This session examines how wars—across historical periods and geopolitical contexts—affect cultural patrimony (monuments, libraries, archives, museums, sacred sites), and what role ruling classes play in either exacerbating or mitigating that damage. It does not assume elite malignity nor elite virtue. Instead, it asks a set of open, empirical questions: Under what conditions do ruling classes protect heritage? Under what conditions do they tolerate, orchestrate, or benefit from its destruction or looting? And what can the historical record teach us about better safeguarding the world’s cultural inheritance in future conflicts?

From the Roman destruction of Druidic sacred groves at Mona (60 CE) to the burning of Beijing’s Old Summer Palace (1860), from the looting of archaeological sites in contemporary conflict zones to the clandestine burial of manuscripts by librarians under siege—war has always been a mortal threat to cultural patrimony. Yet wars have also, paradoxically, galvanized acts of preservation, from grassroots rescue operations to elite-led restoration projects.

This session takes a long view, welcoming research from any period, region, or type of armed conflict (ancient to contemporary, interstate to civil war, colonial to anti-colonial). The organizing question is not a moral verdict on any group but rather a practical and legal one: How adequate are existing political, legal, and institutional frameworks—from international law to local governance—for protecting cultural patrimony in wartime, and why do failures persist?

THREE COMPLEMENTARY THEMES

I. The Vulnerability of Patrimony in War
• Intentional destruction as military strategy? Looting as economic warfare? Collateral damage as neglect?
• How do international legal instruments (Hague Convention 1954, UNESCO protocols, Geneva Conventions) address cultural property?

II. Ruling Classes—Between Destruction and Protection
• When and why do ruling classes (state actors, military commanders, occupying powers, insurgent leaders) order or permit destruction? When do they invest in protection?
• What role do private elites (collectors, donors, corporations, diasporas) play in wartime heritage outcomes?
• Can ruling classes that benefit from war also become forces for post-conflict restoration?

III. Preservation as Hope, Governance as Prevention
• What do successful acts of wartime preservation look like (e.g., hidden archives, evacuated museum collections, community-led protection networks)?
• Beyond symbolism: how do budgets, legislation, training, and infrastructure shape a country’s ability to protect patrimony before conflict erupts?
• Is there a measurable relationship between a ruling class’s commitment to democracy, peace, and the rule of law and the part it plays in protecting cultural heritage?

The session prioritizes awareness and shared learning. It aims to present scholars and, through them, policymakers and the public with comparative knowledge of how cultural patrimony is lost and saved in wartime. A library that reopens after a siege, a monument restored after bombardment, an archive that survives underground—these are not just symbols. They are tangible evidence that preservation is possible, and that ruling classes, whether through enlightened self-interest or genuine conviction, can choose protection over destruction.

Interdisciplinary contributions are encouraged: history, cultural history, library and archive studies, architectural history, anthropology, museum studies, geopolitics, political science, colonial/postcolonial studies, Middle Eastern studies, Asian studies, and related fields.
Submission process:

Please send a 300-word abstract and a short bio (100 words) to amazuet@stanford.edu, preferably by June 15. Submission deadline extension: June 30.

Include your institutional affiliation (if any) and preferred contact information.