural Property Society and the Art-Law Centre of the University of Geneva.