Section A: Introduction Chapter 1: Introduction and Methods 1.1 Heritage Interpretation The Queensland Department of Environment and Heritage in 1995 defined interpretation as ‘the process of stimulating and encouraging appreciation of our natural and cultural heritage and of communicating heritage conservation ideals and practices’ (Harmon-Price and Tweedie, 1996:3). Tourism Queensland (2000:2) noted that interpretation is ‘simply communication that assists visitors in the discovery and appreciation of their environment (e.g. natural, cultural etc.)… (and is)… a skilful mix of information, inspiration, entertainment and education.’ Interpretation can also be delivered in a variety of ways (e.g. signs, tours, brochures, displays). Despite the presence of these recently constructed definitions, there are many different assumptions found in the public domain as to what constitutes heritage interpretation. Harmon-Price and Tweedie (1996) argue that the general public poorly understands what heritage interpretation is exactly. Part of the problem may be that there are currently few standards or guidelines to follow for those working in the field of heritage interpretation. In the past, there seemed to be an underlying notion that heritage interpreters were born and not made, and thus there was an assumption that little could be done to impart the art of interpretation. To a certain extent the characteristics that make for a good interpreter may be innate; however this does not prevent interpreters from strengthening these characteristics and learning additional skills to increase the effectiveness of interpretation. As Tilden (1977:26) writes, ‘Interpretation is an art…(and) any art is in some degree teachable’. Research on heritage interpretation is however a relatively recent field. Tilden’s work Interpreting our Heritage, which has been regarded as a touchstone for heritage interpretation, was published as recently as 1957. The result of this relative absence of guiding research is that on global, national and more local scales, many 1 interpreters and other heritage professionals are currently engaged in debates about how heritage should be interpreted and what can be considered ‘best practice’ in the field. The Australia ICOMOS (International Council on Monuments and Sites) Burra Charter is often heralded as the guiding light in all matters regarding heritage conservation, both within Australia and in many nations abroad. Yet it was only in 1999 that it was amended to incorporate heritage interpretation (Australia ICOMOS, 2003). The 1999 Burra Charter recognised the importance of interpretation in educating visitors about heritage places and the role this could play in creating support for, and understanding of, the conservation of these places (Australia ICOMOS, 1999). Although interpretation is now listed in the Burra Charter, separate guidelines, such as those established for other aspects of conservation as outlined in the charter, have not yet been developed. As part of the annual Australia ICOMOS conference in late 2003, draft guidelines to the Burra Charter on interpretation were discussed and developed (Australia ICOMOS, 2003). It is hoped that these guidelines will contribute to the Ename Charter. The Ename Charter is an international set of guidelines on interpretation which are currently being developed by archaeologists based in Belgium in consultation with ICOMOS internationally (ibid.). Guidelines for interpretation are particularly important to ensure that interpretation is interesting, informative and above all inclusive. In Australia, with states such as NSW now requiring interpretation plans for developers who plan to work on heritage properties, the introduction of a set of guidelines will help ensure interpretation at heritage sites is of a reasonable standard. This thesis aims to capitalise on the immediacy of movements to develop guidelines for interpretation by engaging with the issues raised at conferences such as the Australia ICOMOS 2003 Annual Conference. This thesis examines the issues of heritage interpretation in Australia, and in particular, given Australia’s historical background, discusses how sites of ‘shared’ historic importance (sites that contain a past that is significant to both Indigenous and non-indigenous Australians) can be interpreted to present inclusive, informative and interesting portrayals of their history. 2 1.2 The Great Australian Silence, Black Arm Bands and White Blindfolds In any discussion of historic heritage interpretation (as opposed to environmental interpretation for example), trends related to the portrayal of history must be considered. In recent years, debates about the nature of Australian history have become prominent. Kelly (2003:8) writes that in Australia, it was in 1992 during the time of the Keating government that history was ‘harnessed… for his political purpose’ and was thus taken into the public arena. Kelly quotes Keating after his 1993 re-election when he stated that ‘Politicians who believe in their cause always have a story to tell. When a government cannot convey … a consistent story, the people lose faith in the government … (in this cause)… the Manning Clarks of the world, can help them do it… there is something of an affinity between politicians and the historians’ (Keating quoted in Kelly, 2003:8). Kelly states that Keating was creating his own story of the nation to help establish a cultural identity that was ‘republican, multicultural… (and)… integrated into the Asia-Pacific’ by drawing upon the work of historians Manning Clark and Henry Reynolds to integrate the past with the present (ibid.). A political attack against this manoeuvre was almost inevitable. It came in the form of a rebuttal from John Howard. Howard utilised the work of the historian Geoffrey Blainey, who formulated the notion of ‘black armband history’, which essentially argued that historians had taken an excessively negative and unjustified view of the development of the Australian nation. Robert Manne (2003a:11) writes that ‘Howard was the most consequential convert to the Blainey point of view’ and that when Howard ‘became Prime Minister, the History War was finally declared’. Tension was increasing on the battleground over the nature of Australian history. Manne (2003a:11) makes the point that when a ‘history war’ occurs the focus is almost always on aspects of the past, which ‘most seriously threaten to undermine the nation’s rosy self regard’. One example of Australia’s ‘history wars’ was the subject of Stuart Macintyre’s (2003) book in which the issue at the centre of the debate was the destruction of Aboriginal society. Questions such as how far the policy of removal of Aboriginal children was spread, whether the term genocide can be used in a discussion of Aboriginal 3 history, and how responsible is the Australian nation for the actions of the past have been at the forefront of this debate. Macintyre also highlights a new ‘front’ that is emerging in Australia’s history war – its key protagonist being Keith Windschuttle, whose attack on Australian history is unique because it was ‘one of the first to engage with the substance of history’ (Macintyre, 2003:221). Windschuttle has tried to create a new interpretation of Australian history with the publication of volume one of The Fabrication of Aboriginal History. In his book he argues that ‘the settlement of Australia was basically benign and that the destruction of Aboriginal society was a consequence of imported disease, missionary do-goodism, primitive dysfunctionality and the criminal proclivities of the Aborigines’ (ibid.). Reynolds (2003:8), one of Windschuttle’s main opponents, argues that Windschuttle’s agenda is to reinstate the concept of Terra Nullius. Windschuttle however has consistently asserted throughout 2003 that he has no political agenda and that all he aims to do is to reveal the ‘truth’ about Australia’s history. Windschuttle’s work has been critiqued in a series of books and articles that respond to his publication such as Whitewash, edited by Robert Manne. During 2003, there were also frequent newspaper articles, radio and television broadcasts detailing these alternative stances on history, along with a series of debates that were held across the country. The media attention on the debate has only served to make the issues more prominent. Disputes about the nature of Australian history have a far greater history themselves than the black armband debates of the 1990s and the recent re-emergence of history as a source of controversy with the publication of Windschuttle’s series of Quadrant articles and now volume one of the three volume series titled The Fabrication of Aboriginal History. Briefly, Aborigines, it has been argued, began to be excluded from Australian historical discourses when they increasingly became the subject of anthropology (Attwood, 1996). As anthropology evolved as a discipline, it became subject to theories of social evolution and the Australian Aborigines were championed as living examples of the origins of man. Aboriginal artefacts were collected as ‘pure’ examples of the primitive past, and contemporary Aboriginal people who had embraced aspects of European culture were regarded as ‘corrupted’ versions of primitive ‘man’. The place of Aboriginal people in prehistory, antiquity and anthropology rather than the historical domain was being secured (ibid.). Attwood also notes that the developing spatial geography of Australia also helped 4 cast Aboriginal people out