What Does Collabora.ve Archaeology Mean to You? Intellectual Property Issues in Cultural Heritage Erin A. Hogg and John R. Welch Department of Archaeology, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, BC The future of archaeology requires more effec4ve community-­‐engagement. We used measurable a<ributes to assess engagement in BC archaeology projects, gaining insight into recommended and less recommended prac4ces and affording glimpses of what the future might hold. Collabora.on is the Future of Archaeology •  Collabora.ve prac.ces are required by legal and ethical standards, as well as demanded for by communi.es. •  Collabora.ve prac.ces in archaeology include many forms of community-­‐engaged research. •  By paying aMen.on to collabora.ve projects archaeologists can iden.fy the most just and effec.ve forms of community engagement, including engagement with descendant groups. •  Our research seeks to determine how, to what extent, and to what ends archaeologists and descendant and steward communi.es are working together in Bri.sh Columbia. Assessment Strategies and Results •
Degree of Community Support Degree of Community Control (goals, process, outcomes) Degree of Community Member Involvement •  We determined the extent and range of community engagement by: 1.  Crea.ng an assessment strategy to measure diverse aspects of community engagement. 2.  Assessing individual archaeology projects. •  We used two sets of data: 1.  Interviews with 19 BC archaeologists (assessed 29 projects including 8 consul.ng, 12 field schools, and 9 research projects). 2.  Random sample of 100 BC archaeology reports from 2000–2010 (85 AIA, 11 excava.ons, 1 site altera.on, 2 inspects, and 1 field school report). AMributes Interview BC archaeologists, ask par.cipants to assess their projects using aMributes Reports Create Assessment Strategy Assess Archaeology Projects Degree of Informa.on Flow Between Archaeologists and Community Degree of Community Needs Met Degree of Archaeologist Needs Met Assessing Community Engagement Interviews Interviewees r
anked e
ach a
Mribute a
s h
igh, m
edium, l
ow, o
r n
ot p
resent. AMribute Variables Create random sample of BC archaeology reports, analyze each report using variables Determine extent and range of community engagement Figure 1. Our method to determine the extent and range of community engagement in BC archaeology. What Does this Mean? 0% 50% 100% 72% 14% 10% 4% 41% 28% 12% 17% 3% 3% High Medium Low Not Present 45% 38% 14% 55% 28% 14% 83% 7% 0% 10% 97% 3% 0% 0% •  Each report was analyzed for the presence or absence of each variable for each project. Variable 0% 20% Was there successful contact with the community? Was a report sent to the community? 80% 100% 79% 91% 9% 91% 9% Was there a response from the community? Did the report contain a sec.on about First Na.ons’ involvement? Did the report contain a statement on collabora.on? Did the report contain a statement on tradi.onal land use? Was the project completely or par.ally managed by the community? Were human remains found? 60% 21% Was there a First Na.ons permiang system? Was there a community member of the field crew? Was there further consulta.on? (e.g., sharing of tradi.onal knowledge, community visits, etc.) Was there a formal mee.ng between the archaeologists and the community? Were ar.facts sent to a community museum? 40% 82% 18% 82% 18% 31% 69% 19% Yes No 81% 1% 99% 28% 62% Figure 2. Word Cloud of interviewee descrip.ons of community engagement. 12% 88% 29% 13% 4% •  Some aspects of engagement are more challenging than others to implement. For example, some communi.es trust archaeologists to completely design the project. •  Community engagement can vary depending on the type and .meline of the project. •  More indigenous communi.es are directly involved in archaeology, including managing consul.ng projects. •  Archaeologists indicate that being seen as a successful community collaborator is good business prac.ce. •  Meaningful engagement includes opportuni.es for direct involvement, long-­‐las.ng rela.onships, and escala.ng respect and trust. •  Community engagement tends to help break down barriers between researchers and subjects and between tangible and intangible elements of heritage. •  Learning and teaching engagement promises to help the next genera.ons of archaeologists and community leaders work together effec.vely. Acknowledgements 71% 87% 96% Hogg’s MA thesis was funded by an Intellectual Property Issues in Cultural Heritage Project Student Fellowship, as well as a Travel and Minor Research Award from the department of archaeology at Simon Fraser University.