“Sleepers” are artworks or collectibles that are undervalued because one or more characteristics go unrecognized. This article discusses 12 sleepers that have been sold at auction on the antiquity market since 2007 whose attribution as antiquities were originally overlooked, either accidentally or deliberately. The objects are presented in the context of a theoretical framework describing both the legal and economic incentives to perform due diligence and to reveal, or “awaken,” a sleeper antiquity. The theory implies that sleepers may arise for several reasons, and the case studies are grouped accordingly. Most pressingly, the analysis identifies two ways in which sellers are disincentivized to be transparent about an object’s identity: when they can exploit legal loopholes to deliberately misattribute an antiquity and mediate export and when they can hide disagreement about an object’s authenticity to mediate its sale. Placing the case studies in the broader market context, we highlight particular areas that should be addressed by policy or regulatory reform. The analysis also has wider applications to other forms of art.

This article traces the provenance and migration of a painting by Jan van Goyen (1595–1656), River Landscape with a Swineherd, from the Jacques Goudstikker Collection and now in Gdańsk Muzeum Narodowe. After the “red-flag sale” of the Goudstikker Collection in July 1940 to German banker Alois Miedl, and then to Hermann Göring, this painting—after its sale on Berlin’s Lange Auction in December 1940 to Hitler’s agent Almas-Dietrich—was returned to Miedl-Goudstikker in Amsterdam. Miedl then sold it (with two other Dutch paintings) to the Nazi Gauleiter of Danzig, Albert Forster, among many wartime Dutch acquisitions for the Municipal Museum (Stadtmuseum). Evacuated to Thuringia and captured by a Soviet trophy brigade, it thus avoided postwar Dutch claims. Returned to Poland from the Hermitage in 1956, it was exhibited in the Netherlands and the United States (despite its Goudstikker label). Tracing its wartime and postwar odyssey highlights the transparent provenance research needed for Nazi-era acquisitions, especially in former National Socialist (NS) Germanized museums in countries such as Poland, where viable claims procedures for Holocaust victims and heirs are still lacking. This example of many “missing” Dutch paintings sold to NS-era German museums in cities that became part of postwar Poland, raises several important issues deserving attention in provenance research for still-displaced Nazi-looted art.

Intangible cultural heritage elements are shared across state borders. In many instances, states join in multinational nominations to inscribe the heritage element in a way that reflects this reality. But, at times, states are unwilling or unable to cooperate in a mutual nomination that reflects the shared nature of the heritage element. The consequence of this is that heritage elements can then be nominated by individual states without any reflection of the multinational or cross-border nature of the element; thus leaving the heritage elements shorn of this aspect of their nature. The current international heritage legal regime, through the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, does not adequately acknowledge or address this problem. This article, through a case study of the successful nomination by Azerbaijan of the horseback game of chovqan, examines the causes and consequences of these “fractured resemblances.” It analyzes the links between cultural heritage, conflict, and the use of heritage as a form of soft power. It focuses on the use of single-state inscription as a soft-power means of obtaining international prestige and support and the resultant effects on shared cultural heritage elements. From this, suggestions for changes to international heritage laws for the inscription of cultural heritage are suggested to accommodate the reality of the connection between cultural heritage, conflict, and power and to avoid the occurrence of “fractured resemblances” of heritage shared across state lines.

The last decade or so has seen a fundamental shift in Aboriginal cultural heritage law in Australia. A number of subnational jurisdictions in Australia have undergone major reforms to their Aboriginal heritage legislation. Other subnational jurisdictions are currently in the reform process or have promised reform in coming years. We use the latest (and, at the time of writing, ongoing) process to reform Aboriginal heritage legislation in the state of New South Wales (NSW) to explore some of the legal issues and themes emanating from the Australian experience. The NSW example is a useful case study for thinking about how minority heritage regulation can not only serve broader social movements but also undercut some of its own possibilities. We argue that even law that is ostensibly in place to promote the control of communities over their own heritage can cause difficult balancing acts that may default to a dependency path and effectively detract from its own projected goals.