Preserving Cultural Heritage in the Age of Artificial Intelligence: an overview between protection and weaponisation

Abstract

The technology of Artificial Intelligence (AI) functions as a transformative power which affects security and cultural heritage preservation (C.H.P). The dual-use capabilities of AI technology create essential ethical and operational challenges. AI technology protects cultural assets through its monitoring capabilities and digitization efforts and predictive threat analysis but it becomes a significant threat when used to launch cyberattacks or spread misinformation or target cultural sites precisely. This research investigates how AI technology interacts with counterterrorism practices and cultural heritage defense to analyze its advantages and threats to worldwide cultural heritage. The research uses case studies and strategic analysis to identify governance systems which will keep AI from causing destruction while maintaining its function as a preservation tool.

1. Introduction

Throughout human history, cultural heritage has been a cornerstone of civilization, encapsulating the traditions, values, and artistic expressions of societies across time. Cultural artifacts, historical monuments, and intangible heritage such as languages and oral traditions provide a sense of continuity and identity, linking past generations to the present and future. However, cultural heritage is increasingly under threat—not only from natural disasters and illicit trafficking but also from modern warfare, cyber threats, and the rise of artificial intelligence (AI).

AI has proven to be a revolutionary tool in various sectors, including security and heritage preservation. From the use of machine learning to detect illegal artifact trafficking to AI-powered drones monitoring cultural sites, the technology has opened unprecedented opportunities for safeguarding global heritage. Simultaneously, AI has introduced new challenges, as malicious actors, including terrorist organizations and cybercriminals, exploit the same technology to target and manipulate cultural assets. Deepfake technology, cyberattacks on digital archives, and AI-driven predictive targeting of vulnerable heritage sites exemplify how AI can be weaponized against cultural institutions. AI intelligence presents a paradox: it can either be a shield protecting our heritage or a weapon accelerating its destruction. The challenge before us is ensuring AI remains a force for preservation and security rather than exploitation and harm.

This paper examines the dual role of AI in the preservation and destruction of cultural heritage, analyzing its applications in monitoring, digital archiving, and recovery while also highlighting the threats posed by AI-driven cyberattacks and disinformation campaigns. Through an exploration of case studies, including INTERPOL’s[1] Project PSYCHE, UNESCO’s AI-Powered Monitoring System[2], and the Leonardo Database operated by the Italian Carabinieri[3], we will assess the effectiveness of AI-based heritage protection. Furthermore, the paper will propose governance frameworks and counter-AI strategies to mitigate risks while maximizing AI’s potential as a guardian of global heritage.

By addressing both the opportunities and challenges posed by AI, this paper aims to provide insights into the ethical, legal, and technological considerations required to navigate the evolving landscape of cultural heritage protection in the AI era. The question remains: will AI serve as a shield or a weapon? The answer lies in the choices policymakers, security professionals, and cultural institutions make today.

2. The Strategic Importance of Cultural Heritage

2.1 The Role of Cultural Heritage in National and Global Stability

Cultural heritage is far more than a collection of historical artifacts and traditions—it is the bedrock of civilization, shaping national identity, fostering community cohesion, and serving as a testament to human achievement. It provides a shared sense of belonging, reinforcing social stability and mutual understanding across generations. When properly preserved, cultural heritage plays a fundamental role in nation-building, reconciliation, and diplomacy, offering countries a symbol of continuity and resilience in times of political and social upheaval.

On a global scale, cultural heritage facilitates cross-cultural dialogue and international cooperation. Historic monuments, ancient manuscripts, and artistic masterpieces serve as a bridge between past and present, fostering respect and understanding among diverse populations. UNESCO’s 1972 World Heritage Convention[4] underscores the universal value of cultural heritage, highlighting its role in promoting peace and intercultural exchange. Preserving these assets is therefore not just an issue of historical significance but a critical component of international stability and security.

From an economic standpoint, cultural heritage is also an essential driver of tourism, education, and creative industries. Many nations rely heavily on their cultural landmarks as a source of revenue and employment, making the protection of heritage sites an economic necessity. The loss of cultural heritage, whether through destruction or theft, can have profound socio-economic repercussions, eroding the cultural identity of affected populations and limiting their ability to recover from crises.

Recent studies and reports also highlight an interesting aspect, namely that the digitalization of cultural heritage and the proliferation of virtual tourism have emerged as significant components of the global economy, a transformation accelerated by the COVID-19 pandemic. As physical travel became restricted, cultural institutions worldwide turned to digital platforms to maintain public engagement and preserve cultural narratives. This shift not only ensured continuity in cultural access but also opened new avenues for economic development, education, and international collaboration.

In Italy, the pandemic catalyzed the expansion of digital cultural offerings. The Italian Ministry of Culture launched initiatives such as "La Cultura Non Si Ferma,"[5] providing virtual access to museums, archaeological sites, and archives. This move was complemented by the development of digital twins and 3D reconstructions of cultural sites, enhancing remote engagement and educational outreach. Moreover, the Italian government's allocation of €200 million for the digitalization of cultural heritage underscores the nation's commitment to integrating digital technologies into cultural preservation and tourism. 

In the United States, institutions like the Smithsonian and the Getty Museum leveraged digital platforms to offer virtual tours and online exhibitions, making cultural content accessible to a global audience. The National Endowment for the Arts reported increased public engagement with digital cultural content during the pandemic, highlighting a shift towards online consumption of cultural experiences. Additionally, the U.S. travel industry has seen a rise in virtual tourism experiences, with companies offering immersive VR tours of national parks and historical landmarks, catering to audiences seeking safe and accessible travel alternatives[6].

China has been at the forefront of integrating digital technologies into cultural heritage and tourism. The National Cultural Heritage Administration promoted the use of virtual reality and online exhibitions to preserve and showcase China's vast cultural assets. Platforms like the China National Museum's virtual tour and the Dunhuang Academy's digital archives have provided global audiences with access to China's rich heritage. The government's support for digital infrastructure has facilitated the growth of digital tourism, with virtual tours of historical sites becoming increasingly popular among domestic and international tourists[7].

The integration of digital technologies into cultural heritage and tourism has significant economic implications. According to a report by the World Economic Forum, the digitalization of cultural heritage can stimulate local economies by attracting digital tourism, creating jobs in digital content creation, and promoting cultural industries. Furthermore, UNESCO's initiatives, such as the #ShareOurHeritage campaign, have emphasized the role of digital platforms in preserving cultural diversity and fostering global cultural exchange[8].

Looking ahead, the continued advancement of technologies like augmented reality (AR), virtual reality (VR), and artificial intelligence (AI) promises to further transform the landscape of cultural heritage and tourism. These technologies can enhance immersive experiences, facilitate interactive learning, and provide innovative solutions for preserving and interpreting cultural assets[9]. However, challenges related to digital equity, data privacy, and the preservation of intangible cultural heritage must be addressed to ensure that the benefits of digital cultural initiatives are accessible to all.

2.2 Cultural Destruction as a Weapon of War

Throughout history, cultural heritage has been deliberately targeted as a strategy of war, with the aim of demoralizing communities, erasing historical narratives, and dismantling collective identities. The destruction of cultural assets is not merely collateral damage—it is often a calculated act of psychological and ideological warfare designed to eliminate the symbols of a society’s past and disrupt its future.

One of the most notorious examples of cultural destruction as a wartime tactic occurred during World War II, when Nazi forces looted thousands of artworks across Europe, seeking to redefine cultural history in alignment with their ideology. Similarly, during the Yugoslav Wars of the 1990s, the destruction of mosques, churches, and historical sites was used to erase the presence of entire ethnic communities, an act that was later classified as cultural genocide by the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY).

In the 21st century, terrorist organizations have exploited cultural destruction as both a propaganda tool and a funding mechanism. The Islamic State (ISIS), for example, systematically destroyed cultural heritage sites such as Palmyra in Syria and the Mosul Museum in Iraq[10], not only to instill fear but also to dismantle historical legacies that opposed their extremist ideology. In parallel, the illicit trafficking of looted antiquities has provided terrorist groups with a lucrative source of revenue, fueling further violence and instability.

The use of AI in modern warfare further complicates these challenges. AI-powered predictive modeling and satellite imaging have enabled military forces to identify, assess, and target key cultural landmarks with unprecedented precision. While such technology can be used to protect cultural sites, it can just as easily be weaponized to maximize the impact of cultural destruction. Moreover, cyberattacks targeting digital archives pose a new and evolving threat, with AI-enhanced malware capable of erasing centuries of historical records in an instant.

Given these realities, safeguarding cultural heritage is not just a matter of historical preservation—it is a crucial element of global security, counterterrorism, and conflict resolution. Governments, international organizations, and cultural institutions must develop comprehensive strategies to protect cultural assets from both physical and digital threats. The integration of AI into these efforts must be carefully managed to ensure that it remains a tool for preservation rather than destruction.

3. AI as a Guardian of Cultural Heritage

AI-powered monitoring systems have revolutionized the ability to detect threats to cultural sites. INTERPOL’s Project PSYCHE, for example, employs AI-driven analysis of satellite imagery, dark web activity, and social media to track illicit activities related to cultural heritage. Similarly, UNESCO’s AI-Powered Monitoring System integrates drone surveillance, satellite data, and on-the-ground sensors to detect potential risks in real-time.

3.1 AI in Artifact Protection and Recovery

AI has played a crucial role in identifying, tracking, and recovering stolen artifacts. The Leonardo Database, managed by the Carabinieri Command for the Protection of Cultural Heritage (TPC), and the ICOM Red Lists [11]have incorporated AI-driven analytics to identify trafficked cultural objects and assist customs and law enforcement agencies.

A recent case that underscores the importance of AI in artifact recovery is the ongoing war in Ukraine. Since the 2022 Russian invasion, thousands of Ukrainian cultural artifacts and artworks have been looted or destroyed. AI-assisted tools have been used to track the illicit trafficking of stolen artifacts, providing crucial intelligence to Ukrainian and international law enforcement agencies. The development of AI-based object recognition systems has helped identify missing artifacts on the black market, supporting international efforts to recover and return stolen cultural treasures[12]. This case highlights how AI can be an indispensable tool in cultural heritage recovery in times of conflict.

3.2 Digital Preservation and Immersive Technologies: Enhancing Cultural Continuity Through AR and VR

The advancement of augmented reality (AR) and virtual reality (VR) technologies has significantly transformed the field of cultural preservation and public engagement with heritage sites. These technologies have enabled the digital reconstruction of historical environments and artifacts, allowing for the remote exploration of cultural heritage and enhancing the visitor experience. According to Boboc et al. (2022), AR has been successfully applied in various contexts, including 3D artifact reconstruction, virtual museums, and the preservation of intangible heritage [13].

In Italy, cultural institutions have leveraged AR and VR to create digital experiences for visitors. For example, the Royal Museums of Turin have developed the MRT Virtual app, which allows users to explore the collections remotely and interact with 3D models of exhibited works. Similarly, the digital reconstruction of Ancient Olympia in Greece, utilizing VR, provides an immersive experience that allows visitors to engage with the historical site as it appeared thousands of years ago. These initiatives demonstrate the potential of AR and VR to offer new ways of engaging with cultural heritage, particularly in regions with limited physical access to heritage sites[14].

Globally, the use of AR and VR in cultural tourism has been rapidly expanding. A study conducted in Spain compared the emotional impact of VR and AR applications on visitors to heritage sites, revealing significant differences in sensory and motivational experiences among participants [15]. In Greece, the Chronos app allows tourists to visualize how archaeological sites appeared 2,500 years ago through AR, enhancing the cultural experience and attracting a wider audience. These technological advancements not only increase the accessibility of cultural sites but also contribute to a broader global interest in cultural heritage preservation.

However, despite the numerous benefits, the implementation of AR and VR in cultural heritage preservation presents challenges, such as the need for standardization, data management, and staff training. It is crucial to establish guidelines and best practices to ensure the long-term effectiveness and sustainability of these technologies in the field of cultural heritage.

4. The Dark Side: AI as a Tool for Cultural Erasure

4.1 AI-Enhanced Targeting of Cultural Sites

AI-Enhanced Targeting of Cultural Sites The precision of strategic targets identification and attack has substantially increased through AI implementation in warfare. Terrorist organizations together with hostile state actors use AI-powered satellite imagery and geospatial analysis and predictive modeling to identify vulnerabilities in cultural heritage sites which allows them to launch precise calculated strikes against both physical structures and the symbolic fabric of communities. The protection of cultural monuments in conflict zones remains a major concern because these sites function as identity anchors for religious temples, libraries and ancient settlements.

A 2023 NATO report on emerging threats to cultural property highlighted the use of AI-enhanced drones for reconnaissance and targeting of religious sites during the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. This case underlines the pressing need for international humanitarian law to evolve in step with technological innovation (NATO Strategic Communications Centre of Excellence, 2023).[16]

In the near future, the proliferation of commercial satellite services combined with increasingly accessible open-source AI tools may democratize this capability, allowing even non-state actors to acquire precise geolocation data for cultural landmarks. Without robust legal deterrents and monitoring systems, such developments could dramatically escalate targeted cultural destruction.

4.2 Deepfake Technology and Historical Manipulation

AI-generated synthetic media—pose a profound threat to cultural integrity and public trust. Unlike traditional misinformation, deepfakes can convincingly alter audiovisual records of historical events, create fictitious "testimonies," or simulate expert commentary, thereby sowing confusion about the authenticity of cultural narratives.

Recent incidents have demonstrated the technology's capacity to undermine historical facts. For example, deepfakes were used in 2022 to fabricate archival footage suggesting the falsification of key WWII events, which then circulated widely on social media platforms before being flagged and removed [17]. In cultural heritage terms, the danger lies in the manipulation of archival materials, museum collections, and documentary sources to serve revisionist or extremist agendas.[18]

Looking forward, AI-generated historical simulations may blur the boundaries between reconstruction and fabrication. Virtual heritage experiences, while valuable pedagogical tools, risk legitimizing inaccurate representations if not subject to rigorous academic oversight. Institutions will need to adopt verification protocols and embed digital provenance markers to protect the epistemic integrity of their collections.

4.3 Cyber Threats to Cultural Institutions

Cyber Threats to Cultural Institutions AI-enhanced cyber threats are a growing concern for libraries, museums, and heritage archives. Cultural institutions are often underfunded in cybersecurity, making them soft targets for ransomware attacks and data manipulation campaigns. In 2022, the British Library faced a sophisticated ransomware incident that compromised access to digitized collections and research databases [19]

Malware equipped with AI can autonomously adapt to bypass security protocols, learn institutional behavior patterns, and selectively corrupt or delete data. This kind of targeted sabotage could permanently erase entire archives, especially if institutions lack redundant storage or fail to maintain decentralized backups.[20]

In the short term, heritage institutions must strengthen cyber-resilience frameworks, including: investment in AI-assisted anomaly detection tools, staff training in digital hygiene and phishing prevention, and the adoption of zero-trust architecture in data infrastructure.

On a strategic level, there is a growing argument for establishing an international cultural cybersecurity network, supported by INTERPOL and UNESCO, to share threat intelligence and coordinate responses to attacks on global heritage institutions.

4.4 Manipulation of Historical Media and Deepfakes: Emerging Threats to the Authenticity of Cultural Heritage

The rapid development of artificial intelligence (AI) technologies has introduced new challenges in the preservation and interpretation of cultural heritage, particularly through the use of deepfakes. Initially conceived for entertainment purposes, these tools are now being employed to create highly realistic audiovisual content that can alter historical and cultural perceptions.

Deepfakes, which use generative neural networks to overlay faces or voices onto existing videos, have been applied in artistic contexts to explore new forms of expression. For instance, artist Gillian Wearing utilized this technology to extend her exhibit "Life: Gillian Wearing" at the Cincinnati Art Museum, creating new narratives through deepfake videos [21]. However, the use of such technologies raises ethical concerns about the manipulation of identity and historical memory.

Furthermore, the application of deepfakes to manipulate historical content represents a significant threat to the authenticity of cultural heritage. According to a UNESCO report, the automation of content creation through AI can fabricate historical events, falsify evidence, and spread hate speech, eroding trust in authentic sources [22]. This ability to alter visual and auditory reality makes deepfakes powerful tools for distorting history and creating false narratives.

The proliferation of deepfakes is exponential, with an estimated 100% growth every six months. In 2023, approximately 500,000 deepfake videos and audios were shared on global social media platforms, with projections suggesting an increase to 8 million by 2025 [23]. This rapid increase presents significant challenges for verifying content authenticity and protecting cultural heritage from harmful manipulations.

To address these threats, it is essential to develop advanced deepfake detection tools and promote digital literacy among the public. Furthermore, international collaboration is necessary to establish regulations governing the use of AI technologies in cultural heritage contexts, ensuring the protection of historical and cultural truths.

5. The Ethical and Strategic Imperative

5.1 AI Governance and Regulatory Frameworks

The ethical governance of AI in the cultural heritage domain remains fragmented and underdeveloped. While frameworks such as the EU’s Artificial Intelligence Act (2023) and UNESCO’s Recommendation on the Ethics of Artificial Intelligence (2021) provide foundational principles, they are often generalist in scope and lack specific guidelines tailored to cultural heritage. A 2022 report by the European Parliament stressed the need for sector-specific governance models that account for the sensitive nature of cultural data and the symbolic value of heritage assets (European Parliament, 2022).

Transparency is key: institutions must ensure that AI systems used in heritage protection are explainable and auditable, especially when applied to monitoring, surveillance, or classification tasks. Cultural impact assessments—analogous to environmental or human rights impact assessments—should be mandated for large-scale AI deployments in museums, libraries, and archaeological projects.

INTERPOL and UNESCO could co-lead a working group to develop binding protocols, possibly modeled after the Tallinn Manual’s approach to cyberwarfare, adapted for heritage protection. This could culminate in an international treaty or protocol analogous to the 1954 Hague Convention, but specific to AI and cultural heritage.

Artificial Intelligence (AI) has seen an ever-growing impact on cultural sectors, from heritage preservation to museum engagement. However, the adoption of these technologies raises significant ethical concerns regarding the protection of human rights, transparency, and inclusivity. In response to these challenges, the European Commission introduced the AI Act, the world’s first comprehensive legal framework on AI, establishing risk-based regulations to ensure AI's trustworthiness and respect for fundamental rights. The AI Act is designed to provide guidelines for the responsible development and application of AI systems, ensuring they are safe and ethical in diverse cultural contexts [24].

Similarly, UNESCO adopted the "Recommendation on the Ethics of Artificial Intelligence" in 2021, providing a global ethical framework for AI development and use. The recommendation advocates for principles such as transparency, accountability, and respect for human dignity. With the endorsement of 194 member states, this initiative establishes the Global Observatory on Ethics of AI, which supports governments in implementing ethical policies and fostering global dialogue on the responsible use of AI in culture (UNESCO, 2021).

Moreover, UNESCO organizes events such as the AI and Intangible Cultural Heritage Webinar held in October 2024, where experts discussed the impact of AI on intangible cultural heritage, stressing the need for inclusive technologies that respect the rights of indigenous populations and ensure equitable access to digital cultural resources [25]. 

These global initiatives highlight the critical importance of an ethical and inclusive approach to AI in cultural contexts. They aim to preserve cultural diversity while promoting equitable access to digital cultural heritage and fostering the global cooperation needed to regulate AI’s role in shaping cultural narratives.

On a global scale, numerous organizations are developing regulatory frameworks and guidelines to ensure the responsible and inclusive use of AI, particularly in the areas of cultural heritage and the arts.

In November 2021, UNESCO adopted the Recommendation on the Ethics of Artificial Intelligence, which provides the first global standard on AI ethics. This document, applicable to all 194 member states, underscores fundamental principles such as transparency, accountability, and inclusivity, with a special focus on safeguarding human rights and dignity. The recommendation also promotes the adoption of ethical impact assessment tools and the development of technical expertise in AI ethics [26]

UNESCO regularly hosts the Global Forum on AI Ethics, an international event bringing together global leaders, AI experts, industry pioneers, and policymakers to address critical challenges and opportunities in AI development. The forum focuses on the implementation of UNESCO’s ethical guidelines, balancing innovation with responsibility, and promoting global collaboration to shape inclusive and ethical AI governance frameworks [27](UNESCO, 2021).

In 2025, the United Nations Alliance of Civilizations launched the HUMAN-AI-T initiative, designed to align the development of AI with universal ethical values, cultural heritage, and human dignity. This global effort aims to integrate humanity into AI, promoting cultural diversity and respect for human rights in the context of technological development (UN News, 2025).

UNESCO’s Memory of the World Programme is an international initiative aimed at safeguarding the documentary heritage of humanity against collective amnesia, neglect, deterioration, and deliberate destruction. The program promotes the preservation of valuable archival and bibliographic collections and facilitates the reconstruction of dispersed or relocated documentary heritage, enhancing accessibility to and dissemination of these materials (Wikipedia, 2025).

Despite the progress made, significant challenges remain in implementing ethical AI governance in cultural contexts. Continuous international collaboration is needed to develop regulations that govern AI use in cultural heritage, ensuring the protection of historical and cultural truths. Moreover, promoting digital literacy and ethical awareness among cultural professionals and the public is essential to addressing the moral and societal implications of AI.

5.2 Counter-AI Strategies and Defensive AI Applications

Algorithmic Bias and Cultural Representation AI models are only as objective as the data on which they are trained. Cultural datasets are often skewed toward dominant narratives—Western, colonial, or urban-centric perspectives—leading to the exclusion or misrepresentation of marginalized cultures, Indigenous knowledge systems, and intangible heritage.

This issue has already surfaced in AI art and museum applications. A 2021 analysis by the MIT Media Lab showed that image recognition tools trained on European art collections failed to accurately classify African and Indigenous artifacts, reinforcing Eurocentric taxonomies (MIT Media Lab, 2021). To address this, institutions must: diversify training datasets to include a broader spectrum of cultural expressions; involve community stakeholders, particularly from underrepresented regions, in the algorithm design process and implement bias audits and external peer reviews before deploying AI tools in heritage classification or recommendation systems. Inclusive AI design is not merely a technical challenge—it is a cultural responsibility. Without proactive measures, heritage AI could inadvertently reproduce the very inequities it seeks to guard against.

5.3 Cross-Sector Collaboration

Dual-Use Dilemma The dual-use nature of AI refers to the capacity for a single technological capability to be used for both beneficial and malicious purposes. In the heritage context, tools developed for preservation—such as object recognition, geolocation tracking, or metadata analysis—can also be weaponized for looting, targeting, or ideological manipulation.

One illustrative example is the adaptation of heritage monitoring tools for geopolitical surveillance. A 2023 review published by the Brookings Institution highlighted cases where satellite-based archaeological mapping software was repurposed to monitor religious minorities under authoritarian regimes, raising red flags about AI misuse [28].

Short-term risks include: the repurposing of AI algorithms for state-sponsored censorship of cultural narratives and the use of heritage AI to profile or surveil ethnic or religious communities under the guise of protection. Mitigating these risks requires: embedding ethical constraints and "off-switch" mechanisms into AI systems, requiring dual-use impact declarations as part of funding and deployment frameworks and creating oversight bodies, potentially modeled after data protection authorities, with jurisdiction over AI used in cultural contexts.

As the line between civilian and strategic technology continues to blur, only robust, anticipatory governance will ensure that AI strengthens—rather than threatens—cultural resilience

6. Case Analysis and Strategic Interventions

The intersection of artificial intelligence (AI) surveillance, authoritarian governance, and cultural heritage has become a critical area of concern in contemporary geopolitics. Authoritarian regimes increasingly employ AI-powered surveillance technologies to monitor and control ethnic and religious minorities, often under the guise of national security or public order. These technologies, while ostensibly aimed at enhancing security, frequently result in the erosion of civil liberties and the suppression of cultural identities.

In the Xinjiang region of China, the government has implemented an extensive surveillance infrastructure known as the "Skynet" system, which utilizes facial recognition, biometric data collection, and AI algorithms to monitor the Uyghur Muslim population. This system has been instrumental in identifying individuals based on ethnic features, leading to widespread human rights abuses, including arbitrary detentions and forced assimilation efforts [29]. The integration of AI in these surveillance practices underscores the potential for technology to be leveraged as a tool for cultural repression.

Similarly, in Tibet, the Chinese government employs AI-driven surveillance to monitor religious practices and suppress expressions of Tibetan identity. Technologies such as facial recognition cameras are deployed in monasteries and temples to track attendees and identify individuals engaged in activities deemed subversive. This digital oversight extends to online platforms, where communications are monitored, and religious content is censored, further restricting the cultural and religious freedoms of the Tibetan population [30]. 

The implications of AI surveillance extend beyond the borders of China. Authoritarian regimes worldwide are adopting similar technologies, raising concerns about the global spread of digital authoritarianism. The export of surveillance technologies, often accompanied by the exportation of authoritarian practices, poses significant challenges to international human rights standards and the preservation of cultural heritage[31]. 

In conflict zones such as Ukraine, the use of AI surveillance technologies has been employed to monitor and protect cultural heritage sites amidst ongoing hostilities. While these technologies can aid in the preservation of cultural assets, they also introduce risks related to privacy and the potential misuse of surveillance data. The balance between security and civil liberties remains a contentious issue, particularly as nations navigate the complexities of warfare and cultural preservation in the digital age.

In conclusion, the convergence of AI surveillance and authoritarian governance presents significant challenges to the protection of cultural heritage and the safeguarding of human rights. As technology continues to advance, it is imperative for international bodies, governments, and civil society to collaborate in establishing ethical frameworks and regulations that ensure AI is used to promote, rather than undermine, cultural diversity and individual freedoms.

6.1 Ukraine: Cultural Heritage and the Frontlines of Conflict

The ongoing war in Ukraine has significantly highlighted the weaponization of cultural heritage, emphasizing its strategic role in modern warfare. Since the Russian invasion in February 2022, UNESCO has verified damage to over 485 cultural sites, including churches, museums, monuments, and libraries, underscoring the deliberate targeting of cultural identity in the conflict [32]. These attacks are not merely incidental; they reflect the use of cultural heritage as a tool of psychological warfare, aimed at eroding the cultural foundations of the Ukrainian nation.

In response, Ukrainian institutions, supported by European and international partners, have adopted innovative technologies to document and mitigate the destruction. AI-powered satellite imagery and social media scraping have played an essential role in monitoring looting and the destruction of cultural sites in real time. This digital documentation has proven vital for both preserving the historical memory of the conflict and for planning recovery efforts [33]. 

However, the use of AI in the conflict is not one-sided. On the other hand, there is evidence that AI-powered targeting systems have been used by Russian forces to identify and strike cultural infrastructure. These actions contribute to the psychological warfare efforts aimed at destabilizing communities and undermining national identity. The weaponization of cultural heritage in this manner demonstrates the dark side of AI’s potential in conflict zones, where it becomes a tool not only for preservation but also for destruction [34].

The situation in Ukraine clearly highlights the urgent need for international frameworks that provide formal protections for cultural heritage in conflict zones. Protecting digital cultural records under international humanitarian law, including offering immunity to servers hosting such data, is essential for safeguarding cultural memory. Furthermore, the creation of AI observatories under the auspices of UNESCO could help monitor and regulate the use of AI in cultural contexts, ensuring ethical standards are upheld. Additionally, leveraging machine learning and blockchain technologies to track and repatriate trafficked artifacts can help mitigate the losses incurred during conflicts, ensuring that stolen cultural assets are returned to their rightful owners.

Ultimately, Ukraine’s experience underscores that cultural heritage is far from being mere collateral damage in modern warfare—it is a strategic target. To respond effectively, there needs to be a comprehensive approach that combines AI, diplomacy, and robust digital safeguards. These efforts must be at the core of cultural policies in conflict zones to ensure the protection of cultural identity amid the complexities of war.

6.2 The British Library Cyberattack. A Strategy for Institutional Recovery

The ransomware attack on the British Library in October 2023 resulted in unprecedented disruption to one of the world’s most important cultural institutions. While the attackers' identities remain unconfirmed, the incident revealed systemic vulnerabilities in cybersecurity preparedness across the heritage sector. Digitized collections, public access systems, and interlibrary communications were all significantly affected. As of mid-2024, recovery efforts have remained partial, hindered by outdated infrastructure, data loss, and limited in-house expertise.

To support a strategic and sustainable recovery, the following multi-pronged approach is proposed:

• Immediate Response Infrastructure: establish an AI-enhanced threat detection and response system trained specifically on cultural institution attack patterns. Open-source tools like MITRE ATT&CK or IBM’s AI-based QRadar could be customized for this purpose.
• Digital Twin Deployment: create a "digital twin" of the library’s infrastructure to simulate restoration efforts, model vulnerabilities, and develop adaptive backup scenarios.
• Public–Private Partnerships: form long-term alliances with cybersecurity firms (e.g., CrowdStrike, Palo Alto Networks) to outsource core resilience infrastructure and training.
• UNESCO and UK Government Support: mobilize heritage-specific funding under the umbrella of the UNESCO Memory of the World program and the UK National Cyber Strategy.
• Open Access Transparency: develop a public accountability framework documenting what was lost, what is restorable, and what systemic reforms are underway.

By adopting a transparent, AI-driven, and partnership-based model, the British Library can set a precedent for cultural cyber-resilience in the 21st century.

7. Emerging Risks and International Regulations: Safeguarding Cultural Heritage in the Age of AI and Modern Warfare

As artificial intelligence (AI) technologies continue to evolve, their role in modern warfare has become increasingly complex and contentious. One of the most pressing concerns is the potential for AI to be weaponized, not only for physical destruction but also for the manipulation of cultural identity and historical memory. The use of AI in military contexts, particularly through autonomous systems, raises serious ethical questions regarding accountability, the protection of civilians, and the preservation of cultural heritage. In the case of Ukraine, for example, AI has been used to target cultural sites, effectively weaponizing cultural heritage as a tool of psychological warfare and destabilization. The precise targeting of monuments, churches, and museums underscores the strategic value of cultural heritage in contemporary conflicts. This trend could lead to an increasing use of AI-powered drones and autonomous vehicles to destroy or damage culturally significant sites with unprecedented precision.

The ethical implications of such practices are profound. The manipulation of cultural history through AI is not limited to physical destruction; AI-driven deepfakes and digital alterations can distort historical narratives and rewrite the past. For instance, AI technologies are increasingly capable of creating hyper-realistic fake media, including videos, audios, and images, that can be used to falsify historical events or misrepresent cultural identities. This poses a serious threat to the integrity of historical records and the preservation of cultural heritage. By distorting the collective memory, such technologies could fuel conflict and further divide societies, especially in regions where cultural identity is already a source of tension. The ability to manipulate the historical narrative through AI highlights the urgency of establishing ethical frameworks to govern the use of these technologies in sensitive cultural contexts. Moreover, the development and deployment of AI in modern warfare raise critical questions about the role of international law in regulating these technologies. Currently, international humanitarian law does not adequately address the use of AI in cultural heritage destruction or historical manipulation. Therefore, the call for new regulations to safeguard cultural heritage in conflict zones is more urgent than ever. As AI continues to play a larger role in military strategy, the need for robust ethical standards, clear accountability measures, and legal protections for cultural heritage becomes paramount.

In response to the emerging risks posed by AI, several international frameworks have been developed to regulate and govern its use, with the goal of protecting human rights, cultural identity, and historical memory. The European Union, in particular, has taken a proactive approach in creating regulations that aim to manage AI’s influence on society. The AI Act (Culture Action Europe - European Parliament Adopts the AI Act: Implications for Culture) [35]and the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) are two pivotal pieces of legislation that have profound implications for the protection of cultural heritage. The AI Act, introduced in 2021, represents the first comprehensive regulatory framework for artificial intelligence globally. It establishes clear guidelines on the use of high-risk AI systems, including those employed in cultural heritage sectors, with an emphasis on transparency, accountability, and ethical use. For cultural institutions, these provisions ensure that AI technologies used for digitizing heritage, monitoring cultural sites, or tracking looted artifacts are applied responsibly and in line with international human rights standards.

The GDPR, on the other hand, provides a critical layer of protection for digital cultural records. With the increasing digitization of cultural heritage materials, such as museum collections and archival documents, data privacy has become a critical issue. The GDPR’s strict data protection laws ensure that digital cultural artifacts and personal data linked to these assets are handled with the utmost care, providing a legal framework to protect against unauthorized use or exploitation. For example, if a cultural institution in a conflict zone digitizes its collections to preserve them from physical destruction, the GDPR mandates that such data must be stored and transmitted securely, ensuring that it is not misused for surveillance or manipulation purposes. Beyond the European Union, the global community has also been engaging in discussions around the ethical use of AI, particularly in conflict zones where the destruction of cultural heritage is a real threat. UNESCO has played a pivotal role in advocating for the protection of cultural heritage under international law. Its Recommendation on the Ethics of Artificial Intelligence provides comprehensive guidelines on how AI can be used responsibly in cultural contexts, focusing on issues like transparency, accountability, and respect for cultural diversity. However, the global implementation of such frameworks remains inconsistent, with different countries adopting varying approaches to AI regulation. Some nations, particularly authoritarian regimes, have shown little interest in adhering to international norms, instead using AI for surveillance, censorship, and even the destruction of cultural heritage.

The responses from governments worldwide to these challenges are varied but increasingly aligned. While the European Union’s regulatory framework sets a global standard, other nations are exploring their own AI governance models, often in partnership with organizations like UNESCO, to ensure the ethical application of AI in the cultural sector. The rise of AI-based surveillance in authoritarian regimes and its potential misuse for cultural repression and manipulation is a crucial consideration. As AI technologies continue to shape the future of warfare, culture, and human rights, the need for comprehensive international regulation has never been clearer. It is imperative that the global community collaborates to establish enforceable legal frameworks that protect cultural heritage from the adverse impacts of AI, especially in regions already vulnerable to conflict and historical manipulation.

8. Conclusion: A Shared Responsibility

As AI continues to redefine global security paradigms, its role in cultural heritage protection cannot be overlooked. And, as we stand on the precipice of an AI-driven future, the responsibility to safeguard cultural heritage is not just a matter of security but a moral imperative. AI will shape the destiny of cultural preservation—whether for good or for ill depends on the choices we make today. The institutions best positioned to address these challenges must leverage their expertise to steer AI governance in the right direction. The stakes are clear: failure to act will result not only in the loss of invaluable cultural artifacts but also in the erosion of the historical foundations that define civilizations. AI can be a shield or a weapon; the choice lies in how we choose to wield it.

Bibliography

Atlantic Council. (2023). The West, China, and AI Surveillance. Retrieved from https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/geotech-cues/the-west-china-and-ai-surveillance

Boboc, R. G., Băutu, E., Gîrbacia, F., Popovici, N., & Popovici, D.-M. (2022). Augmented Reality in Cultural Heritage: An Overview of the Last Decade of Applications. Applied Sciences, 12(19), 9859. https://doi.org/10.3390/app12199859

Boeke, S. (2021). Artificial Intelligence and Cultural Security: A Policy Framework for Protection. Cambridge University Press.

Brookings Institution. (2023). Dual-Use AI in Heritage Surveillance: Geopolitical Risks and Safeguards. Washington, DC.

Carabinieri TPC. (n.d.). Leonardo Database and S.W.A.D.S. Retrieved from [Carabinieri Website]

Carabinieri TPC. (n.d.). Leonardo Database. Retrieved from https://www.carabinieri.it

Chronos App for Visualizing Archaeological Sites

Comparative Study on AR and VR in Cultural Tourism

CSIS. (2023). Understanding the Military AI Ecosystem in Ukraine. Retrieved from https://www.csis.org/analysis/understanding-military-ai-ecosystem-ukraine

 Cuseum. (2019). 3 Things You Need to Know About “Deep Fakes” in Art & Culture. Retrieved from https://cuseum.com/blog/2019/12/17/3-things-you-need-to-know-about-ai-powered-deep-fakes-in-art-amp-culture

Diakopoulos, N. (2023). Deepfakes and the Future of Truth. MIT Press.

European Commission. (2024). AI Act | Shaping Europe's Digital Future. Retrieved from https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/policies/regulatory-framework-ai

European Parliament. (2022). The Ethics of Artificial Intelligence in Cultural Heritage. Brussels: Directorate-General for Parliamentary Research Services.

Europol. (2022). Threat Assessment on Cyber Risks to Cultural Heritage. Brussels: Europol Publications.

Floridi, L. (2022). Ethics, Governance, and Artificial Intelligence. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Global Smithsonian Institute. (2023). Remotely Monitoring Ukraine’s Cultural Heritage: Conflict Observatory. Retrieved from https://global.si.edu/projects/remotely-monitoring-ukraine%E2%80%99s-cultural-heritage-conflict-observatory

Human Rights First. (2022). Harnessing Technology to Safeguard Human Rights: AI, Big Data, and Accountability. Retrieved from https://humanrightsfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/HRF_Standalone_Ch.2_v5.pdf

ICOM. (n.d.). Red Lists for Stolen Cultural Objects. Retrieved from https://icom.museum

INTERPOL. (n.d.). Protecting Cultural Heritage: Project PSYCHE. Retrieved from https://www.interpol.int

Italian Government. (2020). Digitalizzazione del patrimonio culturale: bando da 200 milioni. Retrieved from https://www.federculture.it/digitalizzazione-del-patrimonio-culturale-bando-da-200-milioni

Italian Ministry of Culture. (2020). La Cultura Non Si Ferma. Retrieved from https://www.cultura.gov.it/cultura-non-si-ferma

Jisc. (2023). Cybersecurity in UK Cultural Institutions: Annual Threat Report. Jisc Publications.

Microsoft. (2024). Fighting deepfakes with more transparency about AI. Retrieved from https://news.microsoft.com/source/features/ai/fighting-deepfakes-with-more-transparency-about-ai/

MIT Media Lab. (2021). Algorithmic Bias in Museum Datasets. Cambridge, MA.

Musei Reali di Torino - MRT Virtual

National Cultural Heritage Administration. (2024). The development of digital tourism in China. Taylor & Francis Online. Retrieved from https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/23311886.2024.2347013

NATO Parliamentary Assembly. (2024). Protecting Cultural Heritage: A Strategic Priority for the Future. Retrieved from https://www.nato-pa.int/document/2024-protecting-cultural-heritage-report-dzerowicz-047-cds

NATO Strategic Communications Centre of Excellence. (2023). Emerging Technologies and Cultural Heritage Protection. Riga: NATO StratCom COE.

New York Times. (2021). Surviving the Crackdown in Xinjiang. Retrieved from https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2021/04/12/surviving-the-crackdown-in-xinjiang

OpenFox. (2022). Deepfakes and Their Impact on Society. Retrieved from https://www.openfox.com/deepfakes-and-their-impact-on-society

OpenFox. (2022). Deepfakes and Their Impact on Society. Retrieved from https://www.openfox.com/deepfakes-and-their-impact-on-society/

Ricostruzione digitale dell'antica Olimpia

UN News. (2025). United Nations Alliance of Civilizations Launches HUMAN-AI-T Initiative. Retrieved from https://www.globenewswire.com/news-release/2025/04/23/3066833/0/en/United-Nations-Alliance-of-Civilizations-Meeting-in-Geneva-Concludes-with-Key-Recommendations-on-AI-Governance-and-Launches-HUMAN-AI-T-A-Global-Initiative-to-Integrate-Humanity-int.html

UNESCO. (2020, April 9). UNESCO to the rescue. Wired. Retrieved from https://www.wired.com/beyond-the-beyond/2020/04/unesco-to-the-rescue

UNESCO. (2021). Global Forum on AI Ethics. Retrieved from https://www.unesco.org/en/forum-ethics-ai

UNESCO. (2021). Recommendation on the Ethics of Artificial Intelligence. Paris: UNESCO Publications.

UNESCO. (2021). Recommendation on the Ethics of Artificial Intelligence. Retrieved from https://www.unesco.org/en/articles/recommendation-ethics-artificial-intelligence

UNESCO. (2021). Recommendation on the Ethics of Artificial Intelligence. Retrieved from https://www.unesco.org/en/articles/recommendation-ethics-artificial-intelligence

UNESCO. (2023). Damaged cultural sites in Ukraine verified by UNESCO. Retrieved from https://www.unesco.org/en/articles/damaged-cultural-sites-ukraine-verified-unesco

UNESCO. (2023). Supporting the digitization of museum collections and documentary heritage in Ukraine. Retrieved from https://www.unesco.org/en/articles/supporting-digitization-museum-collections-and-documentary-heritage-ukraine

UNESCO. (2024). AI and the Holocaust: rewriting history? The impact of artificial intelligence on understanding the Holocaust. Retrieved from https://www.unesco.org/en/articles/ai-and-holocaust-rewriting-history-impact-artificial-intelligence-understanding-holocaust

UNESCO. (2024). Exploring the Impact of Artificial Intelligence and Intangible Cultural Heritage. Retrieved from https://ich.unesco.org/en/news/exploring-the-impact-of-artificial-intelligence-and-intangible-cultural-heritage-13536

UNESCO. (n.d.). AI-Powered Monitoring System for Cultural Sites. Retrieved from [UNESCO Website]

Wikipedia contributors. (2022). Art theft and looting by Russia during the invasion of Ukraine. In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art_theft_and_looting_by_Russia_during_the_invasion_of_Ukraine

Wikipedia. (2023). Persecution of Uyghurs in China. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Uyghurs_in_China

Wikipedia. (2023). Religious Sinicisation under the Xi Administration. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_Sinicisation_under_the_Xi_Administration

Wikipedia. (2025). Deepfake. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deepfake

Wikipedia. (2025). Memory of the World Programme. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memory_of_the_World_Programme

Wired. (2022). Artificial Intelligence Watching Us, Judging Us. Retrieved from https://www.wired.com/story/artificial-intelligence-watching-us-judging-us

World Economic Forum. (2021). The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the arts and cultural heritage. Wikipedia. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impact_of_the_COVID-19_pandemic_on_the_arts_and_cultural_heritage

[1] https://www.interpol.int/content/download/19023/file/WOA_CreatingNationalCulturalHeritageUnit_brochure_2019-01_EN.pdf

[2] https://www.unesco.org/en/artificial-intelligence

[3] https://www.coespu.org/articles/database-stolen-works-art-leonardo-and-swoads-salvatore-rapicavoli

[4] https://whc.unesco.org/en/convention/

[5] https://iicnairobi.esteri.it/en/gli_eventi/calendario/la-cultura-non-si-ferma-weareitaly-2/

[6] https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/27523543231216774?icid=int.sj-full-text.similar-articles.5&utm_source=chatgpt.com

[7] https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/23311886.2024.2347013?utm_source=chatgpt.com

[8] https://www.wired.com/beyond-the-beyond/2020/04/unesco-to-the-rescue/?utm_source=chatgpt.com

[9] Boboc, R. G., Băutu, E., Gîrbacia, F., Popovici, N., & Popovici, D.-M. (2022). Augmented Reality in Cultural Heritage: An Overview of the Last Decade of Applications. Applied Sciences, 12(19)

[10] https://www.chathamhouse.org/sites/default/files/publications/ia/INTA93_5_10_Clapperton%20et%20al_0.pdf

[11] https://icom.museum/en/red-lists/#:~:text=Red%20Lists%20present%20the%20categories,being%20illegally%20sold%20or%20exported.

[12] Global Smithsonian Institute. (2023). Remotely Monitoring Ukraine’s Cultural Heritage: Conflict Observatory.

[13] https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3417/12/19/9859?utm_source=chatgpt.com

[14] https://business.esa.int/news/italian-consortium-uses-arvr-and-satellite-technologies-to-expand-access-to-fragile-historical-sites

[15] https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10055-025-01109-0?utm_source=chatgpt.com

[16] https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/news_211795.htm

[17] Diakopoulos, N. (2023). Deepfakes and the Future of Truth. MIT Press.

[18] Ivi

[19] Jisc. (2023). Cybersecurity in UK Cultural Institutions: Annual Threat Report. Jisc Publications.

[20] Europol. (2022). Threat Assessment on Cyber Risks to Cultural Heritage. Brussels: Europol Publications

[21] https://cuseum.com/blog/2019/12/17/3-things-you-need-to-know-about-ai-powered-deep-fakes-in-art-amp-culture?utm_source=chatgpt.com

[22] https://www.unesco.org/en/articles/ai-and-holocaust-rewriting-history-impact-artificial-intelligence-understanding-holocaust?utm_source=chatgpt.com

[23] https://www.openfox.com/deepfakes-and-their-impact-on-society/?utm_source=chatgpt.com

[24] https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/policies/regulatory-framework-ai

[25] https://www.unesco.org/en/articles/recommendation-ethics-artificial-intelligence

[26] https://www.unesco.org/en/artificial-intelligence/recommendation-ethics

[27] https://www.unesco.org/en/forum-ethics-ai

[28] Brookings Institution. (2023). Dual-Use AI in Heritage Surveillance: Geopolitical Risks and Safeguards. Washington, DC.

[29] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Uyghurs_in_China?utm_source=chatgpt.com

[30] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_Sinicisation_under_the_Xi_Administration?utm_source=chatgpt.com

[31] https://www.wired.com/story/artificial-intelligence-watching-us-judging-us/?utm_source=chatgpt.com

[32] https://www.unesco.org/en/articles/damaged-cultural-sites-ukraine-verified-unesco?utm_source=chatgpt.com

[33] https://www.unesco.org/en/articles/supporting-digitization-museum-collections-and-documentary-heritage-ukraine?utm_source=chatgpt.com

[34]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art_theft_and_looting_by_Russia_during_the_invasion_of_Ukraine?utm_source=chatgpt.com

[35] https://cultureactioneurope.org/news/european-parliament-adopts-the-ai-act