Cultural property goes back a long way. It is probably fair to say that it originated with the beginnings of human creation, the earliest material and intellectual expressions of mankind. And as soon as there was cultural property, there likely was dispute, although in a most primitive form. The destruction, supplanting, and taking of another group's cultural creations may not unreasonably be thought of as the earliest form of cultural property debate.

The term “cultural heritage” contains an inherent tension. On the one hand, “culture” suggests something dynamic: it represents the diverse values and practices of different social groups, which continually evolve as they interact with others and their membership changes. On the other hand, “heritage” (and likewise “property”) implies something more clearly defined and static: it refers to a specific object or tradition passed on from generation to generation with little to no significant change. The difficulty in resolving these opposing forces—change versus stability—underlies why protecting, controlling, and possessing cultural heritage is so difficult to regulate in law, policy, and practice.

Cultural property internationalism is shorthand for the proposition that everyone has an interest in the preservation and enjoyment of cultural property, wherever it is situated, from whatever cultural or geographic source it derives. This article describes its historical development and its expression in the international law of war, in the work of UNESCO, and in the international trade in cultural objects and assesses the ways in which cultural-property world actors support or resist the implications of cultural property internationalism.

A major factor driving contemporary concerns about the fate of intangible cultural property is the rise of the Information Society, which has proven adept at stripping information from the cultural contexts that give it meaning. Efforts to preserve intangible heritage have tended to follow Information Society models by proposing that heritage be inventoried, then removed from the public domain and returned to the exclusive control of its putative creators. This essay reviews recent scholarly work and policy initiatives related to intangible cultural property, with an eye toward identifying their merits and flaws. It argues for a more ecological perspective, one that takes account of the unpredictable quality of information flows as well as the costs of attempting to manage them. Also explored are some of the difficult, unanswered questions about whether all intangible cultural heritage is equally worthy of protection.

Increasingly those concerned with cultural property favor an approach that focuses on protection and shared access over unequivocal demands for return to places of origin or insistence on retention by museums and other institutions. This article starts by describing the International Law Association and discussing its role, along with that of other nongovernmental organizations, in connection with the development of cultural heritage principles and instruments. It then outlines the intent behind “Draft Principles for Cooperation in the Mutual Protection and Transfer of Cultural Material” presently being developed by the Committee on Cultural Heritage Law of the International Law Association. The Committee favors a nonadversarial and collaborative approach to issues surrounding the return of cultural material to its place or people of origin. This article describes and discusses the draft principles being developed by the Committee. Its hope is that a set of principles could be developed that would form the basis for expediting the resolution of a variety of cultural property disputes. These principles are at an early stage in their development and the Committee welcomes suggestions for changes and additions to the draft principles as they now stand.

This paper examines some of the complex issues that relate to the management of “heritage,” primarily as such issues relate to Indigenous populations and communities. Numerous authors such as Aplin,Aplin, Heritage Identification, Conservation, and Management. Barkan and Bush,Barkan and Bush, Claiming the Stones. Brown,Brown, Who Owns Native Culture? and GreenfieldGreenfield, Return of Cultural Treasures. recognize the social, political, and symbolic aspects of heritage and discuss such issues in detail. This paper, therefore, does not approach the broader issues of heritage, but instead focuses on the intricacies of relationships between the various populations that attempt to exert control over particular aspects of heritage. While many authors recognize the role of cultural nationalists and cultural internationalists in the debate over heritage issues, I argue that Indigenous populations and other enclaves within nations— cultural “intranationalists”—comprise a new and growing voice in the debate.

The conviction of Frederick Schultz is the most recent turn in a storm of controversy that began 25 years ago and does not appear to be dying down. Schultz is currently serving a prison term and owes a fine of $50,000 to the United States government. He was convicted under the National Stolen Property Act (NSPA) for conspiring to purchase Egyptian antiquities that, according to Egyptian law, were owned by the Egyptian government. The Schultz case is the latest in an emerging trend whereby the NSPA, enacted to permit criminal federal prosecution for stolen cars taken across state borders, has been applied to help foreign governments with national ownership laws to keep antiquities within their borders.

Michael F. Brown, Who Owns Native Culture?. Pp. xiii+315. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, London, 2003. ISBN 0-674-01171-6.

Michael Brown has written a book that must be read by all who have a serious concern with heritage, particularly that where the interests of “native” peoples are involved. Throughout the book, there is evidence of extensive research and careful analysis of the often complex issues that he raises. But it is not a dry tome. A sense of humor appears. Describing the ethnobotanist Richard Schultes, of Harvard University, Brown says: “He may have been the only Republican in America who freely admitted to having sampled just about every mind-altering plant yet discovered in the New World” (p. 96). The book is written in a clear style with no use of jargon.

Michael Brown has written a book that must be read by all who have a serious concern with heritage, particularly that where the interests of “native” peoples are involved. Throughout the book, there is evidence of extensive research and careful analysis of the often complex issues that he raises. But it is not a dry tome. A sense of humor appears. Describing the ethnobotanist Richard Schultes, of Harvard University, Brown says: “He may have been the only Republican in America who freely admitted to having sampled just about every mind-altering plant yet discovered in the New World” (p. 96). The book is written in a clear style with no use of jargon.

Brazil's legislation no. 230/2002 goes into effect, mandating that all new public works projects must incorporate and pay for archaeological salvage and necessitated by the project. Enterprises must pay also for storage and public outreach, including heritage education. Diário Oficial da União de 17 de dezembro de 2002.

The International Journal of Cultural Property is a peer-reviewed journal which publishes papers and other materials representing a broad set of perspectives on problems relating to cultural property, cultural heritage, and related issues. Contributions are welcome from the wide variety of fields implicated in the debates—law, anthropology, public policy, archaeology, art history, preservation, museum-, tourism-, and heritage studies—and from a variety of perspectives and interests—indigenous, Western, and non-Western; academic, professional and amateur; consumers and producers—to promote meaningful discussion of the complexities, competing values, and other concerns that form the environment within which these disputes exist.