Abstract
What are the consequences of using the discourse of archaeological knowledge in cult ural heritage management (CHM)? In this article the inter-relationship of archaeological theory and practice, CHM and the politics of identity is analysed, using as a case study the history of archaeological and CHM practice in south-eastern Australia. A critical reading of Foucault's 'governmentality' thesis illustrates how archaeological knowledge has come to play a role in the regulation and arbitration of Aboriginal cultural identity in south-eastern Australia. In effect, archaeological knowledge becomes mobilized by public policy-makers as a 'technology of government' and becomes implicated in the governance of cultural identity. Further consequences of this process are that material culture, as 'heritage', becomes a resource of power in the politics of identity and archaeological practice, and theory itself, becomes regulated, or 'governed', by its inclusion in CHM.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
