The progress that has been made by 'indigenous peoples' in international forums has been aided by the political perception that this category of claimants is limited and in some respects unique, and that such claims can properly and safely be treated as a special case. Although the imprecision of the category and the expanding array of groups involved in the 'indigenous peoples movement' could eventually threaten this perception and provoke more sustained demands for precision, such a transformation has not yet occurred.

For a variety of conceptual, historical, and political reasons, contemporary international law distinguishes between 'natural' land forms, cultural monuments, movable cultural property, the performing arts, and scientific knowledge. Indigenous peoples do not make these distinctions. Rather, they tend to regard landscapes as inherently cultural products in which artworks, literature, performances, and scientific-knowledge systems are inextricably embedded. Scientific knowledge must periodically be rehearsed within the landscape in recitations and performances that remember the historical process by which people and their nonhuman kinfolk constructed the landscape. Detaching specific cultural or scientific 'objects' from the landscape and commodifying them, as is contemplated by most current proposals for protecting indigenous peoples' rights, will undermine the indigenous institutions and procedures necessary for perpetuating the quality and validity of local knowledge.

The global effort to protect indigenous heritage relies on national legislation. The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) of the United States provides one model for accomplishing a broad agenda of protective measures. NAGPRA confirms indigenous ownership of cultural items excavated or discovered on federal and tribal lands, criminalizes trafficking in indigenous human remains and cultural items, and establishes a process of repatriation of material to native groups. In implementing the law, questions related to cultural affiliation, culturally unidentifiable material, the status of native groups not recognized by the federal government, and the scope of a group's cultural patrimony have been particularly troublesome. A case study of the repatriation process highlights issues in implementing NAGPRA and benefits in fostering consultation and collaboration among native groups, museums, and federal agencies. Finally, the article considers the controversies that have come before a statutory review committee and the federal courts during NAGPRA's first decade. This experience demonstrates the limitations of formal dispute resolution as a means of developing and implementing the law.

New Zealand concerns regarding cultural heritage focus almost exclusively on the indigenous Maori of that country. This article includes discussion of the way in which New Zealand regulates the local sale and export of Maori material cultural objects. It examines recent proposals to reform this system, including allowing Maori custom to determine ownership of newly found objects.

A major development in New Zealand law concerns the role of a quasi-judicial body, the Waitangi Tribunal. Many tribunal decisions have contained lengthy discussions of Maori taonga (cultural treasures) and of alleged past misconduct by former governments and their agents in relation to such objects and Maori cultural heritage in general.

As is the case with legal systems elsewhere, New Zealand seeks to reconcile the claims of its indigenous peoples with other priorities, such as economic development and environmental protection. Maori concerns have led to major changes in New Zealand heritage conservation law. A Maori Heritage Council now acts to ensure that places and sites of Maori interest will be protected. The council also plays a role in mediating conflicting interests of Maori and others, such as scientists, in relation to the scientific investigation of various sites.

Despite these developments, New Zealand has yet to sign the 1970 UNESCO Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export, and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property. The changes proposed to New Zealand cultural property law have yet to be implemented, and there is evidence of uncertainty about the extent to which protecting indigenous Maori rights can be reconciled with the development of a national cultural identity and the pursuit of universal concerns, such as sustainable development.

The Lapps of Scandinavia constitute a small indigenous ethnic community divided between four states: Norway, Sweden, Finland and Russia. The Lapps used to depend on reindeer farming and lacked their own schools. Because of their low social status and the lack of governmental understanding for their cultural needs, most of the Finnish Lapps had been assimilated with the majority population. Only in recent years an effort has been made by the government to encourage the preservation of the Lapp language and the Lapp civilization. A Lapp parliament has been created and the Lapp Language Act makes it possible for the Lapps to communicate in their own language with the authorities. It is to be hoped that these measures will bring positive results in a situation where only few Lappish speaking people remain in Finland, many of them having difficulties finding a livelihood in their homeland, the northernmost part of Finland.

In the early decades of this century, ethnographers who believed that the indigenous cultures of the Americas were in imminent danger of extinction undertook a variety of methods to record the vestiges of these cultures. Often carried out in collaboration with the controlling political powers, these ethnographic nonetheless became both instruments of persecution against traditional religious practices and the last records of these practices. One such ethnography, The Year Bearer's People, recorded by Oliver La Farge in 1927, became the only remaining record of this religious ceremony that commemorated the new year and was central to the life of the Jakaltek Maya in the Kuchumatán highland region of Guatemala. In this article, the author recounts the translation of this ethnography and the return of this sacred knowledge to the Maya community.

This article explores the rights of Aboriginal peoples in Canada concerning movable Aboriginal cultural property. Although the Canadian constitution protects Aboriginal rights, the content of this protection has only recently begun to be explored by the Supreme Court of Canada in a series of important cases. This article sets out the existing Aboriginal rights regime in Canada and assesses its likely application to claims for the return of Aboriginal cultural property. Canadian governments have shown little interest in attempting to resolve questions concerning ownership and possession of Aboriginal cultural property, and there have been few instances of litigation. Over the last decade a number of Canadian museums have entered into voluntary agreements to return cultural objects to Aboriginal peoples' representatives. Those agreements have often involved ongoing partnerships between Aboriginal peoples and museums concerning such matters as museum management and exhibition curatorship. A recent development has been the resolution of specific repatriation requests as part of modern land claims agreements. The compromise represented by these negotiated solutions also characterizes the legal standards being developed to reconcile existing Aboriginal rights and the legitimate policy concerns of the wider Canadian society.

The contentious, sometimes even raucous debate over the repatriation and reburial of Native American human remains has been calm compared to the clamor raised over the so-called Kennewick Man. Although the reburial debate has captured substantial worldwide media and public attention, the debate over the Kennewick find has done what no other case has so far managed - to raise a serious legal challenge to parts of the 1990 Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), a law providing for the return of human remains and burial artifacts to tribes. This case study examines the core issues surrounding the archaeological discovery, the entanglements related to NAGPRA, and possible impact of Kennewick on NAGPRA itself.

This note discusses the United States v. Corrow decision. It focuses on the interpretation of cultural patrimony as defined by NAGPRA and emphasizes the dangers presented by this vague definition. The court in United States v. Corrow was the first to address whether the statute is unconstitutional because it is vague. This case is the first and only authority on NAGPRA's definition of cultural patrimony; therefore, the case and this note present significant avenues to understanding and thinking about cultural patrimony.