Best Cultural Heritage Stewardship Practices by and for the White Mountain Apache Tribe

Welch, John R.; Altaha, Mark K; Hoerig, Karl A.; Riley, Ramon

doi:10.1179/175355210x12670102063706

Cited by 21 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Archaeology, as a practice and discipline, is meaningless without cultural heritage (Leone and Potter 2007;Welch 2014, 2015;Welch et al 2009;Welch et al 2011b). There is a critical distinction "between the internal act of doing archaeology and the external place where archaeological information beyond archaeology is variably made into a heritage of meaning and value for communities and descendant groups" (Ferris and Welch 2015:71).…”

Section: Full Spectrum Archaeology Versus the Late Modern Statementioning

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

Section: Full Spectrum Archaeology Versus the Late Modern Statementioning

confidence: 99%

Full Spectrum Archaeology

Hogg

Welch

Ferris

2017

Arch

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…There are many examples of community engagement in archaeology projects, including notable projects such as the Ozette Archaeological Project in Makah territory, Washington (Samuels and Daugherty 1991), and the work of Janet Spector and the Wahpeton community at Little Rapids, Minnesota (Spector 1993). In addition, there are more recent examples such as T.J. Ferguson and Chip Colwell-Chanthaphonh's work with the tribes in the San Pedro Valley (Colwell-Chanthaphonh and Ferguson 2004;Ferguson and Colwell-Chanthaphonh 2006); John Welch's work with the White Mountain Apache (Welch 2000;Welch and Ferguson 2007;Welch et al 2009); Sue Rowley's work with the Inuit of the Eastern Arctic (Rowley 2002); George Nicholas's work with the Secwepemc in British Columbia (Nicholas 2000); and Natasha Lyons's work with the Inuvialuit in the Western Arctic (Lyons 2013). This far from exhaustive list includes examples of effective community engagement from around North America.…”

Section: Case Study 1: Inter-project Evaluation: Community Engagementmentioning

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

“…We would also argue we're only beginning to see in North America the conceptual unpacking and problematising of the differences between archaeology and heritage (e.g. King 2009King , 2011bSmith et al 2010 ;Welch et al 2009Welch et al , 2011, which is a critical distinction between the internal act of doing archaeology and the external place where archaeological information beyond archaeology is variably made into a heritage of meaning and value for communities and descendant groups (cf. Harrison 2012 ;Smith , 2006.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ethics and Archaeological Praxis

Gnecco¹,

Lippert²

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Best Cultural Heritage Stewardship Practices by and for the White Mountain Apache Tribe

Cited by 21 publications

References 10 publications

Full Spectrum Archaeology

Full Spectrum Archaeology

Towards an Evaluation-Based Framework of Collaborative Archaeology

Ethics and Archaeological Praxis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About