Urbanization, particularly in terms of private housing construction, constitutes a mounting threat to cultural heritage sites in Palestine. At risk are not only archaeological sites, but traditional architecture and other locations of cultural heritage. The Ramallah province serves as a practical case study by which to examine how this process of urbanization affects the cultural heritage of the region, because of the increased rate of development the province has experienced over the past decade. This urbanization has proceeded with relatively little governmental oversight and administration by the Palestinian National Authority (PNA) and is typified by an absence of planning, which often places sites of cultural, historical, and archaeological significance in severe jeopardy. This article considers both the internal and external factors affecting the urbanization of Ramallah and proposes solutions to mitigate the dangers to cultural heritage posed by unchecked urban growth.

The articles collected in this special issue aim at addressing the debate about the protection and use of cultural heritage in the Pacific within the context of globalization. Contributions aim specifically at analyzing the tension that exists between, on the one hand, political, legal and economic discourses of Pacific peoples who wish to retain control and who seek protection of the use of their cultural heritage, and, on the other hand, the view of others arguing that it is in the interest of the general public to lift as many embargos as possible in order to stimulate research and to increase economic growth. All authors approach the subject of cultural and intellectual property rights as a discourse, with specific attention for the concepts of property and ownership, particularly in relation to cultural heritage and cultural knowledge; the potential benefits of property; appropriate protection mechanisms; the complexities of the discourses about rights, especially property rights; the appropriation of property or its misappropriation, often associated with what is freely available in the public domain; and, finally, the use of intellectual property as either a form of enclosure or as a form of ethnic boundary.

This article examines the way property rights can be applied to DNA from ancient sources. In particular, it examines the ways in which the legal classification of a source as a “cultural artifact” can influence the assignment of property rights over genetic information. I explore the discrepancy between the legal ability to own ancient dead bodies but not nonancient dead bodies, illustrating how dead bodies with a perceived cultural value are legally distinct from those which are not considered to have cultural value. Second, I address the way such cultural preservation laws fail to influence ownership rights over genetic information. Finally, I propose a model for the best way to deal with genetic information from ancient sources, based on the policies of the International Ancient Egyptian Mummy Tissue Bank.

Significant documents of record recently produced and dealing with cultural property, heritage and related issues will be printed annually in the final issue (No. 4) of each numbered volume. Documents considered for publication may be national, regional, or international instruments and codes. Inquiries or suggestions regarding documentary materials may be addressed to the Chronicles Editor, Kurt Siehr, at ⟨siehr@mpipriv.de⟩ or the Editor, Alexander Bauer, at ⟨alexander.bauer@qc.cuny.edu⟩.

Recent controversies surrounding the Genographic Project, sponsored by the National Geographic Society and IBM, and its predecessors call attention to a need to better understand the broader ethical and practical implications of uses of ancient and contemporary human genetic information, which is today a form of cultural property. Although technological advances continue to facilitate the kinds of information available to researchers, concerns about appropriation and the potential misuse or commodification of human genetic material and the data extracted from it have been raised by a number of stakeholders. Misconceptions and apprehensions about the topic also abound. These issues were addressed in a forum, “Decoding Implications of the Genographic Project,” which we convened at the 39th Annual Chacmool Conference in 2006, “Decolonizing Archaeology.” The purpose of the panel was to explore and discuss some of the salient issues from a range of perspectives, in the hope of moving beyond a polarized debate to generate productive dialogue and delineate further questions about intellectual property, cultural identity, and research ethics. We later solicited seven commentaries on the transcript from a range of scholars, which are included here. Some of the issues addressed by the panelists and commentators include access to samples, permissions for research and analysis, ownership and dissemination of data, and potential consequences of archaeological or historical interpretation of results. The event was co-sponsored by the Intellectual Property Issues in Cultural Heritage Project (IPinCH) and the World Archaeological Congress.

In a rapidly globalizing world, indigenous knowledge is in mortal danger, and it will require new forms of intellectual property protection to save it. There are fundamental incongruities between Western intellectual property law and indigenous knowledge that prevent the current international intellectual property framework from fully comprehending or addressing the contexts and needs of indigenous knowledge. This article will review the history of international and regional initiatives to develop protection for indigenous knowledge. It will consider the geopolitical context that has informed discussions about protecting the intangible wealth of indigenous peoples, including the recent addition of articulate and impassioned indigenous voices to the conversation. Finally, this article will discuss some of the concerns that have been raised about subjecting indigenous knowledge to a system of formal legal regulation.

Archaeological sites are composed of unique, complex landscape settings including architectural remains, visually and spatially interrelated spaces, and ecologies with topographical features and landforms framing them. Today, they are subject to many pressures caused by developmental changes as well as improper conservation and planning strategies. One reason is that heritage conservation is still heavily focused on architectural features and less on the landscape setting. Wider landscape components set an authentic backdrop for cultural heritage and make the setting vivid and legible. Concentrating on this trend, this article explores the visual values of archaeological sites from the tripartite conceptualization view of visual landscape integrity, namely considering the archaeological landscape setting as an artifact, three-dimensional space, and scenery. Using the archaeological site complex of Bergama in Western Turkey as a case study, I propose a visual landscape–oriented approach as a tool for the sustainable conservation and presentation of heritage sites in the process of cultural resource management.

In November 2006, a discussion thread erupted on the online discussion list of the World Archaeological Congress (WAC) concerning the National Geographic Society's Genographic Project (which is also sponsored by IBM and the Waitt Family Foundation). Initiated in 2005, the Genographic Project is designed to study human population movements in the past based on the analysis of DNA samples voluntarily contributed from people around the world. This project was also designed to move beyond the kinds of ethical and other concerns relating to indigenous rights, appropriation, and group consent (to name a few) that led to the demise of its predecessor, the Human Genome Diversity Project, which began in 1991 and continued until the late 1990s. Such projects owe their origins to significant advancements in biomolecular research and technology studies, which have not only resulted in a genetic revolution in archaeology and related studies but also witnessed growing public interest in ancestry tracing through genetic means.

Intellectual property claims have long been sustained in a way that is now under severe scrutiny. Pacific Island countries continue to face unauthorized uses of their traditional knowledge and practices. In response, international agencies in collaboration with Pacific Island countries are promoting sui generis forms of protection. The Institute of Fijian Language and Culture's Cultural Mapping Programme looks beyond ongoing debates about indigenous collection and digitization of intangible heritage to promote sui generis protection measures in lieu of western intellectual property law. Supported by an Institute grant, the unfolding Sawau Project creates an archive of sites, stories, and shared memories of the Sawau people of Beqa, an island iconic in Fiji for its firewalking practice (vilavilairevo). Advocating a form of social intervention in situ, The Sawau Project has become a collaborative tool to encourage digital documentation, linkages, and institutional collaborations among Fijian communities and their allies to negotiate and promote alternative forms of protection.

The role of ethical rules and codes of conduct in the field of art law and international protection of cultural property, together with the adoption of the relevant international conventions, has constantly increased in the last decades. This article considers the main codes of conduct drafted by international organizations as well as international, national, public, and private institutions, federations, and associations. The focus is on their influence on international trade as instruments of art market regulation. Specific attention is paid to the interaction with the private international law approach and to a survey of both direct and indirect effects of these rules on the international circulation of cultural property.

This discussion reviews the differences between traditional Micronesian principles regarding traditional knowledge, or ‘esoteric’ knowledge, and Western copyright laws, which have been used in the expropriation and legal alienation of traditional knowledge. We consider this conflict in relation to contemporary Native American intellectual property issues and tribal responses for the protection of such knowledge and to control research activities. This is compared with the recent international and Pacific Islands governments' concerns and actions regarding commodification and misappropriation of traditional knowledge, including the new Pacific Model Law. Finally, we review the nature of traditional knowledge in Chuuk State and its current status and recommend specific steps that the Federated States of Micronesia might take legislatively to protect traditional knowledge as part of its significant cultural heritage.

From 29th September to 1st October, a workshop was organized in Mexico City by UNESCO on the theme, “The Protection and Safeguard of Cultural Heritage Property of the Church of Latin America and the Caribbean.”

When the idea of heritage conservation arises, one specific facet of the ensuing reflection is bound to emerge at some stage: the (inevitable) tension between property rights, on the one hand, and the right to culture (of which heritage conservation is an aspect), on the other. This tension intensifies when the cultural material to be conserved concerns a traditionally sensitive issue—that of the burial places of the ancestors of people designated in the South African context as previously disadvantaged.

The panel began with an acknowledgment that we were assembled in the traditional territory of the Blood Nation. The panelists were then introduced and, in alphabetical order, gave their initial opening comments.

Stephanie Manning's mother, Marina Ovsenek, had a penchant for garage sales. In 2000 the daughter was driving the mother to the hospital for her cancer treatment when they stopped at one of these garage sales. The mother paid $5 to buy a box containing a brooch and five gold-colored coins. She kept these in the room in her house that was used to store various items, including other trinkets bought at garage sales.

In spring 2007, the transcript of the forum discussion was sent to all of the panelists for their review and approval. That summer we invited a number of people—several of them individuals who had been invited to attend the Chacmool Conference but were unable to do so—to contribute essays to be published as commentaries on the forum proceedings or the topic of the forum itself. We made a concerted effort to seek people from a wide range of backgrounds and perspectives; however, not everyone responded to the invitation. It took another full year, until late summer 2008, to gather and edit the commentaries, with several glitches along the way. But, as a result, this special section includes seven stimulating essays from scholars who are passionate about the topic and the issues it raises.

Cultural property activists have worried about the bioprospecting, or even biopiracy, of kava (Piper methysticum), a plant exchanged and consumed for many Pacific social and ritual purposes. By the 1990s, kava and concoctions made from the plant's component kavalactones were increasingly popular products within global markets for recreational and medicinal drugs. Starting in 2002, however, a number of European countries among others banned kava imports after initial reports that some heavy users suffered liver damage. This has complicated the kava story as producer efforts shifted from protecting rights to the plant to reopening blocked export markets. The difficulty is to both push kava into global markets while protecting local rights to the plant. A promising strategy may be developing consumer awareness of geographic indicators and “noble” kava varieties that Vanuatu's local producers may control yet globally market as “the best in the world.”