Archaeological Heritage Resource Protection in Canada

Pokotylo, David; Mason, Andrew R.

doi:10.5744/florida/9780813034607.003.0005

Cited by 11 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Location information on and associated descriptions of archaeological sites are typically compiled and organized into an archaeological spatial database. In "settler" contexts such as Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and the United States, paternalistic colonial-era legislation has obscured the rights of Indigenous people and heritage laws have typically denied Indigenous rights to their cultural heritage, privileging state ownership of archaeology (Pokotylo and Mason 2010). In recent years, cultural heritage collected through excavations ranging from human remains to artifacts and archaeological sites has come under intellectual property law, a situation that reflects power and authority in archaeology (Nicholas et al 2010).…”

Section: Making Of An Archaeological Spatial Databasementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Social scholars of science and archaeologists have examined the colonial roots of data practices particularly in "settler" contexts such as Canada, the United States, Australia, and New Zealand (McBryde 1986;Watkins 2000;McNiven and Russell 2005;Trigger 2006). Until very recently, non-Indigenous scholars often considered Indigenous peoples objects of study, and archaeological practices typically prevented descendant communities from ownership of their past, and from knowledge making about their ancestors (Atalay 2006;Pokotylo and Mason 2010). Often financed by museums and other government agencies, archaeologists recovered and documented material culture through excavations and typically shared archaeological data on a case-by-case basis.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

What We See, What We Don’t See: Data Governance, Archaeological Spatial Databases and the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in an Age of Big Data

Gupta

Blair

Nicholas

2020

Journal of Field Archaeology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Archaeological spatial databases have the potential to enable deep insights into human history. These compilations of data are at the interface of data management and data visualization. Yet issues of data governance such as the nature, management, quality, ownership, security, and accessibility of archaeological spatial databases are under examined in archaeology, a situation that can affect data intensive methods and "big" data approaches. Data governance including laws and policies associated with data have bearing on archaeological practices which, in turn, can impact map visualizations and subsequent decision-making. With the growth of the geospatial web and Web 2.0 technologies, there are increasing opportunities for archaeologists and the general public to collect and engage with digital archaeological data. In Canada, greater numbers of specialists from different sectors (research and education, government, private companies) now accumulate, store, and process digital archaeological data. We draw from the OCAP® (ownership, control, access, possession) principles to shed light on data governance in archaeology, with a focus on archaeological spatial databases in Canadian archaeology. In this context, we draw attention to the rights of Indigenous peoples, the legal and policy issues associated with archaeological spatial databases, and a need for greater engagement with Indigenous data governance principles.

show abstract

Section: Making Of An Archaeological Spatial Databasementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

What We See, What We Don’t See: Data Governance, Archaeological Spatial Databases and the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in an Age of Big Data

Gupta

Blair

Nicholas

2020

Journal of Field Archaeology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Although de jure legal requirements, including the HCA, typically specify minimum requirements for consultation and seldom reward reaching beyond those minimums to seek true collaboration with descendant communities (Budhwa 2005; First Nations Leadership Council 2011;Klassen 2013;Klassen et al 2009;Mason and Bain 2003;Pokotylo and Mason 2010), archaeological ethics increasingly reflect and stimulate interests in collaboration (Guilfoyle and Hogg 2015). Coaxed along by emergent, informal rules, archaeological practice now honors collaborative and Indigenous archaeologies.…”

Section: Ethical Codes and Full Spectrum Archaeologymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Although codes differ depending on the membership of the organization, they have all expanded to incorporate a wider range of issues (e.g., Canadian Archaeological Association 1997). Moreover, the creation and development of the World Archaeological Congress (WAC) is testament to the recognition of FSA and the need for more inclusive and responsive ethical guidance (Gero 1999).Although de jure legal requirements, including the HCA, typically specify minimum requirements for consultation and seldom reward reaching beyond those minimums to seek true collaboration with descendant communities (Budhwa 2005; First Nations Leadership Council 2011;Klassen 2013;Klassen et al 2009;Mason and Bain 2003;Pokotylo and Mason 2010), archaeological ethics increasingly reflect and stimulate interests in collaboration (Guilfoyle and Hogg 2015). Coaxed along by emergent, informal rules, archaeological practice now honors collaborative and Indigenous archaeologies.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Full Spectrum Archaeology

Hogg

Welch

Ferris

2017

Arch

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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...

show abstract

“…Smith 2010), no such legislation exists in Canada. There are two Canadian Acts with some relation to heritage (Burley 1994;Pokotylo and Mason 2010), the Historic Sites and Monuments Act 2 and the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. 3 These two pieces of federal legislation have little or no potential to protect heritage sites and do not require any consultation within the heritage domain (including archaeology).…”

Section: Legal Requirementsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Towards an Evaluation-Based Framework of Collaborative Archaeology

Guilfoyle

Hogg

2015

Adv. archaeol. pract.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Archaeological Heritage Resource Protection in Canada

Cited by 11 publications

References 0 publications

What We See, What We Don’t See: Data Governance, Archaeological Spatial Databases and the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in an Age of Big Data

What We See, What We Don’t See: Data Governance, Archaeological Spatial Databases and the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in an Age of Big Data

Full Spectrum Archaeology

Towards an Evaluation-Based Framework of Collaborative Archaeology

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About