Compromiso informativo: el caso de las televisiones públicas

My purpose in this section has been to review contemporary archaeology policy in Canada, focussing on common policy definitions of archaeological sites and objects, significance and value, and appropriate practice. I also considered the relationship between archaeology policy, and other policy concerning intangible heritage values, and the role of indigenous groups in evaluating the archaeological resource. In this review I note that policy across the country is broadly similar, reflecting common approaches to defining sites, artefacts and protection, and to the management of the archaeological resource. This body of policy includes several areas where direction is vague and relies on the discretion of the

archaeologist, as in the case of archaeological significance. As noted in the Chapter 2, vague policy objectives increase operator discretion (Lipsky 1980), while an increase in the number of actors, that is, an increase in the scope (Schattschneider 1960) of implementation, increases complexity (Barrett 2004). Combined, discretion and complexity lead to “unforeseen

consequences” to policy and the outcomes of policy in implementation (Pressman and Wildavsky 1984, 223). The role of the evaluation of significance in Canadian archaeology policy becomes important when archaeological practice is undertaken in the context of

development, an implementation condition where the number of actors, including non- archaeological interests, is increased: it is the significance of an archaeological site that determines the protection response. Under conditions of increased discretion and complex interaction among interests, these vague policy elements create considerable latitude in the negotiation of archaeological resource protection, a point that I return to in Chapter 5.

3.4 Chapter Summary

In this Chapter, I have reviewed the theoretical literature on regulatory policy, and the way in which policy assigns roles and distributes benefits in implementation. I also considered the way in which policy builds on earlier policy experience, reinforcing and obscuring the assumptions on which these earlier policies may have been built, as well as relying on those in roles assigned by policy to validate subsequent policy development. Using

Schattschneider’s (1960) theory of political conflict as a guide, I reviewed the historic development of archaeology policy of the United States in terms of the policy contests, their participants and outcomes. The notion that archaeology policy is required is rooted in a public good objective of preserving and interpreting the archaeological resource; however, the arguments that have been made in support of regulation have favoured private archaeological interests. Private interests do not exclude public benefits from arising, but the role of the archaeology practitioner in promoting archaeology to the public is one of promoting the archaeologist’s own benefit.

I do not assert that all contemporary archaeology policy derives from the US example. I do, however, concur with Carman (2002) in his contention that contend that contemporary policy is broadly similar across most western countries, and further suggest that this orthodoxy is largely due to policy and the theoretical work underpinning archaeological practice having coevolved. That is, the emergence of the practice of cultural resource management (CRM) as the main avenue of archaeological practice today, did not arise simply as a response to

ongoing threats to archaeological sites from development pressures. Rather, CRM is the outcome of the archaeology community’s response to the opportunity to participate in shaping policy. Early victories in defining legitimate forms of practice through a permit process, and the notion that some locations are more significant, and therefore merit greater protection from adverse effects were achieved in the early 20th century. The opportunity this policy outcome afforded to archaeological practice for funding research, as well as protecting sites marked the onset of an expansion of the scope of implementation of policy; unfortunately, this also marked an expansion of scope for the overall policy contest. As archaeologists began to apply the protection directives of policy to an increasing range of sites, leading

eventually to a widespread acceptance of pre-development survey and salvage excavation, additional interests were being drawn into the contests over implementation and new policy development.

The development of archaeology policy matches the increasing importance of the

archaeologist practicing under the terms of a regulatory permit system, to the exclusion of others, and marks a series of victories in policy contests for archaeological interests. International charters and conventions on excavation and the administration of archaeology regulation mark significant policy victories. However, as the policy continues to evolve, two groups of interests are acting to destabilise the contest. The growth of cultural resource management and its concomitant focus on the mitigating adverse impacts to archaeological sites threatened by development has narrowed the focus of archaeologists the positivist staples of material, data and salvage, and at the same time expanded the scope of participation in implementation contests to non-archaeological private interests, including development interests.

At the same time, international conventions and charters, as well as specific policies in a number of western states mark a growing recognition of indigenous interest in cultural heritage, including both archaeological resources and the intangible values associated with cultural heritage places. This concern for more than material remains on archaeological sites can be seen contributing to some of the Canadian policy as well. In this, the position

theorised by Schattschneider (1960) is evident: archaeological policy contests are less intense than those concerning the traditional and treaty rights of Indigenous groups, and as a

consequence the direction of the contest has changed, with archaeology contests subsumed under the new, and much larger contest over indigenous rights and heritage. Archaeological practice, and the contests over policy implementation became less intense through the 20th century as archaeological practice came to be formally co-opted into development approvals processes. By comparison, Indigenous interests, coupled with an emerging policy focus on intangible heritage has left archaeologists negotiating to retain their position as technical experts in handling, although not necessarily interpreting, material remains. Although these contests remain distinct, contests where archaeology policy or practice have been challenged directly (as in the case of the ongoing debates over native burial repatriation in the United States, suggests that the star of the archaeological interest is no longer ascendant.

In the next Chapter, I draw my focus to one jurisdiction, Ontario, Canada, in which the development of archaeological policy has many of the characteristics of western archaeology policy, including a formal mechanism for authorising practice, a focus on material remains

and salvage excavation, policy implementation through a network centred on land and resource development, and finally an increasing pressure to expand the scope of the policy contest to include consideration of indigenous interests.