Advertisement

Archaeologies

, Volume 15, Issue 3, pp 496–513 | Cite as

Collaborating on the Federal Level: Moving Beyond Mandated Consultation in the Section 106 Process

  • Kelly M. BrittEmail author
Research

Abstract

Collaboration and consultation are terms involving working with stakeholders; consultation implies a formulaic, reactionary product, while collaboration suggests a voluntary, shared method and a mutual goal. Within this decolonial approach to conducting archaeology, little discussion surrounds what this looks like within the public sector in the USA. Since consultation as mandate is based in a colonial process and has definitive bureaucratic boundaries, the question arises can public sector archaeologies take a postcolonial approach to required consultation? If so, how? This paper looks at areas of constraint and potential spaces for moving beyond the mandate of consultation within a federal agency.

Key Words

Collaboration Postcolonial Public archaeology Decolonial 

Résumé

Collaboration contre consultation – ces termes impliquent un travail avec des parties prenantes ; la consultation suppose un produit conventionnel, réactionnaire alors que la collaboration suggère une méthode volontaire et partagée ainsi qu’un objectif commun. Au sein de cette approche de décolonisation pour la conduite de l’archéologie, il existe fort peu de discussions traitant de la forme qu’elle peut prendre au sein du secteur public aux États-Unis. Étant donné que la consultation en tant que mandat se base sur un processus colonial et présente des limites bureaucratiques définitives, la question qui se pose est la suivante : les archéologies du secteur public peuvent-elles adopter une approche postcoloniale pour la consultation requise ? Si tel est le cas, comment ? Cet article examine les zones de restrictions et les espaces potentiels pour passer outre le mandat de consultation au sein d’une agence fédérale.

Resumen

Colaboración versus consulta: términos que implican trabajar con las partes interesadas; la consulta implica un producto formulado y reaccionario, mientras que la colaboración sugiere un método voluntario compartido y un objetivo mutuo. Dentro de este enfoque descolonial para llevar a cabo la arqueología, poca discusión aborda cómo esto se ve dentro del sector público en los Estados Unidos. Dado que la consulta como mandato se basa en un proceso colonial y tiene límites burocráticos definitivos, surge la pregunta: ¿pueden las arqueologías del sector público adoptar un enfoque poscolonial a la consulta requerida? Si es así, ¿cómo? Este documento analiza áreas de limitación y espacios potenciales para ir más allá del mandato de consulta dentro de una agencia federal.

Notes

Acknowledgements

I thank the co-editors of this volume, Bonnie Clark and Audrey Horning for their support and organization as well as Meredith Chesson and Bonnie Clark for organizing the 2017 Society for American Archaeology session that led to further discussions around this important topic and finally to this volume. Additionally, I want to thank present and former colleagues at FEMA and Brooklyn College for ongoing discussions and suggestions, especially Jason Fenn and Rosamond King for their time, thoughts and kind words of wisdom.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

While no longer a federal employee, I would like to state the disclaimer that opinions presented in this paper are personal thoughts of the author and do not represent the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), Brooklyn College or any other agency, professional organization, or institution.

Ethical Approval

The author received IRB approval January 8, 2019 through Brooklyn College’s IRB office for the subject of this paper.

References

  1. 36 CFR Part 800—Protection of historic properties (incorporating amendments effective August 5, 2004). https://www.achp.gov/sites/default/files/regulations/2017-02/regs-rev04.pdf. Accessed March 1, 2019.
  2. Advisory Council of Historic Preservation. (2019). Who is the ACHP? https://www.achp.gov/about. Accessed June 13, 2019.
  3. Atalay, S. (2006). Indigenous archaeology as decolonizing practice. American Indian Quarterly Special Issue: Decolonizing Archaeology (Summer/Autumn 2006),30(3/4), 280–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Atalay, S. (2012). Community-based archaeology: Research with, by, and for Indigenous and local communities. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  5. Britt, K. M. (2015). Mandating community archaeology: Using law to bridge the gap between public outreach and community engagement. In Paper presented at the 80th annual meeting for society for American archaeology, April 2014, San Francisco.Google Scholar
  6. Britt, K. M. (2016). Bridging the gap: NHPA, THPOs and federal agencies, a discussion of best practices and lessons learned. In Co-organized forum for the 49th annual conference on historical and underwater archaeology, January 2016, Washington.Google Scholar
  7. Cipolla, C. N., & Hayes, K. H. (Eds.). (2015). Rethinking colonialism: Comparative archaeological approaches. Gainesville: University Press of Florida.Google Scholar
  8. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). (2017). Tribal consultations. https://www.fema.gov/tribal-consultation. Accessed March 17, 2017.
  9. Gosden, C. (2002). Postcolonial archaeology: Issues of culture, identity and knowledge. In I. Hodder (Ed.), Archaeology theory today (pp. 241–261). Malden: Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar
  10. Hart, S. M., Oland, M., & Frink, L. (2012). Finding transitions: Global pathways to decolonizing indigenous histories in archaeology. In M. Oland, S. M. Hart, & L. Frink (Eds.), Decolonizing indigenous histories: Exploring prehistoric/colonial transitions in archaeology (pp. 1–17). Tucson: University of Arizona Press.Google Scholar
  11. Kennedy, M. (2016). Judge rules that construction can proceed on dakota access pipeline. National Public Radio. https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/09/09/493280504/judge-rules-that-construction-can-proceed-on-dakota-access-pipeline. Accessed June 13, 2019.
  12. Kohl, P. L., & Fawcett, C. (Eds.). (1996). Nationalism, politics and the practice of archaeology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Lonetree, A. (2012). Decolonizing museums. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.Google Scholar
  14. Lydon, J., & Rizvi, U. Z. (Eds.). (2010). Handbook of postcolonial archaeology. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  15. Nassaney, M. (2012). Decolonizing archaeological theory at fort St. Joseph, an eighteenth-century multi-ethnic community in the Western Great Lakes Region. Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology,37(1), 5–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. National Park Service. National Historic Preservation Act, Section 106 A Quick Guide for Preserving Native American Cultural Resources. https://www.nps.gov/history/tribes/Documents/106.pdf. Accessed June 12, 2019.
  17. Nicholas, G. P. (2006). Decolonizing the archaeological landscape. American Indian Quarterly Special Issue: Decolonizing Archaeology (Summer/Autumn 2006),30(3/4), 350–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Rizvi, U. (2015). Decolonization as care. In A. P. Pais & C. F. Strauss (Eds.), Slow reader: A resource for design thinking and practice (pp. 85–95). Amsterdam: Valiz.Google Scholar
  19. Silliman, S. (2008). Collaborating at the trowels edge: Teaching and learning in indigenous archaeology. Amerind studies in archaeology. Tucson: University of Arizona Press.Google Scholar
  20. Silliman, S. (2010). The value and diversity of indigenous archaeology: A response to McGhee. American Antiquity,75(2), 217–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Silliman, S., & Ferguson, T. J. (2010). Consultation and collaboration with descendent communities. In W. Ashmore, D. T. Lippert, & B. J. Mills (Eds.), Voices in American archaeology (pp. 48–72). Washington: Society for American Archaeology.Google Scholar
  22. Smith, C., & Jackson, G. (2006). Decolonizing indigenous archaeology: Developments from down under. American Indian Quarterly Special Issue Decolonizing Archaeology (Summer/Autumn 2006),30(3/4), 311–349.Google Scholar
  23. Thomas, D. H. (Ed.). (1991). Columbian consequences. The Spanish borderlands in Pan-American perspective (Vol. 3). Washington: Smithsonian Institution Press.Google Scholar
  24. Thomas, D. H. (2000). Skull Wars: Kennewick Man, archaeology, and the battle for native American identity. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  25. Watkins, J. (2001). Indigenous archaeology: American Indian values and scientific practice. Walnut Creek: AltaMira Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© World Archaeological Congress 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Anthropology and Archaeology, Brooklyn CollegeCUNYBrooklynUSA

Personalised recommendations