In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

Notes Prologue 1. Anthropologist Deborah Bird Rose (1996:1) has described Country as “nourishing terrain ,” a useful metaphor that offers a way to connect a multitude of concepts that reference Aboriginal knowledge systems, lifeways, and relationships to land, events, people, ancestors, plants, animals, places, and so on. Chapter 1. Landscapes as Heritage 1. The terms cultural landscapes and heritage landscapes are often used interchangeably. To maintain the distinction, I use the term heritage landscapes to place attention on the sociohistorical contexts. 2. As this book went to production, the Oceti Skowin Oyate (the Great Sioux Nation), the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, and many other Indigenous nations were actively protesting against the siting of the Dakota Access Pipeline. Although many media reports emphasize the environmental issues related to the protest, the tribes attempted to leverage heritage legislation , including the National Historic Preservation Act and Section 106 responsibilities, to argue for their rights and the protection of cultural landscapes and resources. They were not successful. 3. Although scholars had used the term critical heritage studies before, at the time of my dissertation work in 2007 its full potential had not yet been explored. To be clear, it is not that these types of studies were not undertaken: Rodney Harrison (2010) had conceptualized the term in a series of courses, and Lisa Breglia (2006) deployed it in her study of the politics of heritage in Mexico. 4. It is important to note that critical heritage departs from what Laurajane Smith (2006) and others (Carman 2000; Harvey 2001) refer to as “heritage studies.” This is an important distinction. Carman (2000) notes that some archaeologists may not view themselves as heritage scholars but rather view heritage studies as related to the fields of museum and tourism studies. This is surprising, because much of the work that archaeologists do relates to heritage practices: significance and impact assessment; survey, evaluation, and mitigation; and traditional cultural properties assessments. Although heritage studies are also interdisciplinary , they focus on “modern practices of conservation, tourism, and museums and site visitation” (L. Smith 2006:2) and, in some cases, tend to be apolitical in their approaches. It is not that heritage scholars do not offer critiques, but instead that they are often concerned with (and constrained by) the management of heritage from institutional perspectives. In such contexts, there is less room to address how heritage plays out in the larger sociopolitical sphere. 5. Swedish geographer Mats Widgren (2010) provides a brief and useful overview of the intellectual history of the modern school of cultural landscape research (see also Olwig 1996). 6. Still, by the 1960s, ideological differences between scientific and humanistic approaches in geography caused scholars to split: scientific modes of investigation encompassed a strongly positivist slant, with the objective of documenting and evaluating humans in physical space, whereas humanist approaches were committed to understanding human experience (Anschuetz et al. 2001; Olwig 1996, 2004). Of course, this dividing line is not unique to geography and can be seen in the disciplines of archaeology, history, and anthropology. 7. Two terms that deserve mention—place and space—are fundamental to the study of landscapes . Scholars examine how people form relationships with the landscapes they live in and move through, how they attach meanings to spaces to create places, and how the experiences of living in those places shape their meanings and practices (e.g., Basso 1996; Heidegger 1977; Ingold 1993, 2000). As the geographer Yi-Fu Tuan (1977:6) noted, place is central to discussions of experience: “We live, act and orient ourselves in a world that is richly and profoundly differentiated into places, yet at the same time we seem to have a meager understanding of . . . the ways in which we experience them.” 8. Places have broad appeal to anthropologists and social scientists, more generally. For examples see Basso 1996; Casey 1996; Giddens 1984; Ingold 1995; and Low and LawrenceZ úñiga 2003. Chapter 2. The Politics of Place: Uluru–Kata Tjuta National Park, Australia 1. See http://samemory.sa.gov.au/site/page.cfm?c=7213&mode=singleImage, accessed December 15, 2016. 2. Under the lease, the park’s Board of Management is composed of six Anangu representatives (equally represented by men and women), the director of national parks, and representatives from Northern Territory, the tourism industry, and the environmental community. Parks Australia compensates Anangu a portion of revenues and an annual rent price. Many members of the Anangu community work in the park as service providers, guides, or staff workers. The park manager, who...

pdf

Additional Information

ISBN
9780813052106
Related ISBN
9780813056562
MARC Record
OCLC
1013541264
Pages
168
Launched on MUSE
2018-01-03
Language
English
Open Access
No
Back To Top

This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. Without cookies your experience may not be seamless.