Lost Horizon – what is all this E.U. funding for?

Lost Horizon – what is all this E.U. funding for?

by | Mar 22, 2026 | Views | 0 comments

Countless millions are spent investigating cultural property trafficking to little effect

Preventing trafficking in cultural goods is a major preoccupation of the European Union.

It is one of the key objectives of the constantly updating anti-money laundering regulations; it is the main plank of the import licensing regulation introduced last year; and it led to the creation of Germany’s highly restrictive Cultural Property Protection Act in 2016.

Fears of cultural property trafficking, especially within Europe, have resulted in an ongoing series of co-ordinated law enforcement crackdowns across more than 80 countries since 2014, namely: Operations Odysseus (2014), Aureus (2015) Pandoras I, II, III, IV, V and more (2017-), Sardica (2018), and Achei (2019). These all come under the umbrella of the EMPACT initiative (European Multidisciplinary Platform Against Criminal Threats).

Four current projects running for several years and funded by Europe’s Horizon Project to the tune of €18 million follow on from countless others of the same ilk as they investigate the scourge of trafficking. They are Anchise (€4m), Aurora (€3.5m), Enigma (€4m), and Rithms (€5m) plus another €1.5m being assigned.

Their various remits include:

–      Developing methods and digital tools for the protection, identification and traceability of cultural goods.

–      Protection, tracing, restitution and safeguarding, as well as provenance research.

–      The production of evidence-based research to support the deployment of preventative measures against looting and illicit trade of cultural goods.

–      Raising awareness, mobilising and further strengthening cooperation among citizens, stakeholders, experts, policy makers and all actors involved.

Plenty of research but nothing to show for it

In Germany from 2015 to 2019, the €1.2m ILLICID Project analysed over 6,100 ancient objects as it attempted to identify the level and patterns of crime and how they might support money laundering and terrorism financing. At no point did its concluding report identify any trafficked goods or any terrorism financing, the prime goal of the whole project.

Now, a project headlined Culture, Creativity and Inclusive Society will enjoy another €5 million for ‘capacity building’, ‘evidence and intelligence gathering’, ‘cross domain co-operation’ and ‘consolidated tools and platforms’ – for which read more of the same.

So, with all this time and money spent on assessing the scope, methods and other characteristics of the trafficking of cultural goods in Europe and beyond, how big is the problem and what is this illicit trade worth?

The answer so far is that no one has a clue.

Organisations like UNESCO have tried to get round this in the past by quoting substantial figures (in UNESCO’s case $10 billion annually, first quoted in October 2020) that do not stand up to the slightest scrutiny, and which they have since stopped using, admitting that they had no basis in fact.

In March 2025, The European Commission published its final report under the title Study on measures to increase traceability of cultural goods in the fight against cultural goods trafficking at the Member State level and at the EU level.

It detailed the outcomes of Operations Odysseus, Aureus, Pandora and the rest (costs unknown but certainly in the tens of millions of euros based on minimal available data).

Arrest and seizures but no record of outcomes

Of the operations from 2015-2023, it reported: “These operations seized over 234,000 cultural objects (including small items such as coins), with at least 1,255 investigations initiated and 534 arrests made.”

However, despite these figures, no attempt has been made to measure the effectiveness of these operations. Europol, which helped co-ordinate the operations, has admitted to having no data on how many arrests have led to convictions, nor about how many seized items later had to be returned as licit.

The Commission report also reveals that in at least five of the operations, no data is available relating to the number of investigations launched as a result, and in at least three of them no record is available relating to the number of arrests.

The Commission’s publication of the report in March 2025 coincided with the Antiquities Forum’s launch of a survey of a dozen leading bodies concerned with the issue of cultural heritage crime across the world, from the European Commission itself to the FBI, UNESCO, Europol, Interpol and others. What independently verifiable data did any of them have to demonstrate the level and extent of trafficking, money laundering and terrorism financing using cultural property? Not all of them answered, but those that did provided no data at all.

After so many years of investigations and enforcement operations, what is the problem? Why are Europol and Interpol not tracking outcomes from their operations? With so little hard data to go on, one must ask what the point of these exercises are beyond propaganda and to justify the funding for law enforcement bodies.

Art market risk downgraded by the authorities

Art market representatives at the January 2026 meeting of experts with the European Commission to discuss progress with the import licensing regulation put the question again: what data does the European Union have to show the size and scope of trafficking, as well as the actual value of the illicit market in such objects? This is important bearing in mind the enormous level of resources – including public money – being spent on researching this issue. We await an answer.

At that same meeting, FISMA, the European Commission directorate overseeing financial crime, announced it was downgrading the risk level for the art market for terrorism financing and money laundering owing to a lack of evidence. So what does that tell us?

The European Union continues to fund multiple projects and initiatives to prevent the trafficking and looting of cultural property, primarily through Horizon Europe, the Internal Security Fund (ISF), and direct cooperation with UNESCO. While there is no single, isolated budget line for this, the EU Action Plan (2022–2025) provides a comprehensive framework, with millions allocated to specific research, technological, and law enforcement projects.

Among other recent and current initiatives in addition to those listed above are:

–      Specific Horizon 2026 Call: A dedicated call in 2026 for ‘Preventing and fighting illicit trafficking of cultural goods’ – €5 million.

– ARTDETECT, which focuses on cutting-edge technologies like AI and blockchain to detect stolen items. Part of an EU-funded €7.5 million research project via the Horizon programme led by Global technology company Orfium called AIXpert, the ultimate objective is to improve transparency and accountability in artificial intelligence systems across sectors.

– PRISM (2025-2027), which aims to fight trafficking in museums. This is part of a multiple set of distinct EU-funded ‘PRISM’ initiatives, the most recent being a €7.6 million project (PEACEPLUS programme) for manufacturing innovation and another focusing on cultural heritage protection.

–      The European Commission has co-delegated €2.8 million to UNESCO for a 36-month project (ending roughly 2025-2026) to fight illicit trafficking of cultural property in the Western Balkans.

In all, current projections account for a total of €22.9 million dedicated to future related initiatives. With the €18 million already accounted for, that’s a total of more than €40 million being funneled into multiple projects essentially doing the same thing. And yet, hard data showing the size, nature and scope of trafficking in cultural property, and its links to terrorism financing, remain all but non-existent.

What are these generous budgets really for?

Is it possible that the funds spent on research into cultural property looting and trafficking are actually greater than the value of the property looted and trafficked globally? Of course we cannot know because despite all the money spent, no one has any idea of what that figure is. What these budgets do ensure, however, is significant funding for academics, technocrats, civil servants and law enforcement as part of the incessant NGO/public policy forum gravy train, with the travelling circus of symposia and forums in plush hotels and conference centres around the globe. Enormous focus is put on process and projects, but precious little on effective outcomes and reliable intelligence. This extraordinarily lavish largesse seems unstoppable. Exactly who is holding those with the purse strings to account as the money disappears over the horizon?

Who is really digging a hole for themselves with this attack on amateur metal detectorists?

Who is really digging a hole for themselves with this attack on amateur metal detectorists?

by | Mar 13, 2026 | Uncategorized, Views | 0 comments

Academic archaeologists do not have a monopoly on ethics and rights when it comes to investigating the past, whatever they may think

Only academics, archaeologists, museums, NGOs and governments should be allowed to make money from ancient objects. Everyone else can – and should – fund their work, but must not be allowed to benefit in any way financially from the sector.

How does that sound?

Whatever your viewpoint, this is effectively what interested parties outside the art and antiques industry are demanding from dealers, auction houses and collectors.

The latest example to hit the headlines involves the consignment to auction of an important partial hoard uncovered in the East of England over the past few years. Recorded properly under the stringent rules of the Portable Antiquities Scheme, it has been identified as the largest known hoard of Iron Age gold coins deposited during the reign of Dubnovellaunos, ruler of the Trinovantes tribe from 25BC-10AD.

The find sheds light on this age of pre-history, while the 16 coins consigned have been released for auction after being assessed by the authorities.

With every box ticked, then, what is the problem?

In short, the individual who made the find and has consigned the coins to auction is an academic archaeologist, Tom Licence, Professor of Medieval History and Literature at the University of East Anglia.

Gamekeeper turned poacher

As far as his academic contemporaries are concerned, this is a case of gamekeeper turned poacher, as an article in the latest copy of The Spectator sets out. Titled How a set of gold coins divided British archaeologists, it explains: “Licence did everything right, but the thought of an Antiquaries fellow selling antiquities has led to a debate about the whole system of collecting and reporting finds.”

It also explains that Tessa Machling, an archaeologist and specialist in gold, recently made a Freedom of Information request and learnt that paying for the whole process of assessment, including salaries for museum curators and liaison officers, costs £8.7 million.

“The metal detecting community pays nothing towards that sum,” the article argues. “They do, however, occasionally get rewarded, and can keep – or sell – their finds. Detectorists gain but contribute nothing, Machling says, who told me [the article’s author] that until recently she’s ‘been shouting into the void’ about this.”

So, one-way traffic on the benefits front, then. Wrong.

As Machling’s own arguments set out, the people who are paid from the largesse raised by the government are the academics, curators, liaison officers and others involved in deciding whether finds constitute Treasure or not. Museums hoping to acquire the best finds need funds to do so. As often as not, these come from private individuals – dealers and collectors a lot of the time. Even the article notes that philanthropists play a big role in this.

As for the idea that detectorists simply enjoy a free ride, this simply illustrates the blinkered attitude of their critics. Detecting is an expensive business – equipment, travel, administration, accommodation etc – usually with no reward. Where they make a find, it is very often after years of disappointment and, as in the case of Tom Licence, it can involve a great deal of work, compliance measures and care to ensure the most vital aspect of this business: the accurate recording of finds in context.

‘Underfunded, overworked and lacking legislation’

“Finds liaison officers, says Machling, are ‘underfunded, overworked and lacking legislation’. She would like metal detectors to be licensed, with a small fee and a commitment to follow agreed standards.”

This is simply wrong. We have The Treasure Act (1996, and amended in 2003) and The Portable Antiquities Scheme, policed by the British Museum, which also oversees the Code of Practice for Responsible Metal Detecting in England and Wales (2017). Together they work more effectively than any other scheme known worldwide, and the resulting discoveries have added an enormous weight of knowledge to the national history and identity.

The problem with a licensing scheme is twofold: the tendency of such schemes to over regulate and be burdensome and punitive; and the risk of people faced with these burdens instead cutting corners by not recording and reporting finds properly.

“Licensing the detectorists would bring another layer of bureaucracy,” writes one commentator under the Spectator article. “A quango set up to administer the licences and before you know it detectorists will need to be DBS checked, have public liability insurance, proof of competency and goodness knows what else. This sounds like public sector overreach for a hobby that benefits historical understanding.”

The bad blood between academic archaeologists and metal detectorists, as well as the wider art and antiques market and collectors, is long standing and has worsened in recent years with the over-politicisation of culture. Museums and their curators, who used to work well and closely with dealers and collectors, now treat them as little more than criminals because that is how so many of the public bodies and campaigners treat them in the quest for control of the sector. This is shortsighted because dealers and collectors tend to handle a great number of items, allowing them to augment their knowledge and expertise regularly – and are often generous donors to public collections. Curators tend to handle fixed collections with little scope for expanding theirs.

It all began with the self-funding amateur collector

Those who rail against the trade and collectors forget that the traditions of preservation, conservation and scholarship, began with the self-funding amateur collector, and that many of the world’s greatest museum collections had their origins in the private holdings of individuals.

Soon to be published in English is The Demonized Collector, a memoir by Dutch dealer Karl Stimm, who contrasts decades of often unpaid effort in helping bring the past to the surface in a responsible manner with the brickbats thrown at him and other dedicated enthusiasts by well-paid academics shouting from the sidelines.

From the comments under The Spectator article, it seems that the public is more enlightened than the world of academia and archaeology, and possesses a more developed sense of natural justice.

Many seem well aware of the time, effort and money put into detecting by the detectorists. One goes as far as to suggest defunding archaeologists and academics and instead using the funds to buy the finds. Not the most helpful suggestion, it does, however, show that those currently pointing the finger at detectorists and the market might find themselves the target of mass criticism if they push too far.