http://jsa.sagepub.comJournal of Social Archaeology DOI: 10.1177/1469605307077484 2007; 7; 250 Journal of Social ArchaeologyJon D. Daehnke and colonial legacies on the Columbia RiverA 'strange multiplicity' of voices: Heritage stewardship, contested siteshttp://jsa.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/7/2/250 The online version of this article can be found at: Published by:http://www.sagepublications.com can be found at:Journal of Social Archaeology Additional services and information for http://jsa.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Email Alerts: http://jsa.sagepub.com/subscriptions Subscriptions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions: © 2007 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution. at SONOMA STATE UNIV LIBRARY on October 29, 2007 http://jsa.sagepub.comDownloaded fromCopyright © 2007 SAGE Publications (www.sagepublications.com)ISSN 1469-6053 Vol 7(2):250–275 DOI: 10.1177/1469605307077484Journal of Social Archaeology ARTICLE250A ‘strange multiplicity’ of voicesHeritage stewardship, contested sites and colonial legacies onthe Columbia RiverJON D. DAEHNKEDepartment of Anthropology,University of California, BerkeleyABSTRACTCultural resource laws mandate the management and stewardship ofarchaeological sites located on federal property within the USA.Consultation with the appropriate stakeholders – usually local tribes– is an important component of this stewardship mandate. While theprocess of consultation is often routine, complexities arise whenconsultation concerns a site of contested heritage with multiple andinterdependent stakeholding voices. Additionally, continuing mani-festations of colonialism, such as the federal recognition process andstereotypical views of Native American authenticity, profoundlyshape the stewardship landscape. The following article uses a site ofheritage in the Pacific Northwest to explore the complex interplaybetween stewardship, stakeholders, and the continuing effects ofcolonial contact.KEYWORDScolonialism ● cultural resource management ● heritage stewardship ●stakeholders ● tribal recognition © 2007 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution. at SONOMA STATE UNIV LIBRARY on October 29, 2007 http://jsa.sagepub.comDownloaded from251Daehnke A ‘strange multiplicity’ of voices■ INTRODUCTIONIn a recent essay Alison Wylie argues that the concept of stewardship canonly play a useful role in reshaping the practice of archaeology if it is:. . . construed not as a matter of wise management on behalf of a higherinterest (that of science and, by extension, society or humanity) but as amatter of collaborative, negotiated co-management among divergentinterests (including archaeological interests) none of which can bepresumed, at the outset, to take precedence over the others. (2005: 65)As a model for what this ‘collaborative, negotiated co-management’ mightlook like, Wylie draws on the writings of political philosopher James Tullyand his views on constitutional pluralism. Tully’s primary questions arethese: Can modern constitutional systems accommodate interculturaldemands for recognition? Furthermore, how do we best approach negotiation and mediation between these varied intercultural voices (Tully,1995: 1)? Tully refers to these varied intercultural voices as a ‘strange multi-plicity’ that have ‘come forward in the uncertain dawn of the twenty-firstcentury to demand a hearing and a place, in their own cultural forms andways, in the constitution of modern political associations’ (1995: 3).My goal in this article is to illustrate how complex issues of culturalresource stewardship and heritage management can be in the twenty-firstcentury, to discuss a few of the many factors that must be taken intoconsideration when caring for the past, and to recognize the number andcomplexity of voices that may choose to be heard in the process. Followingthe example of Wylie, I draw on the work of Tully to provide a frameworkfor my discussion. I especially look to his description of the ‘strange multi-plicity’ of voices that demand recognition. Tully notes that these voices arenever homogeneous, they ‘are continuously contested, imagined and re-imagined, transformed and negotiated, both by their members and throughtheir interaction with others’ (1995: 11). Additionally, the voices are‘densely inter-dependent in their formation and identity’ and ‘exist incomplex processes of historical interaction’ (1995: 11). Finally, he notes thatthe challenge to many of these voices is that their demands for recognitionmust be expressed in a language that is not their own; they are ‘constrainedto use the language of the master’ (1995: 34). Their authenticity and identityas a voice is mediated within the idiom of colonial institutions.To provide tangible examples of the multiplicity of voices in con-versations surrounding heritage I present the story of cultural resourcestewardship of the archaeological site of Cathlapotle, located in Washing-ton state within the floodplain of the Columbia River. Due to a confluenceof federal ownership of the land and the involvement of both federallyrecognized and non-recognized tribal organizations as stakeholders, the siteserves as an excellent case study for addressing the complexity of heritage © 2007 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution. at SONOMA STATE UNIV LIBRARY on October 29, 2007 http://jsa.sagepub.comDownloaded from252Journal of Social Archaeology 7(2)voices in the twenty-first century. The heritage management of this siteraises a number of questions. For instance, how have the historical specificsof the region affected which voices are present to begin with? What is thepotential effect on stewardship when some of the voices are federallyrecognized while others are not? What role do colonial institutions and‘authoritative’ voices play in determining which voices are ‘sufficiently’legitimate and authentic? These questions reflect Tully’s argument thatcultural voices are never homogeneous, always inter-dependent and histori-cal, and often constrained to speak within a language that is not their own,and they are the focus of the remainder of this article.■ A NOTE ON METHODOLOGY AND MY POSITION AS AN‘INTERESTED STAKEHOLDER’Much of the data for this article