George P. Nicholas

Copyrighting the Past

Rights to intellectual property have become a major issue in ethnobotany and many other realms of research involving Indigenous communities. This paper examines intellectualpropertyrightsrelated issues in archaeology, including the relevance of such rights within the discipline, the forms these rights take, and the impacts of applying intellectual property protection in archaeology. It identifies the products of archaeological research and what they represent in a contemporary sociocultural context, examines ownership issues, assesses the level of protection of these products provided by existing legislation, and discusses the potential of current intellectual property protection mechanisms to augment cultural heritage protection for Indigenous communities.

The premise and promise of indigenous archaeology

Researchers have increasingly promoted an emerging paradigm of Indigenous archaeology, which includes an array of practices conducted by, for, and with Indigenous communities to challenge the disciplines intellectual breadth and political economy. McGhee (2008) argues that Indigenous archaeology is not viable because it depends upon the essentialist concept of “Aboriginalism.” In this reply, we correct McGhees description of Indigenous Archaeology and demonstrate why Indigenous rights are not founded on essentialist imaginings. Rather, the legacies of colonialism, sociopolitical context of scientific inquiry, and insights of traditional knowledge provide a strong foundation for collaborative and community-based archaeology projects that include Indigenous peoples.

Protecting indigenous cultural property in the age of digital democracy: Institutional and communal responses to Canadian First Nations and Māori heritage concerns

This article presents a comparative study of how Canadian First Nations and New Zealand Māori peoples have employed digital technologies in the recording, reproduction, promotion and discussion of their cultural heritage. The authors explore a selection of First Nations and Māori initiatives that resist or creatively respond to the digitization and electronic dissemination of cultural ‘objects’, knowledges and landscapes as a continuation of social processes that have dynamically endured over more than two centuries. Their comparison also considers the limitations of conventional law in regard to the protection of indigenous cultural and intellectual property. Expressions of traditional knowledge and culture generally fall outside the protection of copyrights and patents, a situation that is often exacerbated when that heritage assumes digital forms.

NATIVE PEOPLES AND ARCHAEOLOGY

Indigenous archaeology is an expression of archaeological theory and practice, involving both Indigenous and non-Indigenous participants, in which the discipline intersects with Indigenous values, knowledge, practices, ethics, and sensibilities, and through collaborative and community-originated or -directed projects, and related critical perspectives. It seeks to make archaeology more representative of, responsible to, and relevant for Indigenous communities; to redress real and perceived inequalities in the practice of archaeology; and to inform and broaden the understanding and interpretation of the archaeological record through the incorporation of Aboriginal worldviews, histories, and science. This entry provides a global approach to the concept in terms of both Aboriginal worldview, epistemology and politics, and Western science, sociopolitics, and heritage legislation. The grassroots development of Indigenous archeology has been driven by two broad, interrelated themes: (1) the treatment of the dead (and related objects and places); (2) cultural heritage and legislative concerns about the ownership of cultural and intellectual property. Also included is a review of the theoretical and methodological foundations of Indigenous archaeology, which include Marxist, feminist, critical, and postcolonial theory situated on more traditional cultural historical and, to a degree, processual approaches. The entry concludes by examining reactions to Indigenous archaeology, identifying current issues, and finally noting what it has to offer to Aboriginal communities and to the broad realm of archaeological inquiry.

Decoding Implications of the Genographic Project for Archaeology and Cultural Heritage

Recent controversies surrounding the Genographic Project, sponsored by the National Geographic Society and IBM, and its predecessors call attention to a need to better understand the broader ethical and practical implications of uses of ancient and contemporary human genetic information, which is today a form of cultural property. Although technological advances continue to facilitate the kinds of information available to researchers, concerns about appropriation and the potential misuse or commodification of human genetic material and the data extracted from it have been raised by a number of stakeholders. Misconceptions and apprehensions about the topic also abound. These issues were addressed in a forum, “Decoding Implications of the Genographic Project,” which we convened at the 39th Annual Chacmool Conference in 2006, “Decolonizing Archaeology.” The purpose of the panel was to explore and discuss some of the salient issues from a range of perspectives, in the hope of moving beyond a polarized debate to generate productive dialogue and delineate further questions about intellectual property, cultural identity, and research ethics. We later solicited seven commentaries on the transcript from a range of scholars, which are included here. Some of the issues addressed by the panelists and commentators include access to samples, permissions for research and analysis, ownership and dissemination of data, and potential consequences of archaeological or historical interpretation of results. The event was co-sponsored by the Intellectual Property Issues in Cultural Heritage Project (IPinCH) and the World Archaeological Congress.

Intellectual Property Issues in Heritage Management Part 2: Legal Dimensions, Ethical Considerations, and Collaborative Research Practices

Cultural heritage management within the scope of law and policy necessitates a fluid understanding of both the tangible and intangible elements underpinning cultural resources, as well as a broader appreciation for what might be considered ‘law.’ While the tangible components of cultural heritage have been privileged due to their ability to be quantified and tracked, we argue that without recognizing the intangible dimensions of heritage, tangible “cultural property” or “heritage” has little or no meaning or value. A new set of management strategies for intangible cultural heritage is needed; in this follow-up piece we consider some of the overarching issues that frame developments in IP and professional heritage management and guide efforts to resolve or avoid problems encountered as such. We also explore the legal and ethical dimensions of IP, as well as the collaborative research approaches that constitute good practice.

Decoding Implications of the Genographic Project for Archaeology and Cultural Heritage: Transcript of A Panel Discussion Held at the Chacmool Conference “Decolonizing Archaeology”, University of Calgary, Alberta, Canada, November 2006

The panel began with an acknowledgment that we were assembled in the traditional territory of the Blood Nation. The panelists were then introduced and, in alphabetical order, gave their initial opening comments.