Re-Indigenizing Mitigation Processes and the Productive Challenge to CRM

Summary

What is mitigation? By definition, it is reducing the severity, seriousness, or painfulness of an event, development, procedure, or situation. As part of CRM mitigation processes, direct, indirect, and cumulative effects must all be identified in order to address any competent approach to and for mitigation. A key question must then also arise within any mitigation process – by whom is mitigation developed and implemented and for what and whose interests, concerns, benefits, and well-being? The bureaucratic recognition of TCPs in Bulletin 38 and in 1992 amendments to the National Historic Preservation Act have provided productive directives to identify and consider properties vital to different cultural groups. These directives have concomitantly presented a challenge to consider what sound mitigation may—or may not—be, as the significance of such places are defined far more by their integrity of associative relations. Avoidance is the mutually acceptable form of mitigation by tribes, agencies, industry and the CRM community; however, when it is agreed by all parties that avoidance is not feasible, we present examples from our experiences working with the Zuni of how cumulative effects and the Zuni worldview and associated cultural practices, must be considered and applied in the design of successful mitigation.

This Resource is Part of the Following Collections

• Society for American Archaeology 83rd Annual Meeting, Washington, DC (2018)

Keywords

Spatial Coverage

Record Identifiers

Abstract Id(s): 20018