Thank you, Els and Solivagant for redefining the Grave looting. I concur with what you wrote about the connection, so my two cents are coming in a bit post factum.
Solivagant:
a. "Looting" is primarily about "Purpose" - we can't simply call "poor" archaeological techniques which in modern terms destroyed context etc "looting". "Damage" (even based on the standards of the time) isn't a necessary factor in "looting - the Koguryo Tombs were excavated by Japanese archaeologists using the very best techniques.
b. The purpose must be to take away objects for "unsatisfactory"reasons from those who have a better "claim" over them.
c. Personal collection or profit would clearly fit into that but what about removal to a world standard museum "away" from the site.
Looting is indeed about purpose. It is taking away or "stealing" goods from the owners, even if those owners are deceased. The profit will nearly always be personal, but it can also be for the profit of a foreign power, e.g. when a foreign expedition took away certain artefacts to display in the home country. That last case is indeed a grey zone and the opinion will be determined by the point of view. Point (f) also refers to that change of perspective.
Solivagant:
d. In what circumstances do the "locals" (and how "local" do they have to be) have legitimate "claim" over the objects. When the items were removed the "locals" may have had no concept that what they might consider their "Heritage" was being removed
I'm not sure if there will always be a "local" claim. The "local" claim will probably always be a state claim, if there is any international controversy. A local "claim" might not be necessary for this connection.
Solivagant:
f. But that raises another problem - that "contemporary context" MAY not be universally accepted. We either only identify "looting" where everyone agrees it was such or we MAY include it where "some perspectives" do so. My view is that we adopt the latter whilst making it clear that the attribution of the term in any particular case might not be universal!
See the first point. It depends on the perpective and should be added, if applicable.
Solivagant:
g. That will inevitably identifiy some "hard cases" where e.g sub cultures within a universally accepted "state" might feel that tombs which they regard as "their" heritage have been "looted" by a superior force within that "state". I think we just have to treat such cases on their merits.... how realistically founded is the "sub culture" view and how do we define them -- "Sub-cultures" sounds a bit dismissive. Ethnic? mmm?.... I have chosen "Claimant culture" to avoid specifying the basis of the claim!!
This again might be more difficult to establish, as a "dominant culture" will not always recognize the wishes of the "claimant culture" if that last one is subjugated. As you say, these cases will have to be treated on their merits, and maybe on the most basic definition of looting, which is that things were stolen from a tomb.
Solivagant:
i. Finally - What do about defining the period during which we consider removal of goods to have been "looting". A concern is that if we include the whole of "history" then the vast majority of tombs are going to have been looted??? Possibly to the extent that only those excavated in contemporary times are going to esacape the definition of have been looted by unknowns a long time ago or illegitimately in more recnt times!!!! I haven't really resolved that issue in my mind yet. Should we limit "Ancient lootings" in some way to the more "significant" ones??? But i can't think how.... perhpas this IS an example of where we should only address the problem if it becomes too large???
The best thing for the connection will be to historically include all periods. It might be that that created a very larg connection, but that we can always see afterwards if a solution is needed when time comes.