Fighting Illicit Trafficking of Cultural Goods—The ENIGMA Project
Abstract
:1. Introduction
- Two universities, bringing academic and research experience in the field of cultural heritage (CH) innovation and research;
- One center of excellence for Earth observation (EO), bringing capacity and research experience in the field of Earth observation;
- One research institute, bringing capacity and research experience in the field of trafficking of cultural heritage, from a technical, societal, legal, and psychological perspective;
- Five small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), bringing research experience in the field of information and communications technology (ICT);
- Two national agencies for museums, conservation practice and cultural heritage, bringing experience in user requirements, co-creation and co-development of procedures, demonstrating the benefits of ENIGMA and contributing to the development of shared digital facilities. They also provide the CH data to be used in the pilots;
- One law enforcement authority (LEA), bringing research experience in the field of law enforcement and, as an end-user, will be involved in the training and piloting activities. It also provides the knowledge and data on current databases and procedures used by LEAs.
2. The Challenges
3. Opportunities and Technology Limitations
- Satellite imagery analysis and remote sensing and monitoring: These technologies allow change in heritage sites, such as looters’ holes or site destruction, to be detected by image recognition applications. Although these technologies do not directly address the trafficking aspects of the illicit trade in cultural goods, they may allow for interventions at certain sites towards protection and could alert authorities that cultural goods from certain sites and cultures may be about to appear on the market. They are also useful in detecting large-scale site destruction during times of extreme armed conflicts.
- Three-dimensional (3D) digital scanning technology: Because 3D scanning is a type of recording that is non-invasive, it has been widely adopted by the heritage preservation community for recording heritage objects and sites, particularly those that face various forms of threats. While there is an ongoing debate in this sector about issues related to intellectual property rights (IPR), appropriation, and access related to such 3D scans of CH items, digital scanning is widely seen as a positive development toward preservation. The existence of a 3D scan that proves that a CG is illicit, or illegal is likely to deter buyers and, potentially, thieves. Another potential use for 3D scanning technology lies in attempts to match undocumented looted antiquities to their source. In some situations, accurate digital scans of statue pedestals, tomb floors, remaining objects, and other damaged architectural and archaeological remains that are left behind by looters could be matched to digitally join cut surfaces or other features of cultural goods on the market. Finally, digital scanning technology, together with high-quality 3D-printed models of antiquities, has been put forward as a potential method to satisfy market demand for cultural goods. This reasoning posits that collectors might be convinced to purchase copies of particular pieces of ancient art instead of authentic antiquities.
- Tagging and tracking technologies: Various forms of marking and tagging have been proposed, including radio-frequency identification (RFID) tags that could be scanned and, to a lesser extent, tracked; tagging in the form of clear liquid painted on the object that is invisible to traffickers but visible under certain circumstances to law enforcement or contains identifiable chemical signatures; and tags attached to objects that would, theoretically, monitor their movements in real time. For the most part, these tagging technologies have been proposed by private companies, rather than by law enforcement or other professional stakeholders, and their utility and efficacy are questionable most of the time. They cannot be used for cultural goods that are previously undocumented, and in most cases, there is no obvious added value in using such new tagging technologies.
- Blockchain technology: This can be applied only to known and inventoried cultural goods.
- E-sniffers and “electronic noses”: Practice has shown that such technologies are very expensive and cannot be used on a large scale.
4. ENIGMA Objectives
5. Ambition—Advances beyond the State-of-the-Art
5.1. Authenticity and Traceability
- The fake object purports to be what it is not and creates confusion over authenticity or authorship.
- The forgery, which is a term technically restricted to fake written documents that can support a cultural object’s alleged provenance.
5.2. Remote Sensing, Monitoring and Safeguarding System
- early detect any threat or damage to CHs by comparing incoming Copernicus data on CH sites and monuments of interest under monitoring with previous archive data stored in the data space. Any deviation or change will trigger an automated alert, sent to relevant local authorities. Alert thresholds will be set through ML-based image processing so that false alarms are prevented.
- support research on CH by enabling the comparison stages of sites, monuments and artefacts coming from diverse sites and collections. Advanced AI reasoning techniques will be implemented to identify and analyze the multiple factors that affect the conservation of CH sites, facilitating the identification, monitoring, and quantification of direct and indirect impacts.
5.3. Enabling Database and Inventory Sharing and Interlinking
5.4. 3D CG Reconstruction from Incomplete Information
5.5. Immersive CH Training Metaverse and Related Augmented Reality (AR)/Virtual Reality (VR)/Mixed Reality (MR) Applications
6. ENIGMA Action Plan
- Phase I “User requirements, architectural model and decision making” refers mainly to deployment of WP2.
- Phase II “Development of ENIGMA modules and tools” refers to deployment of WP3 and WP4.
- Phase III “ENIGMA Deployment, Validation, and Training” refers to deployment of WP5, WP6 and WP7.
7. Expected Key Elements
- The growing risk of anthropogenic threats to CH objects and sites demands technologies at all levels of the risk management cycle.
- The economic and social losses caused by a threat to CH can be significantly reduced through advanced provenance research, safeguarding and deployment of preventative measures. Thus, there is an urgent need for an integrated protection system.
- Development of policies demands the communication and cooperation of different stakeholders, for effective support of decision-making at all levels.
- Raising awareness of both experts and the public assumes, among others, an effective training process.
- A unified advanced decision-support platform that integrates all developed technologies, targeting all phases of the risk management cycle.
- A novel methodology for CG dentification and an innovative holistic documentation protocol, enhanced by advanced ML/AI tools and information sharing among existing disparate data sources, including use of Copernicus infrastructure.
- Deployment and validation of ENIGMA tools/applications in realistic operational conditions through pilot cases, with the effective participation of end-users.
- A collaborative stakeholder and public engagement platform for innovative and effective communication and dissemination as well as issuing policy recommendations.
- A mobile application for public engagement, awareness raising, training and scenarios simulation.
- TG1: CH ministries, institutions, archaeological departments
- TG2: Museums, galleries, collections
- TG3: Art market
- TG4: CH professionals, archaeologists, art experts
- TG5: Inter-governmental organizations, NGOs
- TG6: European LEAs, border guards, customs
- TG7: Industrial stakeholders
- TG8: Creative industry
- TG9: Copernicus services
- TG10: Research community, academia, ESR
- TG11: General public, citizens, young generation
- TG12: Relevant European projects
- TG13: Governments and policy makers
- Scientific and technological: improved technological tools and analysis to protect cultural artefacts from falling victim of destruction, theft, illicit trade.
- Scientific: improved interdisciplinary knowledge and capabilities of CH stakeholders to prevent, detect and disrupt illicit trafficking of CGs.
- Economic: less money laundering, trade in illicit CGs, sustainable communities that will coordinate and align R&D in the domain of combating illicit trafficking.
- Societal: more-engaged and sensitized creative industry, public administrations, experts and citizens in protecting CH, as well as in enriching and accessing this common CH data space.
Author Contributions
Funding
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- European Commission, Directorate-General for Education, Youth, Sport and Culture; Brodie, N.; Batura, O.; Hoog, G.; Yates, D.; Slot, B.; Batura, O.; van Wanrooij, N. Illicit Trade in Cultural Goods in Europe: Characteristics, Criminal Justice Responses and an Analysis of the Applicability of Technologies in the Combat Against the Trade: Final Report. Publications Office. 2019. Available online: https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2766/183649 (accessed on 10 May 2023).
- Berends, J. Cultural Property Protection Makes Sense. Civil-Military Cooperation Centre of Excellence (CCOE). 2020. Available online: https://www.cimic-coe.org/resources/make-sense-series/cpp-makes-sense-final-version-29-10-15.pdf (accessed on 10 May 2023).
- World Customs Organization Publications. Available online: http://www.wcoomd.org/en/topics/enforcement-and-compliance/resources/publications.aspx (accessed on 6 March 2023).
- European Commission, Directorate-General for Taxation and Customs Union. Fighting Illicit Trafficking in Cultural Goods: Analysis of Customs Issues in the EU: Final Report. Publications Office. 2017. Available online: https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2778/243134 (accessed on 10 May 2023).
- International Council of Museums. Red Lists Database. Available online: https://icom.museum/en/resources/red-lists/ (accessed on 6 March 2023).
- World Customs Organization. Available online: http://www.wcoomd.org/~/media/wco/public/global/pdf/topics/enforcement-and-compliance/activities-and-programmes/cultural-heritage/archeo_brochure_en.pdf?la=en (accessed on 6 March 2023).
- Interpol Cultural Heritage Crime. Available online: https://www.INTERPOL.int/Crime-areas/Works-of-art/ (accessed on 6 March 2023).
- The Art Loss Register. Available online: http://www.artloss.com/ (accessed on 6 March 2023).
- Carabinieri, the Psyche Project. Available online: http://tpcweb.carabinieri.it/SitoPubblico/psyche/generic?lang=EN (accessed on 6 March 2023).
- International Council of Museums. Code of Ethics. Available online: https://icom.museum/en/resources/standards-guidelines/code-of-ethics/ (accessed on 6 March 2023).
- EU CULTNET. Available online: http://register.consilium.europa.eu/doc/srv?l=EN&f=ST%2014232%202012%20INIT (accessed on 6 March 2023).
- Lababidi, R. The international protection of cultural heritage in times of conflict: Efficient or deficient? J. Am. Inst. Conserv. 2015, 46, 18–20. Available online: https://www.iiconservation.org/system/files/publications/journal/2015/b2015_1.pdf (accessed on 6 March 2023).
- ICOM International Observatory on Illicit Traffic in Cultural Goods. Available online: https://www.obs-traffic.museum/ (accessed on 6 March 2023).
- ICOM International Observatory on Illicit Traffic in Cultural Goods, Authentication. Available online: https://www.obs-traffic.museum/authentication (accessed on 6 March 2023).
- Interpol. Stolen Works of Art Database. Available online: https://www.interpol.int/How-we-work/Databases/Stolen-Works-of-Art-Database (accessed on 6 March 2023).
- Interpol. ID-ART Mobile App. Available online: https://www.interpol.int/en/Crimes/Cultural-heritage-crime/ID-Art-mobile-app (accessed on 6 March 2023).
- iTPC Carabinieri. Available online: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=it.carabinieri.itpc&hl=en_US&gl=US (accessed on 6 March 2023).
- Interpol. Object ID. Available online: https://www.interpol.int/Crimes/Cultural-heritage-crime/Object-ID (accessed on 6 March 2023).
- International Council of Museums. Object ID. Available online: https://icom.museum/en/resources/standards-guidelines/objectid/ (accessed on 6 March 2023).
- Fincham, D. Assessing the Viability of Blockchain to Impact the Antiquities Trade. Cardozo Arts Entertain. Law J. 2019, 37, 605. [Google Scholar]
- Cardozo ARLJ. Digital Art & Blockchain. Available online: https://cardozoaelj.com/digital-art-blockchain/ (accessed on 6 March 2023).
- European Commission. Study on Quality in 3D Digitization of Tangible Cultural Heritage: Mapping Parameters, Formats, Standards, Benchmarks, Methodologies, and Guidelines; VIGIE 2020/654, EC 2022; European Commission: Brussels, Belgium, 2022; ISBN 978-92-76-37858-7. [CrossRef]
- Cerra, D.; Plank, S.; Lysandrou, V.; Tian, J. Cultural Heritage Sites in Danger—Towards Automatic Damage Detection from Space. Remote Sens. 2016, 8, 781. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- UNESCO. Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property; UNESCO: Paris, France, 1970. [Google Scholar]
- UNIDROIT. Convention on Stolen or Illegally Exported Cultural Objects; UNIDROIT: Rome, Italy, 1995. [Google Scholar]
- Tapete, D.; Cigna, F.; Donoghue, N.M.D. ‘Looting marks’ in space-borne SAR imagery: Measuring rates of archaeological looting in Apamea (Syria) with TerraSAR-X Staring Spotlight. Remote Sens. Environ. 2016, 178, 42–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lasaponara, R.; Leucci, G.; Masini, N.; Persico, R. Investigating archaeological looting using satellite images and GEORADAR: The experience in Lambayeque in North Peru. J. Archaeol. Sci. 2014, 42, 216–230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Deroin, J.-P.; Kheir, B.R.; Abdallah, C. Geoarchaeological remote sensing survey for cultural heritage management. Case study from Byblos (Jbail, Lebanon). J. Cult. Herit. 2017, 23, 37–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Negula, D.I.; Sofronie, R.; Virsta, A.; Badea, A. Earth observation for the world cultural and natural heritage. Agric. Agric. Sci. Procedia 2015, 6, 438–445. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Agapiou, A.; Lysandrou, V.; Hadjimitsis, D.G. Optical Remote Sensing Potentials for Looting Detection. Geosciences 2017, 7, 98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- UNESCO Disaster Risk Reduction. Available online: https://en.unesco.org/disaster-risk-reduction/ (accessed on 6 March 2023).
- ESA Thematic Exploitation Platforms (TEPs). Available online: https://eo4society.esa.int/search/thematic+exploitation+platform (accessed on 6 March 2023).
- The Art Loss Register. Available online: https://www.artloss.com/register/ (accessed on 6 March 2023).
- FBI. National Stolen Art File. Available online: https://www.fbi.gov/investigate/violent-crime/art-theft/national-stolen-art-file (accessed on 6 March 2023).
- Papaioannou, G.; Schreck, T.; Andreadis, A.; Mavridis, P.; Gregor, R.; Sipiran, I.; Vardis, K. From reassembly to object completion: A complete systems pipeline. J. Comput. Cult. Herit. 2017, 10, 8:1–8:22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mitra, N.J.; Pauly, M.; Wand, M.; Ceylan, D. Symmetry in 3D Geometry: Extraction and Applications. Comp. Graph. Forum 2013, 32, 1–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wu, Z.; Song, S.; Khosla, A.; Yu, F.; Zhang, L.; Tang, X.; Xiao, J. 3D shapenets: A deep representation for volumetric shapes. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, Boston, MA, USA, 7–12 June 2015; pp. 1912–1920. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dai, A.; Ruizhongtai Qi, C.; Nießner, M. Shape Completion using 3D-Encoder-Predictor CNNs and Shape Synthesis. arXiv 2016, arXiv:1612.00101. [Google Scholar]
- Goodfellow, I.; Pouget-Abadie, J.; Mirza, M.; Xu, B.; Warde-Farley, D.; Ozair, S.; Courville, A.; Bengio, Y. Generative Adversarial Nets. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 27; Ghahramani, Z., Welling, M., Cortes, C., Lawrence, N., Weinberger, K.Q., Eds.; Curran Associates, Inc.: Red Hook, NY, USA, 2014; pp. 2672–2680. Available online: https://proceedings.neurips.cc/paper/2014/file/5ca3e9b122f61f8f06494c97b1afccf3-Paper.pdf (accessed on 10 May 2023).
- Wu, J.; Zhang, C.; Xue, T.; Freeman, B.; Tenenbaum, J. Learning a Probabilistic Latent Space of Object Shapes via 3D Generative-Adversarial Modeling. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 29; Lee, D.D., von Luxburg, U., Garnett, R., Sugiyama, M., Guyon, I., Eds.; Curran As., Inc.: Dickinson, TX, USA, 2016; pp. 82–90. Available online: https://proceedings.neurips.cc/paper/2016/file/44f683a84163b3523afe57c2e008bc8c-Paper.pdf (accessed on 10 May 2023).
- Hermoza, R.; Sipiran, I. 3D Reconstruction of Incomplete Archaeological Objects Using a Generative Adversarial Network. In Proceedings of the CGI 2018: Computer Graphics International, Bintan Island, Indonesia, 11–14 June 2018; Association for Computing Machinery: New York, NY, USA, 2018; pp. 5–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Han, X.F.; Laga, H.; Bennamoun, M. Image-Based 3D Object Reconstruction: State-of-the-Art and Trends in the Deep Learning Era. IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell. 2021, 43, 1578–1604. Available online: https://doi.ieeecomputersociety.org/10.1109/TPAMI.2019.2954885 (accessed on 10 May 2023). [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Jin, Y.; Jiang, D.; Cai, M. 3D reconstruction using deep learning: A survey. Commun. Inf. Syst. 2019, 20, 389–413. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liritzis, I.; Volonakis, P.; Vosinakis, S. 3D reconstruction of cultural heritage sites as an educational approach. The Sanctuary of Delphi. Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 3635. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Choy, C.B.; Xu, D.; Gwak, J.; Chen, K.; Savarese, S. 3D-R2N2: A unified approach for single and multi-view 3D object reconstruction. In Proceedings of the Computer Vision–ECCV 2016: 14th European Conference, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 11–14 October 2016; Springer International Publishing: New York, NY, USA, 2016; pp. 628–644. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Patias, P.; Georgiadis, C. Fighting Illicit Trafficking of Cultural Goods—The ENIGMA Project. Remote Sens. 2023, 15, 2579. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs15102579
Patias P, Georgiadis C. Fighting Illicit Trafficking of Cultural Goods—The ENIGMA Project. Remote Sensing. 2023; 15(10):2579. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs15102579
Chicago/Turabian StylePatias, Petros, and Charalampos Georgiadis. 2023. "Fighting Illicit Trafficking of Cultural Goods—The ENIGMA Project" Remote Sensing 15, no. 10: 2579. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs15102579
APA StylePatias, P., & Georgiadis, C. (2023). Fighting Illicit Trafficking of Cultural Goods—The ENIGMA Project. Remote Sensing, 15(10), 2579. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs15102579