This paper looks at a selection of famous forgeries of archaeological objects – the James Ossuary, the Shroud of Turin, the Piltdown Man Skull and the Archaeoraptor Fossil – to consider how these artefacts were falsified for personal benefit, whether in terms of fame or finance. The Shroud of Turin was identified as a forgery as early as 1389, and yet the value in terms of income from pilgrims was such that it continued to be displayed and venerated. The James Ossuary was forged for profit and notoriety, to gain renown and then to sell. The Piltdown Man Skull was one of many alleged forgeries by a man who sought renown by finding the ‘missing link’ that proved the Darwinian theory of evolution from ape to homo erectus. The same motivation drove the scientists who tried to pass off the Archaeoraptor Fossil as the ‘missing link’ that proved the relation of dinosaurs and birds.

People like to make comparisons between humans and other animals when they think a comparison helps them to make a point (e.g. that some human behavior can or cannot be considered to be ‘natural’) or to have a laugh when animals act in ways that are seen as funny or cute. There are a lot of misunderstandings about the feasibility of these kinds of comparisons and this chapter deals with the way in which meaningful use can be made of studies into animal behavior, using research into chimpanzee behavior (and specifically research into chimpanzee conflict regulation) as an example. The conclusion is that there are three ways in which ethological studies into non-human animal behavior can be relevant for an increased understanding of human behavior: by using ethological methods of systematic observation, by asking relevant research questions and by generating new hypotheses.

Christopher Marshalls is convinced that restorative justice has to do with care for relational involvement. That view is intuitively convincing but not particularly clear. Recent psychological and philosophical research has recently devoted much attention to notions such as ‘collective intentionality’ (Searle, Tomasello) and ‘joint commitment’ (Gilbert). This kind of research is situated and discussed in this paper. We indicate how the restoration of mutual involvement can be reinterpreted from the perspective of this research. This exercise shows that caring for relationships should not be interpreted in a sentimental way. In law and in restorative justice, it does not have to be the intention to enter into more personal relationships with each other. Rather, it is the intention to make it possible once again to develop mutual understanding, respect and compassion from our common universal human commitment.

Changing ecological conditions in a globalizing world pose new challenges for human societies. Global warming, large-scale pollution, deforestation and species extinction have increasingly become topics on the international agenda. Even though many of these harmful activities are criminogenic, criminology pays rather little attention to environmental crimes and harms.
Therefore, this article discusses the anthropocentric perspective within criminology and argues that a non-anthropocentric criminology can lead to new theoretical insights.

Criminology usually focuses on the human experience. The relatively few criminological publications that do pay attention to animals, are very often written from an anthropocentric perspective in which animals are portrayed as passive objects and in terms of their usefulness to humans. Is this a satisfactory situation? Some criminologists would answer this question with a sincere ‘no’.
For example Beirne and Cazaux have pleaded for a non speciesist criminology, meaning a criminology that does not take other than the human species for granted. This is not a plea for an entire new criminology, but an appeal for more attention on negative outcomes of human behaviour regarding animal welfare. In this article some examples of research options are described.