Proposal for a new category in the Damaged category:

Connection: Grave looting or robbing

Dilmun Burial Mounds – "Excavations proved that grave robbers regularly targeted the burial mounds throughout antiquity." – "Some mounds show signs of grave looting. The majority of these intrusions is believed to derive from ancient times and is hence part of the Dilmun Burial Mounds´ extraordinary history." (Nomination file, p. 131, 155)

Domus de janas Sardinia – Necropolis of Anghelu Ruju: "Although, at the time of its discovery in 1903, the tombs were hidden at the ground level, since the first excavations it had been clear that part of them had been looted by explorers "at a very ancient time"". The tombs in the Necropolis of Brodu were also looted in ancient times. (Nomination file, p. 299, 313)

Etruscan Necropolises – Starting in 1936, the site of the Banditaccia Necropolis in Cerveteri was abandoned and, taking advantage of this state of decay, the place was subjected to numerous clandestine excavations with the aim of finding archaeological finds to be sold privately to collectors. (Wikipedia)

Koguryo Tombs – "some of the wall paintings in the tombs were damaged by looting" (OUV)

Plain of Jars – "In the past, looting has been a factor affecting the property, and some jars were removed; however, the State Party considers that this is not a current issue." (AB Ev) – "Looting has been an issue both historically and in the current period, although no activity has been reported at any of the nominated sites in recent decades. The last known example of looting was in 2002-03 at Site 1." (Nomination file, p. 118)

San Agustín – "The San Agustín archaeological sites were abandoned around 1350 AD and rediscovered during the 18th and 19th centuries, which led the looting and disturbance of most of the monumental tombs while looking for grave goods which proved to be very scant." (OUV)

Sardis and the Lydian Tumuli of Bin Tepe – "(...) some past actions have reduced the authenticity of the property, such as (...) looting of the tumuli at Bin Tepe." (OUV)

Tierradentro – "The sites were abandoned before the 13Th century AD and modern occupation gradually uncovered the tombs, many of which were opened and looted during the 18th and 19th centuries." (OUV)

I am a bit worried that every historic tomb ends up here, but still, we need to have it

Actually this is a fascinating subject which justifies more explanation and investigation – particularly for those tombs where the history of the "looting" and the current location of the looted articles is known - unlike for instance Maes Howe whose looting by the Vikings is "lost in history" apart from the graffiti!!

The issue of what constitutes "Looting" needs to be addressed in the definition. When does Antiquarian excavation (albeit not to "modern standards") become "looting" Does it include "authorized" excavations by colonial powers e.g by Japan for excavations of tombs in Korea (North and South).....or by 19th C adventurer archaeologists in Egypt and Sudan. who had "authority" from the Ottomans but not from the "Sudanese". And even having authority to excavate doesn't necessarily give authority to remove or to destroy the tombs in so doing!! What about excavations of long barrows by amateurs and removal of artifacts at Avebury in the 19th C. Does even the stealing of 1 article when all the others are carefully accounted for in the archaeological records constitute "looting"? I think of the Howard Carter "Amulet" from the Tutankamum tomb. And what about the "Treasure of Priam" taken from Troy by Schliemann with the story that it wasn't in a tomb, just hidden away during War??

With this added clarity the Connection could be extended and provide genuine "added value" by adding any available worthwhile background regarding the "looting".

I would mention 2 particular sets of tombs for possible addition here

The Koguryo tombs in DPRK AND China were both systematically excavated and stripped by Japanese Archaeologists when both Korea and Manchukuo were under Japanese control - though only the DPRK ones have been included in the connection so far. The very anodyne statement in the OUV as cited by Jurre was certainly not an accidental underplaying of that fact. The looted artifacts from both what is today China and DPRK are still in Japan as a part of the Tokyo National And Kyoto museum collections or just hidden away. Resolution of the issue is complicated by being a 4 way fight...... China, Japan, S Korea and DPRK with China claiming Koguryo as a part of its own heritage rather than being Korean - hence its separate Koguryo inscription. The Gyeongju tombs were also excavated and many artifacts removed though S Korea has done better in getting many (but not all) of them back. Do any of these examples constitute "Looting"

The Meroe Tombs in Sudan were blown up by Ferlini in 1835 .... The artifacts taken away are primarily located today in 2 collections in Germany – see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giuseppe_Ferlini Do these count as having been "looted"?

Grave looting or robbing: Ancient Thebes: Valley of the Kings

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grave_robbery

The Palaces of King Ludwig II of Bavaria

In Disney and Pixar Animation Classics

https://neuschwanstein-castle-tours.com/did-walt-disney-ever-visit-neuschwanstein-castle/

Location for a classic movie

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_(film)

Solivagant, you do make some good points, some of which also came into my mind when I wanted to make the proposal. However, my starting pool for the connection is maybe too small to start dividing up the connection into more specific parts.

1. It did cross my mind that for the moment we're putting together all kinds of grave looting from very different time periods. Some graves were already looted in the time they were part of, some only after rediscovery. This time difference might not be the biggest hurdle, as some other connections also feature examples from very different time periods.

2. To make a distinction based on who did the grave looting requires more insight and knowlegde of the WHS, which I don't possess of every WHS. And in a lot of cases, we won't even know who did the grave looting, as it is an illegal or blasphemous action (and here it links to your Curse inscriptions!).

3. However, the "looting" by archaeologists and colonial powers did also come to my mind. Some archaeological expeditions took artefacts home while hiding them from the state administration. This is where the grey zone of looting begins, as you rightly remark. Looting will be a matter of perspective here. The home state of the artefact will call it "stealing" and "looting", the home state of the archaeologist will deny it. Think of the controversy around some of the Egyptian artefacts or the Elgin Marbles, for instance.
Again, the limited amount of examples I had to start off the connection, didn't really make it possible to make a distinction, but I do think there might be a separate connection to be found there, along the lines of "Disputed artefacts" or "Vandalism by archaeologists". The critique that could be made for the artefact connection, however, is that it focuses on the artefacts, which a movible objects and no more on site, and less on the site itself? The Grave looting Connection still has a link to the site itself as it is the place where the looting happened.

4. I understand the question about specifying in the definition what "looting" actually constitutes, but maybe, over time, with more sites filling the ranks of the connection, we will see a possibility to specify this as we might see certain sites with similar, more specific kinds of looting, appear?

Already I wanted to be more specific with the connection "Grave looting" instead of creating a Connection "Looting", as that would certainly tick off practically every archaeological site in the WHS List.

If you, or someone else, however have a more apt definition or categorization, then you're free to go for it. The connection section will be all the better for it. As for now, I don't know enough about all the sites that might fit in here to make a more clear distinction in different kinds of grave looting.

Timeline - Archean:

Barberton may find itself a bit unconnected under this connection. I suggest to add (at least):

Pimachiowin Aki: the area lies entirely on the Canadian Shield (or North American Boreal Shield, if you like) and is Archean bedrock, shaped by Laurentide Ice Sheets. From the nomination file: Pimachiowin Aki displays the complete geomorphological evolution of the North American boreal shield, from the ancient beginnings of the Precambrian bedrock, to continental glaciations, to the formation and retreat of Lake Agassiz (the largest glacial lake on Earth), to the creation of vast organic deposits by plants. Vast expanses of four-billion-year old bedrock lie exposed in the central portion of the nominated area due to glacial scouring and subsequent wave-washing by Lake Agassiz. Greenstone belts, the most ancient features in this bedrock, are separated by large areas of younger granitic rock.

Murujuga Cultural Landscape: is Archean and Neoarchean rocks (Pilbara craton). From the nomination file: The geologic history of the region is complex, starting 2.7 billion years ago in the Precambrian, with recent weathering and coastal processes continuing to sculpt the landscape.

While Barberton is inscribed primarily for its geology, that's different for other places. However, the nomination files do describe how the geology shaped the landscape, and for Murujuga, the old, very hard rock, helped preserve the rock carvings.

Murujuga is a cultural site only; in that case we take the age of the start of the cultural OUV for the Timeline.
Generally, a site will only have one period from the Timeline attributed to it (except for Mixed sites or very complex WHS with lots of criteria).
Murujuga does not have any yet (the AB ev says "The petroglyphs of the Murujuga Cultural Landscape demonstrate artistic achievement assembled over 50,000 years." -> Late Pleistocene)

We have it as Holocene:
The Canadian Shield of which this is a part was totally glaciated in the last period. Everything "natural" now present in the inscribed Ecosystem must have "arrived" since then

Open for discussion...

Nothing against that, of course.

I just think that, if you want to have more than 1 connection for Archean, there may not come a WHS soon that will be inscribed because of its Archean geology, or for example Australia should nominate other parts of the Pilbara for its geology and signs of early life. Barberton's OUV is entirely based on the fact that it is almost undisturbed Archean.
Therefore, I was looking into places where the Archean rock contributed/s to the current cultural/natural value of the WHS. This seems to be the case in Murujuga, where the nature of the rocks leads to the conclusion that 'it was a hard job and required technical skills to make the petroglyphs' on the one hand, but where the nature of the rocks also contributes to why the petroglyphs are not weathered away. Moreover, the shape of landscape itself has contributed to the legends of the early residents, so contributed to the culture in that way too.

As for Pimachiowin Aki: I would say that "Everything "natural" now present in the inscribed Ecosystem must have "arrived" since then" is true for what's on top of the bedrock, and this "recent" ecosystem is of course the reason for inscription. But it grows all on the same billions of years old Archean rock, and, in fact, because the ice scraped off everything else that was there before, and left the Archean exposed.

Perhaps I shouldn't want to give too much credit to old rocks. We have the Global Geoparks for that as well. So, should we feel sorry for Barberton being a Timeline-connection on its own? Or should Barberton just be proud that there is nothing to connect that compares? :)

Since it's the holidays and we're actively adding new categories, I want to share a new one again too, for the History category.

This new connection is inspired by my reading of the nomination file for the Maison Carrée, in search of new connections for that site. In the comparison with other WHS, this connection was hinted at, so I'm curious to see what you think of it.

Connection: Sites symbolising/illustrating the (re)birth of an empire

Definition: WHS that are a symbol of or illustrate the birth or rebirth of an empire through physical remains.

Bisotun – Criterion iii: "The Bisotun inscription is unique, being the only known monumental text of the Achaemenids to document a specific historic event, that of the re-establishment of the empire by Darius I the Great." (OUV)

Bursa and Cumalikizik – The subtitle of this WHS is "the Birth of the Ottoman Empire". "Bursa and Cumalikizik represent the creation of an urban and rural system establishing the first capital city of the Ottoman Empire and the Sultan's seat in the early 14th century." "Bursa and Cumalikizik, as developed as an integrated whole by the first five Ottoman Sultans, illustrate the birth of the Ottoman Empire in the 14th and early 15th centuries." (OUV)

Great Burkhan Khaldun Mountain – "Burkhan Khaldun is associated with Chinggis Khan, as his reputed burial site and more widely with his establishment of the Mongol Empire in 1206." – Criterion iv: "Burkhan Khaldun Sacred Mountain reflects the formalisation of mountain worship by Chinggis Khan, a key factor in his success in unifying the Mongol peoples during the creation of the Mongolian Empire, an event of vital historical significance for Asian and world history." (OUV)

Maison Carrée of Nîmes – Criterion iv: "The Maison Carrée is an early and one of the best-preserved examples of a Roman temple dedicated to the imperial cult in the Roman provinces that testifies to the period of Rome's transition from republic to empire, reflecting the political system and the imperial ideology that underlay the process of consolidation of the territory conquered by Ancient Rome in the hands of Augustus." (OUV)

I have added Water Mills - this is a reformulation of Water Wheels, following the suggestion by Solivagant. It encompasses almost all of the previous connection, except for Vlkolinec where the mills are not inside the core zone. I also added more rationales and updated the links of the older connected sites. The newer ones are by Solivagant.
I think it is interesting to see the different uses of these mills.

We still need a definition for this connection.
I will make a start, based on what has been said above.

Title: Grave looting or robbing -> maybe limit it to Grave looting, which (a) highlights the opportunistic aspect and not so much threat to humans involved and (b) suggests a more systematic and larger scale than robbery of one precious artifact.

Maybe there should be something in there about destroying the grave / disregard for the burial (structure) too. That would exclude archaeological excavations done by the standards of their time, where objects were taken for study or public display (not financial gain).

Periods: I think we should include all ages. This also means that the list will include both early looting and much later colonial acts. There is also the aspect of "disturbing the graves of the dead" - it feels wrong for whatever reason was used to do so.

Rationales: should name the perpetrators if known, and the circumstances under which the looting took place. I think this could be the most interesting part of the list and therefore it is best to keep all ages and reasons for the looting in one list.

Grave looting
WHS where the looting (= opportunistic stealing of goods) of graves took place. Name the perpetrators and dates (if known) and the circumstances under which the looting took place.


Yes. He searched for gold treasures and took what he found, half-destroying the place in the process.


Gemini calls it "state-sanctioned looting because the items were removed without the consent of the local population". All actions during a period of occupation would fall in this category.

This one actually has a large history of looting:
- looted in Antiquity, primarily during the Roman period: "Roman-era treasure hunters who were remarkably sophisticated. Archaeological excavations by the Sardis Expedition in the 1960s discovered a complex network of Roman tunnels—some only 70 cm wide—that precisely targeted the burial chambers deep within the mounds."
- the theft of what became known as the Lydian Hoard (or the Karun Treasure), between 1966 and 1968. Local villagers and organized bands of treasure hunters used heavy machinery and explosives to blast into chambers. They stole hundreds of gold and silver artifacts, which were eventually smuggled out of Turkey and sold to the Metropolitan Museum of Art (Met) in New York.

By the time archaeologists arrived in the 1930s, almost every single major tomb had already been breached.