Capacities for a Sustainable Archaeology (original) (raw)
Related papers
ArchNotes, 2012
In the face of chronic instability in economic, environmental and political climates, almost every industry has had to reconsider its long-term sustainability. Massive reorganization, critical re-examination of value and viability, and the ability to predict and envision future avenues in a volatile world have become critical to survival. Archaeology has in no way been sheltered from these challenges. Major transformations in heritage legislation connected to urban development have in many ways provided a boom in demand. Nonetheless, practical, ethical and theoretical concerns continue to underline these questions of long-term viability and the quintessential issue of balancing economic, research, educational, and public heritage value of archaeology in Ontario. While the root of this issue is surprisingly simple – that is: what to do with all the collections recovered through archaeological survey and excavation – the solutions are complex, contentious and intensely challenging.
Ontario's Archaeological Curation Crisis - Twenty Years Later
Archaeological collections are cherished for future educational opportunities, cultural or spiritual reasons and archaeological research. With the ongoing destruction of archaeological sites, the information stored in these collections is quite valuable as it becomes the only remaining evidence of past life. Unfortunately, in Ontario, archaeological collections are at risk of becoming lost, destroyed or misplaced because they are stored privately without specific management guidelines. After interviewing five professional Ontario archaeologists, it was made clear that financial restrictions within the heritage sector limit the adequate care of archaeological collections, suggesting that traditional solutions remain challenging. Over the last decade, improper care has rendered many collections unusable for archaeological research. For these reasons, archaeological collections with remaining research potential must be prioritized and curated appropriately over collections with no remaining archaeological value. Preventative measures such as avoidance and legislation should be adopted to prevent future curation problems in the province. Importantly, this study has identified that future research is needed to determine the specific archaeological potential in Ontario’s privately stored collections and to discuss our current options responding to this problem. This research is important to archaeologists and to anyone else who appreciates the shared value in Ontario’s archaeological past.
2013
Over the past two decades, archaeology in British Columbia has been marked by two dramatic changes: the steep rise in forest industry-related “cultural resource management” (CRM) and the concomitant increase in First Nations engagement with archaeology and heritage stewardship. These trends have led to conflict between indigenous perspectives and CRM practice, but have also led to alliances and collaborations with archaeologists and the implementation of applied archaeological approaches. This dissertation addresses the implications of indigenous heritage stewardship, from the viewpoints of the St’át’imc and Nlaka’pamux nations, in the historical and contemporary context of CRM practice and applied archaeology in the mid-Fraser region of British Columbia. To place their engagement in perspective, I consider recent theoretical debates in community-based and indigenous archaeologies, as well as the development of participatory action research in archaeology. I also review the involvement of First Nations throughout British Columbia in CRM, stewardship, heritage legislation, and ethics. The St’át’imc and Nlaka’pamux case studies presented in this dissertation relate their outlooks on archaeology and their specific efforts in heritage stewardship, based on literature reviews, interviews, and direct participation. The St’át’imc case study describes their traditional and contemporary views on archaeology and stewardship, relates their involvement in archaeology since the 1970s, and evaluates the process and outcomes of their recent direct involvement in the business of CRM. The Nlaka’pamux case study recounts their experiences with archaeology since the late nineteenth century, as well as their more recent confrontations with CRM practice, and examines their current efforts at defining Nlaka’pamux heritage stewardship, particularly from the vantage of landscape. The different approaches taken by these two nations have their strengths and shortcomings, and both continue to aspire to greater participation and authority in archaeology and heritage stewardship. Most important, the standpoints and strategies of both nations provide insights into how applied archaeology practice can be transformed to better serve indigenous heritage stewardship, including in the realms of ethics, indigenous authority, intangible heritage, and cultural landscapes. I contend that archaeologists can best accommodate these perspectives through participatory action research and the concept of archaeological praxis.
Sustainability in community archaeology
Arqueologia Publica, 2014
This paper considers the rise of community archaeology in England and Wales, its relationships with other branches of archaeology, and its long-term sustainability. It is argued that true sustainability for community archaeology will only be possible if research outcomes and public benefit are considered as being of equal value.
Public Archaeology and the Cultural Resource Management Industry in Ontario
Partners to the Past: Proceedings of the 2005 Ontario Archaeological Society Symposium Edited by James S. Molnar, 2007
According to John Carman, "We study the contemporary practices of archaeologists in order to understand what doing archaeology does " (2000: 304). The growth of the archaeological consulting industry in Ontario has drastically changed the face of how archaeology is done in this province. This new public context has raised questions about accountability, and it has been suggested that archaeologists have an obligation to public education and outreach. This paper will discuss the public role of consulting archaeologists in Ontario with reference to a recent survey undertaken among archaeological practitioners in the province. It will examine how consultant archaeologists contribute to the general knowledge of the Ontario's past by non-archaeologists, what limitations and opportunities are created by the consultant's position between the material resource, legislative structures, clients and a variety of publics, and discuss general attitudes towards public archaeology as a component of consulting and how this is reflected in dayto-day practice.
2016
A response to La Salle and Hutchings’ critique of the special section, “Community-Oriented Archaeology,” which appeared in 2014 in the Canadian Journal of Archaeology. We start by correcting factual errors before moving to an analysis of four foundational issues: 1) Can archaeology reveal history? 2) Does archaeology inevitably contribute to marginalizing Indigenous peoples? 3) Are archaeology and other forms of scholarship simply self-serving acts of maintaining the colonial status quo? and 4) Does archaeology have value to Indigenous communities and other marginalized or subaltern peoples? We argue that archaeology can be about history, can confront colonialism, is not simply a Western self-serving indulgence, and can have value to Indigenous communities in Canada and elsewhere. We suggest that the model that most advances this goal, the model that our papers explored, is archaeology in partnerships with descent communities, which in settler contexts are primarily Indigenous.