083-142 13357 11/10/05 4:42 PM Page 83 PART FOUR Finding Common Ground: The Role of Stakeholders in Decision Making 083-142 13357 11/10/05 4:42 PM Page 84 083-142 13357 10/27/05 10:26 AM Page 85 Introduction Brian Egloff takeholders are those individuals, groups, enterprises, facts “should be kept at the place to which they belong.” In a agencies, professional organizations, or institutions that similar vein, the China Principles recommend that scientific Sin one way or another have an interest in a place or an information relating to an archaeological site should be main- action. That interest can relate to tangible things or to the tained at that place, recognizing that true sharing of decision implementation of ideas. Implicit in this definition is the making is based on equal access, not only to economic notion that there is a sense of shared concern, ownership, or resources but to intellectual property as well. belonging expressed in part as a common value system. Stakeholders to some extent have always been part of Throughout much of the brief history of conservation and heritage conservation projects; however, all too often they archaeology, the involvement of stakeholders has been on a have been involved only in carrying out the manual labor or limited and ad hoc basis, with some projects being relatively logistical support, or as interested bystanders. Most noticeable inclusive and others exclusive. It is fair to say that archaeolo- examples of the genuine sharing of decision making have gists and conservators in many instances are not trend-setters, occurred when research that was undertaken in foreign climes but in some cases they have gone beyond the limits of con- required partnerships with nationals of the host country, such temporary protocols to form inventive relationships with as in Mexico. stakeholders. Heritage specialists from Australia, Europe, Rodney Harrison, in the context of a former Aboriginal Latin America, Oceania, and Southeast Asia present their reserve in New South Wales, focuses on the particular values experiences dealing with the diverse and sometimes conflict- ascribed to what many would call ordinary sites and artifacts, ing plethora of stakeholders and illustrate how conservation though these places and things are especially evocative to the outcomes can be achieved and sustained when situated within dispossessed and their descendants who wish to reassert their a framework of shared decision making. heritage. Richard Mackay, in the urban context, advocates Pisit Charoenwongsa provides us with an example from that historical archaeology should follow a “values-based the Nan Valley in northeastern Thailand of “living heritage,” approach” and, like Harrison, stresses the tactile and where protection versus tourism in a pending World Heritage “memory-scape” significance of artifacts. locale is all-important. The cultural aspect is considered the Invariably, if a place is valued by one stakeholder group thrust of the exercise, but there is an underlying economic for a particular set of qualities, then it will be considered imperative to produce returns for villagers in a context of lim- significant by other groups for different reasons. Nowhere is ited resources. Here the conservation of ancient pottery kilns this seen more clearly and intensely than with national and excavated by archaeologists illustrates the need for sustain- international heritage icons. World Heritage as exemplified by ability that is closely linked to appropriate community train- the petroglyphs at Côa Valley in Portugal illustrates many of ing. It is of considerable concern that economic growth and the conservation challenges that arise from stakeholder cultural decline often go hand in hand. Of particular interest involvement with large-scale conservation projects, no matter is the requirement instituted by the king of Thailand that arti- where they are in the world. António Pedro Batarda Fernandes 85 083-142 13357 10/27/05 10:26 AM Page 86 86 Of the Past, for the Future and Fernando Maia Pinto question how heritage specialists they rural, such as the Aymaras and Atecamenos to the north, deal with decision making when hostility to the initiation of or urban dwellers, such as the Mapuche—as a feature of the conservation project is likely to continue into the foresee- developmental projects is difficult to predict. A transborder able future. Local tensions among competing stakeholders, situation involving environmental factors and local commu- academic jealousies over who will reap the intellectual nity needs, including food production, is described by Anabel benefits, conflicting national and regional economic impera- Ford. Here on the border between Belize and Guatamala, a tives, and perceptions of an archaeological approach as elitist community group, the Amigos de el Pilar, is committed to the are just a few of the stereotypical challenges that emerged dur- effective management of the Mayan archaeological site within ing the conservation of the Côa Valley archaeological site. an environmentally sustainable paradigm. Increasingly we see Central to this discussion is the notion of values within the conservation of cultural heritage being linked to sound the tension-fraught world of land use, urban development, natural resource management. Nelly Robles García’s telling and resource exploitation and the attendant relocation of account of the encroachment of indigenous communities populations. Increasingly the cultural heritage resource man- onto the World Heritage landscape at Monte Albán demon- ager has to tread a very narrow line indeed between the needs strates another facet of the economic paradigm, where a sub- of government, the development industry, the international stantial portion of the population lives in poverty and is funding body, their professional requirements, and, more seeking to encroach on heritage resources just to meet the important, the ethical commitment to the local population. daily needs of food and shelter. Growing expectations of archaeology to provide financial From an international perspective, the transfer of returns in a world driven by economic rationalism are being power and decision making to stakeholders takes many realized, as sacred landscapes are returned to Aboriginal com- forms. Recently there has been the realization that groups, munities in southeastern Australia. Brian Egloff is involved in particularly indigenous peoples, having been dispossessed in heritage conservation in communities such as these, where the the past, require not only a recognition of their authority but financial stakes are increasing and there is every likelihood also, and more important, positive economic outcomes. To that there will be both strong external opposition and dissen- conserve the heritage, archaeologists, anthropologists, and sion within the community if there are not open, established, conservators must meet the challenge of dealing effectively and transparent avenues of communication. with the shift from providing only short-term employment to The archaeology of environmental impact assessments a genuine sharing of decision making with diverse communi- contracted by companies concerns Ángel Cabeza when the ties, including the provision of long-term sustainable eco- projects have the potential to destroy heritage. How heritage nomic outcomes. specialists in Chile meet the needs of indigenous peoples—be 083-142 13357 10/27/05 10:26 AM Page 87 Conservation, Researchers, and Aboriginal Heritage: A Perspective from Coastal Southeastern Australia Brian Egloff Abstract: Over the past two hundred years Europeans have beliefs and could contribute only marginally to conservation observed and conducted research with Aboriginal communities efforts. However, due perhaps to a reserve system that placed and Aboriginals have studied “white fellas.” From the perspective generations in close proximity to each other, traditional of the Aboriginal community at Wallaga Lake on the south coast knowledge was transmitted to select younger adults (Egloff of New South Wales, it is instructive to chart the various rela- [1979] 1981; Lampert and Sanders 1973). It is the retention of tionships that have obtained between researchers and indigenous this traditional knowledge that supports the assertion by Abo- groups from 1880 to the present. Commencing with the work of riginal communities that they must be entrusted with the con- A. W. Howitt, who promoted the revitalization of ceremonial servation of sacred places, which at times comprise entire activities, to that of Norman Tindale and Joseph Birdsell in the landscape systems. Since the 1990s the aspirations of Aborigi- 1930s that was set within a eugenics paradigm, to more recent nal groups have coincided with the intention of the native title research dealing with protected area land management, the var- agenda of the Commonwealth of Australia and the land rights ious relationships can be demonstrated to provide if not imme- legislation of New South Wales, both of which seek to restore diate, then certainly long-term information that facilitates the lands to indigenous groups as a social and economic basis for meeting of community heritage conservation needs. The stakes community betterment. The challenge is to demonstrate that are becoming ever higher as archaeologists and anthropologists contemporary Aboriginal community members are the right- provide advice to governments on the return of commercially ful inheritors of significant landscapes, as many indigenous valuable