Compliance-based archaeological heritage management and place-based participatory mapping for negotiated outcomes

31st May 2015

View of the coastal zone of the project area, near the archaeological site known as 'Kurda Canyon' (published in Australian Archaeology 80:83).

View of the coastal zone of the project area, near the archaeological site known as ‘Kurda Canyon’ (published in Australian Archaeology 80:83).

David R. Guilfoyle and Myles B. Mitchell

This paper examines how place-based participatory mapping in a commercial context creates a framework for negotiated outcomes in the protection and management of cultural heritage. The analysis presents a critical reflection on two case studies from southwest Western Australia, with particular focus on how the work was undertaken in a commercial context, and the contrasting outcomes between the case studies. The approach directly addresses many of the limitations of compliance-based (or commercial) heritage management, with greater scope to integrate traditional owner values and knowledge. The negotiation of archaeological and Aboriginal values, regulatory frameworks and the aspirations of proponents can pose a range of ethical, theoretical, methodological and practical challenges. These challenges are best met by further development of participatory approaches via practical application and a commitment by consulting archaeologists to work beyond compliance, towards best practice solutions through negotiated outcomes.

Guilfoyle, D.R. and M.B. Mitchell
Compliance-based archaeological heritage management and place0-based participatory mapping for negotiated outcomes
June 2015
80
80-90
Article
You must be a member to download the attachment ( Login / Sign up )