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.

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).

The impetus for this study was a review of the Society for American Archaeology (SAA) 86th Annual Meeting program in 2021. Finding that no single poster or presentation referenced looting or antiquities trafficking despite these issues being ethical considerations that all SAA members are expected to recognize, we sought to investigate whether this was an irregularity – perhaps due to the virtual format of the meeting – or whether it was more common than not. For a broader understanding of if, how, and where these topics are discussed by archaeologists outside of the SAA, we expanded the investigation and studied the archives of 14 other archaeological and anthropological conferences. The results of the study show that despite there being an overall increase in mentioning looting and antiquities trafficking at conferences, it remains a niche and infrequently discussed topic.1

This article considers the relevance of the Society for American Archaeology's 2018 “Statement on Collaboration with Responsible and Responsive Stewards of the Past” for imported antiquities (specifically, “classical” ones—that is, from Mediterranean regions). Various practical, legal, and ethical differences between collecting imported versus domestic objects make it difficult to identify “responsive and responsible stewards” of the former. An obstacle to responsible stewardship of privately owned classical collections—and to collaboration between classical archaeologists and collectors—is the 2008 acquisition guidelines issued by the two leading professional organizations in the museum field. I argue that the best home for unprovenienced and poorly provenienced antiquities collections is in university museums, where their complicated object biographies can be fully researched, taught, and displayed.

Under the postwar American occupation of Germany, art produced by the Staffel der bildenden Künstler (German Combat Artist Unit) of Nazi Germany was sent to US military sites for storage under the direction of Captain Gordon Gilkey. Gilkey was head of the German War Art Project, the arm of the Historical Division of the US army tasked with confiscating German “propaganda and war art.” This art, considered a dangerous instrument of Nazi revival, was not protected by laws prohibiting art looting. Yet American officers were sympathetic to many of the paintings created by combat artists, and the German combat artists themselves were torn about their roles in Nazism, perceiving themselves as either victims or survivors merely attempting to make a living. This article traces the history of this artwork from its seizure in postwar Germany through its internment in the United States up to later attempts in the 1950s and 1980s to restitute the works to their creators.

Armed conflicts frequently result in the damage or destruction of archaeological heritage. The occupation by ISIS of parts of Iraq and Syria is no exception. Here, the authors present the results of work focused on Nineveh, as part of a wider research initiative to monitor damage inflicted by ISIS at archaeological sites in northern Iraq. Combining satellite imagery, low-level aerial photography and ground-based reconnaissance, the project presents a condition assessment of Nineveh, as well as a new topographic map of the city. The results demonstrate that a few high-profile acts of deliberate vandalism were accompanied by much more extensive damage caused by construction and rubbish dumping extending across substantial parts of the site.

The modern antiquities market uses radiocarbon (14C) dating to screen for forged objects. Although this fact shows the potential and power of the method, the circumstances where it is applied can be questionable and call for our attention. Here we present an outline of a call to radiocarbon laboratories for due diligence and best practice approaches to the analysis of antique objects requested by non-research clients.

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.

In the global struggle to protect not-yet-excavated archaeological sites from looting, despite legal strictures, the playing field remains badly tilted against the site guards, customs officials, antiquities police, and prosecutors who lack the financial resources to enforce existing laws. To supplement and give teeth to the strict, but ineffectual, legal regime now in place, economic theory points to a policy solution: a “pollution tax” on antiquities purchased by residents of “market” countries, designed to internalize the social costs of looting so that the industry either takes measures to clean itself up or pays the government to prevent or mitigate the harm the industry causes. Tailored to fall more heavily on antiquities with weaker provenance or extremely high prices, and channeled into an antiquities-protection “superfund” (as was done to clean up toxic chemical sites) or via existing governmental agencies, a Pigovian tax on antiquities could provide a sustainable funding stream for more robust monitoring and enforcement efforts against the illicit market as well as for better site security. Archaeologists and dealers may find the idea of this kind of tax repugnant, but such feelings may be overcome through sustained discussion and negotiation explaining the benefits to both sides of a more licit regulated market.

In recent years, the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL)1 as well as several Al-Qaida affiliates have used the systematic and large-scale looting of antiquities as one of their income streams. Due to the large-scale and organized looting activities of these groups, in particular, in Iraq and the Syrian Arab Republic, the United Nations Security Council (UNSC), following various reports and recommendations by the ISIL, Al-Qaida and Taliban Monitoring Team has adopted a range of measures, chiefly among them the landmark UNSC Resolution 2347 (2017) to counter this threat. These measures demand that both member states’ regulators as well as private sector stakeholders take specific action to ensure that the art and antiquity trading industry is capable of defending itself against the misuse of their services to finance terrorism. This article outlines the various challenges member states and private industry are facing in this regard and explains how the various new UNSC provisions, including the measures outlined in UNSC Resolution 2347 (2017), could be employed effectively to counter this threat.