Cited by 72Cultural Heritage Management and PreservationIndigenous Peoples' Rights and LawCultural Identity and Heritage

Indigenous governance of cultural heritage: searching for alternatives to co-management

Open access
Grey, Sam, Kuokkanen, Rauna·2020·International Journal of Heritage Studies

Abstract

In this paper, we critically examine the co-management of Indigenous peoples’ cultural heritage as simultaneously a driver and product of the culturalisation of Indigenous peoples: the reduction of complex legal-political orders, anchored in specific lands, value systems, rights, and practices, to material cultures. Co-management has been hailed as a defensibly imperfect, ‘tweakable’ system that benefits both Indigenous and state parties, and moreover, a stepping stone to Indigenous self-determination. Departing from these analyses, we argue that co-management is not just an administrative arrangement but also a state-ratified international rights regime, and accordingly, that it cannot do other than undermine Indigenous self-determination and imperil Indigenous peoples’ cultural heritage. We suggest that cultural heritage can only thrive by being actively engaged with in situ: via the living practice of Indigenous governance. Operationalising our argument, we first consider the challenges of cultural heritage protection in Sápmi; specifically, the co-management of Laponia, in Sweden, and the unprotected sacred area of Suttesája in Finland. We then discuss a more promising framework: the Quechua ‘Biocultural Heritage Territory’ of the Parque de la Papa, in Peru. Finally, we apply the lessons of the Parque to Suttesája, showing how this opens up governance-based avenues to safeguarding Indigenous sacred areas.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/13527258.2019.1703202

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Arctic Indigenous communities developed complex and heterogenous local governance regimes, including extensive customary laws and practices that co-evolved with hunting over millennia.

    “Arctic Indigenous communities developed complex and heterogenous local governance regimes (Grey and Kuokkanen, 2020), including extensive customary laws and practices that co-evolved with hunting over millennia (Huntington et al., 2021).”

    From Institutional navigation of oceans governance: Lessons from Russia and the United States Indigenous multi-level whaling governance in the Arctic (2022) · cites this paper as Grey and Kuokkanen, 2020

    The indexed passage labelled “1560 Lataukset (Pure)” describes Indigenous peoples’ complex legal-political orders, anchored in particular lands, rights, values and practices, and discusses examples in Sápmi. It does not establish the broader claim that Arctic Indigenous communities generally developed heterogeneous local governance regimes. The customary-law and hunting clause is attributed to Huntington et al., not to Grey and Kuokkanen, and is not judged here. (LLM, conf=0.78)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Indigenous co-management entities continue to fight and reimagine new decision-making frameworks in multi-level environmental spaces and oceans-related governance systems.

    “Indigenous co-management entities continue to fight and reimagine new decision-making frameworks in multi-level environmental spaces and oceans-related governance systems (Grey & Kuokkanen, 2020;Maxwell et al., 2020).”

    From Institutional navigation of oceans governance: Lessons from Russia and the United States Indigenous multi-level whaling governance in the Arctic (2022) · cites this paper as Grey & Kuokkanen, 2020

    The retrieved passages are bibliographic records and an abstract, not passages from the paper’s body. Searches for Indigenous co-management decision-making, multilevel environmental governance, and oceans-related governance found no body-text passage addressing the attributed claim. (LLM, conf=0.70)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Grey, S., & Kuokkanen, R.
Affiliations
  • University of Victoria (CA)
  • University of Lapland (FI)
Corresponding author
Grey, Sam
Venue
International Journal of Heritage Studies
Published
2019-12-17
Volume
26
Issue
10
Pages
919-941
ISSN
  • 1352-7258 (ISSN-L)
  • 1470-3610
OpenAlex
W2995414962
Cited by
72
References
3
Citations by year
2026: 14 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 14 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 2
FWCI
37.86
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
other-oa
Locations
  • International Journal of Heritage Studies (publishedVersion)
  • LaCRIS (University of Lapland) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • SSRN Electronic Journal (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Archeology › Cultural Heritage Management and Preservation
  • Social Sciences › Law › Indigenous Peoples' Rights and Law
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Archeology › Cultural Identity and Heritage
Keywords
Indigenous governance, cultural heritage, co-management, Indigenous self-determination, culturalization, sacred sites, Sápmi, Laponia, Quechua, heritage protection

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review