The historical and cultural fabric of Belize and its threats
The year 2024 marks the 130th anniversary of Belize’s first official legal framework for the protection of its national cultural heritage. The enactment of the Ancient Monuments Protection Ordinance in 1894 laid the foundational groundwork for a series of legislative measures aimed at preserving the former British colony and now independent nation’s diverse cultural and historical legacy. Situated in the heart of Central America, nestled between Mexico, Guatemala, and the Caribbean Sea, Belize is the smallest country on the American continent. Despite the country’s size, barely 8,900 square miles, Belize is often regarded as a cultural mosaic—an intricate tapestry of interwoven identities shaped by its dynamic historical trajectory. This complexity is the product of three pivotal historical periods: the flourishing of the Maya civilization, the colonial era, and the subsequent journey toward self-sovereignty.
The earliest evidence of human presence in Belize dates to around 7000 BCE, during the Paleoindian and Archaic periods.Footnote 1 Throughout their 9000 years of continued inhabitation in the land of Belize, the Maya have been widely recognized for their remarkable achievements in ancient hieroglyphic writing, calendrical systems, astronomy, mathematics, and the arts, including ceramics, mural painting, sculpture, and bookmaking—all of which reveal a profound worldview. The country of Belize is home to several major Maya archaeological sites, including Caracol, one of the civilization’s largest urban centers; Lamanai, known for its ritual significance; Barton Creek, a cave in a beautiful natural enclave used during the Classic period as a ceremonial and burial site; Cuello, yielding Middle Preclassic pottery; and Xunantunich, a striking example of Maya engineering and architecture, among many others.
The colonial era in Belize began with Spanish incursions in the sixteenth century, followed by an increasing British presence throughout the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, ultimately leading to British control of the region.Footnote 2 In 1862, Belize was officially declared a British colony under the name British Honduras. The movement toward independence gained momentum in the twentieth century, led by national hero George Price, often referred to as the father of the nation.Footnote 3 This long but peaceful process culminated in Belize achieving independence from the United Kingdom in 1981, while maintaining ties through its membership in the Commonwealth.Footnote 4 Today, Belize’s cultural and social landscapes reflect a rich fusion of influences: from ancient and contemporary Maya communities to Mestizo traditions blending Maya and Spanish heritage, alongside enduring European colonial legacies and African roots carried forward by the Creole – English-speaking people of African and British ancestry; Garifuna populations –descendants of the Africans and Carib Indians and Africans deported from Saint Vincent in 1798; as well as multiethnic Mennonites, first established in the territory in 1958. All these groups contribute to the country’s unique multicultural identity.
The multiethnic background and rich heritage of Belize, however, have been under threat for centuries. In addition to natural and environmental challenges – such as rising temperatures, extreme weather events, sea level rise, flooding, coastal erosion, and droughtFootnote 5 – human activities pose a significant risk to the preservation of culturally valuable sites. The physical integrity of archaeological sites is increasingly compromised by human encroachment, repurposing of pre-Hispanic materials for modern construction, land leveling for mechanized agriculture, and growing mass tourism that produces surface erosion and, in some cases, leads to vandalism and looting.Footnote 6
The Maya region has historically been, and continues to be, a major source of antiquities.Footnote 7 Archaeological looting dates to the early colonial era, with the arrival of the Spanish explorers. Despite the Spanish presence in Belize being intermittent and shallow, partially due to the lack of treasured resources like gold and to the fierce local resistance and opposition, Spanish colonizers engaged in looting with devastating consequences. The removal of pre-Columbian objects was systematically undertaken, often without regard for cultural significance or historical context, and the destruction of Maya codices and icons to eradicate Indigenous beliefs resulted in the loss of invaluable written records of Maya civilization.Footnote 8 The British settlers engaged in similar practices, and the first recorded shipment of archaeological artifacts abroad occurred in 1888, when British Honduras sent antiquities to Pope Leo XIII as a gesture of gratitude for his donation.Footnote 9 In the early twentieth century, British colonial officials and amateur archaeologists, notably Thomas Gann, conducted expeditions in Belize that led to the removal of numerous Maya artifacts.
The 1950s marked a turning point in the world of looted artifacts. The international demand for carved stelae and finely painted pottery not only fueled the systematic looting of archaeological sites and mutilation and theft of monuments across the Maya regionFootnote 10 but also prompted academic investigations into the underlying motivations for tomb and site robbing. Coggins’s brief but influential article on the illicit trade in looted stelae sparked the first public conversations about the plundering of Maya sites, with Belize becoming his particular focus in the early 1980s.Footnote 11 Researchers like Pendergast and Graham documented the characteristics of looting in Belize and its devastating impact, notably at the Xunantunich archaeological site.Footnote 12 Gutchen further contributed by gathering data and producing statistics that revealed one-third of all registered sites in Belize had suffered destructive activity, affecting 74% of major ceremonial centers and 53% of minor ones.Footnote 13 In later work, Pendergast and Graham revisited the issue, identifying key drivers of looting and barriers to effective heritage protection.Footnote 14 This line of research has continued with contributions from scholars such as Matsuda, Gilgan, Yates, Tremain, and others.Footnote 15 Despite sustained academic attention, the increasing brutalization of archaeological looting techniques and the escalation of antiquities trafficking worldwide remain a persistent and serious threat to Belize’s cultural heritage.Footnote 16
The combination of the clandestine nature of pillaging, the limited interaction between archaeologists and looters, and the geographic and socioeconomic characteristics of this forested region makes Belize an ideal setting for illicit antiquities excavations and trafficking. Geographically, Belize’s sparsely populated region and dense jungles provide an environment conducive to transnational illicit economies, where looting is intertwined with activities like poaching, logging, and smuggling. Its porous borders with Mexico and Guatemala further facilitate the movement of criminal groups, positioning Belize as a strategic hub for the illegal export of pre-Columbian artifacts from neighboring countries. Institutionally, weak infrastructure and chronic underfunding have left thousands of archaeological sites undocumented and unprotected, enabling looters to plunder culturally significant locations largely unnoticed and unpunished. Socioeconomically, high unemployment and poverty rates, although lower than in other Central American countries, have pushed many individuals to accept payment for illegally excavated artifacts. Meanwhile, the country’s growing tourism industry has attracted amateur collectors seeking souvenirs and professional collectors aiming to acquire pieces of the past. It is estimated that up to 59% of Belize’s known archaeological sites have been severely impacted by looting, with approximately 10–15% of the population engaging in such activities.Footnote 17 While these factors contribute to the conditions that enable looting, they also create a significant barrier to accurately collecting data on the scope of looting and its true impact on Belize’s cultural heritage. This hampers heritage professionals’ ability to assess the situation effectively and law enforcement’s capacity to enact legal protections.Footnote 18
Despite the challenges, Belize has a longstanding history of heritage management and protection.Footnote 19 In the late nineteenth century, the British colonial authorities began to focus on the preservation and recognition of their archaeological material culture. In the twentieth century, the development of significant amendments and revisions, along with the introduction of new regulations, helped build one of the most comprehensive heritage protection frameworks in Central America.Footnote 20 Independence, the turn of the millennium, as well as the need to promote a cohesive national identity and achieve economic stability, facilitated raising awareness of the protection of archaeological remains and antiquities.Footnote 21 The following sections explore the legal frameworks that Belizean authorities enforced at the national and international levels to reduce antiquities crime in the country.
Domestic heritage laws
Belize’s strong heritage protection legislation has become a model for other Central American nations.Footnote 22 The first official effort to safeguard its archaeological sites dates back 130 years to the passage of the Ancient Monuments Protection Ordinance (Ordinance n.7) in 1894. Although this early measure marked a significant step in recognizing the value of British Honduras’s cultural heritage, it restricted protection to monuments located on crown-owned land and shaped an authoritative discourse around heritage that has been perpetuated to this day.Footnote 23 Three years later, the 1987 Ancient Monument Protection Ordinance (Ordinance n.5) was passed to extend the protection to the property around ancient monuments.Footnote 24 These laid the groundwork for a much stricter framework established in 1924 – the Ancient Monuments and Relics Ordinance (Chapter 152, n.6) – which introduced the first set of regulations governing archaeological research in the colony and prohibited unauthorized excavations on government land.Footnote 25 To help deter looting, this provision increased fines from $25 to $100 for all those who violated the law. Nonetheless, it recognized private ownership of archaeological sites and permitted archaeologists and sponsoring institutions involved in excavation campaigns to claim 50% of the artifacts recovered. During the twentieth century, the partage system gained considerable traction, with foreign institutions frequently acquiring a substantial portion of the ancient artifacts excavated by archaeologists. This practice was commonly legitimized through archaeocentric, paternalistic, and colonialist reasoning arguing that, in the absence of a national museum or adequately trained personnel in Belize, the proper care and preservation of these cultural materials would be better ensured abroad.Footnote 26 Therefore, while this ordinance created an incentive for foreign academic or institutional sponsors to engage in archaeological research in Belize, it also raised concerns about the dispersal of Belizean artifacts to museums and institutions in the United States, Europe, and Canada. In response, the Antiquities Ordinance was enacted in 1928 to impose stricter export controls and demand explicit permission from the governor in council of the British colonial government to remove any artifacts from the colony.Footnote 27 However, it did not eliminate the partage system, which stayed in place until the 1970s.Footnote 28 In 1933, the Crown Lands Ordinance (Chapter 88) granted the government of British Honduras ownership of ancient monuments and artifacts located on the Crown’s lands and empowered it to declare reserves.Footnote 29
Despite these early legislative efforts, a government institution specifically tasked with managing cultural heritage was not created until the 1950s. In 1953, the colonial government established the Department of Archaeology (DOA) and appointed Alexander Hamilton Anderson as its first archaeological commissioner.Footnote 30 The DOA was formed to protect historically significant sites, ensure the legality and adequacy of all scientific investigations, and steward cultural property.Footnote 31 In 1958, Anderson amended the 1928 ordinance to provide the department with greater legislative and managerial power over the cultural heritage resources.Footnote 32
During the 1970s, as Belize moved toward independence from the United Kingdom, there was a growing surge in national pride and a movement to formally recognize and protect archaeological sites and historic monuments.Footnote 33 Joseph O. Palacio became the first Belizean-born archaeology commissioner and worked to launch comprehensive archaeological legislation. Subsequently, the Ancient Monuments and Antiquities Ordinance (Chapter 259) was unanimously passed in 1971 and repealed the previous one. This policy was described as one of “the strongest [laws] in the world”Footnote 34 as it reinforced the authority over archaeological sites and artifacts.Footnote 35 It was determined that all monuments and antiquities of a hundred years of age or more had to be reported to the minister and subsequently vested in the Crown.Footnote 36 In return, the minister would compensate the finders or those who had exercised possession of monuments and antiquities.Footnote 37 The law also designated the DOA as the responsible institution for issuing licenses for archaeological projects and for the importation, exportation, sale, or trade of monuments and antiquities. Hence, performing any of these activities without the rightful DOA permit became a criminal offense, punishable by a fine up to a thousand Belizean dollars and/or imprisonment for a maximum period of 5 years.Footnote 38 Shortly after, Chapter 259 was transformed into the Ancient Monuments and Antiquities Act (Chapter 330), and enforced in May 1972.
Belize enforced the order to protect the Cerro Maya Archaeological Reserve in 1976, and the DOA invested more time and human resources in “maintain[ing] a register of ancient monuments and compil[ing] reports of cases of destruction of archaeological resources.”Footnote 39 This incipient register was later transformed into a formal database in 1977 by the Peace Corps volunteer David Greene.Footnote 40
In the early years of autonomy, Belize’s government worked to consolidate older ordinances and create a well-defined legal framework. In this context, the Belizean authorities approved the Lamanai Archaeological Reserve Order in 1985 and the Archaeological Reserves Order in 1986,Footnote 41 which designated specific Maya archaeological sites to be protected and remain open to the public. In 1995, Altun Ha, Caracol, Nim Li Punit, Xunantunich, Cahal Pech, and Santa Rita were titled archaeological reserves, and El Pilar attained this status in 1998. Between 1980 and 2000, Chapter 330 was revised three times to include provisions with respect to the protection and conservation of ancient monuments and related matters, such as the acquisition of land by the government, and determined that all ancient monuments and antiquities were to be vested in the government and terminated any rights of ownership or custody of heritage assets by individuals unless the minister specially granted it.
Chapter 330 was repealed in 1999 upon the commencement of the National Institute of Culture and History Act (Chapter 331). Reviewed in 2003, the act established the National Institute of Culture and History (NICH) to foster cross-cultural and multiethnic understanding and respect for the preservation and development of cultural, historical, or artistic activities in Belize.Footnote 42 The NICH had four branches: the Institute of Social and Cultural Research (ISRC), the Institute of Creative Arts (ICA), the Museum of Belize (MOB), and the Institute of Archaeology (IA).Footnote 43 The IA came to replace the Department of Archaeology and expand its institutional power from five DOA permanent staff members and six caretakers in 1981 to 17 officers stationed at the headquarters in Belmopan and more than 50 rangers and park managers working in the field.Footnote 44
In 2016, the NICH released the Belize National Cultural Policy 2016–2026 masterplan to “provid[e] the policy framework for the safeguarding of Belize’s tangible and intangible cultural heritage, [promote] cultural expression and creativity, [and develop] cultural and creative industries and the wise management of Belize’s cultural resources.”Footnote 45 This policy plan was first proposed in 1989 by Inez Sanchez, former chief education officer and co-designer of the Belizean flag, in his vision “Thoughts Towards the Formulation of a National Cultural Policy.” This was followed, in the early 1990s, by a UNESCO-sponsored national workshop and consultations. In 2012, the Ministry of Tourism and Culture and the NICH revisited the need to create a national cultural policy to facilitate Belize’s future social and economic development and launched a two-year-long consultative process. The first phase comprised a period of consultations and educational campaigns with stakeholders, including international organizations, national government ministries, local authorities, nongovernmental institutions, private and corporate organizations, cultural activists, and civil society. In conjunction, they discussed the core values of the new corpus of laws and the strategic plans and actions necessary to fulfill that vision. As a result, the Belize Culture Model was established as a democratic, decentralized framework for managing Belize’s cultural life. A draft of the Belize National Cultural Policy was presented in 2013 to coincide with the 10th anniversary of the National Institute of Culture and History, and the feedback received from organizations, cultural professionals, UNESCO representatives, scholars, and the general public was then incorporated into the final version, expected to be released in 2026–2027. The Belize National Cultural Policy and the Belize Culture Model are fundamental components of a larger, more ambitious, and lasting project: Belize’s Horizon 2030.Footnote 46 Belize Horizon 2030 is the national progress plan that “establishes a vision for the long-term development of a collective national identity as a multiethnic and multi-cultural society,”Footnote 47 in which the safeguarding and promotion of the nation’s cultural heritage is prioritized, along with a balanced, efficient, and equitable access to and distribution of resources for the development of a viable and sustainable cultural sector, and a strengthened national identity and social cohesion.
The renewed interest in revitalizing the heritage management world in Belize prompted several changes in the law. The NICH Act of 2003 was revised in 2011, 2020, and 2024, and the National Cultural Heritage Preservation Act was published in 2017 to institute a council to assist the NICH in discharging its functions and direct funds to heritage projects, inventories, and management plans.Footnote 48 Furthermore, in 2023, the IA established an Enforcement and Monitoring Unit that is now responsible for facilitating international cooperation and combating and preventing the illicit trafficking of cultural property.Footnote 49
The 2024 NICH Act is now the current and most recent law governing cultural heritage in Belize. This amendment strengthened the power of the National Institute of Culture and History to protect and preserve resources in reserves, standardized the definition of “Minister” throughout the Act, and provided stricter penalties for offenses. For instance, while §61 used to punish the removal of dirt and stones from monuments with up to $1,000 and/or 12 months in prison, the 2024 amendment increased the fines to $5,000 and 3 years. Likewise, in §63, which contravenes any direction from the director in relation to operations that might damage or destroy sites, fines went from a maximum of $10,000 to $100,000, and prison time doubled from 5 to 10 years in jail. In addition, this amendment inserted §49 (a) and (b), which expanded the powers entrusted to the director of the Institute of Archaeology to grant archaeological research permits and formulate policies. This allowed for the creation of the Archaeological Research Policy 2024. This policy establishes the terms and conditions for all archaeological research, conservation, and stabilization projects in Belize and provides instructions on artifact documentation and export. In addition, the new §68 gave the IA the ability to enter into co-management agreements, which was first implemented in the Cave Management Policy of 2025. This policy pioneered cave management standards to regulate the use of culturally significant cave sites, protect them, and ensure their sustainable use, a need that has become essential as cave tourism has experienced exponential growth in the past decade.
The most recent instrument released was Statutory Instrument No. 13 of 2025. The “National Institute of Culture and History (Admission Fees and Opening Hours) Rules” were gazetted to amend the opening hours and admission fees for various archaeological reserves managed by the NICH.
International regulations
The industry of illegal antiquities trafficking involves a complex interaction of agents, usually organized in international criminal networks.Footnote 50 Therefore, collaboration among nations in the form of bilateral agreements or multilateral conventions is indispensable. To combat the market for stolen, looted, and illicitly exported cultural heritage artifacts, Belize has engaged in political and diplomatic relationships with other nations through bilateral and multilateral agreements.
Bilateral cooperation
Belize and the United States of America have cooperated closely for decades, especially since the latter has been recognized as the primary market for looted Maya objects.Footnote 51 In 1972, the United States passed the Regulation of Importation of Pre-Columbian Monumental or Architectural Sculpture or Murals, Public Law No. 92-587 9 U.S.C. §2091. This law prohibited the importation of pre-Columbian monumental or architectural sculptures or murals into the United States without a satisfactory certificate from the exporting country.Footnote 52 Unfortunately, this brought unforeseen consequences. The limited scope of items covered by the law, which included only monumental and/or architectural remains, led to the collapse of the market for Maya stelae, friezes, and lintels but boosted demand for all small or movable artifacts that had been legally disregarded.Footnote 53 Gilgan’s market study on Sotheby’s pre-Columbian sales showed that vessels, ornaments, and figurines were the most marketed items in the 1970s and 1980s, whereas architectural elements and sculpture were the least retailed.Footnote 54 This shift in the market toward movable items, which was a direct consequence of regulating the import of monumental elements, triggered aggressive looting techniques. Instead of removing the stand-alone monuments, looters began trenching mounds in half to reach artifacts in caches and tombs.Footnote 55 This looting approach devastated the archaeological landscape of the Maya region.Footnote 56
The US response to the new market trends was to implement the 1970 UNESCO Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property via the Convention on Cultural Property Implementation Act (CCPIA) in 1983.Footnote 57 The latter gave the US president the authority to negotiate bilateral agreements to impose import restrictions on at-risk cultural objects.Footnote 58 In 2011, Belize formally requested assistance from the US Department of State to implement the 1970 UNESCO Convention and was the last of the Mundo Maya countries (including Belize, Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador, and Mexico) to seek a bilateral agreement with the United States.Footnote 59 The request culminated in the signing of a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the two governments on 27 February 2013.Footnote 60 This MOU aimed to prosecute and reduce archaeological thefts by establishing import restrictions on specific categories of archaeological material from Belize, thereby reducing the incentive for looting and illicit trafficking of cultural objects and making the unlawful importation of Belizean antiquities into the United States a federal criminal offense.Footnote 61 The agreement not only facilitated the protection of Belize’s cultural heritage but also fostered collaboration between the two nations in preserving and repatriating cultural property. It has since been renewed twice, in 2018 and 2023, which reflects a continued commitment to safeguarding Belize’s archaeological legacy.
Belize has also signed bilateral agreements with Mexico and Guatemala to protect antiquities from illegal export and ensure their safe restitution. The Protection and Restitution of Archaeological, Artistic and Historic Monuments was signed in 1996 between Mexico and Belize, in which both agreed to prohibit and impede the entry into their respective territories of any archaeological, artistic, and historical items removed from museums, monuments, collections, and sites without due authorization. They also committed to taking all possible measures to recover and return all artifacts imported illegally, exempt from customs duties and local taxes. Likewise, in 2014, the Agreement between the Republic of Guatemala and Belize for the Protection, Conservation, Recovery and Return of Items of Cultural and Natural Patrimony Which Have Been Stolen, Pilfered, Looted, Exported, Imported or Trafficked Unlawfully was signed. As the title of this agreement indicates, both parties established the basis and procedures for their cooperation on matters of protection, conservation, recovery, and return of cultural heritage assets. They agreed to prohibit or impede entry into their respective territories of unlawful items, take legal measures to prevent export and import, seize illegally removed and trafficked cultural and natural heritage, and open channels of international and inter-institutional communication and cooperation.
Multilateral cooperation
Belize formally became a member of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO) in May 1982, shortly after achieving independence from the United Kingdom in September 1981. As a former British colony, Belize was not eligible to sign international conventions on its own right. However, independence provided the newly sovereign nation with the opportunity to assert its commitment to international cooperation in the fields of education, science, culture, and communication by acceding to UNESCO.Footnote 62
In 1990, Belize ratified the 1970 UNESCO Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export, and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property and the 1972 UNESCO Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage. These ratifications came 12 years before Britain’s and demonstrated Belize’s concern for protecting its cultural heritage. While the 1970 Convention is the most important international agreement to protect cultural property against theft and looting and to restitute illicitly traded antiquities,Footnote 63 the 1972 Convention is key to identifying, protecting, and preserving the cultural and natural heritage of outstanding value worldwide. As a result, the Belize Barrier Reef Reserve System was included in the World Heritage List in 1996.
As part of the Commonwealth, Belize joined the 1993 Commonwealth Secretariat’s Scheme for the Protection of the Material Cultural Heritage, whose members agreed to cooperate to safeguard and return each other’s cultural and historical items of national importance, even if no binding obligations were created.Footnote 64 The scheme was intended to be a complementary tool to the 1970 UNESCO Convention, as it provided a means to facilitate collaboration among Commonwealth countries.Footnote 65
In 2007, Belize ratified the 2003 UNESCO Convention on the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage to protect practices, representations, expressions, knowledge, and skills that communities, groups, and sometimes individuals recognize as part of their cultural heritage. This includes oral traditions, performing arts, social practices, rituals, festive events, knowledge about nature and the universe, and traditional artisanship. The implementation of the convention was launched in 2012 with funding from UNESCO in the sum of $99,000 for capacity-building, awareness-raising, and community-based inventorying, which was complemented by annual allocations from the government of Belize.Footnote 66
Finally, in 2015, Belize acceded to the 2005 UNESCO Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions, a landmark international instrument designed to support and safeguard the diversity of cultural expressions, particularly in the context of globalization. Belize’s accession to the convention reflected the recognition of cultural diversity as a vital element of national identity and sustainable development. As a country marked by the coexistence of numerous cultural communities – including Maya, Garifuna, Mestizo, Creole, East Indian, and Mennonite populations, as mentioned earlier – Belize’s commitment to the convention underscores the importance of fostering policies and initiatives that promote, protect, and enhance its rich and varied cultural landscape.
The future of Belizean heritage protection
The current situation in Belize regarding archaeological looting is paradoxical. Despite Belize’s legal framework now ranking among the strongest in the world, the national and international efforts to curb antiquities trafficking have not succeeded in halting antiquities looting and trafficking.Footnote 67 This indicates that Belize’s heritage protection framework contains inherent challenges that impede the proper preservation of its archaeological patrimony.
Ratifying other multilateral conventions
Despite notable advancements in its national heritage legislation, Belize has not yet ratified five major international conventions that are fundamental to the protection and preservation of cultural heritage globally and that also promote international cooperation, harmonize legal standards, and ensure the safeguarding of cultural property across borders.Footnote 68 These instruments are (1) the 1954 UNESCO Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict, (2) the 1976 Organization of American States Convention on the Protection of the Archaeological, Historical and Artistic Heritage of the American Nations, (3) the 1995 UNIDROIT Convention on Stolen or Illegally Exported Cultural Objects, (4) the 1995 Central American Convention on the Restitution and Return of Archaeological, Historical, and Artistic Objects, and (5) the 2001 UNESCO Convention on the Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage.Footnote 69
First, Belize failed to ratify the 1954 UNESCO Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict, along with its First (1954) and Second (1999) Protocols. This convention, the first international treaty dedicated exclusively to the protection of cultural heritage during armed conflicts, obligates state parties to safeguard and respect cultural property both in peace and wartime.Footnote 70 The protocols further detailed measures to prevent the illicit export, transfer, or destruction of cultural property during conflicts. It was ratified by El Salvador, Mexico, and Nicaragua and was accepted by Costa Rica, Guatemala, Honduras, and Panama. While Belize has been largely peaceful since gaining independence in 1981, its history is marked by longstanding territorial disputes and border tensions with Guatemala. These hostilities started in the colonial era and escalated in the twentieth century, but never into a war. Nonetheless, given the latent border tensions with Guatemala and the broader regional instability in Central America, it would be prudent to accede to the 1954 Hague Conventions to prevent any direct or indirect damage to Belize’s cultural heritage resulting from conflict.
Second, Belize has not adhered to the Convention on the Protection of the Archaeological, Historical and Artistic Heritage of the American Nations, enacted in 1976. The purpose of this convention is to identify, register, protect, and safeguard the property making up the cultural heritage of the American nations to prevent illegal exportation or importation of cultural property and to promote cooperation among the American states for mutual awareness and appreciation of their cultural property. Cooperation in Central America is particularly significant as the Maya region spans across several modern states; hence, determining an artifact’s country of origin is sometimes impossible.Footnote 71 To illustrate this problem, Gilgan reckoned that up to 67% of the Maya artifacts sold by Sotheby’s auction house in the 1990s could have originated from Belize, although the exact provenience is uncertain or misleading.Footnote 72 This ambiguity is constantly exploited by traffickers.Footnote 73 If Belize joined the 1976 Convention, it would strengthen its relations with the other state parties, including Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, and Nicaragua, thereby facilitating repatriation.
Third, Belize has not joined the 1995 UNIDROIT Convention on Stolen or Illegally Exported Cultural Objects, which supplements the 1970 UNESCO Convention by establishing more precise legal obligations for the restitution of stolen or illegally exported cultural property.Footnote 74 The UNIDROIT Convention seeks to harmonize private law aspects of restitution procedures, providing a more robust framework for addressing the illicit trade in cultural objects and strengthening the preventive and remedial measures available to state parties. In Central America, El Salvador and Guatemala ratified this Convention.
Fourth, Belize has not joined the 1995 Central American Convention on the Restitution and Return of Archaeological, Historical, and Artistic Objects. This regional agreement fosters regional solidarity and cooperation among Central American countries to develop a cohesive model for cultural heritage protection. It emphasizes the inalienability of cultural property and stipulates that the recovery of unlawfully removed or exported cultural objects shall not be subject to statutes of limitations.Footnote 75 The distinct colonial trajectory of Belize, in contrast to the broader Central American region, coupled with differences in language, ethnicity, and the enduring territorial dispute with Guatemala, have contributed to a degree of disconnection between Belize and its neighbors. Instead, Belize has maintained closer cultural affiliations with the English-speaking Caribbean islands, with whom Belize shares African-Caribbean ancestry.Footnote 76 Nevertheless, Belize would benefit from ratifying the 1995 Central American Convention because it complements broader international frameworks, such as the 1970 UNESCO Convention, and offers Belize strengthened mechanisms for regional collaboration in the identification, recovery, and repatriation of unlawfully removed cultural property. Moreover, ratifying the convention would promote stronger relations with the state parties – including Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, and Panama – fostering greater diplomatic ties and collaboration on cultural heritage matters within Central America.
Lastly, Belize has not acceded to the 2001 UNESCO Convention on the Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage, which focuses on preserving underwater cultural heritage, such as shipwrecks, submerged ruins, and other submerged remains. This convention recognizes that underwater cultural heritage is increasingly at risk from commercial exploitation, unauthorized salvage, and environmental degradation and provides a comprehensive legal framework for its preservation and responsible management. Therefore, the endorsement of this convention is not only convenient because Belize has a 174-mile-long coastline, but it is urgent: Sea-level rise is making the coastal area extremely vulnerable to flooding, coastal retreat, and other coastal disasters that could severely impact the heritage assets of the country,Footnote 77 including increased vulnerability to looting. By way of example, Cara Blanca’s Late Classic ceremonial building and water shrine, located at the edge of one of the 22 freshwater pools at the foot of the Yalbac Hills, have been affected by underwater and above-ground plundering in recent years.Footnote 78 Although the Belize National Cultural Policy 2016–2026 stated its intention to review the Abandoned Wreck Act (Chapter 235) to ensure that the legislation has adequate provisions for the effective protection and preservation of underwater cultural heritage, that should not deter the government from ratifying the 2001 Convention.
Belize’s absence from key international instruments governing heritage protection creates notable gaps in the country’s integration into the global framework for safeguarding cultural property. While Belize has established a robust national legal framework, its lack of formal commitment to these conventions restricts its capacity to engage effectively in international cooperation mechanisms, undermines efforts to recover illicitly trafficked artifacts, and leaves underwater cultural heritage especially susceptible to exploitation. The ratification of these conventions would not only bolster Belize’s legal and institutional frameworks but also reaffirm its dedication to the shared global responsibility of preserving the world’s cultural heritage.
Fulfilling and extending the national cultural policy goals
Belize’s Horizon 2030 establishes a vision for the long-term development of a collective national identity as a multiethnic and multicultural society.Footnote 79 Based on this vision, the government developed a national cultural policy as a framework to better understand the Belizean culture, guide the safeguarding and promotion of the nation’s cultural heritage, and provide balanced, efficient, and equitable access to and distribution of resources for the development of a viable and sustainable cultural sector. In that context, the National Cultural Policy §12.1.2 addresses the management of tangible heritage, focusing on archaeological and historical antiquities and monuments, underwater archaeological heritage, and historic sites and landmarks. The policy emphasizes four critical areas: the development of a robust legal framework, the promotion of awareness-raising, the advancement of conservation practices, and the fostering of sustainable tourism.
Creating a robust legal framework
In terms of legal protection, the government of Belize seeks to ensure the legal safeguarding of strategic archaeological and historical sites and monuments, both inland and underwater. This involves reviewing the appropriateness of the existing legislation, including an update of Chapters 235 and 331 of the Belizean legal code, and accessing the 2001 UNESCO Convention on the Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage. Additionally, I support models that suggest shifting the legal burden from the source to the end markets,Footnote 80 contextualizing looting within illicit economies, and auditing the legalese in their texts.
First, the antiquities market operates primarily on a demand-driven basis; however, the prevailing regulatory system is predominantly oriented to the supply side, focusing on preventing archaeological looting and disrupting the illicit supply chain rather than directly addressing consumer demand or policing illegal acquisitions. This approach is meant to safeguard the archaeological context, specifically the provenience and stratigraphic integrity, but it has proven ineffective in curbing the overall trafficking of cultural property. The supply-side strategy requires robust on-the-ground measures, including comprehensive oversight of cultural heritage assets by well-trained personnel and institutional capacity to enforce heritage protection laws, including competent policing bodies and a well-functioning judicial system capable of prosecuting and penalizing offenders.Footnote 81 Alternatively, the regulatory emphasis on supply restrictions fails to address the complexities of the illicit antiquities trade.
In the context of Belize, the effectiveness of heritage protection efforts is significantly undermined by the country’s limited capacity to enforce its otherwise comprehensive heritage legislation. Despite a strong legal framework for protecting cultural property and the unwavering efforts of heritage officers and practitioners, enforcement remains weak due to competing national priorities that divert logistical and financial resources from heritage crime prevention and prosecution.Footnote 82 This institutional limitation manifests in various forms, including an underresourced and understaffed police force that faces operational constraints, such as a lack of official vehicles and functioning maritime equipment, for enforcing laws in coastal and riverine areas. Similarly, the Institute of Archaeology suffers from chronic budgetary shortfalls and insufficient staffing levels.Footnote 83 Even though archaeological officers and practitioners are highly trained and professionally credentialed, they lack the necessary institutional and financial support, as well as the logistical capacity, to effectively monitor, manage, and protect a vast, geographically dispersed inventory of heritage sites. The archaeological workforce is consequently “stretched too thin to do everything that they would like to,”Footnote 84 leaving significant gaps in monitoring, enforcement, and site stewardship. These limitations should not be understood as institutional failings of the IA itself but rather as evidence of the need for greater governmental investment and sustained support to strengthen Belize’s cultural heritage protection framework. The immediate consequences of this institutional fragility are twofold: First, there is a low rate of detection and recovery of trafficked artifacts; second, there is minimal judicial follow-through, with few legal penalties imposed on offenders. As a result, the illicit antiquities trade persists in Belize with relatively low risk to perpetrators, perpetuating the cycle of heritage loss and undermining the country’s cultural preservation goals.
Alternatively, heritage policies should shift the focus from source to market countries, as looting will persist as long as demand for cultural property items exists.Footnote 85 By imposing harsher penalties on buyers and deterring sales, theft and pillaging will decrease. The 2024 amendment of the NICH Act constitutes a solid step forward in the redirection of legal burden away from countries of origin. The amendment to §66 states that every person found guilty of selling, transferring without permit (§44), importing, exporting, or trading in any manner in ancient monuments or antiquities or attempting to do so without a license (§56); willfully damaging, destroying, defacing, marking, or disturbing any ancient monument or willfully removing any antiquity from any ancient monument; or destroying any such antiquity (§62) is liable to $75,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years, as opposed to the previous $5,000 fine and 2-year imprisonment. Other initiatives to help focus on the smuggling and selling are to increase border controls, raise the responsibility of all actors involved in the trading process, extend due diligence standards in market countries, restrict the claim of good-faith purchasers, and prolong or abolish the statutes of limitations for art and heritage crimes.Footnote 86
The second recommendation to enhance Belize’s heritage legislation is to contextualize cultural heritage trafficking within the broader framework of interconnected illicit economies. Although policies addressing heritage theft and looting are frequently developed in isolation, these activities often occur alongside other illegal practices such as unauthorized logging, illicit palm harvesting, theft of protected orchids, jaguar poaching, and trafficking of weapons and narcotics.Footnote 87 While these crimes are often addressed collectively at the enforcement level, they are administratively and legally categorized separately, complicating efforts by scholars and legal practitioners to fully comprehend the operations of criminal networks.Footnote 88 Acknowledging the interconnectedness of antiquities looting and trafficking with broader illicit activities is essential; failure to recognize or address the participation of looters in concurrent criminal enterprises can significantly weaken the efficacy of heritage protection laws and enforcement strategies.Footnote 89
Finally, as language is a performative tool that materializes abstract thoughts into actionable rules, I advise auditing the verbiage used in the laws. For the sake of the authoritative, prescriptive, and punitive value of provisions, legal writing should be impeccable and unchallengeable. Historically, the language used in Belizean laws was more concise, proper, and clear than that of its neighboring countries. The fact that the laws of Belize are drafted in English, which is not a gender-inflected language, presents a clear advantage over Spanish-speaking regions in delivering all-inclusive messages. Nonetheless, there are still some instances of gendered terminology in the letter of the law that could be readily replaced with more inclusive, gender-neutral alternatives. To illustrate, Chapters 330 and 331 define “ancient monuments” as “any structure or building erected by man or any natural feature transformed or worked by man, or the remains or any part thereof, whether upon any land or in any river, stream or watercourse under the territorial waters of the country, that has been in existence for one hundred years or more”Footnote 90 (emphasis added). They also define “antiquity” as
“any article manufactured or worked by man, whether of stone, pottery, metal, wood, glass, or any other substance, or any part thereof (i) the manufacture or workmanship of which belongs to the Mayan [sic] or other American civilization being of an age of one hundred and fifty years or more; (ii) or the manufacture or workmanship of which belongs to a civilization other than the Mayan [sic] or American civilization being an article which is of an age of one hundred and fifty years or more.”Footnote 91 (emphasis added)
More recently, the National Cultural Policy stated that tangible cultural heritage encompassed
“those natural spaces used by Belize’s inhabitants over time. Tangible cultural heritage also includes those man-made structures, monuments, historical places and buildings as well as artifacts which may be used to reveal information about how people in Belize lived in the past and in the modern context how people currently live.”Footnote 92 (emphasis added)
All these examples, which illustrate only a few of the sex-biased wordings, could be easily fixed with gender-neutral words to contribute to fostering greater inclusivity and promoting gender equality within the legal framework. In recent years, the Institute of Archaeology has demonstrated a heightened awareness of linguistic considerations. This shift is reflected in the 2024 Belize Archaeological Research Policy, which showcases a more deliberate and nuanced selection of terminology in its glossary. For instance, the definition of “ancient monuments” has been reworked to
“any structure or building erected by humans or any natural feature transformed or worked by humans, or the remains or any part thereof, whether upon any land or in any river, stream, or watercourse or under the territorial waters of Belize, that has been in existence for one hundred years or more.”Footnote 93 (emphasis added)
Promoting awareness-raising
The government seeks to advance its efforts to identify, research, document, register, and conserve heritage sites by promoting cultural awareness, with the goal of establishing a sustainable and economically viable network of reserves. Additionally, it places significant emphasis on educational initiatives aimed at preventing the destruction, looting, and trafficking of archaeological and historical artifacts.Footnote 94 These initiatives target not only the general public but also enforcement officers and archaeologists.Footnote 95 In this context, it has been recommended that police forces and customs services receive training on the effective application of existing legal and operational frameworks for heritage protection. Moreover, law enforcement officers should be trained in archaeology to better understand the significance of archaeological context, while field archaeologists should be equipped with strategies for managing encounters with looters and identifying looted materials.Footnote 96 Bowman Balestrieri’s study revealed that a significant number of archaeologists who encounter looting in progress or its effects do not take any measures against it.Footnote 97 According to this survey, it is because archaeologists feel sympathy for “subsistence looters,”Footnote 98 have career-driven concerns about preserving relationships with host communities and research productivity, or assume that reporting to local authorities is futile as they are simply outnumbered, ineffective, ill-equipped, uninterested, or even complicit.Footnote 99 Likewise, this same study found that other archaeologists working in Belize have admitted reluctance to take any action due to ignorance or indifference: “Many archaeologists working outside their home countries are not well enough informed about international conventions and local laws. And frankly, a lot of archaeologists just don’t care about looting until it happens on their sites” according to Archaeologist #29281, Belize.Footnote 100 Nevertheless, passivity is highly costly as it biases the official estimates of looting used to formulate economic models and heritage policies and contributes to the perception that looting is not as pervasive as specialists argue.Footnote 101 While previous scholarship has raised concerns regarding inconsistencies in the reporting of looting and site disturbances by archaeological projects operating in Belize, the situation is more nuanced than earlier discussions may suggest. Many archaeologists conducting fieldwork in Belize do, in fact, report evidence of looting, vandalism, and unauthorized excavations to the IA, often working collaboratively with local authorities and communities to document and protect threatened sites. Rather than attributing responsibility to archaeologists broadly, it is more accurate to recognize that reporting practices and institutional coordination can vary across projects and regions. Strengthening communication channels, formal reporting procedures, and collaborative partnerships between researchers and the IA may further improve the monitoring and protection of Belize’s archaeological heritage.
Moreover, the educational and research efforts are aimed at creating a comprehensive inventory of cultural heritage to ensure the sustainable preservation of heritage and promote public awareness of its value. This is particularly relevant as, according to the 2023–1970 UNESCO Convention Compliance Report, the IA has an incomplete database for the Belize National Collection and is heavily dependent on other partners to maintain a solid database.Footnote 102 Additionally, Belize does not have a specialized service to monitor sales of cultural property and intervene in the event of noncompliance by market operators with their legal, regulatory, or professional obligations; instead, the Institute depends on other partners, such as the Belize Defense Force, Police Department, Forest Department, other ministries and departments, as well as nongovernmental organizations, to assist in combating heritage crime.Footnote 103 Although record-keeping in Belize is mandated by law, these lists have not been updated due to staff and funding shortages, hence leaving government-employed professionals working with looting, trafficking, arrest, and seizure numbers from the 1990s.Footnote 104 The lack of an up-to-date record of the country’s national cultural heritage hinders the identification of clandestine excavations and the repatriation of artifacts smuggled across borders. These challenges, however, should be understood within the broader context of limited institutional resources and inadequate collections infrastructure rather than as shortcomings of the IA. Belize has long faced difficulties in securing sufficient funding, staffing, and storage capacity necessary for the proper curation, cataloging, and conservation of archaeological materials. Earlier initiatives associated with the Museum of Belize, including proposals for a national museum facility in Belmopan, such as Museum Commissioner Winnel Branche’s project in 1988,Footnote 105 reflected recognition of the need for a centralized institution capable of adequately housing and managing the Belize National Collection, although these plans were never fully realized. Identifying the urgent need for expanded collections facilities under the jurisdiction of the IA, modernized inventory systems, and sustained governmental investment in cultural heritage infrastructure, Lord Cultural Resources was commissioned in 2014 to develop a master plan for a national museum in Belmopan.Footnote 106 If realized, such a project could substantially improve the long-term preservation, documentation, accessibility, and protection of Belize’s archaeological heritage. However, little public information has since been made available regarding the status or progress of the initiative.
Advancing conservation practices
The promotion of sustainable conservation is also a key pillar of heritage protection. Efforts include integrating living cultural heritage into archaeological preservation and management strategies, establishing underwater archaeological reserves, and investing in upgrading and maintaining archaeological sites and access roads leading to major tourist destinations, which are often in remote locations and difficult to monitor and protect. The National Cultural Policy, §12.1.2.3, also targets the preservation of the colonial characteristics of Belize’s built heritage for identity-building, education, and sustainable cultural tourism, given that “in recent years, many historical structures have come under threat of destruction because of development pressures.”Footnote 107 For that purpose, the document suggests several policy interventions, including the mobilization of financial resources allocated to preservation, management, and promotion of historic sites from multilateral agencies and local corporations, and the provision of incentives and tax rebates to private individuals and corporations who engage in or sponsor activities aimed at preserving historical sites and buildings to promote conservation strategies across the country.Footnote 108
Fostering sustainable tourism
To support sustainable tourism, the government committed to facilitating the development of a network of public and communal institutions – such as museums, libraries, and archives – dedicated to the preservation and promotion of Belizean culture and history. The Belize National Cultural Policy encourages initiatives that promote a sustainable cultural economy and highlights the importance of mobilizing financial resources from multilateral agencies and the local corporate community to support the long-term conservation of Belize’s heritage.
Conclusions
Over the past 130 years, Belize has developed a prolific and progressively robust legal framework for the protection of its cultural heritage. The evolution of heritage legislation in Belize reflects a sustained and deliberate effort to safeguard the nation’s rich and diverse patrimony, affirm its national identity, promote sustainable development, and facilitate international cooperation.
Early colonial-era ordinances – beginning with the Ancient Monuments and Antiquities Ordinance of 1894 – established the foundational principles for heritage preservation in the region. These initial regulatory measures laid the groundwork for a legislative continuum that ultimately evolved into the comprehensive legal frameworks enforced today. Notably, the National Institute of Culture and History Act, as amended in 2024, constitutes one of the strongest and most advanced approaches to cultural heritage protection. The forward-looking amendments introduced stringent sanctions not only against looters and vandals but also against intermediaries and traders involved in the illicit circulation of heritage assets. This aligns with market-centered policies that focus on the middle and end stages of the heritage trafficking chain. The goal is to target dealers and collectors to reduce demand for artifacts and, in turn, discourage archaeological pillaging. This way, the financial stress of protecting heritage is also shared with market countries. Furthermore, the 2024 Act promotes a collaborative model for managing and supervising heritage sites, effectively alleviating the administrative burden traditionally placed on the ministry. This integrated approach signals a significant shift toward proactive, multi-stakeholder engagement in heritage governance, ensuring that legal mechanisms remain responsive to both current challenges and future threats to cultural patrimony.
Looking ahead, it is imperative to build upon Belize’s already substantial heritage framework through targeted legal reforms and strategic policy initiatives. Future legislation should focus on reinforcing enforcement mechanisms to ensure greater compliance among market actors, enhancing the integration and interoperability of heritage databases, and leveraging modern technologies to enable more efficient monitoring, documentation, and management of cultural property. In parallel, heritage policies must address the country’s diverse array of tangible and intangible assets holistically. As a young and culturally heterogeneous nation shaped by complex historical and migratory dynamics, Belize continues to confront the challenge of forging an inclusive national identity that equitably represents all communities. In this context, recognizing culture as a foundational element of identity is essential. The active promotion and celebration of Belize’s cultural expressions should aim to cultivate mutual respect, embrace ethnic diversity, and strengthen national cohesion. Moreover, aligning national legal frameworks with international instruments—such as the 1995 UNIDROIT Convention, the 2001 UNESCO Convention, and pertinent Central American agreements – would not only enhance Belize’s capacity to address transnational issues such as illicit trafficking and heritage vandalism but also foster stronger regional collaboration. Finally, heritage-related reforms must remain responsive to emerging global and local challenges, including environmental threats, the pressures of globalization on cultural integrity, and the imperative to develop a sustainable, culturally informed tourism sector. In addition to producing and implementing heritage laws, Belize must keep working on collaborative, multidimensional projects that actively involve local communities, academic institutions, and international partners to promote public awareness through education and outreach. Only an integrated strategy will transform present challenges into concrete opportunities for cultural preservation and sustainable national development of Belize.
Open access
