Protection of Indigenous Heritage 

in Selected Jurisdictions

Australia • Brazil • Canada • Mexico • New Zealand 

Norway • Peru • Russia • South Africa • Taiwan 

European Union 

March 2019 

The Law Library of Congress, Global Legal Research Directorate 

(202) 707-5080 (phone) • (866) 550-0442 (fax) • law@loc.gov • http://www.law.gov
This report is provided for reference purposes only. 

It does not constitute legal advice and does not represent the official 

opinion of the United States Government. The information provided 

reflects research undertaken as of the date of writing. 

It has not been updated.
Contents 

Comparative Summary ............................................................................................................................. 1 

Australia ...................................................................................................................................................... 5 

Brazil .......................................................................................................................................................... 35 

Canada ....................................................................................................................................................... 46 

Mexico ........................................................................................................................................................ 67 

New Zealand ............................................................................................................................................ 69 

Norway ...................................................................................................................................................... 85 

Peru .......................................................................................................................................................... 101 

Russia ....................................................................................................................................................... 103 

South Africa ............................................................................................................................................ 113 

Taiwan ..................................................................................................................................................... 122 

European Union ..................................................................................................................................... 128 
The Law Library of Congress 1 

Comparative Summary 

Luis Acosta 

Chief, Foreign, Comparative, and International Law Division II

This report by the foreign law research staff of the Law Library of Congress’s Global Legal 

Research Directorate includes surveys of eleven selected jurisdictions on the legislative and policy 

frameworks affecting the protection of sacred places of indigenous peoples, their graves, remains, 

related artifacts, and indigenous cultural property generally. 

In the United States, a 1990 law, the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act 

(NAGPRA) addresses the identification, repatriation, protection, regulated excavation, and 

custody of indigenous human remains and related cultural objects.1 The individual surveys in 

this report reflect research on whether there are corresponding laws in the selected jurisdictions 

similar to NAGPRA, and more generally discuss the protection of indigenous cultural patrimony. 

I. Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act 

NAGPRA authorized development of a “process for determining the rights of lineal descendants 

and Indian tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations to certain Native American human 

remains, funerary objects, sacred objects, or objects of cultural patrimony with which they 

are affiliated.”2 

NAGPRA required most federal agencies and museums that received federal funds to inventory 

human remains and associated funerary objects and attempt to determine the cultural affiliation 

of each item.3 The law required agencies and museums to notify affected Indian tribes and Native 

Hawaiian organizations, and to provide a written summary describing the objects, acquisition 

information, cultural affiliation, and related information.4 NAGPRA requires agencies and 

museums to repatriate human remains and funerary objects, as well as other sacred objects or 

objects of cultural patrimony, to lineal descendants, Indian tribes, or Native Hawaiian 

organizations that are known or whose cultural affiliation can be determined.5 

NAGPRA provides that any person who wishes to excavate human remains, funerary objects, 

sacred objects, or objects of cultural patrimony from federal or tribal lands may do so only after 

 

1 Pub. L. 101-601, 104 Stat. 3048 (1990), codified at 25 U.S.C. §§ 3001-3013 (2012). NAGPRA is one of 

several federal statutes affecting indigenous cultural property. For a comprehensive overview of federal 

and state law affecting cultural property in the United States, see SHERRY HUTT, CAROLINE MEREDITH 

BLANCO & STAN N. HARRIS, CULTURAL PROPERTY LAW: A PRACTITIONER’S GUIDE TO THE MANAGEMENT,

PROTECTION, AND PRESERVATION OF HERITAGE RESOURCES (2d ed. 2017). 

2 43 CFR § 10.1(a) (2018). 

3 25 U.S.C. § 3003. 

4 25 U.S.C. §§ 3003, 3004. 

5 25 U.S.C. § 3005. 
Protection of Indigenous Heritage: Comparative Summary 

The Law Library of Congress 2

obtaining a permit.6 Such a permit is conditioned on meeting specified requirements,7 including 

complying with the Archaeological Resources Protection Act (ARPA),8 and consultation with and 

consent of interested Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations.9 

Any person who inadvertently discovers such cultural items must immediately notify the 

responsible federal agency official with respect to federal lands or the responsible Indian tribe 

official with respect to tribal lands.10 If the discovery occurs during ongoing activity like 

construction or mining, the activity must cease and a reasonable effort must be made to protect 

the items.11 If on federal lands, the responsible federal official must take immediate steps to 

secure and protect the items, notify and consult with interested lineal descendants, Indian tribes 

or Native Hawaiian organizations, and ensure that any excavation and disposition is carried out 

lawfully.12 If on tribal lands, the responsible tribal official may similarly take appropriate steps 

to protect the items and ensure any excavation or disposition complies with specified 

requirements and procedures.13

NAPRA vests custody, ownership, and control of discovered or excavated human remains and 

funerary objects in lineal descendants, if they can be ascertained.14 With respect to remains or 

funerary objects for which such descendants cannot be determined, or with respect to other types 

of cultural items, custody, ownership, and control is vested in the Indian tribe aboriginally 

occupying the federal land, or the tribe or Native Hawaiian organization with the strongest 

demonstrated relationship with the cultural items.15 Federal agencies with unclaimed cultural 

items must care for and manage them in a manner consistent with detailed regulations.16

 

6 25 U.S.C. § 3002(c); 43 CFR § 10.3. 

7 43 CFR § 10.3. 

8 16 U.S.C. §§ 470aa–470mm (2012). ARPA was enacted in 1979 with the goal of preserving and 

protecting archaeological sites on public and Indian lands. 16 U.S.C. § 470aa(b). ARPA prohibits the 

unauthorized excavation and removal of archaeological resources, and provides for a permitting process 

for private persons to be allowed to excavate. 16 U.S.C. § 470cc. Excavation of such without a permit is 

subject to criminal or civil sanction. 16 U.S.C. §§ 470ee, 470ff. If the federal land manager in charge of the 

application determines that a permit may result in harm to a religious or cultural site, the manager must 

notify any Indian tribe that may consider the site as having religious or cultural importance. 16 U.S.C. 

§ 470cc(c). Any permit for excavation or removal of an archaeologicalresource located on Indian lands 

may be granted only after obtaining the consent of the Indian tribe having jurisdiction over such lands, 

and shall include such terms and conditions as the tribe requests. 16 U.S.C. § 470cc(g)(2). 

9 43 CFR § 10.3(b)(2). 

10 43 CFR § 10.4(b). 

11 43 CFR § 10.4(c). 

12 43 CFR § 10.4(d). 

13 43 CFR § 10.4(e). 

14 43 CFR § 10.6(a)(1). 

15 43 CFR § 10.6(a)(2). 

16 43 CFR § 10.7. 
Protection of Indigenous Heritage: Comparative Summary 

The Law Library of Congress 3

II. Comparative Analysis 

The jurisdictional surveys in this report reflect broad differences around the world in how 

governments seek to protect indigenous cultural property. 

The survey on Australia describes a complex array of Commonwealth, state, and territorial 

legislative regimes. Commonwealth law protects indigenous heritage in areas of national 

significance, prohibits the export of protected objects, and provides backstop protection where 

state or territorial laws are ineffective. A Commonwealth statute, the Aboriginal and Torres Strait 

Islander Heritage Protection Act 1984, sets forth requirements governing the discovery of 

Aboriginal remains, including reporting such discovery to the government, consultation with 

Aboriginals with interest in the remains, and repatriation or safekeeping of such remains. Each 

state and territory in Australia has laws that protect indigenous heritage sites and objects, and 

provide procedures with respect to the discovery of human remains. 

In New Zealand, statutes are in place that ensure the involvement of Māori in decision-making 

with respect to activities that could impact areas of interest to Māori, regulate the handling of 

Māori artifacts and provide a process for determining ownership of such items. In addition, 

government guidelines address the legal requirements and management of human remains that 

have been uncovered through accidental discovery, excavation, or natural processes such as 

coastal erosion that are Māori in origin, and provide for recognition of the role of Māori in 

managing such remains. 

In Norway, comprehensive legislation provides for the recognition of the rights of the indigenous 

Sami people, and cultural objects of the Sami are protected by general cultural heritage 

legislation. Sami human remains have been repatriated by Norwegian cultural institutions, 

although the government has not passed legal requirements for the conservation and return of 

Sami human remains. Excavation and archeological studies of Sami graves are subject to the 

control or regulation of the government. 

In Russia, archaeological activities, including the discovery and treatment of artifacts, graves, 

sacred places, and places of worship, are regulated by a general cultural heritage statute. 

Archaeological activities require permits, and the discovery of items of cultural heritage must be 

reported to governmental authorities. In the event of an accidental discovery of an object of 

archaeological heritage, the person making the discovery must immediately suspend work and 

report the discovery to the regional body for the protection of objects of cultural heritage, which 

will assess the cultural and historic value of the discovery. Objects of archaeological heritage are 

under state ownership. 

In Taiwan, a law known as the Indigenous Peoples Basic Law provides for the consultation and 

participation of indigenous groups in determinations regarding land development, resource 

utilization, ecology conservation, or academic research on or adjacent to indigenous land. 

Protection of indigenous cultural heritage is governed by a general cultural heritage preservation 

law and subsidiary legislation on indigenous heritage. While not required by law, some instances 

of the return of indigenous peoples’ human remains reportedly have occurred in Taiwan. 
Protection of Indigenous Heritage: Comparative Summary 

The Law Library of Congress 4

In South Africa, cultural heritage protection, including the protection of graves and sacred spaces, 

is governed by a general law known as the National Heritage Resources Act. The law provides 

for preservation of gravesites of cultural significance, and for consultation with communities that 

have an interest in the gravesites. The unexpected discovery of graves during development 

activities requires stopping the activity and alerting the responsible heritage resources authority, 

which must consult with interested communities and make arrangements for exhumation and reinterment or other appropriate measures. 

In Canada, there are some federal laws relating to indigenous heritage protection, and there is a 

set of national standards and guidelines relating to the recognition, management, and 

conservation of historical places in Canada, but most cultural heritage legislation is at the 

provincial and territorial level. Each province and territory has developed legislation to address 

cultural heritage and indigenous relations. The Canada survey provides a detailed description 

of cultural heritage law and policy in British Columbia, which among other things provides 

significant protections for burial places of historical or archaeological value, and of human 

remains and associated heritage objects. 

In Brazil, archeological sites, including Indian ones, belong to the government and are considered 

part of the national historical heritage. Federal agencies are responsible for preserving the 

country’s cultural heritage. Indigenous sacred spaces and gravesites are not the subject of 

separate legislation but rather are covered by general laws governing the preservation of 

cultural heritage. 

Similarly, Peru does not have specific legislation on the protection of sacred indigenous spaces, 

but instead indigenous art, materials, graves discovered in archeological excavations, and 

discoveries are considered part of the nation’s cultural patrimony and are governed by a general 

law on the protection of cultural heritage of Peru and its regulations. 

Likewise, in Mexico, historic artifacts and human remains are the property of the nation and are 

managed exclusively by the Mexican State. All archeological research must be either conducted 

directly by Mexico’s National Institute of Anthropology and History or by scientific institutions 

authorized by that institute. 

Lastly, in the European Union, while general EU policies support the promotion of the rights of 

indigenous peoples—including their right to maintain, protect, and develop the manifestations 

of their cultures, such as archaeological and historical sites and artefacts—recognition of 

indigenous groups’ status, self-determination, and autonomy is left to the competency of the 

individual Member States. 
The Law Library of Congress 5 

Australia 

Kelly Buchanan 

Foreign Law Specialist

SUMMARY Australian states and territories have primary responsibility for the protection of 

indigenous heritage. Legislation at the federal level applies to areas of national 

significance and to the export of certain objects from Australia. It also provides backstop 

protection for indigenous heritage areas and objects where state and territory processes 

have been exhausted. Federal native title legislation may also provide an avenue for 

indigenous groups to protect their cultural heritage. 

 State and territory legislation contains protections for both indigenous heritage areas 

and objects, which may be defined to include human remains. The different laws may 

include offenses for harming or removing indigenous cultural heritage, processes for 

registering areas and objects, powers to issue stop work orders, and processes for 

issuing permits to conduct work that may affect cultural heritage. Each state and 

territory has developed mechanisms for consulting or otherwise involving indigenous 

people in the relevant processes. Procedures to be followed on the discovery of human 

remains generally involve contacting the police and/or relevant heritage agencies, a 

requirement to stop work, and involvement of local indigenous people in determining 

what should happen with the remains. 

 The legislation related to protecting indigenous heritage has been the subject of reforms 

in the past three to four decades, with some jurisdictions currently considering changes 

that seek to give indigenous people greater control in the management of their own 

cultural heritage. The various reforms can be seen in the context of shifts in the 

relationships between indigenous people and Australian governments. Historically, 

this relationship involved “protectionist” policies and assimilation, including the 

establishment of reserve areas and the taking of indigenous children by governments 

during the early to mid-twentieth century. There were later shifts to recognize certain 

land rights, policies related to self-determination, and a more recent focus on 

reconciliation. This has included apologies, a focus on partnership in the context of 

environmental and heritage protection, and greater involvement of indigenous people 

in decisions that affect them. However, the overall effectiveness of indigenous heritage 

protections remains affected by inconsistencies in legislation across the country. 

I. Legislative and Policy Framework

The Commonwealth (i.e., federal) Department of the Environment and Energy states that 

[g]enerally Australia’s state and territory governments are responsible for the protection 

of Australia’s Indigenous heritage places. All states and territories have laws that protect 

various types of Indigenous heritage. 
Protection of Indigenous Heritage: Australia 

The Law Library of Congress 6 

The Commonwealth is responsible for protecting Indigenous heritage places that are 

nationally or internationally significant, or that are situated on land that is owned or 

managed by the Commonwealth. This protection operates under the Environment 

Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999.

1

Other relevant Commonwealth laws include the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage 

Protection Act 1984 (Cth) (ATSIHP Act) and the Protection of Movable Cultural Heritage Act 1986 

(Cth). Laws related to the recognition of Aboriginal land rights and native title include the 

Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976 (Cth) and the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth). 

There are multiple state and territory laws that are relevant to the protection of Aboriginal sacred 

sites, artifacts, and human remains, as outlined in this report. 

The Commonwealth government published the Australian Heritage Strategy in December 2015.2

This document sets out a ten-year framework to address national priorities and reach desired 

outcomes in relation to heritage places. The outcomes are “national leadership,” “strong 

partnerships,” and “engaged communities.” These are underpinned by three sets of objectives, 

which are supported by a series of actions.3 The intention is to review the strategy after five years. 

Objective 9 of the Strategy relates to focusing protection efforts on indigenous heritage. The 

associated actions include promoting “a consistent approach to the recognition, protection and 

management of Indigenous heritage sites across all levels of government and other 

organisations.”4 The commentary to the objective states that the 2011 Australia State of the 

Environment Report found that 

assessing outcomes for Australia’s Indigenous heritage is hampered by the lack of national 

coordinated management approaches, a deficiency of comparable data, and the absence of 

formal monitoring and evaluation programmes. Overall, the report found that increasing 

regulation has not reduced the rate of destruction of significant Indigenous heritage sites. 

At the same time, the Productivity Commission has recommended various ways to reduce 

regulatory overlaps in the range of Commonwealth and state laws that protect Indigenous 

heritage sites.5

The Strategy also notes that 

[l]egislation for the management of heritage places across Australia is sometimes complex 

and can be inconsistent. Legislative reforms, particularly in the area of Indigenous 

heritage, are being pursued by a number of state and territory governments.6

 

1 Indigenous Heritage Laws, DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT AND ENERGY, http://www.environment.gov.au/ 

heritage/laws/indigenous (last visited Feb. 20, 2019), archived at https://perma.cc/Q9N7-L7HF. 

2 AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT, AUSTRALIAN HERITAGE STRATEGY (Dec. 2015), http://www.environment.gov.au/ 

system/files/resources/cb226e0d-ba51-4946-af5a-24b628958e79/files/australian-heritage-strategy-2015.pdf, 

archived at https://perma.cc/SH2T-BVHP. 

3 Id. at 15. 

4 Id. at 43. 

5 Id. at 42. 

6 Id. at 30. 
Protection of Indigenous Heritage: Australia 

The Law Library of Congress 7 

The Strategy also refers to the National Heritage Protocol, which was agreed by Commonwealth, 

state, and territory governments in 2004. According to the Strategy, the Protocol “outlines the 

arrangements whereby the Commonwealth, state and territory systems for the protection of 

cultural, natural and Indigenous heritage are coordinated.”7

In 2002, the Australian Heritage Commission (which was replaced by the Australian Heritage 

Council in 2004), a body established by the federal government to provide advice on heritage 

matters, published a document titled Ask First: A Guide to Respecting Indigenous Heritage Places and 

Values.8 The 2015 Strategy includes a proposed action to publish and promote a new edition of 

this publication.9 No information was located regarding progress with this action. 

Nongovernmental heritage organizations have also produced charters and guidance documents 

related to heritage protection that are utilized by government regulators and decision makers 

throughout the country. In particular, the Burra Charter10 was first developed in 1979 and has 

been updated periodically “to reflect developing understanding of the theory and practice of 

cultural heritage management.”11 

II. Commonwealth Legislation 

A. Protection of Indigenous Heritage Sites and Objects 

1. Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth) 

The Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth)12 (EPBC Act) 

establishes the National Heritage List, which includes natural, Indigenous and historic 

places that are of outstanding heritage value to the nation. Under the EPBC Act there are 

penalties for anyone who takes an action that has or will have a significant impact on the 

Indigenous heritage values of a place that is recognised in the National Heritage List. 

The Act also establishes the Commonwealth Heritage List, which includes places on 

Commonwealth lands and waters or under Australian Government control that have 

Indigenous heritage significance. 

 

7 Id. at 9. 

8 AUSTRALIAN HERITAGE COMMISSION, ASK FIRST: A GUIDE TO RESPECTING INDIGENOUS HERITAGE PLACES AND 

VALUES (2002), http://content.webarchive.nla.gov.au/gov/wayback/20171114035941/ http://www. 

environment.gov.au/system/files/resources/4afff65c-00dd-4001-878b-a28d8831293a/files/ask-first.pdf, 

archived at https://perma.cc/8J3S-4D26. 

9 AUSTRALIAN HERITAGE STRATEGY, supra note 2, at 43. 

10 Australia ICOMOS, Burra Charter: The Australia ICOMOS Charter for Places of Cultural Significance (2013), 

https://australia.icomos.org/wp-content/uploads/The-Burra-Charter-2013-Adopted-31.10.2013.pdf, archived 

at https://perma.cc/8JPM-R77Z. 

11 Charters, AUSTRALIA ICOMOS, http://australia.icomos.org/publications/charters/ (last visited Feb. 20, 

2019), archived at https://perma.cc/VU3V-FGZY. 

12 Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth), https://www.legislation.gov.au/ 

Details/C2018C00440, archived at https://perma.cc/3F3P-CDNN. 
Protection of Indigenous Heritage: Australia 

The Law Library of Congress 8 

In addition the Act protects heritage on Commonwealth land and from actions undertaken 

by the Commonwealth.13

The Australian Heritage Council, which was established by the Australian Heritage Council Act 

2003 (Cth),14 “assesses nominations for the National Heritage List and the Commonwealth 

Heritage List and makes recommendations to the Minister for the Environment. The final decision 

on listing is made by the Minister.”15 The Council includes indigenous heritage experts and, when 

it considers that a nominated place may have indigenous heritage values, “the Council must 

endeavour to identify the Indigenous people with rights and interests in the place. It must then 

invite their views on whether the place should be included in the list. The Minister takes those 

submissions into account when making a decision about listing the place.”16 In addition, the 

Indigenous Advisory Council, established under the EPBC Act, “advises the Minister on the 

operation of the EPBC Act taking into account their knowledge of the land, conservation and use 

of biodiversity.”17

Once an area with indigenous heritage significance has been added to either the National or 

Commonwealth Heritage lists, indigenous Australians “are involved in developing management 

plans.”18 Where places on the National Heritage List are on indigenous land, these “can be 

managed through conservation agreements, which operate in the same way as Indigenous 

Protected Areas”19 (see below, Part II(A)(5), for information on such areas). 

2. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act 1984 (Cth) 

The purpose of the ATSIHP Act20 “was to address a gap in state laws and to encourage states to 

improve or enact legislation to protect traditional Aboriginal sites and objects.”21 The Department 

of the Environment and Energy states that the Act “enables the Australian Government to 

respond to requests to protect important Indigenous areas and objects that are under threat, if it 

appears that state or territory laws have not provided effective protection.”22 It further states that 

 

13 Indigenous Heritage Laws, supra note 1. 

14 Australian Heritage Council Act 2003 (Cth), https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2012C00249, archived 

at https://perma.cc/3FNE-YHBP. 

15 AUSTRALIAN HERITAGE STRATEGY, supra note 2, at 17. 

16 Indigenous Heritage, DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT AND ENERGY, http://www.environment.gov.au/ 

heritage/about/indigenous-heritage (last visited Feb. 20, 2019), archived at https://perma.cc/D2KR-FFX3. 

17 Id.

18 Id.

19 Id.

20 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act 1984 (Cth), https://www.legislation.gov.au/ 

Details/C2016C00937, archived at https://perma.cc/A255-NQZ8. 

21 AUSTRALIAN HERITAGE STRATEGY, supra note 2, at 9. 

22 Indigenous Heritage, supra note 16. 
Protection of Indigenous Heritage: Australia 

The Law Library of Congress 9 

[t]he Australian Government can make special orders, called declarations, to protect 

traditional areas and objects of particular significance to Aboriginals in accordance with 

Aboriginal tradition from threats of injury or desecration. However the government 

cannot make a declaration unless an Indigenous person (or a person representing an 

Indigenous person) has requested it. The power to make declarations is meant to be used 

as a last resort, after the relevant processes of the state or territory have been exhausted.23

The government has developed reform proposals with respect to the ATSHIP Act, but these have 

not yet been introduced.24 The Australian Heritage Strategy notes that 

[t]hree decades on, and despite significant changes in the Indigenous heritage protection 

laws of all jurisdictions, including passage of the Native Title Act 1993 and the EPBC Act, 

the ATSIHP Act has not been updated to reflect the improvements in the legislative 

protections for Indigenous heritage. Any changes to the ATSHIP Act would require the 

support of Indigenous stakeholders.25

3. Protection of Movable Cultural Heritage Act 1986 (Cth) 

The Protection of Movable Cultural Heritage Act 1986 (Cth)26 is administered by the Department 

of Communication and the Arts.27 It establishes the National Cultural Heritage Control List,28

which includes two classes of Australian protected objects: Class A objects that cannot be 

exported from Australia and Class B objects that can be exported only after an export permit has 

been granted.29 Class A objects, which are listed in the Protection of Movable Cultural Heritage 

Regulations 2018 (Cth), include the following Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander material: 

o sacred and secret ritual objects 

o bark and log coffins used as traditional burial objects 

o human remains 

o rock art 

o dendroglyphs (carved trees)30

 

23 Id.

24 Id.

25 AUSTRALIAN HERITAGE STRATEGY, supra note 2, at 9. 

26 Protection of Movable Cultural Heritage Act 1986 (Cth), https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/ 

C2016C01056, archived at https://perma.cc/QX9K-DQTR. 

27 See Movable Cultural Heritage, DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNICATIONS AND THE ARTS, https://www.arts.gov.au/ 

what-we-do/cultural-heritage/movable-cultural-heritage (last visited Feb. 20, 2019), archived at

https://perma.cc/BVE8-83FQ. 

28 The Control List is contained in the Protection of Movable Cultural Heritage Regulations 2018 (Cth), 

https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F2018L01710, archived at https://perma.cc/Y56Q-7LTC. 

29 The National Cultural Heritage Control List, DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNICATIONS AND THE ARTS, https://www. 

arts.gov.au/what-we-do/cultural-heritage/movable-cultural-heritage/exporting-cultural-property-australia/ 

national-cultural-heritage-control-list (last visited Feb. 20, 2019), archived at https://perma.cc/5UGJ-DP6N; 

Protection of Movable Cultural Heritage Regulations 2018 (Cth) reg 1.3. 

30 The National Cultural Heritage Control List, supra note 29. 
Protection of Indigenous Heritage: Australia 

The Law Library of Congress 10 

The Act was the subject of a review conducted in 2015, which resulted in proposals for a new 

regulatory model based on various principles, including “adherence to principles of Aboriginal 

and Torres Strait Islander decision-making” and “a distinction between Ancestral remains and 

objects.”31 No legislative amendments have been enacted following the review, although a bill to 

modernize the Act was listed by the government as one of the items to be introduced in 2018.32

4. Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) 

According to a native title lawyer, the provisions and processes of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth)33

may interact with Commonwealth, state, and territory legislation regarding indigenous heritage 

protection, and also provides for the right to protect places that are culturally significant: 

The Native Title Act provides a framework for recognising and protecting the traditional 

rights and interests of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people on areas of land and 

waters where native title has not been extinguished. This can include vacant Crown land 

and reserves, forests and parks, as well as seas and inland waters. 

Most significantly, the Native Title Act provides for determinations of native title by the 

Federal Court that recognise the continuing native title rights and interests of Aboriginal 

and Torres Strait Islander people. As noted above, this may include a right to protect places 

and areas that are important under traditional law and custom. 

It may be possible to protect these places and areas in some circumstances by applying to 

a Court for a legal remedy such as an injunction to prevent an activity that would damage 

them. Protection of this nature may be available in the absence of, or in addition to, 

protection available under other State, Territory or Commonwealth cultural 

heritage laws.34 

The Act also contains provisions that require notification, consultation, and negotiation that 

apply to ensure that the relevant indigenous corporate entity is “made aware of proposed 

activities that may have an impact on cultural heritage.”35 It also “makes provision for native title 

holders to reach a number of different types of agreements with governments and proponents 

who want to carry out future act activities.”36 However, the cultural heritage protection available 

 

31 Review of the Protection of Movable Cultural Heritage Act, DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNICATIONS AND THE ARTS,

https://www.arts.gov.au/have-your-say/review-protection-movable-cultural-heritage-act (last visited Feb. 

20, 2019), archived at https://perma.cc/L7GJ-VE7V. 

32 DEPARTMENT OF THE PRIME MINISTER AND CABINET, LEGISLATION PROPOSED FOR INTRODUCTION IN THE 2018

SPRING SITTINGS 3, https://www.pmc.gov.au/sites/default/files/publications/2018-spring-public-list.pdf, 

archived at https://perma.cc/W2W9-WMP6. 

33 Native Title Act 1993 (Cth), https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2019C00054, archived at 

https://perma.cc/5AUC-6H4W. 

34 Austin Sweeney, The Interaction of Cultural Heritage and Native Title, PBC, https://www.nativetitle.org.au/ 

learn/native-title-and-pbcs/interaction-cultural-heritage-and-native-title (last updated Aug. 16, 2018), archived 

at https://perma.cc/E63D-3HUS. 

35 Id. 

36 Id.
Protection of Indigenous Heritage: Australia 

The Law Library of Congress 11 

under the Act “is confined to areas of land and waters where native title may exist or has been 

determined to exist” and, even where such title has been determined to exist, “native title rights 

and interests do not provide absolute protection or a right of veto over development activities.”37

5. Indigenous Protected Areas 

Indigenous Protected Areas (IPAs) are part of Australia’s National Reserve System, “the network 

of formally recognised parks, reserves and protected areas across Australia.”38 IPAs, which have 

been part of the reserve program since 1997, are “land and sea country owned or managed by 

Indigenous groups, which are voluntarily managed as a protected area for biodiversity 

conservation through an agreement with the Australian Government.”39 In addition, to 

conservation, IPAs are intended to “protect cultural heritage into the future, and provide 

employment, education and training opportunities for Indigenous people in remote areas.”40

There are currently seventy-five IPAs, making up about 45% of the National Reserve System’s 

total area. 

B. Protection of Human Remains 

The ATSIHP Act contains specific provisions regarding discovery of Aboriginal remains and also 

includes such remains in the definition of “significant Aboriginal objects” to which additional 

provisions apply.41 The provisions specifically related to Aboriginal remains state as follows: 

20 Discovery of Aboriginal remains 

(1) A person who discovers anything that he or she has reasonable grounds to suspect to 

be Aboriginal remains shall report his or her discovery to the Minister, giving 

particulars of the remains and of their location. 

(2) Where the Minister receives a report made under subsection (1) and he or she is 

satisfied that the report relates to Aboriginal remains, he or she shall take reasonable 

steps to consult with any Aboriginals that he or she considers may have an interest in 

the remains, with a view to determining the proper action to be taken in relation to 

the remains. 

21 Disposal of Aboriginal remains 

(1) Where Aboriginal remains are delivered to the Minister, whether in pursuance of a 

declaration made under section 12 or otherwise, he or she shall: 

(a) return the remains to an Aboriginal or Aboriginals entitled to, and willing to 

accept, possession, custody or control of the remains in accordance with 

Aboriginal tradition; 

(b) otherwise deal with the remains in accordance with any reasonable directions of 

an Aboriginal or Aboriginals referred to in paragraph (a); or 

 

37 Id.

38 Indigenous Protected Areas, DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT AND ENERGY, http://www.environment.gov. 

au/land/indigenous-protected-areas (last visited Feb. 20, 2019), archived at https://perma.cc/592L-N2AA. 

39 Id.

40 Id.

41 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act 1984 (Cth) s 3(1). 
Protection of Indigenous Heritage: Australia 

The Law Library of Congress 12 

(c) if there is or are no such Aboriginal or Aboriginals—transfer the remains to a 

prescribed authority for safekeeping. 

(2) Nothing in this section shall be taken to derogate from the right of any Aboriginal or 

Aboriginals accepting possession, custody or control of any Aboriginal remains 

pursuant to this section to deal with the remains in accordance with 

Aboriginal tradition.42

III. State and Territory Legislation 

Each Australian jurisdiction has laws and processes in place to protect places and objects that are 

of significance to the cultural heritage of indigenous Australians. Only two jurisdictions, the 

Australian Capital Territory and New South Wales, do not have separate legislation related to 

Aboriginal heritage protection. The laws include offenses for interfering with protected places 

and objects, as well as processes for the issuing of permits to do work in such areas, subject to 

conditions. Each jurisdiction has established mechanisms for consulting with, or otherwise 

involving, indigenous people in relation to making decisions with respect to such places 

and objects. 

The Department of Environment and Energy states that 

[m]ost of Australia’s states and territories maintain registers of Indigenous heritage sites. 

Developers need to be aware that these registers may not be comprehensive records of all 

the Indigenous sites that are protected under state and territory laws. Where there is a risk 

that a planned activity could have adverse impacts on Indigenous heritage it is advisable 

to contact the state or territory government agency that is responsible for protecting 

Indigenous heritage and maintaining the register.43

Some state and territory legislation includes human remains within the overall system for 

protecting objects. In addition, the legislative framework applicable to the discovery of 

indigenous human remains may involve coronial and public health legislation. Guidance 

provided by government entities with respect to ancestral remains is included below. 

A. Australian Capital Territory (ACT) 

1. Protection of Indigenous Heritage Sites and Objects 

ACT Heritage states that, under the Heritage Act 2004 (ACT),44

[u]nlike natural and historic heritage places and objects which must be nominated, 

provisionally registered or registered for the Act to have effect, all Aboriginal places and 

 

42 Id. ss 20 & 21. 

43 Protection Under State and Territory Laws, DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT AND ENERGY,

http://www.environment.gov.au/heritage/laws/indigenous/protection-under-state-and-territory-laws (last 

visited Feb. 20, 2019), archived at https://perma.cc/A7QA-G8ZB. 

44 Heritage Act 2004 (ACT), https://www.legislation.act.gov.au/View/a/2004-57/current/PDF/2004-57.PDF, 

archived at https://perma.cc/U4HY-C7BX. 
Protection of Indigenous Heritage: Australia 

The Law Library of Congress 13 

objects in the ACT are protected under the Act and are recorded in a centralised database 

maintained by ACT Heritage. 

All Aboriginal places and objects have cultural value for Aboriginal people as part of their 

history and heritage. Some Aboriginal places and objects have cultural and/or 

scientific/archaeological value which is beyond the ordinary and may also meet one or 

more of the heritage significance criteria under the Act to warrant entry to the ACT 

Heritage Register. 

There are specific provisions in the Act which require a person to report the discovery of 

an Aboriginal place or object to the Heritage Council within five working days. There are 

also provisions and penalties that apply if a person damages any Aboriginal place or object 

in the ACT. 

The Act also includes provisions for the declaration of Representative Aboriginal Organisations 

(RAOs). Under the Act, the Council is responsible for consulting with RAOs on a range of matters 

relating to Aboriginal places and objects in the ACT.

45

The Heritage Act 2004 (ACT) defines “Aboriginal object” as “an object associated with Aboriginal 

people because of Aboriginal tradition.”46 As indicated above, it requires that any discovery of 

an Aboriginal object be reported to the ACT Heritage Council.47 The Council must then consult 

with the relevant RAOs and decide whether the object should be registered.48 

Each Aboriginal object owned in the territory must be kept in a place that has been declared as a 

repository for such objects.49 If the object is located on territory land and no other person holds a 

legal interest in the object, and the relevant Minister has not surrendered the territory’s legal 

interest, the Aboriginal object is deemed to be owned by the territory government.50

2. Procedures on Discovery of Human Remains 

No dedicated governmental guidance was located regarding procedures upon the discovery of 

Aboriginal remains in the ACT. However, some documents related to development activities 

contain information on the processes that should be followed to ensure compliance with the 

relevant provisions. For example, a 2014 Aboriginal cultural heritage assessment produced with 

respect to the ACT government’s construction of an access road included protocols to be followed 

in the event of unanticipated discoveries of Aboriginal archeological material, including human 

 

45 Heritage in the ACT, ACT ENVIRONMENT, PLANNING AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT DIRECTORATE -

ENVIRONMENT (emphasis in original), https://www.environment.act.gov.au/heritage/heritage-in-the-act (last 

updated Nov. 20, 2018), archived at https://perma.cc/M7T8-RLCZ. 

46 Heritage Act 2004 (ACT) s 9(1). 

47 Id. s 51. 

48 Id. s 53. 

49 Id. ss 53A & 53B. 

50 Id. s 53C. 
Protection of Indigenous Heritage: Australia 

The Law Library of Congress 14 

remains.51 It states that, in the event suspected human remains are encountered, all ground 

surface work in the relevant area should cease immediately, expert opinion should be sought, 

and the following entities should be notified immediately: the local police; ACT Heritage; 

representatives from the RAOs; and the project archeologist. If the remains are determined to be 

of an Aboriginal person who died more than one hundred years ago, the following steps are to 

be followed: 

i. Ascertain the requirements of the local RAOs, the ACT Heritage Council, the 

development proponent, and the project archaeologist; 

ii. Based on the above, determine and conduct an appropriate course of action. Possible 

strategies could include one or more of the following: 

1. Avoiding further disturbance to the find and conserving the remains in situ, (this 

option may require relocating the development and this may not be possible in 

some contexts); 

2. Conducting (or continuing) archaeological salvage of the finds following receipt 

of any required statutory approvals; 

3. Scientific description (including excavation where necessary), and possibly also 

analysis of the remains prior to reburial; 

4. Recovering samples for dating and other analyses; and/or 

5. Subsequent reburial at another place and in an appropriate manner determined 

by the RAOs and the Heritage Council.52

B. New South Wales (NSW) 

1. Protection of Indigenous Heritage Sites and Objects 

The National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974 (NSW) (NPW Act),53 which is administered by the 

Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH), “is the primary legislation for the protection of some

aspects of Aboriginal cultural heritage in New South Wales.”54 It provides “specific protection for 

Aboriginal objects and declared Aboriginal places by establishing offences of harm.”55 The Act 

 

51 NAVIN OFFICER, CANBERRA BRICKWORKS, YARRAMULA, ACT, STAGE 1, ABORIGINAL CULTURAL HERITAGE 

ASSESSMENT 21 (Aug. 2014), https://suburbanland.act.gov.au/uploads/ckfinder/files/pdf/ 3_Commercial/ 

Canberra_Brickworks/Site_Report2016/Attachment M Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment (Navin 

Officer ).pdf, archived at https://perma.cc/7MZH-3BYY.

52 Id. at 22. 

53 National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974 (NSW), https://www.legislation.nsw.gov.au/#/view/act/ 

1974/80/whole, archived at https://perma.cc/PU2Y-69BP. 

54 Protection and Regulation of Aboriginal Cultural Heritage, NSW OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENT AND HERITAGE, 

https://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/licences/achregulation.htm (last updated Jan. 12, 2018), archived at 

https://perma.cc/MEX3-5CPY. 

55 Id.; National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974 (NSW) pt 6. 
Protection of Indigenous Heritage: Australia 

The Law Library of Congress 15 

includes defenses and exemptions to such offenses, including a defense that the harm was carried 

out under an Aboriginal Heritage Impact Permit (AHIP).56 

Under the Act, “[t]he Minister for the Environment can declare an area to be an ‘Aboriginal place’ 

if the Minister believes that the place is or was of special significance to Aboriginal culture. An 

area can have spiritual, natural resource usage, historical, social, educational or other type 

of significance.57

The OEH maintains the Aboriginal Heritage Information System, which lists notified Aboriginal 

objects and declared Aboriginal places in NSW.58 The NPW Act also establishes the Aboriginal 

Cultural Heritage Advisory Committee, which is to “advise the Minister and the Chief Executive 

on any matter relating to the identification, assessment and management of Aboriginal cultural 

heritage, including providing strategic advice on the plan of management and the heritage impact 

permit process, whether or not the matter has been referred to the Committee by the Minister or 

the Chief Executive.”59 

The NPW Act provides for the issuance of “stop work” orders in relation to an action that is likely 

to significantly affect an Aboriginal object or place as well as interim protection orders to be made 

in relation to an area of land with cultural significance.60

Internal guidance produced by the OEH in 2011 states that it recognizes and will act on the 

principles that Aboriginal people 

 are the primary source of information about the value of their heritage and how this is 

best protected and conserved 

 must have an active role in any Aboriginal cultural heritage planning process 

 must have early input into the assessment of the cultural significance of their heritage 

and its management so they can continue to fulfill their obligations towards their 

heritage 

 must control the way in which cultural knowledge and other information relating 

specifically to their heritage is used, as this may be an integral aspect of its 

heritage value.61

 

56 Protection and Regulation of Aboriginal Cultural Heritage, supra note 54; National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974 

(NSW) s 87. Permits are governed by sections 90–90R of the Act. For detailed information on the permit process 

see NSW OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENT AND HERITAGE, GUIDE TO ABORIGINAL HERITAGE IMPACT PERMIT PROCESSES 

AND DECISION-MAKING (version 2, Aug. 2011), https://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/resources/culture 

heritage/ 110397guideahipprocess.pdf, archived at https://perma.cc/YBE3-CPF7. 

57 Protection and Regulation of Aboriginal Cultural Heritage, supra note 54. 

58 National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974 (NSW) s 90Q. 

59 Id. ss 27 & 28. 

60 NSW OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENT AND HERITAGE, OPERATIONAL POLICY: PROTECTING ABORIGINAL CULTURAL 

HERITAGE 22 (version 2, July 2011), https://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/resources/cultureheritage/ 

110396oppolach.pdf, archived at https://perma.cc/X5TW-RFRK. 

61 Id. at 5. 
Protection of Indigenous Heritage: Australia 

The Law Library of Congress 16 

The guidance also includes encouraging “early and ongoing engagement” between clients and 

Aboriginal people and ensuring consultation has been appropriate.62 Additional guidance has 

been produced in relation to requirements for consulting Aboriginal people about cultural 

heritage in the context of applications for AHIPs.63 Another guide relates to the process for 

investigating and assessing Aboriginal cultural heritage and producing a report in connection 

with such applications.64

The NPW Act provisions related to Aboriginal objects include an offense of harming or 

desecrating an Aboriginal object or moving the object “from the land on which it has been 

situated.”65 People who find an Aboriginal artifact are advised to leave it where it is and 

immediately report it to the OEH.66 

Certain Aboriginal objects are deemed to be government property,67 and the government is 

responsible for the proper care, preservation, and protection of Aboriginal objects.68 Objects may 

be transferred to an Aboriginal owner.69 With regard to such transfer, the Office of Environment 

and Heritage states as follows: 

Many Aboriginal communities wish to have care of Aboriginal objects which have been 

excavated, disturbed or moved by development activities, erosion or other processes. 

The NPW Act allows the transfer of Aboriginal objects to an Aboriginal person or 

Aboriginal organisation for safekeeping. The person or organisation must enter into a care 

agreement with OEH. 

A care agreement is a document that sets out the obligations of OEH and the Aboriginal 

person or Aboriginal organisation for the safekeeping of the transferred Aboriginal 

object(s). The Aboriginal person or organisation does not become the owner of the 

Aboriginal objects.70

 

 

62 Id. at 10–11. 

63 See Consultation Requirements, NSW OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENT AND HERITAGE, https://www.environment.nsw. 

gov.au/licences/consultation.htm (last updated Oct. 30, 2015), archived at https://perma.cc/K4Q7-RTYZ. 

64 See Guide to Investigating, Assessing and Reporting on Aboriginal Cultural Heritage in NSW, NSW OFFICE OF 

ENVIRONMENT AND HERITAGE, https://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/licences/investassessreport.htm (last 

updated May 30, 2011), archived at https://perma.cc/P832-XDYY. 

65 Aboriginal Objects, NSW OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENT AND HERITAGE, https://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/ 

nswcultureheritage/objects.htm (last updated Sept. 24, 2012), archived at https://perma.cc/J8G8-42LX. See also

National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974 (NSW) ss 5 & 86. 

66 Aboriginal Objects, supra note 65. 

67 National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974 (NSW) s 83. 

68 Id. s 85. 

69 Id. s 85A. 

70 Protection and Regulation of Aboriginal Cultural Heritage, supra note 54. 
Protection of Indigenous Heritage: Australia 

The Law Library of Congress 17 

2. Procedures on Discovery of Human Remains 

The ancestral remains of Aboriginal people are included in the definition of “Aboriginal objects” 

in the NPW Act.71 The OEH guidance with respect to such objects therefore also covers Aboriginal 

remains. Other agencies have provided specific guidance related to the discovery of skeletal 

remains in the context of government development work. For example, the procedures of NSW 

Roads and Maritime Services (RMS) regarding unexpected heritage items includes guidance on 

the different steps to be taken upon the discovery of such remains, depending on whether they 

are Aboriginal or non-Aboriginal, and less or more than one hundred years old. This includes 

stopping work in the vicinity of the find; consulting with a qualified forensic or physical 

anthropologist to determine the nature of the remains; contacting the police; and, if the human 

bones are archeological in nature (more than one hundred years old) and are likely to be 

Aboriginal remains, immediately notifying the OEH and the RMS Aboriginal Cultural Heritage 

Advisor, who must then contact the relevant Aboriginal community stakeholders.72

3. Draft Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Bill 2018 

In February 2018, the NSW government released a draft bill that proposes “a new system for 

managing and conserving Aboriginal cultural heritage in New South Wales.”73 The Office of 

Environment and Heritage states that 

[t]he proposed new system offers a transformative, contemporary and respectful vision for 

the management of Aboriginal cultural heritage in New South Wales. The aims of the 

proposed new system are: 

a. broader recognition of Aboriginal cultural heritage values – by recognising in law a 

more respectful and contemporary understanding of Aboriginal cultural heritage 

b. decision making by Aboriginal people – by creating a new governance structures that 

gives Aboriginal people legal responsibility for and authority over Aboriginal 

cultural heritage 

c. better information management – improving outcomes for Aboriginal cultural 

heritage through new information management systems and processes that are 

overseen by Aboriginal people 

d. improved protection, management and conservation of Aboriginal cultural heritage – 

by providing broader protection and more strategic conservation of Aboriginal 

cultural heritage values 

 

71 National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974 (NSW) s 5(1). 

72 NSW TRANSPORT, ROADS AND MARITIME SERVICES, STANDARD MANAGEMENT PROCEDURES: UNEXPECTED 

HERITAGE ITEMS 33–34 (Mar. 2015), https://www.rms.nsw.gov.au/documents/about/environment/protect 

ing-heritage/managing-development/unexpected-heritage-items-procedure.pdf, archived at 

https://perma.cc/R7V8-MGLM. 

73 Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Reforms, NSW OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENT AND HERITAGE, https://www.environ 

ment.nsw.gov.au/achreform/index.htm (last updated Dec. 12, 2018), archived at https://perma.cc/QJH9-L94F. 
Protection of Indigenous Heritage: Australia 

The Law Library of Congress 18 

e. greater confidence in the regulatory system – by providing better upfront information 

to support assessments, clearer consultation processes and timeframes, and regulatory 

tools that can adapt to different types of projects.74

Further consultation is currently being carried out on the proposed reforms.75

C. Northern Territory 

1. Protection of Indigenous Heritage Sites and Objects 

a. Northern Territory Aboriginal Sacred Sites Act 1989 (NT) 

The Northern Territory Aboriginal Sacred Sites Act 1989 (NT)76 establishes the Aboriginal Areas 

Protection Authority (AAPA).77 The AAPA’s functions include “[r]esponding to requests for 

sacred site protection from Aboriginal custodians, including the recording and documenting of 

sacred site information, registration of sacred sites, the provision of related protection measures 

and the keeping of confidential sacred site records.”78 It maintains the Register of Sacred Sites and 

responds to applications for Authority Certificates, which set out the conditions for using or 

carrying out works in areas that contain, or are in the vicinity of, sacred sites.79 

All sacred sites are protected by the Act, regardless of whether or not they have been recorded or 

registered.80 The Act contains offenses related to entry onto, work on, and the desecration of 

sacred sites.81 

A “sacred site” is defined in the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976 (Cth) as a 

“site that is sacred to Aboriginals or is otherwise of significance according to Aboriginal tradition, 

and includes any land that, under a law of the Northern Territory, is declared to be sacred to 

 

74 Id. See also Heritage Reforms, NSW ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS, https://www.aboriginalaffairs.nsw.gov.au/policyreform/planning-and-heritage/heritage-reforms (last visited Feb. 20, 2019), archived at 

https://perma.cc/25ZR-NH8Q. 

75 The Reform Process, NSW OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENT AND HERITAGE, https://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/ 

achreform/ACHreformprocess.htm (last updated Dec. 12, 2018), archived at https://perma.cc/RA42-A42B. 

76 Northern Territory Aboriginal Sacred Sites Act 1989 (NT), https://legislation.nt.gov.au/Legislation/ 

NORTHERN-TERRITORY-ABORIGINAL-SACRED-SITES-ACT-1989, archived at https://perma.cc/UFH6-

T72V.

77 Id. s 5. 

78 Northern Territory Aboriginal Sacred Sites Legislation, ABORIGINAL AREAS PROTECTION AUTHORITY, 

https://www.aapant.org.au/about-us/northern-territory-aboriginal-sacred-sites-act (last visited Feb. 20, 

2019), archived at https://perma.cc/3LEA-H3X4. 

79 Authority Certificates, ABORIGINAL AREAS PROTECTION AUTHORITY, https://www.aapant.org.au/ourservices/authority-certificates (last visited Feb. 20, 2019), archived at https://perma.cc/JUZ4-WZKW. 

80 How Are Sacred Sites Protected?, ABORIGINAL AREAS PROTECTION AUTHORITY, https://www.aapant.org.au/ 

sacred-sites/how-are-sacred-sites-protected (last visited Feb. 20, 2019), archived at https://perma.cc/2HBW46FS. 

81 Northern Territory Aboriginal Sacred Sites Act 1989 (NT) ss 33–35. 
Protection of Indigenous Heritage: Australia 

The Law Library of Congress 19 

Aboriginals or of significance according to Aboriginal tradition.”82 This Act gives the Northern 

Territory Legislative Assembly the power to make laws 

providing for the protection of, and the prevention of the desecration of, sacred sites in the 

Northern Territory, including sacred sites on Aboriginal land, and, in particular, laws 

regulating or authorizing the entry of persons on those sites, but so that any such laws 

shall provide for the right of Aboriginals to have access to those sites in accordance with 

Aboriginal tradition and shall take into account the wishes of Aboriginals relating to the 

extent to which those sites should be protected.83

b. Heritage Act 2011 (NT) 

The Heritage Act 2011 (NT) provides automatic protection for Aboriginal and Macassan 

(fishermen from the Sulawesi region of Indonesia who visited parts of northern Australia) 

archeological places and objects, which are declared by the Act to be heritage places and objects.84

The AAPA explains that 

[a]rchaeological places may include artefact scatters, shell middens, earth mounds, 

quarries, stone arrangements, petroglyphs, rock shelters and rock art. When these sites 

have an Aboriginal tradition associated with them as defined under the Aboriginal Land 

Rights Act (1979) [sic], they are considered sacred sites for the purposes of the Sacred 

Sites Act.85

The Heritage Act requires approval for carrying out work on archeological places or objects, with 

the decision maker to obtain advice from the AAPA if the place or object is, or is in, a sacred site 

under the Northern Territory Aboriginal Sacred Sites Act 1989 (NT).86 The Act also includes 

powers to issue stop work orders and repair orders.87

The Heritage Act defines Aboriginal or Macassan archeological objects as relics that relate to past 

human occupation by Aboriginal or Macassan people and that are either in an archeological place 

or stored in accordance with Aboriginal tradition.88 A “relic” includes both artifacts and human 

 

82 Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976 (Cth) s 3, https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/ 

C2016C00111, archived at https://perma.cc/C6DT-QEGN. 

83 Id. s 73(1). 

84 Heritage Act 2011 (NT) pt 2.1, https://legislation.nt.gov.au/Legislation/HERITAGE-ACT-2011, archived at 

https://perma.cc/G222-YUEA. 

85 Sacred Sites, Heritage and Burials, ABORIGINAL AREAS PROTECTION AUTHORITY, https://www.aapant.org.au/ 

sacred-sites/sacred-sites-heritage-and-burials (last visited Feb. 20, 2019), archived at https://perma.cc/5B2QKFBF. 

86 Heritage Act 2011 (NT) s 75(1)(d). 

87 Id. pts 3.4 & 3.5. 

88 Id. s 8(2). 
Protection of Indigenous Heritage: Australia 

The Law Library of Congress 20 

remains.89 It is an offense to cause damage to such an object.90 It is also an offense to fail to report 

the discovery of an object to the relevant government agency.91

The Northern Territory government states that “[t]he Heritage Branch has the final decision about 

what happens to artefacts [sic]. There is a preference for them to be handed over to traditional 

owners.”92 Under the Act, Aboriginal or Macassan archeological objects can only be removed 

from the territory with the consent of the person or group who, according to Aboriginal tradition, 

have a right to possess it.93

2. Procedures on Discovery of Human Remains 

The AAPA states that 

Aboriginal skeletal remains are considered Aboriginal archaeological places and objects 

under the Heritage Act. When skeletal remains are found in the Northern Territory, it is 

the police who should be contacted in the first instance. If they determine that the remains 

are not of a suspicious nature and may be of traditional Aboriginal origin, they will contact 

the Heritage Branch responsible for administering the Heritage Act. The Heritage Branch 

routinely works with the Authority in order to consult the relevant custodians, and be 

advised of the location of sacred sites in the vicinity of the burial area. 

Under the Heritage Act it is an offence to interfere with archaeological places and objects 

without authorization under that Act. 

If you do encounter skeletal remains, it is your responsibility by law to stop any work that 

is occurring and report such disturbance to the police immediately. If you have reason to 

believe the remains are those of an Aboriginal burial, this should be reported to the 

Heritage Branch.94

 

 

89 Id. s 9. 

90 Id. s 111. 

91 Id. s 114. 

92 Indigenous Heritage Information, NORTHERN TERRITORY GOVERNMENT, https://nt.gov.au/leisure/arts-cultureheritage/indigenous-heritage-information (last updated July 5, 2018), archived at https://perma.cc/CNX2-

HLTY. 

93 Heritage Act 2011 (NT) s 89(3). 

94 Sacred Sites, Heritage and Burials, supra note 85. 
Protection of Indigenous Heritage: Australia 

The Law Library of Congress 21 

D. Queensland 

1. Protection of Indigenous Heritage Sites and Objects 

The Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Act 2003 (Qld)95 and Torres Strait Islander Cultural Heritage 

Act 2003 (Qld)96 are nearly identical laws that are administered by the Cultural Heritage Unit of 

the Department of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Partnerships (DATSIP).97 DATSIP states 

that the Acts 

 provide blanket protection of areas and objects of traditional, customary, and 

archaeological significance[,] 

 recognise the key role of Traditional Owners in cultural heritage matters[, and] 

 establish practical and flexible processes for dealing with cultural heritage in a 

timely manner.98

Under the Acts, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander cultural heritage includes significant areas, 

significant objects, and evidence of occupation in an area.99 The Acts require that “[a] person who 

carries out an activity must take all reasonable and practicable measures to ensure the activity 

does not harm” Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander cultural heritage.100 It is an offense to harm 

any aspect of Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander cultural heritage or to excavate, relocate, take 

away, or possess such heritage, other than in accordance with the Acts.101 Protection measures 

available under the Acts include the ability to issue stop work orders to require a person to cease, 

or not start, any activity that will harm cultural heritage or have a significant impact on the 

cultural heritage value of such heritage.102

 

95 Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Act 2003 (Qld), https://www.legislation.qld.gov.au/view/whole/html/ 

inforce/current/act-2003-079, archived at https://perma.cc/E2SM-GM77. 

96 Torres Strait Islander Cultural Heritage Act (Qld), https://www.legislation.qld.gov.au/view/whole/html/ 

inforce/current/act-2003-080, archived at https://perma.cc/FG7B-BSK2. 

97 See generally Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Cultural Heritage, DEPARTMENT OF ABORIGINAL AND TORRES 

STRAIT ISLANDER PARTNERSHIPS (DATSIP), https://www.datsip.qld.gov.au/people-communities/aboriginaltorres-strait-islander-cultural-heritage (last updated Feb. 19, 2019), archived at https://perma.cc/9YMW-532K. 

98 What Is Cultural Heritage, DATSIP, https://www.datsip.qld.gov.au/people-communities/aboriginal-torresstrait-islander-cultural-heritage/what-cultural-heritage (last updated July 26, 2018), archived at 

https://perma.cc/P7TF-M56G. See also Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Act 2003 (Qld) ss 5 & 6; Torres Strait 

Islander Cultural Heritage Act (Qld) ss 5 & 6. 

99 Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Act 2003 (Qld) s 8; Torres Strait Islander Cultural Heritage Act (Qld) s 8. 

100 Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Act 2003 (Qld) s 23(1); Torres Strait Islander Cultural Heritage Act (Qld) 

s 23(1). 

101 Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Act 2003 (Qld) ss 24–26; Torres Strait Islander Cultural Heritage Act (Qld) 

ss 24–26. 

102 Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Act 2003 (Qld) s 32; Torres Strait Islander Cultural Heritage Act (Qld) s 32. 
Protection of Indigenous Heritage: Australia 

The Law Library of Congress 22 

The Acts provide for the registration of indigenous cultural heritage bodies103 and the 

establishment of cultural heritage databases and registers,104 and contain requirements related to 

carrying out cultural heritage studies, with the findings of such studies included in the registers 

based on a decision by the relevant agency.105 Cultural heritage plans may be required to be 

developed and approved for a project.106

The Acts also contain provisions regarding ownership of significant objects.107 A “significant 

Aboriginal object”108 is “an object of particular significance to Aboriginal people because of either 

or both of the following—(a) Aboriginal tradition; (b) the history, including contemporary 

history, of an Aboriginal party for an area.”109 Similar provisions are contained in the Torres Strait 

Islander heritage legislation.110 There is an intent that, 

as far as practicable, Aboriginal cultural heritage should be owned and protected by 

Aboriginal people with traditional or familial links to the cultural heritage if it is comprised 

of any of the following— 

(a) Aboriginal human remains; 

(b) secret or sacred objects; 

(c) Aboriginal cultural heritage lawfully taken away from an area.111

2. Procedures on Discovery of Human Remains 

The two Acts contain specific provisions regarding the ownership, custody, and possession of 

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander human remains.112 A person who has knowledge of such 

remains must report their existence and location to DATSIP.113 DATSIP has published a guidance 

document on the discovery, handling, and management of human remains.114 It explains the 

legislative framework, which includes the following: 

 

103 Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Act 2003 (Qld) s 36; Torres Strait Islander Cultural Heritage Act (Qld) s 36. 

104 Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Act 2003 (Qld) pt 5; Torres Strait Islander Cultural Heritage Act (Qld) pt 5. 

105 Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Act 2003 (Qld) pt 6; Torres Strait Islander Cultural Heritage Act (Qld) pt 6. 

106 Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Act 2003 (Qld) pt 7; Torres Strait Islander Cultural Heritage Act (Qld) pt 7. 

107 Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Act 2003 (Qld) pt 2; Torres Strait Islander Cultural Heritage Act (Qld) pt 2. 

108 Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Act 2003 (Qld) s 8; Torres Strait Islander Cultural Heritage Act (Qld) s 8. 

109 Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Act 2003 (Qld) s 10. 

110 Torres Strait Islander Cultural Heritage Act (Qld) s 10. 

111 Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Act 2003 (Qld) s 14(3). See also Torres Strait Islander Cultural Heritage Act 

(Qld) s 14(3).

112 Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Act 2003 (Qld) ss 15–18; Torres Strait Islander Cultural Heritage Act 2003 (Qld) 

ss 15–18. 

113 Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Act 2003 (Qld) s 18; Torres Strait Islander Cultural Heritage Act 2003 (Qld) 

s 18. 

114 DATSIP, Guidelines for the Discovery, Handling and Management of Human Remains, 

https://www.datsip.qld.gov.au/resources/datsima/people-communities/cultural-heritage/guidelineshuman-remains.pdf (last visited Feb. 20, 2019), archived at https://perma.cc/NC2A-385F. 
Protection of Indigenous Heritage: Australia 

The Law Library of Congress 23 

 Criminal Code Act 1899 (Qld): Provides that it is an offense to improperly or indecently 

interfere with a human body or human remains. 

 Coroners Act 2003 (Qld): Provides that, when human remains are located, the person finding 

the remains must report them to a police officer or the Coroner. If the Coroner’s investigation 

shows that the body is Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander traditional burial remains, the 

investigation must stop and, if the remains were removed from the area where they were 

found, the Coroner must release the remains to the Minister responsible for administering the 

two indigenous heritage statutes. 

 Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Act 2003 (Qld) and Torres Strait Islander Cultural Heritage Act 

2003 (Qld): Under these laws, “Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander people who have a 

traditional or familial link with Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander human remains are the 

owners of those remains, regardless of who may have owned them before commencement of 

the Acts.”115

In terms of procedures on discovery of human remains, the guidance document states that, 

[i]n all cases when human remains are located it is important to remember: 

 The discovery of any human remains must as soon as possible be reported to 

the police. 

 It is an offence to interfere with human remains, whether buried or not. 

The Police or Coroner must be advised of the presence of any human remains. An 

appropriate officer will then establish the area as a potential crime scene. 

Police will undertake appropriate scientific or other procedures to assist the Coroner in 

making an appropriate determination about the remains. 

If the remains are thought to be neither Aboriginal nor Torres Strait Islander, related to 

criminal activity or are of doubtful determination, the Police may remove the remains for 

further analysis. 

If however the remains are determined to be ancestral remains without the need for 

removal, the relevant Traditional Owners of the remains will be responsible for 

their management. 

In cases where remains are removed by Police and subsequently determined by the 

Coroner to be of Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander origin, the remains will be released to 

the Minister responsible for administering the Acts. 

The Department of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Partnerships is then responsible 

for coordinating the return of the remains to the relevant Traditional Owners.116

 

115 Id. at 1–2. 

116 Id. at 2. See also Human Remains, DATSIP, https://www.datsip.qld.gov.au/people-communities/aboriginaltorres-strait-islander-cultural-heritage/human-remains (last updated July 26, 2018), archived at 

https://perma.cc/WS5L-JKDA. 
Protection of Indigenous Heritage: Australia 

The Law Library of Congress 24 

E. South Australia 

1. Protection of Indigenous Heritage Sites and Objects 

The Aboriginal Heritage Act 1988 (SA)117 protects “[s]ites of significance according to Aboriginal 

tradition and sites significant to Aboriginal archaeology, anthropology and history.”118 It 

establishes the State Aboriginal Heritage Committee, which provides advice to the state premier 

on a range of matters, including “measures that should be taken for the protection or preservation 

of Aboriginal sites, objects or remains” and Aboriginal heritage agreements.119 The Act also 

requires the maintenance of three registers: the Register of Recognised Aboriginal Representative 

Bodies (RARBs), the Register of Aboriginal Sites and Objects, and the Register of Agreements.120

Under the Act, it is “an offence to damage, disturb or interfere with an Aboriginal site, object or 

remains without an authorisation from the Premier, as the Minister responsible for Aboriginal 

Affairs and Reconciliation.”121 The Act provides for “local heritage agreements” to be made 

between a land use proponent and an RARB and then approved by the Premier. These 

agreements deal “with the impact of the proponent’s activities on any Aboriginal heritage in the 

area covered by the agreement.”122 Once an agreement is approved, the Premier “must grant an 

authorisation to the proponent to excavate the land or to damage, disturb or interfere with any 

sites, objects or the remains on the condition that the proponent complies with the agreement.”123

In addition, “[a] proponent may request an authorisation to impact heritage without a local 

heritage agreement, in which case the request will be processed in accordance with the 

consultation provisions in the Act and the Premier will decide whether to grant 

the authorisation.”124

 

117 Aboriginal Heritage Act 1988 (SA), https://www.legislation.sa.gov.au/LZ/C/A/ABORIGINAL 

HERITAGE ACT 1988/CURRENT/1988.12.AUTH.PDF, archived at https://perma.cc/9442-LPFK. 

118 Aboriginal Heritage, SA DEPARTMENT OF THE PREMIER AND CABINET, https://www.dpc.sa.gov.au/what-wedo/services-for-business-and-the-community/Aboriginal-community-advice-and-support/aboriginal-heritage

(last visited Feb. 20, 2019), archived at https://perma.cc/FPP5-A5ZE. 

119 State Aboriginal Heritage Committee, DEPARTMENT OF THE PREMIER AND CABINET, https://www.dpc.sa.gov.au/ 

what-we-do/services-for-business-and-the-community/Aboriginal-community-advice-andsupport/aboriginal-heritage/state-aboriginal-heritage-committee (last visited Feb. 20, 2019), archived at

https://perma.cc/3AP7-YJTH. 

120 Aboriginal Heritage Registers, DEPARTMENT OF THE PREMIER AND CABINET, https://www.dpc.sa.gov.au/whatwe-do/services-for-business-and-the-community/Aboriginal-community-advice-and-support/aboriginalheritage/aboriginal-heritage-registers (last visited Feb. 20, 2019), archived at https://perma.cc/4PYK-BF5M. 

121 Guidance, DEPARTMENT OF THE PREMIER AND CABINET, https://www.dpc.sa.gov.au/what-we-do/services-forbusiness-and-the-community/Aboriginal-community-advice-and-support/aboriginal-heritage/guidance (last 

visited Feb. 20, 2019), archived at https://perma.cc/CRJ5-TS25. 

122 Department of the Premier and Cabinet, Aboriginal Heritage Fact Sheet: Project Planning and Aboriginal 

Heritage, https://www.dpc.sa.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0015/34602/FactSheet_ProjectPlanning.pdf

(last visited Feb. 20, 2019), archived at https://perma.cc/E8M4-D955. 

123 Id.

124 Id.
Protection of Indigenous Heritage: Australia 

The Law Library of Congress 25 

The Act requires that where the owner or occupier of private land discovers an Aboriginal object 

on that land, he/she must report the discovery to the relevant Minister.125 The Minister may direct 

the person to “take such immediate action for the protection or preservation of the remains as the 

Minister considers appropriate.”126 As noted above, it is an offense to damage, interfere with, or 

remove any Aboriginal object.127

2. Procedures on Discovery of Human Remains 

Guidance produced by the South Australia government states that persons who find skeletal 

remains must stop any work that may impact them, not disturb them further, and call the police. 

The police will determine whether the remains are Aboriginal ancestral remains. If so, Aboriginal 

Affairs and Reconciliation (part of the Department of the Premier and Cabinet) must be 

contacted.128 Additional guidance information states as follows: 

The Discovery Protocol for Ancestral Remains has been developed in consultation with the 

State Aboriginal Heritage Committee and should be implemented immediately whenever 

skeletal remains are discovered. The Protocol is based on proponents’ responsibilities 

under the Coroner’s Act 2003 and Aboriginal peoples’ rights under the Aboriginal 

Heritage Act 1988. 

In summary, in the event of discovery of bones which may be human, all works in the 

discovery area should immediately stop and the discovery must be reported to the South 

Australian Police (SAPOL). If SAPOL confirms the discovery as Aboriginal ancestral 

remains, the proponent and RARB, or where there is no appointed RARB the relevant local 

Aboriginal parties, may reach agreement to manage the discovery; including recovery, 

reburial and any associated cultural ceremony.129

F. Tasmania 

1. Protection of Indigenous Heritage Sites and Objects 

The Aboriginal Heritage Act 1975 (Tas)130 enables the relevant government minister to declare an 

area of land to be a protected site if he or she is satisfied that there is a “relic” on that site.131 It 

 

125 Aboriginal Heritage Act 1988 (SA) s 20(1). 

126 Id. s 20(3). 

127 Id. s 23. 

128 Guidance, supra note 121; Department of the Premier and Cabinet, Aboriginal Heritage Fact Sheet: Discovery 

of Aboriginal Sites and Objects, https://www.dpc.sa.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0014/34601/Discovery_ 

SitesandObjects.pdf (last visited Feb. 20, 2019), archived at https://perma.cc/5VEA-Y5H7. 

129 Aboriginal Heritage Fact Sheet: Project Planning and Aboriginal Heritage, supra note 122. 

130 Aboriginal Heritage Act 1975 (Tas), https://www.legislation.tas.gov.au/view/whole/html/inforce/ 

current/act-1975-081, archived at https://perma.cc/U2PT-RZZY. 

131 Id. s 7. 
Protection of Indigenous Heritage: Australia 

The Law Library of Congress 26 

establishes statutory guidelines “which specify the actions required by a person to establish a 

defence” to offenses under the Act.132

Aboriginal Heritage Tasmania, which administers the Act, states that the Act 

applies to ‘relics’ created by Aboriginal people that are of significance to the Aboriginal 

people of Tasmania. This includes Aboriginal traditions, knowledge, observance, custom 

or beliefs of Aboriginal people generally or of a particular community or group of 

Aboriginal people. Significance may relate to the Aboriginal tradition, contemporary 

history of Aboriginal people or the anthropological, archaeological or scientific history of 

Aboriginal people. The Act states that ‘no person shall destroy, damage, deface, conceal, 

or otherwise interfere with a relic.’ 

Two areas of land in Tasmania are declared ‘Protected Archaeological Sites’ under 

the Act.133

Amendments to the Act that commenced in 2017 established a new Aboriginal Heritage Council 

and introduced “new penalties for unlawful interference or damage to an Aboriginal relic.”134

The new Council “provides advice and recommendations to the Director of National Parks and 

Wildlife, the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and stakeholders on the protection and management 

of Aboriginal heritage in Tasmania.”135

The Aboriginal Heritage Act requires anyone who finds a “relic” to inform an authorized officer 

of the find.136 As indicated above, it is an offense to “destroy, damage, deface, conceal, or 

otherwise interfere with a relic” or to “remove a relic from the place where it is found or 

abandoned,” among others, other than in accordance with the Act.137 The relevant Minister can 

make orders with respect to the land on which a relic is situated and any relic specified in such 

an order is considered a protected object, with various provisions in the Act then being applicable 

to such objects.138

 

132 Legislation, ABORIGINAL HERITAGE TASMANIA, https://www.aboriginalheritage.tas.gov.au/legislation (last 

updated Nov. 14, 2018), archived at https://perma.cc/KX32-K84C. 

133 Aboriginal Historical Places Introduction, ABORIGINAL HERITAGE TASMANIA, https://www.aboriginalheritage. 

tas.gov.au/cultural-heritage/aboriginal-historical-places-introduction (last updated Aug. 7, 2018), archived at

https://perma.cc/GJQ9-7NW8. 

134 Aboriginal Heritage Act 1975, ABORIGINAL HERITAGE TASMANIA, https://www.aboriginalheritage.tas.gov.au/ 

items-of-interest/aboriginal-heritage-act-1975 (last updated Aug. 31, 2018), archived at

https://perma.cc/GHW6-2GSK. 

135 Aboriginal Heritage Council, ABORIGINAL HERITAGE TASMANIA, https://www.aboriginalheritage.tas.gov.au/ 

aboriginal-heritage-council (last updated Feb. 7, 2019), archived at https://perma.cc/3QF9-7X7D. 

136 Aboriginal Heritage Act 1975 (Tas) s 10(3). 

137 Id. s 14. 

138 Id. s 7. 
Protection of Indigenous Heritage: Australia 

The Law Library of Congress 27 

Ownership of relics found on government land is vested in the government, and the government 

can also take ownership of other objects.139

2. Procedures on Discovery of Human Remains 

Aboriginal Heritage Tasmania sets out procedures upon the discovery of skeletal material in its 

“Unexpected Discovery Plan,” as follows: 

Step 1: 

Call the Police immediately. Under no circumstances should the suspected skeletal 

material be touched or disturbed. The area should be managed as a crime scene. It is a 

criminal offence to interfere with a crime scene. 

Step 2: 

Any person who believes they have uncovered skeletal material should notify all 

employees or contractors working in the immediate area that all earth disturbance works 

cease immediately. 

Step 3: 

A temporary ‘no-go’ or buffer zone of at least 50m x 50m should be implemented to protect 

the suspected skeletal material, where practicable. No unauthorised entry or works will be 

allowed within this ‘no-go’ zone until the suspected skeletal remains have been assessed 

by the Police and/or Coroner. 

Step 4: 

If it is suspected that the skeletal material is Aboriginal, Aboriginal Heritage Tasmania 

should be notified. 

Step 5: 

Should the skeletal material be determined to be Aboriginal, the Coroner will contact the 

Aboriginal organisation approved by the Attorney-General, as per the Coroners 

Act 1995.140

 

139 Id. ss 11 & 12. 

140 Aboriginal Heritage Tasmania, Unanticipated Discovery Plan, https://www.aboriginalheritage.tas.gov.au/ 

Documents/UDP.pdf (last visited Feb. 20, 2019), archived at https://perma.cc/9DP2-WD2N. See also Coroners 

Act 1995 (Tas) s 23, https://www.legislation.tas.gov.au/view/whole/html/inforce/current/act-1995-073, 

archived at https://perma.cc/6MMP-6DFC. 
Protection of Indigenous Heritage: Australia 

The Law Library of Congress 28 

G. Victoria 

1. Protection of Indigenous Heritage Sites and Objects 

The Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006 (Vic),141 along with the Aboriginal Heritage Regulations 

2018 (Vic),142 

 establishes the Victorian Aboriginal Heritage Council; 

 provides for the management of a system of Registered Aboriginal Parties, which is intended 

to allow for “Aboriginal groups with connections to country to be involved in decision 

making processes around cultural heritage”; 

 establishes the Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Register; 

 establishes processes related to Cultural Heritage Management Plans and the issuance of 

permits in order to manage activities that may impact Aboriginal cultural heritage; 

 creates a system of Cultural Heritage Agreements that involve partnerships for the protection 

and management of Aboriginal cultural heritage; and 

 contains offenses and penalties to prevent harm to Aboriginal cultural heritage.143

The Act “provides protection for all Aboriginal places, objects and human remains in Victoria 

regardless of their inclusion in the Victorian Aboriginal Heritage Register or land tenure.”144 The 

Victorian Aboriginal Heritage Council makes decisions on the appointment of Registered 

Aboriginal Parties and oversees their operations, has roles related to the protection of ancestral 

remains, and promotes obligations with respect to secret or sacred objects, as well as providing 

advice to the relevant minister on the protection and management of Aboriginal cultural heritage 

in Victoria.145

 

141 Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006 (Vic), http://www.legislation.vic.gov.au/Domino/Web_Notes/LDMS/Pub 

Statbook.nsf/f932b66241ecf1b7ca256e92000e23be/481F4F0770858034CA257169001D1F4A/$FILE/06-016a.pdf, 

archived at https://perma.cc/XL2F-SK2Q. 

142 Aboriginal Heritage Regulations 2018 (Vic), http://www.legislation.vic.gov.au/domino/Web_Notes/ 

LDMS/LTObject_Store/ltobjst10.nsf/DDE300B846EED9C7CA257616000A3571/97D468DD228ACC40CA25829

60004F71A/$FILE/18-59sra001%20authorised.pdf, archived at https://perma.cc/D8HJ-TU74. 

143 Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006 and the Aboriginal Heritage Regulations 2018, ABORIGINAL VICTORIA,

https://www.vic.gov.au/aboriginalvictoria/heritage/aboriginal-heritage-act-2006-and-the-aboriginalheritage-regulations-2018.html (last visited Feb. 20, 2019), archived at https://perma.cc/VFM3-9LMF. 

144 Protection of Aboriginal Heritage, NORTH EAST CATCHMENT MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY, https://www.necma. 

vic.gov.au/Solutions/Indigenous-Heritage/Protection-of-Aboriginal-heritage (last visited Feb. 20, 2019), 

archived at https://perma.cc/CLX6-ZJ63. 

145 Victorian Aboriginal Heritage Council, DEPARTMENT OF PREMIER AND CABINET, https://www.dpc.vic.gov.au/ 

index.php/contact-us/25-aboriginal-affairs (last visited Feb. 20, 2019), archived at https://perma.cc/SC4XQ57L. 
Protection of Indigenous Heritage: Australia 

The Law Library of Congress 29 

The Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006 (Vic) requires that a person who discovers an Aboriginal object 

on either public or private land must report the discovery to the relevant agency.146 As noted 

above, it is an offense to harm Aboriginal cultural heritage, including objects.147

2. Procedures on Discovery of Human Remains 

The Victorian Aboriginal Heritage Council’s guidelines on reporting Aboriginal ancestral 

remains state as follows: 

Recent discoveries of human remains must be reported to the Coroner, Victorian Institute 

of Forensic Medicine or a police officer in charge of a police station. . . . 

The Coroner will send a Forensic Anthropologist to the site to assess the remains, and will: 

 report the remains to us if they’re Aboriginal Ancestral Remains, or 

 notify Victoria Police if they’re not Aboriginal Ancestral Remains148

The Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006 (Vic) recognizes traditional ownership of ancestral remains.149

Once the Council has been notified of ancestral remains it must, “after taking reasonable steps to 

consult with any Aboriginal person or body the Council believes may have an interest in the 

Aboriginal ancestral remains, determine the appropriate course of action to be taken in relation 

to the Aboriginal ancestral remains.”150 The Coroner must transfer custody of ancestral remains 

to the Council, after which the Council must transfer the remains to any relevant traditional 

owner, to the Museum Board for safekeeping, or otherwise deal with the remains as it 

thinks appropriate.151

 

146 Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006 (Vic) s 24. See also Aboriginal Places, Objects and Land Management, ABORIGINAL 

VICTORIA, https://www.vic.gov.au/aboriginalvictoria/heritage/aboriginal-cultural-heritage-of-victoria/ 

aboriginal-places-objects-and-land-management.html (last visited Feb. 20, 2019), archived at 

https://perma.cc/H5EZ-MX6W. 

147 Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006 (Vic) s 27. 

148 Report Ancestral Remains, VICTORIAN ABORIGINAL HERITAGE COUNCIL, https://www.aboriginalheritage 

council.vic.gov.au/report-ancestral-remains (last updated Jan. 14, 2019), archived at https://perma.cc/KPD6-

Q2ES. 

149 Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006 (Vic) s 7(2), 12 

150 Id. s 18(2)(b). 

151 Id. ss 19A & 20. 
Protection of Indigenous Heritage: Australia 

The Law Library of Congress 30 

H. Western Australia 

1. Protection of Indigenous Heritage Sites and Objects 

The Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972 (WA),152 which is administered by the Department of Planning, 

Lands and Heritage, “protects all Aboriginal heritage sites in Western Australia, whether or not 

they are registered with the department.”153 It also provides protection for Aboriginal objects, 

including ceremonial objects, pre-colonial material, and post-contact items.154

The Act provides for the “declaration of Aboriginal sites that are of outstanding importance to be 

Protected Areas.”155 It also provides for the maintenance of a register of Aboriginal sites 

containing all protected areas, all Aboriginal cultural material, and all other places and objects to 

which the Act applies.156 

The Act requires that any person who has knowledge of an Aboriginal object of “sacred, ritual or 

ceremonial significance,” or other things related to Aboriginal cultural heritage, must report its 

existence to the Registrar of Aboriginal Sites or to a police officer.157 It is an offense to damage or 

remove any object on or under an Aboriginal site without authorization.158

The Western Australia government is currently conducting a review of the Aboriginal Heritage 

Act in order to develop new legislation that 

 promotes the understanding and celebration of Aboriginal cultural heritage through 

the recognition of significant places and objects[,] 

 provides transparent and easy to understand processes that offer certainty and 

predictability for stakeholders[, and] 

 provides high standards of protection for significant places and objects, while enabling 

land use.159

 

152 Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972 (WA), https://www.legislation.wa.gov.au/legislation/prod/filestore.nsf/ 

FileURL/mrdoc_25428.pdf/$FILE/Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972 - [04-g0-05].pdf?OpenElement, archived at

https://perma.cc/AY7E-QEE3. 

153 Protection under the Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972, DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING, LANDS AND HERITAGE (DPLH),

https://www.dplh.wa.gov.au/information-and-services/aboriginal-heritage/protection-under-the-aboriginalheritage-act-1972 (last updated Dec. 20, 2018), archived at https://perma.cc/GL2J-6XUU. 

154 See Aboriginal Objects, DPLH, https://www.dplh.wa.gov.au/information-and-services/aboriginalheritage/protection-under-the-aboriginal-heritage-act-1972/aboriginal-objects (last updated Dec. 20, 2018), 

archived at https://perma.cc/N4TU-84BK. 

155 Aboriginal Sites, DPLH, https://www.dplh.wa.gov.au/information-and-services/aboriginal-heritage/ 

protection-under-the-aboriginal-heritage-act-1972/aboriginal-sites (last updated Dec. 20, 2018), archived at

https://perma.cc/PH9C-59U3. 

156 Id. 

157 Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972 (WA) s 15. 

158 Id. s 17(b). 

159 Review of the Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972, DPLH, https://www.dplh.wa.gov.au/aha-review (last updated 

Jan. 22, 2019), archived at https://perma.cc/RZR6-P4PA. See also Press Release, Ben Wyatt, Aboriginal Heritage 
Protection of Indigenous Heritage: Australia 

The Law Library of Congress 31 

2. Procedures on Discovery of Human Remains 

The Department of Planning, Lands and Heritage lists the following steps to be taken upon the 

discovery of an Aboriginal burial site or ancestral remains: 

1. Immediately contact the police and the Registrar. 

2. If development or other ground disturbing activities are carried out, these activities 

must cease immediately. 

3. The police will investigate the remains as soon as possible. The Registrar will liaise 

with police to ensure that the minimum amount of disturbance takes place before 

identification of whether the remains are of Aboriginal origin and not a matter for 

further police involvement. 

4. Upon notification that the remains are of Aboriginal origin and not a matter for further 

police involvement, the Registrar will seek the immediate involvement of relevant 

Aboriginal people. 

5. The landowner will develop an appropriate action plan for the management of the 

remains, in consultation with relevant Aboriginal people and the Registrar. 

6. The Registrar will ensure that the burial place is recorded and placed on the Register 

of Aboriginal Sites. 

7. The Registrar will ensure that the burial place is reported to the Commonwealth 

Minister for Indigenous Affairs, in accordance with the legal requirements under the 

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Protection Act 1984. 

8. If the landowner wishes to carry out further development activities on the location the 

Registrar will provide advice on how to lodge an application to use the land.160

The Department further states that the options for dealing with the remains depends on the views 

of the relevant Aboriginal people, the circumstances of each place, and the nature of any 

development which is occurring. Options include leaving the remains in situ, reburial in the same 

place, reburial in a registered cemetery or keeping place, or reburial as close as possible to the 

original location.161

IV. Relationships between Australian Governments and Indigenous Peoples 

A. History 

The history of the relationship between Australian state and federal governments and Australia’s 

indigenous peoples (including Aboriginal people and Torres Strait Islanders) has involved 

policies of “protection,” assimilation, self-determination, and reconciliation. 

In the context of “protection,” in the early 1900s state governments began enacting legislation that 

allowed the forcible removal of indigenous children from their families. These children later came 

 

Legislation to be Reviewed (Mar. 9, 2018), https://www.mediastatements.wa.gov.au/Pages/McGowan/ 

2018/03/Aboriginal-heritage-legislation-to-be-reviewed.aspx, archived at https://perma.cc/JX4G-QUEU. 

160 Aboriginal Remains, DPLH, https://www.dplh.wa.gov.au/information-and-services/aboriginal-heritage/ 

protection-under-the-aboriginal-heritage-act-1972/ancestral-remains (last updated Jan. 2, 2019), archived at

https://perma.cc/6AGK-77N9. 

161 Id.
Protection of Indigenous Heritage: Australia 

The Law Library of Congress 32 

to be referred to as the “stolen generations.”162 The removal laws existed in some states and 

territories until the late 1960s.163 Other “protection” policies that had previously been introduced 

by colonial governments involved making indigenous Australians “wards of the state” and the 

establishment of government reserves where indigenous people were forced to live.164

In the 1930s, Australian governments adopted a national policy of assimilation, and this was 

again affirmed in 1951.165 The states retained exclusive power over Aboriginal affairs under the 

Australian Constitution until a referendum in 1967 resulted in amendments that conferred power 

on the Commonwealth to make laws for Aboriginal people and also saw them counted in the 

national census for the first time.166 

The struggle for land rights saw various developments in the 1970s, including the establishment 

by the Commonwealth government of the Aboriginal Land Rights Commission in 1973, leading 

to the passage of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976 (Cth). Later, a 

landmark court decision in 1992 and the subsequent passage of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) 

saw indigenous people having a greater, albeit still limited, ability to claim rights in relation to 

certain land.167

The 1970s also saw the federal government move to a policy of self-determination for indigenous 

Australians, replacing the previous policy of assimilation. The government’s approach included 

the establishment of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs and the Aboriginal and Torres Strait 

Islander Commission, which was “composed of Indigenous peoples whose role was to maximise 

Indigenous participation in the development and implementation of policies that affected 

them.”168 The Commission was formally abolished in 2005 and replaced with an 

advisory board.169

 

162 Historical Context –The Stolen Generations, BRINGING THEM HOME, https://bth.humanrights.gov. au/signif 

icance/historical-context-the-stolen-generations (last visited Feb. 21, 2019), archived at https://perma.cc/6Z7HCP38. 

163 Id.

164 In the Name of Protection, AUSTRALIANS TOGETHER, https://australianstogether.org.au/discover/australianhistory/protection/ (last visited Feb. 21, 2019), archived at https://perma.cc/7XAW-R8UP. 

165 Id.

166 Id.

167 See Anna Kelsey-Sugg & Annabelle Quince, Watershed Moments in Indigenous Australia’s Struggle to be Heard,

ABC NEWS (updated July 3, 2018), https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-07-04/complex-history-of-indigenousand-non-indigenous-australia/9930944, archived at https://perma.cc/NWK5-A95P. 

168 The Indigenous Civil Rights Movement in Australia, AUSTRALIANS TOGETHER, https://australianstogether. 

org.au/discover/australian-history/civil-rights-movement/ (last visited Feb. 21, 2019), archived at

https://perma.cc/R2YR-YFGA. 

169 See Angela Pratt & Scott Bennett, The End of ATSIC and the Future Administration of Indigenous Affairs

(Australian Parliamentary Library Current Issues Brief No. 4 2004-05, Aug. 9, 2004), https://www.aph.gov.au/ 

About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/Publications_Archive/CIB/Current_

Issues_Briefs_2004_-_2005/05cib04, archived at https://perma.cc/8ABR-XSF3. 
Protection of Indigenous Heritage: Australia 

The Law Library of Congress 33 

The 1990s saw the emergence of a policy of reconciliation on the part of different governments, 

including at the federal level. The Commonwealth government provided funding for the Council 

for Aboriginal Reconciliation in 1991, which was subsequently disbanded in 2000. In 2001, 

Reconciliation Australia, a nonprofit entity, was established and continues to receive federal 

government funding. Its activities include working with various organizations, including 

governments or individual government departments, to create Reconciliation Action Plans.170

In 1997, the Australian Human Rights Commission published a report on the findings of the 

National Inquiry into the Separation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Children from their 

Families, and several state and territory parliaments and governments issued statements 

apologizing to the stolen generations. Later, in February 2008, the Prime Minister of Australia 

delivered a national apology to the stolen generations. Some state governments have recently 

launched reparation programs for the stolen generations.171

There is currently a continued focus on reconciliation and self-determination, as well as an 

overarching framework related to “closing the gap” in various outcomes between indigenous and 

non-indigenous Australians.172 There is also an ongoing discussion related to constitutional 

recognition of indigenous peoples, a policy to which the current government remains committed. 

A parliamentary joint committee tasked with recommending options for constitutional change 

was established in March 2018.173 

B. Indigenous Heritage Legislation and Policies 

The Commonwealth, state, and territory cultural heritage legislation of the 1970s and 1980s can 

be viewed in the context of policies related to land rights and the emerging focus on selfdetermination. Legislative and policy developments in some jurisdictions since the 1990s, 

including recent reform proposals, reflect an increased focus on partnership, consultation, and 

greater involvement of indigenous people in decision-making and management of their 

own heritage.174 

 

170 See Reconciliation Australia, DEPARTMENT OF THE PRIME MINISTER AND CABINET, https://www.pmc.gov.au/ 

indigenous-affairs/culture-and-capability/reconciliation-australia (last visited Feb. 21, 2019), archived at

https://perma.cc/5HTM-RGZS. 

171 See Historical Context –The Stolen Generations, supra note 162. 

172 Closing the Gap, DEPARTMENT OF THE PRIME MINISTER AND CABINET, https://www.pmc.gov.au/indigenousaffairs/closing-gap (last visited Feb. 21, 2019), archived at https://perma.cc/CB77-25FT.

173 See Constitutional Recognition, DEPARTMENT OF THE PRIME MINISTER AND CABINET, https://www.pmc.gov.au/ 

indigenous-affairs/constitutional-recognition (last visited Feb. 21, 2019), archived at https://perma.cc/HT9LVJ5J. 

174 For discussion of historical developments regarding the regulation of Aboriginal cultural heritage matters 

see NATIONAL NATIVE TITLE TRIBUNAL, INDIGENOUS CULTURAL HERITAGE SCHEMES IN VICTORIA, QUEENSLAND 

AND NORTHERN TERRITORY: AN OVERVIEW 4–6 (May 2009), http://www.nntt.gov.au/Information%20 

Publications/ Vic-Qld-and-NT-heritage-overview.pdf, archived at https://perma.cc/RF76-UQDB; NATIONAL 

NATIVE TITLE TRIBUNAL, COMMONWEALTH, STATE AND TERRITORY HERITAGE REGIMES: SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS 

FOR ABORIGINAL CONSULTATION (Dec. 2010), http://www.nntt.gov.au/Information%20Publications/Heritageregimes-Aboriginal-consultation.pdf, archived at https://perma.cc/NA8K-8ULY. 
Protection of Indigenous Heritage: Australia 

The Law Library of Congress 34 

State and territory governments have published information about policies and approaches to 

working directly with indigenous people, including in the areas of environmental and heritage 

protection. For example, the South Australia Department for Environment and Water states: “We 

acknowledge and respect Aboriginal people as the traditional custodians of South Australia, and 

work with them to care for Country. Caring for Country means working together to manage our 

state, and in particular places of environmental, historical, social, cultural and 

spiritual significance.”175

The Victorian government emphasizes self-determination as a central feature of its approach to 

working with indigenous peoples, stating that “[t]he devastating impact of failed policies can 

only begin to be turned around when Aboriginal people are supported to make their own 

decisions on matters such as governance, natural resource management, economic development, 

health care and social service provision.”176

The New South Wales government also includes self-determination and involvement in decisionmaking in its discussion of reforms to heritage legislation, stating “Aboriginal people must play 

a significant role in the management of their cultural heritage, and in the planning of their 

land.”177 The current guidance regarding the implementation of the NPW Act with respect to 

Aboriginal heritage refers to enhancing communication and developing partnerships with 

Aboriginal people.178

However, commentators have stated that 

[i]n recent years, the advocacy work of Indigenous traditional owners, community groups 

and academics has led to greater public awareness of the importance of Indigenous 

cultural heritage, as well as some positive legal reforms. However, legal protection of 

cultural heritage has often been, and continues to be, ineffective. One of the key reasons 

for this ineffectiveness is a piecemeal approach to protection of Indigenous 

cultural heritage.179

 

175 Aboriginal Partnerships, SA DEPARTMENT FOR ENVIRONMENT AND WATER, https://www.environment.sa.gov. 

au/about-us/aboriginal-partnerships (last visited Feb. 21, 2019), archived at https://perma.cc/PQ6U-VZ8P. 

176 Self-Determination, ABORIGINAL VICTORIA, https://www.vic.gov.au/aboriginalvictoria/policy/selfdetermination.html (last visited Feb. 21, 2019), archived at https://perma.cc/A93A-ALJ7. 

177 See Planning and Heritage, NSW ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS, https://www.aboriginalaffairs.nsw.gov.au/policyreform/planning-and-heritage (last visited Feb. 21, 2019), archived at https://perma.cc/VFH9-XFCK. 

178 OPERATIONAL POLICY: PROTECTING ABORIGINAL CULTURAL HERITAGE, supra note 60, at 7. 

179 Lauren Butterly & Hon Justice Rachel Pepper, Are Courts Colourblind to Country? Indigenous Cultural Heritage, 

Environmental Law and the Australian Judicial System, 40(4) UNSW L.J. (Advance) (2017), at 1, http://www.unsw 

lawjournal.unsw.edu.au/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/404_7.pdf, archived at https://perma.cc/X3PD-39R4.
The Law Library of Congress 35 

Brazil 

Eduardo Soares 

Senior Foreign Law Specialist

SUMMARY In Brazil constitutional principles protect archeological and prehistoric sites, and 

determines that all such sites, including Indian ones, belong to the Union. A DecreeLaw from 1937 protects and defines national historical and artistic heritage because of 

its archaeological and ethnographic value, and such heritage must be registered with 

the National Historical and Artistic Heritage Service to be considered as an integral part 

of the national historical or artistic heritage of the country. 

 A federal law from 1961 determines that archaeological or prehistoric monuments of any 

nature existing in the national territory and all the elements that are in them are under the 

guard and protection of the government. This includes sites identified as cemeteries and 

other types of sites in which human remains of archaeological or paleo-ethnographic 

interest are found. 

 

 The Penal Code and an environmental law are used to punish whoever destroys, renders 

unusable, or damages registered material of archaeological or historical value. 

 

 Federal agencies are in charge of the preservation of the country’s cultural heritage and 

the protection and promotion of the rights of indigenous peoples. 

I. Constitutional Principles 

The Brazilian Constitution provides that archeological and prehistoric sites are the property of 

the Union,1 including lands traditionally occupied by Indians.2

Article 215 determines that the National Government must guarantee to all the full exercise of 

cultural rights and access to sources of national culture, and must support and grant incentives 

for the appreciation and diffusion of cultural expression.3

The Constitution further determines that the Brazilian cultural heritage includes both material 

and immaterial goods, taken either individually or as a whole, that refer to the identity, action, 

and memory of the various groups that form Brazilian society,4 including, inter alia, urban 

complexes and sites with historical, landscape, artistic, archaeological, paleontological, 

 

1 CONSTITUIÇÃO FEDERAL [C.F.], art. 20(X), http://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/Constituicao/Constituicao. 

htm, archived at https://perma.cc/LA6D-Y4V4. 

2 Id. art. 20(XI). 

3 Id. art. 215. 

4 Id. art. 216. 
Protection of Indigenous Heritage: Brazil 

The Law Library of Congress 36

ecological, and scientific value.5 The government, with the collaboration of the community, must 

promote and protect Brazilian cultural heritage by inventories, registries, surveillance, 

monument protection decrees, expropriation, and other forms of precaution and preservation.6 

Damages and threats to cultural heritage must be punished, as provided by law.7

The social organization, customs, languages, creeds, and traditions of Indians are recognized, as 

well as their original rights to the lands they traditionally occupy. The Union has the 

responsibility to delineate these lands and to protect and ensure respect for their property 

and culture.8

Lands traditionally occupied by Indians are those on which they live on a permanent basis, those 

used for their productive activities, those indispensable for the preservation of environmental 

resources necessary for their well-being, and those necessary for their physical and cultural 

reproduction, according to their uses, customs, and traditions.9

The removal of indigenous groups from their lands is prohibited except when the National 

Congress determines there has been a catastrophe or epidemic that places the population at risk 

or that removal is in the interest of national sovereignty; such groups’ immediate return as soon 

as the risk ceases must be guaranteed under all circumstances.10

II. Legal Framework 

A. Decree-Law No. 25 of November 30, 1937 

1. Protection of National Historical and Artistic Heritage 

Decree-Law No. 25 of November 30, 1937, provides for the protection of the national historical 

and artistic heritage of Brazil. Article 1 defines “national historical and artistic heritage” as the 

set of movable and immovable goods (bens) existing in the country and whose conservation is of 

public interest, either because of its connection with memorable events in the history of Brazil or 

because of its exceptional archaeological, ethnographic, bibliographic, or artistic value.11

 

5 Id. art. 216(V). 

6 Id. art. 216(§ 1). 

7 Id. art. 216(§ 4). 

8 Id. art. 231. 

9 Id. art. 231(§ 1). 

10 Id. art. 231(§ 5). 

11 Decreto-Lei No. 25, de 30 de Novemebro de 1937, art. 1, http://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/decretolei/Del0025.htm, archived at https://perma.cc/Q8CH-QRSQ. 
Protection of Indigenous Heritage: Brazil 

The Law Library of Congress 37

2. Registration 

The goods referred to in article 1 of Decree-Law No. 25 will only be considered as an integral part 

of the national historical or artistic heritage after being registered separately or grouped in one of 

the four Register Books (Livros do Tombo) referred to in article 4 of the Decree-Law.12 Natural 

monuments, as well as the site of and landscapes surrounding those monuments that are 

important to conserve and protect by the remarkable nature with which they have been endowed 

by nature or organized by the human industry, are among the goods referred to in article 1.13 

Article 4 of Decree-Law No. 25 determines that the National Historical and Artistic Heritage 

Service (Serviço do Patrimônio Histórico e Artístico Nacional) is to have four Register Books, in 

which the goods referred to in article 1 must be registered: 

1) in the Archaeological, Ethnographic and Landscape Book, the items belonging to the 

categories of archaeological, ethnographic, Amerindian and popular art, as well as 

monuments, sites and landscapes; 

2) in the Historical Book, things of historical interest and works of historical art; 

3) in the Fine Arts Book, the things of erudite art, national or foreign; 

4) in the Applied Arts Book, works included in the category of applied arts, national 

or foreign.14

Voluntary recording will be carried out whenever the owner asks for it and the goods under 

consideration have the necessary requirements to constitute an integral part of the national 

historical and artistic patrimony, in the judgment of the Advisory Council of the Service of 

National Historical and Artistic Patrimony, or whenever the same owner agrees in writing to the 

registration of the good in any of the Register Books.15 Compulsory registration must be carried 

out when the owner refuses to accept registration.16

3. Effects of Registration 

Goods registered cannot be destroyed, demolished or mutilated, or, without prior special 

authorization from the National Historical and Artistic Patrimony Service, repaired, painted, or 

restored, under penalty of a fine of 50% of the damage done.17 Construction in the vicinity of a 

registered property that would prevent or reduce its visibility is not possible without prior 

authorization from the National Historical and Artistic Patrimony Service.18

 

12 Id. art. 1(§ 1). 

13 Id. art. 1(§ 2). 

14 Id. art. 4. 

15 Id. art. 7. 

16 Id. art. 8. 

17 Id. art. 17. 

18 Id. art. 18. 
Protection of Indigenous Heritage: Brazil 

The Law Library of Congress 38

Registered items are subject to the permanent supervision of the National Historical and Artistic 

Patrimony Service, which may inspect them whenever deemed appropriate, and the respective 

owners or responsible persons may not obstruct the inspection, under penalty of a fine, which 

may be doubled in the case of recidivism.19

B. Law No. 3,924 of July 26, 1961 

1. Protection of Archaeological and Prehistoric Monuments 

Law No. 3,924 of July 26, 1961, provides for the protection of archaeological and prehistoric 

monuments. Article 1 determines that archaeological or prehistoric monuments of any nature 

existing in the national territory and all the elements that are in them are under the guard and 

protection of the public power.20 Surface property does not include archaeological or prehistoric 

deposits, nor the objects incorporated into them.21 

2. Definition of Archaeological and Prehistoric Monuments

Article 2 defines “archaeological or prehistoric monuments” as: 

a) deposits of any nature, origin or purpose, representing cultural evidence of the first 

inhabitants of Brazil (paleoameríndios), such as shell mounds (sambaquis), artificial hills 

(montes artificiais ou tesos), sepulchral wells, deposits (jazigos), landfills (aterrados), vestiges 

(estearias) and any others not specified in this article, but of identical meaning, subject to 

the judgment of the competent authority; 

b) the sites in which there are positive traces of occupation by the first inhabitants such as 

grottos (grutas), caves (lapas), and shelters (abrigos) under rock; 

c) sites identified as cemeteries, burials or places of prolonged landing or settlement, 

“stations” and “ceremonies,” in which human remains of archaeological or paleoethnographic interest are found; 

d) rock or local inscriptions such as polishing grooves of utensils and other vestiges of 

activity of the first inhabitants.22

3. Prohibitions 

The economic exploitation, destruction, or mutilation, for any purpose, of archaeological or 

prehistoric deposits (known as sambaquis, casqueiros, concheiros, birbigueiras, or sernambis) are 

prohibited, as well as of the sites, inscriptions, and objects enumerated in items b, c and d of article 

2 (quoted above), before being properly researched. Previous valid concessions for such 

exploitation must be respected.23

 

19 Id. art. 20. 

20 Lei No. 3.924, de 26 de Julho de 1961, art. 1, http://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/leis/1950-1969/L3924. 

htm, archived at https://perma.cc/F3SX-AYTB. 

21 Id. art. 1(sole para.). 

22 Id. art. 2. 

23 Id. art. 3. 
Protection of Indigenous Heritage: Brazil 

The Law Library of Congress 39

4. Registration and Inspection 

According to article 4 of Law No. 3,924, any person, natural or legal, who is undertaking, for 

economic or other purposes, the exploration of archaeological or prehistoric deposits, must 

communicate this activity to the Directorate of National Historical Heritage (Diretoria do 

Patrimônio Histórico Nacional) for the purpose of examination, registration, inspection, and 

safeguarding the interests of science.24 Archaeological or prehistoric deposits of any nature that 

are not communicated to the Directorate and registered in the form of articles 4 and 6 of Law No. 

3,924, are considered, for all purposes, assets of the Union.25

5. Crime Against the National Patrimony 

Any act that destroys or mutilates monuments referred to in article 2 must be considered a crime 

against the national patrimony and, as such, are punishable in accordance with the provisions of 

criminal laws.26

6. Archaeological Excavations Carried Out by Private Individuals 

The right to carry out excavations for archaeological purposes on public or private lands is 

established by permission of the federal government, through the Directorate of National 

Historical and Artistic Heritage, and the owner or holder of the land.27

The application for permission must be addressed to the Directorate of National Historical and 

Artistic Patrimony, accompanied by an exact indication of the location, size, and approximate 

duration of the works to be performed, proof of the technical and scientific suitability of the 

applicant, and the name of the person responsible for carrying out the work.28 

The permit must be issued by the Minister of Education and Culture in the form of an 

administrative act (portaria) establishing the conditions to be observed for the development of 

excavations and studies, which must be transcribed in the proper book of the Directorate of 

National Historical and Artistic Heritage.29 As long as excavations and studies are to be carried 

out on land that does not belong to the applicant, the written consent of the owner of the land or 

its user must be attached to the permission request.30

 

24 Id. art. 4. 

25 Id. art. 7. Article 6 of Law No. 3, 924 determines, inter alia, that sambaquis must take precedence for study 

and eventual exploitation, in accordance with the Mining Code. 

26 Id. art. 5. 

27 Id. art. 8. Articles 13–16 of Law No. 3,924 address archeological excavations carried out by specialized 

scientific institutions of the Union, states, and municipalities. 

28 Id. art. 9. 

29 Id. art. 10. 

30 Id. art. 11. 
Protection of Indigenous Heritage: Brazil 

The Law Library of Congress 40

Excavations must be carried out under the direction of the permission holder, who is liable, under 

civil, criminal, and administrative law, for the damages caused to the National Patrimony or to 

third parties.31 Excavations must be carried out in accordance with the conditions stipulated in 

the permit, and the person responsible may not, under any circumstances, prevent the inspection 

of the works by an agent (delegado) specially designated by the Directorate of National Historical 

and Artistic Heritage, when deemed appropriate.32 

Paragraph 3 of article 11 of Law No. 3,924 further determines that the permission holder is obliged 

to report to the Directorate of National Historic and Artistic Patrimony on a quarterly basis on 

the progress of the excavations, except for the occurrence of an exceptional event, which must 

immediately be reported and appropriate measures taken.33

The permission may be revoked if 

a) the provisions of Law No. 3,924 and the administrative act granting the permission are 

not met; 

b) the field work is suspended for a period exceeding twelve months, unless there is a 

major cause, which must be duly proven; 

c) in case of noncompliance with article 11, paragraph 3 [discussed above].34

In any of the cases listed above, the permission holder will not be entitled to compensation for 

expenses incurred.35

7. Fortuitous Discoveries 

The possession and safeguarding of assets of an archaeological or prehistoric nature constitute, in 

principle, an inherent right of the state.36 The fortuitous discovery of any elements of archaeological 

or prehistoric, historical, artistic, or numismatic interest must immediately be communicated to the 

Directorate of National Historical and Artistic Patrimony or to the authorized official bodies, by the 

author of the find or by the owner of the property where the discovery occurred.37 The owner or 

occupant of the property where the finding was verified is responsible for the temporary 

conservation of the thing discovered, until pronouncement and deliberation of the National 

Historic and Artistic Patrimony Board.38 Breach of this obligation will give cause for apprehension 

 

31 Id. art. 11(§ 1). 

32 Id. art. 11(§ 2). 

33 Id. art. 11(§ 3). 

34 Id. art. 12. 

35 Id. art. 12(sole para.). 

36 Id. art. 17. 

37 Id. art. 18. 

38 Id. art. 18(sole para.). 
Protection of Indigenous Heritage: Brazil 

The Law Library of Congress 41

of the finding, without prejudice to the responsibility of the finder for the damages that he or she 

may cause to the national patrimony as a result of the omission.39

8. Shipment Abroad 

No object of archaeological, prehistoric, numismatic, or artistic interest may be transferred abroad 

without an express license from the Directorate of National Historical and Artistic Heritage, 

contained in a release document in which the objects to be transferred are duly specified.40 Failure 

to comply with this provision will entail the summary apprehension of the object to be transferred, 

without prejudice to other legal sanctions to which the offender may be subject.41 The object seized 

must be delivered to the National Historical and Artistic Patrimony Board.42

9. Sanctions 

The carrying out of archaeological or prehistoric excavations in violation of any of the provisions 

of Law No. 3,924 is punishable by a fine without prejudice to summary apprehension and 

consequent loss for the national patrimony of all the material and equipment existing in the 

place.43 The offenders of Law No. 3,924 are subject to the penalties of articles 163 to 167 of the 

Penal Code (see discussion below), without prejudice to other applicable penalties.44

C. Penal Code

Article 163 of the Penal Code determines that destroying, rendering unusable, or damaging 

something that belongs to another is punishable with detention from one to six months or a fine.45 

The crime is punishable with detention of six months to three years and a fine, in addition to the 

penalty corresponding to the violence, if committed 

 with violence to the person or a serious threat; 

 using a flammable or explosive substance, if that fact does not constitute a more serious crime; 

 against the patrimony of the Union, a state, the Federal District, a municipality, an agency, a 

public foundation or public company, a mixed-economy society, or a utility company; or 

 for selfish reasons or with considerable damage to the victim..46

 

39 Id. art. 19. 

40 Id. art. 20. 

41 Id. art. 21. 

42 Id. art. 21(sole para.). 

43 Id. art. 25. 

44 Id. art. 29. 

45 CÓDIGO PENAL, Decreto-Lei No. 2.848, de 7 de Dezembro de 1940, art. 163, http://www.planalto.gov.br/ 

ccivil_03/Decreto-Lei/Del2848compilado.htm, archived at https://perma.cc/V8NX-ZFL5. 

46 Id. art. 163(sole para.). 
Protection of Indigenous Heritage: Brazil 

The Law Library of Congress 42

Destroying, rendering unusable, or damaging something that is registered by the competent 

authority due to its artistic, archaeological, or historical value is punishable with detention from six 

months to two years and a fine.47 To change the aspect of a place specially protected by law without 

the license of the competent authority is punishable with detention from one month to one year or 

a fine.48

In the cases provided for in articles 163(IV) and 164 of the Penal Code, a criminal complaint 

(queixa) is required.49

D. Environmental Law

Law No. 9,605 of February 12, 1998, provides for criminal and administrative sanctions derived 

from conduct and activities harmful to the environment. Article 62 states that destroying, 

rendering useless or damaging an asset especially protected by law, administrative act, or judicial 

decision, or an archive, registry, museum, library, gallery, scientific installation, or similar place 

protected by law, administrative act, or judicial decision, is punishable with imprisonment from 

one to three years and a fine.50

Article 63 determines that to change the aspect or structure of a building or place specially 

protected by law, administrative act, or judicial decision, due to its landscape, ecological, tourist, 

artistic, historical, cultural, religious, archaeological, ethnographic, or monumental value, 

without authorization of the competent authority or in disagreement with a granted permit 

subjects the offender to imprisonment from one to three years and a fine.51

In addition, to promote construction on nonbuildable land or its surroundings, considered as 

such because of its landscape, ecological, artistic, tourist, historical, cultural, religious, 

archaeological, ethnographic, or monumental value, without the authorization of the competent 

authority or in disagreement with a granted permit is punishable with detention from six months 

to one year and a fine.52

III. National Historic and Artistic Heritage Institute 

The National Historic and Artistic Heritage Institute (Instituto do Patrimônio Histórico e 

Artístico Nacional, IPHAN) is a federal agency subordinated to the Ministry of Culture that is 

responsible for the preservation of the Brazilian cultural heritage.53 IPHAN is in charge of 

 

47 Id. art. 165. 

48 Id. art. 166. 

49 Id. art. 167. 

50 Lei No. 9.605, de 12 de Fevereiro de 1998, art. 62, http://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/LEIS/L9605.htm, 

archived at https://perma.cc/VU29-9M8K. 

51 Id. art. 63. 

52 Id. art. 64. 

53 O Iphan, INSTITUTO DO PATRIMÔNIO HISTÓRICO E ARTÍSTICO NACIONAL, http://portal.iphan.gov.br/pagina/ 

detalhes/872 (last visited Feb. 25, 2019), archived at https://perma.cc/JUP8-MHDV. 
Protection of Indigenous Heritage: Brazil 

The Law Library of Congress 43

protecting and promoting the country’s cultural assets, ensuring its permanence and enjoyment 

for present and future generations.54

IV. Indian National Foundation 

The Indian National Foundation (Fundação Nacional do Indio, FUNAI) is the official indigenist 

organ of the country. FUNAI was created by Law No. 5,371 of December 5, 1967,55 is subordinated 

to the Ministry of Justice, and is the coordinator and main executor of the federal government’s 

indigenous policy. Its institutional mission is to protect and promote the rights of indigenous 

peoples in Brazil.56

Indigenous policies,57 the initiatives prepared by the different agencies of the Brazilian 

government regarding the indigenous populations, are guided by indigenism (indigenismo), a set 

of principles established from the contact of indigenous peoples with the national society.58

V. Conclusions 

A. Protection of Sacred Places of Indigenous People 

The Brazilian legal framework discussed above does not include legislation specifically 

protecting sacred places of indigenous people, their graves, and artifacts belonging to native 

people found in the course of land use or excavations. Instead, the legislation covers the 

protection of national historical and artistic heritage of the country and its archeological and 

prehistoric monuments as a whole.59 Apparently, protection of indigenous art and materials 

discovered in archeological excavations, including bodies, places of worship, and arts of native 

people would fall under the same broad concept of protection. 

B. Management of Discoveries 

In regard to the management of discoveries made in the course of land development and use, as 

stated in articles 1 and 2(c) of Law No. 3,924, archaeological or prehistoric monuments of any 

 

54 Id. 

55 Lei No. 5.371, de 5 de Dezembro de 1967, http://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/LEIS/1950-1969/ 

L5371.htm, archived at https://perma.cc/99TJ-ZV29. 

56 Quem Somos, FUNDAÇÃO NACIONAL DO INDIO, http://www.funai.gov.br/index.php/quem-somos (last 

visited Feb. 25, 2019), archived at https://perma.cc/8PKG-25QF. 

57 Política Indigenista, FUNDAÇÃO NACIONAL DO INDIO, http://www.funai.gov.br/index.php/nossas-acoes/ 

politica-indigenista (last visited Feb. 25, 2019), archived at https://perma.cc/NJQ7-ADQG. 

58 Política Indigenista, MUSEU DO INDIO, http://www.museudoindio.gov.br/educativo/pesquisa-escolar/241-

politica-indigenista (last visited Feb. 25, 2019), archived at https://perma.cc/Q854-6BW3. 

59 See discussion above (Part II(B)) of Decree-Law No. 25 of November 30, 1937 (Part II(A)) and Law No. 3,924 

of July 26, 1961. 
Protection of Indigenous Heritage: Brazil 

The Law Library of Congress 44

nature existing in the national territory and all the elements that are in them are under the guard 

and protection of the public power.60

1. Preservation Measures 

The fortuitous discovery of any elements of archaeological or prehistoric, historical, artistic, or 

numismatic interest must immediately be communicated to the Directorate of National Historical 

and Artistic Patrimony or to the authorized official bodies, by the author of the find or by the owner 

of the property where the discovery occurred.61 The owner or occupant of the property where the 

finding was verified is responsible for the temporary conservation of the thing discovered, until 

deliberation of and a pronouncement by the National Historic and Artistic Patrimony Board.62 

2. Recognition as Cultural Patrimony 

It appears that the definition of “archaeological or prehistoric monuments” contained in article 2 

of Law No. 3,924 (see discussion, Part II(B), above) could be used to recognize such discoveries 

as objects of cultural patrimony of indigenous people.63 

3. Finding of Native People’s Remains 

The researched legislation does not specifically define or determine any specific protocol to be 

followed in connection with the finding of native people’s human remains and/or cultural items. 

The mentioned provision, which determine that findings must be communicated to the 

appropriate authorities and preserved, would most likely be applicable to this situation.64 

4. Relocation of Cemetery of Native People or Ruins of Their Temple 

According to article 3 of Law No. 3,924, the economic exploitation, destruction, or mutilation, for 

any purpose, of archaeological or prehistoric deposits are prohibited, as well as of the sites, 

inscriptions, and objects enumerated in items (a), (c), and (d) of article 2 of Law No. 3,924 (see 

discussion, Part II(B)(2), and (3), above), before being properly researched. Previous unexpired 

concessions for such exploitation must be respected.65 

Article 3 of Law No. 3,924 implies that before a decision is made about destruction or preservation 

of archeological sites, research must first be undertaken. However, the legislation is silent in 

regard to how to preserve such a site. 

 

 

60 Law No. 3,924, supra note 21, arts. 1, 2(c). 

61 Id. art. 18. 

62 Id. art. 18(sole para.). 

63 Id. art. 2. 

64 Id. art. 18. 

65 Id. art. 3. 
Protection of Indigenous Heritage: Brazil 

The Law Library of Congress 45

5. Legal Treatment of Sites 

The legislation does not make any distinction regarding the ownership of the land where graves 

and artifacts are found. The Constitution determines that archeological and prehistoric sites66

and lands traditionally occupied by Indians67 are the property of the Union. Furthermore, Law 

No. 3,924 establishes that ownership of the site does not include archaeological or prehistoric 

deposits, nor the objects incorporated into them.68

6. Unauthorized Disturbance 

It appears that the disturbance of the protected, sacred places of indigenous people would fall 

within the scope of article 17 of Law No. 3,924, which determines that any act that destroys or 

mutilates the archeological or prehistoric monuments referred to in article 2 of Law No. 3,924 (see 

Part II(B)(2), above) must be considered a crime against the national patrimony and, as such, is 

punishable in accordance with the provisions of criminal laws69 (see Parts II(C) and (D), above). 

7. National Policy 

FUNAI is the coordinator and main executor of the federal government’s indigenous policy.70 

The Constitution of 1988, recognized Indians’ rights to their social organization, customs, 

languages, beliefs, and traditions, and their original rights over the lands they traditionally 

occupy.71 Indians also expanded their citizenship rights and now are legitimate parties to defend 

their rights and interests in court.72 Thus, the main objective of indigenous policy today is the 

preservation of indigenous cultures, through the guarantee of their lands and the development 

of educational and sanitary activities.73

 

66 C.F. art. 20(X). 

67 Id. art. 20(XI). 

68 Law No. 3,924, supra note 20, art. 1(sole para.). 

69 Id. art. 5. 

70 Quem Somos, FUNDAÇÃO NACIONAL DO INDIO, supra note 56. 

71 Política Indigenista, MUSEU DO INDIO, supra note 58. 

72 Id. 

73 Id. 
The Law Library of Congress 46 

Canada 

Tariq Ahmad 

Foreign Law Specialist

SUMMARY Canada does not have federal legislation similar to the Native American Graves 

Protection and Repatriation Act in the US. There is little legislation at the federal level 

for the protection and preservation of heritage sites and objects including burial sites. 

Rather, most heritage protection and preservation legislation has been enacted by 

provincial and territorial governments. Each province and territory has developed 

heritage legislation and policies that address issues of protecting and preserving 

cultural heritage. In British Columbia, for example, heritage and archaeological 

conservation and protection is regulated mainly by the Heritage Conservation 

Act (HCA).

I. Introduction 

Though Canada has a “similar indigenous prevalence of archaeological sites” as the US and 

“concern for ancient burials,” the country does not have comparable federal legislation to the 

Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA).1 Indeed, Canada is the 

only “G8-nations member lacking comprehensive federal cultural heritage resource 

management legislation.“2 The federal government provides “little legislative protection for 

heritage structures or sites.”3 Instead, Canada has taken a multifaceted approach to the 

protection of indigenous heritage that involves federal, provincial, and territorial initiatives, with 

the provinces being the key legislators in the area. 

Sections 91 & 92 of the Constitution Act, 18674 articulate the jurisdictional division of 

responsibilities between the federal and provincial governments, stipulating that “Indians, and 

Lands reserved for the Indians” fall exclusively under the federal domain,5 while matters related 

to “The Management and Sale of the Public Lands belonging to the Province,” “Local Works and 

 

1 Jerome S. Cybulski, Canada, in THE ROUTLEDGE HANDBOOK OF ARCHAELOGICAL HUMAN REMAINS AND 

LEGISLATION 526-27 (Nicholas Marquez-Grant & Linda Fibiger eds., 2011). 

2 D. Pokotylo & A.R. Mason, Canada: Cultural Heritage Management, in ENCYCLOPEDIA OF GLOBAL ARCHAEOLOGY 

1104 (Smith C., ed., Springer, New York, NY, 2014), https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/978-1-

4419-0465-2_1147.pdf, archived at https://perma.cc/7ZMN-2KD4. 

3 Heritage Legislation: An Overview, VANCOUVER HERITAGE FOUNDATION, https://www.vancouverheritage 

foundation.org/learn-with-us/policies-by-laws/heritage-legislation-an-overview/ (lasted visited Feb. 28, 

2019), archived at https://perma.cc/D2P5-TGF8. 

4 Constitution Act, 1867, 30 & 31 Victoria, c. 3 (U.K.), https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/Const/FullText.html, 

archived at https://perma.cc/EU7S-N58M. 

5 Id. § 91(24). 
Protection of Indigenous Heritage: Canada 

The Law Library of Congress 47

Undertakings,” and “Generally all Matters of a merely local or private Nature in the Province” 

all fall within the jurisdiction of the provinces.6

Section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 provides constitutional protection to treaty and 

aboriginal rights: 

35. (1) The existing aboriginal and treaty rights of the aboriginal peoples of Canada are 

hereby recognized and affirmed. 

Definition of “aboriginal peoples of Canada” 

(2) In this Act, “aboriginal peoples of Canada” includes the Indian, Inuit and Métis peoples 

of Canada. 

Land claims agreements

(3) For greater certainty, in subsection (1) “treaty rights” includes rights that now exist by 

way of land claims agreements or may be so acquired. 

Aboriginal and treaty rights are guaranteed equally to both sexes

(4) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, the aboriginal and treaty rights 

referred to in subsection (1) are guaranteed equally to male and female persons.7

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms,8 the Canadian version of the US Bill of Rights, 

states as follows: 

25. The guarantee in this Charter of certain rights and freedoms shall not be construed so 

as to abrogate or derogate from any aboriginal, treaty or other rights or freedoms that 

pertain to the aboriginal peoples of Canada including 

(a) any rights or freedoms that have been recognized by the Royal Proclamation of 

October 7, 1763; and 

(b) any rights or freedoms that now exist by way of land claims agreements or may be 

so acquired.9

Finally, section 27 of the Constitution Act, 1982 stipulates that “[t]his Charter shall be interpreted 

in a manner consistent with the preservation and enhancement of the multicultural heritage 

of Canadians.”10

 

6 Id. § 92. 

7 Constitution Act, 1982, § 35, https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/Const/page-16.html#docCont (footnote in 

original omitted), archived at https://perma.cc/AFZ6-XP9J. 

8 Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Part I of the Constitution Act, 1982, being Schedule B to the 

Canada Act, 1982, c. 11 (U.K.), https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/const/page-15.html, archived at

https://perma.cc/YC4X-26PK. 

9 Id. § 25 (footnote in original omitted). 

10 Constitution Act, 1982, § 27.
Protection of Indigenous Heritage: Canada 

The Law Library of Congress 48

In terms of international obligations, Canada is a party to the Convention Concerning the 

Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage (the World Heritage Convention) and 

acceded to the Convention on July 23, 1976.11 Canada is also a party to the Convention for the 

Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict12 and the Convention on the 

Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of 

Cultural Property.13

While comprehensive legislation is lacking at the federal level, the federal government has been 

active in a federal/provincial/territorial collaboration to establish standards and guidelines for 

heritage preservation, as the discussion below illustrates. 

II. Standards and Guidelines for Conservation of Historic Places 

 

The Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada14 is a federal, 

provincial, and territorial collaboration “to regulate and guide heritage conservation and its 

related processes as a standard for policymakers, planners, and jurisdictions to follow in order to 

recognize, manage, and conserve historic places in Canada.”15 It directs the actions of Parks 

Canada to “ensure the sustainable conservation of cultural resources at the protected heritage 

places it administers.”16 

According to the Standards and Guidelines, 

[c]ulturally sensitive places are defined here as officially recognized places that have been 

given special meaning by a group or a community. Those places can include burial 

grounds, above-ground burials, abandoned cemeteries and other sites that may have 

cultural or spiritual value to a community. Each province or territory has its own 

 

11 Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage, Dec. 17, 1975, 15511 

U.N.T.S. 1037, https://treaties.un.org/Pages/showDetails.aspx?objid=08000002800fece0&clang=_en, archived 

at https://perma.cc/3DDS-TFE4 ; States Parties Ratification Status, WORLD HERITAGE CONVENTION, 

https://whc.unesco.org/en/statesparties/, archived at https://perma.cc/Z6A5-BBJL. 

12 Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict, Aug. 7, 1956, 3511 

U.N.T.S. 249, https://treaties.un.org/Pages/showDetails.aspx?objid=0800000280145bac&clang=_en, archived at

https://perma.cc/FEY4-XL92. 

13 Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of 

Ownership of Cultural Property, April 24, 1972, 3511 U.N.T.S. 249, https://treaties.un.org/Pages/show 

Details.aspx?objid=08000002801170ec&clang=_en, archived at https://perma.cc/RB3P-M23A. 

14 STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES FOR THE CONSERVATION OF HISTORIC PLACES IN CANADA (2d ed. 2010), 

https://www.historicplaces.ca/media/18072/81468-parks-s+g-eng-web2.pdf, archived at

https://perma.cc/X54P-GD9L. 

15 Julia Catherine Marie Stevens, Indigenous Intangible Cultural Heritage: Towards an Indigenous Approach to 

Canadian Heritage Management and Planning 21 (M.A. Thesis, University of Waterloo, 2017), https://core.ac. 

uk/download/pdf/144150410.pdf, archived at https://perma.cc/7QAQ-TRFH. 

16 HOUSE OF COMMONS, REPORT OF THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT,

PRESERVING CANADA’S HERITAGE: THE FOUNDATION FOR TOMORROW 9 (42nd Parl. 1st Sess., Dec. 2017), 

http://www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Committee/421/ENVI/Reports/RP9295003/envirp10/envirp10-

e.pdf, archived at https://perma.cc/5MA5-LF9E. 
Protection of Indigenous Heritage: Canada 

The Law Library of Congress 49

heritage/archaeology/cemetery statutes that relate to burial sites and human remains. In 

addition, some settled land claims agreements set out obligations related to burial sites and 

human remains. It is best practice to inform, and in some cases mandatory to consult, the 

local and/or culturally affiliated Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal communities before 

visiting or intervening on a culturally sensitive place, or before removing human remains 

and funerary objects considered archaeological.17

Section 4.2.8 (“Culturally-Sensitive Places”) of the Guidelines “provide direction when an 

archaeological site is considered to be, or is located in, a culturally-sensitive place.”18 The 

Guidelines define “culturally-sensitive places” as “formally recognized places that have been 

given special meaning by a group or a community. These places include burial grounds, aboveground burials, and abandoned cemeteries, Aboriginal spiritual places, such as medicine wheels 

and effigies, and other sites that may have spiritual value for a community.”19 According to 

the Guidelines 

[c]ulturally-sensitive places deserve a separate section in these guidelines because 

their heritage value most often resides in their cultural, social and spiritual 

significance. The heritage value of culturally sensitive places is not always 

proportional to the extent or state of their physical remains. Therefore, great 

sensitivity is required so that conservation strategies preserve the associated 

values of these places, even when there is little tangible evidence on or in the 

ground. These types of archaeological sites can be found in many contexts, in 

urban as well as natural environments. If human remains are discovered, all 

activities must stop, and the proper authorities must be contacted. Any action on 

human remains should only be performed according to provincial and territorial 

legislation and be supported by the affiliated community.20

The following are the general guidelines for preservation and rehabilitation in culturally sensitive 

places as set forth in section 4.2.8 of the Guidelines: 

 

17 STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES FOR THE CONSERVATION OF HISTORIC PLACES IN CANADA, supra note 14, at 99. 

18 Id. § 4.2.8, at 122. 

19 Id. 

20 Id. 
Protection of Indigenous Heritage: Canada 

The Law Library of Congress 50

General Guidelines for Preservation and Rehabilitation

Recommended Not recommended 

1 Understanding the potentially sensitive nature 

of an archaeological site and its environment, for 

a group or community, before any intervention is 

undertaken. 

2 Protecting and preserving the landscape and its 

natural features that directly contribute to the 

site’s heritage value. 

3 Recording without disturbance the elements that 

contribute to the heritage value in consultation 

with the affiliated community. 

Recording the elements that contribute to 

the heritage value, using methods that 

disregard the sensitive nature of the sites. 

4 Stabilizing the character-defining elements, 

using methods that do not affect the site’s 

heritage value. 

5 Working with interested parties, particularly the 

affiliated community, to define acceptable 

activities at a culturally sensitive place. 

Allowing activities in culturally sensitive 

places, without notifying interested parties, 

resulting in negative impacts on the 

heritage value. 

6 Preserving the heritage value of a site by 

enabling a continued relationship between 

cultural groups and culturally-sensitive places, 

when this relationship contributes to the heritage 

value of the site. This includes access and use for 

rituals, ceremonies and traditional gatherings, 

while ensuring measures to 

protect heritage value are in place. The need to 

preserve the community’s relationship with the 

place should be balanced with the need to 

preserve the character-defining elements. 

7 Protecting the archaeological context of burials 

to preserve associated information. 

8 Removing, when appropriate, human remains 

with associated funerary objects and 

surrounding soil, with the support of the 

affiliated community and after documenting 

their position. 

Removing human remains without the 

support of the affiliated community, and 

without including information about 

context and location, such as soil, position, 

funerary objects, etc. 

Source: STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES FOR THE CONSERVATION OF HISTORIC PLACES IN CANADA § 4.2.8 at 123 (2d ed. 2010). 
Protection of Indigenous Heritage: Canada 

The Law Library of Congress 51

The Standards define a heritage or historic place as “a structure, building, group of buildings, 

district, landscape, archaeological site or other place in Canada that has been formally recognized 

for its heritage value.”21 According to a 2017 report this designation has been granted to about 

13,000 sites across the country by various levels of government.22

III. Federal Law 

A variety of federal laws may come into play with regard to the protection of indigenous 

heritage protection: 

 The Historic Sites and Monuments Act23 grants the Historic Sites and Monuments Board of 

Canada, a federal agency, with the power to “receive and consider recommendations 

respecting the marking or commemoration of historic places, the establishment of historic 

museums and the administration, preservation and maintenance of historic places and 

historic museums, and shall advise the Minister in carrying out his powers under this Act.”24

The Board has the “mandate to advise the Minister of Environment on the designation of 

national historic sites, heritage railway stations and heritage lighthouses.”25 The Board 

“evaluates applications for designating national historic places, heritage railway stations and 

heritage lighthouses. Archaeological sites of potential national significance will be referred to 

the Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada for consideration.”26

 The Parks Canada Agency Act27 stipulates that the Parks Canada Agency (or Parks Canada) 

is the federal agency responsible for the implementation “of policies of the Government of 

Canada that relate to national parks, national historic sites, national marine conservation 

areas, other protected heritage areas and heritage protection programs.”28 Parks Canada 

has the 

largest share of federal responsibilities related to heritage site conservation. It has direct 

stewardship of 171 national historic sites, 505 national heritage buildings, 10 heritage 

lighthouses, 6 Canadian heritage rivers and 12 world heritage sites. Around 20 other 

federal departments and agencies administer a total of 767 federal heritage buildings.29

 

21 STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES FOR THE CONSERVATION OF HISTORIC PLACES IN CANADA, supra note 14, at 5; see 

also Definitions and Heritage FAQs, HERITAGE BC, https://heritagebc.ca/resources/definitions-heritage-faqs/

(last visited Feb. 28, 2019), archived at https://perma.cc/6GL7-3ZTE. 

22 REPORT OF THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT, supra note 16, at 12. 

23 Historic Sites and Monuments Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. H-4, https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/H-4/Full 

Text.html, archived at https://perma.cc/TN6U-WSYL. 

24 Id. § 7. 

25 REPORT OF THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT, supra note 16, at 13. 

26 Id. at 16. 

27 Parks Canada Agency Act, S.C. 1998, c. 31, https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/p-0.4/FullText.html, 

archived at https://perma.cc/Y9HU-FVAU. 

28 Id. § 6(1). 

29 REPORT OF THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT, supra note 16, at 15. 
Protection of Indigenous Heritage: Canada 

The Law Library of Congress 52

Parks Canada manages cultural resources using its Cultural Resource Management 

Policy.30 The purpose of this policy is “to ensure that its requirements are effectively applied 

at our protected heritage places so that cultural resources are conserved and their heritage 

value is shared for the understanding, appreciation and enjoyment of present and 

future generations.”31 

 The Canada National Marine Conservation Areas Act32 provides that the Governor in Council 

“may make regulations ‘for the protection of cultural, historical and archaeological resources’ 

in marine conservation areas.”33

 The Department of Canadian Heritage “plays an important role in identifying, recognizing, 

protecting and presenting Canadian historic and natural sites, notably national parks, 

national historic sites, historic canals, heritage railway stations and federal heritage 

buildings.”34 The Department also “administers other heritage resource instruments, such as 

a policy framework for the protection of archaeological resources,” called the Archaeological 

Heritage Policy Framework.35

 Canada’s federal Criminal Code also plays a role in cultural heritage protection. Improper 

interference with human remains is an indictable offense under section 182 of the Code.36

 

IV. Provincial Laws 

A. Overview 

As noted above, most Canadian heritage protection and preservation legislation has been enacted 

by provincial and territorial governments. Each province and territory has “developed legislative 

and policy frameworks to address issues of cultural heritage and Indigenous relations amongst 

other responsibilities.”37 In Ontario, for example, heritage protection is regulated by the Ontario 

 

30 Parks Canada, Cultural Resource Management Policy (effective Jan. 1, 2013), https://www.pc.gc.ca/en/ 

docs/pc/poli/grc-crm, archived at https://perma.cc/Z8L8-859U. 

31 REPORT OF THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT, supra note 16, at 15. 

32 Canada National Marine Conservation Areas Act, S.C. 2002, c. 18, https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/ 

acts/c-7.3/FullText.html, archived at https://perma.cc/D7PS-HXVY. 

33 REPORT OF THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT, supra note 16, at 15.

34 CANADIAN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AGENCY, REFERENCE GUIDE ON PHYSICAL AND CULTURAL HERITAGE 

RESOURCES (1996), https://www.canada.ca/en/environmental-assessment-agency/services/policyguidance/reference-guide-physical-cultural-heritage-resources.html, archived at https://perma.cc/QK35-JV2S. 

35 Archaeological Heritage Policy Framework– 1990, PARKS CANADA, https://www.pc.gc.ca/en/docs/pc/poli/ 

arch (last updated Mar. 30, 2017), archived at https://perma.cc/WYC6-4HWQ. 

36 Human Remains, PARKS CANADA, https://www.pc.gc.ca/en/docs/r/pfa-fap/sec7/decouv_discov3 (last 

modified Mar. 30, 2017), archived at https://perma.cc/P8D7-WXFS. 

37 Stevens, supra note 15, at 54. 
Protection of Indigenous Heritage: Canada 

The Law Library of Congress 53

Heritage Act,38 while British Columbia it is protected under the Heritage Conservation Act. 

According to one article on cultural heritage in Canada, 

[a]ll provinces have enacted heritage conservation laws that control excavations affecting 

historical resources through a permit system, provide for the reporting, designation and 

protection of historical resources, and vest ownership of archaeological and other historical 

resources and sites discovered in or on provincial public (and in some instances private) 

lands in the provincial Crown.39

Another article provides the following summary of the provincial legal frameworks for heritage 

management in Canada: 

Each province and territory in Canada has cultural heritage protection legislation, and 

an administrative unit to implement and manage activities resulting from it. The 

administrative units charged with regulating work under these acts are situated in a 

variety of ministries or departments that often have a broader scope beyond cultural 

heritage. The basic principle of most of this legislation is to provide blanket protection 

for all cultural heritage remains and sites, on private or public property, recorded or not, 

and the use of permits or licenses to control any alterations to those sites. Although these 

laws vary, they share many common elements regarding the nature and kind of heritage 

resources protected, special protection provisions, control over the conduct of work, 

ownership and stewardship, management of impacts, and civil remedies for 

contravention. Penalties, which may include fines and/or incarceration, vary across the 

country with differentiation between individual and corporate violators.40

In regard to indigenous burial grounds and human remains a complex set of laws can apply, 

including heritage protection legislation, coroners legislation, and cemeteries legislation.41 

However, provincial cemeteries legislation in Canada is “designed only for modern (i.e., nonancient) designated burial grounds” and “therefore it is of no value in the preservation of most 

aboriginal burial grounds,” according to one source.42 Ontario and Prince Edward Island appear 

to be an exception where burial heritage protection is provided by their respective 

cemeteries legislation.43

In Canada, municipalities fall under the jurisdiction of provincial governments, and “[h]eritage 

management has increasingly fallen under the responsibility of municipalities in recent years as 

 

38 Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. O.18, https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90o18, archived at

https://perma.cc/AAA6-UN6D. 

39 Catherine Bell, Ownership and Trade of Aboriginal Cultural Heritage in Canada, in INTERNATIONAL TRADE IN 

INDIGENOUS CULTURAL HERITAGE: LEGAL AND POLICY ISSUES 379 (Christoph Beat Graber &Karolina Kuprecht 

eds., 2012). 

40 Pokotylo & Mason, supra note 2, at 1104. 

41 Human Remains, PARKS CANADA, supra note 36. 

42 Bruce Ziff & Melodie Hope, Unsitely: The Eclectic Regimes that Protect Aboriginal Cultural Places in Canada, in 

PROTECTION OF FIRST NATIONS CULTURAL HERITAGE: LAWS, POLICY, AND REFORM 189 (Catherine Bell & Robert 

Paterson eds., 2009). 

43 Bell, supra note 39, at 379. 
Protection of Indigenous Heritage: Canada 

The Law Library of Congress 54

provinces transfer responsibilities due to budgetary constraints and lack of political interest.”44

Municipalities have the power to pass “bylaws that pertain to the heritage management of 

heritage buildings, districts, and even cultural landscapes.”45 

B. The British Columbia Example 

In British Columbia, heritage and archaeological conservation and protection is regulated mainly 

by the Heritage Conservation Act (HCA).46 The HCA provides “for the protection of British 

Columbia’s archaeological resources, covering sites dated before 1846” and “apply whether sites 

are located on public or private land.”47 The Archaeology Branch of the British Columbia 

Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations “encourages and facilitates the 

protection, conservation and public appreciation of British Columbia’s unique archaeological 

resources under the Heritage Conservation Act.”48

Archaeological or heritage sites or objects are protected through designation as “Provincial 

heritage sites” or “Provincial heritage objects (section 9), or “through automatic protection by 

virtue of being of particular historic or archaeological value (section 13).”49 

 “Heritage object” under the Act means “whether designated or not, personal property that 

has heritage value to British Columbia, a community or an aboriginal people.” 

 “Heritage site” means “whether designated or not, land, including land covered by water, 

that has heritage value to British Columbia, a community or an aboriginal people.” 

 “Heritage value” means “the historical, cultural, aesthetic, scientific or educational worth or 

usefulness of a site or object.”50 

One exception to this designation regime is Ontario’s Cemeteries Act, which “governs the 

management of land containing human remains, including those that have not been approved or 

consented to as a cemetery.”51

 

44 Stevens, supra note 15, at 60. 

45 Id. at 64. 

46 Heritage Conservation Act [RSBC 1996] Ch. 187, http://www.bclaws.ca/civix/document/id/complete/ 

statreg/96187_01#part1, archived at https://perma.cc/ZM8D-WN8Y. 

47 Permits and Permitting, BRITISH COLUMBIA MINISTRY OF FORESTS, LANDS, NATURAL RESOURCE OPERATIONS AND 

RURAL DEVELOPMENT, https://www.for.gov.bc.ca/archaeology/archaeology_professionals/permits.htm (last 

visited Feb. 28, 2019), archived at. 

48 About the Branch, BRITISH COLUMBIA MINISTRY OF FORESTS, LANDS, NATURAL RESOURCE OPERATIONS AND RURAL 

DEVELOPMENT, https://www.for.gov.bc.ca/archaeology/about.htm (lasted visited Feb. 28, 2019), archived at

https://perma.cc/7E52-B88K. 

49 Permits and Permitting, supra note 47.

50 Heritage Conservation Act, § 1. 

51 Ziff & Hope, supra 42, at 189. 
Protection of Indigenous Heritage: Canada 

The Law Library of Congress 55

Staff of the Archeology Branch “authorize archaeological work throughout the province by 

means of a permit system.”52 According to BC’s Ministry of Forests, Lands, Natural Resource 

Operations and Rural Development website, 

[p]rotected archaeological sites may not be altered, i.e. changed in any manner, without a 

permit issued by the Minister or designate. The HCA affords considerable discretionary 

authority in determining if, and under what conditions, such permits are to be granted 

(sections 12 and 14).53 

The Archeology Branch also “maintains a provincial heritage registry of all known archaeological 

sites, heritage sites and objects, heritage wrecks and other types of sites.”54

Section 4 of the Act allows the Province to “enter into a formal agreement with a first nation with 

respect to the conservation and protection of heritage sites and heritage objects that represent the 

cultural heritage of the aboriginal people who are represented by that first nation.”55 The 

Archaeology Branch has entered into various agreements56 with First Nations and other 

provincial agencies. According to BC’s Ministry of Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operations 

and Rural Development website: 

[t]hese agreements are used to clarify responsibilities of each group and, in the case of First 

Nations, to provide a more formal role in archaeological resource management. The 

Heritage Conservation MOU highlights the importance of heritage protection and 

conservation during development projects and resource extraction. It establishes processes 

to effectively share information between the Province and Treaty 8 First Nations and 

enables the participation of Treaty 8 First Nations in heritage conservation.57

In 1994, the Heritage Conservation Statute Amendment Act “enabled municipal powers to 

protect local heritage from alteration or destruction. The Vancouver Charter was amended to 

improve regulations for heritage structures and sites.”58

 

52 About the Branch, supra note 48. 

53 Permits and Permitting, supra note 47. 

54 About the Branch, supra note 48. 

55 Heritage Conservation Act, § 4(1). 

56 Agreements, BRITISH COLUMBIA MINISTRY OF FORESTS, LANDS, NATURAL RESOURCE OPERATIONS AND RURAL 

DEVELOPMENT, https://www.for.gov.bc.ca/archaeology/legislation_agreements_policies_guidelines_ 

bulletins/agreements.htm, (lasted visited Feb. 28, 2019), archived at https://perma.cc/S4LH-A7E8. 

57 Id. 

58 Heritage Legislation: An Overview, VANCOUVER HERITAGE FOUNDATION, https://www.vancouverheritage 

foundation.org/learn-with-us/policies-by-laws/heritage-legislation-an-overview/(lasted visited Feb. 28, 

2019), archived at https://perma.cc/ZJB5-TGFS. 
Protection of Indigenous Heritage: Canada 

The Law Library of Congress 56

1. Heritage Designation 

Heritage designation of sites and objects by the Lieutenant Governor are done under section 9 of 

the Act according to the procedure stipulated under section 10. Before a designation can be made, 

the minister must serve a notice of proposed designation to the following persons: 

(a) in the case of land, 

(i) all persons who, according to the records of the land title office, have a 

registered interest in the land to be designated, 

(ii) the local government or local governments having jurisdiction over the land 

to be designated, and 

(iii) the first nation or first nations within whose traditional territory the land to 

be designated lies; 

(b) in the case of objects, 

(i) the person who has possession of the object, 

(ii) all parties who, according to the records of the personal property registry 

established under the Personal Property Security Act, have a registered interest 

in the object, and 

(iii) any other person or party who, in the opinion of the minister, is or may be 

the owner of the object or has or may have a proprietary interest in the object; 

(c) any other prescribed person.59

A person or party served with notice may “serve the minister with a notice of objection to the 

proposed designation within 30 days after receiving the notice of the proposed designation.”60

 

On receiving a notice of objection, “the minister must review the objection and may then amend 

or cancel the proposed designation as the minister considers appropriate.61” Before a designation 

is made, the minister must 

advise the Lieutenant Governor in Council if any notice of objection to the proposed 

designation has been received and, if so received, provide the Lieutenant Governor in 

Council with a copy of each notice of objection received, the results of the review of the 

notice or notices of objection and the terms and conditions of any amendment to the 

proposed designation.62 

Subsequently the Act stipulates that, 

(5) Within 30 days after 

(a) the minister cancels a proposed designation, 

(b) the Lieutenant Governor in Council makes a designation, or 

(c) the Lieutenant Governor in Council decides not to make a designation, 

 

59 Heritage Conservation Act, § 10(1). 

60 Id. § 10(2). 

61 Id. § 10(3). 

62 Id. § 10(4). 
Protection of Indigenous Heritage: Canada 

The Law Library of Congress 57

the minister must serve notice on the persons entitled to notice under subsection (1) that a 

designation has or has not been made.63

If a designation made under section 9 “causes, or will cause at the time of designation, a reduction 

in the market value of the designated property,” the government must compensate an owner of 

the designated property who makes an application, and “the compensation must be in an amount 

or in a form the minister and the owner agree on or, failing an agreement, in an amount or in a 

form determined by binding arbitration.”64

Section 23(1) of the Act grants the Lieutenant Governor in Council to pursuant to an order 

“designate a heritage site on Crown land as a Provincial heritage property and the Provincial 

heritage property includes the collection of accessioned artifacts associated with that 

heritage site.”65 

2. Permits 

The Director of the Archaeology Branch and the Manager, Permitting and Assessment Section, 

“have been authorized to exercise the powers of the Minister to issue permits under sections 12(2) 

and 14(2), as well as ministerial orders under section 14(4) where necessary for emergency 

conservation purposes.”66

a. Heritage Inspection and Heritage Investigation Permits 

Heritage Inspection and Heritage Investigation Permits are issued pursuant to section 14 of the 

HCA “subsequent to Branch review.” Section 14(1) of the Act stipulates that “[a] person must 

not excavate or otherwise alter land for the purpose of archaeological research or searching for 

artifacts of aboriginal origin except under a permit or order issued under this section.”67 The 

objective of a heritage inspection is to “assess the archaeological significance of land or other 

property. In this regard, the inspection determines the presence of archaeological sites which 

warrant protection, or are already protected, under the HCA.“68 

Archaeological impact assessment studies are required where potential conflicts have been 

identified between archaeological resources and a proposed development. 

Sites are located and recorded, and site significance is evaluated to assess the nature and 

extent of expected impacts. The assessment includes recommendations to manage the 

expected impact of property development on the site. 

 

63 Id. § 10(5). 

64 Id. § 11(1). 

65 Id. § 23(1). 

66 Found Human Remains, BRITISH COLUMBIA MINISTRY OF FORESTS, LANDS, NATURAL RESOURCE OPERATIONS AND 

RURAL DEVELOPMENT, https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/industry/natural-resource-use/archaeology/ 

guidance-policy-tools/policy (lasted visited Feb. 28, 2019), archived at https://perma.cc/EE2M-TZ5G. 

67 Heritage Conservation Act, § 14(1). 

68 Permits and Permitting, supra note 47. 
Protection of Indigenous Heritage: Canada 

The Law Library of Congress 58

These recommendations may include: 

 Avoiding the site. 

 Recovering archaeological site information prior to land altering activities. 

 Monitoring for additional archaeological site information during land altering 

activities. 

Assessments require a heritage inspection permit issued by the branch. Permitted 

archaeological impact assessments are used to identify site locations, evaluate site 

significance and determine the magnitude of development related impact when sites 

cannot be avoided.69

A heritage investigation is “undertaken in order to recover information which might otherwise 

be lost as a result of site alteration or destruction.”70

b. Alteration Permits 

Alteration permits are issued under section 12 of the Act. The site alteration permit “authorizes 

the removal of residual archaeological deposits once the inspection and/or investigation are 

completed.”71 If a permit is issued, it 

(3) . . . may include requirements, specifications and conditions that the minister considers 

appropriate and, without limiting the generality of this, the permit may 

(a) be limited to a specified period of time or to a specified location, 

(b) require the holder of the permit to consult with or obtain the consent of one 

or more parties whose heritage the property represents or may represent, 

(c) require the holder of the permit to provide the minister with reports 

satisfactory to the minister, and 

(d) specify a repository for heritage objects that are removed from the 

heritage property. 72

The branch requires fifteen days to review permit applications where no further information or 

clarification is needed.73 In addition, between fifteen and thirty days is also required in order to 

provide an “opportunity for those who may be affected by a permitting decision (e.g., First 

Nations) to have their comments considered.”74

 

69 What an Archaeological Impact Assessment Entails, BRITISH COLUMBIA MINISTRY OF FORESTS, LANDS, NATURAL 

RESOURCE OPERATIONS AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT, https://www.for.gov.bc.ca/archaeology/preservation_ 

process/ archaeological_impact_assessment.htm (lasted visited Feb. 28, 2019), archived at https://perma.cc/ 

CS6H-7MKV. 

70 Permits and Permitting, supra note 47. 

71 Id.

72 Heritage Conservation Act, § 12(3). 

73 Permits and Permitting, supra note 47. 

74 Id.
Protection of Indigenous Heritage: Canada 

The Law Library of Congress 59

c. Consultation and Balancing Interests 

Catherine Bell, professor of Aboriginal law at the University of Alberta, notes that “absent from 

the HCA and other provincial statutes,” but contained in some agreements with First Nations, “is 

an express and mandatory duty for the provinces to consult and accommodate [the] interest of 

First Nations before issuing heritage inspection, investigation or site alteration permits for 

protected sites.”75 However, “some consultation before issuing permits occurs as a matter of 

provincial policy”:76

An important decision in B.C. was the Nanoose case in which the Nanoose First National 

opposed development of a condominium complex and a sewage facility on land where a 

burial ground and village site were located. Applying principles of procedural fairness, 

the court held the Minister was required to give notice of impending issuance of permits 

and that affected First Nations had a right to be heard. Following this litigation, in the late 

1990s the B.C. Archaeological Branch adopted a policy to notify and consider comments 

from First Nations ‘known to assert a traditional interest in the area of the 

proposed activities.’77

. . . 

If a permit under the HCA authorizes damage or alteration and is the only permit that can 

do this, the duty to consult is clearly triggered. The example given by the BCCA in Lax 

Kw’alaams is a First Nation claiming Aboriginal title to a burial site on privately owned 

land, an owner wishing to build a house on that land, and no other statute or ministry is 

involved. At the very least in these circumstances consultation and accommodation are 

required. However, this obligation is not mandated or clear under B.C. and other 

provincial heritage legislation for heritage sites located on private land, nor is the process 

mandated or clear when other permits may be required for private or public land and 

specific agreements with First Nations have not been entered.78

It should be noted that the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) has issued several decisions that 

Canadian governments have a constitutional duty to consult and, “if appropriate depending on 

the depth of consultation required, accommodate if actions taken adversely impact or have the 

potential to adversely impact heritage sites where Aboriginal rights or title are established or can 

be credibly asserted.”79 However, the constitutional duty to consult developed by SCC decisions 

are “concerned with treaty rights or Aboriginal title claims against Crown land, not private lands 

held by individuals or corporations.”80

 

 

75 Catherine Bell, First National Control over Archeological Sites: Contemporary Issues in Heritage Law, Policy and 

Practice, in COMPARATIVE LAW AND ANTHROPOLOGY 65 (James A.R. Nafziger, 2017). 

76 Id. at 66. 

77 Id.

78 Id. at 70. 

79 Id. at 64. 

80 Id. at 71. 
Protection of Indigenous Heritage: Canada 

The Law Library of Congress 60

Authorities balance interests in their decision-making process concerning permits: 

Balancing interests is also inherent in the process for issuing permits under provincial 

heritage conservation legislation that enables a provincial Minister or delegate to permit 

otherwise prohibited actions of alteration or destruction of a protected heritage site, such 

as those listed under B.C.’s description of heritage sites under the HCA, if the balance of 

interests weighs in favour of development. . . . However the challenge of reconciling 

Aboriginal land rights with private property interests has often resulted in balancing 

process weighing against preservation and the assumption in implementation of 

government heritage policy that site alteration permits will rarely be denied or 

development stopped.81

3. Heritage Protection 

 

The Act prohibits the destruction, excavation or alteration of archaeological sites without a 

permit. Pursuant to section 13(2)(b) of the HCA, a permit is required under section 12 or 14 before 

a person can undertake any actions affecting a burial place of historical or archaeological value, 

human remains or associated heritage objects: 

13 (1) Except as authorized by a permit issued under section 12 or 14, a person must not 

remove, or attempt to remove, from British Columbia a heritage object that is 

protected under subsection (2) or which has been removed from a site protected 

under subsection (2). 

 (2) Except as authorized by a permit issued under section 12 or 14, or an order issued 

under section 14, a person must not do any of the following: 

(a) damage, desecrate or alter a Provincial heritage site or a Provincial 

heritage object or remove from a Provincial heritage site or Provincial 

heritage object any heritage object or material that constitutes part of the 

site or object; 

(b) damage, desecrate or alter a burial place that has historical or 

archaeological value or remove human remains or any heritage object 

from a burial place that has historical or archaeological value; 

(c) damage, alter, cover or move an aboriginal rock painting or aboriginal 

rock carving that has historical or archaeological value; 

(d) damage, excavate, dig in or alter, or remove any heritage object from, a 

site that contains artifacts, features, materials or other physical evidence 

of human habitation or use before 1846; 

(e) damage or alter a heritage wreck or remove any heritage object from a 

heritage wreck; 

(f) damage, excavate, dig in or alter, or remove any heritage object from, an 

archaeological site not otherwise protected under this section for which 

identification standards have been established by regulation; 

(g) damage, excavate, dig in or alter, or remove any heritage object from, a 

site that contains artifacts, features, materials or other physical evidence 

of unknown origin if the site may be protected under paragraphs (b) to (f); 

(h) damage, desecrate or alter a site or object that is identified in a schedule 

under section 4 (4) (a); 

 

81 Id. at 74. 
Protection of Indigenous Heritage: Canada 

The Law Library of Congress 61

(i) damage, excavate or alter, or remove any heritage object from, a property 

that is subject to an order under section 14 (4) or 16.82

4. Other Measures 

Section 16 of the Act provides for temporary protection orders “[i]f the minister considers that 

property has or may have heritage value and is likely to be altered for any reason, the minister 

may issue, to a person or class of persons, a stop work order that prohibits any alteration of the 

property for a period of up to 120 days, subject to any requirements and conditions the minister 

considers appropriate.”83 

The minister also has other powers, including the power to purchase or acquire property: 

20 (1) To further the objects of this Act, the minister may do one or more of the following: 

(a) acquire, manage and conserve property or acquire an interest in property; 

(b) enter into agreements with a person, organization, local government, first 

nation or the government of Canada or of a province; 

(c) conduct and arrange exhibits or activities to inform and stimulate the 

interest of the public in any matter related to the purposes of this Act; 

(d) subject to a trust or agreement under which a property was obtained, 

dispose of the property and execute instruments required to effect the 

disposal; 

(e) receive, by donation, public subscription, devise, bequest or otherwise, 

money or property; 

(f) assist in or undertake research, study or publication respecting heritage 

conservation; 

(g) provide grants, advice and services to other parties having aims and 

objectives consistent with the purposes of this Act; 

(h) establish and maintain one or more inventories of heritage sites and 

heritage objects, including a list of heritage buildings for which the 

Alternate Compliance Methods of the British Columbia Building Code 

may apply. 

(2) Property acquired by the minister under this Act is the property of the government 

and title to the property may vest in the name of the government. 

(3) Despite the Land Act, property acquired by the minister under this Act may be 

dealt with by the minister under this Act.84

The minister can also intervene for purposes of preservation under section 21 of the Act: 

21 (1) If the minister considers that property protected under section 13 (2) is subject to 

damage or deterioration, the minister may order the owner, on terms and 

conditions that the minister considers appropriate, to preserve the property at the 

expenses of the government. 

 

82 Heritage Conservation Act, § 13. 

83 Id. § 16. 

84 Id. § 20. 
Protection of Indigenous Heritage: Canada 

The Law Library of Congress 62

(2) If the minister considers that property protected under section 13 (2) is subject to 

damage or deterioration and is being unreasonable neglected by the owner, the 

minister may order the owner, on terms and conditions and to specifications that 

the minister considers appropriate, to preserve the property at the expense of the 

owner or at the expense of the owner and the government on a cost sharing basis.85

Civil remedies, including injunctions to restrain persons from committing contraventions of the 

Act; government applications for restoration; or compliance orders are provided for under section 

34 of the Act, while offenses and penalties for persons and corporations are provided by section 

36 of the Act: 

36 (1) A person who does any of the following commits an offence: 

(a) contravenes section 13 (6), 14 (1) or (8) or a provision of the Park 

Act referred to in section 23 (2) as it applies to a Provincial heritage 

property; 

(b) fails to comply with or contravenes a requirement or condition of an order 

or permit under section 12 (2) (a), 14 (2) or (4), 16, 19 (2), 23 (2) or 34 (3); 

(c) contravenes a regulation made under section 23 (2) or 37 (2) (e); 

(d) contravenes section 13 (1) or (2). 

(2) A person convicted of an offence under subsection (1) (a) to (c) is liable to a fine of 

not more than $2 000 or to imprisonment for a term of not more than 6 months or 

to both. 

(3) A person convicted of an offence under subsection (1) (d) is liable, 

(a) if the person is an individual, to a fine of not more than $50 000 or to 

imprisonment for a term of not more than 2 years or to both, or 

(b) if the person is a corporation, to a fine of not more than $1 000 000. 

(4) If a corporation commits an offence under this Act, an employee, officer, director 

or agent of the corporation who authorized, permitted or acquiesced in the offence 

also commits the offence and is liable, 

(a) if it is an offence under subsection (1) (a) to (c), to the penalty set out in 

subsection (2), or 

(b) if it is an offence under subsection (1) (d), to the penalty set out in 

subsection (3) (a).86

 

5. Procedures Regarding Human Remains 

The following procedures will normally apply in cases where human remains are discovered 

“fortuitously through various land altering activities such as house renovations, road 

construction or natural erosion,” or “during archaeological studies conducted under 

an HCA permit”: 

 

 

85 Id. § 21. 

86 Id. § 36. 
Protection of Indigenous Heritage: Canada 

The Law Library of Congress 63

1. Fortuitous Discoveries 

In cases where the branch has been notified that human remains have been discovered by 

chance, the following procedures should normally apply: 

 the Coroner’s Office and local policing authority should be notified as soon as possible. 

 the Coroner’s Office should determine whether the matter is of contemporary forensic 

concern. The branch may provide information and advice that may assist in 

this determination. 

 if the Coroner’s Office determines the reported remains are not of forensic concern, the 

branch will attempt to facilitate disposition of the remains. 

 if a cultural affiliation for the remains can be reasonably determined, the branch will 

attempt to contact an organization representing that cultural group. 

 if remains are determined to be of aboriginal ancestry, the branch will attempt to 

contact the relevant First Nation(s). 

 generally, if remains are still interred and are under no immediate threat of further 

disturbance, they will not be excavated or removed. 

 if the remains have been partially or completely removed, the branch will 

facilitate disposition. 

 if removal of the remains is determined to be appropriate, they will be removed under 

authority of a permit issued pursuant to section 12 or 14, or an order under section 14 

of the HCA, respecting the expressed wishes of the cultural group(s) represented to the 

extent this may be known or feasible. 

 if circumstances warrant, the branch may arrange for a qualified physical 

anthropologist or an archaeologist with training in human osteology to provide an 

assessment of the reported remains in order to implement appropriate 

conservation measures. 

 analysis should be limited to basic recording and in-field observations until 

consultation between the branch and appropriate cultural group(s) has 

been concluded. 

2. Permitted Archaeological Projects 

In cases where human remains are encountered in the course of a permitted project, the 

Archaeology Branch should be contacted as soon as possible. 

 the remains are to be handled in accordance with the methods specified in the permit, 

respecting the expressed wishes of the cultural group(s) represented, to the extent that 

these may be known or feasible. 

 if the permit does not specify how remains are to be handled and if the cultural 

affiliation of the remains can be reasonably determined, the field director or permitholder should attempt to contact an organization representing that group. The permitholder or field director should advise the branch of the organization contacted, and 

any wishes expressed by that organization. 

 the branch, in consultation with the appropriate cultural group(s), will determine 

disposition of the remains. 
Protection of Indigenous Heritage: Canada 

The Law Library of Congress 64

 analysis should be limited to basic recording and in-field observations, until 

consultation between the branch and appropriate cultural group(s) has 

been concluded.87

6. Development Projects 

As noted earlier, the law requires a person to obtain a site alteration permit in order to develop 

within a protected archaeological site. To receive a site alteration permit, the Archaeology Branch 

“will need to know exactly where the archaeological site is located, the site significance, and how 

development will affect the site.” The Ministry provides an FAQ for property owners and 

developers that explains the archaeological impact assessment: 

This task, called an archaeological impact assessment, includes field work and is 

completed by a professional consulting archaeologist under Provincial authority. The 

archaeologist will work with you to develop options on how to manage impacts to the 

archaeological site. 

If development related damage to significant archaeological deposits cannot be avoided, 

it may be necessary to complete an archaeological excavation to recover the information 

that will be destroyed as a result of development. This work is completed under a separate 

permit by a professional consulting archaeologist. 

If the impact assessment results show that you are able to develop without affecting the 

archaeological site, you will not require a site alteration permit to proceed 

with development.88

The Provincial government has published a handbook, the British Columbia Archaeological Resource 

Management Handbook, which provides a summary of the Archaeological Impact Assessment and 

review process in British Columbia.89 This process applies “principally to development projects 

which, by virtue of their scale, location, extent of impact, administrative or jurisdictional 

complexity, or other factors, are subject to British Columbia’s environmental impact assessment 

and review processes.”90 The Ministry’s Archaeology website provides an overview of the 

investigative process: 

Archaeological impact assessment and review in British Columbia applies mainly to 

development projects that are subject to British Columbia's environmental impact 

 

87 Found Human Remains, supra note 66.

88 Property Owners and Developers Frequently Asked Question, BRITISH COLUMBIA MINISTRY OF FORESTS, LANDS,

NATURAL RESOURCE OPERATIONS AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT, https://www.for.gov.bc.ca/archaeology/ 

property_owners_and_developers/frequently_asked_questions.htm (lasted visited Feb. 28, 2019), archived at 

https://perma.cc/LB44-Q43Y. 

89 MINISTRY OF SMALL BUSINESS, TOURISM AND CULTURE, BRITISH COLUMBIA ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCE 

MANAGEMENT HANDBOOK (1990), https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/farming-natural-resources-andindustry/natural-resource-use/archaeology/forms-publications/archaeological_resource_management_ 

handbook.pdf, archived at https://perma.cc/62RS-G3VX. 

90 Id. 
Protection of Indigenous Heritage: Canada 

The Law Library of Congress 65

assessment and review processes. However, the same principles can also apply, with 

minor modification, to other developments. 

A particularly important characteristic of the process used in British Columbia is its 

flexibility. It is not intended as a “cookbook” approach to all development projects. 

Although certain categories of information are needed for decision making, each 

archaeological study must be tailored to meet specific project characteristics and needs. 

Representatives of the Archaeology Branch are available to meet with project proponents 

to provide project-specific clarification and interpretation of the process. Depending on the 

project, flexibility can be expected in the staging of impact assessment and management 

studies, the level of detail at which these studies are undertaken, and the 

reporting requirements. 

The role of the branch is not to prohibit or impede land use and development, but rather 

to assist the development industry, the province, regional authorities, and municipalities 

in making decisions leading to rational land use and development. 

When the benefits of a project outweigh the benefits of archaeological preservation, the 

branch will work with the proponent to determine how the project can go ahead with 

minimal archaeological resource loss. Where the loss of significant archaeological values 

cannot be avoided, the branch ensures that appropriate compensatory measures 

are implemented.91

V. Implementation and Effectiveness 

Some commentators have criticized the lack of strong federal legislation in this area and 

differential treatment of modern cemeteries and aboriginal burial sites. According to 

Professor Bell, 

Canadian heritage property law and practice seeks to balance constitutional obligations to 

Aboriginal peoples and various dimensions of heritage value with benefits derived from 

land and resource development; but heritage, scientific and Aboriginal rights and interests 

are frequently outweighed by economic and private property rationale. This situation can 

be contrasted to the treatment of burials situated in lands set aside and recognized as 

modern cemeteries and governed by legislation which appreciates their centrality to the 

culture and religious traditions of living people and anticipates ongoing access, care and 

preservation of burial places. Cemeteries may also be negatively impacted by 

development, but the legal and political process required to expropriate the land for a 

public benefit and disturb cemeteries is often more difficult and complex. In Canada this 

has resulted in Aboriginal people asserting rights of ownership and control to protect 

burial places and other significant heritage sites, engage in associated ceremonies and legal 

traditions, attract public support and draw particular attention to the ongoing connection 

of ancestral burial grounds to the human rights, culture and wellbeing of descendant 

communities. Heritage policy, practice and law reform more reflective of Indigenous laws 

 

91 Investigative Process – Overview, BRITISH COLUMBIA MINISTRY OF FORESTS, LANDS, NATURAL RESOURCE 

OPERATIONS AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT, https://www.for.gov.bc.ca/archaeology/preservation_ 

process/investigative_process.htm (last visited Feb. 28, 2019), archived at https://perma.cc/8PZB-RSLS. 
Protection of Indigenous Heritage: Canada 

The Law Library of Congress 66

and values are also at the forefront in modern treaty, land claim and selfgovernment negotiations.92

As noted, Canada lacks specific federal legislative framework recognizing and affirming broadbased indigenous cultural and intellectual property protection. Furthermore, provincial 

legislation in this area has proven to be deficient in recognizing and affirming indigenous culture 

and heritage, according to one commentator.93 

 

92 Bell, supra note 75, at 56. 

93 John Borrows, Policy Paper: Implementing Indigenous Self-determination through Legislation in Canada (Apr. 20, 

2017), http://www.afn.ca/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/2017-04-20-Implementing-Indigenous-selfdetermination-through-policy-legislation.pdf, archived at https://perma.cc/MR9M-3AVM. 
The Law Library of Congress 67

Mexico 

Gustavo Guerra 

Senior Foreign Law Specialist

I. Federal Law on Monuments and Archeological, Historic and Artistic Zones 

Mexican experts on archeology have indicated that in Mexico, there is no law comparable to the 

US NAGPRA.1 Instead, Mexico’s Federal Law on Monuments and Archeological, Historic and 

Artistic Zones (FLMAHAZ) provides that historic artifacts and human remains are to be managed 

exclusively by the Mexican State.2

 

Specifically, this Law states that human remains of individuals that belonged to civilizations that 

existed prior to the establishment of the Spanish civilization in national territory are the property 

of the Nation.3 Movable and immovable goods produced by those civilizations, as well as fossil 

remains of paleontological interest of native species, are subject to the same legal regime.4 

Movable archeological goods may not be transported or exhibited without authorization from 

Mexican authorities.5 Civil authorities must be notified of findings of archeological goods.6 

All projects aimed at discovering or researching archeological monuments must be either 

conducted directly by Mexico’s National Institute of Anthropology and History (INAH) or by 

scientific institutions duly authorized by INAH.7 Such authorizations determine the terms and 

conditions that apply to the aforementioned projects.8 

 

1 ELISA VILLALPANDO, LA APERTURA PARA VISITA PUBLICA DE CERRO DE TRINCHERAS, SONORA, reproduced in 48-II

ANALES DE ANTROPOLOGÍA 111, 117 (July 2014), http://www.revistas.unam.mx/index.php/antropologia/ 

article/view/46455, archived at https://perma.cc/B39Z-YYGW. See also LOURDES MARQUEZ ET AL., COLECCIONES 

ESQUELÉTICAS HUMANAS EN MÉXICO: EXCAVACIÓN, CATALOGACIÓN Y ASPECTOS NORMATIVOS 73-75 (2011). 

2 Id. See also Ley Federal Sobre Monumentos y Zonas Arqueológicos, Artísticos e Históricos [Federal Law on 

Monuments and Archeological, Historic and Artistic Zones], arts. 27, 28, DIARIO OFICIAL DE LA FEDERACIÓN

[D.O.F], May 6, 1972, available as amended through 2018 on the website of Mexico’s House of Representatives, 

at http://www.diputados.gob.mx/LeyesBiblio/pdf/131_160218.pdf, archived at https://perma.cc/WG72-

U9XX. 

3 Id.

4 Id. arts. 27, 28, 28 BIS. 

5 Id. art. 29. 

6 Id.

7 Id. arts. 30, 31. 

8 Id. art. 31. 
Protection of Indigenous Heritage: Mexico 

The Law Library of Congress 68

INAH has the authority to suspend projects that do not have proper authorization and those in 

which archeological materials are taken.9 In these instances, INAH may occupy the site where 

unauthorized operations have taken place and impose pertinent penalties.10 

II. Penalties 

The FLMAHAZ provides that imprisonment from three to ten years and a fine may be imposed 

on those who undertake archeological projects (be they through excavation, removal, or by any 

other means) without proper authorization from INAH.11 The same penalties may be imposed on 

those who transport or exhibit a movable archeological good without proper authorization,12 as 

well as to those who damage, alter, or destroy such types of goods.13

 

III. Public Policies 

A source specifically addressing whether the FLMAHAZ advances policies supporting the 

interests of native people could not be located. However, according to Mexico’s antidiscrimination government agency CONAPRED (Consejo Nacional para Prevenir la 

Discriminación), indigenous communities are affected by “structural discrimination,” as they 

have been historically relegated in a wide variety of aspects, including with regard to justice, 

education, health, and employment, despite public policies aimed at preventing precisely these 

issues.14 CONAPRED has indicated that government agencies do not have enough resources to 

properly serve these communities and that decision makers occasionally ignore their interests.15 

 

9 Id. art. 32. 

10 Id. 

11 Id. art. 47. 

12 Id. art. 49. 

13 Id. art. 52. 

14 CONAPRED, DISCRIMINACIÓN PUEBLOS Y COMUNIDADES INDÍGENAS, https://www.conapred.org.mx/index. 

php?contenido=pagina&id=109&id_opcion=42&op=42 (last visited Feb. 25, 2019), archived at

https://perma.cc/9F9B-K942. 

15 Id. 
The Law Library of Congress 69 

New Zealand 

Kelly Buchanan 

Foreign Law Specialist

SUMMARY Several New Zealand statutes contains specific references to, and protections for, Māori 

sacred areas and cultural artifacts. Two of the key statutes for the protection of areas of 

interest to Māori, the Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Act 2014 and the Resource 

Management Act 1991, refer to the Treaty of Waitangi of 1840 and provide for processes 

to involve Māori in decision making related to developments that could impact such 

areas. In addition, the Protected Objects Act 1975 regulates the handling of Māori 

artifacts and provides a process for determining ownership of such items, including 

collective ownership. These statutes can be seen in the context of legal developments 

regarding land and resource rights and a shift to a government policy of biculturalism 

that started in the 1970s and 1980s, with current Māori-government relations policies 

involving principles of partnership and a duty to act in good faith, as well as redress for 

past breaches of the Treaty. 

 Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga (HNZPT) guidance on the discovery of human 

remains states that anyone who discovers what appear to be Māori ancestral remains 

should contact the police, local public health units, HNZPT, and local Māori people 

with a connection to the relevant place. Different statutes could apply in this context, 

including those regulating archeological sites and burials. 

I. Legal Framework 

Various New Zealand laws and government entities are relevant in the protection and 

preservation of Māori sacred areas, cultural artifacts, and human remains. In practice, these laws 

and entities interact and there are certain protocols and guidelines in place for ensuring that 

appropriate measures are taken and that Māori are involved in decision-making processes.

A. Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Act 2014 

The Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Act 2014 (HNZPT Act),1 which replaced the Historic 

Places Act 1993, sets out the functions and powers of Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga 

(HNZPT), continues the role of the Māori Heritage Council, and defines certain terms and 

processes with respect to the protection of Māori sacred and historic sites.2

 

 

1 Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Act 2014 (HNZPT Act), http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/ 

2014/0026/latest/whole.html, archived at https://perma.cc/QR8X-3UK3. 

2 See Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Act – What’s New?, HERITAGE NEW ZEALAND POUHERE TAONGA

(HNZPT), http://www.heritage.org.nz/about-us/heritage-new-zealand-pouhere-taonga-act (last visited Jan. 

24, 2019), archived at https://perma.cc/E9HW-KLUG. 
Protection of Indigenous Heritage: New Zealand 

The Law Library of Congress 70

Under the Act, HNZPT is required to recognize certain principles in performing its functions: 

(a) the principle that historic places have lasting value in their own right and provide 

evidence of the origins of New Zealand’s distinct society; and 

(b) the principle that the identification, protection, preservation, and conservation of New 

Zealand’s historical and cultural heritage should— 

(i) take account of all relevant cultural values, knowledge, and disciplines; and 

(ii) take account of material of cultural heritage value and involve the least possible 

alteration or loss of it; and 

(iii) safeguard the options of present and future generations; and 

(iv) be fully researched, documented, and recorded, where culturally appropriate; 

and 

(c) the principle that there is value in central government agencies, local authorities, 

corporations, societies, tangata whenua, and individuals working collaboratively in 

respect of New Zealand’s historical and cultural heritage; and 

(d) the relationship of Māori and their culture and traditions with their ancestral lands, 

water, sites, wāhi tūpuna, wāhi tapu, and other taonga.3

The interpretation section of the Act defines several of the terms used above with respect to Māori 

culture and heritage, which are also relevant to this report: 

tangata whenua means, in relation to a particular place or area, the iwi [tribe] or hapū

[subtribe] that holds, or at any time has held, mana whenua [customary authority over a 

place or area] in relation to that place or area 

. . . 

wāhi tapu means a place sacred to Māori in the traditional, spiritual, religious, ritual, or 

mythological sense 

wāhi tapu area means land that contains 1 or more wāhi tapu 

wāhi tūpuna means a place important to Māori for its ancestral significance and associated 

cultural and traditional values, and a reference to wāhi tūpuna includes a reference, as the 

context requires, to— 

(a) wāhi tīpuna: 

(b) wāhi tupuna: 

(c) wāhi tipuna 

The word “taonga” can be defined as “treasure” or “anything prized”4 and is used in various 

New Zealand statutes in relation to items or features of significance to Māori. 

The HNZPT Act also includes a provision related to the Treaty of Waitangi, which was signed in 

1840 by representatives of the British Crown and Maori chiefs (see below, Part II). The HNZPT 

Act’s Treaty provision lists various sections of the Act that are intended to “recognise and respect 

the Crown’s responsibility to give effect” to the Treaty.5 This includes the appointment of at least 

three members of the board of HNZPT “who are qualified for appointment having regard to their 

knowledge of te ao Māori [the Māori world] and tikanga Māori [Māori customs or behavioral 

 

3 HNZPT Act s 4. 

4 See Taonga, MĀORI DICTIONARY, https://maoridictionary.co.nz/search?keywords=taonga (last visited Jan. 24, 

2019), archived at https://perma.cc/ZP64-JE9A. 

5 HNZPT Act s 7. 
Protection of Indigenous Heritage: New Zealand 

The Law Library of Congress 71

guidelines]”;6 the power of HNZPT to delegate functions and powers to the Māori Heritage 

Council, as well as the functions and powers of that Council with respect to the protection of wāhi 

tūpuna, wāhi tapu, wāhi tapu areas, historic places, and historic areas of interest to Māori;7 and 

sections that provide for “the measures that are appropriate to support processes and decisions 

relating to sites that are of interest to Māori or to places on Māori land.”8

One of the core functions of HNZPT is to “identify, record, investigate, assess, list, protect, and 

conserve historic places, historic areas, wāhi tūpuna, wāhi tapu, and wāhi tapu areas or enter 

such places and areas on the New Zealand Heritage List/Rārangi Kōrero.”9 It may also enter into 

a “heritage covenant” with the owner of a particular place or area for the protection, conservation, 

and maintenance of that place or area.10 In addition, certain historic places may be owned or 

controlled by HNZPT, or vested in it to ensure their protection, preservation, and conservation.11

The HNZPT Act contains offenses with respect to modifying or destroying property or land that 

is vested in HNZPT or subject to a covenant.12 

Various provisions and criteria apply with respect to considering entries for the New Zealand 

Heritage List/Rārangi Kōrero, including provisions that specifically relate to wāhi tapu areas.13

Information about places and areas on the list, and any covenants that have been entered into, is 

provided to the appropriate local authorities.14 

The Māori Heritage Council is assigned the task of considering and determining applications to 

enter wāhi tūpuna, wāhi tapu, and wāhi tapu areas on the New Zealand Heritage List/Rārangi 

Kōrero, and can also propose “historic places and historic areas of interest to Māori” for entry on 

the list.15 More generally, among several other functions, the Council seeks to “ensure that, in the 

protection of wāhi tūpuna, wāhi tapu, wāhi tapu areas, and other historic places and historic 

areas of interest to Māori, Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga meets the needs of Māori in a 

culturally sensitive manner.”16

 

6 Id. ss 7(a) & 10. See Tikanga Maori, TE TAURA WHIRI I TE REO MĀORI, http://www.tetaurawhiri.govt.nz/maorilanguage/tikanga-maori/ (last visited Jan. 24, 2019), archived at https://perma.cc/LP36-K77Z. 

7 HNZPT Act ss 7(c) & (d), 27 & 28. 

8 Id. s 7(f). 

9 Id. s 13(1)(a). 

10 Id. s 39. 

11 See id. s 13(1)(f). 

12 Id. ss 85 & 86. 

13 Id. pt 4 subpt 1. 

14 Id. s 76. 

15 Id. ss 68 & 27(1)(f) & (g). 

16 Id. s 27(1)(a). 
Protection of Indigenous Heritage: New Zealand 

The Law Library of Congress 72

B. Protected Objects Act 1975 

The Protected Objects Act 1975 regulates the export of protected New Zealand objects, establishes 

and records ownership of “ngā taonga tūturu,” and controls the sale of ngā taonga tūturu within 

New Zealand, among other matters.17 “Taonga tūturu” (“ngā” denotes the plural form of this 

term) means an object that 

(a) relates to Māori culture, history, or society; and 

(b) was, or appears to have been,— 

(i) manufactured or modified in New Zealand by Māori; or 

(ii) brought into New Zealand by Māori; or 

(iii) used by Māori; and 

(c) is more than 50 years old[.]18 

Ngā taonga tūturu is one of the categories of “protected New Zealand object,” which broadly 

means an object forming part of the movable cultural heritage of New Zealand that . . . is of 

importance to New Zealand, or to a part of New Zealand, for aesthetic, archaeological, 

architectural, artistic, cultural, historical, literary, scientific, social, spiritual, technological, or 

traditional reasons.”19

The Act is administered by the Ministry for Culture and Heritage.20

C. Laws Related to Human Remains and Burial 

1. Coroners Act 2006 

The Coroners Act 2006 establishes the coronial system in New Zealand, including the functions 

and powers of a coroner, requirements with respect to reporting certain deaths to a coroner, and 

death investigation procedures. It requires, for example, that “[a] person who finds a body in 

New Zealand must report the finding to a Police employee as soon as practicable unless the 

person believes that the finding is already known to the New Zealand Police, or will be reported 

to a Police employee by another person.”21

2. Burial and Cremation Act 1964 

The Burial and Cremation Act 1964 contains various provisions related to cemeteries and burial 

grounds and cremation and burial requirements. It states, for example, that “[i]t shall not be 

lawful to remove from its burial place any body, or the remains of any body, buried in any 

 

17 Protected Objects Act 1975 s 1A, http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1975/0041/latest/whole.html, 

archived at https://perma.cc/V3BA-R66D. 

18 Id. s 2. 

19 Id. s 2 & sch 4. 

20 See Protected Objects, MINISTRY FOR CULTURE AND HERITAGE, https://mch.govt.nz/nz-identity-heritage/ 

protected-objects (last updated Sept. 11, 2018), archived at https://perma.cc/CH8M-SD5S. 

21 Coroners Act 2006 s 13(1), http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2006/0038/latest/whole.html, 

archived at https://perma.cc/FA2X-RBJM. 
Protection of Indigenous Heritage: New Zealand 

The Law Library of Congress 73

cemetery, Maori burial ground, or other burial ground or place of burial, without licence under 

the hand of the Minister, and except in accordance with such conditions as he may prescribe.”22

D. Land Use and Conservation Laws 

1. Resource Management Act 1991 

The Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) is New Zealand’s core environmental legislation and 

regulates the use, development, and protection of natural and physical resources, including 

historic heritage. It includes the following matters as being of national importance, which must 

be recognized and provided for by anyone exercising functions under the Act: 

(e) the relationship of Maori and their culture and traditions with their ancestral lands, 

water, sites, waahi tapu, and other taonga: 

(f) the protection of historic heritage from inappropriate subdivision, use, 

and development: 

(g) the protection of protected customary rights:23

It also requires that those exercising functions under the RMA must take into account the 

principles of the Treaty of Waitangi.24

Under the RMA, planning documents are developed by local authorities, with the process 

involving consultation with affected communities.25 Persons who wish to develop or use land or 

resources must apply for “resource consents,” unless the activity is permitted by the relevant 

plan.26 The RMA contains provisions that enable local authorities to make heritage orders in their 

planning documents to give effect to a requirement made by a heritage protection authority 

(including HNZPT).27 Such orders, which “protect the heritage qualities of a particular place or 

structure,” affect how a place can be used.28 

 

22 Burial and Cremation Act 1964 s 51(1), http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1964/0075/latest/ 

whole.html, archived at https://perma.cc/9ZUA-HFRJ. 

23 Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) s 6, http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1991/0069/ 

latest/whole.html, archived at https://perma.cc/76S7-75CS. 

24 Id. s 8. 

25 See generally Plan Making, MINISTRY FOR THE ENVIRONMENT, http://www.mfe.govt.nz/rma/processes-andhow-get-involved/plan-making (last visited Jan. 31, 2019), archived at https://perma.cc/D6XH-2MJ2. 

26 See generally Resource Consents, MINISTRY FOR THE ENVIRONMENT, http://www.mfe.govt.nz/rma/processesand-how-get-involved/resource-consents (last visited Jan. 31, 2019), archived at https://perma.cc/U68X-YRD6. 

27 RMA ss 187–189. 

28 Heritage Orders in District Plans, MINISTRY FOR THE ENVIRONMENT, http://www.mfe.govt.nz/rma/rmaprocesses-and-how-get-involved/heritage-orders-district-plans (last updated Oct. 26, 2018), archived at 

https://perma.cc/L7ZT-KZGE. 
Protection of Indigenous Heritage: New Zealand 

The Law Library of Congress 74

2. Conservation Act 1987 

Under the Conservation Act 1987, the functions of the Department of Conservation include 

managing “for conservation purposes, all land, and all other natural and historic resources, for 

the time being held under this Act” and “to advocate the conservation of natural and historic 

resources generally.”29 “Historic resources” refers to any historic place within the meaning of the 

HNZPT Act.30

3. Reserves Act 1977 

The Department of Conservation administers the Reserves Act 1977 for the purpose of, among 

others, “providing, for the preservation and management for the benefit and enjoyment of the 

public, areas of New Zealand possessing . . . natural, scenic, historic, cultural, archaeological, 

biological, geological, scientific, educational, community, or other special features or value.”31

4. Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993 

The Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993 (alternatively, the Maori Land Act 1993), “provides the rules 

around land dealings that change the ownership status of Māori land.”32 Among the principles 

of the Act, set out in its preamble, is that it is 

desirable to recognise that land is a taonga tuku iho of special significance to Maori people 

and, for that reason, to promote the retention of that land in the hands of its owners, their 

whanau [family], and their hapu, and to protect wahi tapu: and to facilitate the occupation, 

development, and utilisation of that land for the benefit of its owners, their whanau, and 

their hapu.33 

The Act provides for any urupā (Māori burial ground) and wāhi tapu on Māori freehold or 

general land to be set apart as a Māori reservation through a notice in the government gazette.34

5. Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act 2011

The Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act 2011 is intended to, among other purposes, 

“recognise the mana tuku iho [inherited status] exercised in the marine and coastal area by iwi, 

hapū, and whānau as tangata whenua” and “provide for the exercise of customary interests in 

 

29 Conservation Act 1987 s 6(a) and (b), http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1987/0065/latest/ 

whole.html, archived at https://perma.cc/Q9PM-MUSS. 

30 Id. s 2. 

31 Reserves Act 1977 s 3(1)(v), http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1977/0066/latest/whole.html, 

archived at https://perma.cc/29HD-WBZQ. 

32 Māori Land FAQs, LAND INFORMATION NEW ZEALAND, https://www.linz.govt.nz/kb/849 (last updated Dec. 

3, 2018), archived at https://perma.cc/M2TQ-LZYH. 

33 Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993, preamble, http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1993/0004/latest/ 

whole.html, archived at https://perma.cc/ETH6-XRPJ. 

34 Id. s 338. 
Protection of Indigenous Heritage: New Zealand 

The Law Library of Congress 75

the common marine and coastal area,” as well as to acknowledge the Treaty.35 It includes 

provisions related to the inclusion, either in an agreement or customary marine title order, of 

recognition of a wāhi tapu or a wāhi tapu area.36 It also modifies the application of the Protected 

Objects Act 1975 with respect to any taonga tūturu found in a customary marine title area.37

II. Māori-Government Relations and Policy 

The Treaty of Waitangi is considered New Zealand’s founding document and in modern times is 

described as a “broad statement of principles on which the British and Māori made a political 

compact to found a nation state and build a government in New Zealand.”38 Waitangi Day, the 

date on which the Treaty was signed, is New Zealand’s national day.39

The history of the relationship between Māori and the New Zealand government since the signing 

of the Treaty is complex,40 involving land wars in the 1860s,41 various government and settler 

actions that resulted in widespread land alienation,42 a policy of assimilating Māori into colonial 

society,43 and later a shift to a policy of biculturalism, beginning in around the 1980s.44 

The 1970s through the 1980s is considered a period of “renaissance” in terms of Māori culture, 

language, and political awareness,45 as well as continuing the protest movement that started in 

 

35 Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act 2011 s 4, http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2011/ 

0003/latest/whole.html, archived at https://perma.cc/NG5V-V4EL. 

36 Id. s 78–81. 

37 Id. s 82. 

38 The Treaty in Brief, NEW ZEALAND HISTORY, https://nzhistory.govt.nz/politics/treaty/the-treaty-in-brief (last 

updated May 17, 2017), archived at https://perma.cc/U3LF-NAMD. 

39 See Kelly Buchanan, New Zealand’s National Day – Controversy and Celebration, IN CUSTODIA LEGIS (Feb. 7, 

2011), https://blogs.loc.gov/law/2011/02/new-zealands-national-day/. 

40 See Kelly Buchanan, Indigenous Rights in New Zealand: Legislation, Litigation, and Protest, IN CUSTODIA LEGIS

(Nov. 18, 2016), http://blogs.loc.gov/law/2016/11/indigenous-rights-in-new-zealand-legislation-litigationand-protest/.

41 See The Treaty in Practice: Slide To War, NEW ZEALAND HISTORY, https://nzhistory.govt.nz/politics/treaty/ 

the-treaty-in-practice/slide-to-war (last updated July 7, 2014), archived at https://perma.cc/2EVM-ZFFJ. 

42 See The Treaty in Practice: Obtaining Land, NEW ZEALAND HISTORY, https://nzhistory.govt.nz/politics/treaty/ 

the-treaty-in-practice/obtaining-land (last updated Jan. 13, 2016), archived at https://perma.cc/Y7AP-2A82. 

43 See The Treaty in Practice: Introduction, NEW ZEALAND HISTORY, https://nzhistory.govt.nz/politics/treaty/thetreaty-in-practice/early-crown-policy (last updated Apr. 15, 2016), archived at https://perma.cc/7JLL-H8TK. 

44 See Janine Hayward, Story: Biculturalism, TE ARA – THE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF NEW ZEALAND (June 20, 2012),

https://teara.govt.nz/en/biculturalism, archived at https://perma.cc/P84X-MH23. 

45 See Mark Derby, Story: Māori–Pākehā Relations, Page 6. Maori Renaissance, TE ARA – THE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF NEW 

ZEALAND (May 5, 2011), https://teara.govt.nz/en/maori-pakeha-relations/page-6, archived at https://perma. 

cc/68HF-Y42N; RICHARD S. HILL, MAORI AND THE STATE: CROWN-MAORI RELATIONS IN NEW ZEALAND/

AOTEAROA, 1950-2000, at 149–53 (2009), available at http://nzetc.victoria.ac.nz/tm/scholarly/tei-HilMaor-t1-

body-d7-d1.html, archived at https://perma.cc/Q7ZJ-ALE5. 
Protection of Indigenous Heritage: New Zealand 

The Law Library of Congress 76

the 1960s in relation to land rights and broader calls to “honour the Treaty.”46 This period saw 

multiple legal developments with respect to Maori rights to land, resources, and the protection 

of cultural heritage. For example, Te Reo Māori (the Māori language) was made an official 

language of the country in 1987.47 Other developments during this time, and subsequently, 

included making Waitangi Day a public holiday in 1974,48 the establishment of the Waitangi 

Tribunal in 1975,49 and the creation of Māori-language immersion preschools and elementary 

schools during the 1980s.50 

In late 2018, the current government established a new office within the Ministry of Justice, the 

Office for Māori Crown Relations: Te Arawhiti. This agency is responsible for negotiating Treaty 

settlements on behalf of the government and ensuring the implementation of the government’s 

settlement commitments, among other functions.51

There are currently twenty-nine Members of Parliament, out of 120, who are of Māori descent.52

This includes MPs elected to serve seven Māori electoral districts. Such seats have been a feature 

of the political system since 1867, and Maori can choose whether to be on the general electoral 

roll or the Maori electoral roll (allowing them to vote for representatives in the 

Māori electorates).53

 

46 See Basil Keane, Story: Ngā Rōpū Tautohetohe – Māori Protest Movements, Page 1. Historic Māori Protest, TE ARA –

THE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF NEW ZEALAND (June 20, 2012), https://teara.govt.nz/en/nga-ropu-tautohetohe-maoriprotest-movements/page-1, archived at https://perma.cc/B65A-C8WM. Information about Māori protest 

movements and the increasing recognition of tikanga Māori in New Zealand law is contained in KELLY 

BUCHANAN, LEGAL RESEARCH GUIDE: MĀORI CUSTOMARY LAW (Law Library of Congress, July 2013), 

https://www.loc.gov/law/help/maori-customary-law.php. 

47 Māori Language Act 1987, http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1987/0176/latest/whole.html, 

archived at https://perma.cc/GA2G-J45S; Te Wiki o Te Reo Māori - Māori Language Week, Page 2 – History of the 

Māori Language, NEW ZEALAND HISTORY, https://nzhistory.govt.nz/culture/maori-language-week/history-ofthe-maori-language (last updated Oct. 10, 2017), archived at https://perma.cc/8YQS-UC2Q.

48 See Waitangi Day Act 1976, http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1976/0033/latest/whole.html, 

archived at https://perma.cc/P3P2-W4DJ. 

49 Waitangi Day Act 1975, http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1975/0114/latest/whole.html , archived 

at https://perma.cc/H8ZZ-DBN5; Homepage, WAITANGI TRIBUNAL, https://www.waitangitribunal.govt.nz/

(last updated Dec. 4, 2018), archived at https://perma.cc/YUR4-A4PF. 

50 History, TE KŌHANGA REO NATIONAL TRUST, https://www.kohanga.ac.nz/history/ (last visited Feb. 5, 2019), 

archived at https://perma.cc/TZ4N-TPDP. 

51 About Us, TE ARAWHITI, https://tearawhiti.govt.nz/about-us/ (last visited Feb. 5, 2019), archived at 

https://perma.cc/Q43M-MRGM. 

52 Tepara Koti, Who Are Our Māori Members of Parliament Now, MĀORI TELEVISION (Sept. 24, 2017), 

https://www.maoritelevision.com/news/politics/who-are-our-maori-members-parliament-now, archived at 

https://perma.cc/C6Y2-8M3Q. 

53 Māori Representation, ELECTORAL COMMISSION, https://www.elections.org.nz/voting-system/maorirepresentation (last updated Aug. 14, 2018), archived at https://perma.cc/UCV2-U7TJ. 
Protection of Indigenous Heritage: New Zealand 

The Law Library of Congress 77

The relationship between Māori and the government today involves multiple elements, including 

continuing the negotiation of redress actions to settle breaches of the Treaty of Waitangi,54

recognition at both the national and local levels of various Māori rights with respect to resources, 

different approaches to involving Māori in decision making, and a commitment to reflecting the 

principles of the Treaty in various policy areas. Although there is no complete and final list of 

principles, one is considered to be a partnership while others include a duty to act in good faith 

and actively protect Māori interests.55 Such notions of partnership, consultation, and selfdetermination or self-management can be seen in the various laws and processes related to Māori 

heritage protections, although these are also the subject of criticism, as discussed below. 

III. Protection of Wāhi Tapu and Other Sites of Interest to Māori 

In January 2017, the Māori Heritage Council of HNZPT published a bilingual document titled 

Tapuwae (meaning “sacred footprint”), which contains the Council’s statement and vision with 

respect to Māori heritage.56 The document states, for example, that 

[a]n awareness of Māori heritage places amongst land owners, land developers and those 

who exercise authority over and make decisions about land development is vital for the 

prevention of damage to and destruction of heritage places. This need underpins Heritage 

New Zealand activities such as entering Māori heritage places on the New Zealand 

Heritage List/Rārangi Kōrero, engagement in statutory advocacy processes for the 

protection of cultural sites, and the preservation and conservation of significant Māori 

heritage buildings and structures.57

In addition to protecting Māori heritage places through entering them on the New Zealand 

Heritage List/Rārangi Kōrero or taking other protective measures, HNZPT and the Council have 

various functions and powers in relation to archeological sites and contributing to decision 

making under the RMA. 

A. Archeological Sites 

With regard to archeology and Māori heritage places, Tapuwae provides a detailed explanation of 

the statutory framework and how HNZPT regulates archeological sites in practice. For example: 

 

54 See Settling Historical Treaty of Waitangi Claims, NEW ZEALAND GOVERNMENT, https://www.govt.nz/browse/ 

history-culture-and-heritage/treaty-of-waitangi-claims/settling-historical-treaty-of-waitangi-claims/ (last 

visited Feb. 5, 2019), archived at https://perma.cc/8ADM-QDZA. 

55 See Janine Hayward, Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi – Ngā Mātāpono o te Tiriti, TE ARA – THE ENCYCLOPEDIA 

OF NEW ZEALAND (June 20, 2012), https://teara.govt.nz/en/principles-of-the-treaty-of-waitangi-ngamatapono-o-te-tiriti/print, archived at https://perma.cc/L3MC-JUEQ; Principles of the Treaty, WAITANGI 

TRIBUNAL, https://www.waitangitribunal.govt.nz/treaty-of-waitangi/principles-of-the-treaty/ (last updated 

Sept. 19, 2016), archived at https://perma.cc/8L9Q-MNBY. 

56 HNZPT, TAPUWAE: NĀ TE KAUNIHERA MĀORI MŌ TE POUHERE TAONGA MĀORI; THE MĀORI HERITAGE COUNCIL 

STATEMENT ON MĀORI HERITAGE (Jan. 2017), http://www.heritage.org.nz/resources/-/media/bfa29419db7 

f42beaaeebc831193de67.ashx, archived at https://perma.cc/W9LA-FGRT. 

57 Id. at 10. 
Protection of Indigenous Heritage: New Zealand 

The Law Library of Congress 78

Archaeological sites, whether or not they are identified or recorded, have, in the first 

instance, protection under the Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Act 2014. Heritage 

New Zealand is empowered by the Act to exercise regulatory authority (kāwanatanga) 

regarding archaeological sites. It is a crime to modify or destroy an archaeological site 

without authority from Heritage New Zealand to do so. The archaeological authority 

process administered by Heritage New Zealand regulates the extent to which land 

development or any activity may be permitted to have an impact on archaeological sites.58

As indicated in this paragraph, the protection of archeological sites applies whether or not the 

site is entered on the New Zealand Heritage List/Rārangi Kōrero.59 The HNZPT Act defines 

“archeological site” as being any place associated with human activity that occurred before 1900.60

HNZPT may also, by a notice in the government gazette, declare a place to be an archeological 

site if it was associated with human activity in or after 1900 and “provides, or may be able to 

provide, through investigation by archaeological methods, significant evidence relating to the 

historical and cultural heritage of New Zealand.”61 

HNZPT has published a “statement of general policy” on the administration of the archeological 

provisions in the HNZPT Act.62 The document contains various references to archeological sites 

of interest to Māori and approaches to working with Māori with respect to such sites. For 

example, it includes the following policies under the objective that “Māori cultural values are 

respected and taken into account”: 

2.1 HNZPT will ensure Māori cultural values associated with archaeological sites of 

interest to Māori are considered alongside archaeological and other relevant values 

when archaeological authority decisions are being made, where information about 

those values has been provided with the application. 

2.2 HNZPT encourages iwi and hapū to engage in the archaeological authority process 

so that their cultural values can be considered in the determination. 

2.3 In advance of an authority application, HNZPT encourages applicants and iwi and 

hapū to formalise protocols on agreed cultural processes for archaeological 

authorities which relate to sites of interest to Māori, so long as the legal requirements 

of the HNZPTA are met.63

 

58 Id. at 16. The role and powers of HNZPT with respect to archeological sites are contained in sections 42–59 of 

the HNZPT Act. See generally Archaeology, HNZPT, http://www.heritage.org.nz/protecting-heritage/ 

archaeology (last visited Jan. 31, 2019), archived at https://perma.cc/WP25-N3NA. 

59 HNZPT Act s 42. 

60 Id. s 6. 

61 Id. s 43. 

62 HNZPT, STATEMENT OF GENERAL POLICY: THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE ARCHEOLOGICAL PROVISIONS UNDER THE 

HERITAGE NEW ZEALAND POUHERE TAONGA ACT 2014 (Oct. 29, 2015), http://www.heritage.org.nz/resources/-

/media/7b4f5a79a0be40d697e8bbfe4409bab8.ashx, archived at https://perma.cc/38C8-JMHH. 

63 Id. at 7. 
Protection of Indigenous Heritage: New Zealand 

The Law Library of Congress 79

The document also lists principles and policies related to consultation with iwi and hapū; 

HNZPT’s maintenance of relationships with iwi, hapū and whānau, as appropriate; and 

encouraging collaboration between Māori and archeologists.64

B. Land Use and Development 

With regard to land use, development, and the utilization of natural resources, HNZPT has roles, 

under both the HNZPT Act and the RMA, related to “[s]tatutory advocacy in support of whānau, 

hapū and iwi on RMA-related matters.”65 For example, the HNZPT Act states that, “[i]n respect 

of a wāhi tapu area entered on the New Zealand Heritage List/Rārangi Kōrero, the Council may 

make recommendations to the local authorities that have jurisdiction in the relevant area as to the 

appropriate measures that those local authorities should take to assist in the conservation and 

protection of the wāhi tapu area.”66 The Council must recognize the interests of the owner of the 

area, and local authorities must have “particular regard” to the Council’s recommendation.67

Local authorities notify HNZPT when they receive resource consent applications in respect of 

wāhi tapu areas. HNZPT must then refer the matter to the Council and consult with relevant 

parties before it takes any action in respect of such an application.68

HNZPT staff therefore become involved in RMA processes when these “potentially or actually 

impact on Māori heritage places or areas on the New Zealand Heritage List/Rārangi Kōrero.”69

Tapuwae notes that 

Heritage New Zealand staff are experts in various fields relevant to heritage and the RMA, 

and are regularly called upon to give evidence at hearings or before the Environment 

Court. Often the evidence provided directly supports a hapū or iwi position on a matter 

and is prepared in close conjunction with hapū or iwi.70

C. Criticism of Current Approach 

The current system for the protection of Maori heritage sites was recently criticized in a January 

2019 article published in the New Zealand Listener. The article stated, for example, that while the 

HNZPT Act protects sites where there is evidence of pre-1900 human activity, this “does not cover 

more-intangible historic landscapes, wāhi tapu (places sacred to Māori) and wāhi tupuna (places 

with ancestral significance).”71 Furthermore, the listing of such heritage places on the New 

 

64 Id. at 7–8. 

65 TAPUWAE, supra note 56, at 19. 

66 HNZPT Act s 74(2). 

67 Id. s 74(3) & (4). 

68 Id. s 75. 

69 TAPUWAE, supra note 56, at 19. 

70 Id. at 20. 

71 Sally Blundell, What Ihumātao Reveals About NZ’s Protection of Māori Heritage Sites, NEW ZEALAND LISTENER

(Jan. 26, 2019), available at https://www.noted.co.nz/currently/social-issues/ihumatao-maori-heritage-sitesnz-protection/, archived at https://perma.cc/U773-6RQ5.
Protection of Indigenous Heritage: New Zealand 

The Law Library of Congress 80

Zealand Heritage List/Rārangi Kōrero “does not afford automatic protection – rather it serves as 

an acknowledgement the site is worth protecting and can trigger opportunities to discuss options 

with the landowner.”72 The article goes on to state that, 

[w]hereas in many countries a permit is required before any work on an archaeologically 

significant site can be undertaken, the onus in New Zealand is on the landowner to request 

authority to undertake earthworks that could modify or destroy an archaeological site. 

Even then, under the 2014 legislation, HNZPT is expected to consider the interests of 

property owners, as well as heritage and cultural values. 

Applications are rarely refused. On average, 496 out of every 500 applications are 

successful. HNZPT senior legal adviser Geraldine Baumann says this number doesn’t tell 

the whole story. In the process of application, she says, the agency will discuss options 

with the iwi and the owner or developer in a bid to reduce the scope of any modification. 

. . . 

Ultimately, protection of historic places, in particular those “big picture” landscapes and 

wāhi tapu and wāhi tupuna areas, depends on the provisions of each district plan. Local 

authorities are expected to include a schedule of heritage buildings, archaeological sites 

and heritage precincts in their district plans, with appropriate rules for their protection, 

but here again there are limitations. Although the Resource Management Act recognises 

the importance of ancestral lands and the need to protect heritage from inappropriate use, 

these considerations do not give automatic right of veto when weighing up sustainably 

managed developments. 

. . . 

Even when historic sites are listed on district plans, there is the risk, says University of 

Otago archaeologist Richard Walter, that local authorities will look at the plan, see isolated 

sites, “then let people go ahead with their development activities”.73

IV. Processes and Protocols on Discovery of Kōiwi Tangata/Human Remains 

In 2014, HNZPT published guidance related to kōiwi tangata/human remains.74 This document 

sets out the legislative framework, key agencies and responsibilities, the significance of kōiwi 

tangata/human remains in the New Zealand context, and guidelines for how to proceed in 

different circumstances, including guidelines for the general public, police, developers, 

consultant archeologists, the Department of Conservation, and tangata whenua. It also provides 

information regarding reinternment of remains of Māori origin, as well as setting out cultural 

considerations and other information. The guidelines 

 

72 Id.

73 Id.

74 HNZPT, ARCHEOLOGICAL GUIDELINES SERIES: KOIWI TANGATA/HUMAN REMAINS (Aug. 25 2014), 

https://www.heritage.org.nz/~/-/media/a483bc2fdcf14f1aa67dd84e3e16b80d.ashx, archived at

https://perma.cc/9Z3C-KUSR. 
Protection of Indigenous Heritage: New Zealand 

The Law Library of Congress 81

provide advice for a culturally responsible mechanism for the management of koiwi 

tangata/human remains that have been either uncovered through accidental discovery or 

deliberately excavated/exhumed in emergency response situations, or as a result of 

natural processes e.g. coastal erosion. In the majority of cases it will be found that these 

koiwi tangata/human remains are Maori in origin, so these Guidelines have a deliberate 

focus in that direction, and recognise the kaitiaki [guardian] role that Maori play in 

determining what happens in the management of the discovery of koiwi 

tangata/human remains.75

The guidelines state that “[m]ore than one Act may apply in discovery of koiwi tangata/human 

remains.”76 As noted above, any person who finds a body, in whatever circumstances, is required 

to report the find to the police under the Coroners Act 2006. The police are then responsible for 

determining whether or not the site is a crime scene. The Burial and Cremation Act 1964 makes it 

an offense to remove any body without a license issued by the relevant Minister. This legislation 

is administered by the Ministry of Health, and Public Health Units will determine if a 

disinternment license is required.77 The HNZPT guidelines state that, even when a disinternment 

license is not required, “it is good practice to contact the local Public Health Unit so that they are 

aware of the situation.”78 

As also noted above, HNZPT has regulatory powers with respect to archeological sites, and 

unless authority is granted, “no person may modify or destroy, or cause to be modified or 

destroyed, the whole or any part of that site if the person knows, or ought reasonably to have 

suspected, that the site is an archaeological site.”79 HNZPT therefore advises that “in all 

circumstances involving the care and management of koiwi tangata/human remains, that the 

police, Heritage New Zealand, local public health unit, and tangata whenua are notified in the 

first instance.”80 It emphasizes that 

[t]he majority of cases of discovery of koiwi tangata/human remains are of tangata 

whenua derivation. It is essential, therefore, that hapu/iwi are contacted immediately 

following discoveries to ensure cultural protocol is adhered to and decisions for 

exhumation and reinterment are culturally appropriate.81

The HNZPT policy statement related to the administration of the archeological provisions in the 

HNZPT Act also contains a section specifically on kōiwi tangata that provides as follows: 

Kōiwi tangata (human skeletal remains of any race) may be unexpectedly uncovered 

during earthworks, as a result of natural processes such as coastal erosion or as part of the 

archaeological authority process. 

 

75 Id. at 4. 

76 Id. at 8. 

77 Id. at 9. 

78 Id. at 6. 

79 HNZPT Act s 42; KOIWI TANGATA/HUMAN REMAINS, supra note 74, at 7. 

80 KOIWI TANGATA/HUMAN REMAINS, supra note 74, at 8. 

81 Id. at 9. 
Protection of Indigenous Heritage: New Zealand 

The Law Library of Congress 82

Unexpected finds of kōiwi tangata are most often of Māori origin (kōiwi tangata Māori). 

Kōiwi tangata are of special significance to all descendant groups and HNZPT will work 

closely with them to ensure appropriate processes are followed. The place of interment 

may also be significant and should be respected. 

Other legislation which must also be considered when kōiwi tangata are uncovered 

includes the Coroners Act 2006, the Burial and Cremation Act 1964, the Protected Objects 

Act 1975 and Te Ture Whenua Māori Act 1993.82

The policies listed under the objective that “[k]ōiwi tangata are treated in a sensitive and 

culturally respectful manner” are as follows: 

6.1 HNZPT recognises the need for urgency when kōiwi tangata are discovered. 

6.2 HNZPT notifies iwi and hapū when discovery of kōiwi tangata Māori are reported. 

6.3 HNZPT recognises the role iwi and hapū must have in decisions relating to the 

treatment of kōiwi tangata Māori. 

6.4 HNZPT encourages iwi and hapū to consider protocols for when more than one 

burial or a urupā is identified. 

6.5 HNZPT supports tikanga Māori protocols advised by iwi and hapū in all cases when 

kōiwi tangata Māori are identified. 

6.6 Kōiwi tangata will not be held at any HNZPT office or property. 

6.7 HNZPT will engage in processes relating to kōiwi tangata in accordance with the 

requirements of other relevant legislation. 

6.8 HNZPT encourages dialogue with the Ministry for Culture and Heritage and iwi and 

hapū, prior to undertaking archaeological work to develop processes for the 

management of taonga tūturu when located with kōiwi tangata Māori. 

6.9 HNZPT will work closely with applicants, landowners, iwi and hapū, to develop 

appropriate management processes when archaeological work may affect known 

kōiwi tangata as part of the archaeological authority process.83

V. Protection of Taonga Tūturu/Cultural Artifacts 

Under the Protected Objects Act 1975, “all taonga tūturu found are in the first instance (prima 

facie) Crown owned to allow claims for ownership to be heard by the Māori Land Court.”84 The 

Act requires that 

[e]very person who, after the commencement of this Act, finds any taonga tūturu 

anywhere in New Zealand or within the territorial waters of New Zealand shall, within 28 

days of finding the taonga tūturu, notify either the chief executive [of the Ministry for 

Culture and Heritage] or the nearest public museum, which shall notify the chief executive, 

of the finding of the taonga tūturu: 

 

82 STATEMENT OF GENERAL POLICY: THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE ARCHEOLOGICAL PROVISIONS UNDER THE 

HERITAGE NEW ZEALAND POUHERE TAONGA ACT 2014, supra note 62, at 12. 

83 Id.

84 Taonga Tūturu, MINISTRY FOR CULTURE AND HERITAGE, https://mch.govt.nz/nz-identity-heritage/protectedobjects/taongatuturu (last updated Feb. 21, 2018), archived at https://perma.cc/QWL2-4TUM. See also 

Protected Objects Act 1975, s 11(1). 
Protection of Indigenous Heritage: New Zealand 

The Law Library of Congress 83

provided that in the case of any taonga tūturu found during the course of any 

archaeological investigation authorised by Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga under 

section 48 of the Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Act 2014, the notification shall be 

made within 28 days of the completion of the field work undertaken in connection with 

the investigation.85

Once notified, the chief executive must take appropriate action to provide for the examination, 

care, recording and custody of the item; notify any interested parties; and publish a public notice 

calling for claims of ownership to be lodged with the chief executive.86 If only one claim is 

registered, and if the chief executive is satisfied that the claim is valid, the chief executive applies 

to the Registrar of the Maori Land Court for an order confirming ownership of the item.87 If two 

or more claims are lodged, the chief executive must consult the claimants. If the competing claims 

are resolved, the chief executive can seek an order from the Court, but if they are unresolved the 

chief executive may, if requested by a claimant, “facilitate the applications of any or all of the 

claimants to the Maori Land Court.”88 The legislation states that “ownership” includes collective 

or joint ownership.89

The Māori Land Court’s jurisdiction with respect to determining ownership of taonga tūturu is 

established in the Protected Objects Act 1975. It is able to make various orders with respect to an 

item, including vesting in any person as trustee any taonga tūturu for safekeeping and 

preservation, prohibiting any person from dealing with the item, and prohibiting any offering for 

sale or parting with possession of the item.90 Other provisions in the Act related to taonga tūturu 

govern the sale and trade of such items.91

In addition to the provisions in the Act, taonga tūturu protocols may be entered into between the 

Crown and individual iwi as part of Treaty settlement redress. These relationship agreements 

may cover, for example, the administration of the Act, iwi engagement in policy and legislation 

reviews, registration of iwi as expert examiners and collectors of taonga tūturu, and the provision 

of cultural practices and professional services by iwi.92

 

 

85 Protected Objects Act 1975, s 11(3). 

86 Id. s 11(4). 

87 Id. s 11(5). 

88 Id. s 11(6) & (7). 

89 Id. s 11(8). 

90 Id. s 12. 

91 Id. ss 13–16. 

92 Taonga Tūturu Protocols, MINISTRY FOR CULTURE AND HERITAGE, https://mch.govt.nz/nz-identityheritage/taonga-tuturu-protocols (last updated Nov. 20, 2018), archived at https://perma.cc/Z3T6-AVAJ. 
Protection of Indigenous Heritage: New Zealand 

The Law Library of Congress 84

The Ministry for Culture and Heritage has published detailed guidance on taonga tūturu, 

including the process for “newly found” items.93 The Ministry also states that 

[k]nown and suspected archaeological sites are protected by the Heritage New Zealand 

Pouhere Taonga Act and must not be deliberately disturbed in order to find taonga tūturu. 

If taonga tūturu are partially exposed and not in any immediate danger, Heritage New 

Zealand Pouhere Taonga should be contacted right away and the taonga tūturu left in the 

site. 

If the taonga tūturu is in danger of being lost or destroyed, carefully remove it from the 

site and notify the Ministry of the find and Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga of the 

potential damage to the archaeological site.94

HNZPT’s policy statement regarding the administration of the HNZPT Act provisions on 

archeological sites includes policies regarding the recovery of archeological material and taonga 

tūturu. This includes that “HNZPT encourages archaeologists to work with the Ministry for 

Culture and Heritage, iwi and hapū, applicants, and landowners to develop appropriate 

processes, prior to and during analysis, for the storage of material uncovered as part of an 

archaeological authority.”95 It also states that HNZPT works with the Ministry “to support the 

processes of the Protected Objects Act 1975.”96

 

93 MINISTRY FOR CULTURE AND HERITAGE, PROTECTED OBJECTS ACT 1975: GUIDELINES FOR TAONGA TŪTURU (last 

updated Dec. 20, 2010), https://mch.govt.nz/sites/default/files/Taonga Tuturu Guidelines Feb 2018 (D0760408).PDF, archived at https://perma.cc/VU32-FPLM. 

94 Taonga Tūturu, supra note 84. 

95 STATEMENT OF GENERAL POLICY: THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE ARCHEOLOGICAL PROVISIONS UNDER THE 

HERITAGE NEW ZEALAND POUHERE TAONGA ACT 2014, supra note 62, at 13. 

96 Id.
The Law Library of Congress 85 

Norway 

Elin Hofverberg 

Foreign Law Specialist

SUMMARY Norway has recognized its Sami population as indigenous and has special rules for the 

protection of Sami cultural heritage. All Sami cultural heritage dating from prior to 

1917, including gravesites, buildings, and objects, is automatically protected, while 

cultural heritage dating after that time may or may not be protected, depending on 

the circumstances. 

 Under Norwegian law, any cultural objects found must be reported to the police; failure 

to do so results in a fine or imprisonment. Sites designated as heritage sites may not be 

altered. Persons causing damage to heritage sites are subject to fines or imprisonment 

for up to two years for gross violations. Private owners of land may request funding to 

protect cultural heritage property. 

 Norwegian land use regulations also impact Sami cultural heritage protection. The 

indigenous Sami population of Norway, and in certain instances also Swedish Sami 

groups, have a right to use the land in Finnmark to fish and hunt, and to graze their 

reindeer. The question of the extent of this right to use natural resources is currently 

being challenged in Norwegian courts. Land use is typically zoned by the municipality 

and the Norwegian state. All use of land is subject to a zoning plan, and the Sami 

Council has a right both to comment on proposals and appeal decisions that affect them. 

Almost 20% of Norway’s landmass is designated as national parks, which in itself may 

impinge on the freedom of the Sami people. 

 Norway has ratified both ILO Convention 169 and the UNESCO Convention on the 

Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of 

Ownership of Cultural Property. Many Sami human remains were taken from Sami 

graves during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Most of these remains are now 

in the possession of research institutions, including Oslo University. In 1997, Norway 

became the first Nordic country in which Sami skulls were repatriated. Since then an 

additional ninety-seven skeletons have been repatriated and reburied in 

northern Norway. 

I. Introduction 

A. The Sami People 

Norway is located on the far northern European peninsula, and includes parts of an area known 

as Sápmi, which runs through Norway, Sweden, and Finland, into Russia, where the Sami people 

live.1 The Sami people are a diverse group speaking three main Sami languages/dialects and nine 

 

1 STATISTISK SENTRALBYRÅ, SAMISK STATISTIKK 2018 at 7 (2018/5), https://www.ssb.no/befolkning/artikler-ogpublikasjoner/_attachment/339026?_ts=16151cb7dd0.pdf, archived at https://perma.cc/7ZVM-ZNY7.
Protection of Indigenous Heritage: Norway 

The Law Library of Congress 86

subdialects.2 Norway was christened around the year 1,000 AD and starting in 1700 many Sami 

remains were buried in Norwegian State Church cemeteries.3 

There are no official statistics for how many Sami are living throughout the Sápmi area as the 

local state governments (of Finland, Norway, Russia, and Sweden) do not generate official 

statistics for these groups.4 Unofficial surveys claim that there are approximately 80,000 to 100,000 

Sami living throughout Sápmi.5 An estimated 50,000–65,000 of these live in the national state of 

Norway.6 Thus, the Norwegian Sami population is the greatest across the area, both in real 

numbers and measured in per capita population.7 The Norwegian Sami Council (Sametinget) had 

16,958 registered voters in 2017.8 

B. International Obligations and Domestic Law

1. Recognition of Sami People as Indigenous 

Norway is a signatory to the International Labor Organization Convention on Indigenous and 

Tribal Peoples in Independent Countries (ILO Convention 169).9 Norway was the first country to 

ratify it in 1990.10 Neither Sweden, Finland, nor Russia has ratified ILO 169 to recognize Sami as 

indigenous people.11 Thus, currently Norway is the only country that recognizes Sami as 

specifically indigenous. Sweden recognizes that the Sami are a “special people” but has not 

 

2 Language, Dialect or Variety?, SAMER, http://www.samer.se/4567 (last visited Mar. 5, 2019), archived at

https://perma.cc/5S6F-H2BK. 

3 KATHRYN W. SHANLEY & BJØRG EVJEN, MAPPING INDIGENOUS PRESENCE: NORTH SCANDINAVIAN AND NORTH 

AMERICAN PERSPECTIVES 29 (2015). 

4 Sami, 2011-2013, STATISTICS NORWAY (Feb. 6, 2014), https://www.ssb.no/en/befolkning/statistikker/ 

samisk/hvert-2-aar/2014-02-06, archived at https://perma.cc/4LRT-MK8R. 

5 Antalet samer i Sápmi, SAMER, http://samer.se/samernaisiffror (last visited Mar. 5, 2019), archived at

https://perma.cc/Y663-R9YE. 

6 Id.; STATISTISK SENTRALBYRÅ, supra note 1. 

7 STATISTISK SENTRALBYRÅ, supra note 1. 

8 Id. at 25. For the area of residence of the Sami voters see id. at 23. 

9 Convention Concerning Indigenous and Tribal Peoples in Independent Countries, ILO 1989 No. 169, June 27, 

1989 (entered into force Sept. 5, 1991), https://www.ilo.org/dyn/normlex/en/f?p=NORMLEXPUB:12100:0:: 

NO::P12100_ILO_CODE:C169, archived at https://perma.cc/XUG7-EKSD; ILO‐konvensjon nr. 169 om urfolk og 

stammefolk i selvstendige stater, REGJERINGEN (Dec. 3, 2018), https://www.regjeringen.no/no/tema/urfolk-ogminoriteter/samepolitikk/midtspalte/ilokonvensjon-nr-169-om-urbefolkninger-o/id451312/, archived at 

https://perma.cc/TCB9-8VML; Ratifications of C169 - Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention, 1989 (No. 169),

ILO, https://www.ilo.org/dyn/normlex/en/f?p=1000:11300:0::NO:11300:P11300_INSTRUMENT_ID:312314, 

archived at https://perma.cc/7EXM-D98M. 

10 Ratifications of C169 - Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention, 1989 (No. 169), ILO, supra note 9. 

11 Id. 
Protection of Indigenous Heritage: Norway 

The Law Library of Congress 87

specifically recognized them as indigenous.12 Norway on the other hand does recognize the Sami 

people as indigenous, and the Norwegian Constitution requires that the government “creates the 

conditions [that ensure] the Sami people can secure and develop its language, its culture, and 

its community.”13 

2. Special Legislation Regarding the Sami People 

The Sami Act regulates Sami conditions as well as establishes the Sami Council.14 The Sami 

Council is responsible for and represents the Sami people on matters that are of interest to the 

Sami people.15 State agencies must also ask the Sami Council to comment on issues that concern 

them.16 This includes central, regional, and local agencies.17 

A special act, the Finnmark Act, also regulates the use of resources in Finnmark (a district in 

northern Norway that overlaps with the Sápmi area).18 It specifically provides that the Sami 

Council can provide guidance on how to use the land.19 It also provides that the law cannot limit 

any rights that the Sami have based on custom (hevd), or immemorial use (alders tid).20 

3. International Obligations 

In addition to ratifying the ILO 169 Convention, mentioned above, Norway has also ratified the 

UNESCO Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and 

 

12 1 kap. 2 § REGERINGSFORMEN [INSTRUMENT OF GOVERNMENT] (Svensk författningssamling [SFS] 1794:152), 

https://www.riksdagen.se/sv/dokument-lagar/dokument/svensk-forfattningssamling/kungorelse-1974152-

om-beslutad-ny-regeringsform_sfs-1974-152, archived at https://perma.cc/NF4C-LCDQ. 

13 § 108 GRUNNLOVEN [NORWEGIAN CONSTITUTION] (LOV 1817-05-17), https://lovdata.no/dokument/NL/lov/ 

1814-05-17, archived at https://perma.cc/5HPC-EBJT (translation by author). 

14 §§ 1-1 and 1-2 LOV OM SAMETINGET OG ANDRE SAMISKE RETTSFORHOLD (SAMELOVEN) [ACT ON THE SAMI 

COUNCIL AND OTHER SAMI LEGAL RELATIONSHIP (SAMI ACT)] (LOV-1987-06-12-56), 

https://lovdata.no/dokument/NL/ lov/1987-06-12-56, archived at https://perma.cc/3DP6-BYG9. See also

Norges Offentlige Utredninger [Government Report], NOU 1997: 5, Urfolks landrettigheter etter folkerett og 

utenlandsk rett – Bakgrunnsmateriale for Samerettsutvalge [Indigenous Peoples Rights According to 

International Law and Foreign Law – Background Material for the Sami Rights Survey] (Jan. 1997), 

https://www.regjeringen.no/ contentassets/5b44693549934f36af8a901cfbf3f3cd/no/pdfa/nou1997 

19970005000dddpdfa.pdf, archived at https://perma.cc/BE7N-87F8. 

15 Id.

16 Id. § 2-2. 

17 Odelstings Proposisjon [Ot.prp.] [Government Bill] nr. 33 (1986–1987) Om lov om Sametinget og andre 

samiske rettsforhold (sameloven) [Regarding Act on the Sami Council and Other Sami Relations (Sami Act)], 

at 118. 

18 LOV OM RETTSFORHOLD OG FORVALTNING AV GRUNN OG NATURRESSURSER I FINNMARK FYLKE (FINNMARKSLOVEN)

[ACT ON THE LEGAL RELATIONSHIP AND ADMINISTRATION OF GROUND AND NATURAL RESOURCES IN FINNMARK (THE 

FINNMARK ACT)] (LOV 2005-06-17-85), https://lovdata.no/dokument/NL/lov/2005-06-17-85, archived at

https://perma.cc/7CAK-7GQE. 

19 Id. § 4. 

20 Id. § 5. For further discussions on the land use rights of the Sami reindeer herders see Part V, below. 
Protection of Indigenous Heritage: Norway 

The Law Library of Congress 88

Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property.21 It is thus illegal to import cultural heritage objects 

from other states, and to export items that are of cultural importance to Norway, as specified in 

the Cultural Heritage Act.22 In 1995 Norway ratified the European Convention on the Protection 

of the Archaeological Heritage (also known as the Valetta or Malta Convention) of 1972, which 

obliges Norway to protect and preserve the cultural heritage in a sound way. The Convention 

entered into force in Norway in March 1996.23 Its obligations are also part of the Cultural 

Heritage Act.

C. Prevalence of Sami Historic Items 

Several Sami historical items are spread throughout Europe, including skulls, full skeletons, 

religious drums, clothes, and items for everyday use (such as cooking utensils).24 A large number 

of human remains are located at research facilities. For example, Uppsala University has thirteen 

skulls in its collection.25 These thirteen skulls have been collected both from Swedish and 

Norwegian cemeteries.26 Oslo University has numerous skulls and skeletons that were excavated 

from Sami graves during the early 1900s; at its height the collection included between five 

hundred and one thousand Sami skeletons.27 Some of the Skolt-Sami holdings (Neidensamlingen) 

were returned to the Skolt-Sami ancestors in 2007 and 2011, and resulted in the reburial of more 

than one hundred skulls.28

 

21 UNESCO Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of 

Ownership of Cultural Property, Paris, Nov. 14, 1970, http://www.unesco.org/eri/la/convention.asp?KO= 

13039&language=E, archived at https://perma.cc/EQQ8-HZM5; Forskrift om tilbakelevering av stjålne og 

ulovlig utførte kulturgjenstande (FOR-2001-10-04-1179), https://lovdata.no/dokument/SF/forskrift/2001-10-

04-1179, archived at https://perma.cc/88HL-L578. 

22 §§ 23 and 23a LOV OM KULTURMINNER [KULTURMINNELOVEN] [ACT ON CULTURAL HERITAGE OBJECTS (CULTURAL 

HERITAGE ACT)] (LOV 1987-06-09-50), https://lovdata.no/dokument/NL/lov/1978-06-09-50, archived at

https://perma.cc/H7UF-3T3F. 

23 European Convention on the Protection of the Archaeological Heritage, Jan. 16, 1992, ETS No. 143, 

https://rm.coe.int/168007bd25, archived at https://perma.cc/LLJ4-DFBS; Chart of Signatures and Ratifications of 

Treaty 143, Status as of 13/03/2019, COUNCIL OF EUROPE, https://www.coe.int/en/web/conventions/full-list/-

/conventions/treaty/143/signatures?p_auth=SpOvuuQ4, archived at https://perma.cc/P5EP-ABPK. 

24 Gunnilla Edbom, Samiskt kulturarv i samlingar - Rapport från ett projekt om återföringsfrågor gällande 

samiska föremål, Arkeologisk rapport 2005:1, Ájtte, Svenskt Fjäll- och Samemuseum (2015), http://www.ajtte. 

com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/Samiskt_kulturarv_i_samlingar.pdf, archived at https://perma.cc/9HKULT9T. 

25 Id. at 41. 

26 Id. 

27 Yngve Vogt, UiO har tusenvis av skjeletter i skapet, APOLLON (June 14, 2018), https://www.apollon.uio. 

no/artikler/2018/2_skjeletter.html, archived at https://perma.cc/6ZNA-3GCD. 

28 Kaspar Fuglesang & Erik Lieungh, Begravde 94 skoltesamer for andre gang, NRK (Sept. 26, 2011), 

https://www.nrk.no/troms/begravde-94-skoltesamer-1.7809234, archived at https://perma.cc/R3GK-ZS6L; 

Verdig og respektfull gjenbegravning i Neiden, SO-VANGER KOMMUNE (Sept. 25, 2011), http://www.sorvaranger.kommune.no/verdig-og-respektfull-gjenbegravning-i-neiden-.4964283-17830.html, archived at 

https://perma.cc/MPL5-5QHA. 
Protection of Indigenous Heritage: Norway 

The Law Library of Congress 89

II. Protection of Cultural Objects and Cultural Heritage 

A. Objects Protected under the Cultural Heritage Act 

Cultural objects and cultural heritage are protected by the Norwegian Cultural Heritage Act 

(Kulturminneloven).29 The enumerated list includes the following examples of protected 

cultural objects:30 

a) settlement sites, caves, natural rock shelters with evidence that people have lived or 

worked there, sites of dwellings or churches, churches, houses and structures of all 

kinds, and remains or parts of these, mounds marking ancient farming settlements, 

farms, homesteads, courtyard sites or any other groups of structures, such as market 

sites and trading places, town sites and the like or remains of these. 

b) Work or workshop sites of all kinds such as quarries and other mining sites, iron 

extraction sites, charcoal burning and tar-making sites, and other traces of crafts 

or industry. 

c) Traces of land cultivation of any kind, such as clearance cairns; ditches and plough 

furrows; fences and enclosures; and hunting, fishing, and trapping devices. 

d) Roads and tracks of any kind, whether unpaved or paved with stone, wood, or other 

material; dams, bridges, fords, harbor installations, and crew-change stations; landing 

places and slipways; ferry berths and portages or their remains; obstructions in 

fairways;, road markers; and navigation markers. 

e) Defense items of any kind such as hill-forts, entrenchments, ramparts, moats, 

fortifications, and remains of these and beacons, cairns, etc. 

f) Council sites; cult sites; cult deposition sites; and cairns, wells, springs and other places 

associated with archeological finds, traditions, beliefs, legends, or customs. 

g) Stones, rocks, and mountains with inscriptions or images such as runic inscriptions, 

rock carvings, and rock paintings, cup-marks, grooves, and other rock art. 

h) Monoliths, crosses, and other similar monuments. 

i) Stone settings, stone pavings, etc. 

j) Gravesites of any kind, single ones or in groups, such as burial mounds, burial cairns, 

burial chambers, cremation burials, urn burials, coffin burials, cemeteries, and their 

enclosures, and sepulchral monuments of all kinds.31

 

29 § 3 KULTURMINNELOVEN. 

30 Id. § 4. 

31 Id. § 4. (translation by author). 
Protection of Indigenous Heritage: Norway 

The Law Library of Congress 90

Whereas “Norwegian” objects listed above must date back to 1537 or earlier to be protected, Sami 

cultural objects are protected if dating back to prior to 1917.32 Areas surrounding cultural heritage 

sites are also protected.33 As seen from the list above, most of the Sami objects from 1917 or earlier, 

including sacred places, are protectable. Also, more recent cultural heritage may be protected if 

it is tied to important historic events.34

 

B. Preservation of Sami Cultural Heritage 

1. Automatic Protection of Sami Cultural Heritage and Sami Buildings from 1917 or Earlier 

The Norwegian Cultural Heritage Act protects Norwegian cultural heritage, including Sami 

cultural heritage, and Sami buildings.35 Following a legislative change in 2018, Norway now 

automatically protects all Sami cultural heritage that date back to 1917 and earlier.36 Under the 

previous rules the Norwegian Cultural Heritage Act automatically protected all Sami cultural 

heritage (Samiske kulturminner) that was more than one hundred years old.37 The new rules 

adopted by the Norwegian Parliament in June of 2018 freezes the period of protection, to 1917 

and earlier. According to the Norwegian government, the fixed 1917 date, as opposed to a moving 

one-hundred-year mark, makes conservation easier and more predictable.38 The seemingly 

arbitrary selection of 1917 as the historic threshold is a result of the first national assembly of the 

Sami at Trondheim in 1917.39 Any Sami cultural heritage that is from 1918 and forward thus must 

instead seek protection under sections 15, 19, and 20 of the Cultural Heritage Act.40 Such 

protections are made available for areas surrounding a protected area, or for new areas that 

otherwise have a unique cultural value (særart) where protecting it would protect the cultural 

heritage. Examples of Sami cultural heritage other than buildings include Sami offering sites.41

 

32 §§ 4 and 12 KULTURMINNELOVEN. 

33 Id. § 6. 

34 Id. § 15. 

35 §§ 4, 15, 19 and 20 KULTURMINNELOVEN. 

36 Id. § 4. 

37 Compare KULTURMINNELOVEN, as in force until 2018. 

38 Proposisjon [Prop.] [Government Bill] 42 L (2017-2018) Endringer i kulturminneloven (fredningsgrensen for 

samiske kulturminner) [Amendments to the Cultural Heritage Act (Protection of Sami Cultural Heritage)], at 6, 

https://www.regjeringen.no/contentassets/5d22847e34e144b49a406a7ba5603256/no/pdfs/prp2017201800420

00dddpdfs.pdf, archived at https://perma.cc/G9L7-P2PU. 

39 Innstilling [Innst.] [Committee Report] 305 L (2017–2018) Innstilling fra familie- og kulturkomiteen om 

Endringer i kulturminneloven (fredningsgrensen for samiske kulturminner) Recommendations from the 

Family and Cultural Committee Regarding Amendments to the Cultural Heritage Act (Protections for the Sami 

Cultural Heritage)], https://www.stortinget.no/globalassets/pdf/innstillinger/stortinget/2017-2018/inns201718-305l.pdf, archived at https://perma.cc/JPG5-4LG9. 

40 §§ 15, 19 and 20 KULTURMINNELOVEN. 

41 Samiske kulturminne, RIKSANTIKVAREN, https://www.riksantikvaren.no/Tema/Urfolk-minoritetar-ogkulturminne/Samiske-kulturminne (last visited Mar. 5, 2019), archived at https://perma.cc/2PYA-M6QD. 
Protection of Indigenous Heritage: Norway 

The Law Library of Congress 91

The Directorate for Cultural Heritage (Riksantikvaren) has a special program that covers 

protected Sami cultural buildings.42 A review and inventory of protected buildings was initiated 

in 201143 and the full registry (Samiske bygningsregistreringer) was completed in 2017.44 The list 

then included eight hundred to nine hundred buildings.45 An example of a protected Sami 

building includes the Buret pa Fagerbakken (Cage on the Fager Hill).46 

The government has provided funds, subject to an application, for the protection and 

preservation of privately owned cultural heritage sites and Sami buildings.47 The Directorate for 

Cultural Heritage processes the application and grants the funding.48 

2. Automatic Protection of Gravesites from Prior to 1917 

Similar to other Sami cultural objects, Sami gravesites that date back to 1917 or earlier are 

automatically protected under the Norwegian Cultural Heritage Act.49 The Norwegian Institute 

for Cultural Heritage Research (Norsk institutt for kulturminneforskning, NIKU) has published 

a report on the protected gravesites of the Sami, which are generally located in the northern parts 

of the country.50 During its 2002 survey the NIKU found essentially five different types of Sami 

graves.51 The older Sami graves (from the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries) were located just 

outside the cemetery and were unmarked.52 The newer graves (after the 1750s) were located in 

 

42 Bevaringsprogrammet for samiske kulturminner, RIKSANTIKVAREN, https://www.riksantikvaren.no/Prosjekter/ 

Bevaringsprogramma/Bevaringsprogrammet-for-samiske-kulturminner (last visited Mar. 5, 2019), archived at

https://perma.cc/4WEC-QK29. 

43 Samisk bygningsvern – Viktig kulturhistorie, SAMETINGET (Sept. 14, 2019), https://www.samedigge.no/ 

Samedikke-birra/Arkiv-perioden-2016-2017/AAdaasa/Samisk-bygningsvern-Viktig-kulturhistorie, archived at

https://perma.cc/W3TY-69FJ; SÁMEDIGGE, VERN OG FORVALTNING AV SAMISKE BYGGVERK (Aug. 2003), 

https://www.samedigge.no/content/download/1115/file/Vern+og+forvaltning+av+samiske+byggverk.pdf, 

archived at https://perma.cc/5TKF-WM8X. 

44 Samisk bygningsvern – Viktig kulturhistorie, SAMETINGET, supra note 43. 

45 Id. 

46 Buret på Fagerbakken – en ikonisk samisk bygningstype, RIKSANTIKVAREN, https://www.riksantikvaren. 

no/Aktuelt/Maanedens-kulturminne/Buret-paa-Fagerbakken-en-ikonisk-samisk-bygningstype (last visited 

Mar. 5, 2019), archived at https://perma.cc/RXL6-LPLJ. 

47 Tilskuddsmidler 2019 - Freda samiske bygninger i privat eie, SAMETINGET, https://www.sametinget.no/Tilskuddog-stipend/Tilskuddsmidler-2019-Freda-samiske-bygninger-i-privat-eie (last visited Mar. 5, 2019), archived at

https://perma.cc/6C6N-L9JW. 

48 RETNINGSLINGER OG VILKÅFOR TILSKUDD FRA STATSBUDSJETTET KAP. 1429 POST 71-79, RIKSANTIKVARIEN, 

https://www.sametinget.no/content/download/2794/file/Retningslinjer-og-vilkaar-for-stilskudd-frastatsbudsjettet-kap-1429-post-71-79.pdf, archived at https://perma.cc/H4V6-4Y6W. 

49 Id. § 4. 

50 Asgeir Svestad & Stine Barlindhaug, Norsk institutt for kulturminneforskning, Samiske Kirkegårder 

Registrering av automatisk freda samiske kirkegårder i Nord Troms og Finnmark (2003), https://brage.bibsys. 

no/xmlui/bitstream/handle/11250/2561037/NIKURapport4.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y, archived at

https://perma.cc/4TQM-A89Z. 

51 Id. at 10–11. 

52 Id. at 10. 
Protection of Indigenous Heritage: Norway 

The Law Library of Congress 92

cemeteries and marked with a wooden cross with a name or initials.53 For these graves, the 

information provided on Sami graves was typically less than the information included on the 

graves of non-Sami Norwegians, and many of the graves from prior to the 1900s had wooden 

crosses that had been destroyed, making the information illegible.54 NIKU’s graveyard group that 

conducted the survey of the protected gravesites called for additional areas to be registered, 

including more southern areas where the Sami ancestors no longer identify as Sami.55 Sami 

graveyards that are protected by the automatic protection provided by the Norwegian Cultural 

Heritage Act may not be altered.56 Sami graveyards from 1918 or later are not automatically 

protected.57 However, more recent Sami graveyards may be protected under the provision 

protecting all graves for forty years from burial.58

C. Limits on Land Use Based on the Cultural Heritage Act 

1. Preservation 

Persons who use and own land have a duty to examine whether it is subject to cultural heritage 

protection.59 If the site is a protected cultural heritage site the person who wants to modify the 

site must make a request with the Directorate for Cultural Heritage or the police.60 Although costs 

to protect and preserve automatically protected heritage sites must generally be borne by the 

owner or the person who takes the measure affecting the site, the Directorate of Cultural Heritage 

may decide to reimburse certain costs.61

The Norwegian state must provide compensation for moveable property that it expropriates on 

the basis of the property being of protected cultural value.62 The state may also excavate human 

remains including skulls and skeletons.63 

 

 

53 Id. at 11. 

54 Id. at 12. 

55 Id. at 13. 

56 § 3 KULTURMINNELOVEN. 

57 Id. § 4. 

58 § 8 LOV OM GRAVPLASSER, KREMASJON OG GRAVFERD (GRAVFERDSLOVEN) [ACT ON GRAVE PLOTS, CREMATION, AND 

FUNERALS (THE FUNERAL ACT)] (LOV 1996-06-07-32), https://lovdata.no/dokument/NL/lov/1996-06-07-32, 

archived at https://perma.cc/LF6M-GM4T. See also Gravplasser mangler lovbeskyttelse etter 40 år, ØKOKRIM (Apr. 

7, 2011), https://www.okokrim.no/gravplasser-mangler-lovbeskyttelse-etter-40-aar.416163.no.html, archived at

https://perma.cc/D3DX-UDCB. 

59 § 9 KULTURMINNELOVEN. 

60 Id. § 8. 

61 Id. § 10. 

62 Id. § 11. 

63 Id. 
Protection of Indigenous Heritage: Norway 

The Law Library of Congress 93

2. Prohibition on Alterations, Damage, Etc. 

Buildings or cultural heritage sites that are automatically protected may not be altered.64 The law 

specifically provides that ”[n]o action—unless otherwise permissible under § 8—may be initiated 

if it will damage, destroy, excavate, move, change, cover, hide, or in another way unduly hurt 

automatically protected cultural heritage, or create a risk that this may happen.”65 Violations of 

this provision are subject to fines or one year of imprisonment (two years if the violation is 

especially heinous).66 A recent example of a violation of a Sami heritage site is the Kallenholmen 

incident, where an individual, using a metal detector to mark the spots, dug up eighty holes in 

the Kallenholmen Sami heritage site.67 The police did not manage to locate the perpetrator.68

Previous surveys conducted by the police and Oslo University show that local police officers 

generally express that they lack expertise in how to investigate and prevent violations of heritage 

protection laws and damage to heritage sites.69 

Examples of instances where fines were issued for the destruction of a cultural site include an 

NOK 150,000 (about US$14,000) fine issued to the Eigursund municipality for allowing one of its 

contractors to dig up parts of a Norwegian (non-Sami) heritage site.70 Tønsberg municipality 

received a larger, NOK 1.5 million (about US$175,000) fine in 2016 when it dug into a heritage 

site.71 Here the circumstances suggested the municipality was culpable and had not notified the 

county of its intended actions.72 

 

64 Id. § 3. 

65 Id. 

66 Id. § 27. 

67 PRM: Fredet kulturminne på Kalle i Vågan kommune rasert, SAMETINGET (May 22, 2018), https://www. 

sametinget.no/Nyhetsarkiv/PRM-Fredet-kulturminne-paa-Kalle-i-Vaagan-kommune-rasert, archived at

https://perma.cc/P5A6-UT4H. 

68 Synne Mauseth, Henla saken etter at kulturminne ble rasert, LOFOTPOSTEN (Dec. 29, 2018), https://www.lofo 

tposten.no/politi/kalle/kabelvag/henla-saken-etter-at-kulturminne-ble-rasert/s/5-29-442743, archived at 

https://perma.cc/VH4D-SB9G. 

69 Kulturminnekriminalitet, ØKOKRIM (May 30, 2011), https://www.okokrim.no/kulturminnekriminalitet. 

416143.no.html, archived at https://perma.cc/86KA-96FA. 

70 150 000 i bot til Eigersund kommune for å grave sjakt i kulturminne, ØKOKRIM (Dec. 19, 2013), https://www. 

okokrim.no/150-000-i-bot-til-eigersund-kommune-for-aa-grave-sjakt-i-kulturminne.416937.no.html, archived at

https://perma.cc/4VDG-VH3P. 

71Aktuelle førelegg, ØKOKRIM (May 13, 2015), https://www.okokrim.no/aktuelle-foerelegg.416363.no.html, 

archived at https://perma.cc/BXH5-2GH9. 

72 Id. 
Protection of Indigenous Heritage: Norway 

The Law Library of Congress 94

Examples of instances where a prison sentence was delivered include a farmer who, absent prior 

approval, dug up parts of his land.73 He was sentenced to a sixty-day jail sentence and an NOK 

60,000 (about US$7,000) fine.74 

 

D. Finder’s Rights and Obligations 

By law, the finder of a cultural object (as defined in the Act on Cultural Heritage, see Part III(A), 

above) must report it to the police.75 Failure to do so is subject to a fine or imprisonment for up to 

one year.76

A finder of a cultural object may be entitled to a finder’s fee. Finder’s fees are determined on an 

ad hoc basis by the sole discretion of the Directorate for Cultural Heritage.77 If the object found is 

made of silver or gold then the reimbursement must be based on the value of the item as 

determined by the weight of the metal.78 

Persons who violate the Cultural Heritage Act either through their actions or inaction may be 

fined or imprisoned for up to one year.79

III. Repatriation of Human Remains 

In 1997, Norway became the first Nordic country in which Sami human remains were 

repatriated.80 Oslo University returned the skull of Mons Somby (one of the beheaded leaders 

behind the Kautokeino Uprising of 1852) to the Sami Cultural Board (Samisk kulturminneråd) in 

1996.81 He was later reburied together with Aslak Hætta, whose skull was found at the University 

of Copenhagen, in 1997.82 Other descendants of Sami individuals have also requested to have 

 

73 Gulating lagmannsrett [Gulating Appeals Court] LG-2009-113472 (2010-10-14) (on file with author), also 

available at LG-2009-113472, https://lovdata.no/pro/#document/LGSTR/avgjorelse/lg-2009-113472? 

searchResultContext=1167&rowNumber=47&totalHits=345 (by subscription), archived at https://perma.cc/ 

2FPD-KK5E. 

74 Id. 

75 § 13 KULTURMINNELOVEN. 

76 Id. § 27. 

77 Id. § 13. 

78 Id. § 13 mom. 4. 

79 Id. § 27. 

80 Hodeskallen levert tilbake, UNIFORUM (Sept. 3, 1996), https://www.uniforum.uio.no/nyheter/1996/uni 

forum11-96/hode.html, archived at https://perma.cc/6Q5Z-W9YQ; Norway Returns Skulls of Lappish Dead, BBC 

(Dec. 15, 1997), http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/39626.stm, archived at https://perma.cc/HHL6-H2BT. 

81 Hodeskallen levert tilbake, UNIFORUM, supra note 80. 

82 Aslak Hættas hodeskalle i København, UNIFORUM (May 15, 1997), https://www.uniforum.uio.no/nyheter/ 

1997/uniforum08-97/a7.html, archived at https://perma.cc/K5UT-ZHYC; Per Lars Tonstand, Fulgte skallene til 

graven, DAGBLADET (Nov. 22, 1997), https://www.dagbladet.no/nyheter/fulgte-skallene-til-graven/65423245, 

archived at https://perma.cc/HWA6-3WQ7. 
Protection of Indigenous Heritage: Norway 

The Law Library of Congress 95

their ancestors’ skulls returned and reburied.83 For instance, Oslo University holds hundreds of 

skulls that were taken from the Sami.84 In 2011 a total of ninety-four Skolt-Sami (skoltesamer) 

remains were reburied in a mass grave in Neiden, an area on the Norwegian-Finnish-Russian 

border.85 The government has not passed legal requirements or issued ethical guidelines for the 

conservation and return of Sami skulls and human remains. 

IV. Excavation of Sami Graves 

Excavation and archeological studies of Sami graves may be conducted by (or at the direction of) 

the Norwegian government, provided that certain rules are followed, including notifying the 

landowner.86 The cultural heritage site must also be restored and the objects returned.87 If the 

objects cannot be returned they must be preserved by the relevant government agency.88 

In 2005 an excavation and archeological survey of Sami grave sites in Øyo was conducted to 

determine whether pre-Christian customs of burial ceremonies (such as being buried with 

personal items) carried over to post-Christian Sami burial ceremonies.89 

Newer graves, which do not qualify automatically for heritage protection, are protected in the 

Funeral Act.90 The Act specifies when graves may be opened or moved.91 New graves are typically 

protected for forty years.92 Older graves that are considered cultural heritage, compare above, are 

automatically protected.93

 

 

83 Janne Kjellberg, Vil ha 21 hodeskaller tilbake, NRK (Jan. 18, 2008), https://www.nrk.no/kultur/vil-ha-21-

hodeskaller-tilbake-1.4561916, archived at https://perma.cc/K56Y-7NMZ. 

84 Id. 

85 Per Lars Tonstand, Norsk Gravroveri med statens velsignelse, DAGBLADET (Sept. 24, 2011), https://www. 

dagbladet.no/nyheter/norsk-gravroveri-med-statens-velsignelse/63501006, archived at https://perma.cc/ 

6997-FSBD; Erik Lieungh, Nå skal 94 samiske skjelett gravlegges for godt, NRK (June 30, 2011), https://www.nrk. 

no/troms/gjengraving-av-94-sameskjelett-1.7696109, archived at https://perma.cc/U8PJ-UTS6. 

86 § 11 KULTURMINNELOVEN. 

87 Id. 

88 Id. 

89 Tor Kjetil, Samiske graver på Kirkegårdsøya åpnes, FINNMARK (July 11, 2005), https://www.ifinnmark.no/ 

kultur/samiske-graver-pa-kirkegardsoya-apnes/s/1-30002-1661649?service=profile&personId=356330, 

archived at https://perma.cc/BEU6-4ZD9. 

90 LOV OM GRAVPLASSER, KREMASJON OG GRAVFERD (GRAVFERDSLOVEN) [ACT ON GRAVE PLOTS, CREMATION, AND 

FUNERALS (FUNERAL ACT)] (LOV 1996-06-07-32), https://lovdata.no/dokument/NL/lov/1996-06-07-32, 

archived at https://perma.cc/LF6M-GM4T. 

91 Id. § 7. 

92 Id. § 8. 

93 See Part II(B)(2), above. 
Protection of Indigenous Heritage: Norway 

The Law Library of Congress 96

V. Laws Regulating Land Use, Conservation, and Sami Territorial Rights 

A. Land Protection Legislation 

The use of land in Norway is subject to several laws, including the Cultural Heritage Act 

mentioned above. In addition to that Act, the use of land is also subject to limitations found in the 

Nature Diversity Act and the Planning and Building Act. 

1. Nature Diversity Act

The purpose of the Nature Diversity Act is to ensure that ”nature with its biological, geographic 

and geological diversity and ecological processes is taken care of through sustainable use and 

protection, also in a way that it provides a basis for mankind’s activities, culture, health and wellbeing, now and in the future, and also a basis for Sami culture.”94 The law also requires that Sami 

usage of an area, as well as the impact on Sami culture, be considered before measures are 

undertaken to change the land.95 The law specifically requires that the Sami Council be heard or 

have a chance to comment on issues that affect the Sami people.96 

Under the Nature Diversity Act, protected areas such as national parks may be established.97 If 

established, the use of these spaces is regulated and no activity having a lasting impact on nature 

or cultural heritage sites and objects may be undertaken.98 As of 2017, 17% of Norway’s landmass 

was protected as national parks.99 National parks may also be established on private land as the 

result of an amendment to the legislation.100 In determining whether a protected area should be 

established, both cultural interests and financial interests must be considered.101 

 

94 LOV OM FORVALTNING AV NATURENS MANGFOLD (NATURMANGFOLDLOVEN) [NATURE DIVERSITY ACT] § 1 (LOV 

2006-06-19), https://lovdata.no/dokument/NL/lov/2009-06-19-100?searchResultContext=1115&row 

Number=4&totalHits=1246 (translation by author), archived at https://perma.cc/P6BR-JTQG. 

95 Id. §§ 8, 11. 

96 Id. § 43. 

97 Id. §§ 35–37. 

98 Id. § 35. 

99 Antje Neumann, Sami Participatory Rights in Area Protection and Management: The Influence of the Related CBD’s 

Programme in Finland and Norway, in INDIGENOUS RIGHTS IN MODERN LANDSCAPES: NORDIC CONSERVATION 

REGIMES IN GLOBAL CONTEXT 205 (Lars Elenius et al. eds., 2017). 

100 NOU 2004:28 Lov om bevaring av natur, landskap og biologisk mangfold [Act on Preservation of Nature, 

Landscapes, and Biological Diversity], at 147, https://www.regjeringen.no/contentassets/149bde12e 

1e24fe983663d38ec6d41e0/no/pdfs/nou200420040028000dddpdfs.pdf, archived at https://perma.cc/FHV5-

8BHF. 

101 § 14 NATURMANGFOLDLOVEN. 
Protection of Indigenous Heritage: Norway 

The Law Library of Congress 97

Violations of the Nature Diversity Act are punishable by fine, unless a greater punishment is 

warranted because of other laws.102 Thus, in the case of violations of Sami heritage sites in national 

parks, the Heritage Act and its specified punishments (a fine or imprisonment) would apply.103 

Sami representatives are members of the National Park Boards in all National Parks where Sami 

people live or operate.104 

2. The Planning and Building Act 

The Planning and Building Act is meant to coordinate efforts between the Norwegian state, 

municipalities, and districts in planning the zoning and use of land in Norway.105 It is intended 

to create “sustainable development in the best interest of the individual, the community, and for 

future generations.”106 Under the law, any development of Norwegian land must first be 

preapproved by the Ministry of Local Government and Modernization.107 Development of an area 

not correctly zoned is prohibited, and violations of the Planning and Building Act may result in 

forced restitution as well as administrative fees, fines, or imprisonment.108 Both the municipality 

and the Norwegian state must provide updated zoning plans.109 Consideration must be given to 

“protection of important geographical and cultural areas,” but the plan should also create an 

opportunity for value appreciation and the development of industry.110 The Sami Council has a 

right and duty to participate in local planning, and also has a right to comment on proposals and 

appeal decisions that affect them.111 The state plan is revised every four years by 

the government.112 Sami reindeer herders have objected to the urbanization of northern areas.113

 

 

102 Id. § 75. 

103 Id. § 39; § 27 KULTURMINNELOVEN. 

104 Lokal forvaltning av nasjonalparker og store verneområder, SAMETINGET (Feb. 10, 2017), https://www.sametinget. 

no/Tjenester/Miljoe-areal-og-kulturvern/Lokal-forvaltning-av-nasjonalparker-og-store-verneomraader, 

archived at https://perma.cc/VL39-AAX4. 

105 LOV OM PLANLEGGING OG BYGGESAKSBEHANDLING (PLAN- OG BYGNINGSLOVEN) (LOV 2008-06-27-71), 

https://lovdata.no/dokument/NL/lov/2008-06-27-71/, archived at https://perma.cc/L99N-7QDF. 

106 Id. § 1-1. 

107 Id. 20-1. 

108 Id. §§ 32-8, 32-9. 

109 Id.§§ 2-1, 2-2. 

110 Id. § 2-1b. 

111 Id. §§ 1-9, 3-2, 5-4. 

112 Id. § 6-1. 

113 Rune Andreassen, Dette er et reinbeitedistrikt. Det kan ikke folk se bort fra, NRK (Mar. 18, 2019), https://www. 

nrk.no/troms/_-dette-er-et-reinbeitedistrikt.-det-kan-ikke-folk-se-bort-fra-1.14451906, archived at

https://perma.cc/H3Q2-YS7W. 
Protection of Indigenous Heritage: Norway 

The Law Library of Congress 98

B. The Right to Roam 

Generally, the right to roam (allemansretten) provides a public right to walk on private land 

(utmark), as well as a duty of care, i.e. persons are not allowed to damage the property.114 The 

right to roam has been a foundation of Norwegian society since the 1700s when Norwegian 

settlers moved to Finnmark, the lands previously utilized primarily by the Sami people.115 The 

right to exercise the right to roam and to use natural resources “such as stones, twigs, plants etc., 

of little or no financial value” is also illustrated by a section in the Penal Code that exempts the 

taking of these items from the provision on theft.116 Similarly, property owners may not erect 

fences or other obstacles that would hinder the public’s use of their right to roam.117 The right to 

roam must be exercised with due care for cultural heritage sites and objects.118

C. Reindeer Grazing Rights 

1. Law and Customary Rights 

The Sami people have a special right to use land in Finnmarken, the northern parts of Norway. 

About 40% of the Norwegian mainland is used for reindeer grazing.119 The right is based both on 

custom and black letter law.120 Specifically, authorized Sami reindeer herders may allow their 

reindeer to graze in certain areas.121 Norwegian law differentiates between the grazing rights 

during summer and winter months.122 Finnmarken is controlled by the Finnmark Estate Agency 

(Finnmarkseiendommen, FeFo), a special administrative agency that is made up of both Sami 

representatives and non-Sami representatives, all of whom must reside in Finnmarken.123

 

 

114 § 2 LOV OM FRILUFTSLIVET (FRILUFTSLOVEN) [ACT ON OUTDOOR ACTIVITIES (OUTDOORS ACT)] (LOV 1957-06-28-

16), https://lovdata.no/dokument/NL/lov/1957-06-28-16, archived at https://perma.cc/C2WH-HXYK. 

115 NOU 2001:34 Samiske sedvaner og rettsoppfatninger – bakgrunnsmateriale for Samerettsutvalget [Sami 

Custom and Legal Interpretations – Background Material for the Sami Law Survey] at 575, https://www.reg 

jeringen.no/contentassets/fba82b10cd444d7ab37b550c4ac518f8/no/pdfs/nou200120010034000dddpdfs.pdf, 

archived at https://perma.cc/V6CA-J3S3. 

116 § 323 STRAFFELOVEN [PENAL CODE], LOV-2005-05-20, https://lovdata.no/dokument/NL/lov/2005-05-20-

28/KAPITTEL_2-12 (translation by author), archived at https://perma.cc/WY6U-VKEM. 

117 § 13 FRILUFTSLOVEN.

118 § 27 KULTURMINNELOVEN. 

119 Jan Åge Riseth, A Space for Sami Valued? Sami Reindeer Herding and Norwegian National Parks, in INDIGENOUS 

RIGHTS IN MODERN LANDSCAPES, supra note 99, at 148. 

120 § 4 LOV OM REINDRIFT (REINDRIFTSLOVEN) [ACT ON REINDEER (REINDEER ACT)] (LOV 2007-06-15-40), 

https://lovdata.no/dokument/NL/lov/2007-06-15-40, archived at https://perma.cc/C6C5-QXF2. 

121 Id. §§ 8, 9; see also NOU 2001:34, supra note 115. 

122 § 20 REINDRIFTSLOVEN. 

123 Id. §§ 6 & 7. 
Protection of Indigenous Heritage: Norway 

The Law Library of Congress 99

2. Recent Case Law on Grazing Rights 

Although Norway recognizes the right of immemorial use by Sami reindeer herders, there are 

limits on the right to use the land for reindeer grazing or other activities. In January of 2019 the 

Norwegian Court of Appeals found that a Swedish Sami village that enjoys grazing rights during 

the winter months does not enjoy these same rights during the summer months.124 This case may 

be appealed to the Supreme Court.125 The Norwegian Supreme Court also held in 2018 that a Sami 

village in Finnmark, while possessing user rights based on immemorial use (alders tids bruk), did 

not have a right to regulate fishing, trapping, and hunting in Finnmark.126 The right to regulate 

instead rested with the Finnmark Estate Agency as owner (grundeier) of the land.127 

D. Current Land-Use Conflicts 

The absence of a right for Sami people to administer the land that they use, as well as any 

determination that their use is based on the season, has consequences with regard to the granting 

of mining operations, creation of hydroelectric power stations, and other permissible uses of land 

used by the Sami. Some of the larger conflicts regarding land-use rights are between traditional 

Sami land use and mining.128 For example, a copper mine in Kvalsund, which the Sami oppose, 

will be required to halt its operations during the reindeer calving period.129 Another example of 

a land-use conflict is the prohibition on snowmobiles and other motorized traffic in protected 

areas (such as national parks), technology that the Sami reindeer herders use.130 These 

prohibitions are often in place to protect cultural sites and the environment, including Sami 

 

124 Borgarting Lagmannsrett [Boargarting Court of Appeals] LB-2017-97958-2 (Jan. 6, 2019), on file with author. 

125 Id. 

126 Høyesterett [Supreme Court], HR-2018-456-P (Sak nr. 2017/860), https://www.domstol.no/globalassets/ 

upload/ hret/avgjorelser/2018/avgjorelser-mars-2018/saknr-2017-860.pdf, archived at https://perma.cc/ 

GG6Q-R2X9, English summary available at https://www.domstol.no/en/Enkelt-domstol/-norgeshoyesterett/rulings/ rulings-2018/the-scope-of-collecetive-rights-of-use-to-land-in-nesseby-finnmark/, 

archived at https://perma. cc/BW95-XK3V; see also Elin Hofverberg, Norway: Supreme Court: Finnmark Estate 

Agency Has Right to Regulate Fishery, Hunting and Use of Natural Resources in Finnmark, GLOBAL LEGAL MONITOR

(Mar. 30, 2018), http://www. loc.gov/law/foreign-news/article/norway-supreme-court-finnmark-estateagency-has-right-to-regulate-fishery-hunting-and-use-of-natural-resources-in-finnmark/, archived at 

https://perma.cc/AC7S-DQVY. 

127 Høyesterett, HR-2018-456-P, supra note 126. 

128 André Bendixen & Fredrik Solvang, Gruva i Kvalsund stikker hardt i hjertet, NRK (Feb. 21, 2019), 

https://www.nrk.no/finnmark/_-gruva-i-kvalsund-stikker-hardt-i-hjertet-1.14441498, archived at

https://perma.cc/Y5HP-RZM6; see also U.N. General Assembly, Report on the Special Rapporteur on the Rights of 

Indigenous Peoples on the Human Rights Situation of the Sami People in the Sápmi Region of Norway, Sweden, and 

Finland: Human Rights Council, U.N. Doc A/HR/33/42/Add.3 (Aug. 9, 2016), http://unsr.vtaulicorpuz. 

org/site/images/docs/country/2016-sapmi-a-hrc-33-42-add-3-en.pdf, archived at https://perma.cc/4SUVLVM3; Gruvedrift i Finnmark gjennom tidene, NATURVERNFORBUNDET, https://naturvernforbundet.no/ 

finnmark/gruvedrift/gruvedrift-i-finnmark-gjennom-tidene-article26009-2023.html?offset5331=8 (last visited 

Feb. 12, 2019), archived at https://perma.cc/ZD2K-5PRY. 

129 NRK, supra note 128. 

130 Jan Åge Riseth, A Space for Sami Valued? Sami Reindeer Herding and Norwegian National Parks, in INDIGENOUS 

RIGHTS IN MODERN LANDSCAPES, supra note 119, at 158, 162. 
Protection of Indigenous Heritage: Norway 

The Law Library of Congress 100

heritage sites. The tourism industry also creates a potential for conflict, and the creation of 

national parks may limit the freedom of the Sami. 
The Law Library of Congress 101 

Peru 

Graciela Rodriguez-Ferrand 

Senior Foreign Law Specialist

Peru does not have specific legislation on the protection of sacred places of indigenous people. 

Its cultural property, including graves, human remains, and artifacts, are governed by the general 

rules applicable to the cultural heritage of Peru. 

The Peruvian Constitution provides that archaeological ruins and sites, monuments, 

bibliographic and archival documents, artistic objects, and documents of historic value, expressly 

declared to be cultural assets, and provisionally those presumed as such, are the nation’s cultural 

patrimony, regardless of their status as private or public property,1 and are protected by the state.2 

The protection of cultural property has been extensively structured by the Ley General de 

Patrimonio Cultural (LGPC) (General Law on Cultural Patrimony) No. 282963 and its regulation 

under Decreto Supremo No. 011-2006-ED.4 

The LGPC defines cultural property that is part of the cultural patrimony of the nation as any 

tangible or intangible expression of human work of paleontological, archeological, architectural, 

historical, artistic, military, social, anthropological, traditional, religious, ethnic, scientific, 

technological, or intellectual importance, value, and significance, which is specifically declared 

or legally presumed as such.5 

Once declared a cultural property asset, property must be registered in the National Registry of 

Cultural Property Assets, within the Ministry of Culture.6

Indigenous art, materials, graves discovered in archeological excavations, and discoveries are 

governed by the LGPC and its regulation.7 State protection includes a number of restrictions 

 

1 CONSTITUCIÓN POLÍTICA DEL PERÚ [CPP] [POLITICAL CONSTITUTION OF PERU], OCT. 31, 1993, art. 21, http://spij. 

minjus.gob.pe/content/publicaciones_oficiales/img/Constitucion-Politica-2016.pdf, archived at

https://perma.cc/FM5Y-NYJ2. 

2 Id. 

3 Ley 28296 General del Patrimonio Cultural de la Nación [LGPC] [General Law on Cultural Patrimony] art. I, 

http://www.leyes.congreso.gob.pe/Documentos/Leyes/28296.pdf, archived at https://perma.cc/87FQMXTV. 

4 Decreto Supremo No. 011-2006-ED Aprueba Reglamento de la Ley 28296, Ley General del Patrimonio 

Cultural [RLGPC] [Regulation of LGPC], https://www.senace.gob.pe/download/senacenormativa/NAT-3-4-

02-DS-011-2006-ED.pdf, archived at https://perma.cc/9MTQ-XNRB. 

5 Id. art. II. 

6 RLGPC art. 9. 

7 LGPC art. 1.1.2. 
Protection of Indigenous Heritage: Peru 

The Law Library of Congress 102

imposed on the private or public owners of those cultural items regarding their sale, transfer, 

export, etc., in order to secure their adequate preservation.8 

The transfer of cultural property assets must be reported to the competent authorities.9 If the 

transfer is for valuable consideration, the seller must also give the authorities thirty days to opt 

to purchase the item, which will expire after said term and allow the seller to freely transfer the 

cultural property.10

The protection of the land categorized as cultural property includes the soil and subsoil where 

the property is located.11 Any development or change in use of land constituting cultural property 

must have the prior approval of the National Institute of Culture.12 

Private participation in the conservation, restoration, exhibition, and diffusion of this patrimony 

is encouraged, as is its return to Peru when it has been illegally removed from the 

national territory.13 

The Penal Code14 further provides that exploration, excavation, or appropriation of items found 

in pre-Hispanic archeological areas, without authorization, is a crime sanctioned with 

imprisonment and a fine in addition to seizure of the assets and civil compensatory reparation.15

Criminal penalties also apply to whoever finances or organizes illegal extractions or 

explorations,16 or destroys or illegally takes items of the cultural patrimony out of the country.17 

A bill on the Protection and Preservation of the Paleontological Patrimony of the Nation, 

submitted on April 17, 2017, and pending congressional approval, would complement the LGPC, 

providing specific rules for the protection and preservation of paleontological assets.18 

 

8 Id. arts. 7, 9 & 10. 

9 Id. art. 12. 

10 Id. art. 13. 

11 Id. art. 27. 

12 Id. art. 29. 

13 Id. art. V. 

14 Decreto Legislativo 635, Apr. 25, 1991, CÓDIGO PENAL [PENAL CODE] arts. 226-231, at 45, http://spij.minjus. 

gob.pe/content/publicaciones_oficiales/img/CODIGOPENAL.pdf, archived at https://perma.cc/5VDJ-SKS7.

15 Id. arts. 226, 231. 

16 Id. art. 227. 

17 Id. arts. 228, 230. 

18 Proyecto de Ley No. 1240/2016 CR Ley de Protección y Preservación del Patrimonio Paleontológico de la 

Nación [Bill No. 1240/2016 on the Law on the Protection and Preservation of the Paleontological Patrimony of 

the Nation], Apr. 17, 2017, http://www.leyes.congreso.gob.pe/Documentos/2016_2021/Proyectos_de_ 

Ley_y_de_Resoluciones_Legislativas/PL0124020170417.pdf, archived at https://perma.cc/W4JF-AMVJ.
The Law Library of Congress 103 

Russia 

Astghik Grigoryan 

Legal Research Analyst

SUMMARY The Russian Federation is a multiethnic and multicultural country. Russian legislation 

does not contain a general definition of indigenous people. The Law on Guarantees of 

the Rights of Small-Numbered Indigenous Peoples of the Russian Federation only 

defines “small-numbered” (groups of no more than fifty thousand) indigenous peoples 

of the North, Far East, and Siberia. 

 Existing legislation contains several provisions aimed at guaranteeing the protection of 

objects of cultural and archaeological heritage. The Law on Objects of Cultural and 

Historic Heritage (Monuments of Culture and History) of the People of the Russian 

Federation is the primary law governing discoveries of human remains, sacred places, 

and artifacts of indigenous peoples. The Law governs the process and policies for 

archaeological excavations, inventories, and the protection of finds. The Law also 

provides a legal framework for land development in the context of the protection of 

objects of cultural and archaeological heritage. 

 

Sacred places and places of worship of indigenous peoples are considered a part of their 

natural habitat. The Federal Law on Territories of Traditional Use of the Natural Habitat 

of Small-Numbered Indigenous Peoples of the North, Siberia, and Far East provides 

limited protection for these sites, as parts of specially protected lands of traditional use 

of the natural habitat. 

I. Introduction 

The Russian Federation is a multiethnic and multicultural country, with more than 180 different 

nationalities and ethnic groups. The Russian Constitution provides for the protection and 

preservation of the cultural heritage of Russians. According to article 44, paragraph 3 of the 

Constitution, “everyone shall be obliged to care for the preservation of cultural and historical 

heritage and protect monuments of history and culture.”1 

Russian legislation does not contain a general definition of the term “indigenous people.” 

National legislation only defines “small-numbered indigenous peoples of the Russian North, Far 

East, and Siberia.” Article 1 of the Law on Guarantees of the Rights of Small-Numbered 

Indigenous Peoples of the Russian Federation (Law on Guarantees of Rights) states that 

“indigenous small-numbered peoples” are those who live in the territories of traditional 

settlement of their ancestors; preserve their traditional lifestyle, economic activities, and crafts; 

and have a collective population in the Russian Federation of less than fifty thousand.2 According 

 

1 CONSTITUTION OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION 1993, art. 44, para. 3, available at http://www.constitution.ru/ 

en/10003000-04.htm (in English), archived at https://perma.cc/9QVU-E6N8. 

2 Federal’nij Zakon Rossiskoi Federatsii o Garantiakh Prav Korennikh Malochislennikh Narodov Rossiiskoy 

Federatsii [Federal Law of Russian Federation (RF) on Guarantees of Rights of Indigenous Small-Numbered 
Protection of Indigenous Heritage: Russia 

The Law Library of Congress 104 

to the Governmental Resolution on the Unified Registry of Small-Numbered Indigenous Peoples, 

of 180 nationalities and ethnic groups living in the Russian Federation more than forty are 

classified as “small-numbered indigenous peoples” and are thus subject to a special legal status 

and protection.3 

The protections accorded to small-numbered indigenous peoples can be found in a variety of 

legal sources: 

 Article 69 of the Constitution provides that “the Russian Federation shall guarantee the rights 

of the indigenous small-numbered people according to the universally recognized principles 

and norms of international law and international treaties and agreements of the 

Russian Federation.”4 

 Article 72 of the Constitution states that the protection of the natural habitat and traditional 

way of living of small-numbered ethnic minorities, as well as issues of the possession, use, 

and disposal of land, subsoil, water, and other natural resources, are under the joint 

jurisdiction of the Russian Federation and its subjects.5 

 The Federal Law on Territories of Traditional Use of the Natural Habitat of Indigenous SmallNumbered Peoples of the North, Siberia, and Far East (Law on Territories of Traditional Use) 

is the main piece of legislation providing protection for traditional habitats, places of worship, 

and objects of history and culture situated on the specially protected territories of traditional 

use of the natural habitat.6 

 Additionally, the Law on Guarantees of Rights states that small-numbered indigenous 

peoples have the right to their unique culture, to observe their traditions and perform 

religious ceremonies, and to preserve and protect their places of worship.7

 

People (Law on Guarantees of Rights)] art. 1 (1999), available in Russian on the legal information portal of the 

Russian Federation, at http://pravo.gov.ru/proxy/ips/?docbody=&nd=102059473, archived at

https://perma.cc/BK2M-STVQ. 

3 Postanovlenie Pravitel’stva RF ot 24 Marta 2000 goda N 255 O Edinnom Perechne Korennikh Malochislennikh 

Narodov Rossiskoi Federatsii [Resolution of the Government of the RF from March 24, 2000, N 255 on the 

Unified Registry of Indigenous Small-Numbered Peoples of the RF], available in Russian on the website of the 

legal information portal Garant, at http://base.garant.ru/181870/, archived at https://perma.cc/2Q9C-5KR9. 

4 CONSTITUTION OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION 1993, art. 69. 

5 Id. art. 72. 

6 Rossiiskaya Federatsia, Federal’nii Zakon o Territoriakh Traditsionnogo Prirodopol’zovanoya Korennikh 

Malochislennikh Narodov Severa, Sibiri, i Dal’nego Vostoka, 4 Aprelya, 2001 goda [Federal Law on Territories 

of Traditional Use of Natural Habitat of Small-Numbered Indigenous Peoples of the North, Siberia, and Far 

East (Law on Territories of Traditional Use)], Apr. 4, 2001, http://pravo.gov.ru/proxy/ips/?docview& 

page=1&print=1&infostr=xO7q8+zl7fIg7vLu4fDg5uDl8vH/IO3lIOIg7+7x6+Xk7eXpIPDl5ODq9ujo&nd=10207

0941&rdk=4&&empire (in Russian), archived at https://perma.cc/XWR4-XUHE. 

7 Law on Guarantees of Rights art. 10. 
Protection of Indigenous Heritage: Russia 

The Law Library of Congress 105 

This report examines the legal framework for the protection of indigenous peoples’ graves, 

human remains, sacred places, and artifacts discovered during archaeological activities. The 

report outlines the process and protocol applicable to archaeological discoveries, land use and 

development on the territory where the objects of cultural heritage of indigenous peoples are 

found, and the protection of their places of worship and sacred places. 

II. Process of and Protocol for Archaeological Excavations 

A. Governing Principles and Definitions 

Russian law does not contain specific provisions on conducting archaeological activities on the 

territory inhabited by indigenous peoples. The general principles for conducting scientific and 

exploratory activities on the specially protected territories of traditional use of the natural habitat 

are contained in the Law on Territories of Traditional Use. Article 10 of the Law on Territories of 

Traditional Use of Natural Habitat stipulates that parts of the specially protected lands allocated 

(demarcated) for use by small-numbered indigenous peoples may include objects of historicalcultural heritage, such as religious buildings, places of ancient habitation, and sites of ancestral 

burials.8 Scientific and exploratory work conducted within the limits of these specially protected 

lands must be carried out with due consideration to the status of the lands.9 

All archaeological activities, including the discovery and treatment of artifacts, graves, sacred 

places, and places of worship, are regulated by the Law on Objects of Cultural Heritage 

(Monuments of History and Culture) of the People of the Russian Federation (Law on Objects of 

Cultural Heritage).10 Article 7 of that Law guarantees the preservation of cultural heritage sites.11 

According to article 3 of the Law, “objects of cultural heritage” (historical and cultural 

monuments) of the Russian people include objects of immovable property (including objects of 

archaeological heritage) and other objects that are associated with them within historically 

associated territories.12 “Objects of archaeological heritage” are defined as partially or fully 

hidden traces of human existence in past eras (including all archaeological objects and cultural 

layers associated with such traces), the main or one of the main sources of information about 

which are archaeological excavations or finds.13 

Article 3.1 of the Law on Objects of Cultural Heritage provides that the territory of the object of 

cultural heritage may include land, forests, water bodies, or parts thereof that are under state or 

 

8 Law on Territories of Traditional Use art. 10. 

9 Id. art. 16. 

10 Federal’nii Zakon Rossiskkoi Federatsii ob Ob’ektakh Kul’turnogo Naslediya (Pamyatnikakh Istorii I 

Kul’turi) Narodov Rossiskoi Federatsii [Federal Law of the RF on Objects of Cultural Heritage (Monuments of 

History and Culture) of the People of the RF (Law on Objects of Cultural Heritage)] (2002), http://pravo.gov. 

ru/proxy/ips/?docbody=&nd=102076756, archived at https://perma.cc/824E-FW8S. 

11 Id. art. 7. 

12 Id. art. 3. 

13 Id. 
Protection of Indigenous Heritage: Russia 

The Law Library of Congress 106 

municipal ownership or are owned by individuals or legal entities.14 Such objects are classified as 

having federal, regional, or municipal significance. 15

B. Permit Requirements and Eligibility 

According to article 45.1 of the Law, all archaeological activities, including those aimed at the 

discovery and storage of archaeological objects, are subject to obtaining a permit (“open list”), 

which is issued for a period not exceeding one year. 16 The permit is issued by the federal body 

for the protection of cultural heritage on the basis of the decision of the Russian Academy of 

Sciences confirming the right of the organization to conduct archaeological activities. The 

government of the Russian Federation establishes the order and requirements for issuance and 

cancellation of permits. 

Permits may be issued to physical persons (individuals) who are 

 citizens of the Russian Federation; 

 in possession of the scientific knowledge and professional experience needed to carry out 

archaeological fieldwork; 

 capable of producing a scientific report upon the conclusion of the fieldwork; and 

 employed by the legal entity occupied in archaeological fieldwork or scientific research, 

educational activities, and/or collection activities for museums.17

The individual who holds the permit is obliged to inform the local bodies for the protection of 

cultural heritage about the commencement of archaeological activities in their jurisdiction. This 

information, along with the date and place of the intended activities, must be submitted to the 

regional body for the protection of cultural heritage no later than five days prior to 

starting work.18

The Law stipulates that the owners of the plots of land where archaeological excavations are to 

be conducted are obligated to provide unlimited access to the plots, as well as access to all land 

areas and water bodies identified in the permit.19

If archeological heritage objects are discovered during archaeological fieldwork, an individual 

who has received a permit must, within ten working days from the date of discovery of these 

objects, inform in writing the regional authority responsible for cultural heritage protection of the 

 

14 Id. art. 3.1. 

15 Id. art. 4 

16 Id. art. 45.1. 

17 Id. 

18 Id. 

19 Id
Protection of Indigenous Heritage: Russia 

The Law Library of Congress 107 

objects of cultural heritage. The report must include textual and graphic descriptions of the 

location of the discovery, as well as a list of geographical coordinates of the discovery.20

C. Transfer of Findings and Related Reports 

Those who carry out archaeological fieldwork (both the physical and legal persons) are required 

to transfer within three years from the date of expiry of the permit, and in the manner prescribed 

by the federal body for the protection of objects of cultural heritage, all archeological objects taken 

(including man-made, anthropological, paleozoological, paleobotanical, and other objects of 

historical and cultural value) to the state part of the Museum Fund of the Russian Federation.21 

The Ministry of Culture is responsible for ensuring that all archaeological items taken during 

archaeological fieldwork are accepted for permanent storage in the state part of the Museum 

Fund of the Russian Federation.22

Those conducting archaeological fieldwork must also prepare a detailed scientific report at the 

conclusion of their work and submit it to the Archival Fund of the Russian Academy of Sciences 

for storage within three years after the expiration of the permit.23

D. Accidental Discoveries 

In the case of an unplanned discovery of an object of archaeological heritage, the person who 

made the discovery must immediately suspend work and send a written statement about the said 

objects to the regional body for the protection of objects of cultural heritage within three working 

days from the date of discovery. The regional body for the protection of cultural heritage then 

organizes an assessment to determine the cultural and historic value of the finds and 

their classification.24 

E. Unified Registry 

The Russian Federation maintains a unified registry for objects of cultural heritage, including 

those of archaeological heritage.25 Objects included in the registry are subject to special protection 

by the state. According to article 18(12) of the Law on Objects of Cultural Heritage, objects of 

archaeological heritage are subject to inclusion in the registry if they are at least one hundred 

years old.26 Data included in the registry is the main source of information concerning objects of 

historical and cultural heritage. 

 

20 Id. 

21 Id. 

22 Id. 

23 Id. 

24 Id. art. 47.1. 

25 Id. art. 15. 

26 Id. art. 18(12). 
Protection of Indigenous Heritage: Russia 

The Law Library of Congress 108 

F. Ownership and Preservation Archaeological Heritage Objects 

According to the Law on Objects of Cultural Heritage, objects of archaeological heritage, whether 

lying on the surface of the earth, underground, or under water, are under state ownership. The 

Law also states that if there are no approved boundaries of the territory of the archaeological 

heritage site in the registry, the earth’s surface, land plot, or body of water occupied by the 

archaeological heritage site is considered its territory.27

Article 49 of the Law on Objects of Cultural Heritage provides that if an object of archaeological 

heritage is found on a plot of land plot or in a body of water, from the day of the discovery of this 

object of archaeological heritage the owner or authorized user of the land or body of water must 

use or dispose of the land or water with due consideration for the preservation of the object of 

archaeological heritage.28

III. Land Use and Development Considerations 

Russian legislation does not contain specific provisions pertaining to the status of lands in the 

context of the protection of cultural heritage, including graves, sacred places, and artifacts of 

indigenous people. The specially protected lands that are part of the traditional use of natural 

habitats of small-numbered indigenous peoples (including objects of cultural and historic 

heritage, religious buildings, and places of ancient habitation and ancestral burials) are regulated 

by the Law on Territories of Traditional Use.29 The Federal Law on Objects of Cultural Heritage, 

however, provides a legal framework for land use and development for the area where objects of 

cultural heritage are located or discovered. 

The cultural heritage object and the plot of land where it is located are subject to differentiated 

land-use regimes. This differentiation allows for the possibility of conducting archaeological 

work regardless of the ownership status of the land. Land development, construction, and 

amelioration activities must be conducted with due consideration for the preservation of 

archaeological sites included in the unified registry of objects of cultural heritage, as well as 

newly-discovered objects of archaeological heritage from such sites.30

According to the Law on Objects of Cultural Heritage, a historical and cultural expert assessment 

must be conducted prior to commencement of planned land development, reclamation, and 

amelioration activities. The goal of the assessment is to determine the presence or absence of 

archaeological heritage sites and, if determined to be present, to ensure their preservation.31 The 

 

27 Id. art. 49. 

28 Id. 

29 Law on Territories of Traditional Use art. 10. 

30 Law on Objects of Cultural Heritage art. 5.1. 

31 Id. arts. 28, 31. 
Protection of Indigenous Heritage: Russia 

The Law Library of Congress 109 

contractor or developer is responsible for bearing the costs associated with conducting 

the assessment. 32 

The government of the Russian Federation has adopted a Regulation with regard to procedures 

for choosing expert assessors and conducting the historical-cultural assessment.33 The Regulation 

stipulates that the assessment must be impartial, transparent, and professional. For example, 

paragraph 8 of the Regulation specifies that persons who have kinship ties (members of the 

family) with the contractor, as well as those having a vested financial interest with regard to the 

outcome of the assessment including financial ties with the contractor, are precluded from 

conducting the assessment. 34 

The Law on Objects of Cultural Heritage obligates the developer or the contractor to ensure the 

safety of the objects of cultural and archaeological heritage, including conducting rehabilitation 

work, if necessary. 35 

In the event that during land and forest exploration, excavation, construction, or ameliorative 

work objects possessing the attributes of cultural heritage, including those of archaeological 

heritage, are discovered, the contractor must immediately suspend work and within three days 

from the date of discovery send to the regional authority for cultural heritage protection a written 

statement about the discovered cultural heritage objects. 

The regional body responsible for the protection of objects of cultural heritage must conduct an 

assessment of the discoveries and determine their eligibility to be included in the unified registry 

of protected objects of cultural and archaeological heritage.36 If the regional body determines that 

the objects should be included on the list of discovered objects of cultural and historic heritage, it 

(the regional body) informs the contractor or developer of the decision with instructions 

underlining protective measures that the developer or contractor must undertake. 37 In cases 

where the regional body decides not to include the discovered object on the list of protected 

objects of cultural and historic heritage, it must inform the developer or contractor of its decision. 

In this case the developer or contractor may continue to work.38

 

32 Id. 

33 Pravitel’stvo Rossiiskoi Federatsii, Postanovlenie ob Utverzhdenii Polozheniya o Gosudarstvennoi IstorikoCulturnoi Ekspertizi. 15 Iyul’ya, 2009 goda, N 569 [Government of the RF, Regulation on the Approval of the 

State Historical-Cultural Expert Assessment], July 15, 2009, N569, http://pravo.gov.ru/proxy/ips//?doc 

body=&prevDoc=102147815& backlink=1&&nd=102131087 (in Russian), archived at https://perma.cc/9DWRUJHG

34 Id. para. 8. 

35 Law on Objects of Cultural Heritage art. 36. 

36 Id. 

37 Id. 

38 Id. 
Protection of Indigenous Heritage: Russia 

The Law Library of Congress 110 

Archaeological objects discovered in the course of land-based or forestry activities and 

development or other economic activity must be transferred to the state by the individuals or 

legal entities carrying out these activities. 39

IV. Protection of Sacred Places (Places of Worship) of Indigenous People 

Freedom of religion and conscience is guaranteed in article 28 of the Constitution of the Russian 

Federation. The Constitution states that “everyone shall be guaranteed freedom of conscience, 

[and] freedom of religion, including the right to profess individually or together with others any 

religion or to profess no religion at all.”40 Article 3 of the Federal Law on Freedom of Conscience 

and Religious Unions provides guarantees for religious freedom and freedom to engage in the 

practice of religion.41 The Law on Guarantees of Rights secures the right of small-numbered 

indigenous peoples to conduct religious ceremonies in accordance with their cultural traditions.42 

There is no definition in federal legislation as to what constitutes a place of worship or object of 

religious or sacred significance for indigenous peoples. For many indigenous peoples of the 

Russian Federation such places are integral parts of their natural habitats. This is recognized in 

article 10 of the Law on Territories of Traditional Use.43 

The definition of sacred places or shrines can be found in the Law on Shrines of Small-Numbered 

Indigenous Peoples of the Khanty-Mansiyisk Autonomous Region—Ugra (Law on Shrines).44 

The Law defines “shrine” as an element of the natural landscape that is considered to be a sacred 

place because of its significance for religion and for practicing religious rituals and rites.45 For 

shrines and sacred places to be properly protected, they should be included in the registry of 

objects of cultural and historical heritage. For that purpose, article 5 of the Law on Shrines 

guarantees the small-numbered indigenous peoples of the Khanty-Mansisyisk Region the right 

to appeal to the authorized executive body of the autonomous region (okrug) with a request to 

include shrines of indigenous peoples in the regional registry of objects of cultural heritage. 

Article 5 also guarantees indigenous peoples the right to free access to shrines and sacred places 

for the performance of religious rites and rituals.46 

 

39 Id. 

40 CONSTITUTION OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION art. 28. 

41 Rossiskaya Federatsia, Federal’nii Zakon o Svobode Sovesti i Religioznikh Ob’edineniyakh. 24 Sentyabrya 

1998 goda [Federal Law on Freedom of Conscience and Religious Unions] art. 3 (Sept. 24, 1990), http://pravo. 

gov.ru/proxy/ips/?docbody=&nd=102049359, archived at https://perma.cc/27ZX-AB5X. 

42 Law on Guarantees of Rights art. 10. 

43 Law on Territories of Traditional Use art. 10. 

44 Zakon Khanti-Masiskogo Avtonomnogo Okruga—Ugri, ot 8 Noyabrya 2005 Goda “O Sviatilishakh 

Korennikh Malochislennikh Narodov v Khanti-Masiskom Avtonomnom Okruge—Ugre” [Law on Shrines of 

Small-Numbered Indigenous People of Khanty-Mansiyisk Autonomous Orkug, Ugra (Law on Shrines)], Nov. 

8, 2005, available on the website of the Duma (legislature) of Khanty-Masiyisk Autonomous Okrug, at 

https://www.dumahmao.ru/decisions/detail.php?ID=7089, archived at https://perma.cc/6JQ8-T2GT. 

45 Id. art. 3. 

46 Id. art. 5 
Protection of Indigenous Heritage: Russia 

The Law Library of Congress 111 

The Law on Territories of Traditional Use states that, should the specially protected lands of 

traditional use of the natural habitat be alienated for state or municipal use, the indigenous 

peoples affected are entitled to equal land plots and other natural objects, as well as to 

compensation for incurred losses.47 However, the Law does not provide for specific compensation 

or restitution for alienation or destruction of the sites containing shrines and places of worship of 

small-numbered indigenous peoples. 

V. Recent Developments 

Several recent developments in the area of protection of cultural heritage could impact the 

protection of cultural heritage of the indigenous peoples of the Russian Federation. 

 On February 21, 2019, amendments to the Law on Objects of Cultural Heritage came into 

effect. The amendments provide for the protection and demarcation of the territories of 

historic and cultural museums, reserves, and complexes.48

 The State Duma (Committee on the Affairs of Nationalities) supported the initiative to put 

forward legislation aimed at preserving and developing the nonmaterial cultural heritage of 

the indigenous peoples of Russia. The legislation seeks to preserve the ethnographic heritage 

of indigenous peoples, as well as provide a legal definition of “nonmaterial culture.”49 

 At the international forum concerning the cultural and spiritual heritage of small-numbered 

indigenous peoples of the North, Siberia, and the Far East, under the auspices of RAIPON 

(the Russian Association of Indigenous Peoples of the North), participants recommended to 

the Ministry of Culture the development of “a mechanism for creating and maintaining a 

register of sacred places, sanctuaries and burials of the indigenous peoples of the North, 

Siberia and the Far East of the Russian Federation.”50

 

47 Law on Territories of Traditional Use art. 12. 

48 Federal’nii Zakon ot 21 Fevralya 2019 goda N11 FZ “O Vnesenii Izmenenii v Federal’nii Zakon ob Ob’ektakh 

Kul’turnogo Nasledia (Pamyatnikakh Istorii i Kul’turi) Narodov Rossiiskoi Federatsii [Federal Law on 

Amending the Federal Law on Objects of Cultural Heritage (Monuments of History and Culture) of the People 

of the RF] (Feb. 21, 2019), http://www.garant.ru/hotlaw/federal/1260093/, archived at

https://perma.cc/68VH-BEV2. 

49 V Rossii Mozhet Poyavitsja Zakon o Sokhranenii Nematerial’nogo Nasledia Korennikh Narodov Rossii [Law on 

Protection of Non-Material Heritage of Indigenous People of Russia Could Be Adopted], PARLAMENTSKAYA GAZETA

(official publication of the State Duma) (Mar. 22, 2018), https://www.pnp.ru/culture/v-rossii-mozhetpoyavitsya-zakon-o-sokhranenii-nematerialnogo-naslediya-korennykh-narodov.html, archived at

https://perma.cc/Z365-ZPXR.

50 Mezhdunaronii Forum “Korennie Malochislennie Narodi Severa, Sibiri, i Dal’nego Vostoka Rossiskoi 

Federatsii”, Rekommendatsii, Rabochaya Sessia “Dukhovnoje i Kul’turnoye Nasledie Korennikh 

Malochislennikh Narodov Severa, Sibiri, i Dal’nego Vostoka Rossiiskoi Federatsii” Salekhad 23-25 Marta, 2017 

goda [International Forum “Indigenous Small-Numbered People of North, Siberia, and Near East of the RF”, 

Recommendations of the Working Session on “Spiritual and Cultural Heritage of Indigenous People of North, 

Siberia, and Near East of the RF,” Salekhad, Mar. 23-25, 2017, available on the website of the Russian 

Association of Indigenous People of the North (RAIPON), at http://www.raipon.info/documents/Docs_ 
The Law Library of Congress 112 

 

RAIPON/итоговые документы VIII Съезда/Рекомендации рабочей сессии_Духовное и культурное

наследие коренных малочисленных народов.pdf, archived at https://perma.cc/RHF7-YYK4. 
The Law Library of Congress 113 

South Africa 

Hanibal Goitom 

Chief, FCIL I 

SUMMARY Governed under the 1999 National Resources Heritage Act and its subsidiary 

legislation, the identification and management of South Africa’s heritage resources is 

a task shared among national, provincial, and local heritage resource authorities. 

 The South African Heritage Resources Agency (SAHRA), the national heritage 

resources authority, or any of the provincial heritage authorities are empowered to 

declare any place, public or private, a national heritage. Citizens may also nominate 

places for such declaration. 

 The Act and its subsidiary legislation seeks to protect heritage resources, including 

archeological objects and burial grounds and graves, in a number of ways. They bar 

unauthorized activities that may damage or alter known heritage places or objects, 

protect unidentified heritage resources or objects by subjecting certain types of 

development activities to independent impact assessments, and require anyone who 

comes across a heritage resource during the course of development or other activity to 

report it. They also regulate the export of heritage objects. 

With regard to privately owned heritage objects or places, the heritage resources 

authorities are authorized to work with owners to ensure their preservation and 

maintenance, issue compulsory repair orders when they fall into disrepair, or 

expropriate them, if necessary. 

I. Legal and Administrative Structure 

The primary law governing issues of cultural heritage protection, including matters concerning 

the protection of graves, sacred places, and recently found artefacts, is the 1999 National Heritage 

Resources Act1 and its subsidiary legislation.2

 

1 National Heritage Resources Act 25 of 1999, 10 STATUTES OF THE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA (updated through 

2016), a more current version of the legislation is available on the University of Pretoria website, at 

http://www.lawsofsouthafrica.up.ac.za/index.php/browse/national-monuments-and-archives/ nationalheritage-resources-act-25-of-1999/act/25-of-1999-national-heritages-resources-act-1-apr-2000-to-datepdf/download, archived at https://perma.cc/H5KG-KR3H. 

2 National Heritage Resources Act (25 of 1999) Regulations (commencement Apr. 1, 2000), available at

http://www.lawsofsouthafrica.up.ac.za/index.php/browse/national-monuments-and-archives/ nationalheritage-resources-act-25-of-1999/regulations-and-notices/25-of-1999-national-heritages-resources-act-regsgnr-323-7-apr-2000-to-date-pdf/download, archived at https://perma.cc/75GS-JELY; Regulations in 

Accordance with the Provisions of Section 9 of the National Heritage [sic] Resources Act No. 25 of 1999 

(Commencement Mar. 17, 2017), available at http://www.lawsofsouthafrica.up.ac.za/index.php/browse/ 

national-monuments-and-archives/national-heritage-resources-act-25-of-1999/ regulations-and-notices/25-of1999-national-heritages-resources-act-regs-genn-218-17-mar-2017-to-date-pdf/download, archived at

https://perma.cc/UYS7-ESF9; South African Heritage Resources Agency (SAHRA) Permit Regulations 

(Commencement July 8, 2005), available at

http://www.lawsofsouthafrica.up.ac.za/index.php/browse/national-monuments-and-archives/national-
Protection of Indigenous Heritage: South Africa 

The Law Library of Congress 114

The administration of the country’s heritage resources is decentralized. The Act created a threetiered system for the management of heritage resources. It established a national agency, the 

South African Heritage Resources Agency (SAHRA), the object of which is to “co-ordinate the 

identification and management of the national estate.”3 SAHRA has various functions, powers, 

and duties. Among them is the role of coordinating and managing “the national estate by all 

agencies of the State and other bodies and monitor[ing] their activities to ensure that they comply 

with national principles, standards and policy for heritage resources management.”4 Part of 

SAHRA’s obligations is the requirement to “compile and maintain an inventory of the national 

estate” in a database.5 In addition to SAHRA, the Act provides for the formation of provincial 

and local-level heritage resources authorities responsible for provincial and local heritage 

resources management.6 

II. National Estate 

The Act in its preamble indicates that it “aims to promote good management of the national 

estate.” Heritage resources that ”are of cultural significance or other special value for the present 

community and for future generations” constitute part of the country’s national estate and are 

managed by the relevant heritage resources authorities.7 These include 

 historical settlements and townships; 

 archaeological and paleontological sites; 

 ancestral graves, including royal graves and graves of traditional leaders, historical graves 

and cemeteries, and other human remains; and 

 movable objects such as archaeological and paleontological objects found in South African 

waters or land.8

 

heritage-resources-act-25-of-1999/regulations-and-notices/25-of-1999-national-heritages-resources-act-regsgnr-548-8-jul-2005-to-date-pdf/download, archived at https://perma.cc/9PL2-QFN3; Schedule of Fees for 

Permit Applications Made to the South African Heritage Resources Agency (SAHRA) (Commencement May 5, 

2006), available at http://www.lawsofsouthafrica.up.ac.za/index.php/browse/national-monuments-andarchives/national-heritage-resources-act-25-of-1999/regulations-and-notices/25-of-1999-national-heritagesresources-act-regs-gn-418-5-may-2006-to-date-pdf/download, archived at https://perma.cc/KYJ2-SLCY; 

Declaration of Types of Heritage Objects, General Notice 1512, GOVERNMENT GAZETTE No. 24116 (Dec. 6, 2002), 

available at http://www.lawsofsouthafrica.up.ac.za/index.php/browse/national-monuments-and-archives/ 

national-heritage-resources-act-25-of-1999/regulations-and-notices/25-of-1999-national-heritages-resourcesact-regs-gn-1512-6-dec-2002-to-date-pdf/download, archived at https://perma.cc/2T6N-RFEL. 

3 National Heritage Resources Act § 11. 

4 Id. § 13. 

5 Id. § 39. 

6 Id. §§ 4, 8 & 23. 

7 Id. § 3. 

8 Id.
Protection of Indigenous Heritage: South Africa 

The Law Library of Congress 115

Any place or object may be deemed a national estate if it has “cultural significance or special 

value” for any of various reasons, including due to “its strong or special association with a 

particular community or cultural group for social, cultural or spiritual reasons.”9

The Act establishes a grading system for places and objects that are part of the country’s national 

estate. It does this by creating three categories of heritage resources: 

(a) Grade I: Heritage resources with qualities so exceptional that they are of special 

national significance; 

(b) Grade II: Heritage resources which, although forming part of the national estate, can 

be considered to have special qualities which make them significant within the context 

of a province or a region; and 

(c) Grade III: Other heritage resources worthy of conservation[.]10

It is up to SAHRA to establish a grading system and heritage resource assessment criteria, “which 

must be used by [all relevant authorities] to assess the intrinsic, comparative and contextual 

significance of a heritage resource and the relative benefits and costs of its protection.”11

National, provincial, and local authorities share the responsibility of managing heritage resources 

on the basis of the grades they are assigned. SAHRA is responsible “for the identification and 

management of Grade I heritage resources and heritage resources in accordance with the 

applicable provisions of [the National Heritage Resources Act].”12 According to the Act, “[a] 

provincial heritage resources authority is responsible for the identification and management of 

Grade II heritage resources and heritage resources which are deemed to be a provincial 

competence” under the Act.13 Similarly, local heritage resources authorities are “responsible for 

the identification and management of Grade III heritage resources and heritage resources which 

are deemed to fall within their competence” under the Act.14

 

SAHRA or a relevant provincial heritage authority may declare any place, public or private, a 

national heritage.15 Before doing so, the Authority must notify the owner, mortgage holder, 

occupier, and any other concerned person of its plans, accord him or her ample time (at least two 

months) to challenge the declaration, and consider all submissions before making its decision.16 

 

9 Id. 

10 Id. § 7. 

11 Id. 

12 Id. § 8. 

13 Id. 

14 Id. 

15 Id. § 27. 

16 Id. 
Protection of Indigenous Heritage: South Africa 

The Law Library of Congress 116

Although it is one of the primary functions/obligations of SAHRA and the provincial heritage 

resources authorities to identify places worthy of protection under the Act, anyone can nominate 

a place to be declared a national heritage site or a provincial heritage resource.17

Unless done with a permit from the relevant heritage resource authority, it is an offense to 

“destroy, damage, deface, excavate, alter, remove from its original position, subdivide or change 

the planning status of any heritage site.”18

III. Protection and Management of Heritage Resources 

A. Archeological Objects 

The Act requires that anyone who comes across an archeological object “in the course of 

development of agricultural activity must immediately report” it to the responsible authority, 

which in this case is the relevant provincial heritage resources authority unless the object is of a 

grade that puts its management under the jurisdiction of SAHRA. 19 An “archeological” 

object includes 

(a) material remains resulting from human activity which are in a state of disuse and are 

in or on land and which are older than 100 years, including artefacts [sic], human and 

hominid remains and artificial features and structures; [and] 

(b) rock art, being any form of painting, engraving or other graphic representation on a 

fixed rock surface or loose rock or stone, which was executed by human agency and 

which is older than 100 years, including any area within 10m of 

such representation[.]20

The Act adopts a broad definition of the term “development,” including a list of examples of what 

development work possibly entails: 

any physical intervention, excavation, or action, other than those caused by natural forces, 

which may in the opinion of a heritage authority in any way result in a change to the 

nature, appearance or physical nature of a place, or influence its stability and future wellbeing, including— 

(a) construction, alteration, demolition, removal or change of use of a place or a 

structure at a place; 

(b) carrying out any works on or over or under a place; 

(c) subdivision or consolidation of land comprising, a place, including the 

(d) structures or airspace of a place; 

(e) constructing or putting up for display signs or hoardings; 

(f) any change to the natural or existing condition or topography of land; and 

(g) any removal or destruction of trees, or removal of vegetation or topsoil.21

 

17 Id. 

18 Id. 

19 Id. § 35. 

20 Id. § 2. 

21 Id. 
Protection of Indigenous Heritage: South Africa 

The Law Library of Congress 117

The Act bars anyone who does not possess a permit issued by the relevant authority from 

engaging in activities that would 

(a) destroy, damage, excavate, alter, deface or otherwise disturb any archaeological . . . 

site . . .; 

(b) destroy, damage, excavate, remove from its original position, collect or own any 

archaeological . . . material or object . . .; 

(c) trade in, sell for private gain, export or attempt to export from the Republic any 

category of archaeological . . . material or object . . . ; or 

(d) bring onto or use at an archaeological . . . site any excavation equipment or any 

equipment which assist in the detection or recovery of metals or archaeological . . . 

material or objects . . . .22

The Act accords heritage resources authorities investigative and administrative powers to deal 

with instances where they have “reasonable cause to believe that any activity or development 

which will destroy, damage or alter” an archaeological site and for which no permit has been 

issued is underway.23 In these instances, a heritage authority is authorized to investigate the 

matter; issue a cease order on the person involved in the activity in question; assist the person in 

mitigation efforts, if necessary; and recover the cost of its investigation from the person.24

B. Burial Grounds and Graves 

SAHRA is required to “identify and record” graves that it considers to be of cultural significance 

and take the necessary steps for their conservation. The Act bars anyone who has not been issued 

a permit by SAHRA or a relevant provincial heritage resource authority from engaging in an 

activity that would “destroy, damage, alter, exhume, remove from its original position or 

otherwise disturb any grave or burial ground older than 60 years which is situated outside a 

formal cemetery administered by a local authority.”25 

The Act accords communities that have an interest in the burial ground or grave at issue a say. It 

does this by barring SAHRA or the relevant provincial heritage authority from issuing a permit 

allowing a person to engage in any such activity unless it is satisfied that the applicant has 

(a) made a concerted effort to contact and consult communities and individuals who by 

tradition have an interest in such grave or burial ground; and 

(b) reached agreements with such communities and individuals regarding the future of 

such grave or burial ground.26

A person who, during the course of development activity, discovers a previously unknown 

location of a grave “must immediately cease such activity and report the discovery to the 

 

22 Id. § 35. 

23 Id. 

24 Id. 

25 Id. § 36. 

26 Id. 
Protection of Indigenous Heritage: South Africa 

The Law Library of Congress 118

responsible heritage resources authority.”27 The Authority must then, with the assistance of the 

South African Police Service, 

(a) carry out an investigation for the purpose of obtaining information on whether or not 

such grave is protected in terms of this Act or is of significance to any community; and 

(b) if such grave is protected or is of significance, assist any person who or community 

which is a direct descendant to make arrangements for the exhumation and re-interment 

of the contents of such grave or, in the absence of such person or community, make any 

such arrangements as it deems fit.28

C. Certain Development Activities 

Anyone interested in engaging in certain types of development work is required to “notify the 

responsible heritage resources authority and furnish it with details regarding the location, nature 

and extent of the proposed development.” 29 Work subject to the notification 

requirements includes 

(a) the construction of a road, wall, powerline, pipeline, canal or other similar form of linear 

development or barrier exceeding 300m in length; 

(b) the construction of a bridge or similar structure exceeding 50 m in length; 

(c) any development or other activity which will change the character of a site— 

(i) exceeding 5 000 m2 in extent; or 

(ii) involving three or more existing erven or subdivisions thereof; or 

(iii) involving three or more erven or divisions thereof which have been 

(iv) consolidated within the past five years; or 

(v) the costs of which will exceed a sum set in terms of regulations by SAHRA or a 

provincial heritage resources authority; 

(d) the re-zoning of a site exceeding 10 000 m2 in extent; or 

(e) any other category of development provided for in regulations by SAHRA or a provincial 

heritage resources authority[.]30

If the heritage resources authority has reason to believe that the activity will impact heritage 

resources, it is required to get the person to submit an impact assessment report to be prepared 

by someone approved by the Authority.31 The Report must, among others, include information 

regarding whether the activity will have an adverse impact on heritage resources and plans for 

mitigation of such adverse effects.32 After having received the Report, the Authority would then 

make a decision (after consulting SAHRA in the case of provincial authorities) on 

(a) whether or not the development may proceed; 

(b) any limitations or conditions to be applied to the development; 

 

27 Id. 

28 Id. 

29 Id. § 38. 

30 Id. 

31 Id. 

32 Id. 
Protection of Indigenous Heritage: South Africa 

The Law Library of Congress 119

(c) what general protections in terms of this Act apply, and what formal protections may 

be applied, to such heritage resources; 

(d) whether compensatory action is required in respect of any heritage resources damaged 

or destroyed as a result of the development; and 

(e) whether the appointment of specialists is required as a condition of approval of 

the proposal.33

The rules described in this section do not apply if the heritage resources already under the 

protection of SAHRA and to projects the development of which already requires the submission 

of a heritage resources impact report.34

D. Export of Heritage Objects 

One of the objectives of the National Heritage Resources Act is to “control the export of nationally 

significant heritage objects.”35 It does this by allowing SAHRA to identify and declare items as 

heritage objects and regulate their export. SAHRA may declare as a national object “[a]n object 

or collection of objects, or a type of object or list of objects, whether specific or generic, that is part 

of the national estate and the export of which SAHRA deems it necessary to control.”36 These 

include objects that have cultural or historical significance and “objects to which oral traditions 

are attached and which are associated with living heritage.”37 

In 2002, SAHRA issued a list of objects “to be types of objects that are deemed protected in terms 

of the National Heritage Resources Act and for which a permit in terms of the said Act is required 

for export from the country.”38 These include 

1. Any archaeological artefact, palaeontological and rare geological specimens and 

meteorites found in South Africa and its territorial waters and maritime cultural zone; 

2. Antiquities such as coins, utensils, pottery, jewellery, seals, weapons (including 

firearms) tools and inscriptions that have been in South Africa for more than 100 years; 

3. . . . 

4. South African ethnographic art and objects; 

5. . . .

6. South African items of artistic interest that have been in South Africa for 50 years or 

more, including – 

(a) paintings and drawings produced by hand on and in any material; 

(b) original prints, posters and photographs, as the media for creative activity; 

(c) original artistic assemblages and montages in any material; 

(d) works of statuary art and sculpture in general; 

(e) works of applied art in such materials as glass, ceramics, metal and wood; and 

 

33 Id. 

34 Id. 

35 Id. Preamble. 

36 Id. § 32. 

37 Id. 

38 Declaration of Types of Heritage Objects, GOVERNMENT GAZETTE No. 24116 (Dec. 6, 2002). 
Protection of Indigenous Heritage: South Africa 

The Law Library of Congress 120

(f) objects of ritualistic and symbolic significance and personal adornment 

such as beads, leather or metalwork; 

7. . . . 

8. . . . 

9. . . . 

10. South African furniture, tapestries, carpets, items of dress and musical instruments 

older than 100 years; . . .

11. . . . 

12. The above exclude any object made by any living person.39

Anyone who wishes to export from South Africa any of the above-listed types of heritage s must 

obtain a permit from SAHRA.40

E. Cooperation, Compulsory Repair Order, and Expropriation 

A heritage resource authority appears to have several tools to ensure the protection of a heritage 

site not under its possession. One way to do this is through an agreement with the owner of the 

site for preserving and maintaining a heritage site. The Authority may enter into an agreement to 

(a) conserve or improve any heritage site; 

(b) construct fences, walls or gates around or on a heritage site; 

(c) acquire or construct and maintain an access road to a heritage site over any land, and 

construct upon such land fences, walls or gates; or 

(d) erect signs on or near a heritage site.41

The Authority also has the power to issue what is known as a compulsory repair order in certain 

circumstances. The Authority may order the owner of a heritage site “to repair or maintain” the 

site to its satisfaction and within a reasonable, specified timeframe if it determines that the site 

(a) has been allowed to fall into disrepair for the purpose of— 

(i) effecting or enabling its destruction or demolition; 

(ii) enabling the development of the designated land; or 

(iii) enabling the development of any land adjoining the designated land; or 

(b) is neglected to such an extent that it will lose its potential for conservation[.]42

The order cannot be for work beyond that which “is necessary to prevent any further 

deterioration in the condition of the place.”43 If the owner fails to follow the order, the Authority 

may do the repairs itself and recoup the cost from the owner afterwards.44

 

39 Id. 

40 National Heritage Resources Act § 32. 

41 Id. § 27. 

42 Id. § 45. 

43 Id. 

44 Id. 
Protection of Indigenous Heritage: South Africa 

The Law Library of Congress 121

Another tool available to the Authority is purchase or expropriation. The Minister responsible 

for arts and culture may, “on the advice of SAHRA and after consultation with the Minister of 

Finance, purchase or, subject to compensation, expropriate any property for conservation or any 

other purpose under this Act if that purpose is a public purpose or is in the public interest.”45 

This process is governed under the 1975 Expropriation Act and the 1996 Constitution.46

IV. Penalties 

Violations of different provisions of the National Heritage Resources Act are offenses subject to 

fines and custodial sentences. For instance, a person who “destroy[s], damage[s], deface[s], 

excavate[s], alter[s], remove[s] from its original position, subdivide[s] or change[s] the planning 

status of any heritage site without a permit” commits a crime, on conviction, punishable by a fine 

and/or up to five years in prison.47 Exporting or attempting to export any heritage object without 

a SAHRA-issued permit is also an offense subject to the same penalties. 48 Anyone who 

“destroy[s], excavates[s], alter[s], deface[s]” an archeological or paleontological site commits a 

crime, on conviction, punishable by a fine and/or a custodial sentence not exceeding three years.49 

A similar act involving a burial ground or grave is punishable by a fine and/or a prison term of 

up to six months.50

 

45 Id. 

46 Id.; Expropriation Act 63 of 1975 (Jan. 1, 1977), available on the Pretoria University website, at http://www. 

lawsofsouthafrica.up.ac.za/index.php/browse/land/expropriation-act-63-of-1975/act/63-of-1975-exprop 

riation-act-1-apr-1994-to-date-pdf/download, archived at https://perma.cc/3B37-2HD5; S. AFR. CONST. 1996, 

§ 5, available on the South Africa government portal online, at https://www.gov.za/documents/consti 

tution/chapter-2-bill-rights#25, archived at https://perma.cc/G9ER-6NGW. 

47 National Heritage Resources Act §§ 27 & 51. 

48 Id. §§ 32 & 51. 

49 Id. §§ 35 & 51. 

50 Id. §§ 36 & 51. 
The Law Library of Congress 122 

Taiwan 

Laney Zhang 

Foreign Law Specialist

SUMMARY In 2005, Taiwan passed the Indigenous Peoples Basic Law. According to the Law, 

whenever the government or private parties engage in land development, resource 

utilization, ecology conservation, or academic research on the indigenous land, tribes, 

or public land adjacent to the indigenous land or tribes, the indigenous peoples or the 

tribes must be consulted, and their consent or even participation is required. In the 

designated indigenous peoples’ regions, the government is required by the Law to 

restore the traditional names of indigenous tribes, mountains, and rivers in accordance 

with the will of indigenous peoples. 

 Protection of indigenous people’s cultural heritage is governed by the general rules of 

the Cultural Heritage Preservation Act (Heritage Act) and its subsidiary legislation on 

indigenous heritage. In planning and implementing the preservation of any indigenous 

heritage, the authorities, owners of indigenous heritage, or the managing organs must 

consult the indigenous people to which the indigenous heritage belongs, the relevant 

tribes, or other traditional organizations. 

 Graves may be protected by the Heritage Act under the categories of “monuments, 

historic buildings, and commemorative buildings,” and indigenous villages are 

protected under the category of human settlements. In the course of construction or 

other land development activities, if any structure deserving of the designation of a 

monument, a historic building, a commemorative building, or a human settlement is 

discovered, the development must immediately stop and a report thereon must be 

made to the competent authority. Under the Heritage Act, national treasures and 

significant artifacts are generally prohibited from being exported from Taiwan. 

 Although not expressly addressed by any existing laws or regulations, the return of 

indigenous people’s human remains appears to be taking place in Taiwan and the 

supervisory branch of the government has called for consideration of a mechanism to 

facilitate the return.

I. Legal Framework 

The Taiwanese constitutional amendments declare that the state safeguards the status of the 

indigenous peoples and preserves and fosters their cultures. These are among the basic national 

policies under article 10 of the Additional Articles of the Constitution of the Republic of China 

(Constitution Additional Articles).1 

 

1 Additional Articles of the Constitution of the Republic of China (promulgated May 1, 1991, last amendment 

promulgated June 10, 2005) (Constitution Additional Articles) art. 10, Laws and Regulations Database of the 

Republic of China, https://law.moj.gov.tw/LawClass/LawAll.aspx?pcode=A0000002, archived at
Protection of Indigenous Heritage: Taiwan 

The Law Library of Congress 123

In February 2005, Taiwan promulgated the Indigenous Peoples Basic Law, a fundamental law in 

protecting and promoting the rights of the indigenous peoples.2 The Law was most recently 

amended on June 20, 2018.3 A series of other laws and regulations have been made concerning 

indigenous people and protection of their rights.4 

However, there is no law comparable to the US Native American Graves Protection and 

Repatriation Act. Protection of indigenous people’s cultural heritage is governed by the general 

rules of the Cultural Heritage Preservation Act (Heritage Act) and its subsidiary legislation on 

indigenous heritage. The Heritage Act was first promulgated on May 26, 1982, and most recently 

revised on July 27, 2016.5 On July 18, 2017, relevant central authorities jointly issued the Measures 

for Handling Indigenous Cultural Heritage (Indigenous Heritage Measures), which became 

effective on the same day.6

II. Constitutional Amendments 

Article 10(11) of the Constitution Additional Articles addresses cultural pluralism and the 

preservation of indigenous languages and cultures. It states that 

[t]he State affirms cultural pluralism and shall actively preserve and foster the 

development of aboriginal languages and cultures.7

The constitutional amendments further declare the responsibility of the state to safeguard the 

status and political participation of the indigenous peoples and to guarantee and promote 

indigenous culture, economy, land, etc. Article 10(12) of the Additional Articles states that 

[t]he State shall, in accordance with the will of the ethnic groups, safeguard the status and 

political participation of the aborigines. The State shall also guarantee and provide 

assistance and encouragement for aboriginal education, culture, transportation, water 

conservation, health and medical care, economic activity, land, and social welfare, 

 

https://perma.cc/H3AN-2LBD; English translation available at https://law.moj.gov.tw/ENG/ 

LawClass/LawAll.aspx?pcode=A0000002, archived at https://perma.cc/3PAX-WUUZ. 

2 Indigenous Peoples Basic Law (promulgated Feb. 5, 2005, last amended June 20, 2018) (Basic Law) art. 1, 

https://law.moj.gov.tw/LawClass/LawAll.aspx?pcode=D0130003, archived at https://perma.cc/5K6H-UVXY; 

English translation available at https://law.moj.gov.tw/ENG/LawClass/LawAll.aspx?pcode=D0130003, 

archived at https://perma.cc/9NCM-DSKU. 

3 Id. 

4 See generally COMPILATION OF LAWS AND REGULATIONS OF INDIGENOUS PEOPLES (Council of Indigenous Peoples, 

Executive Yuan eds., 2011) (in Chinese). 

5 Cultural Heritage Preservation Act (promulgated May 26, 1982, last revised July 27, 2016) (Heritage Act), 

https://law.moj.gov.tw/LawClass/LawAll.aspx?pcode=H0170001, archived at https://perma.cc/AGM6-3LLY; 

English translation available at https://law.moj.gov.tw/ENG/Law Class/LawAll.aspx?pcode=H0170001, 

archived at https://perma.cc/M2L9-57XW. 

6 Measures for Handling Indigenous Cultural Heritage (July 18, 2017, effective on the same day) (Indigenous 

Heritage Measures), https://law.moj.gov.tw/LawClass/LawAll.aspx?pcode=H0170135, archived at

https://perma.cc/273P-9BA6 (Chinese only). 

7 Constitution Additional Articles art. 10(11). 
Protection of Indigenous Heritage: Taiwan 

The Law Library of Congress 124

measures for which shall be established by law. The same protection and assistance shall 

be given to the people of the Penghu, Kinmen, and Matsu areas.8 

III. Indigenous Peoples Basic Law 

A. Indigenous Peoples 

The term “indigenous peoples” under the Indigenous Peoples Basic Law refers to the traditional 

peoples who have inhabited Taiwan and are subject to the state’s jurisdiction, including the Amis 

tribe, Atayal tribe, Paiwan tribe, Bunun tribe, Puyuma tribe, Rukai tribe, Tsou tribe, Saisiyat tribe, 

Yami tribe, Tsao tribe, Kavalan tribe, Taroko tribe, and any other tribes who regard themselves 

as indigenous peoples and obtain the approval of the central indigenous peoples authority.9

Individuals who are members of any of those groups are referred to as “indigenous persons.”10

B. Indigenous Land 

The Indigenous Peoples Basic Law restricts activities such as land development and resources 

utilization on or around the indigenous land, which must be agreed by the indigenous peoples. 

Indigenous land under the Law refers to the traditional territories and reservation land of the 

indigenous peoples.11 According to article 21 of the Law, whenever the government or private 

parties engage in land development, resource utilization, ecology conservation, or academic 

research on the indigenous land, tribes, or public land adjacent to the indigenous land or tribes, 

the indigenous peoples or the tribes must be consulted, and their consent or even participation is 

required. Any relevant profits should be shared with the indigenous persons there.12 

The Law further requires the government to respect indigenous peoples’ rights to choose their 

lifestyle, customs, clothing, modes of social and economic institutions, methods of resource 

utilization, and types of land ownership and management.13

C. Indigenous Peoples’ Regions 

According to the Indigenous Peoples Basic Law, the Executive Yuan may designate indigenous 

peoples’ regions upon an application being made to the central indigenous peoples authority. 

These are areas where indigenous peoples have traditionally lived and that feature indigenous 

history and cultural characteristics.14 

 

8 Id. art. 10(12). 

9 Basic Law art. 2. 

10 Id. art. 2 

11 Id. 

12 Id. art. 21. 

13 Id. art. 23. 

14 Id. art. 2. 
Protection of Indigenous Heritage: Taiwan 

The Law Library of Congress 125

In the designated indigenous peoples’ regions, the government is required by the Law to restore 

the traditional names of indigenous tribes, mountains, and rivers in accordance with the will of 

indigenous peoples.15 

Furthermore, before establishing national parks, ecological protection zones, recreation zones, 

and other resources management organs in the indigenous peoples’ regions, the government 

must obtain consent from the locally-affected indigenous peoples and formulate a common 

management mechanism.16

IV. Cultural Heritage Preservation Act 

The Heritage Act governs the preservation, conservation, promotion, and transfer of Taiwan’s 

cultural heritage.17 Article 13 of the Act specifically addresses indigenous heritage, providing that 

any matters relating to the investigation, research, designation, registration, revocation, 

alteration, management, conservation, restoration, and reuse of indigenous peoples’ cultural 

heritage must be stipulated jointly by the central competent authority and the central indigenous 

peoples authority.18 The Indigenous Heritage Measures were issued based on this article.19 

A. Indigenous Heritage 

The Heritage Act protects designated or registered tangible or intangible cultural heritage that is 

of cultural value from the point of view of history, art, or science.20 Indigenous heritage protected 

by the Act is that designated or registered cultural heritage which has characteristics and values 

of indigenous culture.21

According to the Indigenous Heritage Measures, in planning and implementing the preservation 

of any indigenous heritage, the authorities, owners of indigenous heritage, or the managing 

organs must consult the indigenous people to which the indigenous heritage belongs, the relevant 

tribes, or other traditional organizations.22 

B. Graves and Indigenous Villages 

Tangible heritage protected by the Heritage Act includes monuments, historic buildings, 

commemorative buildings, and human settlements.23 The Act’s enforcement rules specify items 

 

15 Id. art. 11. 

16 Id. art. 22. 

17 Heritage Act art. 2. 

18 Id. art. 13. 

19 Indigenous Heritage Measures art. 1. 

20 Heritage Act art. 3. 

21 Indigenous Heritage Measures art. 3. 

22 Id. art. 5. 

23 Heritage Act art. 3. 
Protection of Indigenous Heritage: Taiwan 

The Law Library of Congress 126

that may be protected as monuments, historic buildings, and commemorative buildings, which 

include graves, ancestral halls, temples, and churches, among other things.24 Also according to 

the enforcement rules, indigenous villages fall into the category of human settlements.25

Indigenous people’s human remains do not appear to be specifically protected under the Heritage 

Act or Indigenous Heritage Measures. 

According to the Heritage Act, in the course of construction or other land development activities, 

if any structure deserving of the designation of a monument, a historic building, a 

commemorative building, or a human settlement is discovered, the development must 

immediately stop and a report thereon must be made to the competent authority.26 

The Heritage Act prohibits construction work or other land development activities from 

damaging the integrity of the monuments, historic buildings, commemorative buildings, and 

groups of buildings protected by the Act.27 

Monuments—defined as architectural works and their ancillary facilities built for the needs of 

human life that are of outstanding universal value from the point of view of history, art, or 

science—cannot be relocated or demolished unless such relocation or demolition is made for 

national security, significant public safety, or major national construction projects.28

C. Artifacts 

Artifacts, as well as archaeological sites, historic sits, cultural landscapes, and natural landscapes 

and natural mementos, are also protected under the Heritage Act as tangible heritage.29 The Act 

categorizes artifacts into three groups: national treasures, significant artifacts, and general 

artifacts.30 Among those, national treasures and significant artifacts are generally prohibited from 

being exported from Taiwan.31

 

V. National Policies 

On August 1, 2016, the Taiwanese President Tsai Ing-wen, on behalf of the government, 

apologized to Taiwan’s indigenous peoples “for the pain and mistreatment the indigenous 

 

24 Enforcement Rules of the Cultural Heritage Preservation Act (issued Feb. 22, 1984, last amended July 27, 

2017) (Enforcement Rules) art. 2, https://law.moj.gov.tw/LawClass/LawAll.aspx?pcode=H0170004, archived 

at https://perma.cc/474A-J5XB; English translation available at https://law.moj.gov.tw/ENG/ 

LawClass/LawAll.aspx?pcode=H0170004, archived at https://perma.cc/KUK7-8TUF. 

25 Id. art. 3. 

26 Heritage Act art. 33. 

27 Id. art. 34. 

28 Id. art. 36. 

29 Id. art. 3. 

30 Id. art. 65. 

31 Id. art. 73. 
Protection of Indigenous Heritage: Taiwan 

The Law Library of Congress 127

peoples have endured for the past four centuries.”32 She also announced the establishment of the 

Presidential Office Indigenous Historical Justice and Transitional Justice Committee chaired by 

herself. The Committee is tasked with, among other things, drawing up legislation to “provide 

restitution, reparations, or compensation for violations against indigenous peoples and 

deprivation of indigenous rights.”33

Although not expressly addressed by any existing laws or regulations, the return of indigenous 

people’s human remains appears to be taking place in Taiwan. Recently, in July 2018, Taiwan’s 

Control Yuan, the supervisory branch of the government, released a report on a request from an 

indigenous group that was submitted to the National University of Taiwan seeking the return of 

their ancestors’ remains that university researchers had obtained in around 1960. Noting that the 

university had agreed to return the remains, the report found that there are no laws or regulations 

governing matters related to indigenous people’s remains, such as their excavation and 

preservation. The Control Yuan called for further consideration of a mechanism to facilitate the 

return of human remains to indigenous peoples.34

 

32 The Committee, PRESIDENTIAL OFFICE INDIGENOUS HISTORICAL JUSTICE AND TRANSITIONAL JUSTICE COMMITTEE,

https://indigenous-justice.president.gov.tw/EN/Page/46 (last visited Feb. 26, 2019), archived at

https://perma.cc/WJE2-X4PV. 

33 Id.

34 Press Release, Control Yuan of the Republic of China (Taiwan), Ma Yuan Ancestors’ Human Remains Case: 

Control Yuan Urges National Taiwan University to Properly Handle the Return (July 12, 2018), 

https://www.cy.gov.tw/sp.asp?xdURL=./di/Message/message_1t2.asp&ctNode=2394&mp=1&msg_id=6617

(in Chinese), archived at https://perma.cc/XT7H-GHVP. 
The Law Library of Congress 128 

European Union 

Jenny Gesley 

Foreign Law Specialist

One of the founding values of the EU is respect for human rights, including the rights of persons 

belonging to minorities.1 The European Commission guarantees the compliance with 

fundamental rights and has in place a set of policy measures including guidance to tackle 

discrimination or creating specific fora to exchange good practices and discuss common concerns.

However, 

[b]eyond those instruments and policies, the Commission has no general power as regards 

minorities, in particular over issues relating to the recognition of the status of minorities, 

their self-determination and autonomy or the regime governing the use of regional or 

minority languages. It is for Member States to ensure compliance with their constitutional 

order and their obligations under international law.2

Promoting the rights of indigenous peoples and establishing a strengthened policy on indigenous 

issues are among the European Union (EU) priorities to advance human rights.3 The main 

documents on indigenous peoples are the Council Resolution of November 30, 1998, on 

Indigenous Peoples within the Framework of the Development Cooperation of the Community 

and Members States,4 and the Council Conclusions of November 18, 2002, on 

Indigenous Peoples.5 

The 1998 Council Resolution provides that the concern for indigenous peoples should be 

integrated “as a cross-cutting aspect at all levels of development cooperation, including policy 

dialogue with partner countries” and that the “capacities of indigenous peoples’ organisations to 

take an effective part in the planning and implementation of development programmes” must be 

enhanced. The Resolution proposes a review of existing procedures, guidelines, and manuals to 

ensure indigenous peoples are able to offer an informed view on EU activities that might affect 

them. The 2002 Council Conclusions provide a similar approach. In 2017, the Council again 

 

1 Consolidated Version of the Treaty on European Union (TEU), art. 2, 2016 O.J. (C 202) 13, https://eurlex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:12016M/TXT&from=EN, archived at 

http://perma.cc/7CDB-CH8A. 

2 EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, Parliamentary Questions. Answer Given by Ms Jourová on Behalf of the European 

Commission (Aug. 28, 2018), http://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/P-8-2018-003699-

ASW_EN.html, archived at http://perma.cc/255U-XBRU. 

3 COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION, EU STRATEGIC FRAMEWORK AND ACTION PLAN ON HUMAN RIGHTS AND 

DEMOCRACY, at 2 & 21 (June 2012), https://europa.eu/capacity4dev/file/13464/download?token=aUOs-5sz, 

archived at http://perma.cc/ACA6-TS6E. 

4 Council Resolution, Indigenous Peoples within the Framework of the Development Cooperation of the 

Community and Members States, Nov. 30, 1998, https://cendoc.docip.org/collect/cendocdo/index/ 

assoc/HASH0193.dir/Council%20Resolution%20Nov%201998.pdf, archived at http://perma.cc/M8TJ-SRCV. 

5 Council of the European Union, 2463rd Council Meeting, General Affairs, Indigenous Peoples. Council 

Conclusions, Doc. No. 13466/02 (Nov. 18, 2002), at IX, https://www.consilium.europa.eu/ueDocs/cms_ 

Data/docs/pressData/en/gena/73248.pdf, archived at http://perma.cc/6K9B-39W4. 
Protection of Indigenous Heritage: European Union 

The Law Library of Congress 129

published Council Conclusions on Indigenous Peoples and reiterated the importance of full 

participation and free, prior, and informed consent of indigenous peoples for EU projects.6 

Furthermore, the EU supported the adoption of the United Nation Declaration on the Rights of 

Indigenous Peoples in 2007, which, among other things, provides for the “right to maintain, 

protect and develop the past, present and future manifestations of their cultures, such as 

archaeological and historical sites, [and] artefacts.”7

 

6 Council of the European Union, Council Conclusions on Indigenous Peoples (May 17, 2017), at 4, No. 8, 

http://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-8814-2017-INIT/en/pdf, archived at 

http://perma.cc/WUG3-525S. 

7 Rights of Indigenous Peoples, EUROPEAN COMMISSION, https://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/sectors/human-rightsand-governance/democracy-and-human-rights/anti-discrimination-movements-1_en (last updated Jan. 10, 

2019), archived at http://perma.cc/B9FK-H7HP; United Nation Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous 

Peoples, G.A. Res. 61/295, U.N. Doc. A/RES/47/1 (2007), art. 11, https://www.un.org/esa/socdev/ 

unpfii/documents/DRIPS_en.pdf, archived at http://perma.cc/N3K8-HE88.