Collaborative archaeology is a growing field within the discipline, albeit one that is rarely analyzed. Although collaborative approaches are varied and diverse, we argue that they can all share a single methodological framework. Moreover, we suggest that collaborative archaeology projects can be evaluated to determine the variety among projects and to identify the elements of engaged research. We provide two case studies emphasizing project evaluation: (1) inter-project evaluation of community-engagement in British Columbia archaeology and (2) intra-project evaluation of co-management archaeology projects in Western Australia. The two case studies highlight that project evaluation is possible and that a single framework can be applied to many different types of projects. Collaborative archaeology requires analysis and evaluation to determine what facilitates engagement to further the discipline and to create better connections between archaeologists and community members. The discussed case studies illustrate two shared methods for accomplishing this. The paper argues that collaborative approaches are necessary for advancing archaeological practice.

2Full 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.Archaeological resource management; Cultural heritage management; History of archaeology; International heritage policies 3 Archaeologists in the later-2010s face some big questions. Is cultural heritage best treated as a part of archaeology, or vice versa? Can (and should) archaeology hold together as a unified discipline in the face of ongoing growth and diversification, especially in heritage resource management (HRM) archaeology and other fee-for-service practice? Should we proceed in riveting our disciplinary focus upon places and objects having scientific and historical values? Or, are the interests of archaeology and our diverse clientele better served by and through what we refer to, following Welch and Ferris (2014:97), as full spectrum archaeology (FSA)-an aspiration to employ an archaeological lens and other means to understand all cultural heritage, to attend to all values associated with heritage, and to consider management and treatment options that reflect and embrace those diverse values? Will we, archaeologists, continue the comfortably institutionalized ostensibly objective study and management of sites and artifacts within internal disciplinary logics and agendas, or shall we respond to international policies and increasingly vocal inheritor community preferences by expanding and diversifying archaeology into an essential if not always sufficient means for helping to identify, assess, and treat broad arrays of particularly significant cultural heritage? These seemingly academic questions go to the heart of practical and political relations between archaeology and late modern states, especially as regards to engagements archaeology and archaeologists are pursuing with international, national, regional, and communal partners to make decisions about what heritage will be carried forward and may help shape the future.In dialogue with the other essays in this collection, we seek to set a course for archaeology that stems the rising tides of late modern state control...

Archaeological evidence has been used to assess pre-contact occupation and use of land since the first modern Aboriginal title claim in Canada. Archaeology’s ability to alternately challenge, support, and add substantive spatial and temporal dimensions to oral histories and documentary histories makes it a crucial tool in the resolution of Aboriginal rights and title. This article assesses how archaeological evidence has been considered in Aboriginal rights and title litigation in Canada, both over time and in different types of cases. The examination indicates that archaeological data have been judged to be sufficient evidence of pre-contact occupation and use. However, some limitations inherent in archaeological data, especially challenges in archaeology’s capacities to demonstrate continuous occupation and exclude possibilities for co-occupation, mean that it is best used in conjunction with ethnographies, oral histories, and historical documents. So long as courts affirm that it is the sole material evidence of pre-contact occupation, archaeological data will continue to be considered in future litigation.

No abstract

The 2014 Supreme Court of Canada Tsilhqot’in decision provides the first declaration of Aboriginal title to Canadian soil. Aboriginal title requires evidence of continuous, exclusive, and sufficient occupation of a territory. In the earlier trial before the British Columbia Supreme Court the Tsilhqot’in First Nations presented a substantial corpus of archaeological evidence to complement historical evidence, oral histories, and Tsilhqot’in testimony regarding the locations of Tsilhqot’in villages and the type and duration of their occupations. We examined this body of archaeological data in the context of the judicial proceedings to understand which data were considered favourably by the court and why. We found that the trial court accepted archaeological data as evidence of occupation on definite tracts of land at the time of sovereignty, agreeing with the Tsilhqot’in plaintiffs that the evidence met the legal standards for continuous and sufficient occupation. Because the Supreme Court Tsilhqot’in decision is the paramount statement on Aboriginal title, the treatment and consideration of archaeological data in that decision will likely set standards for and guide improvements to the applications of archaeological data in title cases.