DOCSLIB.ORG

THE PREMISE and PROMISE of INDIGENOUS ARCHAEOLOGY Author(S): Chip Colwell-Chanthaphonh, T

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
THE PREMISE and PROMISE of INDIGENOUS ARCHAEOLOGY Author(S): Chip Colwell-Chanthaphonh, T THE PREMISE AND PROMISE OF INDIGENOUS ARCHAEOLOGY Author(s): Chip Colwell-Chanthaphonh, T. J. Ferguson, Dorothy Lippert, Randall H. McGuire, George P. Nicholas, Joe E. Watkins and Larry J. Zimmerman Source: American Antiquity, Vol. 75, No. 2 (April 2010), pp. 228-238 Published by: Cambridge University Press Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/25766193 Accessed: 07-11-2017 12:14 UTC REFERENCES Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article: http://www.jstor.org/stable/25766193?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contents You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://about.jstor.org/terms Cambridge University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to American Antiquity This content downloaded from 143.107.46.104 on Tue, 07 Nov 2017 12:14:23 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms THE PREMISE AND PROMISE OF INDIGENOUS ARCHAEOLOGY Chip Colwell-Chanthaphonh, T. J. Ferguson, Dorothy Lippert, Randall H. McGuire, George R Nicholas, Joe E. Watkins, and Larry J. Zimmerman Researchers have increasingly promoted an emerging paradigm of Indigenous archaeology, which includes an array of practices conducted by, for, and with Indigenous communities to challenge the discipline's intellectual breadth and politi cal economy. McGhee (2008) argues that Indigenous archaeology is not viable because it depends upon the essentialist concept of "Aboriginalism." In this reply, we correct McGhee's description of Indigenous Archaeology and demonstrate why Indigenous rights are not founded on essentialist imaginings. Rather, the legacies of colonialism, sociopolitical con text of scientific inquiry, and insights of traditional knowledge provide a strong foundation for collaborative and community based archaeology projects that include Indigenous peoples. En respuesta tanto a la herencia intelectual de la disciplina arqueologica como a la economia pohtica de su praxis, diversos investigadores han promovido de manera creciente la implementacion de un paradigma de Arqueologia Indigena que se car acteriza por un despliegue de practicas conducidas por, para, y con las comunidades indigenas. En contraste, McGhee (2008) sostiene que la Arqueologia Indigena no resulta ser una propuesta viable pues depende del concepto esencialista de "Abo riginalidad." En la presente replica, los autores se abocan a corregir la descripcion presentada por McGhee sobre aquello que constituye una Arqueologia Indigena, demostrando a la par el porque los derechos indigenas que la caracterizan no estdn fundamentados en imaginarios esencialistas. Poral contrario, sostienen, los legados del colonialismo, el contexto socio-politico de la investigacion cientifca, asicomo el valor reflexivo del conocimiento tradicional, constituyen bases solidas para el desar rollo de una arqueologia colaborativa, arraigada en proyectos comunitarios que incluyan a las poblaciones indigenas. As Indigenous archaeology is still an pies and his willingness to consider multivocal inchoate project, Robert McGhee's (2008) methodologies that include traditional knowledge article is a welcome opportunity to engage reflect our shared concern for marginalized com in an open dialogue about the potential and pitfalls munities. of this emerging paradigm. Despite our serious dis Although there is much to argue with, and about, agreement with McGhee's logic and our strong in McGhee's article, three central questions deserve rejection of his conclusions, there is plainly com a considered response: What is Indigenous archae mon ground for discussion. McGhee (2008:580) is ology? What does inclusion and essentialism mean right to be concerned whether an Indigenous form for archaeology? And why do Indigenous com of Orientalism is developing (Said 1978), and with munities have special rights to heritage? In con the potential negative impacts of unfettered essen tradiction of McGhee's (2008:579) claim that 'Very tialism in archaeology. Also, McGhee's (2008:580, little effort has been expended... in examining the 590-591,595) acknowledgment that archaeologists intellectual viability or the social and cultural desir should work in partnership with Indigenous peo ability" of Indigenous archaeology, our answers to Chip Colwell-Chanthaphonh Denver Museum of Nature & Science, Denver, CO 80205 T. J. Ferguson University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85745 Dorothy Lippert National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. 20013 Randall H. McGuire Binghamton University, Binghamton, NY 13902-6000 George P. Nicholas Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, BC V5A 1S6 Joe E. Watkins University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK 73019 Larry J. Zimmerman Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis, Indianapolis, IN 46202-5410 American Antiquity 75(2), 2010, pp. 228-238 Copyright ?2010 by the Society for American Archaeology 228 This content downloaded from 143.107.46.104 on Tue, 07 Nov 2017 12:14:23 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms FORUM 229 these questions are a clear rejoinder that show many "indigenous archaeology," an "archaeology done scholars are thoughtfully working to define this with, for, and by Indigenous people" (Nicholas and new approach. Andrews 1997b:3). Joe Watkins (2000) published Indigenous Archaeology, but significantly, this book was less a manifesto and more a dissertation Conceiving Indigenous Archaeology on the history of science, with the aim of contex McGhee's article is replete with strawman argu tualizing the legal, political, and social milieu in ments, as he never deeply engages with Indigenous which archaeology unfolds. As such, Watkins' ini archaeology's multifaceted development or its var tial formulations are not seamlessly reflected in ied definitions and practices. McGhee misconstrues later work, which has begun to explicitly frame Indigenous archaeology, misrepresenting it as one Indigenous archaeology as an effort to challenge cohesive program?a single agenda and set of val the discipline's colonialist underpinnings (e.g., Ata ues. While Vine Deloria, Jr.'s writings have inspired lay 2006a; Smith and Wobst 2005). A variety of thinking about archaeology's relationship with models have developed that point to what these Indian country (Biolsi and Zimmerman 1997; see kinds of archaeology mean in practice, including McGhee 2008:581,591), in fact, what we are now tribal, collaborative, and covenantal archaeologies calling Indigenous archaeology has traveled a long (Preucel and Cipolla 2008). Since Indigenous and uneasy path that goes far beyond Deloria's cri archaeology is not one idea, process, or product, tiques (Watkins 2003). As early as 1900, with but rather a broad approach that can be applied in Arthur C. Parker, Native Americans have attempted a range of ways?from tribal programs to CRM to pursue archaeology professionally (Thomas projects to academic field schools?it is perhaps 2000a), but it was not until a handful of Native better conceived of in the plural, Indigenous American tribes, First Nations, and Inuit commu Archaeologies (Atalay 2008:29; Silliman 2008a:2). nities began launching their own heritage programs Indigenous archaeology, in name, is thus a lit in the 1970s that Indigenous peoples were able to tle more than a decade old, although it is rooted in begin at last pursuing scientific research on their many years of thinking and work; it is fundamen own terms (Anyon et al. 2000; Klesert 1992; Row tally about an array of archaeological practices ley 2002). In the United States, legislation?such undertaken by, for, and with Indigenous commu as the 1990 Native American Graves Protection nities in ways that challenge the discipline's his and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) and the 1992 torical political economy and expand its intellectual amendments to the 1966 National Historic Preser breadth. This paradigm includes numerous prac vation Act (NHPA), which established Tribal His tices and approaches (Table 1), even as a relatively toric Preservation Offices?further empowered comprehensive definition is now available: tribes to control archaeological processes and Indigenous archaeology is an expression of objects and have a voice in historic preservation archaeological theory and practice in which the (Ferguson 2000; Killion 2008; Stapp and Burney discipline intersects with Indigenous values, 2002). The florescence of the broader public knowledge, practices, ethics, and sensibilities, archaeology movement provided additional intel and through collaborative and community lectual and methodological insights into originated or -directed projects, and related community-based participation (Marshall 2002; critical perspectives. Indigenous archaeology Shackel and Chambers 2004). In the post seeks to make archaeology more representa NAGPRA era, archaeologists and Indigenous peo tive of, relevant for, and responsible to Indige ples began to work together regularly and more nous communities. It is also about redressing Indigenous peoples have become professional real and perceived inequalities in the practice archaeologists even though they remain a fraction
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Issue Information
    Juengst and Becker, Editors Editors and Becker, Juengst of Community The Bioarchaeology 28 AP3A No. The Bioarchaeology of Community Sara L. Juengst and Sara K. Becker, Editors Contributions by Sara K. Becker Deborah Blom Jered B. Cornelison Sylvia Deskaj Lynne Goldstein Sara L. Juengst Ann M. Kakaliouras Wendy Lackey-Cornelison William J. Meyer Anna C. Novotny Molly K. Zuckerman 2017 Archeological Papers of the ISSN 1551-823X American Anthropological Association, Number 28 aapaa_28_1_cover.inddpaa_28_1_cover.indd 1 112/05/172/05/17 22:26:26 PPMM The Bioarchaeology of Community Sara L. Juengst and Sara K. Becker, Editors Contributions by Sara K. Becker Deborah Blom Jered B. Cornelison Sylvia Deskaj Lynne Goldstein Sara L. Juengst Ann M. Kakaliouras Wendy Lackey-Cornelison William J. Meyer Anna C. Novotny Molly K. Zuckerman 2017 Archeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association, Number 28 ARCHEOLOGICAL PAPERS OF THE AMERICAN ANTHROPOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION Lynne Goldstein, General Series Editor Number 28 THE BIOARCHAEOLOGY OF COMMUNITY 2017 Aims and Scope: The Archaeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association (AP3A) is published on behalf of the Archaeological Division of the American Anthropological Association. AP3A publishes original monograph-length manuscripts on a wide range of subjects generally considered to fall within the purview of anthropological archaeology. There are no geographical, temporal, or topical restrictions. Organizers of AAA symposia are particularly encouraged to submit manuscripts, but submissions need not be restricted to these or other collected works. Copyright and Copying (in any format): © 2017 American Anthropological Association. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored or transmitted in any form or by any means without the prior permission in writing from the copyright holder.
    [Show full text]
  • Courage and Thoughtful Scholarship = Indigenous Archaeology Partnerships
    FORUM COURAGE AND THOUGHTFUL SCHOLARSHIP = INDIGENOUS ARCHAEOLOGY PARTNERSHIPS Dale R. eroes Robert McGhee's recent lead-in American Antiquity article entitled Aboriginalism and Problems of Indigenous archaeology seems to emphasize the pitfalls that can occur in "indige nolls archaeology." Though the effort is l1ever easy, I would empha­ size an approach based on a 50/50 partnership between the archaeological scientist and the native people whose past we are attempting to study through our field alld research techniques. In northwestern North America, we have found this approach important in sharillg ownership of the scientist/tribal effort, and, equally important, in adding highly significant (scientif­ ically) cullUral knowledge ofTribal members through their ongoing cultural transmission-a concept basic to our explana­ tion in the field of archaeology and anthropology. Our work with ancient basketry and other wood and fiber artifacts from waterlogged Northwest Coast sites demonstrates millennia ofcultl/ral cOlltinuity, often including reg ionally distinctive, highly guarded cultural styles or techniques that tribal members continue to use. A 50/50 partnership means, and allows, joint ownership that can only expand the scientific description and the cultural explanation through an Indigenous archaeology approach. El artIculo reciente de Robert McGhee en la revista American Antiquity, titulado: Aborigenismo y los problemas de la Arque­ ologia Indigenista, pC/recen enfatizar las dificultades que pueden ocurrir en la "arqueologfa indigenista
    [Show full text]
  • Archaeology and Development / Peter G. Gould
    Theme01: Archaeology and Development / Peter G. Gould Poster T01-91P / Mohammed El Khalili / Managing Change in an ever-Changing Archeological Landscape: Safeguard the Natural and Cultural Landscape of Jarash T01-92P / Wai Man Raymond Lee / Archaeology and Development: a Case Study under the Context of Hong Kong T01A / RY103 / SS5,SS6 T01A01 / Emmanuel Ndiema / Engaging Communities in Cultural Heritage Conservation: Perspectives from Kakapel, Western Kenya T01A02 / Paul Edward Montgomery / Branding Barbarians: The Development of Renewable Archaeotourism Destinations to Re-Present Marginalized Cultures of the Past T01A03 / Selvakumar Veerasamy / Historical Sites and Monuments and Community Development: Practical Issues and ground realities T01A04 / Yoshitaka SASAKI / Sustainable Utilization Approach to Cultural Heritage and the Benefits for Tourists and Local Communities: The Case of Akita Fortification, Akita prefecture, Japan. T01A05 / Angela Kabiru / Sustainable Development and Tourism: Issues and Challenges in Lamu old Town T01A06 / Chulani Rambukwella / ENDANGERED ARCHAEOLOGICAL LANDSCAPE OF THE WORLD HERITAGE CITY OF KANDY AND ITS SUBURBS IN SRI LANKA T01A07 / chandima bogahawatta / Sigiriya: World’s Oldest Living Heritage and Multi Tourist Attraction T01A08 / Shahnaj Husne Jahan Leena / Sustainable Development through Archaeological Heritage Management and Eco-Tourism at Bhitargarh in Bangladesh T01A09 / OLALEKAN AKINADE / IGBO UKWU ARCHAEOLOGICAL HERITAGE AS A BOOST TO NIGERIAN CULTURAL HERITAGE OLALEKAN AJAO AKINADE, [email protected]
    [Show full text]
  • Aboriginal Rock Art and Dendroglyphs of Queensland's Wet Tropics
    ResearchOnline@JCU This file is part of the following reference: Buhrich, Alice (2017) Art and identity: Aboriginal rock art and dendroglyphs of Queensland's Wet Tropics. PhD thesis, James Cook University. Access to this file is available from: https://researchonline.jcu.edu.au/51812/ The author has certified to JCU that they have made a reasonable effort to gain permission and acknowledge the owner of any third party copyright material included in this document. If you believe that this is not the case, please contact [email protected] and quote https://researchonline.jcu.edu.au/51812/ Art and Identity: Aboriginal rock art and dendroglyphs of Queensland’s Wet Tropics Alice Buhrich BA (Hons) July 2017 Submitted as part of the research requirements for Doctor of Philosophy, College of Arts, Society and Education, James Cook University Acknowledgements First, I would like to thank the many Traditional Owners who have been my teachers, field companions and friends during this thesis journey. Alf Joyce, Steve Purcell, Willie Brim, Alwyn Lyall, Brad Grogan, Billie Brim, George Skeene, Brad Go Sam, Marita Budden, Frank Royee, Corey Boaden, Ben Purcell, Janine Gertz, Harry Gertz, Betty Cashmere, Shirley Lifu, Cedric Cashmere, Jeanette Singleton, Gavin Singleton, Gudju Gudju Fourmile and Ernie Grant, it has been a pleasure working with every one of you and I look forward to our future collaborations on rock art, carved trees and beyond. Thank you for sharing your knowledge and culture with me. This thesis would never have been completed without my team of fearless academic supervisors and mentors, most importantly Dr Shelley Greer.
    [Show full text]
  • Indigenous Archaeology: Historical Interpretation from an Emic Perspective
    University of Nebraska - Lincoln DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln Nebraska Anthropologist Anthropology, Department of 2010 Indigenous Archaeology: Historical Interpretation from an Emic Perspective Stephanie M. Kennedy Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/nebanthro Part of the Anthropology Commons Kennedy, Stephanie M., "Indigenous Archaeology: Historical Interpretation from an Emic Perspective" (2010). Nebraska Anthropologist. 55. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/nebanthro/55 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Anthropology, Department of at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in Nebraska Anthropologist by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. Indigenous Archaeology: Historical Interpretation from an Emic Perspective Stephanie M. Kennedy Abstract: This inquiry explores indigenous archaeology as a form of resistance to dominant Western science. Literature was identified and analyzed pertaining to the success of indigenous archaeology in the United States, British Columbia, and Australia. It is argued that a more inclusive archaeology is necessary, one that encourages partnerships with Indigenous groups in the interpretation oftheir own past. This study has implications for how we perceive Indigenous peoples from an archaeological perspective. Introduction Smith and Jackson remind us of the contextual nature of interpretation as well as the importance of the past: The shards of the past insinuate themselves into what we see, and don't see, value, and don't value, subtly informing every gaze, every movement, every decision. The privileges we enjoy, or don't enjoy, the inequities we fail to notice, or rail against, are the individual legacies of our shared pasts.
    [Show full text]
  • Millennial Archaeology. Locating the Discipline in the Age of Insecurity
    Archaeological Dialogues http://journals.cambridge.org/ARD Additional services for Archaeological Dialogues: Email alerts: Click here Subscriptions: Click here Commercial reprints: Click here Terms of use : Click here Millennial archaeology. Locating the discipline in the age of insecurity Shannon Lee Dawdy Archaeological Dialogues / Volume 16 / Issue 02 / December 2009, pp 131 - 142 DOI: 10.1017/S1380203809990055, Published online: 05 November 2009 Link to this article: http://journals.cambridge.org/abstract_S1380203809990055 How to cite this article: Shannon Lee Dawdy (2009). Millennial archaeology. Locating the discipline in the age of insecurity. Archaeological Dialogues, 16, pp 131-142 doi:10.1017/S1380203809990055 Request Permissions : Click here Downloaded from http://journals.cambridge.org/ARD, IP address: 128.148.252.35 on 24 Jan 2016 discussion article Archaeological Dialogues 16 (2) 131–142 C Cambridge University Press 2009 doi:10.1017/S1380203809990055 Millennial archaeology. Locating the discipline in the age of insecurity Shannon Lee Dawdy Abstract This discussion article responds to a forum question posed by the editors of Archaeological dialogues: ‘is archaeology useful?’ My response initially moves backward from the question, considering whether archaeology ought to be useful, how it has been useful in the past, and the millennial overtones of the question in our present climate of crisis. I critique the primary way in which archaeology attempts to be useful, as a dowsing rod for heritage through ‘public archaeology’. While European archaeology has long been aware of the dangers of nationalism, in the Americas this danger is cloaked by a focus on indigenous and minority histories. I then move forward through the question and urge colleagues to embrace an archaeological agenda geared towards the future rather than the past.
    [Show full text]
  • Archaeologists and Indigenous Traditional Knowledge in British Columbia
    Archaeologists and Indigenous Traditional Knowledge in British Columbia by Eric Simons B.A. (Archaeology) Simon Fraser University, 2014 B.F.A. (Visual Arts) Simon Fraser University, 2006 Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts in the Department of Archaeology Faculty of Environment © Eric Simons SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY Summer 2017 Copyright in this work rests with the author. Please ensure that any reproduction or re-use is done in accordance with the relevant national copyright legislation. Approval Name: Eric Simons Degree: Master of Arts Title: Archaeologists and Indigenous Traditional Knowledge in British Columbia Examining Committee: Chair: Catherine D’Andrea Professor George Nicholas Senior Supervisor Professor Dana Lepofsky Supervisor Professor Annie Ross External Examiner Honorary Associate Professor School of Social Science The University of Queensland, Australia Date Defended/Approved: July 21, 2017 ii Ethics Statement iii Abstract Archaeologists who study the past histories and lifeways of Indigenous cultures have long used Indigenous traditional knowledge as a source of historical information. Initially, archaeologists primarily accessed traditional knowledge second-hand, attempting to extract historical data from ethnographic sources. However, as archaeologists increasingly work with (and sometimes for) Indigenous communities, they have the opportunity to access traditional knowledge directly. Traditional knowledge is a powerful resource for archaeology, but working with it raises significant socio-political issues. Additionally, integrating traditional knowledge with archaeology’s interpretive frameworks can present methodological and epistemological challenges. This thesis examines the implications of archaeologists’ engagement with traditional knowledge in British Columbia, Canada, where changes at both a disciplinary and broader societal level indicate that archaeologists will increasingly need to find effective and ethical ways to work with traditional knowledge (and knowledge-holders).
    [Show full text]
  • Archaeology: the Key Concepts Is the Ideal Reference Guide for Students, Teachers and Anyone with an Interest in Archaeology
    ARCHAEOLOGY: THE KEY CONCEPTS This invaluable resource provides an up-to-date and comprehensive survey of key ideas in archaeology and their impact on archaeological thinking and method. Featuring over fifty detailed entries by international experts, the book offers definitions of key terms, explaining their origin and development. Entries also feature guides to further reading and extensive cross-referencing. Subjects covered include: ● Thinking about landscape ● Cultural evolution ● Social archaeology ● Gender archaeology ● Experimental archaeology ● Archaeology of cult and religion ● Concepts of time ● The Antiquity of Man ● Feminist archaeology ● Multiregional evolution Archaeology: The Key Concepts is the ideal reference guide for students, teachers and anyone with an interest in archaeology. Colin Renfrew is Emeritus Disney Professor of Archaeology and Fellow of the McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, Cambridge. Paul Bahn is a freelance writer, translator and broadcaster on archaeology. YOU MAY ALSO BE INTERESTED IN THE FOLLOWING ROUTLEDGE STUDENT REFERENCE TITLES: Archaeology: The Basics Clive Gamble Ancient History: Key Themes and Approaches Neville Morley Who’s Who in Ancient Egypt Michael Rice Who’s Who in the Ancient Near East Gwendolyn Leick Who’s Who in the Greek World John Hazel Who’s Who in the Roman World John Hazel ARCHAEOLOGY The Key Concepts Edited by Colin Renfrew and Paul Bahn LONDON AND NEW YORK First published 2005 by Routledge 2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX 14 4RN Simultaneously published in the USA and Canada by Routledge 270 Madison Ave., New York, NY 10016 Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group This edition published in the Taylor & Francis e-Library, 2005.
    [Show full text]
  • Qt3v65f77m.Pdf
    UC Berkeley Contributions of the Archaeological Research Facility Title Spirit Fire and Lightning Songs: Looking at Myth and Shamanism on a Klamath Basin Petroglyph Site Permalink https://escholarship.org/uc/item/3v65f77m ISBN 978-0-9890022-2-6 Author David, Robert J Publication Date 2016-04-01 License https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ 4.0 Peer reviewed eScholarship.org Powered by the California Digital Library University of California Spirit Fire and Lightning Songs Looking at Myth and Shamanism on a Klamath Basin Petroglyph Site Robert J. David Number 66 Contributions of the Archaeological Research Facility University of California, Berkeley © 2016 Regents of the University of California Published by eScholarship, Berkeley, CA 1st edition Ebook: ISBN 978-0-9890022-2-6 Paper: ISBN 978-0-9890022-8-8 Available open access at: www.escholarship.org/uc/item/3v65f77m Publication of this book was made possible by funding from UC Berkeley Library and Berkeley Research Impact Initiative Funds. Cover image: Tracing of spirit figure from 4-Mod-22 and panel photograph by Robert David. Cover design, Jerryll Moreno. Contents List of Illustrations iii Acknowledgments v Introduction 1 Chapter 1 Cultural and Environmental Setting 11 Chapter 2 Rock Art Recording Methods 17 Chapter 3 Analysis: Motifs, Markings, and Figures 25 Chapter 4 Interpretation of 4-Mod-22 Petroglyphs 43 Chapter 5 Conclusion 69 Notes 75 References 77 Index 85 About the Author 87 Illustrations 1 Panorama of 4-Mod-22 11 2 Map of Klamath Basin watershed 13 3 Map of Modoc
    [Show full text]
  • Curriculum Vitae John R
    John R. Welch, PhD, Registered Professional Archaeologist 10227 Professor & Director of the Professional Master’s Program in Heritage Resource Management Department of Archaeology & School of Resource and Environmental Management Simon Fraser University [email protected] – http://www.sfu.ca/rem/people/profiles/welch.html EDUCATION 1996 Ph.D. Anthropology, University of Arizona, Tucson, U.S. 1985 M.A. Anthropology, University of Arizona, Tucson, U.S. 1983 A.B. Anthropology (Honors), Spanish, Hamilton College, Clinton, New York, U.S. INTERESTS Sovereignty-driven cultural and biophysical heritage stewardship and research Keywords: Sovereignty-driven research; Community-based conservation; Customary law and practice; Cultural resources management; Historic preservation; Indigenous archaeology; Activist archaeology; Resistance; American Southwest and British Columbia Western Apaches and the archaeology, history, and human ecology of the Arizona uplands Keywords: Apache archaeology; Trail archaeology; Sacred sites protection; Land claims; Heritage tourism and culturally appropriate economic development; Indigenous management models COURSE PORTFOLIO Archaeological Resource Management Global Change (Intro. to Resource Management) Archaeology of the American Southwest Social Science of Resource Management Cultural Heritage Management Heritage Resource Management Law & Policy ACADEMIC EMPLOYMENT April 2005–Current Professor & Director of the Professional Graduate Program in Heritage Resource Management, jointly appointed in the Department of Archaeology
    [Show full text]
  • TAG 2012 Abstracts
    34TH ANNUAL CONFERENCE OF THE THEORETICAL ARCHAEOLOGY GROUP Monday 17th – Sunday 19th December 2012 Department of Archaeology, Classics and Egyptology, University of Liverpool CONFERENCE PROGRAMME 1 th Welcome to the 34 ‘Theoretical Archaeology Group’ conference! This conference is organised by the Department of Archaeology, Classics and Egyptology (University of Liverpool). Papers will be presented in the Lecture Theatres and a Seminar Room of the Rendall Building, where breaks will be held. There will also be a book sale. This abstracts booklet is structured chronologically by session and Lecture Theatre. The keynote address and wine reception will be located in the Art & Design Academy (Liverpool John Moores University). The TAG party will be held at the Baa Baa at the top of Hardman Street. Acknowledgements are due to the Department for allowing us to host the conference this year. We are grateful to all our speakers and chairs. We hope you enjoy the conference! The TAG2012 Organising Committee 2 Contents Page The application of method and theory in professional archaeology 5 Dressing Sensibly: sensory approaches to dress for archaeologists 7 Time out of Mind? 10 Archaeologies of Rules and Regulations 14 The Role and Importance of the Sky in Archaeology 17 Recreating past lives: themes in bioarchaeology 20 Decentering the Discipline? Archaeology and Extra-Archaeological Communities 23 Disability and Archaeology: Critical Perspectives and Inclusive Practices 28 Trapping in Hunter-Gatherer Prehistoric Europe 31 The Chiming of Crack’d
    [Show full text]
  • Rock Art Thematic Study
    Rock Art Thematic Study Jo McDonald and Lucia Clayton 26 May 2016 Report to the Department of the Environment and the Australian Heritage Council Centre for Rock Art Research and Management, University of WA Rock Art Thematic Study Page ii Table of Contents 1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................................................... 1 2 Rock art overview ............................................................................................................................................... 2 2.1 Introduction to rock art ............................................................................................................................... 2 2.2 Regional overview of Australian Aboriginal rock art ..................................................................................... 3 2.2.1 Australian Capital Territory (ACT) ....................................................................................................................... 7 2.2.2 New South Wales ................................................................................................................................................ 7 2.2.3 Northern Territory ............................................................................................................................................. 14 2.2.4 Queensland ......................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]