No full-text available
To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the author.
Our Unprotected Heritage: Whitewashing the Destruction of Our Cultural and Natural Environment
... Federal agencies are required to provide the ACHP a reasonable opportunity to comment on any undertaking for which an agency has direct or indirect jurisdiction when the undertaking has an effect on a historic property listed on or eligible for listing on the NRHP. The procedures are part of federal regulations (36 CFR 800), still commonly referred to by reference to their original Section 106 designation (e.g., ACHP 2016; Barker 2009; Barras 2010Barras , 2012King 2000;Nelson 2016;Werkheiser et al. 2016, pp. 22-26). ...
... One measure of the importance that the Section 106 regulations have in the contemporary practice of cultural resource management (CRM) archaeology is the number of pages devoted to descriptions and discussions about it in current books on methods. King's (2013) standard text on cultural resource laws and practice spans more than 100 pages of a 400-page text to cover the Section 106 procedures; another standard CRM text (Neumann & Sanford 2001, pp. 27-54) devotes more than half of a chapter on "Laws, Regulations, and Protocols" to Section 106 procedures. ...
... The implementation of the NHPA related to archaeological resources is the administrative and regulatory engine that drives most of the current archaeological investigations in the United States. This aspect of archaeology is usually referred to as CRM or heritage management (Doelle & Phillips 2005;Fowler 1982Fowler , 1986King 1987King , 2013Lipe 2012Lipe , 2018 McManamon 2018a, as well as articles in McManamon 2018b; Neumann & Sanford 2001;Roberts et al. 2004;articles in Sebastian & Lipe 2009). In a recent review, Altschul (2016a, pp. ...
Keywords archaeology and the law, history of archaeology, cultural resource management, CRM Abstract Since its enactment over five decades ago, the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) and the organizations, policies, and regulations implementing it have strongly influenced how archaeology is conducted in the United States. The NHPA created a national network of archaeologists in government agencies. This network reviews the possible impact on important archaeological resources of tens of thousands of public projects planned each year. These reviews often include investigations, of which there have been millions. The archaeological profession has shifted from one oriented mainly on academic research and teaching to one focused on field investigations, planning, resource management, public outreach, and resource protection, bundled under the term cultural resource management (CRM). Since 1966, growth has produced good outcomes as well as some troubling developments. Current and new challenges include avoiding lock-step, overly bureaucratic procedures and finding the financial, professional, and technical resources, as well as political support, to build on the achievements so far. 553 Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2018.47:553-574. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org Access provided by Arizona State University on 10/25/18. For personal use only.
... Federal agencies are required to provide the ACHP a reasonable opportunity to comment on any undertaking for which an agency has direct or indirect jurisdiction when the undertaking has an effect on a historic property listed on or eligible for listing on the NRHP. The procedures are part of federal regulations (36 CFR 800), still commonly referred to by reference to their original Section 106 designation (e.g., ACHP 2016; Barker 2009; Barras 2010Barras , 2012King 2000;Nelson 2016;Werkheiser et al. 2016, pp. 22-26). ...
... One measure of the importance that the Section 106 regulations have in the contemporary practice of cultural resource management (CRM) archaeology is the number of pages devoted to descriptions and discussions about it in current books on methods. King's (2013) standard text on cultural resource laws and practice spans more than 100 pages of a 400-page text to cover the Section 106 procedures; another standard CRM text (Neumann & Sanford 2001, pp. 27-54) devotes more than half of a chapter on "Laws, Regulations, and Protocols" to Section 106 procedures. ...
... The implementation of the NHPA related to archaeological resources is the administrative and regulatory engine that drives most of the current archaeological investigations in the United States. This aspect of archaeology is usually referred to as CRM or heritage management (Doelle & Phillips 2005;Fowler 1982Fowler , 1986King 1987King , 2013Lipe 2012Lipe , 2018McManamon 2018a, as well as articles in McManamon 2018bNeumann & Sanford 2001;Roberts et al. 2004;articles in Sebastian & Lipe 2009). In a recent review, Altschul (2016a, pp. ...
Although it is not possible to link any single specific year with the initiation of Cultural Resource Management (CRM), 1974 certainly was a banner year for activities and events that were key to its development in the United States. At the beginning of the year, in the January 25th issue of the Federal Register, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) published the “Procedures for the Protection of Historic and Cultural Properties.” These procedures are designated formally as Title 36 (Parks, Forests, and Public Property), Chapter VIII (Advisory Council on Historic Preservation), Part 800 of the United States Code of Federal Regulations (36 CFR 800). They more commonly and frequently are referred to simply as the “Section 106 procedures,” named after the section of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA) that they implement. By whatever name, this set of regulations has had a substantial impact on how most CRM investigations are conducted in the United States for over 40 years (e.g., King 2004:81-190).
In April, the 1974 Cultural Resource Management Conference was held in Denver (Lipe and Lindsay 1974). Between July and November of 1974, the Airlie House Seminars on the management of archaeological resources were held at the Airlie House conference center in northern Virginia outside Washington, DC (McGimsey and Davis 1977). Presentations and discussions at these meetings focused on how to interpret new laws, regulations, and other governmental directives affecting archaeological resources and the anticipated changes in the practice of archaeology that would be necessary to address appropriately these environmental and historic preservation requirements. At the meetings there were discussions about the need to develop approaches and methods that focused on the conservation of archaeological resources, as opposed to excavation.
The Denver conference and the Airlie House seminars attendees were individuals, in academic, public agency, and museum organizations involved in addressing the problems associated with preservation of archaeological and other historic data and properties in the United States. Gathered at these meetings were archaeologists, resource managers, and experts from government agencies and academic institutions who began the practice of CRM and subsequently developed the concepts, methods, and procedures of the sub-discipline.
The fourth event was the publication of an influential article by Bill Lipe, “A Conservation Model for American Archaeology” in The Kiva. Lipe forcefully and to wide effect pointed out that the archaeological record is a “non-renewable” resource. He noted that while it is true that highway construction, mining activities, reservoir creation, looting, vandalism, and the forces of nature all are capable of destroying archaeological sites, archaeologists also exploit the resource. Archaeological fieldwork also preserves data about and from the sites where it takes place, but in the process the in situ resources are destroyed. Lipe’s main point was that archaeologists needed to work at conserving the in situ archaeological record, as well as, salvaging or rescuing archaeological data that was threatened by modern developments. Lipe advocated an approach to the archaeological record that would “…avoid our getting to last-ditch, emergency salvage situations (Lipe 1974:215).” Along with Bob McGimsey’s Public Archaeology (1972), Lipe’s article is regarded widely as establishing a philosophical foundation for the conservation-oriented contemporary CRM policy.
One new law fills out this list of notable 1974 events. The Archaeological Recovery Act, known more commonly as the Archeological and Historic Preservation Act of 1974 (AHPA), and within the archaeological community often referred to as the Moss-Bennett Act (named for the primary sponsors of the bills, Senator Frank Moss of Utah and the Representative Charles E. Bennett of Florida) was enacted. Formally, the new statute amended the Reservoir Salvage Act of 1960 and clearly broadening the obligations of federal agencies to take account of archaeological sites that their actions affected. In particular the amendment authorized the use of project funds for archaeological investigations required as part of agency projects.
The term “cultural resources management” developed within the discipline of archaeology in the United States during the early 1970s. Fowler (1982:1) attributes the first use of the term "cultural resources" to specialists within the National Park Service (NPS) in 1971 or 1972. Shortly after this, the word "management" became linked with cultural resources, for example, in the title of the 1974 Cultural Resource Management Conference held in Denver (Lipe and Lindsay 1974) and in the Cultural Resource Management seminar that was part of the Airlie House workshops held in 1974 (McGimsey and Davis 1977). McGimsey (1991, 2004:3-7) concludes that, while the term came into use during the early 1970s, “as a coherent, identified concept applicable to…archaeology, it crystallized in the minds of a few archaeologists at the Airlie House conference in 1974 and was given formal birth, or at least christened, with the publication of that report (McGimsey and Davis 1977).”
... Berg et al. 2016;Gnecco 2018;González-Ruibal 2018). Most of these anxieties can be traced back to the fact that archaeology is a capitalist project (Hutchings in press), particularly as manifested in CRM King 2009;Hutchings & La Salle 2015b;Gnecco 2018;Hutchings 2019) and the discipline's colonial/imperial control over Indigenous heritage and thus also over Indigenous peoples McNiven & Russell 2005;La Salle & Hutchings 2018). ...
... This is significant because academics are responsible for much of the literature on sustainable archaeology. Yet, the more need there is to talk about sustainability, the less sustainable things usually are ( Figure 2)-a dynamic apparent in the heritage industry's failure to protect archaeological sites (King 2009;Hutchings 2017;Gnecco 2018). Sustainability is popular in contemporary archaeology because it is popular in contemporary society (Wilk 1985), where 'sustainability' is routinely used to whitewash a lack of actual sustainability. ...
... Marina La Salle (ML): From our research into the use of the term 'sustainability' more broadly, it is clear to me that archaeologists are following a larger trend by choosing to focus on issues of sustainability, rather than unsustainability. This optimistic rebranding feels good, while archaeology's ongoing structural harms are hard to face (e.g McNiven & Russell 2005;King 2009;Gnecco 2018;Hutchings in press). ...
The valuable contributions of archaeology to present and future societies - Volume 93 Issue 372 - Anders Högberg, Cornelius Holtorf
... Federal agencies are required to provide the ACHP a reasonable opportunity to comment on any undertaking for which an agency has direct or indirect jurisdiction when the undertaking has an effect on a historic property listed on or eligible for listing on the NRHP. The procedures are part of federal regulations (36 CFR 800), still commonly referred to by reference to their original Section 106 designation (e.g., ACHP 2016; Barker 2009; Barras 2010Barras , 2012King 2000;Nelson 2016;Werkheiser et al. 2016, pp. 22-26). ...
... One measure of the importance that the Section 106 regulations have in the contemporary practice of cultural resource management (CRM) archaeology is the number of pages devoted to descriptions and discussions about it in current books on methods. King's (2013) standard text on cultural resource laws and practice spans more than 100 pages of a 400-page text to cover the Section 106 procedures; another standard CRM text (Neumann & Sanford 2001, pp. 27-54) devotes more than half of a chapter on "Laws, Regulations, and Protocols" to Section 106 procedures. ...
... The implementation of the NHPA related to archaeological resources is the administrative and regulatory engine that drives most of the current archaeological investigations in the United States. This aspect of archaeology is usually referred to as CRM or heritage management (Doelle & Phillips 2005;Fowler 1982Fowler , 1986King 1987King , 2013Lipe 2012Lipe , 2018 McManamon 2018a, as well as articles in McManamon 2018b; Neumann & Sanford 2001;Roberts et al. 2004;articles in Sebastian & Lipe 2009). In a recent review, Altschul (2016a, pp. ...
Since its enactment over five decades ago, theNational Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) and the organizations, policies, and regulations implementing it have strongly influenced how archaeology is conducted in the United States. The NHPA created a national network of archaeologists in government agencies. This network reviews the possible impact on important archaeological resources of tens of thousands of public projects planned each year. These reviews often include investigations, of which there have been millions. The archaeological profession has shifted from one oriented mainly on academic research and teaching to one focused on field investigations, planning, resource management, public outreach, and resource protection, bundled under the term cultural resource management (CRM). Since 1966, growth has produced good outcomes aswell as sometroubling developments. Current and new challenges include avoiding lock-step, overly bureaucratic procedures and finding the financial, professional, and technical resources, as well as political support, to build on the achievements so far.
... While the law (36 CFR Part 800) requires "consultation" with stakeholders, the experts who control this process only need consider wider meanings from the public if these meanings are congruent with these expert values (c.f. King 2009). ...
... While this sidestep approach in NRB 38 creatively addresses positivistic biases inherent in the nomination process, it is a compromised method that reinforces the scientific, art historical values that has dominated heritage conservation practice for more than a century. Some cultural groups find this Western hegemonic practice to be insulting to their belief system (Milholland 2010); indeed, the co-author of NRB 38, Thomas King (2009), now advises that traditional cultural groups should never accede to actually listing their property on the National Register, as doing so opens them to the possibility of the property being declared to be ineligible, which would then render them powerless. It is far more preferable to remain in the limbo of National Register eligibility (prior to the nomination being written and submitted), and therefore retain the ability to negotiate a better outcome with the experts. ...
... Mills et al. (2008) reinforce the motivation of efficiency and profit in CRM by observing that "most consultations [with stakeholders] do not involve real listening or significant project modification" -instead, this is a "check the box" process that favors development projects. In addition to echoing these critiques, King (2009) describes the fundamental corruption in a system that requires developers to pay consultants for environmental review compliance reports. CRM professionals who consistently support the protection of cultural heritage and block development may find themselves inherently unemployable. ...
This paper explores why heritage practitioners continue to embrace the objective security of positivism, building on Sharon Veale’s (cited in Sullivan 2015:114) observation that we are “ensnared in the system of heritage, rather than in understanding and unravelling the social processes of its making.” Specifically, built heritage conservation/CRM practice is too standardized and motivated primarily by speed, efficiency, and compliance; the field is not innovative or flexible; and heritage/CRM practitioners and scholars do not engage with each other. The field needs to recognize that the regulatory environment is a fundamental barrier in bridging theory and practice and in integrating tangible and intangible approaches. Lastly, understanding heritage requires a transdisciplinary approach that is altogether absent in most aspects of theory and practice. Possible solutions to these issues will be offered, including the idea of reenvisioning the nature of “heritage conservation.”
... Thomas King (2016) gives an example of earth destruction by socalled development projects. The project would "devastate some piece of your heritage in the natural or built environment -your neighbourhood, or the landscape you love, the family farm, the hill where your tribal elders seek visions, the stream where everybody in your valley goes to fish" (King 2016). ...
... Thomas King (2016) gives an example of earth destruction by socalled development projects. The project would "devastate some piece of your heritage in the natural or built environment -your neighbourhood, or the landscape you love, the family farm, the hill where your tribal elders seek visions, the stream where everybody in your valley goes to fish" (King 2016). Another example is cited by Vitchek (2013) where Chomsky blames Europe for "dumping toxic waste into the ocean off the coast of Somalia, killing off the fishing grounds and then complaining that the people turned to piracy." ...
Climate change and its global impact on all people, especially the marginalized communities, is widely recognized as the biggest crisis of our time. It is a context that invites all subjects and disciplines to bring their resources in diagnosing the problem and seeking the healing of the Earth. The African continent, especially its women, constitute the subalterns of global climate crisis. Can they speak? If they speak, can they be heard? Both the Earth and the Africa have been identified with the adjective “Mother.” This gender identity tells tales in patriarchal and imperial worlds that use the female gender to signal legitimation of oppression and exploitation. In this volume, African women theologians and their female-identifying colleagues, struggle with reading and interpreting religious texts in the context of environmental crisis that are threatening life on Earth. The chapters interrogate how biblical texts and African cultural resources imagine the Earth and our relationship with the Earth: Do these texts offer readers windows of hope for re-imagining liberating relationship with the Earth? How do they intersect with gender, race, empire, ethnicity, sexuality among others? Beginning with Genesis, journeying through Exodus, Ruth, Ecclesiastes and the Gospel of John, the authors seek to read in solidarity with the Earth, for the healing of the whole Earth community.
... Indeed, archaeologists modeling trends in archaeological site discovery have already concluded that rates of discovery are in decline, and some segments of the record are near depletion (SUROVELL et al. 2017, p. 288). Unfortunately, cultural resource management, the go-to approach to conservation, is demonstrably ineffective at protecting heritage sites and landscapes (e.g., GNECCO, 2018;HUTCHINGS, 2017;KING, 2009). Yet, it remains unclear whether protecting the archaeological record is actually a goal of the discipline; as Flannery (1982) famously concluded, "Archaeology is the only branch of anthropology where we kill our informants in the process of studying them" (FLANNERY, 1982, p. 275). ...
... The desire to replace narratives of disenchantment with feel-good 'Disney' stories is pervasive and extends well beyond archaeology: whitewashing and externalities are part and parcel of everyday life under industrial-capitalism (FOSTER et al., 2010;KING, 2009;MAGDOFF;FOSTER, 2011). In psychology, such avoidance is considered a coping mechanism characterised by the effort to ignore stressors. ...
Os acadêmicos têm contemplado o desaparecimento da arqueologia por duas décadas. Neste artigo, examinamos algumas das críticas realizadas no decorrer desse período e a partir disso predizemos que os arqueólogos continuarão a promover a arqueologia — enquanto ignoram seus problemas centrais — até que os governos parem de dar poder aos arqueólogos e a arqueologia se torne social e economicamente insustentável. Embora não esteja em perigo iminente, os arqueólogos começaram a recontar o futuro da arqueologia, transformando-se em missionários encantados que estão curando o mundo.
... Not surprisingly, the literature reinforces the meanings of the manifesto. Heritage conservation practitioners are consistently painted as oppressive, marginalizing entities engaging in a kind of colonizing practice that "sidelines" the values of communities (Hutchings & La Salle, 2015;King 2009;Smith 2006). To this end, Neil Silberman (2016, 440) makes the claim that the positivistic, art/historical system that heritage conservation practitioners perpetuate is "an instrument of topdown social engineering on a global scale." ...
... Frits Pannekoek (1998) characterizes heritage conservation professionals as a "heritage priesthood" who, in demanding fealty to the AHD, are engaging in the "misguided" psychological manipulation of people's value systems. Thomas King (2009) asserts that cultural resource management professionals purposefully use language that obfuscates meaning to frustrate and disconnect the public and engage in potentially unethical behavior that privileges a "check the box" mentality in environmental impact reviews. Lastly, Siân Jones (2009, 143) charges that professionals engage in the intentional omission of the values of communities in reports, especially when they are "compelled by professional conventions and institutional constraints to write these aspects out of conservation policy and public display." ...
... This reflexive literature also reveals that the practice of historic preservation has, systematically, long ignored, and in some cases, tried to erase local histories related to African American, Latinx, Asian American, and Native American peoples (Campbell, 2005;King, 2009;Magalong & Mabalon, 2016;Rotenstein, 2018;Ryberg-Webster, 2020); consultation, as required under federal law when there is a federal undertaking, privileges developers and expedient, check the box processes (King, 2009;Rotenstein, 2018). To be sure, as Emma Osore (2020, p. 146) calls attention, a fundamental reason why historic preservation practice engenders social justice issues is because it fails to engage with the contemporary people who live in context with their heritage. ...
... This reflexive literature also reveals that the practice of historic preservation has, systematically, long ignored, and in some cases, tried to erase local histories related to African American, Latinx, Asian American, and Native American peoples (Campbell, 2005;King, 2009;Magalong & Mabalon, 2016;Rotenstein, 2018;Ryberg-Webster, 2020); consultation, as required under federal law when there is a federal undertaking, privileges developers and expedient, check the box processes (King, 2009;Rotenstein, 2018). To be sure, as Emma Osore (2020, p. 146) calls attention, a fundamental reason why historic preservation practice engenders social justice issues is because it fails to engage with the contemporary people who live in context with their heritage. ...
This paper seeks to understand the relationship, in historic preservation, between equity/social justice and the field’s intra-disciplinary scholarship by using a critical heritage studies lens. Intra-disciplinary scholarship is defined as the scholarly literature produced by the 58 tenured and tenure-track faculty associated with historic preservation degree programmes in the United States through the end of 2018. A content analysis of this literature shows a general lack of engagement by authors on issues related to the public’s needs, including topics related to justice, equity, diversity, and inclusion. A citation analysis of this literature reveals meagre faculty productivity and low impact for intra-disciplinary preservation scholarship. In order for the field to sustain itself, it needs to reconsider its anti-intellectual tendencies, increase its socially relevant scholarly publications, and embrace more critical, people-centred approaches.
... According to 36 CFR 800, when a federal agency determines that its undertaking can potentially affect historic properties, it must consult with the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO), and/or the Tribal Historic Preservation Officer (THPO), state and local governments, and other consulting parties, which are assumed to include certain members of the public as well as developers (36 CFR §800.2 (a)(4) and (c) (2004)). It is important to note that although the lead federal agency is technically required to oversee and implement the process, most federal agencies legally delegate their authority to cultural resource management (CRM) specialists who are directly paid by the developers of projects that will have an adverse effect on historic properties (King 2009). This situation leads to inherent conflicts of interest where CRM professionals are compelled to make decisions that benefit the developer and harm stakeholders whose heritage may be destroyed or denigrated. ...
... The agency must then investigate methods that would mitigate the adverse effects on these structures (36 CFR §800.5 (2004)). Ultimately, the decision to protect, remove, or demolish the historic structures lies with the federal agency (36 CFR §800.5 (c) (1) (2004)), but the decisions are typically made by CRM professionals under the potential coercion of developers (King 2009). Though often used outside of a disaster recovery context, Section 106 is also one of the main processes for heritage protection and review, which includes a public consultation element, that is used in disaster recovery in the United States. ...
This article examines how the values, doctrines, and methodologies of orthodox heritage practice are incorporated into legal regulatory systems and thereby concentrate power in the hands of heritage professionals. The values, doctrines, and methodologies of orthodox heritage practice do not consider marginalization, segregation, and exploitation of traditionally disenfranchised groups. Socially vulnerable groups are at a particular disadvantage in post-disaster scenarios and are excluded from the planning and decision-making process for the recovery and preservation of their heritage. Using Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) in the United States of America as an example, this article argues that orthodox heritage practice’s neglect of crucial social trends limit citizen empowerment and decision-making abilities for traditionally disenfranchised groups in heritage recovery, management, and planning after disaster. It goes on to propose a sequential mixed-method approach wherein heritage professionals can expand their roles from regulators to facilitators by adopting participatory methods. Though this article examines the issues of vulnerability and exclusion through a U.S. example, the authors hope that this article can open a deeper discussion of these themes in an international context. © 2018
... Ostensibly, this consultation process is more demanding than the public hearings that are part of the other orthodox laws discussed herein because it requires heritage experts to engage with, listen to, and consider the values of stakeholders. Thomas King (2009), a cultural resource management professional with many decades of Section 106 experience, is highly critical of this process. While lauding the stated aims of Section 106 and some of the requirements of the implementing rule, he describes the overall system as being highly favorable to developers and, in its implementation, unintentionally excludes public participation "where most consultations do not involve real listening or significant project modification" (King 2009, p. 46). ...
... Section 106 began with the concise requirement that any federal agency "take into account the effect of the undertaking on any district, site, building, structure, or object that is included in or eligible for inclusion in the National Register," but through administrative law (36 CFR Part 800) became a 16,000 word tome that critics charge is a "bureaucratic nightmare" (Burch 2011, p. 535) with built-in conflicts of interest (King 2009) that prevent it from performing as was intended. An important distinction, however, between Section 106 and the proposed model for the adaptive regulatory framework, is that while exhibiting some qualities of dynamically assessing sociocultural values, Section 106 does not require that historic properties be conserved; rather, the goal is to achieve a consensus on how an intervention should proceed. ...
Purpose
Existing regulatory frameworks for identifying and treating historic buildings and places reflect deference to expert rule, which privileges the values of a small number of heritage experts over the values of the majority of people who visit, work, and reside in historic environments. The purpose of this paper is to explore a fundamental shift in how US federal and local preservation laws address built heritage by suggesting a dynamic, adaptive regulatory framework that incorporates heterodox approaches to heritage and therefore is capable of accommodating contemporary sociocultural values.
Design/methodology/approach
The overall approach used is a comparative literature review from the fields of heterodox/orthodox heritage, heterodox/orthodox law, adaptive management, and participatory methods to inform the creation of a dynamic, adaptive regulatory framework.
Findings
Tools such as dialogical democracy and participatory action research are sufficiently pragmatic in implementation to envision how an adaptive regulatory framework could be implemented. This new framework would likely require heterodox definitions of law that move beyond justice as a primary purpose and broaden the nature of legal goods that can be protected while addressing discourses of power to benefit a larger group of stakeholders.
Practical implications
The authors suggest that an adaptive regulatory framework would be particularly beneficial for architectural and urban conservation planning, as it foregrounds considerations other than property rights in decision-making processes. While such a goal appears to be theoretically possible, the challenge will be to translate the theory of an adaptive regulatory framework into practice as there does not appear to be any precedent for its implementation. There will be issues with the need for increased resources to implement this framework.
Originality/value
To date, there have been few, if any, attempts to address critical heritage studies theory in the context of the regulatory environment. This paper appears to be the first such investigation in the literature.
... While archaeology is assuredly a product of modernity, the practice's post-1950 configuration suggests something entirely new-or at least significantly different-than what came before (e.g. Hutchings and La Salle 2015a, b;King 2009;Smith 2004). I thus employ the term ''late modern'' to highlight these differences. ...
... Rather than seeing themselves as integral components of the heritage-industrial complex (King 2009;Smith 2004), many archaeologists simply reframe archaeology as good and archaeologists as saviours. There is no affirmation of archaeology as a destructive technology of government. ...
While archaeologists have always shown great interest in the rise and fall of premodern states, they perennially show little interest in their own. This is particularly troubling because the state is the nexus of power in archaeology. In practice, virtually all archaeology is state archaeology, imbued with and emboldened by state power. It is in this light that contributors to this Special Issue of Archaeologies grapple with the archaeology–state nexus, addressing such timely issues as colonialism, capitalism, and cultural resource or heritage management (CRM/CHM). We outline here the archaeology–state nexus concept and introduce the Special Issue.
... It would also run counter to the impulse, in most corporate quarters, to keep potentially controversial projects "under the radar." Nevertheless, small shifts in practice could still give descendant groups and other ethical clients a formal and recognized voice in the documentation of archaeological research, and would add some transparency to a process which is extremely opaque to most "everyday" citizens (King 2009 ). In this framework, ethical clients would also have obligations-for example to provide their input by whatever timetable, and whatever format, that everyone agrees upon ahead of time. ...
... What can be even more game changing, however, is when individuals (members of the public and archaeologists) attempt to push past business-as-usual practices to create new forms of cooperation. Because, as noted earlier, the majority of commercial CRM practice today often marginalizes actual publics (King 2009 ), thinking about collaborative practices as falling along a continuum can encourage any archaeologist to include them in their practice, to the degree they feel able-whether that practice be CRM, academic, or somewhere in between. Cheryl LaRoche put it this way in an article describing the effect of public involvement in CRM work at African American sites: …members of the public… have been able to force agencies, cities, and even our own colleagues to fi gure out ways to do archaeology anyway -to take important but previously avoided histories seriously, to study them properly, and to give them the recognition they deserve. ...
This paper will describe the development of public archaeology from the mid-1970s to the present (late 2013), noting some key ethical benchmarks which occurred throughout this period with respect to public archaeology. This discussion will note some of the evolving relationships between archaeology as a public practice and archaeology as a profession. We will next propose a definition for public archaeology that is able to subsume what has become an extremely large and varied area of archaeological praxis. Finally, we will provide a broad description of the scope of contemporary practice, especially with respect to the dominant themes in the most recent work—collaboration, community, and one of the most recent venues for public archaeology practice, new social media.
... Since the passage of the National Preservation Act in 1966, the perceived need for the heritage expert to determine historical significance and sanction appropriate interventions has been codified into federal, state and local laws, such as the Section 106 process and hundreds of local preservation ordinances. While government staff tout public involvement in these laws, in reality, because of their reliance on expert rule, the meanings and values of the public are consistently marginalized (King 2009). At the local level, while volunteers in preservation commissions have quasi-judicial authority, their decisions are highly mediated by the professional preservation planners that support these commissions. ...
... heterodox heritage is critical of historic "registers", or lists of historic buildings and places (King, 2009) To date, heterodox heritage has made little inroads toward impacting the practice of historic preservation or built heritage conservation. For the most part, orthodox heritage approaches remain the domain of heritage practitioners while heterodox heritage is espoused by academics, mostly from the field of critical heritage studies. ...
Purpose
Existing regulatory frameworks for identifying and treating historic buildings and places reflect deference to expert rule, which privilege the values of a small number of heritage experts over the values of the majority of people who visit, work, and reside in historic environments. To address this problem, the purpose of this paper is to explore a fundamental shift in how US federal and local preservation laws address built heritage by suggesting a dynamic, adaptive regulatory framework that incorporates heterodox approaches to heritage and therefore is capable of accommodating contemporary sociocultural values.
Design/methodology/approach
The overall approach the authors use is a comparative literature review from the fields of heterodox/orthodox heritage, heterodox/orthodox law, adaptive management, and participatory methods to inform the creation of a dynamic, adaptive regulatory framework.
Findings
Heterodox heritage emphasizes the need for a bottom-up, stakeholder-driven process, where everyday people’s values have the opportunity to be considered as being as valid as those of conventional experts. Orthodox law cannot accommodate this pluralistic approach, so heterodox law is required because, like heterodox heritage, it deconstructs power, values participation, and community involvement.
Practical implications
Orthodox heritage conservation practice disempowers most stakeholders and empowers conventional experts; this power differential is maintained by orthodox law.
Originality/value
To date, there have been few, if any, attempts to address critical heritage studies theory in the context of the regulatory environment. This paper appears to be the first such investigation in the literature.
... Consequently, archaeology is alienated (Zorzin, 2015). This commoditized archaeology has been labeled as whitewashed (King, 2009), digwashed (Greenberg, 2020), greenwashed, or ethicwashed (Zorzin, 2015). ...
... The properties under question had changed too much since the 1960s (i.e., lacked "historical integrity"), and, additionally, there were no high style architectural values that could also be used to officially justify significance according to the municipality's ordinance. Similarly, Thomas King (2009) has numerous examples of the failure of orthodox conservation theory and practice to recognize and protect the heritage of Native Americans. ...
Built heritage conservation today
• Approximately thirty years ago, the field of “heritage studies” arose which defines itself through the use of social science research methodologies that seek the understanding of the relationship that people have with heritage and the historic environment.
• Heritage studies defines a value system (heterodox theory and practice) that is critical of the dominant system of expert rule and top-down processes (orthodox theory and practice) that identify and treat the historic environment.
• Orthodox and heterodox approaches to theory and practice have fundamental differences due to foci on fabric versus people and top-down versus bottom-up approaches, respectively.
• Heritage studies scholarship seems to have had little practical impact on the actual conservation of the historic environment and no impact at all on the regulatory environment or on preservation/conservation policy.
Built heritage conservation tomorrow
• If conservationists/preservationists live up to the mantra of “managing change,” then we must accept that we are no longer conserving fabric, but rather conserving the meanings associated with fabric.
• The role of the heritage practitioner in the future changes from controlling meanings to facilitating the gathering and interpretation of meanings.
• If the conservation of meanings defines practice in the future, then heritage practitioners need to collect and interpret these meanings with more depth and consistency than has been happening to date.
• A goal of practice should be to empower communities to recognize, treat, and interpret their own built heritage and cultural landscapes.
• Heritage practitioners need pragmatic social science tools that are efficient and easy to use. Environmental design and behavior research, the conservation social sciences, and participatory action research may offer ready templates.
• It may not be possible to change much of orthodox conservation practice because existing laws and rules prevent any change in the types of values and meanings associated with heritage.
• Practitioners lack generalizable/transferable knowledge about people/place interactions with and sociocultural valuations of the historic environment in order to provide a proper context for interpretation and communication.
... • Built heritage conservation has traditionally, and in some ways continues to be, an elitist endeavor that overemphasizes discourses from rich, White, males while disempowering people who are already marginalized (Graham, Ashworth, & Tunbridge, 2000;Kaufman, 2009;King, 2009;Nanda et al., 2001;Schofield, 2009). ...
This chapter summarizes the work of the authors in the book, Human-Centered Built Environment Heritage Preservation: Theory and Evidence-Based Practice (Routledge, 2019), edited by Jeremy C. Wells and Barry L. Stiefel. The themes summarized are:
- Can Empiricism Be Reconciled with Transcendence?
- Giving Practitioners a Space (and Permission) to Think
- Whither Environmental Psychology?
- Converting Evidence into Practice: Frameworks for Guidance
- The “Shadow” Obscuring the Reality of Built Heritage Conservation Practice
- The Professional Care of Old Places Is Still an Island
- Where Are the Non-Western and International Perspectives?
... ENDNOTES 1 There is a history of critical and reflective perspectives on historic preservation with which this article can be associated. A leading voice in this field is King (1998King ( , 2002King ( , 2009), who has published several books and essays on problems he sees in cultural resource management (CRM) and historic preservation. King has described and advised how to negotiate the entangled bureaucracies that impede preservation and cultural resources protection. ...
The value of historic preservation is defined by an appreciation for old buildings as contributing to the sense of place of communities, both large and small. A recent national effort to develop a “preservation for people,” however, suggests that the inherent good of preservation is being challenged and rethought. This article considers this self‐assessment a retrenchment aimed at ensuring the preservation of the preservation field. Looking specifically at the urban and suburban landscape of Essex County, New Jersey, since the passing of the National Historic Preservation Act in 1965, I examine how preservation has developed a tradition of serving only those that can support its agenda. I then turn to show how those neglected by the preservation field in the county nevertheless practice preservation on their own terms, developing the foundations of what I call “a people’s preservation.” This counternarrative produces a different frame for preservation, showing how it can serve not a generic people but specific communities whose self‐determination can be the real focus of preservation practice.
... Historical and cultural heritage may potentially increase a country's access to and use of cultural diversity. It may also enrich social capital through formation of the individual and collective senses of belonging to a certain community, helping to maintain social and territorial cohesion (King, 2009). In addition, cultural heritage has taken on a great economic importance for the tourism sector in many countries, although these processes create new problems with respect to cultural heritage conservation (Silva and Chapagain, 2013). ...
... In the twenty-first century, there is ample evidence that there are fundamental problems with the practice of conserving built heritage and cultural landscapes largely due to the superficial treatment of the meanings and values associated with heritage. Much of this critique originates from critical heritage studies researchers (e.g., Gibson and Pendlebury 2009), Harrison 2013, Smith 2006), but also from planners (e.g., Mason 2003, Buckley andGraves 2016), as well as from heritage practitioners (e.g., Green 1998, King 2009, Hutchings 2015. Broadly speaking, there is a substantial divide between conventional experts and civil experts 1 in the meanings that they associate with old places (e.g., old buildings, old structures, cultural landscapes), including essential concepts such as authenticity, the value of certain "historic" places, and how these places ought to be treated. ...
The professional practice of built heritage and cultural landscape conservation is based on a top-down approach, expert rule, and an unintentional disregard for the values and meanings of most stakeholders (i.e., civil experts). This study, based on a case study of the Horto d’El Rey, one of the first botanical gardens in Brazil, explores a possible way to dissolve the barrier between civil experts and conventional experts by inverting the conventional top-down system for heritage conservation so that it becomes bottom-up. The overall methodology used for this research is a qualitative case study that incorporates community-based participatory research. In this study, the participants (co-researchers) identified values and issues associated with the garden and, at least in one case, developed a plan to self-address some of these issues. The results of the study raised some difficult issues about the role of conventional experts in heritage and natural conservation efforts. While, ideally, civil experts need to play a central role in solving problems, conventional experts often stepped into familiar roles in the work planning process. A challenge, therefore, is to how to enable civil experts to take leadership roles in an environment where the conventional experts facilitate rather than assume the efforts of these civil experts.
... More specifically, the cultural heritage's inseparable relationship with the environment is important as it defines, emerges and sets the purpose of its existence expressing the past, the present and the future. Any disturbance of this relationship from destabilizing factors, such as natural disasters, can affect directly and at a great extent the identity of cultural heritage [3]. ...
Σκοπός της εισήγησης είναι η ανάλυση τη έννοιας της ανθεκτικότητας (resilience) με ειδική έμφαση στην Ελλάδα και συγκεκριμένα, σε δύο ξεχωριστές περιπτώσεις που αντιμετώπισαν παρόμοιες φυσικές (σεισμικές) καταστροφικές εμπειρίες (Βόλος 1955 και Σαντορίνη 1956). Πρόκειται για δύο διαφορετικές γεωγραφικές ενότητες που μετά την καταστροφή ακολούθησαν διαφορετική οικιστική, κοινωνική και οικονομική εξέλιξη, αλλά και κατά την τρέχουσα περίοδο χαρακτηρίζονται από έντονα διαφοροποιημένες αναπτυξιακές δυναμικές. Οι προς μελέτη περιοχές είναι η πόλη του Βόλου και η νήσος Σαντορίνη που επλήγησαν από ιδιαίτερα καταστροφικούς σεισμούς, με τεράστιες επιπτώσεις στην κοινωνία, την οικονομία αλλά και την ιστορική φυσιογνωμία τους. Οι αστικές αυτές συγκεντρώσεις ακολούθησαν μια "επιτυχημένη" και καινοτόμα (για τα δεδομένα της εποχής) διαδικασία αποκατάστασης-ανασυγκρότησης. Η διαδικασία αποκατάστασης αποτελεί κοινό στοιχείο και αφετηρία για τη σφυρηλάτηση μίας "κουλτούρας ανθεκτικότητας", η οποία αξίζει μελετηθεί. Το
βασικό ερώτημα που τίθεται αφορά στο κατά πόσο η κουλτούρα αυτή διατηρήθηκε, επηρέασε (και σε ποιό βαθμό) και/ή ανατράπηκε/χάθηκε από την μετέπειτα αναπτυξιακή πορεία. Τέλος, υπό τις παρούσες συνθήκες, θα εξετασθούν, τόσο για την πόλη του Βόλου όσο και για την περίπτωση της Σαντορίνης, οι δυνατότητες και η σημασία επαναπροσδιορισμού της έννοιας της ανθεκτικότητας και της συνεισφοράς της για την εμπέδωση μιας συνθήκης ασφαλείας.
... More specifically, the cultural heritage's inseparable relationship with the environment is important as it defines, emerges and sets the purpose of its existence expressing the past, the present and the future. Any disturbance of this relationship from destabilizing factors, such as natural disasters, can affect directly and at a great extent the identity of cultural heritage [3]. ...
Natural disasters and their interaction with cultural heritage are a global phenomenon that has come to the attention of the scientific community the last decade. Preventive measures and policies have been developed in order to protect the natural and cultural environment of the humanity. The current study aims at the identification of cultural heritage, its interaction with natural disasters and the up-to-dated developed policies for Volos city in Prefecture of Magnesia, in Greece. “The social and economic implications of a heritage at risk”, are corroborated by the example of the ‘50s earthquake at Magnesia Prefecture. The current research indicates that Greek policies are not well targeted, and they are without a vision. Additionally the preventive taken measures are not cost effective and the local community is not aware of the existing risk. Thus, in the current research are proposed a few non-constructive measures such as: (i) the creation of a local natural disaster and cultural heritage data-base, (ii) the enhancement of the public awareness concerning the natural disasters and its effect on cultural heritage and (iii) the promotion of cultural heritage and its value. Aiming at cultural resilience and sustainable development of the region, the proposed measures must also be supported by a strong legal framework.
... When the criteria are subjective and one can make a predetermined significant determination by simply parroting back the regulatory language, the entire impact assessment process is undermined. This, sadly, is endemic in the world of cultural resource impact assessment (King 2009). ...
Conflicts surrounding the development of public lands are on the rise around the world. In the United States, where laws require federal agencies to conduct environmental and cultural impact assessments before approving or permitting development projects, conflicts still occur. This is especially true for projects that impact indigenous lands, resources, and communities, as the recent controversy surrounding Dakota Access Pipeline project so well illustrates. The purpose of this article is to highlight some of the problems I have encountered as an anthropologist conducting cultural impact assessments for federal agencies and for indigenous communities. Central among the problems encountered are the lack of awareness and appreciation for indigenous values by project proponents, agencies, and sometimes even the analysts hired to conduct the assessments. Recommendations for improving the quality of cultural impact assessments, which are based on the tenets of Action Anthropology, are explained.
... Recognizing the historical imbalance of power between development, commercial archaeology, provincial legislation for heritage, and Indigenous communities is critical in understanding the context of archaeology in British Columbia, as no work that we do as archaeologists is apolitical (Berreman 1968;McGuire 2008). It is clear that Indigenous communities have been marginalized, overlooked, and treated as secondary when it comes to their heritage and many Indigenous communities have long argued for equity, sovereignty, and rights to control heritage access and practices as they prefer (Chilisa 2012;King 2009;Nicholas 2006;Smith 2004Smith , 2007. This is punctuated by the recent Canadian Supreme Court decision on 312 SEAN P. CONNAUGHTON AND JAMES HERBERT Tsilhqot'in Nation v. British Columbia (2014 SCC 44). ...
This article details our research within a large, publicly traded company to understand the ‘corporate culture’ within Cultural Resource Management as it is practiced today. We outline the trials, twists, and roadblocks in our attempt to first change, and then to merely understand, the nature of corporate culture in a large-scale environmental assessment company situated within development capitalism. In the end, we share how corporate archaeologists think about engagement with Indigenous communities in British Columbia in an attempt to look within the corporate sector to understand its worldview and perspectives. We then offer ‘solutions’ to drive internal, structural change in hopes of engendering a community-first approach as first step towards decolonizing commercial archaeology.
... Perhaps this kind of 'black box' negotiation made sense when the review process was developed half a century ago, when agencies and project proponents did not have access to as much expertise and there were fewer groups equipped to contribute to heritage management decisions. 71 However, the state of heritage law in the United States today leaves indigenous groups ill equipped to address private industry actions. ...
A collaborative relationship between native peoples and industrial corporations–two actors that value resource-rich land–is of vital importance for both the United States and the Russian Federation. A strong partnership between industrial and indigenous actors can help to ensure not only the stability of extractive projects, but also the protection of indigenous groups from the potentially existential threats associated with territorial loss. Cooperation between these two parties gains urgency as extractive corporations begin to explore the Arctic, a region of the world already home to over two dozen unique indigenous communities. In both the United States and the Russian Federation, there are legal precedents for negotiations regarding indigenous rights, natural resources, and the fuel-energy complex. Even so, parties involved in the extractive process frequently stray from these national and international legal guidelines. Our paper seeks to answer the question: why might rational actors–here, indigenous and industrial communities that are motivated by their preferences–fail to cooperate on extractive projects, even when robust collaborative agreements benefit all sides? We suggest that the explanation is twofold: first, indigenous land rights lack the consistency which may give indigenous communities control over their resources and cultural preservation; and second, a neutral and objective third-party mediator–whether in the form of a state or an international body–is often silent in, or absent from, the negotiation process, thereby undermining its authority to ensure fair and reasonable deliberations. Our findings can offer important insights for community-corporate relations, not only in the Arctic, but worldwide.
... And the U.S. National Register of Historic Places is very much based on fixed meanings defined by very few people, and again, based on European precedent (Sprinkle 2014). Arguably, the way in which cultural resource management is practiced in the U.S. through 'Section 106' and its emphasis on 'consultation' promises a more emancipatory approach to practice, but in reality, as with all areas in which heritage overlaps with law, this system is predicated on the meanings of experts and controlled by experts (King 2009). The U.S., and I would argue, Australia as well, are not the bastions of egalitarian, emancipatory practice that Emerick seems to imply. ...
... Lastly, this study may provide evidence as to why it is essential that conservation planning processes seek an understanding of the values and perceptions of civil experts (everyday people) in order to balance expert rule that dominates the field (Harrison 2013;Kaufman 2009;King 2009;Mason 2006;Pendlebury 2009;Schofield 2009;Smith 2006). If we understand that the conservation of the historic environment is for the benefit of people, the natural conclusion is that we therefore ought to understand how people value the historic environment. ...
What is ‘age value’? Or conceptualised slightly differently, what is the fundamental difference in the experience and affect of old and new places? In order to answer this question, this study compares historic Charleston, an authentically ‘old’ place and I’On, a ‘new’ place designed on new urbanist principles; both places share essentially the same design but differ in age by over 150 years. A sequential mixed-method approach, consisting of a phenomenology (interviews) followed by a measure of four dimensions of place attachment provided the data for this study; both methods employed photo elicitation techniques. Age value is only associated with patina and spontaneous fantasy in historic Charleston; both of these variables correlate with increased levels of general attachment or dependence. Residents of both neighbourhoods exhibit very high levels of general attachment, dependence and identity, but rootedness is higher in Charleston. Place attachment is correlated with more environmental variables in historic Charleston than it is in I’On. It is important to protect masonry patina because of its association with place attachment. This study lends evidence for why we need to understand the values, perceptions and experiences of civil experts in balance with the objective art/historical values of conventional experts.
... Our cultural and natural heritage are both irreplaceable sources of life and inspiration." UNESCO--United Nation Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization as cited by (King, T., 2012). ...
Tourism is a powerful economic development tool which creates jobs, provides new business opportunities and strengthens local economies. Starting with the local culture and already existing communities and geographies, tourism developments can enhance the interesting and unique aspects of a location. Using local traditions, beliefs, and resources reinforces the cultural heritage of a location, making these new areas thriving cultural hubs. These communities hold the social values of the residents that connect them to their culture and history, and they also promote the education of these values, which attracts tourists and visitors who are interested in understanding local culture. This increased flow of people boosts local businesses, which in turn supports the community by building a strong economic foundation, allowing the local culture to flourish and create an even more vibrant community. It is now well admired worldwide that development and management of tourism at any destination or place, requires a multi-dimensional approach (strengthen the institutional capacity, engage with multiple stakeholders, establish appropriate protocols and systems). When cultural heritage tourism development is done right, it also helps to protect our nation’s natural and cultural treasures and improve the quality of life for residents and visitors. Linking tourism with heritage and culture can do more for local economies than promoting them separately. This article explores the ethnic heritage and emphasizes on the holistic tourism development approach after considering the various heritage tourism resources available in the state.
Becoming an Archaeologist: A Guide to Professional Pathways is an engaging handbook on career paths in archaeology. It outlines the process of getting a job in archaeology, including various career options, the training required, and how to get positions in the academic, commercial, government and charity sectors. This new edition has been substantially revised and updated. The coverage has been expanded to include many more examples of archaeological lives and livelihoods from dozens of countries around the world. It also has more interviews, with in-depth analyses of the career paths of over twenty different archaeologists working around the world. Data on the demographics of archaeologists has also been updated, as have sections on access to and inclusion in archaeology. The volume also includes revised and updated appendices and a new bibliography. Written in an accessible style, the book is essential reading for anyone interested in a career in archaeology in the twenty-first century.
Cultural heritage management produces hundreds of archaeological assessments each year. However, the level of input from Aboriginal people into the significance assessment of places uncovered during this commercial archaeological work is minimal at best. Assessment outcomes continue to privilege scientific archaeological concepts of significance. To address this, the Bunurong Land Council Aboriginal Corporation has led the development of a tailored approach to significance assessment that is framed by the concept of Country. The criteria that have been developed integrate scientific archaeological approaches with Aboriginal cultural values and community perspectives in a balanced assessment methodology, which creates space for Aboriginal control of the assessment process and allows Aboriginal community perspectives to inform management/protection outcomes. Framing significance assessment within Traditional Owner perspectives of Country provides the opportunity for generating archaeological data that can address research questions and cultural significance at landscape or regional scales that are meaningful to the Traditional Owners, decolonising understandings of the past, and directly contributing to the protection of heritage places through improved and sustainable management outcomes.
In Canada archaeology sits between colonial and contemporary reconciled notions of heritage, and relationships between the descendant colonial State and Indigenous sovereigns. State-regulated Archaeological Resource Management (ARM) has slowly begun to shift away from archaeologist-centric values, as that management becomes less about preserving the material past, and more about fiduciary State obligations towards Indigenous sovereign rights over this heritage. These changes are also slowly destabilizing the role and authority of archaeologists in ARM: from experts and value makers of archaeological stuff to servicing other societal values within this contested material heritage. These changes have significant implications for how archaeology is understood by Canadian society to “make meaning” of human–material experiences in the past and present. Feeding into both old angsts and new anxieties over archaeological authority and the “rightness” of an archaeological ontology, current discourse invites the question: Is there a place for an informed, reflexive archaeological meaning-making within a resituated heritage conservation regime, and can it contribute to a State/Indigenous Sovereign-based archaeological management? This paper considers archaeology at a time when that practice appears to be moving beyond archaeological sensibilities, and the limits of archaeological ways of knowing are being expanded by other ways of knowing.
The primary objective of sustainable archaeology is to maintain the profession of archaeology—that is, to sustain itself. An effort to rebrand the discipline as virtuous, sustainable archaeology is self-serving and reflects larger institutional anxieties around an unethical past and an uncertain future. An example of futurist rhetoric and doublespeak, sustainable archaeology exists because archaeology is unsustainable.
Economic and racial inequalities impact how sites are or are not recognized as having the attributes necessary to meet the criteria for historical preservation and commemoration, either under private standards or federal law. As a result, past forms of structural racism impact our perception and treatment of historical people in the present, engendering historical silences and impacting which people we remember. This article considers both government and private standards for historic preservation and commemoration in addition to analyzing the practice of historic commemoration on some private Virginia historic sites. Through this dual discussion, I examine how practices governing the preservation of archaeological sites continue to marginalize in the present those whom US society marginalized in the past. Since these practices help determine what constitutes historically significant parts of the American past and what we commemorate, they promote disparity in determining whose history we remember and preserve.
This paper explores the relevancy of the nascent critical heritage studies movement to the future of built heritage conservation. Critical heritage studies theory assumes that conventional experts ignore or “sideline” the values of most stakeholders; heritage can be found everywhere; everyone is a heritage expert; significance and authenticity are based on sociocultural meanings and personal experience that are often independent of historical facts; and these values are dynamic and therefore cannot be fixed using lists. An analysis of the perspective offered by the critical heritage studies field leads to the conclusion that its directives, while useful in some contexts, tends to lead to the quagmire of cultural relativism. Significant elements of critical heritage studies theory are therefore difficult, if not impossible, for practitioners to apply in the real, tangible world. In order to increase the relevancy of critical heritage studies to built heritage conservation, a more grounded discussion between critical heritage studies scholars and built heritage practitioners is necessary as well as a more pragmatic focus on addressing real-world problems inherent in practice. Without this kind of grounding, critical heritage studies is likely to be increasingly irrelevant to built heritage conservation theory and practice.
Heritage adds value to a wide range of endeavors, with heritage tourism and historic designations presented as opportunities for economic development. Other values for heritage include increasing social capital, using places, heirlooms, and stories to pass on traditions and increase the understanding of locales and history. Public archaeologists and other heritage professions have been using heritage to engage, partner, and contribute to communities. Community-based and transparent heritage practices, whether archaeological investigations or creating new representations of the past for a location, offer positive and continuing opportunities for heritage as positive social actions. An example from the Florida Gulf Coast will illustrate how radical openness for a project facilitated archaeological outreach moving beyond specific research goals to catalyze new endeavors based on the history uncovered. From public archaeology that revealed a previously unknown nineteenth-century maroon community, the freely shared information and insights led to creative expression, innovative uses of newly revealed histories, and more research that went far beyond what the research team might have produced. Such heritage activism allows interest in, and support for, heritage in a manner that can compete with market-driven concerns and expand knowledge and appreciation of the past.
Abstract submission deadline: August 30, 2019. Join your fellow colleagues in helping to define a new area of research — the psychology of heritage environments — by contributing a paper to a special research nexus in the refereed journal, Collabra: Psychology, published by the University of California Press. For the purposes of this special collection, submitted papers need to consider these three fundamental characteristics associated with heritage places and social and environmental psychology: 1) A central focus on old or “historic” environments from a theoretical and/or empirical perspective; 2) Research methods primarily associated with environmental psychology, such as behavioral mapping, environmental attitude measurement, phenomenologies, visual preferences, simulated environments, post occupancy evaluations, and neuroscience, among other possibilities; and 3) A theoretical construct based on place identity, place attachment, environmental perception, and the settings in which certain behaviors occur. For full details on this call, see attached PDF.
Human-Centered Built Environment Heritage Preservation addresses the question of how a human-centered conservation approach can and should change practice. For the most part, there are few answers to this question because professionals in the heritage conservation field do not use social science research methodologies to manage cultural landscapes, assess historical significance and inform the treatment of building and landscape fabric. With few exceptions, only academic theorists have explored these topics while failing to offer specific, usable guidance on how the social sciences can actually be used by heritage professionals.
In exploring the nature of a human-centered heritage conservation practice, we explicitly seek a middle ground between the academy and practice, theory and application, fabric and meanings, conventional and civil experts, and orthodox and heterodox ideas behind practice and research. We do this by positioning this book in a transdisciplinary space between these dichotomies as a way to give voice (and respect) to multiple perspectives without losing sight of our goal that heritage conservation practice should, fundamentally, benefit all people. We believe that this approach is essential for creating an emancipated built heritage conservation practice that must successfully engage very different ontological and epistemological perspectives.
From ancient times to the present, cities have been dynamic places that bring together people of diverse occupations and classes, and they are constantly transforming as economic, political, and social conditions change.
Full spectrum archaeology (FSA) is an aspiration stemming from the convergence of archaeology’s fundamental principles with international heritage policies and community preferences. FSA encompasses study and stewardship of the full range of heritage resources in accord with the full range of associated values and through the application of treatments selected from the full range of appropriate options. Late modern states, including British Columbia, Canada, nominally embrace de jure heritage policies consonant with international standards yet also resist de facto heritage management practice grounded in professional ethics and local values and preferences. In response, inheritor communities and their allies in archaeology are demonstrating the benefits of FSA and reclaiming control over cultural heritage. Archaeology and heritage management driven by altruistic articulation of communal, educational, scientific and other values further expose shortcomings and vulnerabilities of late modern states as well as public goods in and from FSA.
Aboriginal people have occupied northern Alberta since the end of the last ice age. For most of that time they travelled across the land by foot, producing complex networks of trails, many of which may have great antiquity. Aboriginal people also modified the landscape extensively by the use of controlled burning. Lastly, they are immersed in and “read” the land as places with multiple cultural meanings, which in turn helped shape their cultures and identities. Together, these elements indicate the existence of a series of overlapping cultural landscapes for which the cross-country trails and waterways provide the grid. This article addresses the importance of traditional trails for identifying the cultural landscapes of northeastern Alberta and points to the rapid disappearance today of knowledge about such trails. It considers how archaeological investigations done in Alberta for Impact Assessment purposes fail to consider either trails or cultural landscapes in their surveys or to consult with Aboriginal people. As a result, government Review Panels making recommendations for whether or not an industrial project should be approved are basing their findings on incomplete information about Aboriginal land uses and meanings.
Any overview of archaeological ethics in North America and how responsive or not it is to broader, global multicultural ethical discourses in large part must acknowledge that archaeology today is a practice that massively occurs beyond academic settings. While there still is a strong intellectual commerce in scholarly pursuits of knowing the past, far exceeding that form of archaeology are the various iterations of commercial management arising from the conservation of archaeology within development lands. This practice, which commodifies both material remains and intellectual valuation of social worth, along with the gross accumulated output of this consumptive paradigm, has radically transformed and made much more multi-sided the question of ethics in archaeology. This chapter considers how archaeological ethics have become transformed as a result of this very dominant form of archaeological practice in North America, and how it has made those ethical questions of much greater social import that in turn is transforming the very notion of what archaeology is and can be in North American society.
In these days of heightened environmental awareness one could ask, “Was there ever such a thing as environmental stability?” On a beautiful day in May, I put the final touches on a five-page guidance statement for how to deal with greenhouse gases and climate change in the aviation sector, emailed it off for review, and left for a Memorial Day weekend at the beach. Solve climate change, head off on vacation, all in a day’s work. If only it were that simple. People must interact with their environment, and for most of humanity’s existence on earth a stable environment was an underlying premise. We are only just realizing how wrong we were about the environmental side of it, and in the process finding out how our own cultural complexities further change the balance.
In the twenty-first century, the relevance of the positivistic, orthodox heritage paradigm is increasingly being called into question in terms of its ability to provide an appropriate ontological and epistemological foundation for the assessment of built heritage. Heterodox heritage theory, largely represented by heritage studies, now presents the alternative paradigms of constructivism, critical theory, and postcolonial theory that are more suited to understanding the multiple truths and the pluralistic soci-ocultural values of a wider range of stakeholders' values. Heritage is also seen as a tool for social justice and to empower communities. In this environment, existing, orthodox tools to assess the value of built heritage are inadequate. Heterodox theory is largely based on a foundation of the social sciences and Participatory Action Research (PAR) may offer a way to provide a useful tool for practitioners that encompasses both het-erodox theory and the goals of social justice and community empowerment. Ultimately, PAR may offer a theoretical basis under which heritage researchers can provide empirical evidence to the claim that the valuation of historic fabric is a fundamental human value that transcends cultures.
Cultural Resource Management as a Future-Oriented ActivityWhat Does the Future Need?Flaws in the Standard ModelWhat's Wrong? A Towering ExampleAlternative Futures: A View from Mauna KeaSacred StructureAkwé: KonHams in the Sky?And - the Bottom LineReferences
Why We Preserve Military HeritageWho Saves Our Military Heritage?Locating Our Military HeritageSignificant Military HeritageMilitary Heritage Resource ProtectionThe Military Heritage Preservation ProfessionRecommendations For Further Reading
Archaeology is not only a quintessential part of the fabric of society, it adds to the flow society’s lifeblood. Recent figures (2009–2010) for the heritage industry of Great Britain show tourist spending alone accounts for £4.3 billion of GDP. In the “money-talks” and bottom-line context of the modern day, figures such as this demonstrate that the identification, study, preservation and interpretation of the past encompassed within archaeology are relevant, even irrespective of its many other intangible benefits, and society without it would be both culturally and fiscally poorer. In view of the future, archaeology has the unique capacity to genuinely challenge dystopic predictions of societies hemmed and reduced by the impacts of climate change and resource scarcity with data and models of human ingenuity, creativity and capacity for change and sustainability. This chapter sets out an agenda for a far more active field and activist archaeologists within it. The Great Recession and the austerity measures developed to combat it leave no doubt that decision-makers at the highest levels continue to see archaeology and its broad family of social sciences and humanities as expendable. It is the challenge of all who can see archaeology’s immense and diverse value to speak loudly in its defence.
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any references for this publication.