Examining international case studies including USA, Asia, Australia and New Zealand, Laurajane Smith identifies and explores the use of heritage throughout the world.

Challenging the idea that heritage value is self-evident, and that things must be preserved because they have an inherent importance, Smith forcefully demonstrates that heritage value is not inherent in physical objects or places, but rather that these objects and places are used to give tangibility to the values that underpin different communities and to assert and affirm these values.

A practically grounded accessible examination of heritage as a cultural practice, The Uses of Heritage is global in its benefit to students and field professionals alike.

Uses of heritage

Preface to the first edition Preface to the second edition 1. The problem 2. The systems approach 3. Structuralist archaeology 4. Marxist archaeology, ideology and practice 5. Archaeology and history 6. An ethnohistoric example: reconsideration of ethnoarchaeology and middle range theory 7. Contextual archaeology 8. Post-processual archaeology 9. Conclusion: archaeology as archaeology Bibliography Index.

Reading the past : current approaches to interpretation in archaeology

A History of Archaeological Thought.

▪ Abstract Traumatic injuries in ancient human skeletal remains are a direct source of evidence for testing theories of warfare and violence that are not subject to the interpretative difficulties posed by literary creations such as historical records and ethnographic reports. Bioarchaeological research shows that throughout the history of our species, interpersonal violence, especially among men, has been prevalent. Cannibalism seems to have been widespread, and mass killings, homicides, and assault injuries are also well documented in both the Old and New Worlds. No form of social organization, mode of production, or environmental setting appears to have remained free from interpersonal violence for long.

/pdf/a-bioarchaeological-perspective-on-the-history-of-violence-4zgofd8t0m.pdf

A bioarchaeological perspective on the history of violence

Archaeology includes the study of artifacts and other aspects of material culture but is more importantly about people-understanding people's daily lives, their sense of place in the world, the food they ate, their art, their spirituality, and their political and social organization. In piecing together multiple lines of evidence, including written documents, oral histories, analytical data from artifacts and ecofacts, and a range of regional and local environmental evidence, archaeologists attempt to write the stories of the past. Stated simply, archaeology is one of many tools utilized for understanding the past. However, when placed in its proper historical context, it is clear that the discipline of archaeology was built around and relies upon Western knowledge systems and methodologies, and its practice has a strongly colonial history.' Many archaeologists have come to recognize that archaeology is based on, and generally reflects, the values of Western cultures.2 In privileging the material, scientific, observable world over the spiritual, experiential, and unquantifiable aspects of archaeological sites, ancient peoples, and artifacts, archaeological practice demonstrates that it is solidly grounded in Western ways of categorizing, knowing, and interpreting the world. However, as Indigenous and local groups around the world have demonstrated, it is not only archaeologists who feel stewardship responsibilities toward archaeological materials and locations-many groups have rights and responsibilities to the human and material remains and to the knowledge, memories, and spiritual power that are intimately tied with the places and materials studied by archaeologists. Prior to European colonization, communities were able to act as stewards over their

Indigenous Archaeology as Decolonizing Practice

Native Americans and Archaeologists: Stepping Stones to Common Ground

Working together: Native Americans and archaeologists

Archaeologists and Native Americans apply different concepts to classify ancient groups of people who lived in the past. This is a topic of current interest because many archaeologists in the United States are now having to determine the cultural affiliation of the materials they study to comply with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act. The Hopi and Zuni tribes in the American Southwest are used as case examples to examine how and why archaeological and tribal views of cultural affiliation are divergent. We suggest anthropological perspectives of culture need to be reintegrated into archaeological theory in collaboration with Native Americans in order to interpret the past in a manner that is both useful and interesting to the multiple audiences interested in our work.

/pdf/archaeological-cultures-and-cultural-affiliation-hopi-and-4u7bfuizly.pdf

Archaeological cultures and cultural affiliation: hopi and zuni perspectives in the american southwest

The article by Billman et al. contributes to a growing body of data that demonstrates the complex variability of the Pueblo world during the twelfth century. Although the article's title promises a comprehensive review of major cultural and environmental processes (drought, warfare, cannibalism, regional interactions), relatively little theory regarding these processes informs their research design, and much of their interpretation is based on weak inferences. Their empirical data are not used to test alternative hypotheses or rigorously examine expectations derived from modeling. Dynamic aspects of cultural patterns relating to migration, settlement, environment, abandonment, mortuary behaviors, conflict, and group identity are implicated in their research but are not adequately contextualized. Our response to the study by Billman et al. is intended to provide a critical yet constructive commentary, propose fresh ways of thinking about what assemblages of disarticulated and broken bones might mean, and reformulate how research questions are being asked.

Critique of the claim of cannibalism at Cowboy Wash.

Before and after passage of the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act by the United States Congress in November of 1990, many archaeologists' and physical anthropologists2 lamented that the act and its mandate to consult with Native Americans about the treatment and disposition of human remains recovered from archaeological sites would have dramatically negative effects on the science of archaeology and on paleodemographic, paleopathological, and paleogenetic research. Since NAGPRA was passed, the Hopi Tribe has been involved in consultations concerning the human remains identified in four large developmental projects within the Southwest. These projects include the Transwestern Pipeline, El Paso Gas Pipeline, the Roosevelt Dam Platform Mound Study, and the proposed Fence Lake Coal Mine and Transportation Corridor. To date, more than 1,000 burials have been recovered or disturbed by these projects and the possibility of doubling that number in the near future is very real. The tribe's involvement has caused the Hopi people to evaluate the benefits that analysis of prehistoric human remains can offer them. This has generated perspicacious dialogue between the Hopi Tribe and members of the archaeological and physical anthropological communities. This dialogue results in a research agenda beneficial for all parties. With NAGPRA's passage the furiously debated scientific and ethical issue of repatriation and reburial became a legal mandate. Consequently, physical anthropologists and archaeologists, both in academic settings and in federal agencies, are compelled to work in an environment that is far from the ways they conducted research before NAGPRA. Some archaeologists and physical anthropologists find the changes implemented by NAGPRA hard to swallow. They assert that the treatment of human remains and associated funerary objects recovered from an archaeological context should revert to the conventional method ofcuration without consultation. Some of these arguments are based on the perceived necessity to maintain permanent collections for future study in the advent that new techniques of analyses are developed., Others acrimoniously assert that this

Kurt E. Dongoske

Papers

Native Americans and Archaeologists: Stepping Stones to Common Ground

Working together: Native Americans and archaeologists

Archaeological cultures and cultural affiliation: hopi and zuni perspectives in the american southwest

Critique of the claim of cannibalism at Cowboy Wash.

The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act: A New Beginning, Not the End, for Osteological Analysis--A Hopi Perspective