Description
The emergence of Cultural Resource Management (CRM) as a practice in the United States, California, and the San Diego region followed a series of increasingly more intensive historical episodes of publically, and later privately, sponsored development activities. CRM was promoted by a growing body of legislation associated with the management of government permitted impacts upon areas of cultural value. In the 1960s and 1970s a surge of such laws and guidelines instituted a need for private archaeological consultants in order to match the growing pace of development. During this period the term "cultural resource" became widely applied and understood as a discrete, object-centric, data oriented, spatially-bound abstraction to be defined by archaeologists though legal guidelines and paradigmatic convention. In short, this period embedded an understanding in CRM and the law that "cultural resources" were synonymous with "archaeological sites." Over time, paradigmatic shifts in academia and the passage of additional legislation that better represented the concerns expressed by Native American tribal interests and local communities promoted alternative, intangible understandings of "cultural resources." This has facilitated a broader, and more visible, amount of discussion as to what heritage means to these different communities. At times these understandings of "cultural resource" have been disjunctive with the more commonly applied data-centric perspectives that are embedded within the dominant legislation and the practices of CRM. This study draws upon information gathered through in-depth interviews, participant observation and background research for discussing some of these issues as they relate to the practice of CRM. The chapters within this thesis are intended to provide some additional insight into the conceptions surrounding cultural resources in local CRM, and to promote new discussions regarding the variety of ways heritage may be understood
