Indigenous archaeology
Encyclopedia
Indigenous archaeology is a form of archaeology
where indigenous peoples
are involved in the care of, excavation and analysis of the cultural and bodily remains of their ancestors. Largely being developed as a sub-discipline of archaeology in the late twentieth century, it was developed in order to help redress some of the historical inequalities that have resulted from the traditional academic practice of archaeology, whereby archaeologists who were not members of the indigenous group had been responsible for the excavation and care of such remains, often ignoring the wishes and sensibilities of their descendents. In this manner, the Indigenous desire to participate in the research and management of their heritage is in part a response to "intellectual and spiritual colonization" by Europeans throughout the eighteenth to twentieth centuries.
Being a relatively recently formed variety of archaeology, the "tenets and practices of Indigenous archaeology are currently being defined", and as a sub-discipline it is "unavoidably pluralistic, contingent, and emergent". The Indigenous archaeological spectrum ranges from Indigenous peoples being merely consulted about archaeological research on the terms of non-Native researchers to instances of Native-designed and directed exploration of their own heritage. The explosion of development-related cultural resources management
(CRM) archaeology has been the necessary impetus to get many Aboriginal organizations involved in translating their archaeological values into heritage management plans that supplant the colonial status quo. Beyond field-based applications, Indigenous archaeology can also be seen as a political statement with the means of empowering Indigenous peoples as they work toward decolonization
of society in general and of archaeology in particular. However, it has brought controversy amongst much of the archaeological community, who while typically supporting it in principle, believe that the involvement of certain indigenous viewpoints has led to "major constraints on the research" of historical indigenous peoples.
Much of the tension between archeologists and First Nations stems from the fact that "current heritage ethics and values almost exclusively reflect the values and beliefs of Euro-Americans". Mainstream archaeology has been complicit in variously objectifying, libeling and ignoring native people as it pursues the study of their past. The estrangement of Native people from their archaeological heritage is seen as resulting partly from an artificial distinction between history and prehistory that denies any connection between contemporary cultures and archaeological ones. The historical relationship between Native people and settler cultures effectively severed traditional history-keeping, and several centuries of Indigenous history have been smothered and distorted by those who have been its colonial custodians. The legacy of anthropologists and archaeologists behaving badly with respect to native people still endures, and the "seeds of repatriation" that resulted in Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act
(NAGPRA) sprouted under intense dissatisfaction engendered by archaeologists maintaining a science-trumps-all attitude to Indigenous history.
Concerns over the blanket application of Western enlightenment thought and neo-liberal capitalist frameworks
to Indigenous cultural heritage have re-ignited fundamental debates that contrast the role and status of science against the role and status of Indigenous knowledge. Science's universalizing myth and its allegedly objective "view from nowhere" with its appeal to pan-human values and reliance on empirical modes of understanding, is increasingly found wanting by Indigenous and non-Indigenous scholars. Many agree with philosopher Alison Wylie
in accepting empiricism as one route to productive knowledge, while finding "no reason to conclude that this insulates the scientific enterprise or its products from political, moral, or social scrutiny, much less establishes that scientific interests have a transcendent value that takes precedence over all other interests". (see also Forsman 1997 and White Deer 1997).
The growing determination to challenge this scientific monopoly is in part visible in the recent development by Indigenous peoples of strategies to use, protect, research and manage their cultural heritage. Indigenous archaeology is just one part of the spectrum of tools with which Aboriginal peoples are reclaiming their heritage.
There is little room for debate over the rights of Indigenous peoples to the sites and materials created and used by their ancestors. Canadian First Nations, and others in like circumstances, "hold better jurisdictional title", thus legislative authority, to heritage resources than either Canada or the provinces (Asch 1997: 66). Yet the disposition of these areas continues to challenge governments: “given the intellectual and political traditions of historically and colonially established behaviour still influential in nominally post-colonial societies, any change becomes an issue of national and inherently contested politics” (Boyd et al. 2005: 92). So while the care and management of heritage materials and sites is often among those areas first offered up by colonial governments at modern negotiating tables, few accommodations are made for the attendant financial demands and regulative license required for these transfers of responsibility (Mohs 1994).
In once-colonial nations, the shifting of the political landscape towards reconciliation with First Nations people is having direct and immediate effects on practical and legal aspects of stewardship of archaeological resources. Waves of globally and federally endorsed recognition of Aboriginal rights in general, and of heritage stewardship in particular, are pounding the shores of nominally post-colonial governments (see, for example, Ritchie [1994] on Australia, Watkins [2003] and Wylie [1999] on Canada and the United States, and Whitelaw [2005] on South Africa). Domestic commitments to honourable negotiation (e.g., Canada’s Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples
[1996] and British Columbia’s New Relationship with Aboriginal Peoples [2005]) and a flush of heritage-specific pledges to more fully accommodate Native interests (e.g., World Archaeological Congress
1990, Canadian Archaeological Association 1997, Society for American Archaeology
1990) are reinvigorating the debate about the values, roles and responsibilities related to heritage stewardship.
Despite, or perhaps because of, these differences, Indigenous archaeology should not be seen as exclusive to Indigenous peoples. It has wide relevance outside Indigenous communities (Atalay 2006), where post-colonial methodology is wanting in quantity and quality. The practice of Indigenous archaeology provides non-Native people with a tool by which they may aid in the larger project of decolonization and reclamation of minority rights and identities. It actively recognizes the special rights, interests and responsibilities that Native people have in the realm of cultural heritage (e.g., Anyon 1991, L.T. Smith 2005, Yellowhorn 1996). Indigenous archaeology has become part of the greater transformative project of Indigenous research "that is active in pursuit of social and institutional change, that makes space for Indigenous knowledge, and that has a critical view of power relations and inequality" (L.T. Smith 2005: 89).
The late, eminent Canadian theoretician Bruce Trigger
suggested archaeologists continue to rigorously evaluate each history based on "evidence of greater or lesser completeness and accuracy and on more or less sound reasoning" (1997: ix). Advocating a continued use of careful, objective assessment of such qualities can help integrate different aspects of the past into a more complete, holistic picture of history (ibid). The anthropological-Indigenous collaborative model inevitably raises hackles because at some point, somebody’s truth is going to have to be truer than someone else’s to move forward (or it will be presented as such; Cooper 2006). Where archaeologists' version of events contradicts First Nations' beliefs about their history, is each obliged to challenge others’ myth-building? "If archaeologists knowingly treat the beliefs of Indian differently from those of Euro-Canadians," writes Trigger, "there is a danger that the discipline will descend into mythography, political opportunism, and bad science" (x). While he asserts that "the only morally defensible option" (x) in such cases is to report the truth (as far as it can be known), the real, social implications this could have on relationships predicated on goodwill and respect may be severe. Trigger acknowledges the influence that both cultural relativism
and the great white guilt
have on archaeologists looking to do the right thing, but maintains that above all, archaeology must retain the scientific method if it can hope to "refute claims being made by fascists, sexists, racists, and Indian-haters" (x). He insists that archaeologists have a responsibility not only to educate people, but to do so "honestly and frankly" (x) and to credit individuals with the ability to form their own opinions.
Watkins (2005) presents an overview of the gradual progress of the Indigenizing of archaeology worldwide, lauding the few accomplishments and otherwise trying to "interpret the relative quiet of the Indigenous voice" (40). Mesoamerica and South America are shown to be only recently opening to the dialogue of indigenous interests in archaeology, which there as elsewhere takes a backseat to more pressing efforts to secure basic rights for First Peoples. Scandinavia has made minimal progress in even considering the archaeology of the Sami people, let alone involving the descendent populations in projects (38). In Africa, as with Meso- and South America, attention focused on fundamental economic and human rights issues seems to diminish the immediate importance of indigenous involvement in archaeology valued in developed nations (39). In Australia and New Zealand, archaeology is an increasingly important part of Aboriginal peoples’ reclamation of heritage and indigenous rights, where it increasingly used in support of land claims and repatriation issues (39). The Canadian experience follows a similar trajectory, albeit at a slower pace. Specific examples of unambiguously successful (though not necessarily easy or intuitive) Canadian collaborative projects include the SCES-SFU partnership in B.C. and the study and reburial of Kwaday Dan Ts’inchi in the Yukon (Watkins 2005: 35).
Great progress has been made worldwide in educating and involving Aboriginal communities in research and management projects, though a divide still exists between academically-trained personnel and the broader indigenous population. While there has been increasing pressure on First Nations people to pick up the archaeological torch, the current academic system has not changed rapidly enough to encourage or accommodate native interests and enduring socioeconomic inequalities (Lippert 1997: 120-121).
Archaeology
Archaeology, or archeology , is the study of human society, primarily through the recovery and analysis of the material culture and environmental data that they have left behind, which includes artifacts, architecture, biofacts and cultural landscapes...
where indigenous peoples
Indigenous peoples
Indigenous peoples are ethnic groups that are defined as indigenous according to one of the various definitions of the term, there is no universally accepted definition but most of which carry connotations of being the "original inhabitants" of a territory....
are involved in the care of, excavation and analysis of the cultural and bodily remains of their ancestors. Largely being developed as a sub-discipline of archaeology in the late twentieth century, it was developed in order to help redress some of the historical inequalities that have resulted from the traditional academic practice of archaeology, whereby archaeologists who were not members of the indigenous group had been responsible for the excavation and care of such remains, often ignoring the wishes and sensibilities of their descendents. In this manner, the Indigenous desire to participate in the research and management of their heritage is in part a response to "intellectual and spiritual colonization" by Europeans throughout the eighteenth to twentieth centuries.
Being a relatively recently formed variety of archaeology, the "tenets and practices of Indigenous archaeology are currently being defined", and as a sub-discipline it is "unavoidably pluralistic, contingent, and emergent". The Indigenous archaeological spectrum ranges from Indigenous peoples being merely consulted about archaeological research on the terms of non-Native researchers to instances of Native-designed and directed exploration of their own heritage. The explosion of development-related cultural resources management
Cultural resources management
In the broadest sense, Cultural Resources Management is the vocation and practice of managing cultural resources, such as the arts and heritage. It incorporates Cultural Heritage Management which is concerned with traditional and historic culture. It also delves into the material culture of...
(CRM) archaeology has been the necessary impetus to get many Aboriginal organizations involved in translating their archaeological values into heritage management plans that supplant the colonial status quo. Beyond field-based applications, Indigenous archaeology can also be seen as a political statement with the means of empowering Indigenous peoples as they work toward decolonization
Decolonization
Decolonization refers to the undoing of colonialism, the unequal relation of polities whereby one people or nation establishes and maintains dependent Territory over another...
of society in general and of archaeology in particular. However, it has brought controversy amongst much of the archaeological community, who while typically supporting it in principle, believe that the involvement of certain indigenous viewpoints has led to "major constraints on the research" of historical indigenous peoples.
Development
A brief history of the relationships between archaeologists and Indigenous peoples speaks volumes about the development of Indigenous archaeology.Much of the tension between archeologists and First Nations stems from the fact that "current heritage ethics and values almost exclusively reflect the values and beliefs of Euro-Americans". Mainstream archaeology has been complicit in variously objectifying, libeling and ignoring native people as it pursues the study of their past. The estrangement of Native people from their archaeological heritage is seen as resulting partly from an artificial distinction between history and prehistory that denies any connection between contemporary cultures and archaeological ones. The historical relationship between Native people and settler cultures effectively severed traditional history-keeping, and several centuries of Indigenous history have been smothered and distorted by those who have been its colonial custodians. The legacy of anthropologists and archaeologists behaving badly with respect to native people still endures, and the "seeds of repatriation" that resulted in Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act
Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act
The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act , Pub. L. 101-601, 25 U.S.C. 3001 et seq., 104 Stat. 3048, is a United States federal law passed on 16 November 1990 requiring federal agencies and institutions that receive federal funding to return Native American "cultural items" to...
(NAGPRA) sprouted under intense dissatisfaction engendered by archaeologists maintaining a science-trumps-all attitude to Indigenous history.
Concerns over the blanket application of Western enlightenment thought and neo-liberal capitalist frameworks
Neoliberalism
Neoliberalism is a market-driven approach to economic and social policy based on neoclassical theories of economics that emphasizes the efficiency of private enterprise, liberalized trade and relatively open markets, and therefore seeks to maximize the role of the private sector in determining the...
to Indigenous cultural heritage have re-ignited fundamental debates that contrast the role and status of science against the role and status of Indigenous knowledge. Science's universalizing myth and its allegedly objective "view from nowhere" with its appeal to pan-human values and reliance on empirical modes of understanding, is increasingly found wanting by Indigenous and non-Indigenous scholars. Many agree with philosopher Alison Wylie
Alison Wylie
Alison Wylie is a Canadian feminist philosopher of science at the University of Washington, Seattle. In her own words, Wylie describes her interests in the following:...
in accepting empiricism as one route to productive knowledge, while finding "no reason to conclude that this insulates the scientific enterprise or its products from political, moral, or social scrutiny, much less establishes that scientific interests have a transcendent value that takes precedence over all other interests". (see also Forsman 1997 and White Deer 1997).
The growing determination to challenge this scientific monopoly is in part visible in the recent development by Indigenous peoples of strategies to use, protect, research and manage their cultural heritage. Indigenous archaeology is just one part of the spectrum of tools with which Aboriginal peoples are reclaiming their heritage.
Internalist Archaeology
One particularly clearly enunciated vision of Indigenous archaeological practice is Yellowhorn’s internalist archaeology (2006). Primarily but not exclusively for the benefit of Native people, the internalist perspective fills an intellectual void left by the age-old traditions of pretending Native people are all gone, or that they are unrelated to archaeological remains, or both (Yellowhorn 2006: 197). Fundamental to the internalist endeavour is a reconsideration of basic archaeological conventions that can carry connotations distasteful to First Nations and others, such as the "chronological oppression" Yellowhorn sees in the classic history/prehistory dichotomy (2006: 198). Internalism encourages reclaiming of the archaeological record, and thus connections to land, spirit and power. An internalist archaeology treats oral narrative as a kind of middle-range theory (Yellowhorn 2006: 205) by drawing on mythology’s established mnemonic role of "connecting higher with lower levels of abstraction" (Yellowhorn 2006: 202). The appeal and usefulness of archaeology to Native practitioners and publics is heightened by internalism’s focus on specific cultural traditions, using established archaeological methods to "search for the signatures" of oral narratives in the local archaeological record (Yellowhorn 2006: 137). Such an approach values a local understanding of history grounded firmly in a global anthropological context, and is best achieved through the development of applicable theoretical frameworks borne of rigorous professionalism (Yellowhorn 2006: 195).Archaeology, national politics and self-determination
The importance of archaeological sites and materials to Indigenous peoples’ case for their uninterrupted occupation of colonized lands cannot be overestimated: "control of cultural property is central to the struggle of decolonization, aboriginal self-government, and in some areas, First Nations cultural survival" (Walker and Ostrove 1995: 14). Providing as it does an incontrovertible material signature of past events, First Nations peoples are beginning to find in archaeology a productive ally rather than a colonialist project or bureaucratic millstone. Archaeological places and objects are a good fit for the philosophy and process of decolonization—serving in land-claims negotiations, promoting cultural cohesion—and their control is indispensable to Indigenous groups in the transition toward self-determination (Walker and Ostrove 1995). The relationship between archaeology and nationalism is all but unavoidable and, despite accusations that Indigenous peoples have wielded heritage concerns in a politically expedient way, is "not necessarily corrupt or intrinsically suspect" (Kohl and Fawcett 1995: 3; also Trigger 1983).There is little room for debate over the rights of Indigenous peoples to the sites and materials created and used by their ancestors. Canadian First Nations, and others in like circumstances, "hold better jurisdictional title", thus legislative authority, to heritage resources than either Canada or the provinces (Asch 1997: 66). Yet the disposition of these areas continues to challenge governments: “given the intellectual and political traditions of historically and colonially established behaviour still influential in nominally post-colonial societies, any change becomes an issue of national and inherently contested politics” (Boyd et al. 2005: 92). So while the care and management of heritage materials and sites is often among those areas first offered up by colonial governments at modern negotiating tables, few accommodations are made for the attendant financial demands and regulative license required for these transfers of responsibility (Mohs 1994).
In once-colonial nations, the shifting of the political landscape towards reconciliation with First Nations people is having direct and immediate effects on practical and legal aspects of stewardship of archaeological resources. Waves of globally and federally endorsed recognition of Aboriginal rights in general, and of heritage stewardship in particular, are pounding the shores of nominally post-colonial governments (see, for example, Ritchie [1994] on Australia, Watkins [2003] and Wylie [1999] on Canada and the United States, and Whitelaw [2005] on South Africa). Domestic commitments to honourable negotiation (e.g., Canada’s Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples
Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples
The Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples was a Canadian Royal Commission established in 1991 to address many issues of aboriginal status that had come to light with recent events such as the Oka Crisis and the Meech Lake Accord. The commission culminated in a final report of 4000 pages,...
[1996] and British Columbia’s New Relationship with Aboriginal Peoples [2005]) and a flush of heritage-specific pledges to more fully accommodate Native interests (e.g., World Archaeological Congress
World Archaeological Congress
The World Archaeological Congress is a non-governmental, not-for-profit organization which promotes world archaeology. It is the only global archaeological organisation with elected representation....
1990, Canadian Archaeological Association 1997, Society for American Archaeology
Society for American Archaeology
The Society for American Archaeology is the largest organization of professional archaeologists of the Americas in the world. The Society was founded in 1934 and today has over 7000 members. The Society holds an annual conference and publishes the flagship journal of American archaeology,...
1990) are reinvigorating the debate about the values, roles and responsibilities related to heritage stewardship.
Applications
As Indigenous archaeology unfolds, two things are becoming clear that serve to highlight some of the principle similarities and differences between Indigenous and non-Indigenous perspectives. First, most Indigenous archaeologies hold the view that archaeology makes up only one part of the cultural resources spectrum (Anyon 1991). The inclusion of spiritual, traditional use, linguistic and historical studies are influencing the direction of heritage research and management, just as anthropology’s standard four-field approach has done for archaeology. In both traditions, "intellectual and material aspects of these cultural practices are nearly impossible to separate and an attempt to do so threatens or undermines the practices themselves" (Smith and Jackson 2006: 312). Second, where archaeology and Indigenous archaeology diverge, is on the issue of human remains. These, according to most Indigenous practitioners and publics, are not the same as other kinds of cultural resources, their use and disposition should not be subject to the regulations or negotiations. Interment is not equivalent to relinquishing either the individual or goods, and Native people, not the crown, should hold residual rights to burials (Yellowhorn 1996: 35).Despite, or perhaps because of, these differences, Indigenous archaeology should not be seen as exclusive to Indigenous peoples. It has wide relevance outside Indigenous communities (Atalay 2006), where post-colonial methodology is wanting in quantity and quality. The practice of Indigenous archaeology provides non-Native people with a tool by which they may aid in the larger project of decolonization and reclamation of minority rights and identities. It actively recognizes the special rights, interests and responsibilities that Native people have in the realm of cultural heritage (e.g., Anyon 1991, L.T. Smith 2005, Yellowhorn 1996). Indigenous archaeology has become part of the greater transformative project of Indigenous research "that is active in pursuit of social and institutional change, that makes space for Indigenous knowledge, and that has a critical view of power relations and inequality" (L.T. Smith 2005: 89).
Managing differences
Negotiating the difference in Indigenous and non-Indigenous perspective, of course, entails an "increasingly holistic engagement…with modern native peoples who are direct heirs to the traditions they are studying" (Trigger 1990: 781-782), which is changing the whole thrust of archaeological practice and stewardship. Conservative factions in archaeology (e.g. McGhee 2008) are finding the risk of infidelity to the archaeological record too great to sanction an Indigenous archaeology, believing the endeavour to be too subjective to be considered archaeology. Abdicating the use of archaeology's unique set of methods for interpreting the past in favour of alternative lines of evidence (e.g. oral history, genealogical studies) is, critics argue, setting up competing, even incompatible, versions of history.The late, eminent Canadian theoretician Bruce Trigger
Bruce Trigger
Bruce Graham Trigger, was a Canadian archaeologist, anthropologist, and ethnohistorian.Born in Preston, Ontario, he received a doctorate in archaeology from Yale University in 1964. His research interests at that time included the history of archaeological research and the comparative study of...
suggested archaeologists continue to rigorously evaluate each history based on "evidence of greater or lesser completeness and accuracy and on more or less sound reasoning" (1997: ix). Advocating a continued use of careful, objective assessment of such qualities can help integrate different aspects of the past into a more complete, holistic picture of history (ibid). The anthropological-Indigenous collaborative model inevitably raises hackles because at some point, somebody’s truth is going to have to be truer than someone else’s to move forward (or it will be presented as such; Cooper 2006). Where archaeologists' version of events contradicts First Nations' beliefs about their history, is each obliged to challenge others’ myth-building? "If archaeologists knowingly treat the beliefs of Indian differently from those of Euro-Canadians," writes Trigger, "there is a danger that the discipline will descend into mythography, political opportunism, and bad science" (x). While he asserts that "the only morally defensible option" (x) in such cases is to report the truth (as far as it can be known), the real, social implications this could have on relationships predicated on goodwill and respect may be severe. Trigger acknowledges the influence that both cultural relativism
Cultural relativism
Cultural relativism is the principle that an individual human's beliefs and activities should be understood by others in terms of that individual's own culture. This principle was established as axiomatic in anthropological research by Franz Boas in the first few decades of the 20th century and...
and the great white guilt
White guilt
White guilt refers to the concept of individual or collective guilt often said to be felt by some white people for the racist treatment of people of color by whites both historically and presently...
have on archaeologists looking to do the right thing, but maintains that above all, archaeology must retain the scientific method if it can hope to "refute claims being made by fascists, sexists, racists, and Indian-haters" (x). He insists that archaeologists have a responsibility not only to educate people, but to do so "honestly and frankly" (x) and to credit individuals with the ability to form their own opinions.
Indigenous archaeology in practice
As the values and goals of descendent communities are incorporated into the structure of heritage management, a different picture of heritage stewardship should emerge. Where the Western mode is predicated on ideas of the public trust, the Indigenous stewardship paradigm is more often concerned with the care of living history (Smith and Burke 2003: 183-185; also Lawson 1997, Watkins 2003). Assigning custody of heritage on the basis of cultural patrimony respects the "traditionally, or historically, legitimate cultural or spiritual responsibility for the cultural property at hand" (Meskell 2002: 291), and infuses stewardship with a duty of familial care. The differences between the "public trust" school of archaeological thought, and the "cultural legacy" perspective of Indigenous thought have cognitive implications: the former isolates history, failing to link it with other people, places or times, while the latter binds the studied past with the present and future. The distinction can be as simple a matter as considering an archaeological skeletal specimen as object or ancestor (Smith and Burke 2003: 184-185). Or, it can be as complex as demonstrating continuity by drawing one’s past on the landscape for a world that relies on discontinuities to order time and space.Watkins (2005) presents an overview of the gradual progress of the Indigenizing of archaeology worldwide, lauding the few accomplishments and otherwise trying to "interpret the relative quiet of the Indigenous voice" (40). Mesoamerica and South America are shown to be only recently opening to the dialogue of indigenous interests in archaeology, which there as elsewhere takes a backseat to more pressing efforts to secure basic rights for First Peoples. Scandinavia has made minimal progress in even considering the archaeology of the Sami people, let alone involving the descendent populations in projects (38). In Africa, as with Meso- and South America, attention focused on fundamental economic and human rights issues seems to diminish the immediate importance of indigenous involvement in archaeology valued in developed nations (39). In Australia and New Zealand, archaeology is an increasingly important part of Aboriginal peoples’ reclamation of heritage and indigenous rights, where it increasingly used in support of land claims and repatriation issues (39). The Canadian experience follows a similar trajectory, albeit at a slower pace. Specific examples of unambiguously successful (though not necessarily easy or intuitive) Canadian collaborative projects include the SCES-SFU partnership in B.C. and the study and reburial of Kwaday Dan Ts’inchi in the Yukon (Watkins 2005: 35).
Great progress has been made worldwide in educating and involving Aboriginal communities in research and management projects, though a divide still exists between academically-trained personnel and the broader indigenous population. While there has been increasing pressure on First Nations people to pick up the archaeological torch, the current academic system has not changed rapidly enough to encourage or accommodate native interests and enduring socioeconomic inequalities (Lippert 1997: 120-121).
See also
- ArchaeologyArchaeologyArchaeology, or archeology , is the study of human society, primarily through the recovery and analysis of the material culture and environmental data that they have left behind, which includes artifacts, architecture, biofacts and cultural landscapes...
- Cultural HeritageCultural heritageCultural heritage is the legacy of physical artifacts and intangible attributes of a group or society that are inherited from past generations, maintained in the present and bestowed for the benefit of future generations...
- Intellectual property issues in cultural heritage (IPinCH)