This set of articles is not intended to deal comprehensively with the totality of the relationship between heritage and hunting. Rather, it is designed to emphasize the connection and bring out aspects such as sustainability, ethics, respect, and civility. The role of hunting as a way of life is emphasized. This creates heritage even if its practitioners do not recognize it as such. The heritage so created can take many forms; but in particular hunting has produced an important intangible heritage expressed through art, music, poetry, and literature to name but a few of its aspects. Finally, the set of papers shows that mandated changes affecting hunting need careful consideration; there is much to be lost if the creating force for this heritage disappears.

The preservation of cultural property is never a neutral activity; and the question of who is to possess, care for, and interpret artifacts is highly politically charged. This paper examines how preservation was used as a justification for the removal of pieces of immovable archaeological sites in the early twentieth century, and became a tool for building museum collections. This study focuses on a collection of 12 wall painting fragments from the site of Dunhuang, China, which were removed by art historian Langdon Warner in 1924 for the Fogg Art Museum. The removal process resulted in significant damage to some of the fragments as well as to the site itself, calling into question what is preserved: an intact ancient artifact or an ancient artifact scarred by and embedded with its modern collection history? Using the Harvard collection as an example, I explore the contradictions and legacies of early preservation ethics.ACKNOWLEDGMENTS: The Harvard University Art Museums generously supported this research through the Baird Fellowship and the Advanced-Level Training Program at the Straus Center for Conservation. I am particularly thankful to Thomas Lentz, Francesca Bewer, and Glenn Gates for their encouragement and advice throughout this study. I thank Abigail Smith, Martha Mahard, and Joanne Bloom Toplyn of the Fine Arts Library at Harvard University for providing access to archival documents and photographs. I owe a great debt to the staff of the Straus Center for Conservation, particularly Henry Lie, Craigen Bowen, Kathleen Kennelly, Narayan Khandekar, Anthony Sigel, and former interns Ige Verslype and Scott Homolka. I am grateful to Robert Mowry, Melissa Moy, and Anne Rose Kitagawa of the HUAM Department of Asian Art. Finally, I would like to thank the anonymous reviews of International Journal of Cultural Property, Francesca Bewer, Julie Hollowell, Robert Mowry, and Anand Pandian for their attentive and thoughtful readings of this article.

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 〈[email protected]〉 or the Editor, Alexander Bauer, at 〈[email protected]〉.

This article applies the tools of legal semiotics to examine the terms, modalities, and conventions of legal argument in the cultural property context. In a first instance, the author re-enacts Duncan Kennedy's study of recurrent patterns within legal argument to illustrate the highly structured nature of most cultural property argument. This mapping exercise shows how legal concepts draw their meaning in part from their place within a broader linguistic system, and as a result cannot by themselves form an adequate basis for ethical positions. Following this, the pervasive Elgin Marbles controversy is shown to resemble a myth (in Roland Barthes's sense of the term) behind which a series of value judgments and support systems are embedded into cultural property argument. The conclusion presents a number of observations sketching a framework centered on restitution as a starting point for resolution of cultural property disputes.Acknowledgements: I am grateful for the many helpful comments received on previous versions of this piece, especially from Ali Wick, Lama Abu Odeh, and Alex Bauer. A special thank you to Natalia and Sofia for their support.

Voluntary guidelines for the conduct of cultural, environmental and social impact assessments regarding developments proposed to take place on, or which are likely to impact on, sacred sites and on lands and waters traditionally occupied or used by indigenous and local communities

This paper is about the recent discussions (known as Denkmalpflegediskussion) on the principles and practices of state heritage management in Germany. In an expert report commissioned by the prominent German politician Antje Vollmer from Dieter Hoffmann-Axthelm, a number of fundamental criticisms were made. They concern existing practices of state heritage management, some of which are said to alienate and patronize people. One of the main issues discussed is therefore whether the management of the cultural heritage should be further decentralized (‘entstaatlicht’) and made the responsibility of individual citizens and other stake-holders. The overriding criterion for scheduling should be a site's ability to move people aesthetically and emotionally, rather than some complex academic reasoning about historical significance. The significance of beauty and feelings to heritage is illustrated by discussing a citizens' initiative promoting comprehensive reconstructions in the Dresden Neumarkt area, around the recently restored Frauenkirche. This paper seeks to review some of the key issues of the German debate and begin a discussion of how it might relate to states heritage management in other countries for which Sweden serves as an example. The question asked is to what extent heritage management elsewhere too can, and should, be further democratized.ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS: I am grateful to Riksantikvarieämbetets FoU programme for supporting the research on which this paper is based, Gottfried Kerscher for sending me his defunct webpages, Matthias Donath for several valuable suggestions concerning the debate in Germany, Stefan Hertzig for his readiness to answer questions about the Gesellschaft Historischer Neumarkt Dresden, and to Bodil Petersson for comments on a shorter text about the same topic published in Sweden (Holtorf 2006). For help with the images I am obliged to Stefan Hertzig and Matthias Donath. I would also like to thank two referees for their constructive suggestions and encouragement and Alexander Bauer for a very quick turnaround.

My hope is that Alan Audi's important and necessary intervention represents a turning point in “cultural property argument.” In Parts I and II of his critique, Audi expertly uses the tools of “legal semiotics” to do exactly what those tools were designed to do: demystify the language game of legal argument to reveal the “irreducibly antinomal” and dialectical nature of its maxims and countermaxims. Audi quite persuasively sets forth a disturbing vision of a discourse that functions by its nature not so much to generate meaning and normative force as to suppress them, all so that the status quo remains undisturbed. Just as the fact that the English are unlikely to give up the Elgin Marbles anytime soon “suggests a kind of idle or recreational character to cultural property argument,” so too Audi's critique. Indeed, stripped of its legal features, the field of cultural property argument does look “rather barren.”

Kayoiura, located at the most easterly point of Omijima Island, Nagato City, Japan, is a small fishing village where community-based coastal whaling took place from late 1600 to early 1900. Today, more than 100 years since the end of whaling, the community maintains a number of cultural properties, both tangible and intangible, dedicated to the spirits of whales, including prayers for the whales given daily by two elderly Buddhist nuns. This article suggests that these cultural properties convey the former whaling community's ethics and spirituality with a strong sense of reciprocity that acknowledges the undeniable human dependency on other lives. It is argued that such spirituality has an important implication for our understanding of sustainability. Whaling is no doubt one of the most contentious issues in today's environmental debates, where divisive arguments collide over a wide range of issues. Although any study on whaling would play a role in the debate, this article's intention is elsewhere: to acknowledge the importance of ethics and spirituality as intangible cultural heritage and their role in sustainability debate.ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS: I would like to acknowledge the generous support provided by Mr. Fujii, director of the Nagato Whale Museum in organizing the fieldwork in Nagato. His passion, willingness, and commitment to the local community provided immense support for this study. I am grateful for the people at Kayoi who accommodated me and shared their knowledge, experiences, and many stories. I am particularly indebted to obii-sama, the Hosen-an nuns, for allowing me to hear the stories of their lives as well as record the sound around Hosen-an, including their prayers. I wish for the safety and prosperity of the people who live with and care for the natural environment and the spirits of all beings.

The author sets out an assumption—that the law in the area of cultural heritage is unsettled. He uses this faulty assumption as a basis for criticizing the use of and reference to legal rules within the cultural heritage field. In his introduction Audi states that he will apply a “theoretical apparatus” derived from “legal reasoning as it relates to gaps, ambiguities, or conflicts in laws” but admits that this methodology is less appropriate for settled areas of the law. At this point he unwittingly undermines the premise of his article. He goes even further in attributing “more than a little bad faith behind lawyers and judges” who claim to be applying the law. He seems to confuse policy arguments, where admittedly commentators can offer conflicting views that seem to carry equal validity, with legal arguments. He also believes that the legal arguments cancel each other out as if a decision from a court or a statute that congress passes is on a par with arguments offered by those who favor or disapprove of the result.

Since the late 1990s, the American museum community has nobly sought to resolve restitution claims involving Nazi-looted art in an equitable fashion. Under the auspices of various ethical guidelines recognizing the horrific tragedies of the Holocaust, museums have made a commitment to purge their collections of artwork tainted by Nazi theft. It remains unclear, however, whether these guidelines govern restitution claims that are based not on Nazi theft but on coerced sales arising from Nazi persecution. This article argues that the scope of the guidelines should be expanded to govern restitution claims arising from coerced sales, and that coerced sales include not only sales in which the Nazis participated but also private sales made by individuals who, as a direct result of Nazi persecution, who were forced to sell their artwork to flee or otherwise survive the Holocaust.ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS: I would especially like to thank Professor Stephen Urice for his indispensable insight and overall support in the development of this article. I would also like to thank Ildi DeAngelis and Professor John Merryman for their excellent suggestions, and Thaddeus Stauber for his willingness to discuss the Martha Nathan cases.

Council of Europe Framework Convention on the value of cultural heritage for society, 27 October 2005Note: Available online at: http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/Commun/QueVoulezVous.asp?NT=199&CM=8&CL=ENG

A divide has emerged between traditional allies as environmental protections increasingly constrict efforts to support the preservation of cultural heritage. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service addressed this debate by hosting an open forum on the current policies for the hunting of migratory birds. Proposed changes could end the granting of exemptions to Native American tribes, who use golden eagles and feathers in religious ceremonies, and would destroy the cultural and religious significance of the birds for the tribes. Such stringent environmental legislation not only threatens to undermine the importance of cultural preservation but also neglects an opportunity to strengthen the broader conservation movement by increasing involvement through the valuing of both the physical existence of a species and also its broader cultural significance. A study of the Hopi tribe of Arizona demonstrates the importance of flexibility and exemptions.ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS: I would like to thank Alexander Bauer for his guidance and support throughout the process of researching and writing this article.

I am in full agreement with Alan Audi's basic premise, so forcefully made in this article, that the legalistic discourse and the associated “argument-bites,” as he calls them, are an inadequate and highly problematic lens through which to explore the issues of restitution of what we call “cultural property,” another, equally problematic term. I would equally concur that any discussion on the subject that ignores the colonial past (and I would add, the neocolonial present), and the power inequities associated with it, is not only hypocritical but it also conceals an undeclared interest, effectively taking sides in the ongoing cultural and overtly political global battlegrounds. The issue of the Elgin or Parthenon Marbles is correctly identified by the author as the omnipresent shadow in all debates of restitution, the shadow that haunts museum professionals and politicians alike. It is this shadow that led the current director of the British Museum to start the initiative on the “Universal Museum,” an initiative that falls apart only by looking at the list of signatories: 18 major museums, all located in Europe and North America. In his article in the Guardian in defence of this thesis (that museums such as the British Museum or the New York's Metropolitan, tell a universal story, hence their need to retain objects from all over the world), he even invoked Edward Said; but the title of this article gave the game away: “The Whole World in our Hands.” Who has the right to represent the universal? Why is it that the exhibition of the global story of humanity, even if such an exercise were possible in supposedly neutral and depoliticized terms, must be staged in London, New York, or Paris, and not in Cairo, Sao Paolo, or Delhi? As Homi Bhabha reminded us, the desire to “grasp the whole,” to represent and stage the universal, has always been at the core of the colonial imagination; we need only think of the nineteenth-century Grand Fairs and Universal Expositions, and the role of antiquities in them.

There is a saying that Africa is the festival continent. Throughout the year in towns and villages across the continent, colorful and vibrant religious, harvest, fertility, and cultural festivals are held. Bare-hand fishing competition among thousands of fishermen, equipped with a hand net and large gourd, is the main event of the cultural extravaganza at Argungu in Kebbi State in northwestern Nigeria. The competitors splash into the stream, scouring the water for huge freshwater fish. The Argungu fishing festival (Fashin Ruwa) is a celebration of life. It is a tool of conserving natural resources, maintaining and promoting traditional life. It is the precursor of today's fishery management measure. The local people believe they have been fishermen for all time. The effective conservation of natural resources is closely linked to the use of the local knowledge and hence the life of the community. It is also part of an ancient fertility ritual which, from the point of view of the local Kebbawa people, is the most important aspect of the occasion. The festival takes place usually in February after all agricultural work is finished. It marks the end of the growing season, and it opens the fishing season with a bang.

A slightly edited discussion on the protection of landscapes is offered as an example of cross-disciplinary teaching in heritage studies. It was one of the online components linking students and facilitators from the disciplines of archaeology, communications, conservation, medieval studies, journalism, and law, located in Canberra, Kabul, Nagoya, Sydney, Melbourne, and Toowoomba. It shows the value of informal online discussion in devleoping understanding of heritage issues from different perspectives.

Memorandum of Understanding Between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of the Republic of Cyprus Concerning the Imposition of Import Restrictions on Pre-Classical and Classical Archaeological Objects and Byzantine Period Ecclesiastical and Ritual Ethnological Material

Audi confronts what troubles many: the repetitive, stagnant nature of cultural property debates. Restitution certainly falls into this mold. So do other topics. He is also right that the debate is barely legal, carried on more in the press and media than in the courts. He is equally insightful that the Elgin Marbles play an inordinate role in these debates, and often set the framework for discussion even when not directly noted. What is unclear is whether calling attention to the debate as counter-balanced argument-bites will get beyond the constraints of past thinking and formulaic argument.

In Iran v. Berend, the High Court in London had occasion to revisit one of the most enduring problems of private international law and cultural property. Effective regulation of the illicit market in cultural property is extremely difficult, because many measures aimed at stemming the illicit trade actually contribute to the black market. Courts in both England and the United States have shown that they are prepared to use criminal laws to convict persons involved in the illegal trade in antiquities exported in violation of foreign patrimony laws. As a result, much cultural property policy debate in recent years has focused on the extent to which the criminal law can impact the illicit trade. The extent to which national ownership declarations can be used in civil disputes remains less clear.

In 2005 foxhunting was prohibited by an act of parliament in England. The Hunting Act 2004 forbade the highly formal and ritualized hunting of foxes with packs of hounds and thus brought to an end a practice that had been present in the countryside for some 200 years. In this article I explore the complexities of foxhunting as a social and cultural practice prior to the ban as well as the nature of the ban as it relates to killing foxes. I then explore the effects of the ban in terms of how, from the perspectives of the supporters of foxhunting, it is experienced as an attack on cherished notions of community, rural life, belonging, and connectivity with the countryside.ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS: I would like to thank Captain Brian Fanshawe and Captain Rupert Inglesant for their invaluable suggestions. I would also like to thank Stephanie Schwandner-Sievers, who still has the patience to read drafts and unpick muddled thinking and writing.

On October 12 to 14, 2006, Willamette University hosted an international conference, “Cultural Heritage Issues: The Legacy of Conquest, Colonization and Commerce.” Some 30 distinguished panelists addressed five themes: the legacy of indigenous conquest, the legacy of international conquest and colonization, the legacy of commerce, avoidance and resolution of cultural heritage disputes, and issues related directly to museums and sites. Papers drew on the panelists' expertise in a broad range of disciplines, from archaeology to law enforcement. Topics included, for example, Repatriation of First Nations' Material Culture in Canada, the UNESCO Convention on the Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage, Recovery of Art Looted During the Holocaust, and The Effect of Colonization on the Cultural Property of Libya.