‘Coming back’ Aborigines and archaeologists at Cuddie Springs

Field, Judith; Barker, John R.; Barker, Roy; Coffey, Essie; Coffey, Loreen; Crawford, Evelyn; Darcy, Les; Fields, Ted; Lord, Garry; Steadman, Brad; Colley, Sarah

doi:10.1179/146551800793157530

Cited by 6 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…(Faulkner 2000:22). En los contextos poscoloniales, y en realidad en todos los lugares, incluso los que no se han visto sujetos en algún momento de su historia al yugo del colonialismo (Apaydin 2018;Ayán Vila 2012), la arqueología comunitaria ha jugado un rol integrador, como una disciplina que establece un vínculo con el medio material y social que estudia (Atalay 2012;Byrne 2012;Carman 2011;Field et al 2000;Matthews 2019; Van den Dries y Van der Linde 2012; Wright 2015). Pero algunos de estos trabajos se han podido configurar desde una "mentalidad gobernadora", extractivista, que prioriza el conocimiento de los expertos intelectuales que generan una arqueología participativa, que no comunitaria, sino más bien autoritaria.…”

Section: Patrimonio Sociedad Y Conservación Patrimonialunclassified

Conservación [Crítica] Social en Arqueología

Pérez

Díaz–Andreu

2021

Chungará (Arica)

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Este texto busca generar nuevos diálogos entre la crítica social que se está realizando en patrimonio y lo que llamamos una conservación social, ciñendo nuestra reflexión al mundo de la arqueología. Se intentará trazar un puente reflexivo entre las corrientes sociales de la arqueología pública y comunitaria y la conservación. Para ello exploramos los cambios que se han producido en el marco teórico de la gestión y valores del patrimonio en los últimos años y su proyección en la conservación de bienes culturales arqueológicos. El texto también analiza el debate que se genera en torno a conservación, valores y obsolescencia, proponiendo una conservación que contribuya a la [de]cosificación y des-elitización del patrimonio. Por último, proponemos algunas reflexiones finales que pincelan el futuro rol de la conservación en la arqueología de la contemporaneidad.Palabras claves: conservación crítica, patrimonio crítico, arqueología, valores del patrimonio, gestión de patrimonio, arqueología pública, arqueología comunitaria. This text aims to generate new dialogues between the current social critique of heritage and what we describe as 'social conservation',focusing our reflection on the archaeological field. We will attempt to draw a reflective bridge between the social trends of public and community archaeology and conservation. We will explore the changes that have occurred in the theoretical framework of heritage management and values in recent years, together with their projection in the conservation of archaeological cultural assets. We will analyze the debate generated around conservation, values, and obsolescence, advancing a conservation proposal that contributes to the [de]reification and de-elitization of heritage. Lastly, we will offer some final reflections that outline the future role of conservation in the archaeology of contemporaneity.

show abstract

Section: Patrimonio Sociedad Y Conservación Patrimonialunclassified

Conservación [Crítica] Social en Arqueología

Pérez

Díaz–Andreu

2021

Chungará (Arica)

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Such partnerships may contribute to a richer and more vibrant understanding of Australian history and culture (Greer et al 2002). In cultural heritage management, research, conservation and development of specific sites, especially those with significance for Indigenous communities, has led to broader definitions of heritage; re-evaluating the role of experts or professionals in managing such projects and the ongoing management of heritage sites (Field et al 2000, Smith et al 2003.…”

Section: Museums and Community Engagementmentioning

confidence: 99%

Beyond the rhetoric: negotiating the politics and realising the potential of community‐driven heritage engagement

Perkin

2010

International Journal of Heritage Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper explores the development of community engagement work in the heritage sector and the danger of such projects conforming to a top-down model. An alternative community-driven approach is explored. The ongoing Bendigo heritage engagement project is used as a basis for discussing the benefits, limitations and potential pitfalls of such an approach. The role of the project manager in negotiating the politics and issues arising in community-driven approaches is crucial and a range of skills and techniques, which may assist those in this role, are highlighted. Identifying and addressing potential problem areas is essential to ensure the success of such projects. This is imperative if museums, galleries or other organisations wish to move beyond rhetorical strategies for community engagement towards successful implementation of sustainable and relevant projects that positively contribute to local communities.

show abstract

“…While, as Smith and Burke (2003:191) point out, the effectiveness of the codes of ethics used in Australia still needs to be assessed, there is evidence of the benefits of this practice to archaeological research at least. Once relationships of trust and respect have been developed with communities, joint community and archaeological work has arisen that, by its nature, is immediately more meaningful to community questions about their history and past (see for instance, Davidson et al 1995;Field et al 2000;Clarke 2002;Greer et al 2002;Smith & Burke 2003;. One of the catch cries of 1970s processual archaeology was for archaeology to be 'more relevant' for contemporary needs -and joint community research certainly may realise this.…”

Section: The Opportunitiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

The repatriation of human remains – problem or opportunity?

Smith

2004

Antiquity

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The editor’s question “who do human skeletons belong to?” (Antiquity 78: 5) can be answered positively, but it must be answered in context. The question was prompted by reports from the Working Group on Human Remains established by the British government’s Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) in 2001 to review the current legal status of human remains held in all publicly funded museums and galleries, and to consider and review submissions on the issue of the return of non-UK human remains to their descendent communities (DCMS 2003: 1-8). In effect, the report was primarily concerned with human remains from Indigenous communities, using a definition which follows the UN Draft Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples as “distinct cultural groups having a historical continuity with pre-colonial societies that developed on their territories” (DCMS 2003:7). Consequently, the report deals primarily with the Indigenous communities of Australia, New Zealand and North America.

show abstract

‘Coming back’ Aborigines and archaeologists at Cuddie Springs

Cited by 6 publications

References 0 publications

Conservación [Crítica] Social en Arqueología

Conservación [Crítica] Social en Arqueología

Beyond the rhetoric: negotiating the politics and realising the potential of community‐driven heritage engagement

The repatriation of human remains – problem or opportunity?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About