Dynamic heritage and static maps

A comment on the critical distinction between identifying and assessing ‘re-inscribed’ Indigenous heritage places in Australian heritage practice

Bibliographic Data

ID11955593
AuthorsAndrew Sneddon (0000-0001-8013-6722, La Trobe University, corresponding author)
Year2021
Volume87
Issue2
Pages144-155
Publication date2021-05-04
Peer ReviewedYes
Open AccessNo
TypeARTICLE
VenueAustralian Archaeology (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 0312-2417 • E-ISSN: 2470-0363
PublisherTaylor & Francis (PUBLISHER • GB)
DOI10.1080/03122417.2021.1934987
OpenAlexW3171488267
LanguageEN
Citations received2
References cited9

Developers, the courts and consent agencies are struggling to come to terms with Indigenous heritage places that embody evolving heritage values – places that some anthropologists describe by reference to a process of ‘re-inscription’. In an attempt to predict how the heritage profession will respond to these developments, this article looks back at a comparable case study that involved a ‘re-inscribed’ Indigenous landscape in NSW. It concludes that, in spite of criticisms of commercial heritage consultants made by some theoreticians embedded in academia, the tools for managing such sites have been developed by heritage practitioners over many years, but are commonly inconsistently or poorly applied, if they are applied at all

Archaeology · Cultural heritage · Cultural heritage management · Environmental ethics · Indigenous · Industrial heritage · Inscribed figure · Political science · Project commissioning · Publishing · Sociology · Values · Conservation Techniques and Studies · Cultural Heritage Management and Preservation · History · Law · Museums and Cultural Heritage · Philosophy · Ecology

Tools

Open DOI