When I woke up this morning, it suddenly occurred to me that all four of the earliest civilizations were located within the same narrow range of latitude.

What I did not know until I asked Google AI is that this range = only 8.5% of the earth’s surface.

·       ‘Mesoamerica’ – is located in the mid-latitudes (between 10° and 22° N).

NB the ‘Olmec’ civilization flourished in the Gulf Coast lowlands of present-day Mexico, roughly between 15° and 20° North latitude. See: https://lnkd.in/en3ADptJ

·       ‘Egypt’ – ‘The Serapeum of Saqqara Granite Boxes’, are located at approximately 29.876°N 31.210°E. See: https://lnkd.in/eS55eV6J

·       ‘Harappa’ (Indus Valley) 30.6110° N, 72.8929° E. See: https://lnkd.in/eGZKNbt2

·       The ‘Shang Dynasty’ primarily existed within the latitudes of approximately 33°N to 37°N, with its core territories located in the Yellow River Valley. See: https://lnkd.in/excQy-H5.

So, the narrowest band of latitude of the first four civilizations to appear on earth is roughly 22°N to 33°N.

In other words, they are all located along the same band of latitude around the earth’s circumference, which approximately = an 11° range of latitude.

According to Google AI – The percentage of the Earth’s surface between 22° N to 33°N = 8.5%.

In other words, the four oldest civilization known to have existed – thousands of miles apart from each other, were all located within approximately the same 8.5% belt of land and water, around the earth’s circumference.

So, why did all four of the earliest civilizations appear, at around the same time, within this narrow band of latitude?

I wondered whether ‘astronomy’ was a ‘common factor’ between these civilizations?’

So I asked the Q. – ’22° N to 33°N and ancient astronomy?’

Google AI answer –

‘The latitude range of 22°N to 33°N encompasses regions rich in ancient astronomical knowledge and practices. This area includes parts of ancient Egypt, Mesopotamia, and the Indus Valley, all of which developed sophisticated astronomical systems reflected in their architecture, calendar systems, and religious beliefs.

Geographical Significance:

This latitude band spans regions with distinct climates and seasonal patterns, directly impacting the visibility of celestial objects and influencing astronomical observations.

The alignment of significant structures like pyramids with celestial events highlights the importance of astronomical understanding in these ancient societies.’

So, perhaps, due to the ‘visibility of celestial objects’ within this narrow range of latitude, the birth on land within that range, of all four of the earliest civilizations, is not entirely a coincidence?

In other words, perhaps these ancient peoples – thousands of miles apart, were all looking at the ‘same part of the sky’, because of the ‘visibility of celestial objects’ within the latitude range of 22°N to 33°N ?

Note also that ‘Göbekli Tepe’, is located outside this narrow range of latitude by 4 degrees.

‘The latitude of Göbekli Tepe, Şanlıurfa, Turkey is 37.223194, and the longitude is 38.922325. Göbekli Tepe, Şanlıurfa, Turkey is located at Turkey country in the Ancient Sites place category with the gps coordinates of 37° 13′ 23.4984” N and 38° 55′ 20.3700” E. … Referred to as the “point zero of history”, the site dates back to the 9th–10th millennium BCE and includes the T-shaped stone pillars which are the world’s oldest known megaliths. These structures are about 7 thousand years older than the Stonehenge megaliths.’ See –
https://www.latlong.net/place/gobekli-tepe-sanliurfa-turkey-31500.html#:~:text=The%20latitude%20of%20G%C3%B6bekli%20Tepe%2C%20%C5%9Eanl%C4%B1urfa%2C%20Turkey%20is,13%27%2023.4984%27%27%20N%20and%2038%C2%B0%2055%27%2020.3700%27%27%20E.

Out of idle curiosity during my tea break this afternoon, I asked Google AI – ‘Relationship between 22° N to 33°N and astronomy?’

The answer is –

’22°N to 33°N:

This range of declination values would correspond to objects located in the northern sky, specifically between the celestial equator and a point about one-third of the way from the equator to the north celestial pole.

Astronomical Significance:

This range is important for astronomers because it defines the portion of the sky where objects will be visible from certain latitudes on Earth. For example, an object with a declination of 22°N would be visible from most locations in the Northern Hemisphere.’

So were these civilizations interested in Astronomy? 

·      ‘Were the Olmecs interested in astronomy?’  – Yes. ‘the Olmecs also possessed a sophisticated understanding of the cosmos.’ See: https://www.mexicohistorico.com/paginas/Olmec-Astronomy–Timekeeping-and-Celestial-Observation.html
·        ‘Were the Egyptians?’  – Yes, see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egyptian_astronomy
·        ‘Were the Harappans?’ – Yes, see: https://www.indianetzone.com/harappan_science_astronomy#:~:text=Linkages%20between%20ancient%20Harappan%20scripts%20and%20latter%20Vedic,Saturn%2C%20and%20most%20likely%20all%20of%20the%20planets.
·        ‘Were the Shang?’ – Yes. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_astronomy.

‘While the Olmecs, Egyptians, Harappans, and Shang civilizations all developed sophisticated understandings of astronomy, there’s no evidence of direct, shared knowledge or significant cultural exchange between them regarding astronomical practices. Each civilization developed its astronomy independently, driven by their unique needs and environments.’ (Google AI).

So, is it a coincidence that all of these ancient civilizations (and Göbekli Tepe’), were located in a narrow range of northern latitude that is of the same astronomical significance?

Logically, a ‘common factor’ appears to be, that these ancient civilizations were all observing the same part of the sky, and at around the same time. So, if that is a valid deduction, then why were each of these ancient civilizations all observing the same part of the sky, at around the same time?

Note also –

The latitude of Pueblo Bonito is 36°03′39″N. It is located in Chaco Culture National Historical Park in New Mexico, USA. The site’s coordinates are 36°03′39″N 107°57′42″W.

Nabta Playa was once a large endorheic basin in the Nubian Desert, located approximately 800 kilometers south of modern-day Cairo or about 100 kilometers west of Abu Simbel in southern Egypt, 22.51° north, 30.73° east.

So, ‘Nabta Playa’, where astronomy is believed to have taken place, is located within the 22°N to 33°N range of latitude.

‘Pueblo Bonito’, where astronomy is also believed to have taken place, is located outside the range by 3°N.

So, it appears that the coincidences are starting to pile up, because ancient astronomers in these places, were also looking as the same part of the sky, as the Olmecs, Egyptians, Harappans and Shang were – thousands of miles apart from each other.

In a rare moment of idle curiosity, I just asked Google AI the Q. – ‘Did the astronomical significance of 22°N to 33°N influence the location of the Olmec, Egyptian, Harappan and Shang civilizations?’

AI Answer –

‘While there’s no direct evidence that the specific latitude range of 22°N to 33°N directly caused the location of the Olmec, Egyptian, Harappan, and Shang civilizations, these civilizations did emerge within or near this range, and astronomy played a role in their cultures. Their locations were likely influenced by a combination of factors, including climate, geography, and access to resources, with astronomical observations potentially influencing their understanding of time, seasons, and perhaps even religious beliefs. … In summary: While the 22°N to 33°N latitude band encompasses the approximate location of these civilizations, it’s not a direct cause of their emergence. However, astronomy did play a role in the development of these cultures, particularly in their understanding of time, seasons, and potentially their religious beliefs.’

So, it appears that the significance of 22°N to 33°N to astronomers, is a coincidence, because astronomy was not a causal factor in the emergence of the earliest civilizations.

What I find peculiar is the apparent ‘common factor’ that all four ancient civilizations were looking at the ‘same part’ of the sky at around the same time. This may of course be a coincidence, i.e. because civilizations arose in these locations for reasons unconnected with astronomy, and astronomy i.e. at these locations, later influenced their science and religious beliefs. So, what I am wondering as a lay person with an interest in this subject, is what evidence exists to support the theory that these civilizations were somehow connected and possessed a sophisticated common knowledge of mathematics, engineering, stone masonry and astronomy?

NB AI also provided the following answers –
Giza and Orion’s Belt:

‘While the three main Giza pyramids are roughly aligned with the stars of Orion’s Belt, the alignment is not precise and requires adjustments to the star map, like inverting the image, to match. Astronomers have used computers to analyze the past positions of stars and debunked the idea of precise alignment with Orion’s Belt.’

Teotihuacan and the Pleiades:

While there’s a general alignment between the Pyramid of the Sun at Teotihuacan and the Pleiades, the alignment is not exact and may be coincidental. The Pleiades were also associated with the setting of the pyramids and may have been a reference point for their construction, but not necessarily a perfect mirroring.’

Q. for Google A1 – ‘Was there any contact between these ancient peoples who built Giza, Teotihuacan, the Nazca lines, Stonehenge and Gobekli Tepe?’

AI answer – ‘No, there is no evidence of direct contact between the builders of Giza, Teotihuacan, the Nazca Lines, Stonehenge, and Göbekli Tepe. These sites were constructed by different cultures, in different locations, and during vastly different time periods. While some theories propose connections, they are not supported by archaeological evidence.’

So, is there any other evidence that there may have been contact?

i.e. evidence of a shared ‘legacy’ of ‘ancient technological knowledge’, e.g. a common knowledge of mathematics, engineering and stone masonry tools and techniques?

‘Nazca Lines and Galactic Map:

The idea of the Nazca lines mirroring a galactic map is speculative and lacks concrete evidence. The lines are generally understood to be associated with rituals and ceremonies, with some potentially linked to astronomical events like solstices.

Stonehenge and Solstices/Equinoxes:

Stonehenge is well-known to mark solstices and equinoxes, but the alignment is not accurate to the second. The accuracy of the alignment would have varied depending on the time of construction and the techniques used, and it was not built to mark solstices to the second.

Gobekli Tepe and Precession:

While Gobekli Tepe is an impressive site with potential astronomical alignments, the claim of encoding the precession of the equinoxes is highly speculative and not widely accepted among archaeologists and astronomers.’

I would like to share an insight I had this morning about Mediation, which as a process, is about ‘doing a deal’ and requires a ‘Paradigm Shift.’

A ‘Paradigm Shift’ in effect requires the creation of a ‘New Paradigm’, for adoption by the warring parties, i.e. as a new ‘Lens’ through which to view the dispute, in order to discover common ground and settle.

‘Doctrine’ – See my previous post – ‘Creating a New Paradigm of Restitution in Cultural Heritage Disputes’: https://lnkd.in/eRNv8C93

As I wrote in the post in Cultural Heritage Disputes, there are two competing theories under International law, which are divergent:

(i)         ‘Cultural Nationalism’; and
(ii)        ‘Cultural Internationalism’.

‘Taxonomy’ – Different terms are used in the academic literature to classify Cultural Heritage Disputes.

‘The handing back of property to the original possessor or owner is known variously as restitution, return, and repatriation … are treated differently in law, with some covered by private law instruments and others by public law. … [Points] of convergence can be seen where there are no legal means of claiming restitution, either because the passage of time or because there has been no unlawful act. It can also happen that, once outside the state territory, there may be limits to the protection afforded to a disputed item of property under public law, even where international conventions apply, as these are sometimes unenforceable..’ (Cornu, Marie & Marc-Andre Renold ‘New developments in the restitution of cultural property: alternative means of dispute resolution’ , 17 Intnl J. Cultural Prop.1 [2010] pp. 1-2).’

So, essentially, these competing ‘paradigms’ are based upon:

(i)          ‘Title’ – which can be classified as being a ‘Restitution Paradigm’ based upon applicable ‘Property Law’ concepts; and

(ii)        ‘Cultural Patrimony’ – which can be classified as being a ‘Repatriation Paradigm’ based upon ‘Ethics.’

So, adopting this framework, the former can broadly be classified as being ‘Cultural Property’ claims, and the latter as ‘Patrimonial’ claims.

Understanding the ‘source’ of each party’s ‘Paradigm’ is the ‘starting point’ for the Mediator in a Cultural Heritage Dispute, as it enables him to ‘drill-down’ into the underlying ‘Legal’ and ‘Moral’ elements of the claim and ‘reality-test’ them, in order to facilitate the building of a ‘bridge’ between these divergent sets of principles (i.e. to bring about ‘Convergence’), through the agreement of a framework of applicable ‘Foundational Principles’, i.e. a ‘New Paradigm’ – which in my Monograph I shall refer to for convenience as being ‘Principles of Restitution’.

In a nutshell, the Methodology (i.e. ‘Dispute Resolution Road Map’) I have so far developed for the Mediation of Cultural Heritage Disputes entails:

·       1st Understand the ‘source’ of each party’s ‘Paradigm’ – NB in Mediation – ‘Legal Doctrine + Taxonomy = Paradigm.’
·       2nd – ‘Reality- Testing’.
·       3rd – ‘Creation of a New Paradigm’ – i.e. applicable ‘Principles of Restitution.’

The ‘Old Paradigm’ – There are two prevalent doctrines in claims for the return of cultural property:

(i) ‘Cultural Nationalism’ – Proponents of this view believe that cultural objects belong within the boundaries of the ‘source’ nation of origin. (UNESCO Convention 1970, Article 2 and the Preamble.)

(ii) ‘Cultural Internationalism’ – Proponents of this view regard cultural property as being in the words of the 1954 Hague Convention – ‘the cultural heritage of all mankind.’

However, at the centre of this ‘dichotomy’ is a fatal ‘legal flaw’, because:

(i) cultural property cannot, being within any state’s sovereignty, be regarded as ‘Res Nullius’ (i.e. property belonging to no one); or

(ii) ‘Res Communis’ (i.e. property belonging to the whole world).

Furthermore, making cultural property ‘Universal’, logically contradicts the idea of ‘return.’

So, we need to create a ‘New Paradigm’.

My ‘Methodology’ – I have begun by examining the precedents, i.e. cases relating to cultural property, and by asking – ‘with what issues were these cases concerned?

I am now ‘tabulating’ instances of return, showing how claims for restitution of cultural property have been resolved.

According to Professor Jeanette Greenfield (see the Third Edition of her book – ‘The Return of Cultural Treasures’), this process will reveal the existence of three different ‘categories’ of issue:

(i) ‘Conservation’, which is an ongoing issue;
(ii) ‘Illicit trading’, which is a contemporary issue; and
(iii) ‘The physical return of cultural property which may be associated with illicit trading’ which is also a historical issue.

However, the ‘question of returning cultural property tends to become mixed up under these three headings without any distinction being drawn. When discussing conservation the concept of a “cultural heritage” may be relevant, whilst when considering return the concept of cultural property is relevant. If we examine the many definitions of cultural property the shortcomings are obvious. They are vague and they are subjective. While it may be satisfactory to define cultural property in this way within a national context, a fixed and objective criterion is necessary if the matter of cultural return is to be dealt with on an international footing, such as between states.’

(‘The Return of Cultural Treasures, Third Edition, by Jeanette Greenfield (2007), pp.365 and 366).

So, in order to develop a New Paradigm I also need to develop ‘criteria for return’.

Professor Greenfield advances ‘two basic criteria’ as the basis for determining return:

(i) the ‘means of acquisition; and
(ii) the ‘nature of the object’.

Both as a ‘Mediator’ and as a ‘Mediation Advocate’, I am also developing my own Legal and Ethical ‘Navigational Compass’, i.e. ‘Framework of Principles of Repatriation’, for discussion in my Monograph – see the ‘Mediation of Cultural Heritage Disputes’ page at www.carlislam.co.uk.

18:45 Fri 18 Jul 2025 Royal Albert Hall.

https://lnkd.in/dteRhrS2.

‘The crash of the seas, the crumbling of city walls and a glimpse of the heavens: all come together in the 2025 First Night. There’s a Scottish sound-picture from Mendelssohn and cool Nordic grandeur from Sibelius. Errollyn Wallen harnesses primal forces in her colourful new orchestral commission, while visions from the Book of Revelation are the starting point for Vaughan Williams’s Sancta civitas.’

At last some joy!

And for those who meanwhile reminisce – https://lnkd.in/dmPET-QR

Look out later in the season for BBC Proms: John Wilson Conducts Bernstein and Ravel – Friday 12 September 2025
7:30pm, Doors: 6:30pm: https://lnkd.in/dDVSjG52

‘Critics have praised their Proms performances as ‘breathtaking’, ‘blazing’ and ‘simply as good as it gets’. Now John Wilson and the Sinfonia of London double down with a passion-soaked programme of 20th-century orchestral showpieces. Love is the theme of a Prom that opens with history’s greatest seducer, Don Juan, in Strauss’s swashbuckling tone-poem and closes with the sensuous, diaphanous textures of Ravel’s ballet Daphnis and Chloe.

At the centre is one of Bernstein’s most lyrical orchestral works. James Ehnes is the soloist in Serenade – a violin concerto by another name that muses on, and interrogates, the nature of love itself.’

The range of talent performing at the BBC Proms this season is simply dazzling!

Look out also for:

·        ‘The Great American Songbook and Beyond with Samara Joy’ – 19:00 Sat 19 Jul 2025 Royal Albert Hall:

‘A No. 1 album and a double Grammy-win in 2023 put Samara Joy on the map, establishing the young American artist as ‘the next jazz sensation’ and ‘a legend in the making’, regularly compared to Ella Fitzgerald and Sarah Vaughan. Fresh from another double win at this year’s Grammys, Joy makes a much-anticipated Proms debut, introducing audiences to her electric combination of youthful energy and old-soul musical style with classic songs and unique twists on instrumental classics from across jazz and its fringes, from bossa nova to the Great American Songbook. She salutes figures including Sarah Vaughan, Ella Fitzgerald, Duke Ellington, Billie Holiday, Charles Mingus and Oscar Peterson.’

·        ‘Arooj Aftab and Ibrahim Maalouf – 19:30 Tue 29 Jul 2025 Royal Albert Hall:
‘Grammy-winning artist Arooj Aftab is breaking new ground with her captivating, eclectic melting-pot of influences from jazz, folk, pop, blues and South Asian classical. For her Proms debut tonight, Aftab collaborates with Jules Buckley and the BBC Symphony Orchestra to explore her distinctive sound on a symphonic scale.
French-Lebanese trumpeter, composer and producer Ibrahim Maalouf opens the concert in collaboration with the BBC Singers and BBC SO. His unique sound blends a wide range of influences from Middle Eastern melodies to jazz, Latin jazz and African rhythms, performed with a custom-made quarter-tone trumpet designed by Maalouf’s father’

·        ‘Soul Revolution’ – 19:30 Sun 3 Aug 2025 Royal Albert Hall;
‘With guest vocalists, a gospel choir and renowned Radio 2 presenter Trevor Nelson, the BBC Concert Orchestra and Daniel Bartholomew-Poyser trace a path from spirituals through gospel to soul, revealing the role of these genres in supporting the Civil Rights movement. Inspirational tracks made famous by Marvin Gaye, Stevie Wonder, Nina Simone and Aretha Franklin rub shoulders with hidden gems in a celebration of music that gave a voice to disenfranchised people, fostered a sense of community – and jumped with an infectious groove.’

·        ‘Great British Classics’ – 19:00 Tue 5 Aug 2025 Royal Albert Hall:

‘A celebration of Britain’s land- and sea-scapes. Hear the soaring flight of Vaughan Williams’s The Lark Ascending as well as the many moods of the North Sea as it meets Suffolk shingle in Britten’s Four Sea Interludes from ‘Peter Grimes’. …’

·        ‘Rachmaninov’s ‘Paganini’ Variations’ – 18:00 Fri 8 Aug 2025 Royal Albert Hall:
‘Desire, brutality and the supernatural are shaken together in the orchestral kaleidoscope of Bartók’s ballet The Miraculous Mandarin. Josep Pons conducts the BBC Symphony Orchestra in the last of Bartók’s three great music-theatre scores, an electrifying fusion of folk music and modernism. Angular brilliance gives way to exotic, Impressionistic colours in Dukas’s exotic ‘danced poem’ La Péri. ‘Remarkable’ Italian pianist Beatrice Rana is the soloist in Rachmaninov’s thrilling Rhapsody on a Theme of Paganini.’

·        ‘St. Vincent’ – 20:00 Wed 3 Sep 2025 Royal Albert Hall:
‘She’s the queen of ‘raw emotion, electrifying rock and unrestrained self-expression’. Now, fresh from three 2025 Grammy wins – including Best Rock Song and Best Alternative Music Album – St. Vincent makes her BBC Proms debut in a unique UK performance. Widely regarded as one of the most innovative and fascinating artists in modern music, the chart-topping American ‘art-rock siren’ collaborates with Jules Buckley and his orchestra, performing brand-new symphonic arrangements of tracks from her eclectic back catalogue.’

·        ‘Under the Italian Sun’ – 19:00 Sun 24 Aug 2025 Bristol Beacon – Beacon Hall:

‘Elgar’s In the South captures the exhilarating feeling of an afternoon by the Ligurian coast. Sunset comes and goes for two young lovers in Respighi’s Il tramonto, whose quiet tragedy echoes the tensions in the overture from Verdi’s Sicilian Vespers. There’s exhilarating energy from Rossini’s William Tell overture, and a chance to glance ahead to the joys of Tosca and La bohème in Puccini’s tune-filled Capriccio sinfonico.’

·        ‘Golda Schultz Sings Gershwin and Bernstein’ – 19:30 Sat 6 Sep 2025 Royal Albert Hall:

‘South African soprano Golda Schultz, the ‘glorious’ star of 2020’s Last Night, returns to the Proms with songs by Bernstein, Gershwin, Weill and others. Bask in the sultry heat of the Deep South in ‘Summertime’ from Porgy and Bess; feel the intensity of first love in ‘Somewhere’ from West Side Story. A programme of contrasting moods and colours also includes Schreker’s sensuous Chamber Symphony – glittering and mercurial – and the bold, folk-infused dances of Stravinsky’s ballet The Firebird.’

Jules Buckey is conducting twice this season!

To enjoy some of his earlier collaborations see:

Sheléa Frazier – I Say A Little Prayer (The Royal Albert Hall 2022): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kNiBAbnlZfM

Aretha Franklin Prom will explore ‘the core of who she was’: https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-62565695.amp

Jamie Cullum and the Heritage Orchestra conducted by Jules Buckley (BBC Proms 2010 – Full Concert):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LmPt4F82nx4

It is going to be a great season!

The Areetha Franklin BBC Tribute Prom in 2022 was Sheléa’s debut in London.

See also: Sheléa • Live at Capitol Studios • The Aretha Franklin Tribute…:
https://www.bing.com/videos/riverview/relatedvideo?q=Shel%c3%a9a+sings+tribute+to+areetha+youtube&mid=1ADC13B11CED71E746601ADC13B11CED71E74660&mcid=B09021DC169249F2B4B429980E56100F&FORM=VIRE

As I have previously mentioned, novel ideas about potential ‘Tools’ in the Mediation of ‘Cultural Heritage Disputes’ are occurring to me fast, as I read about the Repatriation of Cultural Treasures.

So, one more idea before I go offline again!

Today, I have been reading about the plunder and destruction of Cultural Treasures excavated in Afghanistan.

‘The Kabul Museum covered about 50,000 years of history and was one of the most important museums in Central Asia. Over twenty years it lost three-quarters of its collections. Its Begram ivory galleries have been lost. … It appears most of the panels were smuggled out to London, New York and Tokyo. … ‘ (‘The Return of Cultural Treasures’, 3rd Edition (2007), by Jeanette Greenfield, p.272).

This triggered an idea about the ‘ad hoc’ creation through ‘Mediation’, of a ‘Cultural Heritage Trust’, to own and hold collections of Cultural Treasures that are at risk of plunder and destruction, for the benefit of both:

(i) the people of the source country; and

(ii) ‘universally’ – i.e. for all Mankind.

This would ensure preservation, academic and scientific research, and ‘accessibility’ through ‘loans’ (possibly linked to ‘cultural exchanges’) and travelling public ‘exhibitions’.

A collection held by such a Trust would of course also have a ‘safe haven’ in the event of armed conflict in the source country.

Legally, the artefacts would be owned by the Trustees, which would include Museum Trustees from the source country.

Perhaps such a legal entity could have some kind of ‘ad hoc’ designated UNESCO status?

Later in the summer I will be reading about Intellectual Property and Cultural Heritage, and will also think about whether such a Trust entity could also be used to create IPR, e.g. by licensing images i.e. ‘photographs’ for production on postcards for sale in Museums, in order to generate revenue for the public benefit of the people of the source country, e.g. by using that money to build a medical facility/hospital.

See also:
·        UNESCO strengthens action to safeguard cultural heritage under attack: https://lnkd.in/eE-CxPgC
·        Stolen History: looting and illicit trade by Neil Brodie: https://lnkd.in/eQcbRYS7
·        my previous post – ‘Challenging conventional wisdom about the past – How far back in time does Antiquity actually go?’: https://lnkd.in/e3R4g_n7

I am now going back offline to research and write my Monograph  – ‘Mediation of Cultural Heritage Disputes.’

In the course of my reading I occasionally come across archaeological sites and documents which appear to challenge conventional wisdom about the past, i.e. because they beg the Q. – ‘How far back in time does Antiquity actually go?‘

Here for your general interest are some examples, and over the summer if I come accross anything lse of interest I will mention it as a comment in this post:

·     ‘Dolmen of Guadalperal – Spain’: https://lnkd.in/eRZnzt_z
·     ‘Ġgantija – Malta’: https://lnkd.in/eh3gT9W7
·     ‘Göbekli Tepe – Anatolia’: https://lnkd.in/eRTp9gwc
·     ‘Nabta Playa -Sahara Dessert’: https://lnkd.in/ejzafzSU
·     ‘Adam’s Calendar – South Africa’s Stonehenge’: ADAMS CALENDAR also known as: ‘Blaauwboschkraal Stone Ruins’ | South African History Online
·     ‘Piri Reis Map’: https://lnkd.in/epNUaug3

See also – ‘4750-year-old megalithic stone plaza found in the Andes
by Dario Radley February 16, 2024′: https://lnkd.in/eJXmT8nC.

‘Their findings, detailed in the peer-reviewed journal Science Advances, shed light on a crucial period of transition in South America, where coastal fishing communities began interacting with emerging agricultural societies in the mountains. Carbon dating places the construction of the plaza around 4,750 years ago, predating iconic monuments like the Great Pyramids of Egypt and Stonehenge. Toohey emphasizes the plaza’s significance as a gathering place for early inhabitants of the Cajamarca Valley, who were primarily engaged in hunting and gathering activities while beginning to explore agriculture and animal domestication.’

The more I read, the more I realise how much awaits archaeological investigation and discovery, e.g. under the sands of the Sahara Dessert – which was a lush, green savannah during the African Humid Period between 14,500 and 5,000 years ago, see: https://lnkd.in/e5qiPDZH, and underwater i.e. through Maritime Archaelogy, see for example: https://lnkd.in/erMR8ewb
and https://lnkd.in/eeibRVBk.

See also my previous posts:

·     ‘What is an appropriate Model for the Mediation of Patrimonial Disputes?’
https://lnkd.in/e8QraBG6

·     ‘Mediation of Cultural Heritage Disputes – The idea that ancient art possesses a Cultural Domicile of Origin.’: https://lnkd.in/eXHcTW5a

Out of curiosity I put the words – ‘Constructive Trust of Profits of Genocide?’ into Google.

To my surprise, the following ‘AI’ answer came up:

‘A constructive trust can be imposed on profits gained from genocide …. when it would be unconscionable for the perpetrator to retain those profits. … [T]he law recognizes a trust, not through formal declaration, but because it’s the fair and just outcome based on the circumstances. …

In cases involving genocide, a constructive trust might be applied to profits derived from activities that enabled or facilitated the genocide.

For example, if a company profited from supplying goods or services that were used in the genocide, a constructive trust could be placed on those profits.

The UN Special Rapporteur on the occupied Palestinian territory has called for an end to trade and financial ties with Israel, including an arms embargo, due to … an “economy of genocide”.

This highlights the idea that certain economic activities can be directly tied to human rights abuses and that those profiting from such activities should not be allowed to retain those profits. …

The core principle is that it would be unconscionable for the individual or entity to keep the profits. …

There must be a clear link between the profits and the genocide. …

In essence, a constructive trust in the context of genocide aims to prevent unjust enrichment by those who have profited from atrocities.’

As I explain in my book, the ‘Contentious Trusts Handbook’ (2020) published by the Law Society:

‘English law provides no clear and all-embracing theory of constructive trusts. The boundaries have been left perhaps deliberately vague so as not to restrict the Court by technicalities in deciding what the justice of a particular case might demand. (Carl Zeiss Stifung v. Herbert Smith & Co [1969] … . There are established categories of circumstances in which it has been held that a constructive trust will arise. The categories are not closed. The categories include constructive trusts arising from:

(a)    impugned transactions/payments (without a prior fiduciary relationship);
(b)    a prior fiduciary relationship; and
(c)    a prior agreement or understanding.

The constructive trust is not a rigid doctrine. Instead it is deliberately built on a flexible, high level principle of good conscience. In Paragon Finance Plc v. DB Thakerar & Co [1999] … at [409], Millett LJ explained that,

“A constructive trust arises by operation of law whenever the circumstances are such that it would be unconscionable for the owner of property (usually but not necessarily the legal estate) to assert his own beneficial interest in the property and deny the beneficial interest of another.” …’ (Para 7.7.2 – The Common Intention Constructive Trust).

So, doctrinally, how is it possible that a ‘Constructive Trust of Corporate Profits of Genocide’ could arise under English Law?

Any thoughts?

See also my previous post – ‘Corporate Legal Accountability for Genocide’: https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:7346839255316348929/

I made this enquiry of Google out of sheer curiosity. The thought came to me in an idle moment of contemplation earlier this afternoon, while I was watering plants in the garden. So, I was surprised by the reply. I am not aware of any precedent for the declaration under English Law of the existence of a ‘Constructive Trust of Corporate Profits of Genocide’. Perhaps one exists in another jurisdiction? – although I would doubt it. If you know of any precedent please comment. Even if the legal argument could be made, there would be significant ‘threshold issues’ to overcome at trial, including: ‘locus standii’ of the claimant(s); and ‘jurisdiction.’ However, that does not mean that there insuperable obstacles to a claim being made. If the ‘equitable remedy (which is of course discretionary) is available, then so is ‘tracing.’

Gaza: Israeli soldiers admit to deliberately killing unarmed aid seekers
Soldiers say commanders ordered them to shoot starving civilians at ‘killing field’ aid sites: https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/israel-gaza-soldier-admit-deliberately-killing-unarmed-aid-seekers.

‘According to soldiers and officers who spoke to Haaretz, commanders instructed them to open fire on people seeking food at aid distribution points despite knowing they posed no threat.
One soldier described the distribution centres as a “killing field”.
“Where I was stationed, between one and five people were killed every day,” the soldier told Haaretz.
“They’re treated like a hostile force, no crowd-control measures, no tear gas. Just live fire with everything imaginable: heavy machine guns, grenade launchers, mortars.” …’

So, according to this first hand testimony – starving women and children have been gunned down with heavy machine guns and blown-up by rocket-propelled grenades.

Bulldozing History – see: ‘Render it unusable’: Israel’s mission of total urban destruction – While airstrikes account for mass casualties, bulldozers and explosives are flattening Gaza from the ground — what soldiers say is a systematic campaign to make the Strip unlivable, a joint investigation reveals.’: https://www.972mag.com/israel-gaza-total-urban-destruction/ –

‘The systematic destruction of residential buildings and public structures has become a central part of the Israeli army’s operations, and in many cases, the primary objective.’

In my essay – ‘Cultural Heritage Diplomacy & IHL – Are Principles of Humanity under International Humanitarian Law a diplomatic tool in mediating a peace process and agreement?’, I argue that there is an unspoken connection between the complete obliteration of Cultural Heritage and:

(i) ‘Ethnic Cleansing’; and

(ii) ‘Genocide’.

What is being ‘obliterated’ from history in Gaza, is an entire ‘civilization’.

In other words, what is being done = ‘Cultural Genocide.’

See also www.artandcivilization.tv‘.

I am planning to record and broadcast a video programme about this on YouTube after I have launched the ‘Art Civilization & Law’ Channel on Youtube, toward the end of 2026.

See also – ‘Bulldozing history: How Israel uses archaeology to entrench occupation – Heritage destruction is but one of the many mechanisms in which Israel maintains domination over the Palestinians’: https://www.middleeasteye.net/opinion/bulldozing-history-how-israel-uses-archaeology-entrench-occupation

‘Archaeology is but one of the many mechanisms in which Israel maintains domination over the Palestinian people. The use of this biblical narrative is being manipulated as a smokescreen for the Zionist settler-colonial project.

Furthermore, the practice of carrying a bible in one hand and a trowel in the other, which began with the British colonial archaeologists, is being continued by Israel.

To this end, Israel wants to manipulate the historical narrative to serve its interests in the present and to eliminate the possibilities of a Palestinian future.’

See also about the Theft and Illicit Trade in Palestinian Antiquities and Cultural Treasures:

·    Exposing & Resisting Israel’s Theft, Erasure & Appropriation of Palestine’s Archaeology: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=evgPNg0qC7g

·    Israeli Forces Display Stolen Gaza Artifacts in Knesset – Reports: https://www.palestinechronicle.com/israeli-forces-display-stolen-gaza-artifacts-in-knesset-reports/

·   The Trade in Palestinian Antiquities: https://www.palestine-studies.org/en/node/77873

See my previous posts on LinkedIn:
·        ‘What is an appropriate Model for the Mediation of Patrimonial Disputes?’: https://lnkd.in/e8QraBG6
·        ‘Mediation of Cultural Heritage Disputes.’ https://lnkd.in/edDC55rX

My ‘1st Principle of Repatriation’ – which was formulated today is:

Putting:

(i) Law;
(ii) Politics; and
(iii) National Feeling,

all on one side – what is the nexus between:

(a) the ‘Cultural Soul’ of the Claimant community/people/state; and
(b) the ‘Cultural Homeland’ of the artefact?

‘Cultural Soul’ – In a sense, every claim for the return of an artefact, is a claim about the return of something that forms part of the ‘Cultural Soul’ of a claimant community/people/state, today.

‘Cultural Homeland’ – Today, where, if anywhere, is the ‘legitimate place’ to which a historical artefact ‘belongs’, and therefore as a matter of Ethics, should be returned?

In other words, if there is one, where is the ‘Cultural Homeland’ of the artefact?

The idea of the existence today, of a ‘Cultural Homeland’, is based upon two philosophical concepts under International Cultural Heritage Law that I will examine in my Monograph:

(i)          ‘Patrie’; and
(ii)         ‘Lex Originis’.

‘Cultural Domicile’ – Every disputed historical artefact came from somewhere. So, by analogy to the concept of ‘Domicile of Origin’ in Private Law, which is attributed at birth, an artefact can artificially be imbued with a fictional ‘Cultural Domicile of Origin’. Arguably, just as a person’s domicile can change during their lifetime through e.g. choice, a Cultural Domicile of Origin can be altered through legitimate transfer.

My 2nd Principle of Repatriation is – ‘Provenance and Cultural Significance.’

–     What is known about the Provenance of the artefact?
–     What ancient people in Antiquity created the artefact, and for what purpose?
–     What is the cultural significance of the artefact and to whom today?’
–     What cultural beliefs, myths and legend are associated with this artefact?
–     What ritual/practice of veneration, is the artefact believed to have been involved /used in?
–     What spiritual/magical qualities have been attributed by Folklore to this artefact?

Patrimonial Disputes are about both: (i) a claim to the past; and (ii) a relationship with a wider international community in the future.

In that sense, while the Mediation of these disputes may involve a combination of both facilitative and evaluative styles of Mediation, the ‘Commercial Model of Mediation’ is not appropriate.

That is because these disputes are about a value that cannot be fully understood and evaluated in terms of money alone.

So, what is an appropriate Model of Mediation for a Patrimonial Dispute?

I think this requires some ‘innovative’ i.e. orginal and creative thinking, as I have not yet found one in any of the published academic literature.

In other words, a ‘Model for the Mediation of Patrimonial Disputes’, needs to be developed, based upon a ‘foundational’ bedrock of principles and precedents.

As I mentioned in my previous post, I am now going offline for three months to work on the writing a Monograph about the ‘Mediation of Cultural Heritage Disputes’, for publication in 2026. See the ‘Mediation of Cultural Heritage Disputes’ page at www.carlislam.co.uk.

My next live Zoom webinar to be presented to members of the Standing Conference of Mediation Advocates worldwide in 2025 is entitled – ‘Mediation of International Cultural Heritage Disputes – Part 1: Introduction & Overview.’ This is scheduled for the afternoon of Tuesday 11
November 2025.

I mention this, because the development of an appropriate ‘Model of Mediation’ i.e. a Mediator ‘Methodology’, for Mediating Patrimonial Disputes, is the starting point for both the Monograph and the Talk.

As my ideas about this evolve over the summer, I will post them as comments on this post.

In Mediation, the possibilities are only limited by the ‘imagination’ of the participants and their Mediation Advocates, and of course the skill and knowledge of the Mediator, in facilitating ‘synergy’ between them.

Therefore, a logical place to look for inspiration is documented ‘creative deals’ that have been negotiated and agreed in the past in the Mediation of Patrimonial Disputes.

I have started to compile a Table of Precedents.

With one exception, I have found that negotiations (whether Mediated or not), have been protracted over many years.

That is because of the ‘Stakeholder Interests’ involved, and the changing dynamics of both the underlying ‘Ethical’ and ‘Political’ dimensions of these disputes.

So, an obvious challenge for a Mediator in a Patrimonial Dispute, is how to facilitate an ‘alignment’ of these dynamic and competing ‘interests’, by somehow ‘revealing’ common ground, that can become the foundation for the ‘building’ i.e. ‘facilitated negotiation’, of a ‘Framework of Agreed Repatriation Principles’, for practical implementation.

So, I have also started to draft a ‘Table of Repatriation Principles’, based upon ‘Precedent’.

These Tables will form the foundation of both my Monograph and Talk.

First a word of caution about a Mediator [‘M’] ‘projecting’ their own ‘values’ (i.e. ‘Western Values’ if M was educated and grew up in the West), upon a participant [‘P’], i.e. from the ‘Global South’. While ‘Repatriation Principles’ may provide a Mediator with ‘tools’ for steering the ‘P’s toward recognition of ‘common ground’, M must not ‘pre-label’ each P’s values. That is because ‘pre-labeling’ could result in loss of trust from the outset of the Mediation process. What the Mediator needs to do, through ’empathetic listening’ and ‘careful and educated questioning’, is to get each P to talk openly to him in private sessions about their ‘values’, so that eventually in conversation with each other in a plenary session, the P’s – through M, can recognise the existence of an ‘overlapping framework of principles’, which can be used to develop a creative, practical and lawful solution that when viewed as a ‘coherent whole’, is ‘sufficient’ to ‘satisfy’ and thereby ‘reconcile’ their competing interests, ambitions, imperatives, and priorities.