ABSTRACT
While heritage protection and management are not new to archaeology, thinking about heritage values in the context of inter-and intra-cultural meanings is, especially in the United States (see the chapters by Altschul; Bruning; Holtorf; Okamura; Russell; and Soderland in this volume). As Smith (1994) argues, post-processual debates in archaeology have proven to be more introspective than productive when it comes to heritage. However, one could argue that in North American archaeology, post-processualism-with its emphasis on multivocality-paved the way for American archaeologists to consider the wider publics and stakeholders of archaeology. More recently, indigenous archaeologies and other theoretical developments worldwide have led to a greater consideration of the role of archaeology in the politics of identity-with the goal of “decolonizing archaeology” (Atalay 2008; Smith and Wobst 2005; Thorley 2002; Watkins 2000). These changes in theoretical positioning in archaeology have greatly affected the practice of archaeology as well-from the selection of projects and building of a research design, to things as traditionally unquestioned as eld methods, disseminate of information, and curation (Chilton 2006).
