Legitimation and the Classification of Archaeological Sites

Leone, Mark P.; Potter, Parker B.

doi:10.2307/2694840

Cited by 22 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 17 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

“…In a few cases, however, later discussions have focused on aspects of the significance evaluation process which are relative and dynamic, but which have not been a major focus of previous work. Leone and Potter (1992), for example, have highlighted the subjective nature of significance evaluations and have therefore stressed the importance of public participation in this process. It is also worth noting that none of the literature in the bibliography argued against the notion that archaeological significance is a dynamic and relative concept.…”

Section: Interpretive Analysis Of Individual Significance Conceptsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…They suggest that the fate of those resources earmarked to be sacrificed or destroyed will be better served by emphasizing why resources are not significant, rather than why they are. Many of the archaeologists that have addressed the notion of non-significance have included in their discussions a clear endorsement of Concept 1 (Appendix A): i.e., the idea of significance as a dynamic and relative phenomenon (e.g., Plog 1981;Tainter and Lucas 1983;Schaafsma 1989;Leone and Potter 1992).…”

Section: More Explicit Significance Criteriamentioning

confidence: 99%

“…More recent discussions of public involvement in archaeology, particularly the essay by Leone and Potter (1992), have reminded archaeologists not to lose touch with public perceptions and values. These arguments suggest that public support is not only essential to maintain CRM, but that it is crucial to ensure that our evaluations of significance are genuinely pluralistic and democratic, rather than narrow and elitist.…”

Section: Public Involvement (Appendix Cb5)mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Trends and Patterns in Cultural Resource Significance: An Historical Perspective and Annotated Bibliography

Briuer¹,

Mathers²

1997

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

a contract student at WES, contributed significantly to this work as a research assistant, compiling annotated citations, preparing graphs and tables, and resolving a variety of technical problems. Mr. Hebler's participation in the project has provided him with the opportunity to develop ideas and research experience that relate directly to his Master's thesis on archaeological resource management at Ball State University in Muncie, Indiana. Research assistance in collecting sources and compiling annotations was also provided by Mr. Evan Peacock at Mississippi State University and Mrs. Natalie Maillho at Tulane University. Mr. David Redd, an anthropology student at the University of Southern Mississippi, worked closely with the authors to proof the manuscript and assist in general editing and clerical tasks in the final stages of writing. We would also like to extend our thanks to Mr. Richard Waldbauer and Ms. Beth Savage at the Archaeological Assistance Division of the National Park Service in Washington, D.C., for their help in supplying information concerning various National Register Bulletins.

show abstract

“…To achieve this lofty objective, archaeologists routinely examine their assumptions about the interpretation of archaeological variability (e.g., Schroeder 2013), as well as ideas regarding the creation, organization, and analysis of problem-specific data (e.g., Jackson 2014). This widespread, and accelerating, practice of critical reflection promotes disciplinary renewal, which in turn enables the development of robust methods and contributes to insights about how to conduct archaeological studies of human behavior and evolution in ways that are not constrained by disciplinary privilege (Lyman 2007) or political partiality (Leone and Potter 1992). But these are relatively recent developments (Fagan 2005) and contrast sharply with simplistic late-nineteenth to mid-twentieth century conceptualizations of the emergence and interpretation of archaeological variability (Longacre 2010;Meltzer 1985).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Estimating the Population Size of Casas Grandes: Empirical Issues and Theoretical Consequences

Wilcox¹

2016

Archaeological Variability and Interpretation in Global Perspective

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Legitimation and the Classification of Archaeological Sites

Cited by 22 publications

References 17 publications

Full Spectrum Archaeology

Full Spectrum Archaeology

Trends and Patterns in Cultural Resource Significance: An Historical Perspective and Annotated Bibliography

Estimating the Population Size of Casas Grandes: Empirical Issues and Theoretical Consequences

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About