Archaeologies

, Volume 13, Issue 1, pp 66–87 | Cite as

Archaeology as State Heritage Crime

Research
  • 145 Downloads

Abstract

North American archaeology is evaluated in light of state and heritage crime theory. When analyzed with preexisting typologies, the practice is shown to meet the threshold for state-sanctioned heritage crime. This study also demonstrates how current models of heritage crime do not adequately account for (1) the pivotal role states and state-sanctioned heritage experts play in committing heritage crime and (2) the implications of heritage crime for living descendant communities, not just physical artifacts and buildings. Typically thought of as crime against the state, seeing a state heritage regime as organized heritage crime opens the door to a host of theoretical and practical possibilities, including legal remedies for affected communities. Despite these opportunities, major impediments to meaningful change exist.

Key Words

North American archaeology Cultural resource management State crime Heritage crime Heritocide 

Résumé

L’archéologie nord-américaine est évaluée à la lumière de la théorie des crimes contre l’État et le patrimoine. Lorsqu’elle est analysée à l’aide de typologies préexistantes, la pratique semble respecter le seuil en vigueur pour les crimes contre le patrimoine sanctionnés par l’État. La présente étude démontre aussi comment les modèles actuels d’examen des crimes contre le patrimoine ne tiennent pas adéquatement compte (1) du rôle central que jouent les États et les experts en patrimoine sanctionnés par l’État en commettant des crimes contre le patrimoine; et (2) des implications que les crimes contre le patrimoine ont sur les communautés parentes vivantes et pas seulement sur les artefacts et bâtiments physiques. Généralement considérés comme des crimes contre l’État, le fait d’associer un régime d’État commettant des crimes contre le patrimoine à un réseau de crimes organisés ouvre la voie à une gamme de possibilités théoriques et pratiques, dont l’accès des communautés touchées à des recours en justice. Plusieurs obstacles d’envergure au changement existent pourtant malgré ces possibilités.

Resumen

La arqueología norteamericana se evalúa a la luz de la teoría del estado y del crimen contra el patrimonio. Cuando se analizan con las tipologías preexistentes, se muestra que la práctica satisface el umbral del crimen contra el patrimonio sancionado por el estado. El presente estudio demuestra también cómo los modelos actuales de crimen contra el patrimonio no explican de manera adecuada (1) el papel crucial que los estados y los expertos en patrimonio sancionados por el estado desempeñan en la comisión de crímenes contra el patrimonio y (2) las implicaciones de los crímenes contra el patrimonio para las comunidades de descendientes vivos, no sólo de artefactos físicos y edificios. Visto normalmente como un crimen contra el estado, ver un régimen del patrimonio estatal como un crimen organizado contra el patrimonio abre la puerta a un montón de posibilidades teóricas y prácticas, incluidos remedios legales para las comunidades afectadas. A pesar de estas oportunidades, existen impedimentos de importancia para un cambio significativo.

References

  1. Aboriginal Healing Foundation 2007. Suicide among Aboriginal People in Canada. Aboriginal Healing Foundation, Ottawa, ON.Google Scholar
  2. Agamben, G. 2005. State of Exception, trans. K Attell. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.Google Scholar
  3. Ahmed, M., N. Aylwin, and R.J. Coombe 2008. Indigenous Cultural Heritage Rights in International Human Rights Law. In Protection of First Nations’ Cultural Heritage: Laws, Policy and Reform, edited by C. Bell and R. Paterson, pp. 311–342. UBC Press, Vancouver, BC.Google Scholar
  4. Albrecht, G, G. Sartore, L. Connor, N. Higginbotham, S. Freeman, B. Kelly, H. Stain, A. Tonna, and G. Pollard 2007. Solastalgia: The Distress Caused by Environmental Change. Australasian Psychiatry 15:S95–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Alexander, B.K. 2008. The Globalization of Addiction: A Study in Poverty of the Spirit. Oxford University Press, New York, NY.Google Scholar
  6. Amnesty International 2016. Point of No Return: The Human Rights of Indigenous Peoples in Canada Threatened by the Site C Dam. Amnesty International, London, UK.Google Scholar
  7. Asch, M. 2014. On Being Here to Stay: Treaties and Aboriginal Rights in Canada. University of Toronto Press, Toronto, ON.Google Scholar
  8. Association of Chief Police Officers 2013. Heritage and Cultural Property Crime National Policing Strategic Assessment. Association of Chief Police Officers, UK. Electronic document, https://www.museumsassociation.org/download?id=1038797, accessed 12 January 2017.
  9. Barak, G. (editor) 1991. Crimes by the Capitalist State: An Introduction to State Criminality. State University of New York Press, Albany, NY.Google Scholar
  10. Barker, A.J., T. Rollo, and E.B. Lowman 2016. Settler Colonialism and the Consolidation of Canada in the Twentieth Century. In The Routledge Handbook of the History of Settler Colonialism, edited by E. Cavanagh and L Veracini, pp. 153–168. Routledge, London, UK.Google Scholar
  11. Battiste, M., and J. Youngblood Henderson 2000. Protecting Indigenous Knowledge and Heritage: A Global Challenge. Purich, Saskatoon, SK.Google Scholar
  12. Beaudoin, M. 2016. Archaeologists Colonizing Canada: The Effects of Unquestioned Categories. Archaeologies 12(1):7–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Bell, C. 1992. Repatriation of Cultural Property and Aboriginal Rights: A Survey of Contemporary Legal Issues. Prairie Forum 17(2): 313–335.Google Scholar
  14. Bell, C., and V. Napoleon (editors) 2008. First Nations Cultural Heritage and Law: Case Studies, Voices, and Perspectives. UBC Press, Vancouver, BC.Google Scholar
  15. Bell, C., and R.K. Paterson (editors) 2008. Protection of First Nations Cultural Heritage: Laws, Policy, and Reform. UBC Press, Vancouver, BC.Google Scholar
  16. Berkes, F. (editor) 2008. Sacred Ecology (2nd ed.). Routledge, London, UK.Google Scholar
  17. Birch, J. 2006. Public Archaeology and the Cultural Resource Management Industry in Southern Ontario. Unpublished Master’s Thesis, Department of Sociology and Anthropology, Carleton University, Ottawa, ON.Google Scholar
  18. Bodley, J.H. 2014. Victims of Progress (6th ed.). Altamira Press, Lanham, MD.Google Scholar
  19. Borrows, J. 2002. Recovering Canada: The Resurgence of Indigenous Law. University of Toronto Press, Toronto, ON.Google Scholar
  20. Brosché, J., M. Legnér, J. Kreutz, and A. Ijla 2017. Heritage under Attack: Motives for Targeting Cultural Property during Armed Conflict. International Journal of Heritage Studies 23(3):248–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Carter, W. 2016. Criminalizing the Destruction of Intangible Cultural Heritage: Endangered Cultural Artifacts and Sites. Anthropology News December 12. Electronic document, http://www.anthropology-news.org/index.php/2016/12/12/criminalizing-the-destruction-of-intangible-cultural-heritage/, accessed 26 January 2017.
  22. Cavanagh, E., and L. Veracine (editors) 2016. The Routledge Handbook of the History of Settler Colonialism. Routledge, London, UK.Google Scholar
  23. Centre for International Governance Innovation (CIGI) 2014. The Internationalization of Indigenous Rights: UNDRIP in the Canadian Context. Centre for International Governance Innovation, Waterloo, ON.Google Scholar
  24. Chambliss, W.J. 1989. State-Organized Crime. Criminology 27(2):183–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Chambliss, W.J., R. Michalowski, and R.C. Kramer (editors) 2010. State Crime in the Global Age. Willan Publishing, Devon, UK.Google Scholar
  26. Coombes, M., D. Bradley, L. Grove, S. Thomas, and C. Young 2012. The Extent of Crime and Anti-social Behaviour Facing Designated Heritage Assets. Electronic document, https://content.historicengland.org.uk/content/docs/legal/researchpaper.pdf, accessed 12 January 2017.
  27. Dent, J. 2016. Accounts of Engagement: Conditions and Capitals of Indigenous Participation in Canadian Commercial Archaeology. Unpublished PhD dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Western Ontario, London, ON.Google Scholar
  28. DeSmog Canada 2017. News and Information about the Site C Dam. DeSmog Canada n.d. Electronic document, https://www.desmog.ca/site-c-dam-bc, accessed 02 February 2017.
  29. Echohawk, R., and W. Echohawk 1993. Battlefields and Burial Grounds: The Indian Struggle to Protect Ancestral Graves in the United States. Lerner Publishing Group, Minneapolis, MN.Google Scholar
  30. English Heritage 2012. Heritage Crime Research: The Size of the Problem. English Heritage and Alliance to Reduce Crime against Heritage (ARCH). Electronic document, https://content.historicengland.org.uk/content/docs/legal/researchsummary.pdf, accessed 12 January 2017.
  31. English Heritage 2017. Heritage Crime. Electronic document, https://historicengland.org.uk/advice/caring-for-heritage/heritage-crime/, accessed 12 January 2017.
  32. Epstein, R. 2017. Trump’s Big Move on Dakota Access Pipeline. Forbes January 26. Electronic document, http://www.forbes.com/sites/richardepstein/2017/01/26/trumps-big-move-on-dakota-access-pipeline/#43fed1812bc0, accessed 02 February 2017.
  33. Ferris, N., and J.R. Welch 2015. New Worlds: Ethics in Contemporary North American Archaeological Practice. In Ethics and Archaeological Praxis, edited by C. Gnecco and D. Lippert, pp. 69–92. Springer, New York, NY.Google Scholar
  34. Friedrichs, D.O. (editor) 1998. State Crime (2 Vols.). Ashgate, Aldershot, UK.Google Scholar
  35. Fromm, E. 2000 [1930]. The State as Educator: On the Psychology of Criminal Justice. In Erich Fromm and Critical Criminology, edited by K. Anderson and R. Quinney, pp. 123–128. Trans. H.D. Osterle and K. Anderson. University of Illinois Press, Urbana, IL.Google Scholar
  36. Gilchrist, E. 2017. Site C Dam Ruling Says a Lot about Canada’s Relationship with First Nations. DeSmog Canada January 25. Electronic document, https://www.desmog.ca/2017/01/25/site-c-dam-ruling-says-lot-about-canada-s-relationship-first-nations, accessed 02 February 2017.
  37. Government of Canada 1982. The Constitution Act, 1982, Schedule B to the Canada Act 1982 (UK), 1982, c 11. Electronic document, http://canlii.ca/t/ldsx, accessed 5 February 2017.
  38. Green, W., and J.F. Doershuk 1998. Cultural Resource Management and American Archaeology. Journal of Archaeological Research 6(2):121–167.Google Scholar
  39. Green, P., and T. Ward 2004. State Crime: Governments, Violence and Corruption. Pluto, London, UK.Google Scholar
  40. Grove, L. 2013. Heritocide? Defining and Exploring Heritage Crime. Public Archaeology 12(4):242–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Grove, L., and S. Thomas (editors) 2014a. Heritage Crime: Progress, Prospects and Prevention. Palgrave Macmillan, New York, NY.Google Scholar
  42. Grove, L., and S. Thomas (editors) 2014b. What’s the Future for Heritage Crime Research? In Heritage Crime: Progress, Prospects and Prevention, pp. 224–230. Palgrave Macmillan, New York, NY.Google Scholar
  43. Historic England 2017. Tackling Heritage Crime. Electronic document, https://historicengland.org.uk/advice/caring-for-heritage/heritage-crime/, accessed 12 January 2017.
  44. Horn, S. 2016. Dakota Access Pipeline Tribal Liaison Formerly Worked For Agency Issuing Permit to Cross Tribal Land. DeSmog August 29. Electronic document, https://www.desmogblog.com/2016/08/29/dakota-access-pipeline-tribal-liaison-army-corps-engineers, accessed 29 August 2016.
  45. Hough, A., and M. Beckford 2012. 75,000 ‘heritage crimes’ committed in a year. The Telegraph March 19. Electronic document, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/9149420/75000-heritage-crimes-committed-in-a-year.html, accessed 12 January 2017.
  46. Hupacasath First Nation v. Canada (Attorney General) 2013. Memorandum of Fact and Law of the Respondent, Minister of Foreign Affairs Canada as represented by the Attorney General of Canada. R.S.C. 1985, c. F-7, s. 18.1. Electronic document, http://www.international.gc.ca/trade-agreements-accords-commerciaux/assets/pdfs/disp-diff/ccfipa-03.pdf, accessed 12 January 2017.
  47. Hutchings, R.M. 2015. Lies, Damn Lies, and CRM—Archaeology as White Power and Neoliberal Statecraft. Paper presented at the 80th Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, April 16, 2015, San Francisco, CA.Google Scholar
  48. Hutchings, R.M. 2017. Maritime Heritage in Crisis: Indigenous Landscapes and Global Ecological Breakdown. Routledge, London, UK.Google Scholar
  49. Hutchings, R.M., and M. La Salle 2015a. Archaeology as Disaster Capitalism. International Journal of Historical Archaeology 19:699–720.Google Scholar
  50. Hutchings, R.M., and M. La Salle 2015b. Why Archaeologists Misrepresent Their Practice—A North American Perspective. Journal of Contemporary Archaeology 2(2):S11–17.Google Scholar
  51. Iadicola, P. 2010. The Centrality of Empire in the Study of State Crime and Violence. In State Crime in the Global Age, edited by W. J. Chambliss, R. Michalowski, and R. C. Kramer, pp. 31–44. Willan Publishing, Devon, UK.Google Scholar
  52. International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS) 2005. Threats to World Heritage Sites 1994–2004: An Analysis. Electronic document, http://www.icomos.org/world_heritage/Analysis%20of%20Threats%201994-2004%20final.pdf, accessed 26 January 2017.
  53. John, Grand Chief Edward 2016. Report and Statement, Expert Member of the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues. Electronic document, https://www.culturalsurvival.org/news/un-expert-releases-report-conditions-surrounding-dakota-access-pipeline, accessed 12 January 2017.
  54. Jones, C. 2017. New Treaty, New Tradition: Reconciling New Zealand and Maori Law. UBC Press, Vancouver, BC.Google Scholar
  55. Kalman, H. 2017. Destruction, Mitigation, and Reconciliation of Cultural Heritage. International Journal of Heritage Studies (in press).Google Scholar
  56. King, T.F. 2009. Whitewashing the Destruction of Our Natural and Cultural Heritage. Left Coast Press, Walnut Creek, CA.Google Scholar
  57. Klimko, O., and M. Wright 2000. Old Rocks and Hard Places: Archaeology and Land Claims/Treaty in British Columbia, Canada. In Native Title: The Transformation of Archaeology in the Postcolonial World, edited by I. Lilley, pp.88–98. Left Coast Press, Walnut Creek, CA.Google Scholar
  58. Korsell, L., G. Hedlund, S. Elwér, D. Vesterhav, and A. Heber 2006. Cultural Heritage Crime—The Nordic Dimension. The Swedish National Council for Crime Prevention, Information and Publication, Stockholm, Sweden.Google Scholar
  59. La Salle, M. 2013. ‘Capital-C’ Consultation: Community, Capitalism and Colonialism. New Proposals: Journal of Marxism and Interdisciplinary Inquiry 6(1–2):72–88.Google Scholar
  60. La Salle, M., and R.M. Hutchings 2012. Commercial Archaeology in British Columbia. The Midden 44(2):8–16.Google Scholar
  61. La Salle, M., and R.M. Hutchings 2016. What Makes Us Squirm—A Critical Assessment of Community-Oriented Archaeology. Canadian Journal of Archaeology 40(1):164–180.Google Scholar
  62. Lawson-Te Aho, K., and J.H. Lui 2015. Indigenous Suicide and Colonization: The Legacy of Violence and the Necessity of Self-Determination. International Journal of Conflict and Violence 4(1):124–133.Google Scholar
  63. Lenzerini, F. 2011. Intangible Cultural Heritage: The Living Culture of Peoples. The European Journal of International Law 22(1):101–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. McNiven, I.J., and L. Russell 2005. Appropriated Pasts: Indigenous Peoples and the Colonial Culture of Archaeology. AltaMira Press, Lanham, MD.Google Scholar
  65. Mackenzie, S., and P. Green (editors) 2009. Criminology and Archaeology: Studies in Looted Antiquities. Bloomsbury, Oxford, UK.Google Scholar
  66. Mapes, L. 2009. Breaking Ground: The Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe and the Unearthing of Tse-whit-zen Village. University of Washington Press, Seattle, WA.Google Scholar
  67. Maybury-Lewis, D. 2002. Indigenous Peoples, Ethnic Groups, and the State. Allyn and Bacon, Boston, MA.Google Scholar
  68. Michalowski, R. 2010. In Search of ‘State and Crime’ in State Crime Studies. In State Crime in the Global Age, edited by W. J. Chambliss, R. Michalowski, and R. C. Kramer, pp. 13–30. Willan Publishing, Devon, UK.Google Scholar
  69. Michalowski, R., W.C. Chambliss, and R.C. Kramer 2010. Introduction. In State Crime in the Global Age, edited by W. J. Chambliss, R. Michalowski, and R. C. Kramer, pp. 1–9. Willan Publishing, Devon, UK.Google Scholar
  70. Michalowski, R., and R.C. Kramer (editors) 2007. State-Corporate Crime: Wrongdoing at the Intersection of Business and Government. Rutgers University Press, New Brunswick, NJ.Google Scholar
  71. Milholland, S.K. 2008. Native Voices and Native Values in Sacred Landscapes Management: Bridging the Indigenous Values Gap on Public Lands through Co-Management Policy. Unpublished PhD dissertation, American Indian Studies, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZGoogle Scholar
  72. Monet, D., and Skanu’u (A. Wilson) 1992. Colonialism on Trial: Indigenous Land Rights and the Gitksan and Wet’suwet’en Sovereignty Case. New Society Publishers, Gabriola Island, BC.Google Scholar
  73. Musqueam First Nation 2012. c̓əsnaʔəm: Our Story. Musqueam First Nation, British Columbia, Canada. Electronic document, http://www.musqueam.bc.ca/c%CC%93%C9%99sna%CA%94%C9%99m, accessed 12 January 2016.
  74. Napoleon, V. 2009. Ayook: Gitksan Legal Order, Law, and Legal Theory. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Faculty of Law, University of Victoria, British Columbia, Canada.Google Scholar
  75. Pokotylo, D., and A. Mason 2010. Archaeological Heritage Resource Protection in Canada: The Legislative Basis. In Cultural Heritage Management: A Global Perspective, edited by P.M. Messenger and G.S. Smith, pp. 48–69. University Press of Florida, Gainesville, FL.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Power, A. 2017. ‘Duty to Consult’ a Cruel Joke if First Nations Can’t Handle the Load. The Tyee January 16. Electronic document, https://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2017/01/16/Duty-Consult-Cruel-Joke/, accessed 26 January 2017.
  77. Rollo, T. 2014. Mandates of the State: Canadian Sovereignty, Democracy, and Indigenous Claims. Canadian Journal of Law and Jurisprudence 27(1):225–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Ross, A., K. Pickering Sherman, J.G. Snodgrass, H.D. Delcore, and R. Sherman 2011. Indigenous Peoples and the Collaboratives Stewardship of Nature. Left Coast Press, Walnut Creek, CA.Google Scholar
  79. Ross, J.I., and D.L. Rothe 2008. Ironies of Controlling State Crime. International Journal of Law, Crime and Justice 36:196–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Rothe, D.L. 2009. State Criminality: The Crime of All Crimes. Lexington, Lanham, MD.Google Scholar
  81. Rothe, D.L. 2011. Complementary and Alternative Domestic Responses to State Crime. In State Crime: Current Perspectives, edited by D. L. Rothe and C. W. Mullins, pp. 198–218. Rutgers University Press, New Brunswick, NJ.Google Scholar
  82. Rothe, D.L., and D. Kauzlarich (editors) 2014a. Towards a Victimology of State Crime. Routledge, London, UKGoogle Scholar
  83. Rothe D.L., and D. Kauzlarich 2014b. A Victimology of State Crime. In Towards a Victimology of State Crime, pp. 3–14. Routledge, London, UKGoogle Scholar
  84. Rothe, D.L., and C.W. Mullins (editors) 2011. State Crime: Current Perspectives. Rutgers University Press, New Brunswick, NJ.Google Scholar
  85. Secher, U. 2014. Aboriginal Customary Law: A Source of Common Law Title to Land. Hart Publishing, Oxford, UK.Google Scholar
  86. Shelbourn, C.H. 2014. A Tale of Two Prosecutions: Prosecuting Heritage Crime in England and the United States, a Cautionary Tale. Art Antiquity and Law 19(3):253–264.Google Scholar
  87. Smith, L. 2004. Archaeological Theory and the Politics of Cultural Heritage. Routledge, London, UK.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Stapp, D., and J.G. Longenecker 2009. Avoiding Archaeological Disasters. Left Coast Press: Walnut Creek, CA.Google Scholar
  89. Sutton, M., J. Huntley, and B. Anderson 2013. ‘All Our Sites are of High Significance’: Reflections from Recent Work in the Hunter Valley—Archaeological and Indigenous Perspective. Journal of the Australian Association of Consulting Archaeologists 1:1–14.Google Scholar
  90. The Council of the Red Nation 2015. Native Liberation Struggles in North America: The Red Nation 10-Point Program. Capitalism Nature Socialism 26:1–7.Google Scholar
  91. Thomas, S., and L. Grove 2014. Introduction. In Heritage Crime: Progress, Prospects and Prevention, edited by L. Grove and S. Thomas, pp. 1–10. Palgrave Macmillan, New York, UK.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. United Nations 2008. United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP). Electronic document, http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/unpfii/documents/DRIPS_en.pdf, accessed 12 January 2017
  93. Watkins, J. 2005. Through Wary Eyes: Indigenous Perspectives on Archaeology. Annual Review of Anthropology 34:429–449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Watts, R. 2016. States of Violence and the Civilizing Process: On Criminology and State Crime. Palgrave Macmillan, New York, NY.Google Scholar
  95. Williams, R. 2012. Savage Anxieties: The Invention of Western Civilization. Palgrave MacMillan, New York, NY.Google Scholar
  96. Williams, R. 2013. Savage Anxieties: Global Justice, First Nations’ Land Claims, and Indigenous Peoples’ Human Rights under International Law. Spring 2013 President’s Dream Colloquium on Justice beyond National Boundaries, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, Canada. Video, https://vimeo.com/62880140, accessed 12 January 2017
  97. World Archaeological Congress (WAC) 2013. World Archaeological Congress Newsletter Number 42, December 2013. Electronic document, http://worldarch.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/enews_42.pdf, accessed 12 January 2016.

Copyright information

© World Archaeological Congress 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute for Critical Heritage and TourismGabriola IslandCanada
  2. 2.Department of AnthropologyVancouver Island UniversityNanaimoCanada

Personalised recommendations