Urban redevelopment projects increasingly draw on culture as a tool for rejuvenating city spaces but, in doing so, can overemphasize the economic or exchange-value potential of a cultural space to the detriment of what was initially meaningful about a space—that which carries great cultural community wealth, use-value, or embodies a group’s intangible cultural heritage. Development and preservation interests illustrate this tension in terms of how cultural heritage—both tangible and intangible—is managed in the city. This article will turn to Toronto’s “Music City” strategy that is being deployed as part of a culture-focused urban redevelopment trend and Creative City planning initiative in order to examine how the modern urban intangible merits of city spaces are valuated and dealt with in light of the comparatively weak regard accorded to intangibility within the available heritage protection legal frameworks of Canada, Ontario, and, specifically, Toronto. The currently underdeveloped recognition for intangibility in the heritage protection equation not only fails to equally valuate non-dominant, unconventional, or alternative iterations of culture but also falls behind the key guiding documents in international law for the safeguarding and recognition of intangible cultural heritage as well as in accounting for intangibility in determining heritage value. Without diligent inclusive strategies to account for, and consult, the diverse spectrum of groups, cultures, and cultural spaces affected by urban heritage and cultural city planning processes, a city’s development initiatives risk counterproductively destroying the precise characteristics they are otherwise seeking to nourish, create, and, even, commodify.

This article explores the history and present operation of the Waverley system, the United Kingdom's art export policy established in 1952. A key component of the article is its attempt to illuminate the little-known story surrounding the birth of the system, which has been pieced together using treasury and Board of Trade papers held in the National Archives. The article then examines, both qualitatively and quantitatively, how responsibility for the system has evolved. The main pattern that emerges is the progressive detachment of the treasury: Although it spearheaded the formation of the Waverley system in 1952, today it is much more removed, in terms of administration and attitude, from the system.

This article offers a critical appraisal of the evolution of Italian cultural heritage law with respect to issues of colonial and war restitution and of control over the import of potentially trafficked cultural property. As Italy is usually considered a “source country” and a victim of historical depredations, a form of “selective blindness” to its colonial past and to its role at the receiving end of both past and current misappropriations of cultural objects is discussed. Some recent restitutions of cultural property taken in times of colonial occupation are also analyzed as signs of a possible change in policy and practice, but the article also highlights the features of political expediency that have influenced them as well as the many legal and practical obstacles still to be faced by restitution and repatriation claims. Finally, the potential effects of recent (mostly international) inputs on Italy’s cultural heritage policy are presented.

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.

The Sultanate of Oman has enacted a modern and detailed statute protecting its cultural heritage. It is one of the newest and most modern pieces of legislation within the Arab world and provides broad protection for the rich cultural heritage of the country. The enactment of the statute and its application to protect culture and the nation's cultural heritage became an important political aim, and the year 1994 was officially declared as the “Year of National Heritage”.

In May of 1954, the Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict (Hague Convention) was adopted in an attempt to curb the destruction of movable and immovable cultural property during war. Recent conflicts, such as the continuing war in the Balkans, remind us that the Hague Convention is as relevant today as it was fifty years ago. Although this Convention is the most comprehensive and internationally recognized treaty to protect cultural property in time of war, the United States remains one of the few signatories that has yet to ratify it. In January 1999, former President William J. Clinton forwarded the Hague Convention to the Senate with the recommendation that it ratify the Convention and part of Protocol I. Although this presented perhaps the first real opportunity in nearly half a century for the United States to join one hundred countries and ratify the Hague Convention, its fate remains uncertain. Generally oriented towards the United States' policy and practice, this article broadly discusses the Hague Convention, its history, its weaknesses and strengths, and the current status of U.S. ratification.

The text of the Unidroit Convention on Stolen or Illegally Exported Cultural Objects (the Convention) had its origin in a Unidroit Study Group which produced the Preliminary Draft Unidroit Convention on Stolen or Illegally Exported Cultural Objects (hereinafter PDC or Urtext) in 1991. With the PDC as their working text, four conferences of National Experts produced the Draft Unidroit Convention on the International Return of Stolen or Illegally Exported Cultural Objects, and a Diplomatic Conference held in June, 1995, produced the Convention.

Based on research into the confiscated photographic and document archives in the hands of the top antiquities dealers (Robin Symes-Christos Michaelides, Robert Hecht, Giacomo Medici, and Gianfranco Becchina), so far more than 250 looted and smuggled masterpieces have been repatriated from the most reputable North American museums, private collections, and galleries, mainly to the Italian and the Greek states. Most of these repatriations were advertised in the press as voluntary action by the institutions and the individuals who possessed them. However, this is far from true; the repatriations were the results of lengthy negotiations, where the presentation of evidence alternated with diplomatic tactics and legal threats in order for the two parties (in some cases, three) to reach an agreement. Among the much-celebrated repatriated antiquities are at least two cases that require further research regarding their legal owner. This article aims to analyze these two cases and to set out new questions. In the end, there is doubt that the state who finally received these antiquities is necessarily the one from which they have been looted and smuggled. Based on this analysis, the article aims to highlight alternative paths to the discovery of the truth, paths that might have been more effective, if they had been followed.

John Henry Merryman’s seminal writings established the twin poles of nationalism and internationalism, which have framed debates over cultural patrimony for three decades. He has long advocated a cosmopolitan ideal of sharing the world’s artistic heritage as the best course for preservation, knowledge, and public access. Although the tensions between national ownership and universal circulation frequently put countries and museums at odds, above all when it comes to ancient art and archaeological objects, a middle ground has been found that can bridge the gap. This article reviews several recent MOUs that U.S. museums and cultural ministries in Italy, Greece, and Turkey have established for exhibition loans and research collaborations. The J. Paul Getty Museum’s experiences in implementing four international cultural agreements illuminate how sharing works in practice, and the benefits (and costs) of an object-oriented approach to cultural diplomacy.

This article presents the perspective of a long-time dealer in ancient art and antiquities on the many attacks on the antiquities trade. After a brief historical review of collecting and the different national approaches to control of export of archaeological materials, the author presents an analysis of why the more draconian of the legal systems defeat their intended purposes and are themselves unethical in that they promote the destruction of archaeological sites and the black market in antiquities.

This article is dedicated to the collection from the Bremen Kunsthalle, comprising 1715 drawings, 50 paintings, and about 3000 prints found by Soviet troops in castle of Karnzow near Berlin in May 1945. The collection was not seized by Soviet trophy brigades but was looted by soldiers and officers of the 38th Field Engineers' Brigade of the Red Army.

After their return to the USSR and demobilization, some of the officers donated their loot to different museums around the Soviet Union. One of the most important parts of the collection, with 362 drawings and two paintings—among them works of Dürer, Rembrandt, Goya, and Van Gogh, was appropriated by Captain Viktor Baldin. In 1948 Baldin deposited his loot in the A. V. Shchusev State Research Museum of Architecture in Moscow. Later Baldin became the director of the museum and advocated return of the art to its rightful owners.

Since the days of Gorbachev's perestroika, these art works have frequently attracted public attention and provoked fierce debates. The Federal Law on Cultural Valuables adopted in 1998 did not cover art works looted by private individuals. Rather, such conflicts have to be solved within the framework of Russian criminal law.

In contrast, other works of art from the same Bremen Kunsthalle collection were restituted from the United States, Ukraine, and Estonia. Another 101 drawings and prints of the collection, seized by another member of Baldin's brigade, were returned from Russia to Bremen in 2000, but that was in “exchange” for an original mosaic from the legendary Amber Chamber. However, despite more than 20 years of efforts by German officials and endless negotiations, the Baldin Collection remains in the Russian Federation. The return of those stolen drawings any time soon now looks highly improbable. The case of the Baldin Collection became the most striking example of the Russian nonrestitution of cultural property looted during World War II.

The ethics of dealing in antiquities may be discussed in two parts: first, the ethical standards that govern the trade and its relation to clients, and second, the new legal standards that affect dealers and collectors arising from political ambitions in the international relations between source and market nations. Friction between these competing interests began with the ratification of the UNESCO Convention in 1972 and the passage of the Cultural Property Implementation Act in 1983. Unrealistic political approaches to the illicit trade in antiquities have exacerbated rather than solved the problem. A resolution of the conflicts, contradictions, and ambiguities of the present situation can be achieved by stressing the safety of objects and archaeological sites over partisan goals. A satisfactory denouement can be achieved through a partnership between source countries and the market, through an abandonment of retentionist export controls, and through the establishment of an open, free, and rational coalition. Any solution to present difficulties ought to acknowledge the value of continuing to collect and preserve antiquities in private and public collections.

Summary: Nigeria's national archival institution has been an object of neglect since its reluctant establishment in the colonial era to the present time. It was initially headed by a non-archivist on a part time and ad hoc basis, which blighted its prospects. The uniqueness of the National Archives of Nigeria as the nation's unfailing memory and one of the embodiments of its cultural heritage is not appreciated. There is an urgent need to improve radically the infrastructures of the institution, taking advantage of new technologies offered by the information revolution. Lack of democracy and accountability has been the bane of independent Nigeria. There is obviously a link between this state of affairs and the perilous state of the national and other archival institutions in the country. A sound records-management practice is urgently needed to ensure the managerial accountability so vital to good governance.

The Bonnichsen decision has been heralded as a victory for anthropology, because it appears to vindicate the position of the plaintiffs who brought their suit in order to be allowed to conduct scientific research on a 9,000-year-old skeleton from North America. It appears to be a defeat for Native Americans, who view this skeleton as an ancestor and who would prefer to see the remains of this individual returned to the ground to continue the long journey back to the earth. In fact, this polarized view of the case returns the discourse surrounding repatriation to a previous level in which arguments were made over the question, “who owns the past?” While this may be a rhetorically satisfying problem to wrestle with, it does not capture the true nature of how archaeology can engage with Native people in the process of understanding ancient lives. It presumes that the past exists as a form of property. Under this simplistic construction, human remains can exist as property and can be owned by one group or another.

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 global digital environment and the continuous expansion of digital information about cultural property necessitate a reevaluation of John Henry Merryman’s tripartite typology of cultural property ideals. Merryman put forth those ideals, namely 1.) ensuring the physical preservation of cultural property, 2.) protecting its even-handed interpretation, and 3.) offering public access to cultural property, as the main bases for the settlement of international cultural property disputes. However, new questions have arisen about the status of cultural property in an era when detailed virtual copies of cultural property are instantaneously available. For example, to what extent is digitized cultural property data should itself be regarded as cultural property? This paper will address some of the ethical issues related to the physical preservation, interpretation, and access to this digitized cultural property data. It will conclude with an examination of another type of cultural heritage data: the increasing use of behavioral data about cultural property consumers and audiences as a marketing tool by cultural institutions. This ominous new turn in the commodification of cultural property, it will be suggested, identifies items of cultural significance not only as objects of ownership and sale, but also as a marketable entertainment experience.