What does it mean to care for culture? How does an individual, a community, a government, a nongovernmental organization, or an international agency care for objects entangled in the legal and illegal antiquities trade, held in contentious museum collections, or at risk due to cultural or natural disasters? How do the various stewards of the past work across the unpredictable boundaries of private, public, and community ownership? Caring for culture involves a range of activities and commitments aimed at safeguarding tangible and intangible cultural representations and ensuring that they remain accessible to present and future generations while honoring the traditions, beliefs, and identities of the contemporary communities. This editorial introduction to this thematic issue of Advances in Archaeological Practice begins with an analysis of the duty of care for the Neo-Assyrian reliefs at the Virginia Theological Seminary, asking whether the decision to sell one of their fragments was caring for culture or a commodification of the past. The remaining contributions to this issue share the theme of caring for culture, acknowledging and building on the enduring scholarship of Neil J. Brodie and Patty Gerstenblith.

This article uses the lens of commodity theory and, in particular, the scarcity effect to consider ways that consumer desire is reflected within auction catalogs for cultural objects. Taking Brodie and Manivet’s (2017:3) assertion that “auction sales do not offer a clear window onto the broader antiquities trade” as a motivating initial hypothesis, I find that auction catalogs do represent marketing material that can provide at least a blurry window onto the needs, wants, and desires of consumers acting within the market for archaeological and heritage objects. Consumer motivation at an auction is notoriously difficult to assess externally and has long represented a gap in the analysis of public antiquities sales. Failures to effectively regulate market consumption may relate to a misunderstanding of the people who are being regulated. Using more than 50 years of auction sales of Pacific cultural items as a case study, I present auction narrative analysis as a method to consider consumer desire and thereby inform heritage policy and market interventions.

This article builds a framework for understanding both the observable and unobservable features of art fairs and how those structures are created through material and sensorial elements. It draws on the concept of atmospheres and broader discussions of affect to analyze the transgressive thrill present at art fairs, presenting an art fair as a space of commerce masked in the appearance of a museum-like space. This article explores how emotions and lures are structurally produced within the fair and how people are encouraged to collect. Within this space, a desire is cultivated via an opportunity to transgress the familiar norms of the museum environment, which fosters the development of a relationship between a person and an object. In this deeply affective space, rational responses to objects with unclear origins may be suspended. Through focusing on why people collect and how desire is generated we can better understand markets, including criminal markets, for highly desirable objects.

This article contributes to the debate on illicit antiquities and deterrence. First, I briefly examine what has been written about deterrence in the literature on illicit antiquities. Second, I review the criminological research literature on deterrence to define the concept and explain its mechanics; that is, how, according to the best state of current knowledge, deterrence “works” to persuade people not to commit crime. Third, I consider what this criminological knowledge base means for deterrence in the field of illicit antiquities. Deterrence remains a developing idea, rich with practical implications for crime prevention but also harboring some profound unresolved questions about precisely what drives human action in certain contexts. Nonetheless, we can aim to gain a more rounded understanding of the concept than has previously been applied to illicit antiquities studies.

This article explores archaeological practice as regards the study and publication of unprovenanced artifacts, particularly elements of ancient arms and armor. It describes the reasons why publication is thought to be prejudicial for archaeological research and considers the possible utility of some counterarguments by way of an examination of the publication policy of the European Association of Archaeologists. It concludes by arguing that archaeologists in favor of study and publication need to do more to validate their position.

Cultural objects are sold via global, public networks, where market stakeholders rely on the services of other actors such as academics, authenticators, and restorers to facilitate and legitimate this trade. This article will build on Neil Brodie’s examination of the role scholarly facilitators play in the illicit trade in cultural objects by exploring the harmful consequences of such scholarship, using the case studies of Emma Bunker and Mary Slusser as examples. This article argues that those of us with intellectual authority and control interacting with cultural objects should reflect on the broader social context of our research and the consequences of our knowledge production—and reckon with the exploitative and colonial foundations of the knowledge we build on. Ongoing ethical awareness and reflexivity need to be integrated into our practice to support and foster social justice. The article ends with some recommendations on how to incorporate these ideas into academic practice.

The increasing destruction of cultural heritage in conflict zones has exposed the shortcomings of current crisis response frameworks. Traditional, state-led mechanisms have struggled to address the complexities and rapid developments of modern warfare, leading to the emergence of more flexible, decentralized approaches. In this context, civil society organizations (CSOs) have emerged as key actors, stepping in to address the shortcomings of national governments and international heritage institutions. This article explores the evolving role of CSOs in emergency cultural heritage protection, focusing on Heritage for Peace (H4P) and its interventions in Syria, Sudan, and Gaza. Through case study analysis, this research examines the logistical, ethical, and operational challenges faced by H4P, and presents a model of its strategic interventions in emergency contexts. This model illustrates the opportunities and constraints inherent in crisis environments, including mobility and safety risks, alongside structural challenges in cultural heritage protection, such as limited funding and short-term project cycles that hinder sustainability. The research advocates placing the local population at the center of emergency strategies, strengthening local partnerships, implementing proactive preparedness measures, and strengthening international cooperation mechanisms.

Cultural Property Agreements (CPAs) between the United States and foreign governments help to stop criminal activity at US borders by keeping looted and stolen art and artifacts out of American markets. Under US and international law, the United States can join CPAs to prevent looted and stolen antiquities and artifacts from entering the US art market, thereby fighting the illicit trade while allowing the legal trade to continue and even thrive. Moreover, bilateral agreements aim to lessen global demand for illicitly obtained or looted objects—especially because the United States makes up 42% of the legal global art market—while increasing responsible cultural exchange. The United States has signed CPAs with a growing number of countries around the world—generating mutual respect, strengthening global law enforcement, and protecting archaeological heritage in situ. From its inception, a key priority for the Antiquities Coalition (AC) has been shutting down markets to illicit antiquities, while increasing responsible cultural exchange. This article discusses the importance of barring antiquities traffickers from the multibillion US art market through legislation, international agreements, and executive orders—protecting both American consumers and our world heritage.

As I pass the 40-year mark of work in cultural heritage and cultural heritage law, I am grateful for the opportunity to reflect on how the field has evolved since the mid-1980s. This reflection acknowledges the contributions of those who influenced the early development of this field and the way their work continues today through the scholarship and activism of their successors. Evolution on the international level was matched with domestic legal accomplishments in the United States—the world’s largest art market—with conclusive recognition of the principle of foreign state ownership to protect archaeological heritage, US ratification of the 1954 Hague Convention, and an expansion of US implementation of the 1970 UNESCO Convention. At the same time, threats to cultural heritage from armed conflict, other forms of violence, and climate-change-induced natural disasters continue, while the field has only started to reckon with the legacies of colonialism and imperialism often embodied in the large public collections in the European former colonial powers and those who purchased cultural objects from them. This article sets out four areas of cultural heritage law in which we have not succeeded sufficiently and the questions that remain for future generations to resolve.

This review considers how scientific archaeological publications, especially those relying on new digital technologies, can become sensationalized for the public in popular media. I present three separate examples of lidar-based mappings of ancient landscapes in the Amazon and Central Asia, each initially published by archaeological teams in the journals Nature or Science since 2022. These academic publications were followed by many news articles in the popular press. A common trope of these popular presentations includes the concept of “lost cities” being finally “found” by the lidar surveys. This oversimplification usually ignores existing knowledge, especially that of Indigenous local communities and archaeologists. We archaeologists should, therefore, become more aware of the potential consequences of our scholarly communications. We should consider the public’s experience with parsing scientific advances and what ways we can try to influence the public discourse.