PEOPLE AND THEIR PAST:
IS ‘COMMUNITY ARCHAEOLOGY’ THE FUTURE?
Marilyn Claire TRUSCOTT BA (Hons) MA
February 2016
Thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy (Applied Science)
University of Canberra ABSTRACT
This thesis looks at how ‘community archaeology’ ideals may influence an inclusive approach to Indigenous heritage management, ensuring Indigenous community power over processes to identify both past and present values of Country.
Community archaeology was acclaimed by research archaeologists over a decade ago as a distinctive approach with its own set of practices to incorporate the local community’s perspectives of its past and current associations with place. A core feature of this approach in Australia is the major role the Indigenous community has in decisions about its heritage. Concurrently, considerable concern was being expressed that Indigenous heritage was not sufficiently addressed in environmental impact assessment processes ahead of development. Seen as absent from the process was the inclusion of Indigenous knowledge about both the pre- and post-contact story as well as any scientific advance in understanding an area’s Indigenous history.
This research examines these contrasting perspectives seeking to understand the ideals of community archaeology and its potential to value all aspects of Indigenous heritage and so benefit the relevant community. The ideals of community archaeology build on past community collaborations in Australia and also respond to more recent societal recognition of Indigenous rights, reflected in more ethically inclusive planning and heritage statutes. Indigenous communities expressed the view that current systems are still not meeting these policy commitments to give them control over their heritage.
This research has examined the on-the-ground reality of heritage work on the outskirts of Canberra and Melbourne. The case studies compare Victorian and ACT heritage management processes across community partnerships with public land managers, and examine how pre-development surveys operate. I conclude that considerable potential for achieving community archaeology ideals exists, and that they are occasionally partially realised, however barriers continue. In essence, the archaeological model persists despite a community archaeology approach requiring a wider set of skills to ensure a comprehensive engagement with an Indigenous community. Other obstacles in the
v current Indigenous heritage management system include a lack of knowledge and communication about national standards for heritage processes in government agencies and heritage consultants; the administrative framework that can result in inertia or silos between relevant agencies; and funding timeframes that limit possibilities for long-term strategic programs for early identification and management planning for Indigenous heritage. Also, Indigenous communities have varying levels of authority to speak for how their heritage should be managed, yet may not have the resources to do so.
This thesis suggests ways to breach these barriers to achieve more inclusive Indigenous heritage management based on community archaeology principles. Policies for a greater acknowledgement of the Indigenous community’s authority to speak for Country; processes that enable and early and comprehensive ‘mapping’ of Country, and long-term resourcing of communities, may have been promised before. In this research I suggest ways to realise such goals.
vi ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This thesis is my own work, but I was assisted by many people in my research. Special thanks go to my principal supervisor, Dr Brian Egloff, and also Dr Tracy Ireland. Both have been very supportive, patiently persevering with me over the years to completion.
Many professional friends and colleagues have assisted, too many to name here, being academics, consultants and heritage agency staff. Their advice, critique, insights, and suggested references have been invaluable. I thank them all, but especially thank Emerita Professor Isabel McBryde for expressing her continued confidence in me.
I am grateful to the many government agencies and their staff, Indigenous and non-Indigenous, who opened their doors to me, gave me their time and provided information on Indigenous heritage management processes. Those in the ACT are: the Heritage Unit, the National Resources Management Council Secretariat, the Planning and Land Authority, and the Land Development Agency; and in Victoria: the Office of Aboriginal Affairs Victoria, and Melbourne Water.
Special thanks go to current and former staff of the Wurundjeri Tribe Land and Compensation Cultural Heritage Council, among others: Kristal Buckley, Megan Goulding, Darren Griffin, Fiona McConachie and Alex Parmington. I am also grateful for the opportunity for informal conversations with members of the four Registered Aboriginal Organisations in the ACT and Wurundjeri Council members in Victoria.
Thanks are also due to conferences organisers who accepted ‘work in progress’ papers on this topic: the Australian Archaeological Association, the European Archaeological Association, the International Council on Monuments and Sites, including Australia ICOMOS, and the Center of Heritage and Society, University of Massachusetts, USA.
Finally, thanks go to those friends who teased, cajoled and chivvied me along the way. My supportive family, especially my parents Neil and Claire Truscott, had encouraged an awareness and inclusive understanding of differences between cultures, resulting in wonderful professional and personal opportunities, for which I am eternally indebted.
vii Table of Contents
CONTENTS
Certificate of Authorship of Thesis ...... iii
Abstract ...... v
Acknowledgements ...... vii
Contents ...... ix
Tables ...... xxii
Figures ...... xxiii
Acronyms ...... xxv
1 INTRODUCTION ...... 1
1.1 The Context for this Research ...... 1
1.2 The Question in this Research ...... 6
1.2.1 Research Questions ...... 7
1.3 The Approach in this Research...... 8
1.3.1 Method ...... 8
1.3.2 Finding Case Studies ...... 11
1.4 Thesis Outline ...... 12
1.4.1 Part 1 - Setting the Research Context ...... 13
Introduction ...... 13
ix Table of Contents
Chapter 2 ...... 13
Chapter 3 ...... 14
Chapter 4 ...... 15
1.4.2 Part 2 - Case Studies ...... 16
Chapter 5 ...... 16
Chapter 6 ...... 16
The Conclusion ...... 18
Postscript ...... 19
2 WHAT IS ‘COMMUNITY ARCHAEOLOGY’? ...... 21
Introducing Archaeology with Community...... 21
2.1 Characterising ‘Community Archaeology’ ...... 21
2.1.1 Defining 'Community Archaeology' ...... 22
By the community or for the community ...... 23
Discovering 'Community Archaeology' in Australia ...... 25
2.1.2 Describing community archaeology ...... 28
The Quseir Strategy ...... 29
Barunga Protocols and South Australian Indigenous Voices ...... 33
2.1.3 Reviews of ‘Community Archaeology’ Practice ...... 34
x Table of Contents
'Community Archaeology' – An Australian critique ...... 35
Other perceptions of 'community archaeology' ...... 37
Summary...... 40
2.2 Archaeology and People – Changing Practice ...... 42
2.2.1 Recognising Indigenous Rights? ...... 43
2.2.2 Indigenous People Voicing their Rights ...... 51
2.3 Archaeology and People – Changing Perceptions? ...... 58
2.3.1 Archaeology as Coloniser? ...... 58
Power ...... 61
Part of Past ...... 63
‘Universalising’ Archaeology and Multiple Meanings ...... 64
Discussion ...... 66
2.4 Challenges for 'Community Archaeology' ...... 68
2.4.1 Insights and Issues for 'Community Archaeology' ...... 68
Appreciation of different perspectives on past and today’s spaces ...... 70
Continuity from past to present? ...... 71
Doubt about 'Community Archaeology' ...... 72
2.4.2 Questions for ‘Community Archaeology’ ...... 76
xi Table of Contents
3 COMMUNITY VALUE? ...... 81
Introducing the Value of Heritage to Community ...... 81
3.1 Valuing Heritage...... 83
3.1.1 Heritage: Interest and Identity ...... 83
Indigenous Identity ...... 85
‘Country’ not Sites ...... 90
Heritage Nourishing Community Wellbeing ...... 92
3.1.2 Archaeology’s Worth ...... 96
Archaeology—Common (Mis)Understandings ...... 97
3.2 Discovering Heritage Values...... 99
3.2.1 Revealing Social Value ...... 102
3.2.2 Today’s Meanings of the Past...... 109
Uncovering Scientific Value ...... 109
Not Science Alone ...... 111
Other Heritage Values ...... 112
3.2.3 Finding all Values Together ...... 113
Mapping Community Values ...... 113
Applying Significance Criteria ...... 117
xii Table of Contents
Dismissing Archaeology’s Use ...... 120
3.3 Money Matters – the Worth of Heritage ...... 121
3.3.1 Cultural Goods - Public Good ...... 122
Heritage as Public Good ...... 122
Inherent Value of Indigenous Sites ...... 124
Developing Land or Keeping Country ...... 125
3.3.2 Income from Indigenous Heritage ...... 127
Counting Tourism ...... 127
Earning in the Field ...... 129
Government Support ...... 132
3.4 Community Value - Summary of Issues ...... 135
4 COMMUNITY HAVING A SAY?...... 137
Introducing the Indigenous Heritage Framework ...... 137
4.1 Including Community - Guiding Principles ...... 138
4.1.1 International and National Statements ...... 138
Recognising Indigenous Rights to Heritage ...... 139
Ethical Codes for Professional Practice ...... 141
4.1.2 Practising these Principles ...... 148
xiii Table of Contents
Professional Obligations...... 148
Observing Standards of Practice ...... 153
4.2 Indigenous Heritage Laws and Community Role ...... 154
4.2.1 Trends and Issues in Legislation ...... 154
Community Control ...... 155
Who Speaks for Country ...... 156
Definitions ...... 156
Funding ...... 157
Capacity building ...... 157
Sharing Heritage ...... 158
4.2.2 Ngun(n)nawal and Koori Heritage Systems ...... 158
Having a Say about Country? Control or Consultation ...... 159
Indigenous Heritage Definitions and Significance ...... 163
4.3 Indigenous Views of Heritage Practice...... 166
4.3.1 Some General Opinions...... 167
Concerns of Indigenous Consultant Archaeologists ...... 171
4.3.2 Victoria – Responses to Heritage Legislation Review ...... 173
Wurundjeri and other Indigenous Views of Legislation ...... 173
xiv Table of Contents
Non-Indigenous Commentary – Victoria ...... 178
4.3.3 Capital Country – Responses to ACT Heritage Review ...... 180
Ngun(n)awal, Ngambri, Ngarigo Comments ...... 180
Non-Indigenous Commentary – ACT ...... 183
4.4 Capacity to Manage Indigenous Heritage ...... 185
4.4.1 Indigenous Community Heritage Management Capacity ...... 185
Governance ...... 185
Heritage Management Capacity...... 187
4.4.2 Capacity for Specialists in Indigenous Heritage ...... 191
Consultants’ Skills ...... 191
Cross-Cultural Awareness ...... 195
4.5 Challenges for Community Control? ...... 196
5 COLLABORATING ON COUNTRY ...... 199
Introduction ...... 199
5.1 Contexts for Collaboration ...... 200
5.1.1 Land Management Arrangements ...... 201
Indigenous Land Ownership ...... 201
Victorian Aboriginal Land Ownership ...... 203
xv Table of Contents
ACT Aboriginal Land Ownership ...... 204
Cultural Heritage Agreements ...... 205
5.1.2 Community, Country and Government Funding ...... 207
Ngunnawal Country Control ...... 208
Wurundjeri Country Control ...... 209
5.2 ‘Caring for our Country’ ...... 211
5.2.1 Reconnecting with Country ...... 211
Wurundjeri Elders on Country ...... 211
ACT Elders on Country Workshops ...... 214
5.2.2 Green Teams – Working in Country ...... 216
Caring for the Cotter Yurung Dhaura Team - ACT ...... 217
Wurundjeri Narrap Team ...... 219
5.2.3 Comments ...... 220
5.3 Cultural Heritage Collaborations ...... 221
5.3.1 Namadgi Rock Art Collaboration ...... 222
Partnerships ...... 223
Finding Indigenous views and values ...... 224
Comments ...... 227
xvi Table of Contents
5.3.2 The Merri Creek Indigenous Community Values Project ...... 229
Partnerships ...... 229
Finding Merri Creek’s Story...... 231
Indigenous knowledge and values ...... 233
Comments ...... 235
5.4 Analysis against 'Community Archaeology' Indicators ...... 237
5.4.1 Positives and Negatives of Public Land Partnerships ...... 239
Community Control ...... 239
Collaborative Project Approach...... 240
Understanding of Country ...... 241
Capacity Development and Employment ...... 243
5.4.2 Issues for an Indigenous Heritage Model ...... 244
6 DEVELOPMENT ON COUNTRY ...... 247
Introduction ...... 247
6.1 Context for 'Compliance Archaeology' ...... 249
6.1.1 Planning Systems ...... 249
6.1.2 Expectations versus Reality? ...... 256
6.2 Analysis of 'Compliance Archaeology' Reports ...... 262
xvii Table of Contents
6.2.1 Comparison of Pre-development Survey Reports ...... 262
6.2.2 Community Control ...... 265
6.2.3 Pre-development Survey Approach ...... 267
Landscape or Site-Based Approach ...... 267
Indigenous Input ...... 269
6.2.4 Increased Knowledge of Country ...... 272
Enhanced ‘Scientific’ Knowledge of Past ...... 272
Understanding Community Meanings of Country ...... 275
Significance Assessment ...... 277
Sharing Knowledge of Country ...... 283
6.2.5 Capacity Development and Employment ...... 283
Training ...... 284
Economic Benefit ...... 286
6.3 Discussion of Pre-Development Survey Analysis ...... 291
Development Priorities ...... 292
Impact Assessment Timeframes ...... 293
Management Silos ...... 294
Lack of Heritage Leadership ...... 295
xviii Table of Contents
7 CONCLUSION ...... 297
7.1 Research Question: Aims and Results ...... 297
7.1.1 The Research Background ...... 297
7.1.2 What is 'Community Archaeology'? ...... 298
7.1.3 Research Process ...... 300
7.1.4 Research Results ...... 301
Has community archaeology informed indigenous heritage practice in Australia? ...... 301
Has community archaeology provided benefits to Indigenous communities? ...... 302
Has community archaeology increased knowledge of the past? ...... 302
Does community archaeology have a future? ...... 303
7.2 Community Archaeology: A Capital Case or Winning Way? ...... 306
7.2.1 'Community Archaeology’ Comparisons ...... 306
7.2.2 Community Control ...... 307
7.2.3 Project Approach ...... 308
Indigenous Input ...... 308
Landscape Approach ...... 309
7.2.4 Understanding of Country ...... 309
xix Table of Contents
Enhanced Knowledge ...... 309
Significance Assessment ...... 310
Interpretation...... 311
7.2.5 Capacity and Employment ...... 311
Skills Gain / Training ...... 312
Employment / Income ...... 313
7.3 Barriers to Realising the ‘Community Archaeology’ Model ...... 313
7.3.1 Capacity and Experience ...... 314
Heritage management principles and processes ...... 315
Community resourcing and facilitation ...... 316
Research expertise in relevant disciplines ...... 318
Understanding of Land Management and Planning ...... 319
7.3.2 Administrative Framework ...... 319
7.3.3 Timeframes and Funding ...... 321
7.4 Future Possibilities for 'Community Archaeology'? ...... 322
7.4.1 Acknowledging Community...... 322
Collaboration if not Control ...... 323
Other Collaborative Approaches ...... 323
xx Table of Contents
Funding ...... 324
7.4.2 Mapping Country ...... 324
Gathering Past Information ...... 325
Finding Country ...... 327
Significance Assessment ...... 327
Management Planning ...... 328
Sharing Country ...... 328
7.4.3 Building Capacity ...... 330
7.5 Final statement...... 331
REFERENCES ...... 333
APPENDIX 1 - Glossary...... 397
APPENDIX 2 – List of Pre-Development Survey Reports...... 403
ATTACHMENT 1 – ACT Heritage Legislation Changes 2014 ...... 409
ATTACHMENT 2 – HERCON Heritage Significance Criteria ...... 413
ATTACHMENT 3 – NSW Values and Interests Recording Form ...... 415
xxi Table of Contents
TABLES
Table 1: Australians’ interest in ‘finding out more about heritage’ (Colmar Brunton 2004:1-2)...... 84
Table 2: Cultural attachment by remoteness, Indigenous persons 15yo+ (ABS 2002a:Table 1)...... 89
Table 3: Derived from ABS Language and Culture results – Social Survey (ABS 2008) ...... 89
Table 4: Culture, heritage and leisure element (McKeown 2010:16) ...... 94
Table 5: Questions set for criteria on social and scientific value (AHC 1998:34-35) ...... 118
Table 6: Professional Organisations and Ethics Codes / Guidelines ...... 150
Table 7: Australian Archaeologists according to type of archaeology (Ulm et al 2013) ...... 151
Table 8: Australian archaeologists according to type of work ...... 152
Table 9: ACCAI membership across states / territories ...... 152
Table 10: Legislative recognition of Indigenous ownership and control by jurisdiction (Schnierer 2011:28, Table 2)...... 154
Table 11: Cultural Heritage Advisors Victoria 2011 (AAV 2011b) ...... 192
Table 12: ACT Heritage Consultants by categories ...... 193
Table 13: ACT Indigenous consultants’ expertise ...... 194
Table 14: From NSW ‘Values and Interests Recording Form’ Country Values (Mick Kelly, Heritage Information Officer, Balranald Area Far West region, NSW Office of Environment and Heritage) ...... 215
Table 15: Assessment of community archaeology criteria for Partnership projects ...... 238
Table 16: Skills Development Comparison ...... 243
Table 17: Requirements for Pre-development Survey Reports ...... 259
Table 18: Assessment of community archaeology criteria for development projects ...... 264
Table 19: Formal role of Indigenous community in pre-development survey process ...... 265
Table 20 – Significance Criteria – ACT and Victoria ...... 277
Table 21: Suggested fees for RAP pre-development survey roles (AAV 2008:5) ...... 289
xxii Table of Contents
Table 22: Summary estimate of fieldwork income for ACT RAO members – 2010 ...... 290
Table 23 – Summary of Case Study Analysis of Case Studies against Community Archaeology Indicators ...... 305
FIGURES
Figure 1: Arnstein’s Ladder of Citizen Participation (1969:217, Figure 2) ...... 10
Figure 2: Feedback between researcher and Aboriginal people (Kelly 1975:15) ...... 49
Figure 3: Survey results of Aboriginal residents in Melbourne (Dugay-Grist 2009)...... 88
Figure 4: The Burra Charter Process (Australia ICOMOS 2013:10)...... 101
Figure 5: Stepping Stones for Heritage (Hall 2008) ...... 101
Figure 6: Meanings of place? (Byrne et al 2001: 57-Figures 3, 4)...... 103
Figure 7: The Consultation Process in Ask First (AHC 2002:7) ...... 146
Figure 8: Map of Wurundjeri Tribe Land and Compensation Cultural Heritage Council, Appointed RAP Area, 21 October 2013 (VAHC 2013) ...... 160
Figure 9: Project Stages showing method for the Merri Creek Indigenous Cultural Values Project by Wurundjeri Council (Parmington et al 2011b:7) ...... 231
Figure 10: ACT EIS process (ACTPLA 2013) ...... 252
Figure 11: Victoria EES process (DPCD 2011a) ...... 253
Figure 12: Role of Registered Aboriginal Party (RAP) in Victorian EES process (DPCD 2007:3) .. 254
Figure 13: Development and Archaeological Investigations (draft 2010), ACT Heritage Unit ...... 255
xxiii Table of Contents
ACRONYMS
AAA Australian Archaeological Association; AAA only refers to this association in this thesis; no other use is made of this abbreviation
AACAI Australian Association of Consulting Archaeologists Incorporated
AALC Australian Alps Liaison Committee
AAV Aboriginal Affairs Victoria
ABS Australian Bureau of Statistics
ACTPLA Australian Capital Territory Planning and Land Authority
AHC Australian Heritage Commission
AIATSIS Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies, formerly Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies (AIAS), 1964-1989.
CIT Canberra Institute of Technology
COAG Council of Australian Governments
EES Environmental Effects Statement
EIS Environmental Impact Statement
HERCON Heritage Convention: Australian Heritage Commission Heritage Convention, 1998
ICAHM ICOMOS International Committee on Archaeological Heritage Management
xxv Table of Contents ICOMOS International Committee on Monuments and Sites (including Australia ICOMOS)
ILC ILC (Indigenous Land Corporation)
INRAWG Interim Nimadi Rock Art Working Group
MCMC Merri Creek Management Committee
NRM Natural Resource Management
NSW New South Wales
NSW ALC New South Wales Aboriginal Land Council
PPWCMA Port Phillip and Westernport Catchment Management Authority
RAO Representative Aboriginal Organisation, in the ACT
RAP Registered Aboriginal Party, in Victoria
SoE State of the Environment
UN United Nations
UNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
WAC World Archaeological Congress
WTLCCHC Wurundjeri Tribe Land and Compensation Cultural Heritage Council (Wurundjeri Council)
xxvi Truscott – Introduction
1 INTRODUCTION
… it is suggested that community archaeology has a unique, if not critical, contribution to make to the future development of archaeology … (Marshall 2002b:211)
1.1 The Context for this Research
How may ‘community archaeology’ ideals influence an inclusive approach to Indigenous heritage management, ensuring Indigenous community power over processes to identify both past and present values of Country?1 This research aims to examine this question, triggered by both the acclaim community archaeology received over a decade ago by many research archaeologists, yet a view that no definitive account yet existed of community archaeology (Marshall 2002a). A core claim at that time was that community archaeology was a distinctive approach with its own set of practices and methodologies that incorporated the local community’s perspectives of the past and its heritage.
A key principle for community archaeology in Australia is that the community has control, or is at least an equal partner. This principle can be seen as a rebalancing of the power relationship between the academic researcher and the community whose past it is. Such a shift to inclusiveness reflected society’s ethical shift towards a greater recognition of Indigenous Australians’ rights to their heritage, as part of a growing social justice platform across all Indigenous issues in Australia. This shift in Indigenous rights has included an increasing recognition of Indigenous Australians ongoing link with their ‘Country’, the land and landscape of their heritage. ‘Country’ therefore not only contains tangible archaeological evidence of many thousands of years of occupation, but retains current intangible, spiritual meanings for their sense of identity.
The inclusion of local community knowledge, both tangible and intangible, is core to the ideas and ideals of this supposedly new approach in ‘archaeology’2 (Marshall 2002a). This knowledge extends to a community’s understanding of the past, and present
1 See Glossary Appendix 1. 2 See Glossary Appendix 1.
1 Truscott – Introduction connections to place, that are not based on scientific, including archaeological, methods. Other elements of community archaeology were said to include community capacity building, sharing and interpreting all these forms of knowledge of the past as cultural tourism, and the community’s economic gain from these processes (Marshall 2002a; Moser et al 2002).
Another stimulus for this research was the contrast of the possibly more abstract aims and ideals of community archaeology with the reality found in a review of archaeological processes in NSW (Byrne et al 2001). This analysis of NSW archaeological reports, the majority being of pre-development surveys, noted the surveys were confined to a purely archaeological approach to identifying Indigenous heritage, limited to ‘prehistoric’ periods, excluding post-contact history and ongoing community understandings of the area being surveyed.
At the time I began this research there was limited insight, and no research critique, as to whether this gap between the in the field reality and the aims of community archaeology was closing. There was also an imperfect understanding of how Indigenous people and communities saw archaeology, or the aims for community archaeology. Two researchers informed my initial research directions: Cameo Dalley (2004) examined community benefits community archaeology in Queensland, finding that a community-based project was the most beneficial to the community. Amy Roberts (2003) in her exploration of Indigenous views of archaeology in South Australia, discovered a mix of trust and distrust on the part of Aboriginal people dealing with archaeologists. In both theses, the issues the lack of full community consultation emerges as Indigenous key concerns. The results of both Roberts and Dalley are explored further in the following chapters, and provide important benchmarks for my research analysis.
Since I began this research, discussion about the most ethical approach to archaeological research and Indigenous heritage management has grown. However, practice has diverged, with more ethical, interactive community archaeology approaches increasing in research archaeology, and some aspects of Indigenous heritage management. By contrast, the earlier concern expressed about 'compliance archaeology' ahead of development
2 Truscott – Introduction persists (eg Sullivan 2008; McIntyre-Tamwoy 2013). Considerable frustration is voiced by Indigenous communities at the apparent lack of a comprehensive, integrated approach in 'compliance archaeology' to including all knowledge about a site or landscape. It is considered that part of this issue is due to a misunderstanding of the community archaeology model. Inherent to community, although not explicit in the early explanations, is that it broadens the required skill base beyond those of only archaeologists or community members to achieve such collaborative, comprehensive partnerships.
These perspectives on issues and possible barriers to arriving at a just and collaborative approach for the Indigenous past, and present community values prompted research direction towards Indigenous heritage management rather than to ‘pure’ archaeological research. This was partly due to a lack of such research projects in the areas chosen for study, but also because heritage management is such a dominant area of activity for Indigenous landscapes. In doing so, I selected case studies in different land management planning contexts, as a frame for this evaluation of different outcomes of projects with Indigenous communities and their heritage.
The personal context that triggered my undertaking this current research is from being both an observer and a player in Australian archaeological research and heritage management over many decades. The resultant experience and perspectives of changes in heritage practice caused me to wonder if all was going as well as supposed. I have worked in heritage management since the 1970s after academic studies in archaeology, including excavation at Indigenous archaeological sites in New South Wales (Lampert 1971; Megaw and Roberts 1974). My roles in this field have been as an archaeologist, heritage consultant, heritage agency official, museum curator, and lecturer, across four different jurisdictions, and throughout Australia at the federal level. Over those decades, I had management roles with key initiatives related to increased Indigenous community involvement in their heritage. Programs included community consultation, significance assessment advances for intangible heritage values, and facilitating capacity development for Indigenous communities, particularly when at the Australian Heritage Commission (AHC), the federal heritage agency.
3 Truscott – Introduction In 1985, I began work on Indigenous heritage at the Australian Heritage Commission, after being a senior archaeologist with the Victoria Archaeological Survey. This time was a turning point in approaches to Indigenous heritage, with increasing recognition that such heritage was not purely ‘archaeological’. The Australian Heritage Commission agreed to then Commissioner, Isabel McBryde’s urging to engage with Indigenous communities about their perspectives of their heritage. I supervised the process, including the supervision of the AHC’s first Aboriginal Liaison Officer, then recent and first Indigenous archaeology graduate, Dave Johnston, from 1989.
Other roles ranged from fostering studies of aspects of Indigenous heritage not previously recognised by the Australian Heritage Commission to ensuring their statutory protection by having them listed in the Register of the National Estate. Such projects included a range of special publications on contact heritage: from mission stations to massacre sites (eg Egloff 1987; Mulvaney 1989); Indigenous philosophy of Country (Rose 1996); and on social value (Johnston 1992). I also published articles or presented conference papers on relations between sites managers and traditional owners; Indigenous communities and their role in their heritage management; and social value and Indigenous heritage (eg Truscott 1987, 1992, 1993, 1995, 1996).
In the 1990s I managed the national Indigenous Cultural Heritage Protection Program (Truscott 1994a).3 This program produced the draft national guidelines for Indigenous heritage management (DCA 1996) that culminated in Ask First (AHC 2002); a national heritage training program for Indigenous sites managers (Hall et al 1994; Sullivan et al 2008); and funded key exemplar site conservation projects. At that time, I also co-ordinated the Indigenous Repatriation Program on the return from state museums to relevant communities of their human remains and secret-sacred items. This experience allowed me to gain a strong sense of the interconnectedness of all aspects of Indigenous heritage, as well as what Indigenous leaders and community members felt about the then state of Indigenous heritage management. This role in government was at the same time
3 Steered by an Inter-Departmental Committee from the Australian Heritage Commission, the Australian Institute of aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies, the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission, and the Department of Communication and the Arts
4 Truscott – Introduction as the community archaeology debate was emerging among Australian academic archaeologists. My understanding of the ongoing Indigenous communities’ connections to place, landscape—to Country, was enhanced during the Regional Forest Agreement process during the late 1990s.
I gained greater insights of Indigenous perspectives of their heritage in these professional roles, but I also broadened my appreciation of national and international perspectives of heritage during my active engagement with ICOMOS. The International Council on Monuments and Sites, the international professional heritage non-government organisation, has a strong interdisciplinary membership, including nationally as Australia ICOMOS. This multi- and cross-cultural and interdisciplinary engagement has permitted not only ongoing intellectual discussion but also international work with indigenous and minority peoples on different continents (eg Truscott 1994b). These experiences built on international post-graduate research and field experience, and a childhood in Australia as well as many other countries that provided me with an understanding of cross-cultural perspectives. This background was expanded by family members engaged in Aboriginal matters since the 1960s, 4 leading me to abandon Middle Eastern research for heritage management, and encouraged me to query any one standpoint or current position.
Changed attitudes and approaches to Indigenous heritage management were both fostered in these processes, and I had intimate experience of them. These shifts were situated within changing societal contexts that enabled these advances. The emergence of what community archaeology claimed was ‘new’, but also seemed ‘seen before’, provided hope for a more collaborative, shared experience, coming as it did at the time of a strong expectation of reconciliation between settlers and Indigenous Australians. However, I was caused to wonder if all was going as well as supposed, especially in more recent years, as there seems to have been a disconnection between some areas of Indigenous heritage activity and others. I asked myself: ‘Is the wider application of “community archaeology” the answer to resolve issues, such as those identified by Byrne et al (2001)
4 My father’s role on the Inter-Department Committee on Racial Discrimination that let to the 1967 Referendum (Chesterton 2001), and a sister teaching Aboriginal children at the Amoonguna Community outside Alice Springs.
5 Truscott – Introduction related to Indigenous heritage management, particularly the apparent disregard of Indigenous traditional knowledge in ‘compliance archaeology”?’.
1.2 The Question in this Research
A core question in this research is what actually community archaeology is, and whether the claims for this model can be substantiated. It is clear in the literature review, that there are different ideas inherent in the term, and relatively little research into its application. Dalley’s (2004) study in Queensland remains the only attempt within Australia to analyse and theorise the claims for community archaeology. She identified that projects initiated by the community itself best match the community archaeology indicators with research archaeology meeting these the least (see Chapter 2).
Dalley’s research did not analyse Indigenous community views of this approach, and she identifies this as a gap, particularly how having greater control benefits the community (Dalley 2004:57). However, Roberts (2003) identifies Indigenous South Australians’ views of archaeology, including archaeological heritage management, although not explicitly researching community archaeology. Her research results indicate Indigenous concern about consultation processes, and a dismissal of their voice, or say about their heritage, in both research and in pre-development surveys. Yet these results, available when this research began, demonstrated an unanswered question: whether a greater control or equal partnership for the relevant community resulted in a more comprehensive knowledge of the past, and also benefits the relevant community.
The dialogue about community archaeology was held primarily among research archaeologists, and focussed in more remote areas of Australia. Neither academic research nor remote areas reflects the dominant form of archaeological practice in Australia. Most archaeologists work in contract archaeology or in heritage management (Ulm et al 2005, 2013). Also, it is in the more populated areas of Australia, where the majority of Indigenous Australians (74%) live, where most ‘archaeological activity’ occurs, and where most impacts on Indigenous heritage result. I find that the community archaeology model is equally applicable to heritage management. Community
6 Truscott – Introduction archaeology aims matches key agenda of heritage management to identify, acknowledge and maintain the value of sites, and settings, from past lifestyles that:
have the potential to answer research questions
demonstrate typical or rare aspects of the past, and present
are associated with today’s Indigenous communities.
In this context and beyond the specifics of the claims made for community archaeology in the research context, is the broader and stated desire by those who initiated the notion of this approach. These aims include finding a means to both understand the past, privilege Indigenous communities connection to Country, and enhance a wider understanding of Indigenous heritage in its many forms among the wider community. As such 'community archaeology' is broader than ‘archaeology’, and needs to be acknowledged as such. How Indigenous heritage management may be better and more beneficial to the relevant Indigenous community by drawing on community archaeology ideals is the key question for this research.
1.2.1 Research Questions
Key questions pursued in this research therefore are:
What is community archaeology?
Has community archaeology informed indigenous heritage practice in Australia?
Has community archaeology provided benefits to Indigenous communities?
Has community archaeology increased knowledge of the past?
Does community archaeology have a future?
These research questions are essentially investigating what changes in current Australian Indigenous heritage management might be made to foster a greater integration of all knowledge and expertise. Such changes in Indigenous heritage management practice would see an approach that respects different understandings of the past and present values of landscape, as well as benefitting the relevant Indigenous community whose heritage it is.
7 Truscott – Introduction 1.3 The Approach in this Research
The research is essentially exploratory of current praxis in Indigenous heritage management. The research extends beyond pure archaeological research for two reasons: firstly, the community archaeology principles clearly reflect the acknowledgement of multi-vocal understandings of the past, such as those held by the local community; and secondly, archaeological heritage, and its management, is situated within wider land management imperatives, requiring an understanding of all the Indigenous values of an area in order that these be protected to benefit the community, within competing demands and expectations of that land. Examples of 'compliance archaeology' were therefore compared with the management of Indigenous heritage in protected areas. As a result some common community archaeology approaches were sought in this research that might be applied whatever the land use category to ensure the best outcome for Indigenous heritage wherever located.
1.3.1 Method
A case study method was chosen as the best means to gather data for this research. A case study is defined as an exploration of a ‘bounded system’ … a program, an event, an activity, or individuals’ (Creswell 1998:61, quoted in Zach 2006:5). In choosing a case- study methodology, it was intended to use multiple case-studies, comparing like with like and with different cases, using principally in depth interviews, but also some survey, and historical / documentary research (eg past project reports, files etc). The multiple case-study method recommends undertaking more rather than fewer case-studies to replicate and compare results (Yin 2003).
The region of Australia selected was south-eastern Australia, because past comment on community archaeology in Australia tended to be in remote, ‘traditional’ Indigenous communities (eg Greer et al 2002). This decision was deliberate to provide a contrast with this remote community archaeology undertaken in northern regions of Australia. After considerable consideration and consultation regarding comparative analysis between Victoria and New South Wales were not realised, the two study areas chosen were the Australian Capital Territory (ACT) in 2008, and in Victoria in 2010. These
8 Truscott – Introduction choices were made subsequent to approaches to relevant Indigenous community groups for their agreement and input as part of the final selection process. In Victoria, it was the Wurundjeri Tribe Land and Compensation Cultural Heritage Council in Melbourne (Wurundjeri Council), that welcomed my research and offered to contribute. The involvement of these communities in their heritage in two different jurisdictions is compared across two types of heritage management activity: pre-development surveys and the management of protected areas. The former is now a dominant activity for Indigenous communities and archaeologists, and the latter an area of growing partnership between community and land managers.
Criticisms of the case study method as not being able to generalise, or that it is only useful to generate hypotheses, or that it has a bias with a tendency to confirm the researcher’s preconceived notions, are refuted by Flyvbjerg (2006:219):
… a scientific discipline without a large number of thoroughly executed case studies is a discipline without systematic production of exemplars, and a discipline without exemplars is an ineffective one. Social science may be strengthened by the execution of a greater number of good case studies.
A multiple case study method was applied because of its capacity to ‘explore and confirm or disprove patterns’ as summarised by Zach (2006:9):
… the multiple–case studies design allows the researcher to explore the phenomena under study through the use of a replication strategy. Yin (1994) compares the use of the replication strategy to conducting a number of separate experiments on related topics. Replication is carried out in two stages—a literal replication stage, in which cases are selected (as far as possible) to obtain similar results, and a theoretical replication stage, in which cases are selected to explore and confirm or disprove the patterns identified in the initial cases. According to this model, if all or most of the cases provide similar results, there can be substantial support for the development of a preliminary theory that describes the phenomena (Eisenhardt 1989).
In fact given the lack of any real theoretical framework for the community archaeology approach, such a case study method provides a platform for this essentially exploratory research. The community archaeology ideals have been adopted as ‘indicators’ to assess the case studies. The package of community archaeology indicators denote how
9 Truscott – Introduction collaborative, and inclusive of Indigenous knowledge, are the different Indigenous heritage management activities. These indicators fall into three categories: the approach to the project, including how comprehensive it has been; the understanding of Country and its values gained; and the capacity building and employment gained. All these are critiqued against the criterion for community collaboration or control.
A tool applied to defining the level of Indigenous community ‘control’ over their heritage was first presented for communities’ involvement in planning in the USA. The ‘Arnstein Ladder’ presents the level of any genuine community say in decisions that impact on them, as against a more tokenistic, even cynical notion of the tickbox (Arnstein1969:217, Figure 2).
Figure 1: Arnstein’s Ladder of Citizen Participation (1969:217, Figure 2)
This Ladder demonstrates the potential levels of full Indigenous ‘power’ or rights over their heritage. Although as this research has found, the term ‘consultation’ is frequently
10 Truscott – Introduction applied and may be a full partnership of delegated power or merely be the appearance of having some real leadership over their heritage, and therefore in fact tokenistic.
1.3.2 Finding Case Studies
Arriving at an agreed project, method, and involvement by community and other parties alike proved complex: timing, availability, vested interests, were all issues resulting in some proposals being rejected or unavailable in the preferred timeframe, thus blocking preferred research directions.
Comparative studies in Indigenous Australia, with a preference for south-eastern Australia, were quickly decided on despite initial thoughts of international comparisons. The initial method for selecting the case study collaboratively with Indigenous communities proposed the following steps:
identifying a possible project
discussing with relevant heritage agencies
only then approaching relevant Indigenous communities to hold exploratory discussions and to seek approval
refining the case study approach with the community
The preferred type of case study was a linear project that crossed state borders to both compare different statutory approaches between jurisdictions and different community responses to Indigenous archaeological and heritage projects. It however proved to be difficult to find a replicated case study, and in 2009-10 it was arranged with relevant communities and agencies to compare ACT Indigenous heritage management processes with those in Victoria, with the Wurundjeri Council there agreeing to be that case study community. More recently the Wurundjeri Council has been studied comparing planning and land rights processes for Indigenous groups in Victoria, Australia and British Columbia, Canada (Porter and Barry 2013), that has useful comparative data for my research.
11 Truscott – Introduction In arriving at these study areas, the method had also shifted to a comparison of archaeological and heritage projects in protected areas and as part of pre-development impact assessments. A mix of qualitative and quantitative analyses was applied, despite initially anticipating only qualitative interviews. Publicly available community views provided extensive information, important to the research method, especially given in the ACT, the Indigenous communities, although welcoming this research preferred not to sign the University of Canberra Committee for Ethics in Human Research consent forms, and therefore were not formally interviewed. Considerable data were also available in Indigenous heritage management reports, community reports on their involvement in their heritage management, and pre-development survey reports. These reports were scrutinised against the community archaeology indicators.
Valuable information and insights into Indigenous heritage processes and issues arising were also gained during the time spent identifying and negotiating possible case studies. From the outset, the data analysed has been informed substantially by the information and assistance given by many agencies, individuals, the initial informal input by Indigenous community members, and their publicly available voice.
The study areas and case studies finally selected were because it was considered that they could provide information descriptive of processes as well as explanations of certain results, whether successful or failures. The aim was also to identify possible underlying conditions that assisted a fuller realisation of the community archaeology ideal or not.
1.4 Thesis Outline
The thesis is structured into two main parts. The first part, chapters 2 to 4, after the Introduction, consists of a background analysis, combining literature surveys and data available from government agencies that frame the heritage, land management and land development structures and systems in the study areas. These chapters set the scene for the second part, with two case studies, chapters 5 and 6, examining different aspects of Indigenous heritage management and whether the community archaeology ideals were being applied. The analysis examines if the application of community archaeology results
12 Truscott – Introduction in a more comprehensive and collaborative heritage management. The case studies also identify whether the results include an increased knowledge of the past as identified via archaeological processes as well as other understandings of the past and landscape according to Indigenous community knowledge. Reasons for the projects reviewed not meeting the community archaeology ideals are identified where possible. The thesis ends with a conclusion in chapter 7.
1.4.1 Part 1 - Setting the Research Context
Introduction
This introduction considers the context and issues that prompted this research. I outline the impetus for the research, including gaps in debate about community archaeology. I explain the essentially exploratory nature of my research, and present my research questions. I outline the research approach, methods, issues and the search for case study projects for analysis and their resolution. A summary of the thesis outline, chapter by chapter, with core aims, processes, and summary results is given.
Chapter 2
This background chapter explores the concept of community archaeology, its genesis, and claims made for it, especially in Australia. This critique results in a definition of community archaeology that is applied to this research.
The aim of the critique is to better understand this proposed model for collaborative archaeology with communities, and identify issues that emerge from previous discussion. The following claims for community archaeology are analysed in this chapter: that control rests with the community; that Indigenous views are incorporated into the archaeological interpretation of the past; that community archaeology benefits the community economically and socially; and, that the community archaeology approach is new.
A core assertion for community archaeology is that the community should have control of archaeological processes, or at least a decisive role. This chapter’s history of
13 Truscott – Introduction Indigenous heritage management indicates an increasing acknowledgement of Indigenous rights and their input into decisions about their heritage. This aspect of ‘control’ is examined further in Chapter 4 in terms of statutory compliance. Yet debates about the ‘decolonisation’ of archaeology and the emergence of post-processual archaeology examined in this chapter indicate that a power imbalance still holds between ‘expert’, such as an archaeologist or heritage practitioner, and an Indigenous community. The level of control held and applied by the Indigenous community, a core indicator of community archaeology is questioned in my research case studies.
Inclusion of the community’s understandings of its past is a core element of the community archaeology model. Those fostering community archaeology as new identified this aspect, along with community control, as a key difference to past archaeological practice. Yet a literature review reveals that the claims that community archaeology is a new approach are largely unfounded as community archaeology has been on a spectrum of archaeological practice since the 1970s to the present. Nonetheless, more recent socio-political changes have resulted in increased Indigenous rights, and provide a different context for today’s interaction between community and researcher.
Other aspects of community archaeology are examined in this chapter, including employment as a result of involvement in its heritage. The review of all these community archaeology elements results in community archaeology indicators for this research.
Chapter 3
This chapter focuses on the values associated with Indigenous heritage: the importance ascribed to it, and societal benefits gained from Indigenous heritage. A literature review examines whether heritage is important, to whom, and why; the application of significance criteria for Indigenous heritage; and, any economic benefits that may accrue to a community from their heritage.
The key results of this chapter’s overview are that heritage is important to wider society, yet Indigenous heritage is not seen to be as important as is the natural environment. Also,
14 Truscott – Introduction there is an economic benefit to be derived by the Indigenous community from their heritage, both from cultural tourism, and from employment in pre-development surveys. A key finding is that there is an ongoing misunderstanding of Indigenous heritage; it is understood generally as either from the archaeological past, or as a static, traditional, unchanging culture, only found in remote Australia, linked with natural values, and ignoring contemporary social values. This limited view of Indigenous heritage is a potential barrier to the recognition of Indigenous heritage in inner regional, or urban Australia, and is a focus for this research.
Chapter 4
This chapter sets out the current administrative context for the case study research, as well as analysing the ethical and legal frameworks for Indigenous heritage in the two study areas—the ACT and Victoria. Both study areas had new legislation in the past decade, now undergoing review. The newer legislation recognised Indigenous rights over their heritage to a greater degree. But there are differences between the two study areas, more ‘control’ being allocated in Victoria than in the ACT, where a largely ‘consultative’ role continues.
Submissions to current legislation reviews provide Indigenous community perspectives, as well as those from practitioners involved in Indigenous heritage management. These views highlight a gap between rhetoric and reality in how Indigenous heritage is being identified and protected; an issue that is explored in this thesis. A core issue for the Indigenous community is that their heritage is largely defined in terms of its ‘cultural’, or social attachment, to the community, yet the approach in management processes remains largely ‘scientific’. The significance criteria applied in Indigenous heritage practice are closely scrutinised and demonstrate a lack of understanding of broader heritage significance assessment criteria and processes.
This chapter also critiques international and national ethical standards for Indigenous culture and heritage and the obligations for governments, and those involved in Indigenous heritage management. These standards require a greater control from the relevant community in decisions about their heritage, a core part of the community
15 Truscott – Introduction archaeology model. Questions whether these standards are met by applying that model are asked in the case studies.
1.4.2 Part 2 - Case Studies
Chapter 5
This first case study chapter reviews publicly funded projects in protected areas in terms of whether and how they apply the community archaeology model, and if so, what benefits this contributes to Indigenous heritage, and the Indigenous community. The individual projects in both the ACT and Victoria include highly collaborative partnerships on public land, and also Caring for our Country projects enabling Elders to visit Country, as well as training projects for ‘Green Teams’. Each project is assessed against the community archaeology indicators.
My analysis indicates that the projects most closely meeting the community archaeology indicators of community collaboration or even control do result in a more comprehensive understanding of the past and present heritage on Country. These projects also result in a greater community capacity to manage its heritage and provide some economic benefits. The potential to share Country, such as with cultural tourism, is also enabled.
The analysis in this case study indicated that a more comprehensive ‘landscape-based approach’ to the identification and management of heritage is more likely where longer project timeframes are permitted. Community members involved in these ‘shared projects’ gain in both knowledge of their Country, including archaeological information, as well as heritage management knowledge including significance assessment. However, many of these projects are not long-term, and their temporary nature limits the benefits to the community’s capacity to manage their heritage.
Chapter 6
The second case study chapter addresses today’s dominant archaeological practice: pre- development surveys or 'compliance archaeology'. Thousands of such surveys are
16 Truscott – Introduction undertaken throughout Australia each year, most undertaken in the suburban extension of the major cities.
Pre-development surveys have been frequently damned for neither producing a better understanding of the past nor a genuine inclusion of Indigenous communities’ understanding of Country (eg Byrne et al 2001; Sullivan 2008). This chapter examines the processes and results of such surveys against the community archaeology model to identify whether the approach is now applied and if so why not. Survey reports are analysed from the urban surrounds in the ACT and around Melbourne, Victoria. The answer is that community archaeology is not applied. Despite legislation and planning policies stating all aspects of Indigenous heritage are to be identified, the surveys restrict themselves largely to archaeological evidence.
Despite Victorian community groups having more control, my analysis of both study areas demonstrates the results differ little. There are also few gains in terms of a greater understanding of the past from the archaeological results; research questions are not posed, and therefore not answered. There is little inclusion of Indigenous understandings of Country. Significance assessment does not meet current best practice. The community archaeology indicator that is met most closely is the economic benefit from community employment in such pre-development surveys.
A core research question for this case study comparing pre-development processes in the ACT and Victoria is why this lack of results persists. One area examined outside possible failures in heritage practice is the land management context for such pre-development surveys. The findings suggest that the current land development ‘business model’, and also possibly that of consultant archaeologists, dominate, The timeframes for pre-development surveys are too short, and there is a communication failure between all players involved in the identification and protection of Indigenous heritage prior to development.
17 Truscott – Introduction The Conclusion
This chapter concludes this research by highlighting key spheres of Indigenous heritage management where a more collaborative approach to Indigenous heritage can be taken according to community archaeology principles. I end by examining the potential for community archaeology to contribute to improved Indigenous heritage management in the future.
The research results demonstrate that where community archaeology informs Indigenous heritage management projects the following is achievable:
a greater understanding of Indigenous knowledge of Country being incorporated into project results
a greater capacity for a community to manage its heritage, including an understanding of core Indigenous heritage management principles and processes
wider societal appreciation of Indigenous aspects of Australian heritage, if ‘sharing Country’ is part of projects
an economic benefit to the community is likely from most Indigenous heritage management projects
However less probable currently in some community archaeology processes is:
any assurance of a greater knowledge of the past based on archaeological inquiry, although some projects ensure a greater Indigenous community understanding of past research results
This research demonstrates that community archaeology potentially results in a more collaborative Indigenous heritage management. The community archaeology process ensures greater connections between expert and community, and heightens community reconnections with Country in urban areas. But this research also demonstrates an ongoing disconnection with some aspects of Indigenous heritage management where neither the archaeological past nor Indigenous knowledge of Country benefit. Possible reasons for the latter are given, and possible solutions proposed. The conclusion to this research recommends key changes that adopt community archaeology ideals to ensure
18 Truscott – Introduction that a more consistent and integrated approach is ensured for Indigenous heritage management across all forms of land management.
Postscript
On 25 September 2014, the ACT Legislative Assembly passed the Heritage Legislation Amendment Bill 2013 (ACT LA 2014). The amendments came into effect immediately. An outline of the changes relevant to this research is at Attachment 1, being an information sheet of the ‘Approvals processes for archaeological works in the ACT’ (ACT 2614a), with an accompanying letter from the Minister for Heritage, Mick Gentleman, MLA, dated 25 September 2014. Brief comments on these changes are made where relevant in this thesis, but the implications for archaeological heritage management in the Australian Capital Territory have not been analysed in detail, as being only two months before submission of this thesis, their implementation in practice is as yet unclear.
19 Truscott – Chapter 2 – What is ‘Community Archaeology’?
2 WHAT IS ‘COMMUNITY ARCHAEOLOGY’?
Community archaeology seeks to diversify the voices involved in the interpretation of the past. This sub-discipline, one of the fastest growing areas of the field, facilitates mutual education between archaeologists and communities. (Tully 2007:155)
Introducing Archaeology with Community
This chapter outlines what community archaeology is, and how it emerged from broader changes in archaeological practice, triggered by societal and political shifts. Claims for community archaeology are first examined: what is it understood to be, how is it practised, and what views are there about it? A growing literature on community archaeology, with many other names, is reviewed, highlighting a lack of clarity in meaning and practice.
The context for the emergence of community archaeology is then reviewed. Wider social shifts, such as the recognition of Indigenous people and their rights, occurred globally. The focus in this research is on the Australian experience, yet set within the wider context, particularly the Anglo-world’s ‘settler’ countries.5 The archaeological disciplinary responses are framed by the recent postcolonial debate about the moral responsibilities towards those whose past is being researched. Community archaeology, a supposedly ‘new’ form of archaeology, is one such response, claimed to have greater ethical merit than ‘traditional archaeology’.
2.1 Characterising ‘Community Archaeology’ … authors who have adopted a community archaeology approach, particularly those from Australia, have tended to take a circular approach in counter-citing one another to justify their choice of methodology … Some authors align themselves with community archaeology without explanation of how they employ the term. (Dalley 2004:14)
5 ‘Settler’ countries refers to those countries colonised by Europeans in the past 500 years, where today the majority are from those colonising countries, and other countries, the Indigenous community being a minority. In the Anglo-sphere, these ‘settler’ countries are Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the USA.
21 Truscott – Chapter 2 – What is ‘Community Archaeology’? Community archaeology is defined as ‘archaeology by the people for the people’ in the community encyclopaedia, Wikipedia6 (2006, 2009, 20127). Despite this claim, any clear definition of community archaeology is elusive, community archaeology being applied, or understood, differently, internationally, including within Australia. Thus, Dalley’s observation about the lack of explanation or clarity of the term is correct. Indeed no consistent, agreed definition is given for this supposedly new form of archaeology.
Yet community archaeology is a term increasingly seen and applied to archaeological projects across the world, with organisations, publications and websites using it in their title. It was claimed to be a fast-growing sub-set of archaeology (eg Moser et al 2002; Marshall 2002a; Tully 2007:155). The following discussion aims to clarify the uses and meanings of this term, resulting in a definition used for this research.
2.1.1 Defining 'Community Archaeology'
Marshall defines community archaeology as archaeological research that involves the local community in the investigation and interpretation of the past, resulting in an interactive role rather than reactive one for the local community (2002b). But the term community archaeology is not entered in the Penguin Dictionary of Archaeology (Bahn 2004). However as said, the term community archaeology is understood and applied differently, and have even made it to the creative commons website encyclopaedia, Wikipedia (2009), since 2006. The different types and understandings of community archaeology processes are:
Archaeology undertaken in collaboration with the local Indigenous community, sometimes also called ‘indigenous archaeology’ in North America (eg Marshall
6 Collaboratively developed by users, this community collaboration does not cite authors, yet with some 80 references, the entry clearly present current expertise and debate, it is clearly written by those competent to do so. 7 This Wikipedia entry records changes over time and the developing discussion on this approach to archaeological practice. The original 17 August 2006 entry being devoted to the form originally dominant in England, being archaeology initiated by the community, or by ‘public participation’, the 24 June 2009 version included ‘settler countries’ experience, the 23 April 2012 modification, shows a greater focus on North American applications.
22 Truscott – Chapter 2 – What is ‘Community Archaeology’? 2002a; Watkins 2000, 2003a, b; Kerber 2006; Atalay 2012:39-42); and 'community archaeology' in Australia (eg Marshall 2002a; Harrison and Williamson 2002a)
Archaeology undertaken with local descendant or ‘diaspora’ communities, being minority groups, such as in the USA, Afro-American descendants of slaves (eg McDavid 1997, 2007; Malloy 2003)
Archaeology by public participation (such as in the United Kingdom) (eg Trigger 2006; Carman 2011; Jackson et al 2014)
Archaeology as public education, or as outreach (eg Jameson 2003; Lynott 2003; Wille 2008)
This research focuses on Australia’s Indigenous communities, and therefore public participation projects, community-led, or outreach projects may not seem relevant, some assuming that it is somehow not practised with Indigenous groups. However, the thesis research demonstrates that all these forms of community archaeology can enhance a community’s meaningful engagement with its heritage, and therefore explained below. It is therefore inappropriate to single out a community’s archaeological heritage; the archaeological aspect is situated within a community’s broader understanding of its cultural heritage. And that wider cultural heritage is inherently part of a broader societal perspective on past and present meanings of landscape.
By the community or for the community
Community-led archaeology, in its original guise as ‘archaeology for all’ (CBA 2009), emerged in the UK, especially England. It was a genuine ‘amateur archaeology’, being initiated and run by community groups. Very popular, this version of community archaeology was primarily about ‘digging’. Widely undertaken until 2001, this version became no longer legally possible when the UK finally ratified the 1992 ‘Valetta Convention’, the European Convention on the Protection of Archaeological Heritage (Council of Europe 1992). This Convention requires qualified archaeologists to steer all archaeological projects.
23 Truscott – Chapter 2 – What is ‘Community Archaeology’? Nonetheless, community involvement continues, but with an archaeologist, fostered since 2006 by the non-government Council of British Archaeology’ Community Archaeology Forum (CBA 2014). Today, the definition of community archaeology is thus moderated to be ‘those projects run by communities themselves [but with an archaeologist] or in dialogue between “professional” and “amateur” groups and individuals’ (Simpson and Williams 2008:69). Since then expectations of a community’s greater engagement with their heritage, including archaeological sites, emerged from the 2012 Localism Act by the Conservative Government. The government’s ‘Big Society’ localism agenda saw a devolution of power and financial support to local government with an expectation of volunteerism and private funding, such as for the required archaeologist (Jackson et al 2014). It is as yet unclear what benefit or harm for 'community archaeology' and the relevant community this localism policy may have.
Community archaeology is also widely used to refer to community outreach or public education about the archaeological process, sometimes known as ‘public archaeology’8. Literature in Europe and North America shows that such engagement with the local community is quite prevalent, with events such as ‘Archaeology Week’,9 and media programs such as Britain’s Channel Four Television Corporation’s ‘Time Team’. There is clearly an overlap with the ‘archaeology by the people’ described above, but it reaches a wider, perhaps different, audience than participants who initiate fieldwork. This form has parallels in Australia with the public programs of historical archaeology’s urban ‘Big Digs’.10 The benefits of such public outreach are that it may clarify and create greater respect for archaeological aims and processes, thus diffusing popular misunderstandings, or ‘pseudoarchaeology’.11 For as research shows, general societal misconceptions are common about archaeological practice, often romanticising what archaeology is, or
8 Again a term that is potentially confusing as having been, and still being used, for ‘cultural heritage management’ (eg Merriman 2004). 9 Now also held in Australia, since 2003 by the Australian Archaeological Association, in partnership with other professional, community and government bodies. 10 For example, Casselden Place, Melbourne (Heritage Victoria 2002); Cumberland /Gloucester Streets Site, The Rocks, Sydney (Godden Mackay 1999; Karskens 1999) 11 Pseudoarchaeology, fantastic archaeology, cult archaeology, and cryptoarchaeology: the unscientific interpretation of material remains and sites, which may or may not represent genuine archeological data.
24 Truscott – Chapter 2 – What is ‘Community Archaeology’? thinking ‘archaeology’ is only found overseas, potentially impeding informed decisions about archaeological heritage in Australia (see Chapter 3).
Discovering 'Community Archaeology' in Australia
Marshall saw Australia as being at the forefront of the application of community archaeology with Indigenous peoples (2002b:212). When does community archaeology emerge in Australia and how? Many see Annie Clarke’s 1994 doctoral thesis as beginning the use of the term in Australia (Clarke 1994). But Shelley Greer gave a paper as early as 1989, at the Australian Archaeological Association (AAA) conference titled ‘Northern Directions: a community-based approach in archaeology’ (1989). However, Clarke’s account of her awakening to the Anindilyakwa-speaking communities’ different perspectives of their Groote Eylandt archipelago landscape vividly highlights a central aspect of community archaeology. Clarke’s ‘cultural transformation’ saw her altering her research emphasis from one centred on excavating a few stratified sites to researching more recent contact sites of interest to the local Indigenous community (Clarke 1994:111, 115). Clarke defines the resultant research methodology (1994:101-102):
… I have attempted to develop a community approach to designing and carrying out the archaeological research. … The premise behind a community approach is that research is a negotiated process and that the boundaries of a project are open to reassessment and renegotiation by any of the parties involved. … Community archaeology is one end of the continuum of archaeological practice which operates within a framework of contemporary social theories of post-colonialism.
A considerable literature emerged in Australia in the 1990s from this appearance of community archaeology showing enthusiasm for collaborative fieldwork—and since.12 Seen at that time as a new and distinctive approach to archaeology with its own set of practices or methodologies, there is an inherent notion in Australia that the Indigenous community has ‘control’ of the process and derives benefits from it. There are different
12 Barker 2003; Birckhead et al 1992; Bird and Frankel 1998; Byrne 2002; Clarke 2000; Creamer 1990; David et al 2004; Davidson et al 1995; Field et al 2000; Finkel 1998; Geering and Roberts 1992; Greer 1995, 1996, 1999; Greer and Fuary 2008; Greer et al 2002; Harrison 2002, 2003, 2005; Leo 2000; Lilley 2000; Lovell-Jones 1992, 1995; McDonald 1996; McIntyre-Tamwoy 2000, 2002; Nicholas 2000, 2001; Ross et al 1996, 2013; Russell and McNiven 1998; Torrence and Clarke 2000; Watkins 2000; Watkins 2003a, b.
25 Truscott – Chapter 2 – What is ‘Community Archaeology’? understandings of the idea of control, ranging from partial control (Marshall 2002b:212; Moser et al 2002:229; David et al 2004:159), to ‘community-controlled archaeology’ (Colley 2002:101), to a less explicit explanation of community archaeology being a ‘negotiated’ or ‘collaborative’ process of ‘community-based archaeology’ (eg Clarke 1994:101; Ross and Coghill 2000:76).
These proponents of this community archaeology, ‘community-based archaeology’, or ‘community-controlled archaeology’, are perhaps clearer about what sort of archaeology it is not. These advocates see it as not being the same as the use of community informants or ‘ethnoarchaeology’, or ‘living archaeology’, because the definition of this 'community archaeology' approach states that the community has control (Marshall 2002). Those in the past who practised such community interactive processes in their research in Australia (eg McBryde 1974; Meehan 1975, 1982; Meehan and Jones 1988; Egloff 1979), and anthropologists generally, may not see such a strong difference. Is community archaeology genuinely a new approach in archaeological research such as these, or ‘is it just the same old archaeology under a new label’ (Egloff 2010:162).
Perhaps the dismissal of past practice by community archaeology proponents is based on the view that while Indigenous groups were more commonly invited to comment, and archaeologists increasingly required to consult, real partnerships were rare, and control, or project leadership, could not be said to have transferred to the community. One difference to such early community interaction may result from the schism between so-called ‘processual’ and ‘postprocessual’, ‘reflective/reflexive’ approaches in archaeology within a postmodern context. This may show a greater awareness of cross-cultural power relations between archaeologists and those whose past is researched, although the difference is likely to be on a spectrum rather than a profound change.
Also the view that community archaeology is new or different may be because it appears so for ‘new’ archaeologists? Those archaeology PhD students initially espousing this process of community archaeology, such as Clarke and Greer, were perhaps new to the more remote areas where they did their doctoral research. There they met Indigenous
26 Truscott – Chapter 2 – What is ‘Community Archaeology’? peoples in their homelands for the first time and experienced the cross-cultural challenge of different perspectives of the past, that was a surprise to them.
The resultant literature in Australia on this emerging form of archaeological practice also focuses primarily on research archaeology in remote areas (eg Marshall 2002; Clarke and Paterson 2003). This emphasis contrasts with Australia’s more populated areas where ‘applied’ archaeology, or cultural heritage management is the dominant involvement with the archaeological past. For this reason, the focus in this research is on community archaeology within heritage management.
Marshall argues, based on evidence from the other articles in her publication, that community archaeology mitigates tensions between expert archaeologist and local community, ‘opening up unexpected convergences of interest’ (2002:216). Finding such affinity, or sense of connection, is particularly relevant when dealing cross-culturally, such as indigenous groups in ‘settler’ countries, and the mitigation Marshall refers to relates to who has power, or control, or a growing partnership. This shift is reflected in the different terms used: ‘community-based archaeology’ (Greer et al 2002), or ‘community-controlled archaeology’, preferred by Sarah Colley (2002:101).
Common ground is found in some level of control being ‘given’ to the Indigenous community whose past is being investigated, yet differences remain. Dalley assessed community archaeology in central Queensland, and identified this problem, noting that (2004:14):
The first key point to arise from theoretical understandings of community archaeology is the emphasis on the level of control that the community has over the archaeological process. Community archaeologists such as Marshall (2002a:212; see also David et al. 2004:159; Moser et al. 2002:229) are explicit on this point, saying that ‘at least partial control remains with the community’. Others take a less direct approach, discussing community archaeology as a ‘negotiated’ or ‘collaborative’ process (e.g. Clarke 1994:101; Malloy 2003:ix; Ross and Coghill 2000:76).
As Dalley correctly observes, ‘archaeologists have traditionally held all or most of the control in the archaeological process’ (2004:14), despite moves to consultation and
27 Truscott – Chapter 2 – What is ‘Community Archaeology’? permits for archaeological work. Thus, a core difference in notions of community archaeology is any shift from this total power, and Dalley submits that ‘community archaeology requires that both parties have at least partial control’ (2004:14).
In 2002, Marshall noted that ‘a definitive account of international developments in community archaeology has yet to be written…’ (2002b:212). But since then, changes in archaeological practice in Australia and North America were comprehensively summarised by Indigenous archaeologist Kellie Pollard (2008).
Also Indigenous and non-Indigenous archaeologists elsewhere have described ‘doing archaeology’ with the community, such as in North America (eg Nicholas 2001, 2010a, b; Watkins 2000, 2003a, b, 2006; Zimmerman 2005, 2008), and more globally by Atalay (2012) in fostering ‘community-based participatory research’, based on her experience working within her Native American community (2006b), as well as in the Middle East, in Turkey (2007). Atalay provides her understanding of ‘indigenous archaeology’, the North American term for 'community archaeology', with an emphasis on archaeological research, as (2012:39):
Indigenous archaeology examines ways of making practices more relevant to descendant and local communities … It also aims to integrate Indigenous forms of producing knowledge with Western approaches to archaeological research to improve research practices …
Discussion on the relationship between research and heritage archaeologists and community continued internationally (eg Marshall 2009), such as at the 2008 World Archaeological Congress session: ‘Heritage and Community Engagement: Collaboration or Contestation?’ (Waterton and Watson 2011; Watson and Waterton 2008). The very title of this session acknowledges issues that continue to dog the concept of control within community archaeology, as well as how to practise community archaeology, as examined in the following section.
2.1.2 Describing community archaeology … indigenous, community or postcolonial archaeology is essentially a means of collaborating with local communities, at every stage of the
28 Truscott – Chapter 2 – What is ‘Community Archaeology’? research process, to facilitate effective involvement in the ‘investigation and presentation of the past’. (Moser et al 2002:220)
There seems to be no real sense of just what community archaeology entails, ‘no standard approach to community archaeology’ (Truscott 2004a:33). Is there a process, a model, a method, for community archaeological practice that emerges from the writing on this topic? An examination of the essence of community archaeology practice follows.
Processes seen to be necessary for them to be classed as community archaeology have been summarised by Dalley (2004:14-15):
… the initial point of devising research questions or areas of interest, to setting up a project, field practices, data collection, analysis, storage and dissemination, and public presentation (Marshall 2002:211 on Moser et al 2002). … decision making about research topics, research sites, analysis of data, curation and management of the collections and the production of materials that are culturally appropriate and useful (Clarke 2002:251).
Dalley finds an unarticulated yet common understanding of how community archaeology is constructed. Analysing the proponents’ ideals, Dalley identifies four areas where the community’s ‘partial control’ is key for a project to be termed community archaeology (2004:14-15): - initiation of the project and development of a project agenda - selection of project methods - ownership and use of results - adherence to cultural protocols and research relationships
Dalley’s summary has a focus on control by the community. However, the most frequently cited community archaeology ‘how to’ model is from outside Australia, in Quseir, Egypt.
The Quseir Strategy
Marshall affirms the ‘Quseir model’ as the strategy for local community aspirations to have a say about their past (2002b:211). The model combines community collaboration
29 Truscott – Chapter 2 – What is ‘Community Archaeology’? with capacity building ambitions. From 1999 until 2008, Stephanie Moser13 led the Community Archaeology Project at Quseir (CAPQ). This project supplemented the University of Southampton research excavations at Quseir, Egypt.14 The aim of CAPQ was (Moser et al 2002:221):
… to involve the local community in all aspects of the archaeological enterprise … where local communities have been systematically excluded both from the process of discovering their past and in the construction of knowledge concerning their heritage
Developing a methodology for community archaeology was the project’s key research objective. Seven components were suggested as a ‘strategy for collaborative practice’ (Moser et al 2002:229): - communication and collaboration - employment and training - public presentation - interviews and oral history - educational resources - photographic and video archive - community-controlled merchandising
The Quseir strategy has strong elements of ‘outreach’, in its training, and interpretation and cultural tourism process, and is said to provide the ‘most explicit methodology for community archaeology published to date’ (Tully 2009:69). It however has less community control than Australian community archaeology sponsors seek.
Gemma Tully, of the Quseir team, developed a ‘collaborative methodology’, taking up my 2004 challenge for a standard approach to this ‘fast growing’ sub-discipline (see Truscott 2004a in Tully 2007:155). In doing so, Tully drew on comparisons with other projects claiming to be community archaeology to refine the Quseir components for this methodology (Tully 2007:176-178, Table 3), as summarised here:
1. Communication and collaboration between the archaeological/museological team and
13 Moser is a graduate of Sydney University with a past research focus on the disciplinary culture of archaeology (Moser 1995) 14 On the Red Sea, the site of Quseir al-Qadim is just north of the town of Quseir (600km south of Cairo), and identified as a port of the Ptolemaic, Roman (Myos Hormos), and Marmaluke periods (Moser et al 2002:221; Tully 2009:66)
30 Truscott – Chapter 2 – What is ‘Community Archaeology’? the local community at all stages of research
This component recognises that the dialogue consists of fluid and changing opinions between archaeologist and community, and within the community, and emphasises being open, ‘keeping no secrets’. Regular bilingual and plain language reporting,15 and the archaeological team learning the local language, developing friendships, recognising cultural difference, and acknowledging own cultural bias by maintaining self-reflexivity at all times.
2. Employment, training and volunteering of local people in all areas of the project
The aim is for the local community to maintain a central role, enabled to have authority and power, by developing its skills. Some community members are employed throughout, not merely seasonal fieldwork employment, and volunteers encouraged. Training is seen as a community benefit providing future employment possibilities, and a capacity to pass on their skills.
3. Public presentation, a vital element in the passing on of information to the wider community and other non-indigenous/ non-community members
A heritage centre is seen as a key opportunity to present archaeological results, while tying outcomes together with current traditions and recent history. This collaboration with the community (Jones 2004, 2008), provides training and skills enhancement, building partnerships with museums elsewhere, such as the Petrie Museum (Tully 2010). As of 2012, the proposed heritage centre in Quseir was not developed, and the ‘online Quseir Heritage Centre’ although available is incomplete.
4. Interview and oral history to see how local people respond to the archaeological excavation (if applicable), and the objects discovered being presented to see how this links into the communities’ traditional ideas about the past
This was a formal approach by the archaeologists to gain community views of the project, to gather more diverse interpretations of the evidence, and to negotiate potentially negative encounters with past researchers (Glazier 2003). This process also
15 see online Quseir Heritage Centre (www.southampton.ac.uk/~nes104/CAPQ.html), with plain language reports no longer accessible, and an Arabic language component planned, but not completed, and no update since 2005.
31 Truscott – Chapter 2 – What is ‘Community Archaeology’? established agreed approaches to human remains and objects with the community before work began.
5. Educational resources to introduce people from all generations to the cultural heritage
This is very much an ‘outreach archaeology’, including school visits to the site, developing children’s books (Conner et al 2002), and preparing online access to artefacts and archaeological knowledge about the past, with a series of seminars, workshops and museum visits for the wider community.
6. Photographic and video archive to create a record of the archaeological work and experiences of the project, to enhance the visual element of local authority and knowledge production in site interpretation and for the development of exhibition centres.
A complete photographic record and daily video record (Earl 2002; N Smith 2006), along with community interviews (Glazier 2003), was made to enhance local empowerment and pride and to show the importance of local involvement.
7. Community controlled merchandising considering the tourist market (where applicable) and offering quality alternatives to the typical, stereotyped souvenirs on offer.
Undertaken with the local community making decisions about design and production of souvenirs for sale, and collaborating on the design of the project logo and T-shirts to establish an identity for the project (Slack 2003). One aim is to enhance the local economy and sustain the heritage centre16.
Tully does not guarantee that this methodology meets the community archaeology claim: ‘that better archaeology can be achieved when more diverse voices are involved in the interpretation of the past’ (2007:158). Instead she concludes that her results are but one approach to achieve this ‘in a mutually satisfactory way’ (Tully 2007:179):
[only] by combining the epistemological views of the [archaeological] discipline with the more colloquial requirements of the source communities … can we fully achieve the collaborative goal in a means that will be recognized and adopted by these two distinct spheres.
16 One building, then promised by mayor to build one (Moser et al 2002:236, 2003).
32 Truscott – Chapter 2 – What is ‘Community Archaeology’? This Quseir method emphasises shared knowledge, enhances connection with the past, and identity, and builds social and economic capacity. Yet the method seems particularly idealistic, and in many respects still couched within a framework where the expert retains power. One aspect of this power is that the archaeologists have the funds for the project and hold all or most of the technical knowledge to implement the various components in this strategy.17 It privileges the archaeologists as they are the key actors enabling the community, yet this is surely always the case when knowledge is imparted from one group to another. The members of the Community Archaeology Project at Quseir team have also benefitted academically with several research theses on aspects of the community archaeology project (see Philips 2001; Conner 2001; Earl 2002; Seymour 2002; Glazier 2003; Slack 2003; Jones 2003, 2004, 2008; Tully 2005, 2010; N Smith 2006). However, the aimed for heritage centre, as well as the online resource, appear to have foundered, perhaps because the CAPQ is no longer led by the Southampton archaeologists, and more recent changes in Egypt’s polity.
Barunga Protocols and South Australian Indigenous Voices
Another example said to apply a community archaeology approach is Claire Smith’s Barunga-Wugularr Community Archaeology Project in the Northern Territory. Aboriginal Elders have provided guidance and scrutiny over seventeen years of archaeological research. The resultant Barunga Protocols are said to be ‘indicative of the approach taken by Australian archaeologists as a whole’. The protocols focus on cross- cultural norms (Smith and Jackson 2008:177): - Recognise differences in knowledge systems - Respect existing social and political systems - Take responsibility for people you bring to the community - Be flexible - Publish with permission - Share the benefits - Think long-term
17 It is however also practice in the Middle East when there is a foreign team to have a local government archaeologist also there to monitor proper practice and relationships.
33 Truscott – Chapter 2 – What is ‘Community Archaeology’? Parallels between the Barunga Protocols and the Quseir Strategy are the wider embrace of the community, with the recognition of different knowledge systems, and the need to benefit the community.
Yet the above principles or methods for community inclusion in archaeological research projects give little indication of what the community thinks about it all. A South Australian research project found that Indigenous community members identified six positive aspects about ‘general’ archaeology (Roberts 2003:148): - Working together - Indigenous control over research - Archaeology as a research tool for Indigenous self-determination - Proof of occupation and history - Archaeology records information for the future - Archaeology as reconciliation
The Indigenous wish for control over research supports some of community archaeologys claims. The other positive views for archaeology relate to other community benefits, such as identity, discussed later in this thesis.
These components for community archaeology all acknowledge community involvement, but range from seeing control as the main element (Dalley 2004), to respect and collaboration (Barunga Protocols), to the Quseir strategies being primarily about community capacity development. The Quseir model has a strong outreach component, with a focus on interpretation and tourism development. Many other projects do not mention cultural tourism. The common element is that the Barunga and Quseir projects are longstanding research projects. Such longevity can build trusting relationships and shared long-term strategies. However, most interaction between archaeologists and community members in Australia is as part of a rapid pre-development environment impact assessment that minimises opportunities to apply this community archaeology methodology—or does it?
2.1.3 Reviews of ‘Community Archaeology’ Practice There is almost a total absence of literature from either inside or outside the discipline which critically evaluates the community archaeology approach. (Dalley 2004:14)
34 Truscott – Chapter 2 – What is ‘Community Archaeology’? The ideals for community archaeology as stated above are clear, less so is what in fact happens on the ground. A review of literature on community archaeology within Australia shows evaluation of the process is still scarce. The few critiques of community archaeology are discussed below to gain a better understanding of this supposedly ‘new’ approach to archaeology with community. These include a major review within Australia, and some perceptions gained from including community in archaeological practice in other countries.
'Community Archaeology' – An Australian critique
Dalley’s (2004) findings from a review of projects in Waanyi Country of north-west Queensland are pertinent to this research, examining control and power in Australian community archaeology. Dalley (2004:33ff) compared the degree of Indigenous control in three archaeological projects, having already established that total Indigenous control was not possible. These were: a community-based project, the Waanyi Women’s History Project (Smith et al 2003); a cultural heritage assessment, by the Waanyi, Gangalidda and Godwin (Godwin 2002); and an archaeological research project, the Riversleigh Archaeology Project (Field et al 2000).
Dalley’s method consisted of reviewing project reports and interviewing the archaeologists, not the community members. The projects were ranked as community archaeology based on the analysis of the degree of community ownership: the highest being the community project (‘slightly’ more control) and the lowest the research project, although along a continuum (2004:47-48, 54). Dalley (2004:40) recognises that all projects had a greater inclusion of Waanyi people ‘when compared to the 1980s … and a fundamentally different approach’.
Dalley, in finding that the research project had the least community control, highlights issues crucial to Indigenous ‘self-management’ in a power relationship: economic resources, knowledge resources and status resources (citing Smith 1999; 2004:34-37). The community had no control over ‘economic resources’ in either the community-based or research projects, being dependent on the archaeologist obtaining funding. Some of that funding then flowed to the community. However for cultural heritage assessment in
35 Truscott – Chapter 2 – What is ‘Community Archaeology’? Queensland, the development proponent funded the community, which then hired an archaeologist to do the work (Dalley 2004:48-49). This is not the usual arrangement in other Australian states.18 Such ‘economic resources’ from archaeological involvement is seen as one component of community archaeology, but both the community-based grant project and the cultural heritage assessment are short term, not providing a consistent, long-term income from heritage. Financial benefit may however, be a factor for community involvement in heritage beyond collaboration or control.
The use of Indigenous ‘knowledge resources’ varies across the case studies in Dalley’s analysis (2004:49-50). The community-based Waanyi Women’s History Project was heavily reliant on Indigenous knowledge, despite a very ‘archaeological’ focus. The cultural heritage assessment recorded Indigenous knowledge, yet this was secondary to recording archaeological material. In the Riversleigh research project, any recording of Indigenous knowledge resulted from community requests, and supplemented the main report. It is no surprise that the community-based project rated highest for including community knowledge, given the community had the greatest control. However, it is of concern that despite the ‘pure archaeology’ project later receiving accolades for its ‘community engagement’,19 Dalley found it to have the least input of Indigenous knowledge.
‘Status resources’ are also bestowed in such projects, giving authority and legitimacy to the knowledge holders when Indigenous knowledge is a respected part of the project. All three of Dalley’s case studies demonstrate how status can be ‘conferred and reinforced’ as part of such engagement in archaeological projects, both within the community and beyond (2004:50). Such status is imparted to community members attending, presenting, or co-presenting, papers at conferences throughout Australia.
18 In most Australian jurisdictions the developer funds the archaeologists with the relevant community members often then paid by the archaeologist (see chapter 6). 19 Richard Fullagar was awarded the inaugural AAA Bruce Veitch for Excellence Indigenous Engagement in 2006 which cited the Riversleigh Archaeology Project as one reason for the award (www.australianarchaeology.com/awards/the-bruce-veitch-award/)
36 Truscott – Chapter 2 – What is ‘Community Archaeology’? Dalley also notes that Indigenous responses to archaeology are largely based on archaeologists’ interpretations of Indigenous perspectives. She identifies a gap in community archaeology literature of ‘how Indigenous communities see their level of control’ and of the ‘benefits to the community of different approaches to heritage inquiry’ (Dalley 2004:57). Roberts (2003) South Australian study provides some answers to this, particularly regarding the usefulness of archaeology to communities, in terms of identity and self-determination. This was an initial aim for this current research, only marginally achieved because formal interviews were not possible, as explained. However, as shown in Chapter 4 from Indigenous community input to heritage legislation reviews, there are currently strong community concerns about their lack of real control or their views being fully heard in decisions about their heritage.
Other perceptions of 'community archaeology'
The Quseir model includes a range of components, but it cannot be expected that every project applies every one of them. This was found when Tully (2007) compared six different applications of community archaeology with the Quseir model. Tully (2005, 2010), a member of the Quseir project for four years researching ‘community museology’, evaluated three archaeological fieldwork and three museum projects from different parts of the world, one of each being Australian20. The following are the degree to which the Quseir ‘collaborative practice’ components were applied (Tully 2007:166): - interviews and oral history 75% - communication and collaboration 65% - public presentation 37% - photographic and video archiving 33% - employment and training 28% - community controlled merchandising 17% - educational resources 13%
Tully concedes that the low level of employment and training seems surprising. Yet these elements are dependent on other components taking place with a community, such as
20 The Australian projects were, archaeology: Cuddie Springs, Australia (Indigenous Australians); museum displays: Australian Torres Strait Islander display in Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology, University of Cambridge.
37 Truscott – Chapter 2 – What is ‘Community Archaeology’? ‘interviews and oral history’. The latter are central to the community’s perspectives being expressed ‘within the process of collaboration’ (Tully 2007:166).
Claims are made in England that community archaeology contributed to ‘creating a sense of community’, to ‘reduc[e]ing crime and re-offending rates from engagement of community in archaeology’, and in the countryside to ‘an ability to create educational value and knowledge about the place’ (Simpson 2008:9, 10, 12-Figure 7). However, therse assertions were not substantiated in Fay Simpson’s doctoral research in England, instead she found an apparent failure in building identity, potentially leading to demographic separation. The projects ‘opened up dialogues between archaeologists and the public’ (Simpson 2008:12), but there was less success in incorporating local ideas into the archaeological interpretation. Simpson found in her survey that ‘Archaeologists were, on the whole, still reluctant to embrace multicultural, intangible, social, and psychological values attached to the heritage’ (2008:13), as confirmed by Carman (2011).
Simpson compares this unwillingness by archaeologists to take on community views with the USA where the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act 1990 (NAGPRA) ‘led archaeologists to recognize their role to the community’ (2008:14). This view concurs with African American Fred McGhee that NAGPRA ‘mandates dialogue’ establishing that ‘Indian perspectives are given legal weight and authority’ (McDavid and McGhee 2010:484).
The wish by indigenous peoples to gain greater authority over their past is examined more closely later in this chapter. But it is important here to note that it was not only the introduction of NAGPRA that has led to a greater potential for genuinely community- based or collaborative 'community archaeology' in North America, but other statutory or voluntary efforts. Joe Watkins, Native American archaeologist, provides a useful overview of the picture that emerged at the end of the 1990s on the relationship between indigenous communities and archaeologists (eg 2000, 2003a, b).
Beyond NAGPRA, he finds examples of greater indigenous control where Native Americans have sovereignty to their land (2003a). On such Indian land, tribes have hired
38 Truscott – Chapter 2 – What is ‘Community Archaeology’? archaeologists, to ‘provide administrative support services to their Tribal Historic Preservation Officers’, who have an independent heritage decision-making role (2003a:276). Watkins in this review of the relationship between Aboriginal Americans in the USA and Canada describes as positive these examples of community control, and ‘working together’ models.
Watkins sees the collaborative processes that emerged s in British Columbia, Canada (see Nicholas 2000), framed as ‘indigenous archaeology’ ('community archaeology'), as examples of archaeologists ‘directly taking into consideration the wishes of the indigenous populations’ (2003a:277). Yet more broadly Watkins sees in both countries an ongoing obstacle to collaborative archaeology being the different cultural perspectives of the ‘scientific’ approach of archaeologists and communities’ sense of an ongoing spiritual connection at archaeological sites (2003a:277).
Indeed it is widely acknowledged that the ‘negative views that many non-Western communities have of archaeologists’ (Tully 2007:170), means establishing trust between archaeologist and descendant community can be difficult. The suspicion if not cynicism in Afro-American community groups of archaeological projects (Carol McDavid 1997, 2007) is reminiscent of the Queensland Koenpul clan’s wariness of ‘ologists’ (Ross and Coghill 2000:78). Such general caution may be towards those seen with more power or social status, or because of negative past experiences (eg Roberts 2003).
In response to such issues, American Larry Zimmerman (2005) after decades working with Native Americans, urges archaeologists to ‘be humble’, noting the struggle in the process, some mundane, between archaeologists and communities. Problems range from gaining consent to ‘epistemological disputes over the generation of knowledge … to nearly intractable questions about the very nature of the past’ (2005:301).
That it can be difficult to build a connection between archaeologist and community to achieve participatory practice is confirmed in another study on community archaeology, primarily in the UK. Smith and Waterton caution: ‘Community interaction is contested, fraught and dissonant’, advising attention to ‘honesty, dialogue, recognition of power, a
39 Truscott – Chapter 2 – What is ‘Community Archaeology’? holistic and integrated approach and a critical regard for the political and social context of community engagement’ (2009:142--143). However, Roberts’ review of Smith and Waterton, writing from an Australian perspective, expresses frustration at this ‘discovery’. She feels Australian archaeologists aiming for community collaboration already understand these issues (2009:85). Roberts seeks more from this volume, wanting ‘the authors … to provide alternative methodological approaches that could provide heritage professionals with new ways of approaching inclusion issues’. Roberts asks (2009:85):
… how one arrives at this level of engagement. What are the steps that should be taken? What does this look like in practice? What are the dangers as they perceive them? What can we learn from the experiences of other practitioners and communities?
It is such questions that this current research seeks to explore: what works and what does not work for the community, as well as for the archaeologist, and other relevant experts, including the heritage practitioner.
Summary
The above outline of the emergence of community archaeology indicates some of the thinking and intentions of those espousing it. A key aspect of community archaeology is the community’s involvement, but the actual role of the community, and the benefits to the community, are less than clear. Another definition by American Barbara Betz (2008) provides a clear and acute insight into core elements of this archaeological practice (my emphases):
What is community archaeology? The most basic, widely applicable definition of community archaeology is that given by archaeologist Stephanie Moser of the University of Southampton in England: it is the practice of archaeological research in which ‘at every step in a project at least partial control remains with the community’. Packed within this definition are many implications and variations from project to project. This is to be expected in a technique that has emerged more or less independently in projects all over the world and which, by nature, must be highly reflexive and responsive to each particular archaeological site and its associated communities. There are, however, some factors common to all community archaeology projects: an emphasis on multivocality and genuine, two-way dialogue between archaeologists and the affected
40 Truscott – Chapter 2 – What is ‘Community Archaeology’? public, and an investment in empowering involved communities in political, social, and/or material ways. On the face of it, relinquishing total control over a project in this way may seem like a risky proposition that goes above and beyond an archaeologist’s call of duty and endangers scientific objectivity in the process. Yet current archaeological practice is riddled with problems and it is clear from several case studies that community archaeology is not only necessary but actually beneficial to all involved – including the archaeologists and their research.
Betz has identified the chief elements of engagement with the past together with the associated community. Her stress on investing in empowering associated communities is important, and is inherent in the ethical sharing of the Barunga Protocols. The Quseir Strategy shows ways to do this. Although primarily an outreach form of community archaeology, this strategy does include the oral histories and traditions of the community, and sharing the results of inquiry with the wider society, and cultural tourism initiatives. The strategy also provides training to the community providing a long-lasting capacity for economic benefits beyond those available from participating in the archaeological field-work.
The Quseir model extends beyond ‘merely’ collaborative, although not meeting Dalley’s criterion of promoting the community’s controlling role. This method developed by Southampton University at Quseir does share knowledge of the past and its different understandings, yet its emphasis is more on ‘outreach’ than the community centred approach fostered by Australians writing on community archaeology. Combining all these components and approaches is seen as an effective way to ensure the greatest inclusion and benefit to a community for any inquiry into its past and present heritage. The separation between different types of community archaeology thus appears irrelevant.
Nonetheless, even in Australia the community archaeology discussions rarely focus on the main aim of archaeology—finding about out past peoples and their way of life. Yet all the writers are research archaeologists, based in universities. This is not to say that these writings on community archaeology are ignoring their main purpose of archaeological research, but it is not central in their discussion about their engagement with the community. Little or nothing is written in these texts about the community’s
41 Truscott – Chapter 2 – What is ‘Community Archaeology’? attitude to the results of the findings of the archaeological research. Mark Dugay-Grist (2013), an Indigenous archaeologist, welcomes Indigenous involvement in their heritage, but berates the lack of sharing with Indigenous communities the potentially inspiring results of archaeological research. This thesis, in examining the components of community archaeology in various case studies, will analyse the archaeological results and how well these are shared with the relevant community.
Community archaeology has been hailed as ‘new’ and the way forward for archaeology. But where did this ‘new’ approach come from, and what prompted it? The question has been raised whether community archaeology really is so different to some past practice. As the following section in this chapter shows, an awareness of Indigenous rights, interests, and sharing in the process did occur, and well before the term community archaeology was coined. Analysis of possible contexts for the emergence of this supposedly new approach to study and protection of the past is needed, and follows.
2.2 Archaeology and People – Changing Practice Archaeology today is very much a mirror for a changing world order. … The current reality, however, is that tweed-jacketed academics and lab- coated scientists are no longer given carte blanche, let alone the respect of the public, as was once the case. More importantly, indigenous peoples and other parties are rightly demanding a role in the discovery, interpretation, and preservation of their respective pasts. (Nicholas 2001:30)
Many promulgating community archaeology, in any of its guises, claim that it is a new approach. Is this true? Any recognition or role for the community in past archaeological practice is examined below. Social, political and philosophical changes in the latter 20th century resulted in breaking down the divide between ‘expert’ and amateur, and acknowledging ‘non-scientific’ perspectives on the past held by descendants of cultures being investigated. Are there antecedents in earlier archaeological practice to this emergence of community archaeology?
Archaeology as a discipline of inquiry has changed over time. Many recent changes have been brought about by influences from wider philosophical and theoretical constructs in the social sciences, and a society that demands a greater voice in what previously were
42 Truscott – Chapter 2 – What is ‘Community Archaeology’? accepted as the domains of experts, including history and heritage making. Ethnic minorities, descendant groups, and indigenous peoples in ‘settler’ countries demanded, and continue to require, a say over their pasts. These changes and their interaction with archaeological practice and heritage management are outlined in this chapter.
Much has been written about the last twenty to thirty years of archaeological practice in Australia, amply covering its changes (eg Colley 2002; du Cros 2002; Pollard 2008). It is not proposed to reproduce that history here. These publications largely deal with Indigenous archaeology and prehistory, rather than ‘historical archaeology’ (eg Ireland 2002). Naturally, all reflect the view of their time, while critiquing past disciplinary assumptions. Here a summary of key events and trends in Australia is presented that provides a context for the emergence of community archaeology. The increasing recognition of Indigenous rights to their heritage in the context of the emergence of community archaeology is outlined, as well as the views of Indigenous people towards archaeology.
2.2.1 Recognising Indigenous Rights? … as others in the community are empowered, archaeologists must come to terms with coordinating or subordinating their activities to the interests of a diverse range of stakeholders or loosely defined owners (Egloff 2010:15).
A central part of the histories of archaeology is the tension between archaeologists’ pursuit of the past, and Indigenous Australians’ increasing hostility to any appropriation of their story. Yet despite many mistakes, misunderstandings and misappropriations, recognition of Indigenous rights to their past has been irrevocable. Pollard (2008) compares the Australian and North American experiences of the ‘Indigenous inspired transformations of archaeological theory, method and practice’. She sees the increasing recognition of Indigenous rights as the trigger to changes in ‘administrative policies facilitating Aboriginal decision making in administration of archaeological practices’ (Pollard 2008:75). Others however, suggest such histories of Australian archaeology are simplistic and risk legitimising the events, or at least providing only a superficial analysis of how they occurred (Moser 1995:63; Dalley 2004:27). In fact, it is likely that the
43 Truscott – Chapter 2 – What is ‘Community Archaeology’? changes are an interactive process between some early requirements for engagement with traditional owners that fed into the growing recognition of Indigenous rights, as outlined below.
Superficial or not, the events towards such recognition of Indigenous rights within archaeology are clear. The 1960s can be seen as the beginning when three things happened relevant to Indigenous archaeological heritage: the deep antiquity of human occupation of Australia was established with a rise in archaeological activity, the broader Australian community recognised Australian Aboriginal rights, and cultural heritage management (CHM) started. Seen in retrospect, perhaps not apparent then, the concurrence of these events began a trajectory towards a greater Indigenous involvement in their archaeological heritage.
Discussion in the early 1960s about the likely antiquity of humans in Australia changed from fixing in 1961 on 9000BP at Cape Martin, SA (Allen 1999:10), to more than doubling in time to 19,500BP in 1962, barely a year later, at Kenniff Cave (Mulvaney and Joyce 1965). Seven years later this arrival of humans was pushed back to 25,000 years at Lake Mungo in western NSW, and by 1974 to 40,000 years ago and older (Bowler 1970; Bowler and Thorne 1976). Despite an excitement about this time-depth, Norman Tindale (1965:162) makes a point very early in the history of Australian archaeology relevant to this research’s discussion about communities’ roles today:
… it is high time that at least a few archaeologists should … emerge from their cave holes to study at first hand the data provided by living peoples
Until 1965, no legislation protected archaeological sites or Indigenous heritage places and their values (see North 2006).21 There was ‘the complete lack of connection between archaeology and contemporary Aborigines’, perhaps unsurprising, for as Sharon Sullivan notes there was an ‘almost complete absence of Aborigines from the cultural landscape of settled Australia’ (Sullivan 1996:1). Nonetheless, archaeologists did become aware of Aboriginal community groups associated with the past they were researching, despite a
21 The exception was the Native and Historic Objects Heritage Protection Ordinance 1955, Northern Territory the Native and Historic Objects Heritage Protection Ordinance (1955) Northern Territory, thst did not deal with sites; it was repealed in 1991 (see North 2006:1)
44 Truscott – Chapter 2 – What is ‘Community Archaeology’? former ignorance, such as vividly described by John Mulvaney when talking about his work at Kennif Cave (1984:5):
Kennif[f] Cave literally was a thousand miles away, but, in those days it was much further in conceptual terms. Carnarvon Gorge was an exotic place visited by the adventurous; Kennif[f] combined the aura of legendary cattle duffers with the remoteness of the moon. We obtained the goodwill of local station people and enjoyed their hospitality, but there was no question of obtaining official permits. No sites legislation then existed anywhere in Australia and there was no obligation to lodge finds in any state institutions. … A child of my time I assumed there were no Aboriginal people living in the region; naturally, no legal requirement was in force anywhere in Australia making it necessary to obtain Aboriginal consent.
Acknowledgement of Indigenous peoples has culminated in UN and UNESCO recognition of human rights, cultural rights and social capital in the first decade of the 21st century (see Chapter 4). In Australia, the new millennium began with an upswell of public support for reconciliation,22 and almost ten years later an official redress was made when on 13 February 2008, the then Prime Minister of Australia, Kevin Rudd, said ‘Sorry’, with a 100% of the Parliament of Australia to ‘reconcile with the Indigenous people of Australia’. These events followed many others recognising a greater role for indigenous people in their cultural heritage over the past 50 years, including:
1965 NSW Freedom Rides By the University of Sydney’s Student Action for Aborigines (formed 1964) with Charles Perkins 1966 Wave Hill Walk-off in the Northern Vincent Lingiari, a Gurindji spokesman, led a walk- Territory off of 200 Aboriginal stockmen, house servants, and their families from Wave Hill as a protest against the work and pay conditions. (see 1975) 1967 Referendum Resulting in equal rights for Indigenous Australians. 90.77% of voting Australians said ‘yes’ (the voting age was 21), and is seen as a symbol of giving full citizenship rights to Indigenous people or ‘the vote’. 23
22 When in May 2000, a million Australians walked across bridges in Australian capital cities, in December 2000, the Council of Aboriginal Reconciliation 1991-2000, reported to the federal government. (www.austlii.edu.au/au/orgs/car/finalreport/) 23 In fact, most Aboriginal people were already citizens and had the right to vote, eg Commonwealth 1962, Queensland was the last state in 1965; the Referendum changed aspects of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia that were seen to discriminate against Indigenous Australians, see Fact Sheet 150 – The 1967 Referendum, National Archives of Australia (www.naa.gov.au/about-us/publications/fact- sheets/fs150.aspx)
45 Truscott – Chapter 2 – What is ‘Community Archaeology’?
1972 Tent Embassy Australia Day Protest for land rights24 1972 Labor Party win federal elections in Setting in motion land rights in the Northern December Territory25 1975 handover of Wave Hill (Daguragu) land In August 1975, Whitlam symbolically poured soil title to Gurindji people into Vincent Lingari’s hands at the handover
The above Indigenous protests and resultant recognition of land rights were key triggers to the broader reconciliation culminating in the 2008 ‘Sorry’ speech. Simultaneous responses to Indigenous rights are also seen in recognition of the right to a say about heritage. For it was also in the 1970s, that community archaeology in one sense may be said to have begun, when in 1976 consultation became a requirement for archaeological work in New South Wales. This requirement was also prompted by an awareness of Aboriginal communities’ cultural continuity in that state, however disrupted by colonisation.
This continuity was unexpected, at least to archaeologists, but proven by a major study on ‘sites of significance’ for the NSW NPWS (Kelly 1974; Creamer 1975). These surveys were funded by the Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies (AIAS)26, which in 1971 had its first Indigenous Council member.27 AIAS initially resisted funding ‘sacred sites surveys’ in NSW, disbelieving any cultural knowledge retention. The surveys’ results, showing ongoing connection to Country, led to the 1974 NSW legislative amendments enabling the declaration in the New South Wales National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974:s84 of ‘Aboriginal Places’ for ‘importance to the Aboriginal community’.
24 Removed by police in July 1975, the Tent Embassy returned as a site of protest intermittently until 1992, and has since then in place. 25 Whitlam immediately introduced an Indigenous self-determination policy in the first month after election, as well as the Aboriginal Land Rights Commission (under Justice Woodward), leading to the Commonwealth passing the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act in 1976, just after Labor was defeated in December 1975 by the Fraser Liberal Government. 26 Since 1989 the Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies (AIATSIS). 27 It is widely considered that the Institute was influential in these changes, see Stephanie Moser’s thesis 1995. The first Indigenous member of Council was Phillip Roberst from September 1970 to June 1972 (pers comm Graeme Ward 10 November 2014); the Indigenous Chairs of Council have been Ken Colbung (1984-90); Professor Marcia Langton (1992-98), Professor Mick Dodson (1999-). The Indigenous Principals of the Institute have been Eric Wilmot (1981-84), Dr Bill Jonas (1991-96), Russell Taylor (1997-2003; 2009-), Steve Larkin (2004-08).
46 Truscott – Chapter 2 – What is ‘Community Archaeology’? Comments made in archaeological forums at the time are prescient. In 1975, Howard Creamer presented desirable processes derived from insights gained doing his NSW Site Significance survey, that are echoed by those recommending community archaeology twenty years later. Creamer commented (1975:17-18):
From our experience on the Survey I will go on to make some suggestions which can be applied to research elsewhere in Australia. … the Survey … is closely linked with the events of the present decade when we have witnessed an extraordinary rise in the political and 'cultural' awareness of minority groups the world over, especially among the Aboriginal people, and an increasing desire to participate fully in matters concerning their destiny. Because of this the Survey has considerable social consequences and responsibilities. Before we could even begin to be effective in our work it was necessary for us to make the firm commitment that this research was to be first and foremost for the benefit of the Aboriginal people.
Creamer was speaking in Canberra at a meeting of the Australian Archaeological Association (AAA) in January 1975, barely a year after AAA’s foundation in 1973, held at the 46th meeting of ANZAAS.28 The published papers show a pivotal moment in Australian archaeology, rarely reported (AAA 1975).29 Several papers examine the relations and potential collaboration between archaeologists and Aboriginal Australians (eg Creamer 1975; Golson 1975; Lampert 1975; Moore 1975; Onus 1975; Stockton 1975; Sullivan 1975). The insights are perceptive, particularly of Indigenous suspicion, even hostility, to archaeology, encapsulated by Jack Golson (1975:10):
This is a large aim [Aboriginal and European Australians understanding different pasts] and will not have been achieved until Aboriginal scholars are working on the archaeology of Australia and of other parts of the world as well. The first steps must be modest, since we have to overcome not only lack of knowledge of our aims, but suspicion of our activities. This seems to involve two things: seizing every opportunity to explain our
28 The Australian New Zealand Association for the Advancement of Science; formed in 1888, no Congress has been held since 1997. Those attending and their projects included: Dr A Gallus, Keilor, Willandra Lakes, Dr I McBryde, Mr W Shawcross, Lake Mungo, Lake Arumpo, Messrs R Luebbers, J Dodson, Wyrie Swamp, Mr G Pretty Dr M Prokopec, Roonka, Murray river, Ms B Meehan, Arnhem Land, Dr R Vanderwal, Mr Davidson, Mr W Ambrose, Dr A Mortlock, Dr K Conover, Messrs G Connah, J Stanley, Mr A Watchman, Mt William, Mr F Dickson, Dr P Coutts, Miss J Birmingham, James King, Irrawang, Hunter River Valley, Mr G Henderson, Mr M Pearson, Dr J Green, Batavia, Dr M Wormington. 29 But see Pollard 2008 who quotes from these conference papers, without perhaps recognising the meeting’s significance.
47 Truscott – Chapter 2 – What is ‘Community Archaeology’? work to Aborigines, and undertaking the responsibility of discussing projects we wish to initiate with appropriate Aboriginal groups. We may well find that because of the temper of the times some projects are not negotiable. It will be a measure of our success when such areas of disagreement disappear.
The Aboriginal voices in this forum were Ray Kelly, the NSW National Parks Service first Aboriginal employee (Kijas 2005), and Sandra Onus, then Assistant Secretary, National Aboriginal Consultative Committee (NACC), 30 Region 3 Victoria:
… I believe we must try to feed in some of our own education into the school system. By doing this we will gain pride in ourselves and our race and we will gain a sense of knowing who we are and what we hope to achieve out of life. This result can only be achieved when both white and black gain respect for each other. For us to gain respect for white people, we must be respected as human beings. Only then will we respond to white people’s offerings. (Kelly 1975:13) It could be termed a "communication barrier", and as it has only really been the archaeologist in the past who was interested or involved in this field of science, it is I feel up to them to establish an understanding and a respect between those concerned. (Onus 1975:3)
Kelly’s paper is telling on how ‘non-remote’ Aboriginal people found themselves at that time regarding education, cultural continuity, engagement with their past, and non- Aboriginal academics’ research. As an Aboriginal employee in the sites management agency, Kelly saw both sides, and tensions, and the need for feedback, or ‘conversation’, between researcher and researched (1975:15):
30 The NACC was established by the Whitlam federal government, and operated 1973-1977.
48 Truscott – Chapter 2 – What is ‘Community Archaeology’?
Figure 2: Feedback between researcher and Aboriginal people (Kelly 1975:15)
These voices from almost forty years ago provide an evocative insight into the then archaeologists’ awareness of ethical issues concerning the relationship between their academic work and Indigenous Australians. There were relatively few archaeologists in Australia at this time (Truscott and Smith 1993),31 but they had a major role in pushing for protective site or ‘relic’ legislation—‘blanket’ protection of all manifestations of prehistoric human activity. Such sites legislation was introduced state by state from the late 1960s to the mid-70s (see Smith 2000; North 2006; and Chapter 4).
Heritage agencies were formed to administer the Aboriginal sites legislation, and archaeologists in such agencies affected changes to practice. An Interim Aboriginal Sites Committee was formed in NSW, after the community consultation requirement in 1976, fostered by Sharon Sullivan, director of the Aboriginal heritage section of the NPWS at the time (1983:323):
31 Most were in universities at this time, otherwise in museums.
49 Truscott – Chapter 2 – What is ‘Community Archaeology’? … to go some way towards acknowledging Aboriginal rights in the custodianship of sites in N.S.W. By custodianship I mean control, at a policy level, of research, site management, and site interpretation
Consultation with Indigenous Australians was also recognised by the Committee of Inquiry into the National Estate, recommending ‘Aboriginal people be afforded every opportunity for full and effective consultation throughout the process of drafting such legislation’ to promote their ‘sites of significance’ (Hope 1974:5.47). The Hope Report overarching advice to the federal government was to enact statutory protection for the ‘national estate’, resulting in the Australian Heritage Commission Act 1975, its components being (Hope 1974:2.7): - the natural environment - the man-made or cultural environment - archaeological or scientific areas - cultural property
The emphasis on ‘archaeological’ areas in the definition of the ‘national estate’ indicates a focus on that aspect of Aboriginal heritage, despite the reference to ‘sites of significance’. This archaeological focus was also reflected in the state legislation, and the nature of community consultation (see Smith 1996). Agencies in other states began interacting with Aboriginal communities in the 1980s, such as the Victoria Archaeological Survey that appointed its first Aboriginal Liaison Officer in 1981.
Regulatory shifts during the 1980s also saw permits required for any activity related to Indigenous sites, whether for research or for development impacts on sites. State heritage agency guidelines through the 1980s increasingly stipulated the engagement of local community members as site assistants, but there was no discussion, let alone prior consultation about the nature of the research. Consultation requirements were introduced incrementally as the regulatory framework and heritage legislation reflected changed policy responses to Aboriginal community inclusion.
Yet practice often went ahead of legislation regarding consultation. For example, a range of activities led by the federal Australian Heritage Commission (AHC), founded in 1976, fostered more inclusive practice for Indigenous heritage. In 1984, the Australian Heritage Commission introduced consultation with relevant Indigenous communities about listing
50 Truscott – Chapter 2 – What is ‘Community Archaeology’? in the Register of the National Estate (AHC 1985). Isabel McBryde, a Commissioner at that time, edited Who Owns the Past? (1985), its title a vivid reminder of erupting issues; in 1986, Bill Jonas was co-opted as the first Indigenous Commissioner,32 and in 1990, Dave Johnston33 started as the first Aboriginal Liaison Officer.
The Australian Heritage Commission34 initiated several national forums for improved Indigenous heritage management that fully engaged Indigenous community members. This program included the National Indigenous Cultural Heritage Officers Network, with a newsletter (1991), a publication on consultation (Jonas 1991), and the Indigenous Heritage Art Award, ‘The Art of Place’ (1993-2000). The Australian Heritage Commission also sponsored the Indigenous Cultural Heritage Protection Program 1993-97 with other federal agencies.35 The program included site management training (eg Sullivan et al 2008), and guidelines in Indigenous heritage management (DCA 1997), that evolved into Ask First (AHC 2002).
Concurrent with this national leadership, professional heritage groups, such as the Australian Archaeological Association (AAA 1991), or Australia ICOMOS (2000), also responded ethically with national codes and charters. These codes and charters recognise the rights of indigenous and local groups in the archaeological process. Australian professional standards, and their international counterparts,36 are discussed in Chapter 4.
2.2.2 Indigenous People Voicing their Rights
Ros Langford (1983), speaking for the Tasmanian Aboriginal community, confronted the 1982 AAA conference in Hobart. Her paper’s title ‘Our Heritage - Your Playground’ is
32 There was an Indigenous member of the Australian Heritage Commission from then on until its end in 2004, and since then the Australian Heritage Council has had Indigenous members. 33 Johnston was the first of a new wave in Australian archaeology—Aboriginal graduates in archaeology. 34 Sharon Sullivan was appointed in 1989 as Director of the Australian Heritage Commission, and led these initiatives. 35 A partnership between the then federal Department of Communications and the Arts, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission, and AIATSIS. The program was managed by this author. 36 The ICOMOS International Charter on Archaeological Heritage Management and the WAC Code of Ethics, both 1990, and internationally also the 1994 Rüschlikon Principles for Partnership in Cross-Cultural Research and Guidelines for Archaeologists (Prott 2011:4).
51 Truscott – Chapter 2 – What is ‘Community Archaeology’? the most oft-cited expression of Indigenous Australians’ opinion of archaeological research at the time. She portrayed the increasing Aboriginal resentment towards non-indigenous researchers who were benefitting professionally from an archaeological past that was not theirs. Many Indigenous communities rejected archaeological research, seeing it as colonialist, and a misuse of their past and culture. However, the 1982 conference resolution stating AAA ‘acknowledges Aboriginal ownership of their heritage’ is rarely recalled.37
Langford’s castigation, and ensuing explicit Indigenous statements about archaeologists appropriating Indigenous heritage (eg Fourmile 1989; Ah Kit 1995), and archaeologists’ responses noted in the following histories of Australian archaeology (eg Moser 1995; Smith 2000; Colley 2002; du Cros 2002). Indigenous academic Frances Peters-Little (2000) in writing about her investigation with Aboriginal communities, including her own, about the concept of ‘community’ highlights power issues. One issue she highlights relates to the power roles that some community members may have within the community, acting as ‘gatekeepers’ to encounters with individuals, perhaps more familiar to non-indigenous anthropologists than archaeologists. But although not dealing with archaeology or heritage per se, Peters-Little vividly describes communities’ acute awareness of their lack of power vis à vis the researcher, whether Indigenous or not (2000:2):
Aboriginal people are experts on researchers and their funding sources, the effects our reports have on their lives, and our own aim for prosperity; in other words Aboriginal people are experts in researching researchers.
Such Australian Indigenous views are contemporary with, surfaced from, and contribute to an increased Indigenous connection with, and construction of a politicised dialogue about, the past and cultural identity (eg Attwood and Arnold 1992). Concurrently, postcolonial theoretical discussions on this matter emerged internationally. At the time, Indigenous voices elsewhere, such as Maori scholar, Linda Tuhiwai Smith, castigated the ongoing dominance of non-Indigenous researchers on indigenous issues (1999). She states ‘“Research” is probably one of the dirtiest words in the indigenous world’s
37 The agenda item and reference were requested from AAA, but were not available.
52 Truscott – Chapter 2 – What is ‘Community Archaeology’? vocabulary’ (1999:1; 2012:1). Tuhiwai Smith is not targeting archaeology, but all research, providing an Indigenous perspective and presenting ways forward for indigenous researchers, rather than models for non-indigenous scientists. Nor does she define decolonising research a ‘a total rejection of all theory or research or Western knowledge’, but is urging indigenous people to take up ‘research from our own perspectives and for our own purposes’ (1999:39). As outlined below, such ‘decolonising’ critiques eventually highlighted perspectives and concerns about achieving equal relations between archaeologists and indigenous minorities, and collaborative approaches.
In this context, the Australian Aboriginal statements claiming ownership of their past, rather than heritage being of importance universally to humankind, was in response to others’ decision-making dominance. They emphasised the special and ongoing Indigenous relationship to the archaeological layering of the landscape, or ‘Country’, and its cultural associations. A major Aboriginal concern was the excavation of human remains, ‘digging up bodies’ which resulted in a very negative views of archaeology. The 1990s saw requests for the return of human remains from museums and university laboratories, notably the Kow Swamp remains to the Echuca community (1990), and the return of ‘Mungo Lady’ (1992).38 A major debate ensued within the archaeological profession, some archaeologists considering such repatriation as ethical, others wanting recognition of the research potential of such remains. The Kow Swamp issue is seen as a crossroads in attitudes to academic versus community rights to archaeological evidence (Lahn 1996; Smith and Clarke 1996).
The tensions between academic archaeologists and Indigenous Australians reached a low point in the mid-1990s, when the Tasmanian Aboriginal Land Council (TALC) demanded the return of some 400,000 stone artefacts from two archaeologists at the La Trobe University’s Archaeology Department. The ‘Tasmanian affair’ (Allen 1995), was a departure from the usual demand for repatriation for human remains or secret sacred
38 Facilitated by Australian Heritage Commission Indigenous Heritage section between NSW NPWS, Australian Museum and ANU and Indigenous communities (Sharon Sullivan, Betty Meehan, Marilyn Truscott, Elizabeth Williams, and Steve Free, Aboriginal Liaison Officer, all attended the hand-back)
53 Truscott – Chapter 2 – What is ‘Community Archaeology’? items, extending to ‘archaeological remains’. The demand for the return of artefacts shocked the two academic archaeologists involved, seen by them as lessening archaeologists’ ‘freedom’ (Murray 1996:218), and again seen a pivotal moment in Australia’s archaeological discipline (McGowan 1996; Pollard 2008:85). The TALC’s (1996) demand explicitly reinforced the cultural identity value of the items beyond their scientific, or research potential and value. This issue was hotly debated at the 1995 AAA conference, some papers deriding the Indigenous views, others championing community archaeology (Ulm et al 1996), suggesting Australian archaeological practice was at a crossroads.
The La Trobe Case incident heightened a stand-off between the two groups with the most interest in Australia’s pre-settlement past: Indigenous groups and archaeologists. It was at this time that there was a marked increase in ‘offshore’ research into the Pacific and South East Asia in preference to Australia, as noted in academic research projects, said by some archaeologists to be a response to this difference with Indigenous communities over their research autonomy. Sullivan (1996:10), discouraged by the twenty years’ distrust, predicted that ‘many of the problems between archaeologists and Aborigines will disappear’ only once ‘Aboriginal-controlled heritage agencies’ are created.
It was in the 1990s that consultation was seen by many Indigenous communities to be simply ‘telling’ them about the proposed project, rather than giving them the opportunity to influence the outcome. Terminology started to shift from ‘consultation’ to ‘negotiation’, preferred by Indigenous groups as recognising their rights, moral at least, to a greater degree. This Indigenous suspicion of what may seem to be a tokenistic form of consultation accords with Shelley Arnstein’s view put forward over forty years ago, when recommending the involvement of the general community in planning in the United States of America (1969:216):
… citizen participation … is the redistribution of power that enables the have-not citizens, presently excluded from the political and economic processes, to be deliberately included in the future.
Responses to a widening understanding of the broader issues of Indigenous involvement, and the increased demands by Indigenous communities stemming from their growing
54 Truscott – Chapter 2 – What is ‘Community Archaeology’? distrust of ‘archaeology’ are reflected at a conference held in August 199239 at the University of New England. Such socio-political issues were raised related to relationships between archaeologists, between archaeologists and indigenous peoples, and between archaeologists and the wider community. The need for reflexivity in archaeological practice and theory was identified (Burke et al 1994:). Concern was also expressed that the administrative guidelines for consultation were not really resulting in an increase in Indigenous participation in archaeological practice (Lovell-Jones 1995).
Indigenous academics’ increased authority has enabled Indigenous perspectives of science and culture to be included in research on areas impacting on Indigenous lives, including heritage and other social sciences (eg Langton 1981, 1985; AIATSIS 1999; Rigney 2001). Concurrently, such influential Indigenous leaders, including Jonas as a Australian Heritage Commissioner, and at AIATSIS, fostered a wider acceptance that scientific research, was not merely a result of ‘Western’ dominance, but could complement Indigenous perspectives. However, an issue that continues to dog the aim of incorporating an Indigenous view of the past into the archaeological approach in Australia, is the split in perceptions between what is ‘traditional’ and what is not, discussed further below. As noted above, AIAS’ hesitance in 1971 to fund sacred sites surveys in NSW was indicative of a gulf between perceptions of settled Australia, and where traditional Aboriginal people live—in remote areas; this misunderstanding continues.
A fundamental change occurred in 1992 in Australia’s acknowledgement of Indigenous people, and thus the context within which archaeological heritage management takes place. The High Court of Australia recognised that Indigenous Australians had native title, with subsequent federal legislation, the Native Title Act 1993 making this recognition law (AustLII 1993). This acknowledgement that Indigenous people in Australia had certain rights to land strengthened Indigenous Australians’ claims to a special relationship to their past and their heritage places, and shifted society’s view profoundly. Indigenous perspectives were however more sceptical that this recognition
39 Only months after the High Court found in favour of native title in May 1992, see later this section.
55 Truscott – Chapter 2 – What is ‘Community Archaeology’? would not merely amount to rhetoric (eg Murphy 1996). Similarly, Greer, one of the key proponents for community archaeology, argued almost a decade after native title recognition that the ‘academy has been otherwise slow to take up challenges issued by indigenous people’ (Greer 2001:47). Russell puts a different perspective on archaeology becoming acceptable to Indigenous people (2004:243):
A measure of archaeology's success in making itself relevant to Indigenous people will be when indigenous people have the desire to set archaeological research agendas and initiate partnership projects.
Russell’s statement appears to ignore the many Indigenous communities initiating research projects about their heritage over many decades, such as funded by the Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies (AIATSIS) from the 1960s40 on (Ward 2013). Some community-initiated projects in non-remote Australia include Brian Egloff’s collaborations on the South Coast, NSW. Egloff’s research established a continued knowledge of places and ongoing cultural associations for both the Wreck Bay community (1981, 1990), and the Yuin people with Mumbulla Mountain41 (1979, 1981; Egloff et al 2005). Other such projects focused on communities’ post-contact history, such as at historic cemeteries (eg Ward et al 1989). However, both Greer and Russell are presenting a perspective from academia. It may be that such projects undertaken ‘so long ago’ have in a sense disappeared from both the current archaeological literature as well as being unknown to those fostering community archaeology. Susia Allia and Darren Griffin raise this problem seeking the ‘recording of Indigenous cultural values within archaeological investigations’ and asking (2011; AAA 2011):42
What has happened to ethnographic recording since that time? Has this skill been lost by the profession and the wider public? Have archaeologists allowed the oral histories of the past to be lost; in effect to become “lost histories”, disappearing and not reclaimed? Have the Indigenous
40 The Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies until 1989. 41 Now Biamanga and Gulaga National Parks, this land was returned to the Yuin people, the traditional owners in 2006 (NSW Officer of the Registrar 2011), and leased back to NSW national parks management (NSW DEH 2011). 42 A proposed session at the AAA Annual Conference in 2011, that did not take place.
56 Truscott – Chapter 2 – What is ‘Community Archaeology’? perspectives of the past become the invisible history and story of Australia?
The reasons for this ignorance of past practice may be that the reports are largely inaccessible ‘grey literature’. This is reinforced by Egloff’s point that many past reports are unavailable publicly, yet agreeing that Indigenous communities have long used such archaeological information (pers comm. Brian Egloff 9 November 2011):
… that combine the works of anthropologists and archaeologists many if which are exceptional in their response to Indigenous community requests for assistance and regrettably often not published due to their incorporation of sensitive information – genealogical accounts, etc
Indigenous communities have also set archaeological agendas since the first land rights legislation in 1976, and increasingly since the native title legislation, a decade before Russell’s statement (eg Lilley 2000). But as well as information not being generally available, the growth of the numbers of archaeologists and the fact that this history of Australian archaeology is not generally taught at all universities, has obscured these original collaborations.
This outline of the recognition of Indigenous rights in Australia and the consequent introduction of consultation with Indigenous Australians about their heritage, sets the scene for the mid-1990s’ appearance of community archaeology. But the sequence from control by archaeologists to the sense by some archaeologists that archaeology was no longer theirs to control was not simple, and a challenge to some. More recent archaeology graduates, unaware of the past, in their call for a ‘community-based’ or ‘community controlled archaeology’, is part of this general progression. However this call for an inclusion of Indigenous rights is on a continuum from that first heard twenty years before at the 1975 AAA meeting, rather than a true conceptual shift.
However, archaeological practice did not generally aspire to integrate Indigenous knowledge about their past, or their traditional knowledge of Country, or at least this omission occurred in those areas where there has been longer European settlement. As such, this exclusion does not meet the ideal of community archaeology that seeks if not Indigenous control, then a collaboration that gives an equal voice to Indigenous
57 Truscott – Chapter 2 – What is ‘Community Archaeology’? understandings. Legislation requiring consultation was an important acknowledgement of Indigenous rights. Yet as indicated above, communities increasingly felt they were being ‘told’, rather than their input being sought. Nonetheless the call for ‘control’ is perhaps understandable, especially after the recognition of native title, that timed itself with the emergence of calls for community archaeology. How such control can be achieved within the demands, such as competing demands for land in wider society, is one question for this research. How these changes also activated shifts in archaeologists’ relationships with communities follows.
2.3 Archaeology and People – Changing Perceptions?
Harry Allen and Caroline Phillips (2010:18) see archaeologists’ response to indigenous community criticism as a ‘moral crisis’, but the colonialist approach inherent in archaeology in settler countries was not immediately recognised (Atalay 2006a:271). However, over the past decades, it has been established that archaeology has been colonialist, imperialist or even racist, in its application as described by Trigger (1984, 2000, 2006). This widespread theoretical critique establishes the cultural embeddedness of archaeology in the past, and possibly ongoing, hegemonic role, and provides a clear context for community archaeology's emergence, as the following discussion indicates.
The various terms used in these writings, familiar to post-modern theorists, are explained in the Glossary (Appendix 1) and briefly here in the cause of plain language. Those terms commonly appearing in these texts are ‘colonialist / colonising’, postcolonialism, and decolonising. Most archaeologists are familiar with the terms ‘processual’ and ‘postprocessual’ archaeology, the first, processual archaeology seen as limited to and dependent on science alone, whereas postprocessual emphasises the subjectivity of archaeological interpretations. These approaches have also engendered much debate and provide a context for the supposition by some that community archaeology is a new way.
2.3.1 Archaeology as Coloniser?
The subjugation viewed as inherent in colonialism is the core critique of archaeological theory and practice in current or former European colonies. The critiques of colonialism
58 Truscott – Chapter 2 – What is ‘Community Archaeology’? all refer to more recent colonisation, no more than the past 500 years, by European nations of other parts of the world: Asia, the Americas, Africa and Australasia. It does not cover earlier colonisations around the world, such as the huge Roman or Mongol empires. Nonetheless, Hamilakis (2007) finds parallels in the current debates regarding the imbalance of power between colonisers and local peoples the 19th century. At that time, the newly emerging discipline of archaeology in Europe was seen as serving an ‘intersection of colonialism and nationalism’ by those in the Austro-Hungarian empire aspiring for independence from Vienna by asserting a separate national identity (Hamilakis 2007).
Fitting within the postmodern intellectual movement, ‘postcolonialism’ is the theoretical examination of colonialism’s legacy in literature and cultural studies, emerging over twenty-five years ago in former colonies, such as in the Middle East, India, and Africa (eg Said 1978; Ngũgĩ 1986; Spivak 1990; Bhabha 1994), postcolonialism’s position is of an unequal relationship between the colonial, or imperial, power and the ‘colony’. The colonialist legacy includes the ideas, understandings—assumptions—about colonised non-Europeans, persisting after the colonists left. The perception of archaeology as part of the ‘colonial project’, annexing pasts for inquiry along with newly occupied lands, is a finding of ‘postcolonialism’.
‘Postcolonialism’ has a different meaning to ‘post-colonial’, which usually refers to the phase after colonialism, following the colonists’ withdrawal.43 ‘Settler’ countries, such as the USA, Canada, Australia or New Zealand in the Anglo-sphere, are not strictly seen as ‘post-colonial’, nor strictly those many other new-world colonised countries where the majority are descendants of the first peoples, such as in Latin America. In those countries, the colonists stayed, adding to their numbers from ‘home’ and other countries, and became multi-cultural societies.
43 Such as encouraged by the UN in the 1960s, eg the departure of France from its African colonies.
59 Truscott – Chapter 2 – What is ‘Community Archaeology’? In the Anglo-sphere settler countries, the indigenous populations are not those in power, and form a very small proportion of the population, apart from New Zealand.44 Thus in postcolonial critique, these countries are seen to remain part of a ‘colonial project’, where indigenous people continue to be subjected to colonising attitudes. Maori researcher Tuhiwai Smith describes the issues for indigenous peoples in detail (1999, 2012), as does Native American, Sonya Atalay (2006a, b, 2012) in regard to decolonising archaeology, a discipline that was late to come under postcolonial critique.
The emergence of archaeology’s growing awareness and consideration of the postcolonialist aspect of its practice is well described by Liebmann as the ‘notorious “theory lag” that characterizes the history of archaeological thought’ (2008:2), followed by Jane Lydon and Uzma Rizvi (2010a). Key themes emerge from these postcolonial analyses of archaeological practice. Inquiry focuses on the causes for a colonialist approach in archaeological practice, and the results of such an approach. Key markers to ascribe a colonialist approach in archaeological practice are: power differences between colonisers and colonised; ignorance or ignoring of local knowledge; and processual archaeology. Key impacts of this colonialist approach are: divorcing descent communities from their past; relegating colonised peoples to that past as unchanging and ‘unmodern’; and, appropriating that past, either as being universal to humanity, or as part of the national identity (eg Nicholas and Hollowell 2010:13).
This exchange of ideas is within the archaeological circle—especially the World Archaeological Congress (WAC), and the Anglo-sphere’s settler countries. The WAC has provided an international forum since its inception in 1986 to share and negotiate
44 Australia 2.5% (Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders; 2011 census data: www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/[email protected]/Lookup/2075.0main+features32011). Canada 3.8% (includes all Aboriginal groups: North American Indian, Métis and Inuit; from 2006 census: www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/89-645-x/2010001/count-pop-denombrement-eng.htm) New Zealand 14.6% (from 2006 census: www.stats.govt.nz/Census/2006CensusHomePage/QuickStats/quickstats-about-a-subject/maori/MAORI- ethnic-population-te-momo-iwi-maori.aspx) USA 1.7% (Native American Indians or Alaska Natives, does not include Native Hawaiians or Other Pacific Islanders; from 2010 census: www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/briefs/c2010br-10.pdf)
60 Truscott – Chapter 2 – What is ‘Community Archaeology’? approaches in archaeology, at conferences, and in books and journals.45 The WAC has now taken up postcolonial debates more recently with energy, as have WAC members within Australia, influencing archaeological practice which, as elsewhere, had not engaged with earlier national cultural studies academic postcolonial debate.
Power
The power discrepancy between ‘expert’ and those whose past is being investigated is a regular ground for identifying archaeological disciplinary authority and knowledge production as colonising, and has ‘implications for contemporary power relations’ (Liebmann 2008:9). Yet, the assumption by an expert of having a ‘superior’ role, is not unique to the colonised world, and in mono-cultures may stem from class systems or assumptions or perceptions of experts as in authority and control of the means and rights to knowledge making. But this take on the researcher’s dominance, whether conceived as based on expertise, or class or racial superiority, is one that is highly resented in settler countries by indigenous groups and just as importantly from disenfranchised settlers who often join with indigenous communities in a common cause against the establishment. The sense of exclusion is interpreted as the expert’s view of the other as unequal (La Salle 2010:405), or ‘subaltern’46 (Liebmann 2008:5-6; Lydon and Rizvi 2010a:20), and seen as exploitation47 (La Salle 2010:406). Others interpret the power imbalance between researcher and community as ‘racist’ (Allen and Phillips 2010:21) and term it ‘scientific colonialism’ (Nicholas and Hollowell 2008). Smith interprets this power imbalance as resulting from the expert’s lack of reflexivity (Smith 2004).
Scathing descriptions of archaeological theory and practice in settler countries, most commonly by those not doing the archaeology, accord with the protest by Indigenous
45 Archaeologies, Global Cultural Heritage Manual Series, Journal of the World Archaeological Congress, Indigenous Archaeologies, One World Archaeology, Research Handbooks in Archaeology, Worlds of Archaeology. 46 ‘such as peasant, women, the working class, and other marginalized people’, as discussed by Lucas in Lydon and Rizvi 2010, noting that it was Spivak that expounded the term ‘subaltern’ (1990). 47 Equated by some as a Marxist construct with archaeologists monopolising the means of production ‘while Indigenous peoples represent the proletariat, “defined by their lack of access to the means of production” … the researchers (La Salle 2010:405 quoting George Nicholas 2008).
61 Truscott – Chapter 2 – What is ‘Community Archaeology’? Australian voices. Resistance to domination by another culture, led to local groups’ wish to control their own past and reject archaeological knowledge as irrelevant to Indigenous people. The awareness by some archaeologists that Indigenous people were being ignored in their research is a key factor in the argument put for community archaeology. Recognition of Indigenous rights and postcolonialism’s negative evaluation of archaeology has wrenched away the blinkers, but it is unclear whether power imbalances have also disappeared. This research examines power relations in the case studies.
One area where a power imbalance may continue is in exclusive language, using terms that are not generally understood or obscure. Of course this applies to all disciplinary ‘jargons’, but seems discourteous in research dealing with culturally different groups. However, not only specialist terms can be a barrier to understanding. Allen and Phillips (2010:28) perceive ‘confusion when people are using similar language based on quite different understandings’, and thus ‘talking past each other’ leading to cross-cultural misunderstandings.48 Even the term ‘archaeology’ may mean very different things to different people, as already noted, meaning ‘digging treasures’ in exotic lands (see Chapter 3).
Wendy Beck (Beck et al 2005:239) in her section in a publication with the Yarrawarra community, agrees that language can be a barrier, noting ‘Archaeological language is not easily understandable … Particular languages can be used in political ways, to empower people who are “in the know”’. And McDavid provides important insights into how language can empower, in her discussion on ‘critical race theory’ (McDavid and McGhee 2010:488-490). The very critiques of colonising archaeology are by their theoretical academic nature closed to the general reader, including minority or indigenous groups. Those very groups likely to have an interest in discussions about possible appropriations of their past, remain excluded from the new understandings of that possible abuse. The community archaeology ideals foster open communication, as do various codes of ethics for archaeologists and heritage practitioners that advocate plain language (see Chapter 4). It is unclear how much archaeological research and heritage management reports adhere
48 Whether between expert or non-expert, or between people from different cultural backgrounds.
62 Truscott – Chapter 2 – What is ‘Community Archaeology’? to this principle of plain English as required in the AAA Code of Ethics. This research has analysed this issue and found the language in reports wanting as it does not meet the plain English commitment, as demonstrated below, especially in Chapter 6.
Part of Past
The exclusion of Indigenous Australians from an input into research into their past, is seen to have simultaneously relegated today’s descent community to its past. This view stems from an insistence that Aboriginal Australians are an unchanging culture and people, part of that past, belonging in the past. The public view of Aboriginal Australians has to some degree romanticised them as exotic, thus preserving them as ‘Other’ (Gosden 2001:245), or even as ‘primitive’ (Liebmann 2008:6).
Thus Aboriginal culture is defined as ‘traditional’ and in the prehistoric past, and those living a traditional lifestyle as ‘authentic’ as criticised by Rodney Harrison and Christine Williamson (2002a:b). Others also censure such inaccurate notions of Indigenous Australians as ‘Real Aborigines’ only in remote Australia—in the Outback, in the Far North (eg Gandhi 2008:42). 49 As such they are generally imagined by many as ‘forever unchanging’ (Birdsell 1970 in Gray 2000:175), that results as Head notes, in their somehow being imagined as ‘implicitly fossilized representative[s] of an earlier age, simultaneously contemporary and timeless’ (1998:1).
Nicholas Thomas identifies a problem with the romanticised perception of Indigenous Australians by ‘contemporary white culture … as cherished rather than denigrated … elemental and ancestral’ (1994:28). Neither response, the past disparagement or current idealising, is realistic, and have created barriers to the return of land ownership to Indigenous Australians, as shown later. The coincident barring from and banning to the past can be a barrier to including the community when devising research questions, a result described as ‘unintentionally’ marginalising communities (Reeves 2004:72), leaving them in ‘limbo’ (Allen and Phillips 2010:20). Ken Isaacson, sees from his perspective as an Indigenous archaeologist, that disjunction persists between living
49 … and not in fact where most Indigenous Australians are: in inner regional and urban Australia.
63 Truscott – Chapter 2 – What is ‘Community Archaeology’? ‘communities and their ancestors by not acknowledging living traditions and material remains of past peoples’ (Isaacson and Ford 2005:259-60).
‘Universalising’ Archaeology and Multiple Meanings
Archaeology has also been attacked in postcolonial debates for its ‘processualist’ approach. This form of archaeology was originally termed ‘New Archaeology’, ‘a development in the 1960s in the USA’,50 aimed at making archaeology more scientific, now more often referred to as “processual archaeology”’ (Bahn 2004:343). The aim was to find patterns in the human past—universal truths in past human activity wherever, and whenever, it occurred (eg Trigger 2000:289-328). Given the ‘prehistoric’ (non-documentary) nature of indigenous pasts in settler countries, archaeological research embraced the ‘new archaeology’ model, including in Australia. ‘Archaeologists have distanced communities from their ancestors’ (Isaacson and Ford 2005:359-60), is a view among Indigenous communities despite past ethnohistorical, or ‘living archaeology’ approaches.
This ‘new archaeology’, and its deterministic essentialism, was questioned in the last quarter of the 20th century, seeing the emergence of ‘post-processual archaeology’. British archaeologists led this interrogation (Miller and Tilley 1984; Hodder 1985; Shanks and Tilley 1987a, b). Set within the postmodern movement, these theorists sought a greater ‘self-critical theoretical reflexivity’. During the mid-1990s crossroads for Australian archaeology, Laurajane Smith (1995) brought this debate home to Australian archaeologists, asking ‘What is this thing called post-processual archaeology ... and what is its relevance to Australian Archaeology?’
Being British, Shanks, Hodder, and others had no particular awareness at that time of the growing clash between indigenous peoples and archaeologists in settler countries.51 Yet their critique of the wholly ‘scientific’ approach’ to finding universal truths in past
50 see Trigger’s reference to Joseph Caldwell’s 1959 article in Science ‘The new American archaeology’ (2000:294) 51 Both Shanks and Hodder were later appointed to chairs in archaeology in the USA, a settler country, where inevitably they have become more aware of the debates on colonial and decolonising archaeology.
64 Truscott – Chapter 2 – What is ‘Community Archaeology’? human activity, timed itself with a backlash against such essentialism separating the past, or archaeological data, from people, leading the way to a more nuanced and politically- aware archaeological approach.
Michael Shanks, contemplating the furore that greeted the ‘black book’, ReConstructing Archaeology (1987a), deduces that he and Tilley were so denounced (2006a):
Because we mingled science with politics and business. We argued that archaeology is primarily about our relationship with the past. Archaeology is not about the past so much as where we come from. This makes it ethically and politically important to people, because the past is often where we look for roots and a sense of self and identity.
And Shanks, again with hindsight, argues regarding his and Christopher Tilley’s ‘red book’, Social Theory and Archaeology (1987b), that (2006b):
We also thought that archaeologists should account for what they do and not justify their work as knowledge for its own sake. Some saw us therefore as political pamphleteers rather than academic scholars.
Shanks’ reflections twenty-five years later demonstrate that those fostering community archaeology are situated within this ‘postprocessual’ concept of archaeology. Different interpretations of the past cannot only be equally valid, and enhance a sense of the past, but may also enable a better ‘scientific’ interpretation. The view that the archaeological interpretation of the past is the only valid one, dismissive of a community’s understandings of its past, or ‘stands above others’, is increasingly revised, as archaeology (Matthews et al 2011:483):
produces more than material remains or … historical … interpretations, but also creates a dynamic social space where past and present are constructed, integrated and negotiated
However much these debates constantly urge a self-awareness, self-reflectivity, and self- reflexivity, some doubt a change, seeing archaeology ‘entrenched with the biases of a Western worldview, … practitioners bring their cultural biases into the framing of their research questions, their methodologies, and their interpretations’ (Isaacson and Ford 2005:358). Others see the colonising approach as generally unwitting and unintended (Byrne 2002:136; McNiven and Russell 2005:234; Murray 2002), reinforcing Shanks’
65 Truscott – Chapter 2 – What is ‘Community Archaeology’? and Tilley’s view that ‘no archaeology can be value-free and stand outside history’ (1987a:245). What is clear is that it is not always clear from these debates how self-reflexivity can be achieved.
Discussion
These hindsights have brought insights into other ways of seeing the past and what it means in the present, as Atalay highlights in her discussion of decolonising archaeology (2006b:291):
… one of the outcomes of these discussions has been the realization by many archaeologists that there are multiple ways of seeing, interpreting, and understanding the past …
Atalay’s observation that many archaeologists now realise that a community may have other knowledge of the past, appears to lack an understanding of some past archaeological practice. Perhaps in rejecting that community archaeology may be on a continuum from that time, the debate was unaware of the close relationships formed between researcher and community in the past, and the collaborative input by the local community (eg Meehan 1975, 1982; Egloff 1979). Such longstanding ‘working together’ appears to be forgotten in the current dialogue.
Being unaware of past shared efforts between archaeologists and communities would explain why ‘decolonising archaeology’ discussions suggest as a new ‘discovery, that Indigenous people have an understanding of their past. The recognition of community knowledge in inner regional areas of NSW in the early 1970s by Creamer and Kelly appears forgotten. Perhaps the strong scientific process of‘ ‘new archaeology’ caused a break in awareness of past cultural-historical approaches that drew on all available information, as Native American, Sonya Atalay reminds us (2006b:280):
In piecing together multiple lines of evidence, including written documents, oral histories, analytical data from artifacts and ecofacts, and a range of regional and local environmental evidence, archaeologists attempt to write the stories of the past.
The postcolonialist debate perhaps overemphasises Indigenous Australians’ different worldview, perpetuating perceptions of them as ‘Other’, as the ‘authentic’ Aborigine. My
66 Truscott – Chapter 2 – What is ‘Community Archaeology’? experience is that archaeology in other regions, such as in the Classical world of Europe and the Middle East, are accustomed to drawing on local knowledge, stories and myths as providing other explanations for features in the landscape. However, the popular fixing of ‘real’ Aborigines as traditional, with an unchanging culture, may sit in opposition to forming genuine collaborative relationships. The Australian Indigenous archaeologist Isaacson rebukes the scientific stance: ‘because Indigenous culture is living, Indigenous cultural sites are alive, as opposed to archaeological conceptions about sites being dead or static’ (Isaacson and Ford 2005:355).
A relegation to ‘prehistory’ does not recognise Indigenous Australians as today’s people: peoples who carry their past forward with them, a past that changed over some 50,000 years. Peoples who have continued to change adapting to the changed circumstances of the past 200 years. Peoples that amended traditional stories and places of significance by adding meanings from contemporary events (eg Rose 1984, 2001; McIntyre-Tamwoy 2002). Tim Murray, in fostering ‘shared histories’ between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians, urges knowing ‘specific histories of Indigenous communities before the power of tradition and the “essential” Aborigine can be broken’ (2002:220). Certainly, acceptance of such continuity with change is needed before any genuine community archaeology can be practised.
But despite this acknowledgement, to many a contrast persists between Western ‘science’ that ‘privileges ‘material, scientific and observable’ and Indigenous ‘conceptions that value the spiritual, experiential and intangible qualities of archaeological sites, ancestral remains and artefacts’ (Allen and Phillips 2010:28; see also Sheehan and Lilley 2008; Smith and Jackson 2008:178). It is suggested these categories should be collapsed. It is agreed that perspectives of the past are more complex, less oppositional, with multiple ways of seeing, interpreting and understanding the past (Atalay 2006a:272; Allen and Phillips 2010:28-29), as ‘multivocal’ (Betz 2008; Atalay 2012:39).
Recent commentary begins to be impatient with the continuing emphasis on archaeology as a purveyor of colonial difference between archaeologist and community. A ‘get over it’ message is relayed by those seeing the ongoing negativity of essentialism and
67 Truscott – Chapter 2 – What is ‘Community Archaeology’? ‘oppositional/dualist terms’ as being ‘unproductive to continue dividing the archaeological world into a set of conceptual oppositions’ (Allen and Phillips 2010:29). They argue it is time to move forward with the different understandings of the past without forcing ‘practitioners to chose between [Western52] science and Indigenous thought’ (Allen and Phillips 2010:29).
2.4 Challenges for 'Community Archaeology' … change is slow as, whilst practitioners readily acknowledge the necessity for innovation and collaboration, few explicit methodologies have been proposed. (Tully 2009:65)
To this point this chapter has outlined the background to the emergence of community archaeology in Australia, within its wider context of international developments of ‘archaeology with communities’. The history of community archaeology’s appearance includes the recognition of indigenous rights over the last half century and society’s ethical responses to this. The debate about archaeology as part of colonial power systems intensified archaeologists’ self-awareness, concurrent with the emergence of postproccessual archaeology. One result is an acknowledgment of the validity of different voices about the past.
The evidence examined above suggests that community archaeology is not ‘new’, but on a continuum from past archaeological practice, each era reflecting shifts in society’s attitudes over time. Nor is community archaeology with Indigenous or minority groups fundamentally different from other forms of community archaeology. ‘Public archaeology’ or outreach programs sharing the process and results of archaeology are on a spectrum, with all forms eligible to be useful to the community involved.
2.4.1 Insights and Issues for 'Community Archaeology'
How archaeologists and non-professional associated communities actually collaborate together ‘has become an ‘established discourse in the subfield of public archaeology’ (Matthews et al 2010:483). The very titles of a various compilation of articles indicate the
52 Allen and Phillips are highly critical of the assumption that science is purely ‘Western’ without input from non-Western people’s input into understandings of the physical world (2010:29).
68 Truscott – Chapter 2 – What is ‘Community Archaeology’? more recent topics of debates on ‘decolonised archaeology’, as do new journals,53 very much influenced by New Zealander, Maori Tuhiwai Smith’s broader critique of all research’s ‘colonisation’ of her culture.
Claire Smith and Martin Wobst (2005) in Indigenous Archaeologies: Decolonizing Theory and Practice, Atalay (2006a) in Decolonizing Archaeology – Efforts to Transform a Discipline, and Matthew Liebmann and Uzma Rizvi (2010a) in Archaeology and the Postcolonial Critique, continue to present theoretical issues for a postcolonial archaeology, and papers in Margaret Bruchac et al (2010) in Indigenous Archaeologies: A Reader on Decolonization explore issues related to indigeneity and power in these contexts. Other volumes have presented ways to achieve this new ‘way forward’, such as Lydon and Rizvi (2010b) in Handbook of postcolonial archaeology, and Paul Shackel and Erve Chambers (2004) foster an anthropological approach in Places in mind: public archaeology as applied anthropology. Atalay in Community Based Archaeology: Research with, by, and for Indigenous and Local Communities outlines power sharing at both the level of local archaeological projects, and nationally (2012:80). Phillips and Allen (2010) also present a history of the process towards a community archaeology, and the practices that evolved in Bridging the divide: indigenous communities and archaeology into the 21st century. These publications about ‘decolonising archaeology’ seek ways for a genuine equality between archaeologist as research expert and local/descent/indigenous community. Some are sceptical whether the solutions given are succeeding. Summaries of key issues from these debates are presented below.
The authors are mostly from Anglo settler countries, but different terms are used for the same concept. ‘Community archaeology’ is used in Australia, ‘indigenous archaeology’54 or ‘public archaeology’ in North America, (USA and Canada). ‘Collaborative archaeology’ (Jones 2008:15-18; Tully 2009:74-75), or ‘participatory archaeology’ (McDavid and McGhee 2010), or ‘community-based participatory research’ (CBPR)
53 Such as Journal in Public Archaeology (since 2000); Journal of Social Archaeology (since 2001); Heritage and Society (since 2008, formerly Heritage Management) 54 Most frequently used in Canada, ‘indigenous archaeology’ refers here to a collaborative approach between community and archaeologist, not as often used in Australia, as shorthand for archaeological research on Australian Indigenous sites.
69 Truscott – Chapter 2 – What is ‘Community Archaeology’? (Atalay 2012), are all increasingly used terms. ‘Collaboration is the new buzz-word’ (La Salle 2010:413), but a contested term, as it is thought to be used too loosely. Issues identified are discussed below and include:
Positive awareness and ‘use’ of different perspectives on past and landscape, with another view that scientific rigour is lost as a result
The separation between prehistory and historical archaeology, especially in Australia
Scepticism about claims for community archaeology and risks of marginalising this form of archaeological inquiry
Appreciation of different perspectives on past and today’s spaces Community archaeology is based on the premise that better archaeology can be achieved when more diverse voices are involved in the interpretation of the past. This does not mean compromising the scientific nature of archaeology, but rather simply realizing how research integrates with society (Pardoe, 1992: 139) and that it can be used to challenge the inequality of dominant historical paradigms (Schmidt and Patterson, 1995: 6). (Tully 2007:158)
An analysis of different perspectives, multiple meanings, and values of the past, archaeological sites, landscapes, and spaces, and new approaches to these is given in the next chapter. These include ‘landscape archaeology’, cultural mapping, incorporating oral histories, and attempts to combine different worldviews. The integration of different sources and understandings supports those sponsoring collaborative archaeological projects, such as community archaeology.
Despite the literature recognising different worldviews, these reviews generally contain insufficient information as to how collaboration should occur between those with different perspectives on the past, and on how community archaeology can be practised. One exception is based on work with the African diaspora in the USA, particularly regarding language in cross-racial situations (McDavid and McGhee 2010). Others provide some pathways to integrating different perspectives (eg Sheehan and Lilley 2008). Overall, the practitioner is given too little guidance, and also little advice from community participants.
70 Truscott – Chapter 2 – What is ‘Community Archaeology’? One issue that emerges in these debates is concern that decolonising, or community, archaeology may result in poorer research outcomes, in less scientific, objective research. Community archaeology is seen as asking research questions that are local and not necessarily of major national or international scientific importance. The issue of whether local research questions do or do not contribute to a wider national scientific importance is not examined in this research. However, whether community archaeology increases knowledge of the past is a core research question.
Different perspectives on the past may influence the research design, and Clarke indicated how her research questions were influenced by the community’s worldview (1994). Ian McNiven’s and Lynette Russell’s (2005) stance on postcolonial archaeology is instead to relinquish all research matters to the community’s determination. Guy Hepp (2010) sees this position as extreme, more extreme than any others who have embraced indigenous perspectives in research partnerships. The issue of control or collaboration continues in decolonising debates (eg Lilley 2005; Nicholas 2006).
Continuity from past to present?
Australian Indigenous groups’ sense of the past is continuous. As a Murri community elder, Ted Mitchell, in Central Queensland, affirms ‘there is no simple divide between the “historical” and the “mythical”; his history of the Taroom Reserve encompassed both within a unified whole’ (Godwin and L’Oste-Brown 2002:205; see also Weiner et al 2002). Australian discussion on community archaeology laments the current separation between ‘prehistory’, the period before European settlement, and ‘historical archaeology’, from contact on (eg Lilley 2000; Harrison 2002a, b, 2005; Murray 2002; Paterson 2010). Denis Byrne (et al 2001) strongly criticised the absence of the ‘post-contact’ period in development impact assessments in NSW. An important affirmation of communities’ continuous histories ‘after Captain Cook’ took place at the AAA 2000 conference (Harrison and Williamson 2002a, 2004).
But the recognition of a continuing history post-settlement is not the only issue, but its absence within the wider Australian story. Accounts are often separated between Indigenous and ‘non’. An Indigenous community’s interest in, and knowledge of, its
71 Truscott – Chapter 2 – What is ‘Community Archaeology’? recent past, is noted by Clarke (1994), who changed her research focus accordingly, yet her inquiry did not include non-Indigenous perspectives. In reverse, particularly in urban areas, ongoing Indigenous history may be ignored in heritage impact studies,55 hindered perhaps by separate heritage legislation. Dugay-Grist (2013) stresses the valuable information on post-settlement to the present day held by local historical societies, and urges its use for pre-development surveys. Murray observes that ‘all archaeology post 1788 has to assume that Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians are each in some ways defined by the existence of the other’ (2002:218). Annie Clarke and Alistair Paterson stress cross-cultural approaches in archaeology ‘could in the future build in both indigenous and non-indigenous components to create a more inclusive cross-cultural record of interaction’ (2003:50).
The very use of the term ‘contact archaeology’ can be confusing, although recognising a shared experience between Indigenous groups and settler. Murray (2002:215) rightly points out this contact may be seen as brief and momentary, and later ‘Indigenous people became archaeologically indistinguishable from poor white rural or urban populations’, noting this apparent disappearance into a mainstream ‘is more complicated and ambiguous (and more likely to yield counter-intuitive results)’.
Such continuity-with-change in meaning of place and landscape is increasingly accepted, as the discussion of cultural mapping and values of heritage in Chapter 3 demonstrates. However this research shows that the inclusion of the more recent Indigenous past, or its integration with the identification of the ‘prehistoric’ past, let alone being united with non-Indigenous heritage, is very rare.
Doubt about 'Community Archaeology'
Those promulgating community archaeology see giving control to the relevant community as a straightforward response that ends community exclusion from archaeological research and exploitation of the community’s past. Those doubting the efficacy of community archaeology range in their views. Martha La Salle (2010:401) sees
55 An example of highlighting Indigenous historic places of significance is by Gandhi (2008).
72 Truscott – Chapter 2 – What is ‘Community Archaeology’? the claims for this ‘new’ way to ‘do archaeology’ as perhaps too well-intentioned, dressed up in terms that ‘inadvertently mask an exploitation that may be inherent in the structure of the research itself’. Such ongoing domination of community may nonetheless be unwitting, for La Salle allows the intention to redress past power imbalances. She is however uncomfortable about the scheme by experts to make community members ‘comfortable’, seeing that as insincere and manipulative—paternalistic (La Salle 2010:409).
Again language is seen as potentially hiding ongoing dominance. La Salle noted George Nicholas’ frequent use of the term ‘working together’ in Canada (eg 2007, 2010a), interpreting him as indicating equality, when it is often used for merely hiring community members as ‘laborers, liaisons, or paid token representatives’ (2010:406). Nicholas responded, explaining ‘working together’ does not imply true ‘collaboration’, this latter being a ‘sharing or deferring decision making’ to community (Nicholas 2010a:245). Nicholas (2014) has since clarified further this issue of full collaboration in his article titled ‘Reconciling Inequalities in Archaeological Practice and Heritage Research’. Such shifting uses of terms can be misunderstood, glossing over where actual equal partnerships are achieved. To others the current claims for collaborative processes as ‘hype’ (Pyburn 2008:203), whatever terms are used.
McNiven and Russell, who accuse archaeology of appropriating the Australian Indigenous past as part of the wider ‘colonial project’ (albeit ‘unwittingly’), dismiss claims for community archaeology as giving control to indigenous peoples as ‘sentiments [that] are commendable’ (2005:234). They assert there is a trend towards archaeologists seeing themselves as the ‘agents of change and the source of Indigenous empowerment’, arguing that such ‘gatekeeping’ by archaeologists is denying ‘the agency and political activism of Indigenous people’ (2005:234).
Sullivan interprets McNiven’s and Russell’s critique as suggesting that ‘all attempts by archaeologists to shrug off the colonial mantle so far, including community archaeology, have failed to varying degrees’, and surprised at their negativity, she remarks (Sullivan 2007:209):
73 Truscott – Chapter 2 – What is ‘Community Archaeology’? Effectively the authors claim that before the present, and their own work, no meaningful decolonisation of archaeological practice had been achieved. But in historical terms this is to deny the very processes of change which surely contributed in part to their own enlightened attitude and their undoubted advances in this area.
A continuing refrain in these discussions is whether community archaeology is actually working. Simpson and Williams argue community archaeology is based on ‘ideal expectations of what community archaeology should achieve in terms of either educating and engaging the community or constructing community values and identities’ (2008:70). They share concern about the efficacy of community archaeology, that too little is known about its worth. Although Simpson’s research is examining outreach community archaeology in England, her insights are more broadly valid (Simpson and Williams 2008:70):
… the lack of research into whether community archaeology projects are currently effective at achieving the desired and perceived benefits of community dialogue and participation in archaeology, and whether this translates into real effects on people’s knowledge and perception of the past and subsequently their sense of identity. … In short, is community archaeology working?
John Carman, also writing about 'community archaeology' in the UK, suggests a divide between archaeologists and a local community with ‘myths’ from the past forming its preconceived sense of identity. He argues a lack of reconciliation between the different versions of the past and that ‘those who cannot attach themselves to the material that is our concern will be excluded from our activities’ and ‘As archaeologists we can do nothing about this because we would cease to be archaeologists if we did. As citizens we can perhaps do more.’ (2011:500). Carman’s understanding of 'community archaeology' appears based on the UK view of it as being archaeology undertaken by the community, if with an archaeologist. Its focus appears soley on an archaeological research outcome, rather than as a contribution to a community’s sense of identity and its cultural heritage.
Carman’s position is in contrast to those fostering a more collaborative understanding of the past inherent in a decolonising collaborative approach. His view may result from his focus being in a country where both archaeologist and descendant local community are
74 Truscott – Chapter 2 – What is ‘Community Archaeology’? generally from the same broad cultural identity. Yet Carman’s perceptions of the role of archaeologist are valid in the current debate about archaeology’s role in decolonisation and its capacity to do so. The debate highlights the contrasting expectations of the archaeologist as ‘scientist’ rather than community facilitator. 'Community archaeology' has emphasis on archaeologists having the sole role liaising with communities about their sense of their past and today’s cultural identity.
Ongoing international doubt about the community archaeology approach was expressed at WAC-6 (Dublin 2008), suggesting ‘the cosiness of some accounts of engagement actually mask abiding and inequitable imbalances between professionals and communities in relation to the control of resources and narratives?’ (Watson and Waterton 2010:2).
The issue of imbalances power and ethical approaches remains, as seen in Canada, where George Nicholas and Julie Hollowell (2007:59) see ‘substantial challenges remain’ for an ‘ethical archaeology’, despite archaeologists’ response to ‘internal dialogues and external critiques by facilitating greater involvement of descendant peoples and other source communities’.
Most recently, Nicholas, despite his previous extensive work and writing fostering collaborative approaches to archaeology and heritage management,56 highlights some risks for community archaeology; his concern is the potential marginalisation of such work (2010b:233):
While I strongly encourage the pursuit of community-based, ethnocritical, and reflexive methods and modes of interpretation as much-needed and long-overdue elements in contemporary archaeology, at the same time I suggest that we must also work to eliminate Indigenous archaeology as a creature that resides solely outside of the mainstream.
Here Nicholas is not arguing for an end to ‘indigenous archaeology’, as he terms it. Instead he seeks a change to mainstream archaeology, seeing community archaeology’s processes as contributing to a more ‘representative, relevant and responsible’ archaeology
56 eg 2001, 2004, 2005, 2010b; Nicholas and Hollowell 2007; Hollowell and Nicholas 2008, 2009
75 Truscott – Chapter 2 – What is ‘Community Archaeology’? overall (Nicholas 2010a:248). Yet his statement risks being misunderstood by some Indigenous people, thinking Nicholas is recommending integration with mainstream archaeology. Nicholas (2010b) is not, rather stressing the relevant of the ‘local’ into archaeological understandings, as well as reflecting the nuanced, yet potentially conflicted, role of Indigenous archaeologists working with communities. For many Indigenous groups regard an entirely separate autonomous control of their past and present heritage as the only future path, as proposed by Indigenous archaeologist, Dave Johnston (2013a, b, c). The risk of a marginalisation of community archaeology will be assessed in this research, as will whether there is a diminution of the archaeological scientific process in such community archaeology projects.
2.4.2 Questions for ‘Community Archaeology’
The aims and claims of community archaeology raise many questions, about the reality rather than the rhetoric, and the real rather than the ideal. The genesis of community archaeology is described above showing shifts in archaeological practice in response to changing socio-political worldviews, and the postcolonial theories about past archaeological practice. The aims of community archaeology to at least share if not give a decisive role to relevant local, descendant, or indigenous communities is ethically understandable, what is less clear is how it can be achieved. Similarly, although different perspectives of the past are widely acknowledged, how to bring these together in practice, or indeed whether they should be integrated, is insufficiently addressed.
The issue of insufficient guidance about what works and why in these increasing number of accounts about ‘collaborative’ archaeology and ‘working together’ was acknowledged as far back as WAC-5 in 2003. The Getty Conservation Institute led sessions on integrating archaeology and conservation: ‘Finding Common Ground: The Role of Stakeholders in Decision-making’, and highlighted core issues in the call for papers (Agnew and Bridgland 2003):
We are concerned not so much with who owns the heritage as to how we can protect it and how it can be used as a bridge to achieve a better understanding of diverse perspectives, leading to a respect for cultural diversity and an awareness of universal values.
76 Truscott – Chapter 2 – What is ‘Community Archaeology’? … The need for effective models [to deal … with difference] has grown out of the recognition that heritage is extraordinarily valuable and can be highly contentious … What are meaningful ways to negotiate and how can heritage conservation specialists be more effective …?
The emphasis in this statement is clearly on ‘heritage’, rather than ‘pure’ archaeological research undertaken within universities. And within heritage management there are various forms of archaeological projects: heritage surveys before development; identification and listing projects; management projects within protected areas; and interpretation or cultural tourism projects. This research examines these to identify where the community archaeology ideals are being practised, and if so, how such projects are operating.
For as yet, there are no clear models, many urging a more genuinely open, and honest, dialogue about the ‘collaborative model’, rather than just providing a checklist (McManamon et al 2008:23, quoted in La Salle 2010:412). The ‘Barunga Protocols’ provide general principles for an ethical framework for community archaeology. The Quseir model covers elements from seeking to share knowledge, to material benefits for the community, but little real information about how to implement these. However, the Quseir components do provide a framework, as a package of activities, against which to review community archaeology processes in this research, and are therefore used as indicators.
This analysis shows that the writings urging a changed approach for archaeology, at least in Australia, focus on ‘research archaeology’, and are written by academics. It is ironic in Australia that Marshall saw that ‘A key aim of this volume is to change the perspective that community archaeology is simply a CRM or heritage management issue and of little relevance for academic research’ (2002b:215).
Yet, how a ‘decolonising archaeology’ should operate within the wider heritage management framework is rarely addressed in the literature. Nor has this debate about community archaeology been shared with other relevant disciplines, being contained within the archaeological sphere. There appears to be an assumption that only
77 Truscott – Chapter 2 – What is ‘Community Archaeology’? archaeologists need be engaged in community archaeology. Yet if the Barunga Protocols or the Quseir Strategy are, as proposed, the guidelines to a community archaeology, many other skills relevant to working with communities are needed. Although archaeologists recognise they are dependent for data analysis on other expertise, much of it in specialist sciences, the community archaeology literature ignores this need for wider skills than the archaeological.
As Egloff asks 'are the archaeologists that are undertaking the work trained in community processes?’ (Egloff 2010:162). For if not, others with those skills are needed. Indeed a multi-disciplinary approach is widely recognised as an appropriate method to both the archaeological past, but also understanding all past and present features of a site, a place, a landscape, and its associated stories and meanings. However, the discussions of community archaeology critiqued above are not explicit in this recognition. There is no overt statement that other expertise is needed for an expansion to a broader range of expertise beyond the archaeological and scientific support drawn on for archaeological research, that arriving at a full participative collaboration with an Indigenous community requires a team approach of multiple community facilitation and heritage expertise.
Such acknowledgement of the need for multiple, multi-faceted skills to identify all values with an Indigenous community are found in heritage standards. Examples include the heritage ‘best practice’ standard in Australia, the ‘Burra Charter’ (Australia ICOMOS Charter for Places of Cultural Significance), which since its first edition in 1978 has fostered ‘use of all the knowledge, skills and disciplines which can contribute to the study and care of the place’ (Australia ICOMOS 2013a: Article 4:1). Examples of the value of multi-disciplinary teams are many, the different perspectives of different disciplines, as well as that of the relevant community, providing a more integrated, holistic, sense of the site, place or landscape being studied (eg Egloff 2006a).
Those with skills relevant to engaging with and enabling communities include anthropologists and community values facilitators, as well as the ability to share the meaning of the scientific approach. Those with experience related to ongoing protection and management are heritage practitioners, expert in significance assessment and
78 Truscott – Chapter 2 – What is ‘Community Archaeology’? management options, as well as interpretation experts to assist in the potential for sharing the heritage meaning and values with a wider public, whether at a place, or by publications, including online.
A very few fostering the community archaeology approach recognise the need for such other skills to capture the fullest understandings of the past. Those who call for more integrated studies in Australia are Murray, advocating longitudinal studies (2002:214), and Luke Godwin and Scott L’Oste-Brown, who encourage a multi-disciplinary approach (2002:192, 209). Identified risks to an assimilated approach are the potential conflicts about ‘who “owns” such histories, or indeed the resources for history-making that exist in such places’ (Murray 2002:216). Another problem identified for integrated studies is the current legislative systems and barriers between cultural heritage models (Godwin and L’Oste-Brown 2002).
This outline of the genesis of a collaborative form of archaeological practice with communities, and issues in its concept and application, shows up too little review of what works or what does not. The next two chapters examine key components claimed to be inherent to community archaeology. In the next chapter, Chapter 3, the value of the past to the community is examined, as well as different ways of seeing and sharing that past, the landscape and its stories, and the potential value to present-day communities of their involvement in their heritage. Multiple approaches to the past, and multiple meanings of that past today, and whether community archaeology provides these as well as a better construction of archaeological knowledge, are explored in this thesis.
In Chapter 4, the issue of control or collaboration is explored further, and whether this is reflected in heritage legislation and in ethical codes. The matter of what say the relevant community has about decisions over its heritage is a core question for this research. For this aspect of Indigenous heritage management, the community’s role, also relates to power, for in today’s reality a balance must be struck. Other stakeholders are also entitled to engagement in today’s reality, given they may have equal, albeit different, interests. Such interest groups range from the wider society, to tax payers, landowners, developers, as well as non-Indigenous groups with their own strong cultural connections to place. The
79 Truscott – Chapter 2 – What is ‘Community Archaeology’? choice in this research of non-remote areas for the case studies highlights the complexity in these more densely populated areas of arriving at a greater control for Indigenous communities regarding their heritage.
The claims for community archaeology have been outlined in this chapter, with a discussion of the different understandings inherent in the term. It is suggested that these sit along a spectrum with the key elements being community control or partnership, education and outreach to a wider public about the project. A strong message for those working with local minorities, or indigenous communities, or any descendant community, is to arrive at a true collaboration. The aim of the research is to critically examine in today’s contexts such collaborative processes between ‘experts’, such as archaeologists or cultural heritage practitioners, and local communities. What processes work best and what are the benefits of such partnerships to cultural heritage, to the ‘expert’ and to the local community, will be explored. In doing so, this research aims to establish whether ‘community archaeology leads not only to a more comprehensive understanding of the past, but to a more sustainable local community, and whether that leads to more sustainable heritage?
80 Truscott – Chapter 3 – Community Value
3 COMMUNITY VALUE?
Introducing the Value of Heritage to Community Heritage is about people and identity as well as monuments and artefacts. It can: - generate jobs - create tourism opportunities - promote cross-cultural understandings - create a sense of connection between people - contribute to social inclusion and wellbeing (Smith and Burke 2010:1)
This quote by Claire Smith and Heather Burke encapsulates and substantiates my research question about the benefit of community archaeology. For in their bid for government funding as a university Cooperative Research Centre,57 they note the general lack of understanding of the benefit to an Indigenous community from its involvement in their heritage.
The Quseir model, discussed in the previous chapter, promotes that benefits to the community are inherent in their proposed approach. Capacity development, and economic advantage from cultural tourism based on the community’s archaeological heritage project, are seen as every bit as much a core part of their community archaeology strategy as incorporating community understandings of the past, and present stories of landscape. And such approaches are frequently espoused in Indigenous heritage management.
The focus in this chapter is on the social and economic values of Country—of Indigenous heritage. Connectedness with heritage and economic benefit from heritage are understood to be core to community wellbeing, and understanding the potential of these benefits within wider social and economic contexts is relevant for a more successful pursuit of community archaeology goals.
Discussion of community archaeology to date in settler countries has largely been restricted to issues of power and scientific integrity, with minimal reference to capacity-building or
57 This application was not successful.
81 Truscott – Chapter 3 – Community Value training. Indigenous claims to their heritage have been understandably strident, and consequent ethical considerations had sway in consultative requirements and statutory processes. The potential for social and economic benefits to a local community from the control of their heritage is often less explicit, although Dalley refers to community need for economic resources, knowledge resources and status resources (2004). So does having a greater say in decisions about their heritage, such as in community archaeology, provide such benefits, and if not, can it?
Over a decade ago it was strongly endorsed that archaeological heritage should have benefits for the community, beyond that of scientific discovery of the past. This was in 2003 at the World Archaeological Congress’ 5th meeting (WAC-5) in Washington DC, USA. The social and economic benefits of archaeological heritage were keenly discussed in the ‘Finding Common Ground’ session by a number of archaeologists engaging with local communities (Egloff 2006a, 2006b). A sense that archaeology was in many respects at a crossroads in terms of its direction, with a broadening of responsibility to society, was highlighted in the papers for that session. Richard Mackay (2006:132) identified key questions:
Archaeologists have long trumpeted the potential of the discipline to contribute to history. But does archaeological investigation and analysis enrich the community? Is it a public good?
The issue of ‘public good’ is relevant. Angel Cabeza emphasised the need to ensure archaeological heritage is conserved ‘for everybody and at the same time ensure that it provides cultural sustenance, force, and acknowledgement for its closest heirs’ (Cabeza 2006:127). However, the session’s chair, Brian Egloff (2006a:86), stressed that economic benefit is also necessary: ‘indigenous peoples … require not only recognition of their authority but also, and more important, positive … long-term sustainable economic outcomes’.
These statements show a concern about the contribution of archaeology to society that ranges from economic to social good for community. What is already known about what heritage gives to communities’ economic or social wellbeing? In order to assess such benefits, a contextual understanding is necessary of the social and economic values of heritage to broader society. This thesis chapter investigates heritage values in Australia, providing a
82 Truscott – Chapter 3 – Community Value comprehensive outline of the current understanding of the values and benefits of heritage. The chapter includes public attitudes to heritage and to archaeology, community associations with place: ‘social value’ and identity and archaeology, and the economic value of heritage. The chapter sets the scene to examine capacity development and whether a community archaeology model enables a higher level of community social capital or ‘wellbeing’ as a result.
Throughout the chapter, terms used by economists to explain the different economic value of heritage are used: ‘use value’, such as income from heritage activities, or ‘non-use value’, the intrinsic value of heritage, or ‘cultural capital’, related to the ‘social value’ of heritage significance (see Glossary Appendix 1). These terms provide a useful framework for the discussion about what value heritage has for a community and wider society.
3.1 Valuing Heritage Heritage was core for the indigenous participants we spoke with. It was not only about preserving the past but also regaining it. It was not only about understanding the past but living it in the present. (McDonald 2006:10)
The value of heritage to Indigenous Australians is examined here. These values may extend to a sense of place, a sense of identity, and a sense of wellbeing. Indigenous heritage, including archaeological heritage, can inform and strengthen these community values. This review is within the context of the wider Australian society, of which Indigenous heritage is but one aspect of Australia’s heritage, cultural and natural. What is Australians’ understanding of what is heritage, what do they know about heritage, how much do they care about heritage and what happens to heritage?
3.1.1 Heritage: Interest and Identity
It has been found in a survey undertaken in 2004 to inform the 2006 federal State of the Environment Report, that more than half of Australians (54%) are interested in ‘finding out more about Australian heritage’ (Colmar Brunton 2004:1).58
58 It is understood that Indigenous groups were included in a 2005 survey, but this has not been accessed.
83 Truscott – Chapter 3 – Community Value
Table 1: Australians’ interest in ‘finding out more about heritage’ (Colmar Brunton 2004:1-2)
Extremely Interested Neither Uninterested Extremely Interested interested Uninterested nor % % uninterested % % % Finding out about 21 33 31 8 7 Australian heritage Natural places events 28 39 22 5 5 stories Cultural places events 19 36 30 6 8 stories (historic?) Indigenous places stories 19 c31 28 10 12 events* (my emphasis)
Yet Heath McDonald’s research on the ‘antecedents to public interest and engagement witih heritage (2011:a), as synthesised and expanded in his study59 for the federal heritage agency suggests many are only ‘passively interested… but not concerned’ (McDonald 2011b:1). Instead, interest in the natural environment ranks highest, and valuing the natural environment is well attested. McDonald’s (2011a) extensive surveys60 undertaken in 2007 and 2010, drawing on a wider range of Australian public: migrant and Indigenous Australians being included, indicate that the natural environment dominates the rankings in replies about the importance of heritage elements. ‘Indigenous Aboriginal culture’ ranks only 12th in 2007 and 7th in 2010, behind animals; waterways; landmarks and reserves; ‘historic architecture’; and ‘Australian military history’ (McDonald 2011a:794, 2011b:9).61
In another survey there was considerable agreement that ‘Heritage is a part of Australia’s identity’; 93% agree (45% strongly agree, 48% agree) from 2024 adult Australians (Allen Consulting Group 2005b:vii-viii). This result is borne out by other studies, that provide a closer analysis of aspects of heritage that shape that sense of identity, such as ‘the idea of
59 Based on in-depth interviews, mini-groups with Indigenous and multi-cultural groups, and a national survey of 2100 people, and also using results from a 2007 survey with 3200 across Australia (McDonald 2011b) 60 ‘Focus groups ensuring proportionate representation of Australia’s age and ethnic diversity, with a structured Repertory Grid Analysis’ (McDonald 2011b:2) 61 These rankings were ‘highly consistent’ across the different ages, ethnicity and backgrounds of survey participants. The ‘elements’, tangible and intangible, extend beyond what many professionals might think of as heritage to national characteristics such as ‘inventiveness’ or ‘multi-culturalism’ (McDonald 2011b:9)
84 Truscott – Chapter 3 – Community Value mateship and fair go’ (McDonald 2006:18). ‘People are most passionate about protecting things that have personal meaning to them’ (McDonald 2006:7), such connection with heritage, whether place, object or more intangible aspects, provide both personal and national identity (McDonald 2006:30, 2011a:800, 2011b:4,14-15). This finding of the relationship between connections with the past and a sense of identity today reinforces others’ research findings (eg Lydon and Ireland 2005). For Indigenous people in south-eastern Australia, cultural heritage management is therefore more than a ‘technical exercise’ but related to ‘identity, history, place and meaning’ (Porter 2006:7).
But heritage is not necessarily a unifier of a society, although McDonald’s focus groups showed an inclination to an eclectic heritage, celebrating differences (2006:28), heritage may also have negative impacts, separating or excluding parts of society. Kate Clark (2011:6) notes heritage’s potential to reject some groups: ‘Heritage is a powerful mirror. Those who do not see themselves reflected in it are therefore excluded’62. Not being reflected in heritage may explain why Indigenous Australians interviewed in McDonald’s studies connected only with ‘Indigenous heritage’ and not with ‘Australia’s National Heritage’. They saw the latter as post-1788, a ‘national history’ that ‘starts from after invasion day …’ (McDonald 2006:10), excluding their story. Survey groups generally expressed a fear of a ‘generic’ heritage, preferring a ‘diverse (even contradictory) view’ (McDonald 2006:28). This view may be a fear of exclusion, or of losing the personal in the dilution of a common heritage (McDonald 2006:30), or the sense of identity in smaller, special bonded communities with particular heritages. This research examines the role of the community archaeology approach in bringing the past and present together as part of an Indigenous community’s identity.
Indigenous Identity
Before exploring Indigenous heritage connections and sense of identity, it is helpful too for this research to understand who Indigenous Australians are, now 2.5% of the larger Australian population who self-identify as Indigenous (ABS 2012). A three-part definition of
62 Clark records this as her ‘notes from his [Professor Stuart Hall] presentation at the Arts Council of England conference, Whose Heritage?, Manchester 1999. The published phrase is slightly different (Hall 2005) (see Hall, S Un-settling the Heritage: Re-imagining the post-nation, Address to ‘Whose Heritage? ‘ Conference, November 1999, Hall, S 2005, Un-settling the Heritage: Re-imagining the post-nation, The politics of heritage: The legacies of 'race', Oxon: Routledge, pp. 23-35. )
85 Truscott – Chapter 3 – Community Value an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander person was proposed in 1981 by the then Commonwealth Department of Aboriginal Affairs, that has prevailed and been upheld by the Federal Court (DAA 1981; ALRC 2003; Gardiner-Garden 2000, 2003):
An Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander is a person of Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander descent who identifies as an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander and is accepted as such by the community in which he [or she] lives.
This is very different to past definitions in Australia, that were until the 1950s based on a ‘blood-quotum’, and then on ‘race’, and imposed by outsiders (Gardiner-Garden 2003). Australian Indigenous identity is now largely self-defining, but does not always meet some stereotypical images of Aboriginality. Such stereotypes, as Boladeras (2002:135) observes, mean you ‘can’t be Aboriginal’ if fair-skinned, or middle-class, and are commonplace in the wider community.63 Discussions by Indigenous people worldwide as well as in Australia, and non-Indigenous researchers, suggests that identity, or claiming indigeneity, is a result of protest against past colonial marginalisation (Haber 2010; Niezen 2010; Paradies 2010). Yet ‘It’s easier to be Black if you’re black’ (Boladeras 2002).
Such assertions of identity are not only understandable, but are an expression of their reality—of being Indigenous and being treated differently by governments and society in past discriminatory practice. And they are a political stance. They are also one of pride, and a strong sense of continuity despite disruptions, lasting over two hundred years in south-eastern Australia. This continuity was a major theme emerging at the 2009 AIATSIS Conference in a series of papers by Indigenous archaeologists,64 who now work in cultural heritage management in the eastern states (AIATSIS 2009). Dugay-Grist65 (2009), an Indigenous archaeologist in Victoria, stresses that identity has often been, and is still, imposed from outside by others: past labels such as ‘welfare phase’ post 1957 or post native title ‘shared country’. He indicates that although ‘white skinned, growing up in rural Victoria, living in urban Melbourne’, the knowledge of cultural identity and spirituality is a constant, asking the question ‘When does an Aboriginal person stop being an Aboriginal person? answering
63 See also examples on SBS ‘Insight’ program ‘Aboriginal or Not’, 7 August 2012 (www.sbs.com.au/insight/episode/overview/490/Aboriginal-or-not) 64 All part of the first Indigenous ANU archaeology graduates 65 One of the first Aboriginal archaeology graduates at the ANU, with experience within state heritage agencies and museums, as well as a consultant archaeologist.
86 Truscott – Chapter 3 – Community Value
“Never!”’ (Dugay-Grist 2009). One urban Aboriginal Australian reinforces this perspective (Bolt 2009:3):
Urban-based Aboriginal people, even more than those living in remote communities, have been subject to the impact of racism and discrimination on self-identity. Nonetheless, urban-based Aboriginal people proudly identify with their Aboriginality. … [in Bolt’s research on] the construction of Aboriginal identity. … how do urban Aboriginal people make and remake their identity?
But such claims of indigeneity may also essentialise that individual, as Yin Paradies (2010) points out, shutting out other identities, such as gender, age, class etc. She proudly claims her identity ‘racially as an Aboriginal-Anglo-Asian Australian’, refusing to ‘surrender my other identities’ in order to be Indigenous (2010:45). Such complexity of identity is very real as most Indigenous Australians ‘marry out’. The 2006 census shows an increase of such exogamy, with for the first time a majority,66 especially high in urban areas: 82% of men and 83% of women (Heard et al 2009).67 Family groups thus have increasingly multi-faceted identities, matching the complexity of modern-day urban life with multiple roles—worker, parent, child, friend, ethnicity, and cultural identity.
The increased consciousness of such urban Indigenous identity issues has been raised by Indigenous leaders (eg Langton 1981; Behrendt 2007), and recently explored in the journal Postcolonial Studies ‘Making Indigenous place in the Australian city’ (Potter 2012). The disruption caused by Australia’s colonisation also developed a new sense of ‘Aboriginality …regardless of heterogeneity’ according to Peters-Little (2000:3). Yet the removal to reserves or missions, central to such a sense of ‘Aboriginality’ as Peters-Little describes, has also risked a disruption within groups. Whether on Country or not, the imposed intermingling of Indigenous groups has also resulted in some disharmony today about who speaks for Country, including in urban areas.
66 52% of men and 55% of women across Australia (Heard et al 2009). 67 This is ‘well above’ the rates of most migrant groups in Australia.
87 Truscott – Chapter 3 – Community Value
Yet a single-faceted identity, of ‘Aboriginality’, can bond a group, particularly in urban areas, where Indigenous residents no longer live close to each other. In fact some cities have deliberately encouraged spreading public housing for Indigenous communities, to avoid the former urban marginalisation in enclaves such as Redfern in Sydney, and in North Fitzroy, Melbourne. One example is in Yass, NSW, where many of the Ngun[n]awal live whose Country is also in today’s Australian Capital Territory, many moving from the Canberra area to Yass once reserves set up there in the 1890s (Kabaila 2011:5). Their sense of identity continues.
Complex perspectives of identity are portrayed by Dugay-Grist’s survey of urban Aboriginal Victorians in Melbourne. His results in the graphs below show quite marked generational differences (Figure 3). Older and younger Aboriginal people are inclined to the mainstream societal view that urban Indigenous Australians are less ‘real’ than those in remote Australia. This result clearly contradicts Dugay-Grist’s assertion of Aboriginal continuous identity, or suggests that it is more nuanced. The reason for this generational discrepancy is unknown, yet perhaps reflects the dominant societal view, including in Victoria, ‘where Aboriginal traditions are perceived as having been irretrievably interrupted by colonialism, and in some popular discourses “lost”’ (Porter 2006:7).
Question 1: Do you consider Aboriginal people who live Question 3: Do you consider that one has to live on in an urban environment to be less Aboriginal? their traditional lands in order to be connected to it?
Figure 3: Survey results of Aboriginal residents in Melbourne (Dugay-Grist 2009)
Nonetheless, surveys by the Australian Bureau of Statistics find that a continuity of culture and connection survives, although the urban results are lower (ABS 2002a, 2008). Cultural activities, living in traditional country (‘homelands’), language as well as cultural identification were measured. The results reveal an ongoing cultural vitality in all regions
88 Truscott – Chapter 3 – Community Value including in major (see Table 2), and demonstrates a continuity of cultural connection beyond remote Australia (see Table 3, ABS 2008). This result supports Peters-Little’s argument for ongoing cultural identities despite disruptions and the inevitable mix and diversity held by individuals within any community (2000:3).
Table 2: Cultural attachment by remoteness, Indigenous persons 15yo+ (ABS 2002a:Table 1)
Table 3: Derived from ABS Language and Culture results – Social Survey (ABS 2008)
Where Cultural Cultural Living in Language activities* identification ‘homelands’ / (ATSI language (with clan, tribal or traditional spoken, or some language group) country words )
Major Cities 9% 15yo and older Some 32% 15yo+
Inner / outer 47% 15yo and Some 28% 5yo+ regional older Remote / very 44% 15yo and Main 33% remote older children Some 63% children Main 42% 15yo+ Some 73% 15yo+ Area not given / 73% children 25% 15yo and Main 8% children Total 4-14yo older Some 35% 63% 15yo and children older Main 11% 15yo+ Some 40% 15yo+ Some 56% TSI / 39% Aboriginal * cultural events include festivals-arts, crafts, dance, music or men’s and women’s business
89 Truscott – Chapter 3 – Community Value
Statistics show that 44% of Indigenous Australians live on Country in remote areas (ABS 2008). By contrast only 9% of Aboriginal people in cities are living on their Country, being descendants of the original inhabitants of the urban area. This is a small proportion for the majority of Indigenous Australians living in cities have moved from rural / remote Australia. This research focus is on the Indigenous communities in the study areas in Victoria and the ACT who are descendants of traditional owners and have lived on Country, if not continuously, then for much of the time since European settlement.
This research had kept in mind what the concept of Country means to Aboriginal Australians throughout. It is a major consideration during the examination of whether and how the community archaeology approach enables an ongoing connection, or reconnections, with Country.
‘Country’ not Sites
The connection to Country is frequently cited as central to Australian Indigenous identity. An evocative description of the meaning of ‘Country’ is by Deborah Bird Rose (1996:7):
… country is a living entity with a yesterday, today and tomorrow, with a consciousness, and a will toward life. Because of this richness, country is home, and peace; nourishment for body, mind, and spirit; heart’s ease.
Dugay-Grist (2009) quotes Victorian Aboriginal views about both landscape and archaeological sites, including that of Tim Chatfield, of the Victoria Tjap Whurrong peoples (2009:48):
The landscape is sacred to us, it carries the message of our past and our hope for the future. It is the mother of our existence and it whispers who we are. What happens to this land affects us deeply, any damage to it wounds us. It is our duty to speak on behalf of this land and to maintain its integrity. We cannot ignore our land or leave it unprotected.’
These statements make explicit the meaning of the ‘homeland’ and Country, as well as referring to ‘sites’. They show the sense of connection with the past that results, as vividly described by Glenda Hyde, Aboriginal Elder in the ACT (ABC 2011):
The feeling that I’ve got holding an artefact of my ancestor of tens of thousands of years ago – it’s almost like that’s my connection to you – you know what I mean – and then I have them in my hand.
90 Truscott – Chapter 3 – Community Value
The Indigenous holistic view of place or landscape is recognised widely by general society in Australia, if not always for those Indigenous Australians in non-remote Australia. However, the tendency for archaeologists and heritage systems is to focus on individual elements, on sites. The ‘dots on a map’ approach has long been criticised for fragmenting Country, or ‘landscape’, potentially disconnecting people from their past and its present meanings. The relatively limited opportunities to present the significance of the wider landscape during a site survey in less remote Australia, may be one explanation for allocating spiritual significance to artefactual remains of past lifestyles, as the wider sense of connection is less available. Largely a phenomenon of non-remote Australia, that ‘Aboriginal communities appear to be emphasising the importance of physical heritage items, and in particular pre-contact physical remains’ (Brown 2008a:25), as confirmed by Pollard, an Indigenous Victorian archaeologist working in the Northern Territory (pers comm. email 8 September 2010):
I know the importance of archaeological sites to identity, history and belonging, that lies at the heart of Kooris and other Indigenous mobs experience and sense of self down south, … On the other hand, I've been up here for 12 yrs and I also know how Aboriginal people in remote areas up here perceive their archaeological sites - important yes, but not imperative to the survival of their identity.
Steve Brown (2008a) explains this shift as due to the lack of emphasis on scientific assessment in the field, especially in 'compliance archaeology'. Byrne (et al 2001) however, censure 'compliance archaeology' for its overly narrow emphasis on archaeological sites. Both Byrne and Brown agree that such pre-development survey lacks any integrated inclusion and assessment of Indigenous understandings of Country. By contrast, Dugay-Grist (2013), who does not disagree with either Brown or Byrne, seeks a greater sharing of archaeological results with communities, to introduce them to the benefits of such scientific knowledge.
Despite this apparent exclusion of community archaeology style approaches in pre-development surveys, more integrated landscape approaches are increasingly being developed and applied elsewhere. These result in the identification of many, if not all, of the heritage values of landscape, or Country. Such ‘landscape’ approaches result in understandings of the layering of meanings and associations for both Indigenous and non- Indigenous people (eg Harrison 2006). Sullivan describes this approach as resulting in an
91 Truscott – Chapter 3 – Community Value
‘uninterrupted and continuous story of country’ (Sullivan 2008:108). This method has the opportunity to meet the community archaeology ideal of a full collaboration. This research examines applications of integrated landscape approaches as part of the question as to whether community archaeology is informing Indigenous heritage practice.
However, such approaches to identifying all heritage values on Country generally cannot be isolated from mainstream societal activities. Even where land is owned outright by an Indigenous community, such heritage must co-exist with other interests and demands on land, resources, finances, and even competing heritage values. Such other interests may dominate decision-making, resulting in less recognition of Indigenous heritage. Yet there is surprisingly little discussion of this reality within the current dialogue about Indigenous heritage and community archaeology, ignoring such complex and competing societal needs and finding ways to complement and balance them. One exception is the federal environment department’s Indigenous Advisory Committee that has concerns about development and Indigenous heritage, discussed later in this chapter (Mackay 2011).
Heritage Nourishing Community Wellbeing
In 2003 at the World Archaeological Congress (WAC-5), Chilean archaeologist Cabeza called for ‘archaeological heritage … [to] provide[s] cultural sustenance’ (2006:127). What is known of the ‘cultural sustenance’ given communities from their heritage, including archaeological heritage?
Cultural sustenance is one indicator of a community’s ‘social capital’, a term used to describe community connectedness (Putnam 1995). Governments show an increasing interest in fostering social capital, if only to develop less welfare-dependent groups. Economists have identified ’community image’, ‘social interaction’, and ‘identity’ as some indirect non-use values of heritage, referring to ‘social capital’ or ‘cultural capital’, or the newer terms ‘wellbeing’ and now ‘sustainability’. What is ‘social capital’, what is ‘capacity building’ or ‘wellbeing’ and what evidence is there of heritage producing it?
‘Social capital’ has been defined by the term’s originator, Robert Putnam, as (1995:67):
… features of social life – networks, norms, and trust – that enable participants to act together more effectively to pursue shared objectives.
92 Truscott – Chapter 3 – Community Value
Putnam sees ‘social capital’ as based on social connections that develop trust. Thus, social capital is regarded as bonding a community. Putnam’s definition remains largely intact as adopted internationally by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) as 'networks, together with shared norms, values and understandings which facilitate cooperation within or among groups' (2001). This concept is applied increasingly in governance, in a trend to develop social capital and measure whether policies and programs are meeting aims for greater community cohesion (eg Winter 2000; OECD 2001; PC 2003; ABS 2002b, 2004, 2006). In Australia, the ABS sees benefits to a community from engaging with the ‘arts, culture, sport and recreation’ in its discussion paper Social Capital and Social Wellbeing (ABS 2002b:17). Research demonstrates benefits to the community in their engagement in traditional and modern artistic expressions (eg Madden (2000).
It is useful here to examine the recognition of heritage as one indicator in measuring social capital or wellbeing, as part of the wider discussion about Indigenous communities’ welfare. Such recognition meets the claims of community archaeology benefitting the community; indeed in Canada, a country very similar to Australia, it was found that community archaeology ‘creates community social capital and builds community capacity’ (Williams and Pope 2005).
‘Wellbeing’ is now the term often used for social capital, and appears as a core theme in Indigenous discussion at conferences held by the Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies (eg AIATSIS 2009, 2010, 2011a). There are more specific analytical studies in Australia of how cultural heritage management may enhance the social capital of an Indigenous community, but these tend to be in remote Australia. Social capital is demonstrated in a community’s involvement in land management as demonstrated by a literature review of the benefits of ‘Caring for Country’ programs (Weir et al 2011). The ABS (2007) has developed the Framework for Measuring Wellbeing for Indigenous Australians. Heritage is explicitly identified as one element in this framework (McKeown 2010:15-16, see Table 4 below), as part of one of its 9 conceptual domains.68
68 The others being: ‘family, kinship and community’; ‘health’; ‘education, learning and skills’; ‘customary, voluntary and paid work’; ‘income and economic resources’; ‘housing, infrastructure and services’; ‘law and justice’; and ‘citizenship and governance. (McKeown 2010:15)
93 Truscott – Chapter 3 – Community Value
Table 4: Culture, heritage and leisure element (McKeown 2010:16)
Individual Characteristics Social, Cultural and Economic Environment Identifies with a clan, tribal or language group Recognition of a clan, tribal or language group Respect of culture Protection and ownership of intellectual rights of Traditional knowledge and lore cultural heritage Cultural responsibilities and roles Recognition of Indigenous knowledge and lore Participation in traditional activities Cultural obligations and traditional rights Spiritual and religious issues Cultural representation, especially through art Participation in recreation and leisure activities, Access to traditional lands including sports Caring for country Connection to land Land ownership and control Language spoken Maintenance and support for Indigenous languages
Benefit analyses in non-remote areas are few. Relevant to this research are findings by Janet Hunt in inner regional areas in NSW that ‘looking after Country’ has socio-economic benefits for Aboriginal groups (Hunt et al 2009; Hunt 2010). Also in NSW, English (2002) identified that Indigenous roles in managing ‘wild resources’ resulted in the Aboriginal community’s [re]engagement with Country and as a result their cultural heritage. English’s finding suggests that those fostering TEK may indeed be right, and his finding is partially met in the projects analysed in this chapter.
Community involvement in natural resource management in NSW was found to bring ‘cultural and spiritual, social, economic, environmental and capacity building benefits’ (Hunt et al 2009:v,ix-x). Similarly, social and economic benefits have resulted from the Ngarrindjeri community’s management of the water resources of the Coorong and Murray Mouth in South Australia (Greiner et al 2010; Birckhead et al 2011). Several of these ‘benefits’ match community archaeology indicators, notably collaborative, multidisciplinary research approaches, funding to support the community’s engagement, and a stress on longterm reconnection and management roles that lead to enhanced/improved wellbeing (Birckhead et al 44-45).
However, such benefits from a community’s involvement require certain conditions, largely related to administrative structures and processes (Hunt et al 2009:41-44): - Clearly identifiable Aboriginal group unified in its purpose - Clear governance, management and decision making structures - Government officials working in flexible and innovative ways
94 Truscott – Chapter 3 – Community Value
- Adequate and consistent funding - Partnerships with environmental NGOs
Factors hindering benefits to Aboriginal communities were largely related to attitudinal and organisational issues. These include (Hunt et al 2009:44-48): - attitudes in the non-Indigenous community towards conservation - not knowing ‘who speaks for country’ - an overall complexity of government systems - the small proportion of Indigenous owned land
A key barrier is ‘the inconsistency and complexity of approaches between different government departments in relation to matters of land, planning and natural resources’ (Hunt et al 2009:47). I am keenly aware of this problem, finding during the preparation of the Regional Forest Agreements in the late 1990s, that different government agencies in regional areas often did not communicate on heritage matters that crossed their administrative boundaries.69 The multiple layers of government in Australia (federal, state, local) adds complexity to this ‘silo’ effect, making it more difficult for communities to know which government level deals with what land management and heritage conservation. Such separation between land management agencies can block the positive factors Hunt and her colleagues identify. Yet they strongly recommend extending Indigenous participation in land management with the intent of gaining greater social benefits (Hunt et al 2009:48-66; Hunt 2010:48-49).
A paper based on an Indigenous community’s experience of such benefits from land management was presented at a seminar series titled ‘Indigenous Wellbeing’ held in 2010 (AIATSIS 2010).70 That seminar was on the wellbeing gained by the Ngarrindjeri people from participatory processes aimed at caring for Country: in this case the aquatic ecosystems on the Lower Murray (Greiner et al 2010; Birckhead et al 2011; Wilson 2007).
69 Experienced when heading the Commonwealth unit negotiating natural and cultural heritage guidelines with state bodies (1997-2000). 70 Of 14 seminars, half by Indigenous researchers, half of them with defining and measuring Indigenous social capital, the other half spread between health, education, human rights, language and identity.
95 Truscott – Chapter 3 – Community Value
The participatory method includes various steps to identify the different types of values associated with aspects of heritage including (Birckheard et al 2011:22; pers comm. Romy
Greiner email 19 September 2012): - developing a ‘wellbeing framework’ - engaging in what constitutes wellbeing for the community - identifying the economic value of Country - ‘gauging the utility’ that the community derives.
However, although it is widely accepted that heritage contributes to a community’s sense of self, and is a contributor to cultural capital or wellbeing, there have been few attempts to quantify this benefit. This research analyses the various heritage projects in the case studies to assess whether they meet community archaeology’s claims to benefit a community’s wellbeing.
3.1.2 Archaeology’s Worth
What value does archaeology—the study of past human behaviour, of past cultural ways— have for Indigenous communities today? This section examines the uses of archaeology to Indigenous Australians within the popular understanding of archaeology by many Australians. This review provides a context in which to better understand issues for archaeological practice within Indigenous heritage management.
This research was triggered by views of the benefit to Indigenous communities and archaeology of the community archaeology approach. This approach includes Indigenous communities’ knowledge, as well as ‘scientific’ archaeological methods, to interpret the past. Clearly archaeological research can provide material evidence of the deep past of Indigenous Australia, as well as technological and cultural changes through time, and their relation to environmental shifts. This section outlines other uses of archaeology by Indigenous communities.
Such views and uses of archaeology for Indigenous Australians are set within a broader societal understanding of what archaeology is, and its purpose. As discussed earlier there is a general societal misperception of what archaeology is. Some popular misconceptions of archaeology may be permeating both archaeological research and archaeology as part of
96 Truscott – Chapter 3 – Community Value environment assessment, and some Indigenous Australians’ concepts of the archaeological process.
Susino (1999:69) highlights how archaeology may be of use to Aboriginal communities:
Archaeology as a resource has no value to Aboriginal communities, beyond the use of practical field survey techniques. The informants believe that their priority is cultural renaissance, and archaeology can help this process.
One area where archaeology has assisted Indigenous groups’ ‘cultural renaissance’ is in land and native title claims. My research has not examined closely this use of archaeological evidence, but others have discussed this use extensively (Lilley 2000), and the role of cultural heritage more broadly (eg Finlayson and Jackson-Nakano 1996; AIATSIS 2013a).
Archaeology—Common (Mis)Understandings
How much do popular understandings of archaeology influence the practice of archaeology in Australia, and notions of its value? A fascination with the finds from faraway places was fed by the press from the earliest days of archaeological discovery. Today’s media perpetuates this allure, from print, to film, television, to interactive video games (eg Nichols et al 2005; Nichols 2006; Hiscock 2012). Many highlight the strange and mysterious, such as the Indiana Jones or The Mummy films, and some say archaeology benefits from such popular views, such as fostered by the Council of British Archaeology and the Petrie Museum, London (Truscott 2006:58). But such fantasies may perpetuate fabricated and confused notions of the discipline and the past.
University student surveys in Australia confirm popular misunderstandings of the discipline (eg Balme and Wilson 2004; Colley 2005:57; Frederickson 2005; Owen and Steele 2005). Interested to discover not only the wider notions of archaeology, but how these may influence students’ choice to study archaeology, these survey results show a considerable lack of awareness of what archaeology is in reality, especially of archaeology in Australia:
ignorance of the relationship between archaeology, Australian history and prehistory, including Aboriginal sites – University of Western Australia (Balme and Wilson 2004:23)
97 Truscott – Chapter 3 – Community Value
a mismatch between the popular understanding that attracted the students to study archaeology and the ‘realities of professional practice’ – University of Sydney (Colley 2005:56)
‘eager to participate [in excavation] but only if they were engaged in the novelty of adventure’ – Charles Darwin University (Frederickson 2005:41)
Key findings, beyond confusion with fossil hunting and a belief in paranormal explanations, are romanticised notions of archaeological practice. Most students were more interested in overseas archaeology, Egyptology, and solving mysteries.
This misunderstanding of the discipline of archaeology threatens the ‘survival of the discipline and our ability to contribute to the management of sites’ (Balme and Wilson 2004:19). The survey results in Australia have seen initiatives such as National Archaeology Week, and the Redfern Archaeology Teaching Charter, to improve public understanding of what archaeology is and what it achieves (Colley and Ulm 2005:8). Others suggest that archaeologists and historians can tell ‘stories that are just as interesting and exciting’ to refute the sensationalist success of ‘pseudoarchaeology’ (eg Gojak 2007, 2008; Salleh 2007). An increasingly self-reflective archaeological discipline is focusing debate on this issue, but it is as yet unclear whether this has resulted in a clearer understanding from the general public. Despite the broad sense of community support for heritage outlined above, the question remains what value archaeological heritage has, if society does not understand what it is, nor its relevance.
Such popular [mis]understandings of archaeology may explain difficulties arising in any public discussion about why archaeology matters. Decision-makers—politicians, public servants—are part of the general public subject to these misperceptions; they perhaps expect extraordinary finds, or see archaeological practice as lightweight and irrelevant. Perhaps some Indigenous people also similarly misunderstand the purpose of the archaeological endeavour, possibly adding to difficulties in communication between them and archaeologists (eg Dugay-Grist 2013). For it is unclear whether any Indigenous people were included in these surveys, especially of archaeology students, and if so, whether their understanding of archaeology differed.
98 Truscott – Chapter 3 – Community Value
The only known study of Indigenous views of archaeology is research by Roberts (2003) in South Australia. Another source for what Indigenous Australians think of archaeology is the understanding of Indigenous archaeologists themselves. They have been highly critical recently of Indigenous heritage management, seeing it at a crisis point for its lack of scientific rigour or inclusion of community knowledge, and lacking in the protection of heritage places (AIATSIS 2013b). Their views are discussed in more detail in Chapter 4.
3.2 Discovering Heritage Values
A sense of place, of Country, is not just of the past, but a continuity from that past to the present, carrying that connectedness with surrounds, storying the landscape with recent memories and meanings from the past. Such a landscape is ‘living heritage’, not an artefact fixed in the past. Although archaeology, beyond its important role in uncovering how people once lived, can connect people back to that past in factual ways, archaeology is clearly not the only approach to valuing a people’s continuing connection and culture. How then to ensure that all the meanings and values of place are fully respected and integrated into decisions made about any area? The following discussion examines key approaches in heritage management and attendant issues in ensuring fully integrated approaches take place.
The recognition of the need for a fully integrated approach to landscape is longstanding, yet a comprehensive identification continues to be lacking, despite the need to recognise all possible heritage values being a principle as early as 1979 in the Australia ICOMOS ‘Burra Charter’71 (Australia ICOMOS 1979:Articles 4, 5). However tools to do so, such as heritage significance criteria, were not developed until 1986, and these criteria have been accepted by all Australian heritage agencies. This adoption of common criteria across all jurisdictions in Australia was agreed in 2008 by the Chairs and Officials of Australia and NZ (HCOANZ), the common criteria to be based on the 1998 HERCON criteria, agreed on at the Australian Heritage Commission National Heritage Convention (see HERCON Criteria Attachment 2).72
71 Formally known from 1979 to 1999 as The Australia ICOMOS Charter for the Conservation of Places of Cultural Significance (Burra Charter), and since the major amendments of 1999, as The Burra Charter (Australia ICOMOS Charter for Places of Cultural Significance) 72 The term ‘HERCON’ derived from ‘Heritage Convention’. The HCOANZ decision was then endorsed by COAG’s Environment Protection and Heritage Council, in Melbourne on 17 April 2008; Victoria adopted the
99 Truscott – Chapter 3 – Community Value
The essence of such significance criteria is found in four values recognised as potentially inherent in any place, space or landscape, or object: aesthetic value, historic value, scientific value, and social value. These terms do not describe types of places but the significance that a place may have. As this research will show, often Indigenous heritage is regarded as having only ‘scientific’ (research or archaeological) importance, or ‘social’ value, meaning of importance to the Indigenous community. In fact any place or object may be found to have all aspects of significance. The application of significance assessment is looked at more closely in the case studies chapters. Various issues arise, including how well significance assessment meets community archaeology ideals about recognising all values.
The Burra Charter process which steps through the identification of all potential heritage values as shown below is based on moving from the known to the unknown. It is a process that has been recognised by all Australian heritage agencies at all levels of government, but not specifically by separate Indigenous heritage agencies. Perhaps because there may be an assumption by some working in Indigenous heritage management that the Burra Charter principles do not apply to Indigenous heritage as much as to non-Indigenous heritage. Perhaps some Indigenous people feel that the Burra Charter process is imposed on them (eg Sullivan 2004), or as Indigenous archaeologist, Sam Wickman, explained, Indigenous people had no role in formulating the Burra Charter (2013).
However, the Burra Charter process is made more accessible in a format of ‘stepping stones’ for local ‘mainstream’ or Indigenous communities to assess their own heritage (AHC 2000). This process covers all of the same steps in heritage assessment and management as the Burra Charter, and has been used successfully by Indigenous communities including translated into their own language (Hall 2008).
HERCON on 7 August 2008 (pers comm. Richard Morrison then DEWHA 28 July 2010); on 25 September 2014, the ACT also adopted the HERCON criteria.
100 Truscott – Chapter 3 – Community Value
Figure 5: Stepping Stones for Heritage (Hall 2008)
Figure 4: The Burra Charter Process (Australia ICOMOS 2013:10)
101 Truscott – Chapter 3 – Community Value
3.2.1 Revealing Social Value
One of the key values identified in the Burra Charter and Australian heritage practice is ‘social value: the associations with place, or 'Country', the connections, meanings, memories and symbols of that place (Australia ICOMOS 2013a). As will be seen below, often the general term ‘cultural’ is applied to social value for Indigenous heritage. Such values are also termed ‘intangible’, given they are not readily seen, touched, or measured by outsiders, and are a significant connector between heritage place (object or story etc) and community. ‘Social value’ has been variously defined within Australian heritage practice, although ultimately the wording is similar. The HERCON version as accepted in principle by all heritage agencies (see Attachment 2), although not yet formally adopted by all, defines ‘social value’ as:
Strong or special association with a particular community or cultural group for social, cultural or spiritual reasons. This includes the significance of a place to Indigenous peoples as part of their continuing and developing cultural traditions.
It is curious that special acknowledgement is made of Indigenous social value, unlike earlier social value definitions that encompassed all heritage, whether natural or cultural, Indigenous or non-Indigenous. Yet perhaps, this extra statement is added to highlight that this criterion is applicable to Indigenous heritage, despite having separate legislation in most jurisdictions and administered separately, with different ‘criteria’ (see Chapter 4).
So how does one ‘find social value’? If it is the community that holds the meanings, has the associations with place, with 'Country', then it is for the community to express those values. This concept is made clear by Bryne et al (2001), who show how social value may be invisible to non-community members. The diagrams below demonstrate two models of how heritage value might be understood. The ‘attributed meaning’ model demonstrates how social value’ is conferred on a place by a community that has attachment for it, the place value being otherwise neutral (Byrne et al 2001:57-Figure 4, Figure 6 below). The inherent meaning (intrinsic value) model shows that the information a place holds can be ‘read off’ by experts, finding historic and scientific values (Byrne et al 2001:57-Figure 3, Figure 6 below). This explanation reinforces the understanding that
102 Truscott – Chapter 3 – Community Value others cannot ‘read off’ attachments and associations held by a community. However, their research found that the intrinsic model tends to still dominate heritage legislation and management practice (Byrne et al 2001).
Figure 6: Meanings of place? (Byrne et al 2001: 57-Figures 3, 4).
The current federal heritage body stresses that finding social significance ‘needs to be identified by an experienced heritage consultant with expertise in identifying social values and community consultation’ (Australian Heritage Council 2010:15). This statement however does not sufficiently emphasise that only the community can identify its ‘sense of place’, and that the requirements for ‘experienced heritage consultant’ needs particular facilitation skills, including community trust, to bring forth the attachments and meanings of place from the community. My research examines what skills sets are applied in the case studies and whether they meet the requirements to practice a genuine community archaeology.
103 Truscott – Chapter 3 – Community Value In 1988, the Australian Heritage Commission agreed to investigate how to identify any social value for its heritage nominations, given staff submitted that ‘social significance’ had not become an ‘effective working category in heritage assessment’ and had not ‘produced a recognisable body of registered places in heritage registers’ (Blair and Truscott 1988:1). The development of the significance criteria and their application revealed the ‘non-expert’ nature of identifying social value. As the Commission had statutory leadership responsibilities for heritage conservation: ‘to further training and education’ and ‘to organize and engage in research and investigation’ (AHC 1975:s7(e), (g)), it had the capacity to take a national role in building a better understanding ‘social value’. An in-house multi-disciplinary social value working group held seminars and community consultative workshops, and funded projects to examine emerging issues. A study in 1988 Queanbeyan, NSW, by Peter Freeman and Partners with Meredith Walker (1988) showed divergence yet congruence between their heritage expert survey and subsequent community assessments (AHC 1990; Scott 1990). Chris Johnston’s (1992) discussion paper What is Social Value?, commissioned by the Australian Heritage Commission, was seminal in shaping wider discussion among heritage professionals. Concurrently, exploration of landscape approaches in cultural heritage identification was being fostered (eg Blair and Truscott 1989).
Australian Heritage Commission staff experience in Indigenous culture and heritage at the time included strong ‘ethnoarchaeological’ research and anthropology backgrounds,73 archaeologists, those with oral history experience, and Indigenous staff. Commission consultation with Indigenous groups on social value began in 1989. Funded projects begun in 1993, such as Nourishing Terrains, exploring concepts of terra nullius, sacred landscapes, and ‘storylines’ (Rose 1996); staff worked with academic anthropologists74 on other projects. Further Commission projects were on places of contemporary significance to Indigenous groups, such as contact and conflict sites (eg Egloff 1987; Mulvaney 1989). All this heritage significance research went well beyond archaeological, ‘scientific value’.
73 eg Betty Meehan, Jo Victoria 74 eg John Avery, Francesca Merlan, Nicolas Peterson
104 Truscott – Chapter 3 – Community Value Perspectives gained this way on social value were shared across all natural and cultural heritage staff. This cross-fertilisation of experience resulted in a strong interdisciplinary input to the social value project in the Commission. The in-house development of theoretical constructs to inform practice benefited and gave the Commission a national advantage to lead and foster community consultative practice.
The Regional Forest Agreements (RFAs) were established to develop 20-year plans for a more consistent process between the Commonwealth and states for the approval of native forest logging, given the Commonwealth’s role to approve the export of all timber (DAFF 1992).75 The RFA process integrated regional assessment of all values— economic, social impact, biodiversity and heritage from 1995 to 2000. The scheme provided a well-funded platform of method workshops for the Australian Heritage Commission to further develop social value practice. Other method papers on heritage assessment practice, provided tools for joint Commonwealth-State assessment of heritage in forested areas, including predictive modelling of archaeological sites in forests (AHC 1994b). A discussion paper on social value emerged from one such workshop, held in 199376 (AHC 1994a).
The community values workshop included a wide range of practical and theoretical experts: planners with community consultation backgrounds, cultural geographers, cultural landscape experts, those with Indigenous heritage experience, and in multi- cultural projects. The workshop guidelines show considerable similarity with the tenets of community archaeology (AHC 1994a:53-57):
Community control … a distinction between more limited community consultation, and meaningful participation, which implies a level of community control over the processes and outcomes.
75 Triggered by the 1992 National Forest Policy Statement (see DAFF 1992). 76 Convened and edited by Sandy Blair and Marilyn Truscott.
105 Truscott – Chapter 3 – Community Value
Custodianship of important sites by the relevant cultural group or community may be the best means of conserving social value
Validating different understanding The notion of pluralism, including the of place and past possibility of contested or conflicting values occurring at a place. The right to plurality of views would be upheld in any discussion or understanding of social value, and enshrinement of plurality will lead to a different process in defining value
The systems devised were applied to the RFAs in 12 regions in five states, the cultural research methods and analysis used being substantiated by Mackay (1996) in his analysis of the results from the East Gippsland RFA. Several Community Heritage Workshops were held in each RFA region that identified hundreds of places of ‘social value’ to community groups, including Indigenous people (DAFF 2014; Blair and Feary 1995).77 This is seen as the most intensive effort at a local community level, simultaneously across many regions in Australia, and furthered a national awareness of ‘social value’.
The social value method paper (AHC 1994a) is however criticised for its lack of theoretical rigour. Byrne et al see those involved as ‘characteristic of their field in their almost complete absence to cite any scholarly or scientific literature at all’; this censure centres on three issues (2001:44): - that ‘archaeologists and conservation architects’, are in a field grounded in architecture and geography rather than the social sciences, and a ‘relatively closed circle’
77 Some 6000 cultural places identified in all RFAs, as part of natural and cultural national estate; Marilyn Truscott headed Heritage Team, Forest Taskforce, 1999-2000.
1 06 Truscott – Chapter 3 – Community Value - that the majority working in heritage have ‘not kept abreast of new thinking’, understandable as seen as not expected for consultants or in government agencies - that there is little incentive to be ‘inventive outside the paradigm’ in such work
This criticism is valid to some extent, and part of a long-standing recognition of the inevitable silos that develop between ‘pure’ and ‘applied’ research and practice. However, Byrne’s critique forgets the importance of testing new praxis to inform and develop theory. The statement also seems ignorant of the Australian Heritage Commission culture and procedure at the time, as outlined above, that managed to break down disciplinary barriers and silos. Staff with longstanding academic and theoretical backgrounds from different disciplines resulted in converging approaches and original insights into heritage significance assessment. The published results were not theoretical but based on practical experience and provided models and principles to follow; it did not aim to theorise the results of reflectivity, rather operationalise them. Since the changes to federal level heritage legislation in 2004, there is no longer responsibility at the federal level of heritage management to review and respond to twenty years of experience in identifying ‘social value’, including for Indigenous heritage. However, Byrne’s research unit in the NSW government later undertook a series of similar projects to those of the Australian Heritage Commission to forge a better understanding of community heritage, much of it Indigenous (eg Byrne and Nugent 2004; Goulding 2001, 2002, 2005).78
Australia ICOMOS also engaged with social value during the 1990s, responding to a general heritage practitioner recognition of community demands. For, just as Indigenous groups were arguing for their rights, increasingly mainstream groups sought to say why their heritage was important to them. Encouraged by the same people fostering the Australian Heritage Commission’s exploration of ‘social value’, Australia ICOMOS dedicated a special workshop to this issue in December 1994. The workshop forecast that ‘sometimes dramatic, sometimes subtle shifts of focus and method, to ensure that social / community values are factored into heritage conservation practice’ were required (Australia ICOMOS 1996:5).
78 That unit was abolished by the NSW Government in 2013.
107 Truscott – Chapter 3 – Community Value That groups might have ‘conflicting values’ in heritage place was also recognised. For example, when different community groups hold different social value about the same place. Australia ICOMOS and the Australian Heritage Commission provided research into examples, such as at the Swan Brewery in Perth between the Indigenous Noongar people and those with attachment to the brewery (Egloff and Fingleton 1994a), and natural biodiversity and social value related to mountain horsemen in national parks (Egloff and Fingleton 1994b). Such differences in ‘social value’ can make for difficult management decisions (Domicelj and Marshall 1994), the issues resulting in Australia ICOMOS’s development of its Code on the Ethics of Co-existence in Conserving Significant Places, from 1993 to 1998 (Australia ICOMOS 2000).
These debates in the ICOMOS membership brought a common level of understanding related to community and heritage and was not restricted to the ‘built’ environment. A series of annual conferences in the early 1990s were dedicated to cross-cultural issues
79 and included many Indigenous voices. In 1998, an Australia ICOMOS working group began drafting the Statement on Indigenous Cultural Heritage recognising Indigenous pre-eminent rights over their heritage, that was adopted in 2001 (Australia ICOMOS 2001, see Chapter 4). Again from 1998 Australia ICOMOS had a policy of increasing its Indigenous membership,80 and also in that year Australia ICOMOS launched its ‘Cultural Place Heritage Policy’,81 that included a strong recognition of the role of the Indigenous community in its heritage management (Australia ICOMOS 1998a).
The greater recognition of community attachments to place informed a strengthened community role for heritage in the Australia ICOMOS 1999 Burra Charter amendments (Australia ICOMOS 2000; Truscott and Young 2000; Truscott 2004b; Walker and Marquis-Kyle 2004). This commitment to community involvement is maintained in the
79 Whose Cultural Values? (Sydney, December 2992); Managing a Shared Heritage (Darwin, December 1993). 80 Initiated by this author during her Australia ICOMOS presidency. 81 Launched at HERCON, the Australian Heritage Commission National Heritage Convention.
108 Truscott – Chapter 3 – Community Value most recent Burra Charter amendment (Australia ICOMOS 2013a), 82 reflecting and leading contemporary understanding of heritage best practice for its members and government stakeholders.83 The 1999 Burra Charter revision led to the Australian Heritage Commission issuing a guide for communities on identifying their heritage (AHC 1998), later updated for Victoria (Heritage Victoria 2009). This community guide includes participatory processes and cultural mapping.
Ensuring community associations with place are identified is thus increasing in heritage management. For example, the NSW local government community heritage projects identify both Indigenous and non-Indigenous places within Local Environment Plans (LEPs), as part of the general state heritage legislation, not the Indigenous statute (eg NSW Heritage Office 2007). Major heritage projects also observe ‘social value’ identification with all relevant community groups. However as this research demonstrates in the 'compliance archaeology' case study (Chapter 6), the concern expressed by Byrne et al (2001) continues about the very limited inclusion of community value in environmental impact pre-development projects.
3.2.2 Today’s Meanings of the Past
The two significance criteria most often applied to Indigenous heritage are research significance or ‘scientific’ value, and community association or ‘social’ value. A critique follows of issues related to their definitions and applications to Indigenous heritage.
Uncovering Scientific Value Criterion C: Potential to yield information that will contribute to an understanding of our cultural or natural history
82 Australia ICOMOS is committed to regular reviews and updates of this doctrinal charter, Uulike the international ICOMOS ‘parent’ body which has chosen not to update its doctrine, such as the foundational Venice Charter 1964 (The Venice Charter: International Charter for the Conservation and Restoration of Monuments and Sites, www.icomos.org/venice_charter.html), as stated in the Pécs Declaration on its 40th anniversary (ICOMOS 2004) 83 For example, the Burra Charter is recognised by the state/territory heritage bodies (as HCOANZ) as the national standard for cultural heritage conservation management practice.
109 Truscott – Chapter 3 – Community Value This HERCON criterion for ‘scientific value’ is derived directly from that developed by the Australian Heritage Commission in 1986. It is also understood as ‘research’ significance and applies equally to the natural environment, such as fauna, flora species, biodiversity, geology, past climate and environmental changes. When applied to the research potential of a cultural place, the criterion tends to centre on its ‘archaeological potential’, implying archaeological techniques can be applied to that place to better understand past human activity.
At the time of the Australian Heritage Commission’s 1986 development of the criterion for ‘scientific’ value, some thinking had already been addressed at Indigenous ‘archaeological’ research values in Australia (Bowdler 1981, 1983, 1984, 1995; Sullivan and Bowdler 1984; Flood 1995). These authors expounded the need for a clear sense of the research questions a site might assist answering. Understanding the research potential of an individual site thus required an understanding of past research results of that region, or sites type, and what questions remained outstanding.
Despite the directions in these publications, there is a tendency to make very general claims for scientific value, or research ‘potential’, in nominations for heritage listing during the 1980s-1990s. The assertions were based solely on a site having in situ deposits rather than why such deposits might be useful in answering specific research questions. This trend persists (Smith 2004:118-119) as my evaluation of the results of pre-development archaeological surveys demonstrate in Chapter 6; no research questions are posed, nor are the results analysed, with any results about past lifestyles. What has become evident to examining ‘compliance archaeology’ today is that the guidelines and thresholds, set at that time to identify research value, are neither understood nor applied (eg Byrne et al 2001; Brown 2008a). Laurajane Smith (2006:27) suggests that many of the discussions at the time were on ‘the technical issues of assessment and “best practice”’ (see Chapter 6).
The lack of explicit archaeological research questions within the pre-development survey process may underlie the lack of research vigour in 'compliance archaeology'. Aboriginal archaeologist, Dugay-Grist (2013), is scathing that this does not occur during
110 Truscott – Chapter 3 – Community Value pre-development survey processes, as part of a participatory approach to different perspectives on the past. He urges a greater explanation and sharing of archaeological research results with community members. Brown concludes that the problem of neither research questions not clear results may result in an emphasis on ‘conservation’, meaning ‘heritage’ processes, rather than persisting with research results (2008a:24). This is not to say that the research value should take precedence, nor that social value should, but both—and other heritage significance values, all need to be assessed to result in an integrated understanding of place.
Some archaeologists have referred to ‘rarity’ or ‘representativeness’ as being part of this research value, as did Sandra Bowdler (1981). However, the national HERCON criteria have a separate criterion for these values which permits sites, places, or landscapes to be identified rare, even unique, or ‘characteristic’, quite separately from having research value.
HERCON Criterion 2. Possession of uncommon rare or endangered aspects of our cultural or natural history. HERCON Criterion 4. Importance in demonstrating the principal characteristics of a class of cultural or natural places or environments.
Although these two values may inform a significance assessment regarding research potential, a place may be found as of heritage significance on either one of these values alone.
Not Science Alone The absence of methods for, and practitioners engaged in, recognising the social value of pre-contact heritage items to contemporary Aboriginal people ultimately leads to a misrepresentation of cultural significance. (Brown 2008a:25)
Brown finds a ‘tension between the construction of scientific value for archaeological heritage and the social values of tangible heritage constructed by Aboriginal communities’ in the NSW system. He interprets the loss of rigour in assessing research significance as one reason for this allocation of ‘social value’ to archaeological sites and artefacts (2008a:25). Yet as stated there is no ‘either / or’ in what significance a place may have, it may have multiple values.
111 Truscott – Chapter 3 – Community Value A key driver for this current research was this perceived problem of the segregated application of ‘social’ value and ‘scientific value’ in Indigenous heritage management, the latter often being not very informed or expert. Partly triggered by Byrne et al’s report (2001) highlighting this problem as paramount in 'compliance archaeology', my research shows that ‘scientific value’ is also not addressed in some other forms of Indigenous heritage management. The case study investigating Indigenous community involvement in their heritage in protected areas, included cultural mapping approaches to landscapes, and demonstrates that ‘scientific’ value may be ignored (see Chapter 5).
Other Heritage Values
It is noticeable in discussions about Indigenous heritage significance that other forms of value are not addressed, only ‘social’ and ‘scientific’ value. These are ‘historic’ and ‘aesthetic’ values. Perhaps these terms do not sufficiently make clear how these may apply to ‘prehistoric’ Indigenous sites or those of post-contact. They do apply, and their application can assist expert and community making more explicit why certain places are important as heritage today.
‘Historic value’ is often misunderstood given the frequent reference to ’historic heritage’ or ‘historic environment’ meaning non-Indigenous places. Instead what is meant is clear from the HERCON criterion, and in many cases can apply to the results of archaeological research rather than research potential:
Criterion A: Importance to the course, or pattern, of our cultural or natural history. Criterion B: Possession of uncommon, rare or endangered aspects of our cultural or natural history. Criterion F: Importance in demonstrating a high degree of creative or technical achievement at a particular period. Criterion H: Special association with the life or works of a person, or group of persons, of importance in our history.
Aesthetic value is described by the HERCON criteria as:
Criterion E: Importance in exhibiting particular aesthetic characteristics.
112 Truscott – Chapter 3 – Community Value It must be stressed that aesthetic value is not restricted to ‘beauty’, but other responses to place and space. However, it is regarded as a ‘Western’ construct, not found in Indigenous Australian languages (Taylor 1994:41). However, it is suggested that this absence of an aesthetic response is not the case for all Indigenous communities (Taylor 1994:43), such as those in non-remote Australia (Ramsay 2010:6):
Indigenous meanings are frequently inscribed in World Heritage listings against Criterion (vi) and although the words 'beauty' and 'aesthetic' are not currently part of traditional Indigenous language the evocations and meanings from the landscape could equate to the fuller cultural meaning of 'aesthetic'.
3.2.3 Finding all Values Together
Acknowledging all the heritage values of the Indigenous past and present on Country is inherent in the ideals of community archaeology. However, how to identify such values is not made explicit in any discussions on community archaeology. Various forms of participative identification of all heritage values, such as cultural mapping, are analysed below, and specific tools to aid assessing such values for their heritage significance are presented below. Their application provide a greater capacity to ensure all values are recognised in Indigenous heritage management, as sought by the community archaeology model.
Mapping Community Values Cultural mapping (also known as cultural resource mapping or cultural landscape mapping) is the label organisations and peoples (including UNESCO) concerned about safeguarding cultural diversity give to a wide range of research techniques and tools used to "map" distinct peoples' tangible and intangible cultural assets within local landscapes around the world. (UNESCO Bangkok 2010)
‘Cultural mapping’, or ‘community mapping’ can be applied to identify and record cultural resources and activities of a community in both local, small areas, or sites, to extensive areas of Country. The method can extend beyond ‘heritage’ into wider community everyday cultural and socio-economic activities (eg Clark et al 1994). Cultural mapping is a form of participative practice that has been growing internationally,
113 Truscott – Chapter 3 – Community Value and within Australia, as a method to identify the community associations and values across landscapes. Examples of the method, results and issues follow.
One example is that pursued by the New South Wales government agency for Indigenous heritage—also the parks management body.84 NSW Parks initiated an active exploration of landscape heritage identification in its national parks from the mid-1990s. An extensive literature resulted (DECC 2008:52-54), followed by a guide to managing cultural landscapes in national parks (NSW DECCW 2010d). The guide broadly follows the process set out in Ask First and the Burra Charter with the following steps (NSW DECCW 2010d:9): 1 Engage community 2 Gather cultural heritage information 3 Identify places, landscapes and values 4 Map cultural heritage 5 Integrate cultural heritage planning into the management framework
It is reasoned that a regional assessment, or landscape approach, provides an understanding of relationships ‘between Aboriginal people and the natural environment, … past and present, and … cultural heritage places and the values people give them’, as demonstrated figuratively on a landscape scale the interconnectedness of landscape, nature, people with the past and present, and incorporates layers of place, space and values (Guilfoyle 2006:1, Figure 1, based on Phillips 2005:1, Figure 1):
This approach is a clear policy shift for this agency from the ‘archaeological paradigm which … underpinned cultural heritage management and environmental impact assessment … in the 1970s focused on “sites”’(DECC 2008:20). A special research unit was also established within the Indigenous heritage agency to drive this policy forward.85 Various explorations of identifying and managing heritage resulted (S Brown 2007, 2008b; Byrne 2002; Byrne and Nugent 2004; DECC 2008:20; Goulding 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005). No similar dedicated approach has taken place in other state agencies. This research notes however, that despite the integrated participatory models proposed by
84 With several changed departmental names over the last decade, in 2014 being the Office of Environment and Heritage (www.environment.nsw.gov.au). 85 This research unit was closed during 2013-14.
114 Truscott – Chapter 3 – Community Value the NSW research unit, their application to 'compliance archaeology' is not assured (see Chapter 6). However, this research found that various techniques and terminologies have emerged as part of the in principle recognition of landscape approaches and cultural mapping, to enable as full as possible a sense of past and present meanings of a community’s space.
One stimulating attempt to recognise and interpret cultural landscapes is given by Norman Sheehan and Ian Lilley (2008). Their presentation on two ways of seeing the past in the present in the landscape, the Indigenous, or intangible, and the archaeological, or tangible, is avowedly exploratory. They acknowledge researchers such as Barbara Bender (2006) in the tradition of ‘phenomenological landscape archaeology’, stating that the ‘trick for archaeologists is learning to see what is there’. They foster seeing the landscape from the perspective of the meaning it has for the community whose past they are researching, giving as an example (Sheehan and Lilley 2008:88):
… that if the landscape in a particular place looks like a coiled python, it actually is, in its spiritual guise, that python and must be approached as such. Certain sites will have been (im)possible at different points along the snake’s body, and different sorts of sites will be distributed accordingly.
This work builds on Ian Lilley’s partnership with Michael Williams on the Gooreng Gooreng Cultural Heritage Project studying the latter’s Country (Lilley and Williams 2005). That project has a community archaeology approach looking at language, contemporary social landscapes, as well as archaeological research, repatriation and cultural heritage management. These elements are melded into an integrated sense of past and present in the landscape, as an ‘uninterrupted and continuing story of Country’ (Sullivan 2008:109).
The NSW cultural heritage research unit has also explored several different approaches in specific recognition of Indigenous continuity-with-change in post-contact contexts in non-remote Australia. One of these is ‘mapping attachment’, with an example of post-contact heritage identification via historical records, landscape and personal memories of places and spaces, termed ‘geo-biographies’ (Byrne and Nugent 2004).
115 Truscott – Chapter 3 – Community Value This ‘geo-biographical’ approach is very similar to a form of cultural mapping developed in Canada, since also applied in Australia. Known as ‘use-and-occupancy’ map survey (UOM), or ‘map biography’, community participants individually identify their use or other connections with place on a geographic map (Jackson and Kennett 2011; Tobias 2002, 2009). Trialled in the Murray-Darling Basin with the Yorta Yorta people of Victoria, this style of cultural mapping is argued to be useful in settled areas where ongoing connections to Country are frequently dismissed (Weir 2010; Jackson and Kennett 2011:104).
Some research archaeologists are also ‘reading’ landscapes together with community groups (see Clarke and Faulkner 2005; Greer 2010; Harrison 2005; Prangnell et al 2010). More often such research processes are applied to a single site in its setting, when its traditional or intangible values are sought from the relevant Indigenous community (Ross and Quandamooka 1996; Ross and Coghill 2000; Ross et al 2011).
A specific form of ‘cultural mapping’ is being applied as part of natural resource management, by recording ‘traditional ecological knowledge’ (TEK). TEK is the knowledge of the environment acquired by indigenous people in their landscape over thousands of years (Inglis 1993:vi). Julian Inglis outlines the origins of the TEK concept in Canada86 and early its international application, culminating in 1992 with the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, 87 such as principle 22 (UNEP 1992):
Indigenous people and their communities and other local communities have a vital role in environmental management and development because of their knowledge and traditional practices. States should recognize and duly support their identity, culture and interests and enable their effective participation in the achievement of sustainable development.
This form of values identification is examined more closely in the case study on projects on public land at chapter 5.
86 The 1991 Canadian UNESCO Man and Biosphere Programme 87 At the Rio de Janeiro ‘Earth Summit’, the United Nations Summit on Environment and Development.
116 Truscott – Chapter 3 – Community Value Applying Significance Criteria
This research has presented heritage significance values and identification criteria in some detail in this chapter because this research has identified that there is a lack of a formal, coherent approach to heritage values identification in Indigenous heritage management. The issues appear to be related to separate systems across a federal system, the separation in many cases of Indigenous heritage from other heritage systems, and perhaps a lack of awareness as a result of the processes available in other systems applicable to those
The commitment to adopt the same HERCON criteria in Australia’s ‘historic’ heritage agencies may break down the separate approaches, but these consistent criteria are yet to be taken up by the generally separate Indigenous heritage agencies. That is a pity as the language of the HERCON criteria, and this research finds that the terms applied to Indigenous heritage is not very clear, As is shown in the analysis of the Indigenous heritage significance ‘criteria’ in the two study areas, Victoria and the ACT, (in Chapter 4) mere descriptive adjectives, such as ‘spiritual’ or ‘cultural’, are given as definitions without any criteria to guide their application.
For those without training or experience in applying significance assessment criteria, particularly the general terms for Indigenous heritage, there are guides to assist. One example is community guide based on the Burra Charter by the Australian Heritage Commission (2000). Key questions are posed for each value: aesthetic, historic, scientific and social, to assist the community members to find their own way to what is important and what not about a place. The questions also guide those experts working with communities who do not have heritage training. The questions for the two criteria currently most frequently applied to Indigenous heritage are presented below (AHC 2000:34-35). The questions provide an example of the approach to be taken in significance assessment; their application or not is critiqued in the case study chapters, 5 and 6:
117 Truscott – Chapter 3 – Community Value
Table 5: Questions set for criteria on social and scientific value (AHC 1998:34-35)88
Social Value Scientific Value Social values Scientific values Social value to the community embraces the Scientific value to the community will depend upon qualities for which a place is a focus of spiritual, the importance of the data involved, on its rarity, traditional, economic, political, national or other quality or representativeness, and on the degree to cultural sentiment to the majority or minority group. which the place may contribute further substantial Is the place important to the community as information. a landmark or local signature? In what Is the place important for natural values in ways, and to what extent? showing patterns in natural history or Is the place important as part of community continuing ecological, earth or identity? In what ways, and to what extent? evolutionary processes? In what ways, and to what extent? Is the place important to the community because an attachment to it has developed Is there anything about the place or at the from long use? What is the length and place which is rare or endangered, for strength of that attachment? example, plant or animal species, geological features, a type of construction Which community values the place? method or material used, or a particular What is the relative importance of the place form of archaeological evidence? to the group or community (compared to Is the place important in helping others to other places important to it)? understand this type of place? In what Is the place associated with a particular ways, and to what extent? person or group important in your Is the place a good example of a particular community’s history? What is the type of place, that is, undisturbed, intact importance of the association between this and complete? Why is this? place and that person or group? Can the place contribute to research Is the place valued by a community for understanding of natural or cultural reasons of religious, spiritual, cultural, history? In what ways, and to what extent? educational or social associations? In what ways, and to what extent? Can the place contribute to scientific understanding of biodiversity or geodiversity? In what ways, and to what extent?
Judging whether a place (or object) has heritage significance is a matter of judgement based on experience and the relevant expertise. The exception is for community association and attachment (social value), where the expertise resides with the community, although it may help to have experienced facilitation. The place (or object) either comes over the threshold of significance against a criterion or not. Assessments do not apply ranking against the criteria. Yet, as will be shown in the case study on pre-development surveys, there is a tendency to use ranking for Aboriginal ‘archaeological’ sites, which may confuse significance assessments.
88 There is some confusion with the scientific examples, as some are ‘historic value’ ie where something identified, eg species first time or representative of a phase in history.
118 Truscott – Chapter 3 – Community Value It is necessary to understand also, that no heritage value remains static; it is dynamic, changing through time. For example, community associations with or meanings for that heritage may change, or fall away as part of past connections, becoming ‘historic’ value. Likewise findings about the importance of an historic event or phase in human activity may lessen or increase or differ after new information is available. A place or object or cultural practice may become either rarer, or more commonplace, and thus again change its significance in terms of rarity or representativeness. A change in scientific, or research, value is also probable when research questions are answered elsewhere, moderating perhaps the potential of another site.
The loss of heritage values also occurs when places are destroyed or otherwise changed considerably without a value assessment first taking place. Considerable concern has been expressed about pre-development survey processes which are seen as resulting in a major loss of many archaeological sites without appropriate significance assessment. The federal Indigenous Advisory Committee (IAC) as part of the 2011 State of the Environment report, concurred with longstanding concern about 'compliance archaeology' not meeting its obligations, indicating that the situation was on a ‘critical precipice’ (Mackay 2011:5). One IAC member, Indigenous archaeologist Dave Johnston, sees it as an imminent emergency (2013a, b). The IAC suggestion (Mackay 2011:5) that sites in development zones be foregone in favour of saving those in reserves is not necessarily a well-informed solution. It is probable that that some sites on land to be developed may represent different past activities to those sites on reserve land, and thus both access to scientific, social, and other heritage values will be lost.
The above discussion identifies that there are ongoing issues in identifying heritage values. Problems continue despite years of discussion and practice at applying heritage significance criteria to a range of heritage places, and objects, including their social value. The problems range from not understanding the criteria, to not having the appropriate skills for their application and assessment, to not realising the mutability of significance. Reasons for this difficulty are not clear. This research examines more closely in the case studies whether the perceived inability to facilitate the inclusion of the
119 Truscott – Chapter 3 – Community Value community’s values is a barrier to the full application of the community archaeology model.
Dismissing Archaeology’s Use
Some critiquing current cultural mapping or landscape approaches in Indigenous heritage management see such landscape methods either ignoring archaeological results, or their subservience. Brown, for example, perceives reasons given for a landscape approach, such as strategic and community benefits, as entirely about conservation. He notes this is resulting almost in an abandonment of archaeological research, not seeing anyone arguing that the regional approach is also about ‘understanding past behaviour’ (2008a:24), as in ‘scientific landscape archaeology’. This, if Brown is correct, would be in conflict with professional heritage ethics that seek ‘a co-ordinated multi-disciplinary approach to ensure an open attitude to cultural diversity and the availability of all necessary professional skills’ (Australia ICOMOS 1998b:8).
Yet there is the counter-view that archaeology should take a lesser role when seeking an understanding of the Indigenous values of Country. Michelle Alexander (2011:11)89 asserts when applying cultural mapping in remote Australia that ‘Understanding the archaeology of the area is an important part of the complete picture’, yet stresses archaeology’s ‘subservience’ to cultural understandings and decisions based on them, and states:
The relevance of archaeology in this context depends on using a flexible and integrated approach to view individual sites as part of a wider cultural landscape
Alexander’s position is in contrast to current heritage principles that require the identification and consideration of ‘all aspects of cultural and natural significance without unwarranted emphasis on any one value at the expense of others’, as stated in the Burra Charter (Australia ICOMOS 2013a:5.1). Archaeology is a discipline that can provide important information both in its own right, but also to assist and complement other information from other expertise. Yet archaeology is just that, only one source of
89 When presenting the keynote address at the 2011 AIATSIS Native Title Conference (AIATSIS 2011a).
120 Truscott – Chapter 3 – Community Value information, other sources being from the community and other areas of academic knowledge. The principle that no value should be preeminent is supported by Anthony English (2002:3), who argues for:
Recognising and providing for the contemporary values that Aboriginal people associate with these features requires blending land management principles with the traditional tools of cultural heritage assessment such as oral history and archaeological survey.
3.3 Money Matters – the Worth of Heritage
What is the economic value of heritage to the community? Indigenous communities are said to be sustained by their Country, particularly those communities with access (see earlier this chapter), and is deemed to be a general ‘non-use value’, because it exists90 (Glossary Appendix 1; Throsby 2007b:3). But the economic value of that heritage is less clear. Community archaeology seeks economic benefits for the community (see Quseir Strategy and Barunga Protocols). As almost 50% of Indigenous households are in the bottom 20% of gross income (ABS 2010:4), any growth in economic benefits from their heritage will help ‘close the gap’91 socio-economically (COAG 2007).
This section reviews available information about the economic value from heritage for Australian Indigenous communities, whether as a ‘public good’, or more directly from a direct use of that heritage. Such ‘use’ includes employment from heritage surveys and site management, or income from cultural tourism. This review is set within a broader context of the economic value of heritage generally, engendering a debate about how to measure what heritage is worth economically, based on theoretical discussions by economists.
90 Non-use value (or passive use value), is seen as having three categories: existence value: individuals value cultural heritage simply because it exists; option value: individuals wish to preserve heritage items in order to leave open the option that they may consume their services in the future; and bequest value: individuals wish to pass on heritage assets to future generations. Use value is the value that accrues to individuals, households, or firms through the direct consumption of heritage services. 91 ‘Closing the Gap’, the Indigenous Reform Agenda agreed through the Council of Australian Governments
121 Truscott – Chapter 3 – Community Value 3.3.1 Cultural Goods - Public Good
Discussion about the economic value of heritage is set within a perception that economic gain is the driving societal concern, with ‘neo-liberal’ precepts influencing governments to find fiscal reasons for protecting heritage (Throsby 2006:40). This has increased requests by governments to heritage management bodies to justify their role in cost benefit terms. Government and other heritage bodies have responded, wishing to prove the worth of heritage to politicians who hold the purse, and to the wider public in defence of heritage protection. Heritage bodies such as the Getty Conservation Institute, English Heritage and the Australian Heritage Commission have engaged with this issue (Mason 1999; Torre 2002; Torre and Mason 1999; Torre et al 2005; eftec 2005a, b; AHC 2001; DEW 2007). The following sub-sections provide a summary of the debates around the issue of heritage and economic value. Most of the studies are targeted at ‘historic heritage’, yet there is relevance to Indigenous heritage, for they provide a wider societal and theoretical context for understanding the economic value of all heritage.
Heritage as Public Good … museums, galleries and national parks create community benefits in the deeper sense – people’s sense of history, their sense of cultural identity, a wonder of nature – things that as a community we hold dear. (Senate Committee 1998:43)
Frequent claims that heritage is a ‘public good’, were supported in 1998 by a federal Senate Committee inquiry into ‘Access to Heritage’ (Senate Committee 1998).92 ‘Public good’ is defined as being ‘non-excludable and non-rivalrous’, as an aspect of community life accessible by one person or group, by all; an example often given is ‘air’ (University of Melbourne 2011). This concept is raised generally to argue a wider, non-monetary case for heritage, or other public domains such as the arts; these areas are seen as part of public interest and ‘common good’. The argument is that such ‘public goods’ are assets with cultural value, and therefore that they are a community benefit that enhances a community’s social or cultural capital.
92 The Senate Committee on the Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts Committee Inquiry; this author wrote both the Australian government agencies and Australia ICOMOS submissions.
122 Truscott – Chapter 3 – Community Value Yet the Australian government found less than persuasive econometrical studies on the economic cultural worth of heritage to society. Concern centred on the impact on the built environment from heritage listing said to lower its economic value. This caused the then federal Treasurer, Peter Costello, to charge the Productivity Commission to inquire into the Conservation of Australia’s Historic Heritage Places (PC 2006a).93
More studies on the economic value of heritage resulted as submissions were prepared for this Inquiry.94 It was found that ‘62% [of adult Australians] think that not enough is being done to protect historic heritage across Australia; 32% think it’s “about right”’ (Allen Consulting Group 2005b:vii-viii).95 This study and another (Allen Consulting Group 2005a), provide comprehensive information about public preparedness to pay for heritage, and explore economic theories such as ‘use’ and ‘non-use’ value, from Australian and UK studies. They also identify community reciprocity related to heritage building ‘social capital’. They do not examine public attitudes to archaeological sites or include Indigenous heritage, reviewed below.
Such recognition of ‘non-use values’—valued for its existence, rather than its use, is argued by David Throsby96 as being cultural value, acknowledging that heritage also generates economic value (1997, 2001a, b, 2003, 2007a, b). He sees heritage as ‘special and different to other goods and services. However, ‘the economic valuation approach would reject notions of cultural value that are different to economic value’ (eftec 2005a:4), and dismiss ‘cultural value’ as ‘qualitative values’, or ‘determinants’ or ‘motives’ for value (eg Pearce et al 2001, eftec 2005b:13). The problems some economists have with Throsby’s definition as ‘cultural value’ being a ‘non-use value’ is perhaps because they do not yet know how to measure the importance of these values to society, despite interest in evaluating their benefit to the public, and looking to the natural
93 This inquiry triggered several studies and 418 submissions with data on the historic environment, including from the general publics. 94 Such as for the Heritage Chairs and Officials of Australia and New Zealand (HCOANZ). 95 2024 surveyed 96 Professor of Economics, Macquarie University, with specialist interests in the economics of the arts and culture.
123 Truscott – Chapter 3 – Community Value environment for models. But it is recognised by some that cultural heritage is priceless, being ‘irreplaceable … once lost, the original cannot be recreated’ (eftec 2005a:4),
Inherent Value of Indigenous Sites
Very little specific valuation has been done of archaeological heritage, let alone Indigenous archaeological heritage. For example, a review undertaken for English Heritage found only ten valuation studies of ‘historical, cultural and archaeological sites’ of a total thirty-three valuation studies, all others concerned built heritage (eftec 2005:46- 50). This is in contrast to the thousands of natural environment valuations, although these do not mention archaeological sites which occur in such areas.
The archaeological valuation studies eftec (2005) reviewed were all undertaken between 2000 and 2005. Most are ‘iconic’ sites from a range of countries, many World Heritage listed, and open to tourists. Various survey methods were used, but the focus of the studies was largely on assessing the ‘willingness to pay’, the results indicating that users of any site are more willing to pay than non-users (who may be tax payers) (eftec 2005). Thus ‘use’ of these sites, rather than the idea of the sites existing, appears paramount, shown below to also be the case in Australia (Zeppel 2001).
Little measurement has been done specifically on the ‘non-use value’ of archaeological sites. The existence of heritage legislation covering archaeological sites, supposes public support, as found in the Hope Report in 1974 that acknowledged ‘archaeological or scientific areas’ as part of the National Estate (1974:2.7). Two submissions to the 2006 Productivity Commission inquiry on historic, built, heritage, were by archaeological professional associations97 (PC 2006b). However, rather than providing substantive evidence, their submissions merely assert the ‘importance of this aspect of Australia’s heritage’ (ASHA 2006:4):
Archaeological sites and the objects found there are part of that heritage and are valued by many members of the public as containing information about the past and both illustrating and evoking the past.
97 Australasian Society for Historical Archaeology (ASHA), Australian Institute for Maritime Archaeology (AIMA); the Australian Archaeological Association did not submit comments.
124 Truscott – Chapter 3 – Community Value More concrete evidence is found from a survey undertaken by the Society for American Archaeology (SAA) (2000). The results showed a higher value for heritage or cultural factors (99%), than monetary value (73%) (HarrisInteractive 2000:25).98 The SAA does not indicate what ‘types of archaeology’ are covered in the survey, but as demonstrated, public notions of archaeology are very different to those of archaeologists. No such public survey has been done for archaeological heritage in Australia.
Australian studies on Indigenous heritage value by Heather Zeppel, identified Indigenous landscapes, including rock art sites, as ‘amenity value’ for those visiting. She sees this aspect of heritage as ‘physical, human and natural capital [that] is largely under valued until new economic benefits are derived through tourism’ (Zeppel 2001:113:). She also notes that greater public recognition often occurs when ownership of national parks is given to Aboriginal people.
Developing Land or Keeping Country
Most of the above studies focus on protected archaeological sites or those on protected land, such as national parks. The economic value of Indigenous heritage on general land is unclear, with almost no consideration of how to value its protection (Rolfe and Windle 2003; Windle and Rolfe 2003). Some few studies have focussed on terms of compensation for land areas that have native title over them (Sheehan and Wensing 1998; Rolfe and Windle 2003; Windle and Rolfe 2003), pointing out that native title does not extinguish any private ‘property right’, only being claimable on non-allocated Crown Land.99 However nonetheless, Indigenous cultural heritage is identified as a form of ‘property right’ in native title land use agreements (LUAs). But such impact valuation and resultant compensation for cultural heritage values are not part of pre-development planning systems (Sheehan and Wensing 1998:64):
98 Of the 1016 respondents, 99% found ‘archaeological sites have educational and scientific value’; 94% - artistic value; 93% - personal heritage value; 88% - spiritual value; 73% - monetary value; 53% - political value (HarrisInteractive 2000:25) 99 Mabo v Queensland (No.2) per Brennan (Reconciliation Australia www.shareourpride.org.au/topics/beyond-the-myths/the-basics/native-title-can-take-away-property)
125 Truscott – Chapter 3 – Community Value There has been no recognition of intangible factors such as sentimental (or spiritual) attachment in existing case law, and forthcoming court decisions will almost certainly direct how compensation for the loss of cultural, social or spiritual values should be assessed. Little confidence surrounds such unresolved issues.
Such intangible factors for many cultural heritage sites are recognised as ‘non-use values, such as existence values’, and that an ‘estimation of non-use values provide greater challenges’ (Windle and Rolfe 2003:41). These economists also rightly assert that it is important to have ‘use values’ assessed for cultural heritage sites,100 yet provide no ways forward as to how to do this. They appear unaware that heritage significance criteria may provide a tool for such ‘use’ assessments, and may assist cost-benefit analysis studies, by demonstrating the benefit to a community of their ongoing associations with their heritage.
A study in central Queensland shows that ‘mainstream’ communities had ‘significantly different values from those of the Indigenous community about the protection of Aboriginal cultural heritage’ (Rolfe and Windle 2003:92). General communities in Rockhampton and Brisbane and an Indigenous community in central Queensland were asked to ‘trade off’ water resource development, with either environmental or Aboriginal cultural heritage protection. The results of the choice modelling study show that the two non-Indigenous communities preferred the option of saving the environment rather than protecting Aboriginal cultural heritage, if having to choose between them, whereas the Indigenous community chose their heritage; John Rolfe and Jill Windle stress (2003:92):
This does not mean that Aboriginal cultural heritage is not valued by the general community, but in terms of the trade-offs between economic development, the general community are more concerned about environmental issues.
Rolfe’s and Windle’s study was seen as unique, given there was ‘no history of total economic valuation of indigenous cultural heritage’, at that time appearing ‘to be the only published attempt to estimate non-use values of indigenous cultural heritage protection in
100 The authors also note that ‘It would be useful to explore the relevant attributes of the protection of Aboriginal cultural heritage places, from a general community and Indigenous perspective, when more information is provided about the types of sites that might be protected’.
126 Truscott – Chapter 3 – Community Value Australia and possibly the world’ (Venn and Quiggin 2005:6). ‘Non-use’ value is demonstrated as important to recognise and integrate into decisions about Indigenous heritage. However, this example and other surveys about the value of heritage as shown at the outset of this chapter, demonstrate that the natural environment is seen as more important and that somehow Indigenous heritage is separate.
3.3.2 Income from Indigenous Heritage
In Australia, income from Indigenous heritage is derived from many sources including: commercial and financial benefits from heritage sales and services; Indigenous business enterprises; rents and leasing, land value; and, government funding.
Economically valuing Indigenous heritage is however difficult to analyse, as there is no single source where information is reported. The national State of the Environment has repeatedly lamented the lack of available facts and figures (1996, 2001, 2006, 2011). Responses from data sources have been ‘patchy’ at most, and indicators have not been applied consistently despite many urgings to do so (Pearson et al 2001:14, 15-16).
However, despite this lack of consistent or comprehensive data, there are some data on ‘use value’, such as tourism. The following discussion provides some insight into this aspect of economic benefits of heritage to the community.
Counting Tourism
A key source of income for Indigenous communities in Australia is tourism, their heritage is widely recognised as a major attraction for overseas visitors. Indigenous cultural tourism was valued at $7.2 billion in 2009, being 12% of total visitor expenditure in Australia (SoE 2011b:117, based on TRA 2010). Before the global financial crisis of 2008, the tourism income was AUD $5 million per annum (Zeppel 2001:109).101 Thus despite the above findings of a lesser ‘non-use’ interest in Indigenous heritage, the ‘use’ value is high and generates considerable income. Zeppel explains that it is primarily from
127 Truscott – Chapter 3 – Community Value such non-Indigenous interest in Indigenous heritage and culture that values accrue (Zeppel 2001:109).
International tourists dominate,102 their high level of interest in Indigenous culture and heritage reflected in their Australian cultural activities (SoE:2011b:117-118): - museums / galleries: 57%; - experience of Aboriginal art: 20%; - visit to Aboriginal community: 11%.
But the main commercial use of Indigenous heritage is from ‘commodity values’: portable cultural forms, such as art pieces (Zeppel 2001:113), valued by tourists because they can be bought and taken home. Such sales are the chief financial gain by Indigenous communities from their culture and heritage. The sale of Aboriginal arts and crafts between 2004 and 2007 was some $26 million a year, dropping to an estimated $10.1 million in 2010 due to the Global Financial Crisis and high Australian dollar (SoE 2011b:118; TRA 2011).
Zeppel’s reference to ‘commodity value’ is part of her economic analysis of Indigenous heritage / cultural tourism. Zeppel identifies ‘four main types’ of Indigenous heritage ‘resources’, ‘capital’, or ‘assets’ available for cultural tourism in economic terms (2001:113): - Physical capital (Indigenous landscapes, sites, artefacts) - Human capital (Indigenous people and new cultural attractions) - Natural capital (Indigenous environment, use of natural resources) - Cultural capital (Indigenous arts and crafts, music and dance, knowledge)
Zeppel acknowledges in her analysis inputs such as heritage trails and interpretation, or museum collections, to build on the innate ‘physical capital’ of sites and artefacts. She also sees the intangible heritage as another form of ‘capital’:
… the core aspect of Indigenous heritage–spiritual ‘capital’–where creation (Dreaming) beliefs are embodied in natural landscapes and creative expressions. Indigenous heritage values primarily derive from spiritual and cultural links to sites and landscapes.
102 Ony 3% of domestic tourists’ activities relate to Indigenous culture.
128 Truscott – Chapter 3 – Community Value When compared to ‘souvenirs’, it is clear that income from the ‘physical capital’ is much lower, for example income to community from Aboriginal guided tours was only 2.5% of that for the portable cultural items (ATSIC 1997 in Zeppel 2001:113).103 Royalty or national park entry fees provide an even lower income to the relevant community.
There is considerable authority gained by Indigenous communities from the economic advantages of heritage tourism. And Indigenous-run tourism is growing, with some 300 businesses across Australia, although over half are in remote areas (SoE 2011b:118). Yet, the economic use of heritage may potentially risk the ‘non-use’ values that so clearly relate to communities’ cultural wellbeing. However, Briscoe (2003:286) judges such cultural tourism as ‘imperialist’. There is the risk of the abuse of Indigenous intellectual property rights, flouting Indigenous economic and cultural interests.104 Terri Janke (1998:8) urges ‘Don’t give away your valuable cultural assets’, reminding Indigenous people of the value of their traditional knowledge and culture.
In examining the potential for a community archaeology approach, the case studies are analysed for communities’ efforts to share their heritage, and the economic benefits to them. Possibilities include passive or active interpretation, at sites, guided tours, and art works, and online presentations.
Earning in the Field There is also a perceived economic advantage to Aboriginal groups … both through employment on survey/excavation projects and in the process of monitoring development impacts on physical fabric. (Brown 2008a:25)
Pre-development surveys are one aspect of Indigenous heritage management where Indigenous community members gain employment. Thus 'compliance archaeology' does provide this financial benefit for Indigenous involvement in their heritage (Byrne et al
103 No updated data found. 104 As an example, the appearance of plastic versions of didgeridoos and copies of Indigenous art now coming in from China, is a threat to Indigenous intellectual property rights, as well as economic rights (ABC 2010)
129 Truscott – Chapter 3 – Community Value 2001:17), despite other concerns about the benefit of such surveys to knowledge of the past or identifying community values.
However, it is much harder to find reliable information about short-term pre-development surveys, or heritage grant projects, than the financial benefits from cultural tourism. State of the Environment reports give some figures, generally permanent employment in heritage agencies, museums and cultural centres, or parks agencies (eg SOE 2006a). But gauging the financial benefits to an individual Indigenous community from their heritage remains difficult.
This difficulty persists because the financial details of surveys are usually commercial-in- confidence. However there are many hundreds of pre-development surveys a year on the fringes of major cities, such as the two study areas for this research. The average cost for such a survey was estimated to rise in Victoria from $14,573 in the former system to an estimated $20,462 with the 2006 legislation (Allen Consulting Group 2007:37).
But the proportion of economic benefit to Indigenous communities is clearly a fraction of the costs for consultants, as acknowledged by Allen Consulting Group (2007:Page number). The Australian Association of Consulting Archaeologists (AACAI) puts the hourly consultancy rate as high as $200 (2014), whereas it is understood that Indigenous fieldwork pay is $80 to $100 an hour. The consultants are also paid for a longer time for pre- and post-desk studies, analyses, and report preparation. In Queensland, even where the developer pays the community for the survey, who in turn contracts the archaeologist, the benefit is not largely economic, as they only retain a small administrative fee, and payment for fieldwork (Dalley 2004:48-49). The community benefit in this situation is rather one of control, or power.
Data can more readily be found about the costs of pre-development heritage surveys ahead of mining. Although not directly analogous to my research, given the higher travel and accommodation costs for consultants in remote areas of Australia, the figures provide some context for current perceptions of the costs, and benefits, of this consultant archaeology ‘industry’.
130 Truscott – Chapter 3 – Community Value The information clearly portray the ‘big business’ that consultant archaeology and pre- development survey has become, as presented by the Association of Mining and Exploration Companies (2013:14; Hetherington 2013:2). And there is evidence that the costs for cultural heritage surveys ahead of mining are rising rapidly, now being $100 million a year for ‘anthropologists, archeologists and native title representatives’ (Association of Mining and Exploration Companies 2013:14). This amount has risen from $5 million in 2001-02 (ABS 2003), said at the time to be some 13% of the total spent (Wallis et al 2004:8; O’Faircheallaigh 2006a, b). The proportion of costs is now reported as potentially 25% for a mining exploration company in Western Australia (AMEC 2013:15). The daily heritage survey cost has risen from $11,000 in 2010 to $15,000 in 2013, of which ‘only 10-15% of all monies paid by companies for heritage purposes are received by the Traditional Owners (AMEC 2013:15).
The current figures were presented in submissions to a Productivity Commission inquiry into the non-financial barriers to resource exploration in Australia, including indigenous heritage approvals (Productivity Commission 2013:vs105). The tone in some of the mining company submissions reflects the findings of the 2011 state of the environment reporting process. Land development issues ranked high among concerns held by the federal Indigenous Advisory Committee106 (Mackay 2011), The Indigenous Advisory Committee expressed disquiet at the apparent perception by developers that ‘Aboriginal heritage [is] seen to be “in the way” of development’, and the conflict between the ‘Profits from development versus costs for surveys, assessments and management of heritage’ (Mackay 2011:5).
The question of the financial benefit from 'compliance archaeology' is analysed in detail in Chapter 6, and compared with community archaeology ideals. The results show that pre-development survey payments to Indigenous participants provide an important economic benefit to community members. However, communities receive little or limited
105 Released by the Australian Government on 5 March 2014. 106 For the EPBC Act (Environment Protection Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999)
131 Truscott – Chapter 3 – Community Value social capital by way of acknowledgement of their knowledge of Country, or greater scientific knowledge of their past.
Government Support
Government funding for heritage is found in a range of programs from direct employment to grants. Employment of Indigenous Australians occurs in heritage and land management agencies, and museums, and other bodies dealing with heritage matters. As said, the extent of this is unclear. As I have mentioned, repeated State of the Environment reports since 1996 note the lack of reliable data on government funding for Indigenous heritage, whether place, moveable, languages, or intangible cultural heritage. It is unclear whether ‘the funding is adequate or if it is being spent effectively or efficiently’ for heritage places in particular (SoE 2006b).107 In 2011, the State of Environment report made a stronger statement (SoE 2011a:760):
Resources for listing and protecting Indigenous heritage places are inadequate, and their allocation is often a post-event reaction to adverse impacts. Insufficient attention is paid to intangible values and effective means of protection other than listing or reservation. Australia's listed Indigenous sites do not allocate adequate resources to address major conservation priorities,[ 108] nor do land-management programs such as Caring for our Country. Conservation programs for intangible heritage are severely constrained by limits on available resources.
It is unclear whether the reality or perceptions of a lesser public support for Indigenous heritage, than for example the natural environment, as found in surveys, is a factor in this insufficient funding. And despite this State of Environment view, the supplementary report on Indigenous cultural heritage, finds positive trends in the ‘protection of Indigenous moveable and immoveable heritage’ (SoE 2011b:63). The positive elements are increased listings, expanded and stronger requirements of heritage assessments and consideration in development consents, and more regional planning to identify
107 The only funding figures provided are a surrogate of federal funding to world heritage areas and federally managed national parks, being $58,734,000 in 2003-04, less than the two previous years: $59,974,102 in 2002-03, and $62,517,277 in 2001-02 (SoE 2006c). 108 This curious expression perhaps meant to say that listed sites are not allocated adequate resources …
132 Truscott – Chapter 3 – Community Value Indigenous heritage. The thesis research digs deeper into the case study areas for data on funding for heritage sites and issues related to consistency and ongoing funding. The two study areas differ in the government support Indigenous communities receive to administer their heritage role; Victorian communities receive funding, the ACT communities do not.
The government also provides heritage grants to a range of groups, including Indigenous communities, continuing a long tradition. Grants can enable Indigenous communities to have control about what aspects of their heritage is their priority when they apply for grant funding, within the criteria and priorities of the grant program. In doing so, they may share their understanding of their heritage—of Country, and gain some employment or income, at least to some extent, thus meeting some community archaeology ideals. But as already noted direct funding to Aboriginal communities for their heritage has occurred for over 50 years, as this summary of federal grant funding shows:
1961 - present– AIAS (now AIATSIS)– with a long focus on archaeological research, the Institute also began early with grants ‘for Aboriginal requested research and Aboriginal training at the Institute’, with direct funding to Indigenous groups; the nature of the programs has changed over time (Ward 2013): 1986 – Rock Art Protection Program (AIATSIS) Date started? – stayed 2012 - AIATSIS Research Grants program, that covers a wide range of areas beyond heritage.109 However, proportionately the communities that receive grants are few compared to non-Indigenous academic researchers. In 2011, only 4 of 23 projects went to communities directly, with 3 of the 4 being heritage projects, the other health (AIATSIS 2011b). The community had control and could then hire for itself any relevant disciplinary skills needed, including archaeological.110 1973 - 2004 Commonwealth National Estate Grants Program, with a three-way split in funding between natural, Indigenous and non-Indigenous cultural projects, with a policy to fund projects by Indigenous groups
2004 - present – federal Indigenous Heritage Program. The criteria include a wide range of projects, from the identification including recording oral histories / stories, to
109 In 2012, AIATSIS suspended its Research Grants for the first time (see http://aiatsis.gov.au/research/grants/grants.html) 110 For example, the Wreck Bay community hiring Brian Egloff in 1977.
133 Truscott – Chapter 3 – Community Value conservation and interpretation of heritage places (IHP 2012).111 Despite an overall drop in funding since 2004,112 the program has provided over $25 million to more than 450 Indigenous heritage projects across Australia (SoE 2011b:63, Table 17)
Such grants are not evaluated whether for the benefit to the heritage itself, or the community. Some financial benefits for the community are likely, despite generally only permitting a small administrative fee, there may be some employment during the duration of the project. Heritage grants are a one-off payment and cannot provide a constant income from heritage.
As with any community group, the administrative capacity or otherwise of many Indigenous groups to apply for, administer, and undertake the grant funding and projects can be an issue.113 Over twenty years ago training workshops, as part of the then federal National Estate Grants Program, informed Indigenous communities how to apply for heritage project grants, to cost projects, and bring them to fruition (Hope and Stresau 1991), also producing a manual (AHC 1991).114 This need for improved governance was recognised by the Australian government’s Closing the Gap program (Tsey et al 2012).
The thesis research analyses more closely funds made available to the communities in the two case study areas, the Wurundjeri Council, Victoria, and Aboriginal community groups in the ACT (see chapter 4, and case study chapters). In doing so, the stop-start nature of grants funding is found to impede any economic sustainability for the community and also limits its capacity to plan ahead for its heritage. Thus heritage grants do not fully permit gaining community archaeology ideals, despite providing other benefits, including enhancing the community capacity to interact with government and other agencies regarding their heritage value.
111 Eligibility for funding stresses incorporated Indigenous bodies and Traditional Owners, but does permit an individual working on behalf of such a group, and even a local government authority. 112 From $3.3 to $2.79 million from 2004-05 to 2010-11, s, and from 63 to 40 projects (SoE 2011b:63, Table 17). 113 Widely recognised as an eligibility criterion in many mainstream (non-heritage) community building, community capacity, small grants schemes throughout Australia. 114 Convened by the Australian Heritage Commission (Marilyn Truscott) and the NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service (Jeannette Hope).
134 Truscott – Chapter 3 – Community Value 3.4 Community Value - Summary of Issues However, these benefits are poorly tapped, due to a lack of research data that clearly identifies the benefits of heritage, and a consequent failure to inform national coordination and strategic planning. (Smith and Burke 2010)
The thesis research asks whether and how community archaeology provides benefits to the Indigenous community. The above quote is a reminder of how fragmented current information is to answer this question, whether heritage at its broadest level, or that related to manifestations, tangible and intangible in the landscape. Assessing the values and benefits of the many Indigenous heritage policies, programs and projects to Indigenous communities themselves is generally unclear. All reporting suggests the current system may benefit communities, but the disaggregation of program delivery, makes it unknown where improvements might be made. The case studies in my research provide specific answers in one aspect of Indigenous heritage management.
It is clear is that there is broad societal support for heritage in Australia, and the Indigenous connection to Country is widely recognised. Heritage is widely accepted as informing a society’s, and community’s, sense of identity (Howard 2003). Heritage significance identification, and management practice, notably, but not restricted to, ‘social value’, contribute and reinforce this sense of identity and connection to Country. Social capital and wellbeing may accrue as part of this benefit from heritage, assisting communities to a greater capacity within society.
However, the general public’s view that Indigenous heritage ranks behind the natural environment may influence lower government funding levels. Similarly, when it comes to archaeological sites, the public’s romantic view of ‘archaeology’, and the concurrent notion of an unchanging Aboriginal culture, may also result in less value being attached to the continent’s ‘prehistoric’ archaeological past. This essentialist view of Indigenous Australians may be also barrier to pursuing a community’s sense of its past in urban areas, being supposed that that sense is lost. Nonetheless archaeological evidence has another layer of significance, of ‘social value’ to Indigenous community members, useful to confirm identity and bonding a community, beyond land and native title claims.
135 Truscott – Chapter 3 – Community Value Nontheless, the articulation of those values suffers from unclear and inconsistent approaches to significance criteria and heritage assessment. How heritage values are identified is explored in this research, given the emphasis in the community archaeology model, for the inclusion of all understandings of the past and landscape. Such recognition is acknowledged as contributing to a community’s cultural wellbeing. Also the recognition of Indigenous rights to their heritage has led to some identifiable economic benefits. The case studies in the research provide some explicit examples of the nature of such financial returns from a community’s involvement with its heritage, and its capacity to further develop its social as well as economic capital as a result.
This discussion of the values of Indigenous heritage, and the role the community archaeology model can have in identifying those values, sets the scene for in depth case studies in Victoria and the Australian Capital Territory, comparing Indigenous heritage projects in protected areas, with the dominant activity, 'compliance archaeology', in Chapters 5 and 6.
The recognition of the community’s heritage values heightens a community’s control over their heritage, as sought in the community archaeology model. The next chapter looks at how much say Indigenous communities have in the current heritage systems in the study areas. The research examines Indigenous involvement in heritage practice, in archaeology, the codes of practice, changes to legislation, and what Indigenous communities have said about this. Indigenous archaeologists’ views of these issues are also examined.
136 Truscott – Chapter 4 – Community Having a Say?
4 COMMUNITY HAVING A SAY?
Indigenous peoples have the right to maintain, control, protect and develop their cultural heritage, traditional knowledge and traditional cultural expressions … (United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples 2007 Article 31)
Introducing the Indigenous Heritage Framework
This chapter examines the ethical commitments, statutes and structures that frame the current approach to Indigenous heritage managem©81 ent. Ultimately based on the recognition local communities are given in their heritage management, the system supposes a community archaeology approach. The current systems have emerged as attitudes changed to Indigenous, and descendant, peoples’ rights. The previous chapters outline these shifts and resultant attitudes, including the emergence of community archaeology, that sees as central the community’s role in heritage decisions (Chapter 2), and the value and benefits of heritage to society and individual communities (Chapter 3). Indigenous views of the current heritage systems are also presented in this chapter, providing a sense of the issues for communities, and how successful, or not, they see current heritage systems.
This chapter, although concentrating on Indigenous heritage management, includes the broader societal and heritage context. In presenting these systems, it is necessary to remember that they sit within wider and complex systems of governance. Demands on the land, on ‘Country’, in a 21st century society are multifaceted and increasing with a growing population, that has a heavier footprint than a hunter-gatherer culture.115 Housing, infrastructure, agriculture, mining and forestry, recreation, the expectation of rising living standards, and the probable impact of climate change, all put pressure on space, place, and associated heritage values.
Equally, Australian society is multi-faceted with different interests and rights intersecting those of particular Indigenous communities. It is not simple to balance cultural continuity with change, amid such pressures. All this adds to complex
115 Estimated to be more than 20 times the Indigenous hunter-gatherer population pre-European settlement. 137 Truscott – Chapter 4 – Community Having a Say? decision-making, for heritage statutes and guidelines are part of a broader set of administrative practices, such as planning laws, policies, and politics. It is today’s challenge for heritage conservation, both Indigenous and non-Indigenous, within Australia’s unique natural environment.
The pathway through this mesh of different wants and wishes, uses and abuses of the land, to find a way to meet the ideals of community archaeology, is one aspect of this research. This chapter analyses the current structure for Indigenous heritage that may be helping, or hindering, the best possible collaborative effort for Indigenous communities and their heritage. A core question for this chapter is how well the community archaeology ideals are reflected in current systems.
4.1 Including Community - Guiding Principles … WAC encourages systematic efforts to develop a scholarship of community engaged archaeology through which such work can be documented, problematized, and improved with the goal of achieving holistic knowledge, participatory research, sustainable community development and management of archaeological heritage. (WAC 2014)
The past 20 years have seen a new framework for heritage management, especially for Indigenous heritage. International and national statements set the standards that range from broad human rights to the right to ‘control’ decisions about heritage. Professional codes and guidelines guide those working in heritage management and their relationship with relevant communities and their heritage. Inherent in such statements is both the recognition of the community’s special rights, and the need to include the community’s understanding of its heritage. The above quote is a recent example, being a resolution promoting the recognition of ‘the vital importance to custodial communities of such world views and knowledges’ (WAC 2014).
The following outlines these international conventions and standards of practice informing Australian heritage management practice.
4.1.1 International and National Statements The ACT Government is encouraged to … be guided by the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (Mortimer 2010).
138 Truscott – Chapter 4 – Community Having a Say? This call by an ACT Ngambri Elder for adherence to the United Nations 2007 Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (Indigenous Rights Declaration) highlights the wider context for Indigenous heritage management. Such international declarations, treaties and conventions, emanating from international inter-government organisations, such as the United Nations,116 and its agencies, such as UNESCO, oblige signature governments117 to ensure such rights are upheld within their territory. Equally, charters and codes of practice prepared by international professional bodies set international standards. This section looks closely at the intent of these doctrines and assesses them in the context of the community archaeology ideals.
Recognising Indigenous Rights to Heritage
The UN Indigenous Rights Declaration 2007118 provides clear directions regarding Indigenous rights ‘to maintain, control, protect and develop’ their heritage, tangible and intangible. The Declaration requires signatory states119 to take measures to ‘recognize and protect the exercise of these rights’ (UN 2007:Article 31).
At a constitutional level, in Australia a discussion about amending the Constitution to recognise Indigenous as ‘first peoples’ has taken place for some years, such as in the Parliament’s apology by then Prime Minister Rudd on 13 February 2008. In Victoria, the state government amended its constitution in 2004 to acknowledge the ‘original custodians of the land on which the colony of Victoria was established’ (Victoria
116 Every recognised country is a member (193 in all), the Vatican is not a member, but Palestine recently recognised. 117 Generally known as ‘State Parties’. 118 Adopted by the UN General Assembly in 2007, the Declaration was endorsed by the new federal Labor government in 2009, after initially being opposed by the previous Australian Government. The adoption by the UN followed some 25 years of efforts by the UN to have this aspect of human rights recognised, including 1994 draft. This process also resulted in 2000 in the United Nations Draft Principles and Guidelines on the Protection of the Heritage of Indigenous People (following a 1995 draft) that was particularly concerned with intellectual property and biodiversity (eg http://untreaty.un.org/cod/avl/ha/ga_61-295/ga_61-295.html). 119 Countries, ‘Member States’, being countries belonging to the UN, or UNESCO, a UN specialised agency, that endorse or sign treaties or conventions are termed ‘State Parties’, are required to pass national legislation to meet the provisions within their borders, if they do not already have appropriate laws. There is no such requirement for declarations (pers comm. Lyndel Prott 13 September 2011). 139 Truscott – Chapter 4 – Community Having a Say? 2004).120 The ACT has no such statement in the Territory’s self-government legislation of 1988.
The UN agency, United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), increasingly acknowledges community significance, cultural diversity, and indigenous roles for heritage. UNESCO has 195 member states,121 and conventions covering all aspects of heritage, natural and cultural, whether tangible— both place and movable, or intangible heritage. This gives UNESCO’s principles wide influence on in-country standards.
The international moves to acknowledge community interests, such as Indigenous, minority and local groups, are summarised here:
The 1972 Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage (World Heritage Convention) has moved towards recognising both associative values, as well as recognising community—and Indigenous, roles in identification and management (UNESCO 1972).
The preamble to the 2003 Convention on the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage (Intangible Cultural Heritage Convention), specifically mentions ‘communities, in particular indigenous communities’, and their role regarding sustaining intangible cultural heritage (UNESCO 2003).
The 2005 Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions (Cultural Diversity Convention) presupposes ‘equal respect … for all cultures … including … minorities and indigenous peoples’ (UNESCO 2005:Article 2, Principles 3).
The reference to minorities in the 2005 Cultural Diversity Convention is a response to concerns expressed during the decade of debate over the UN Indigenous Rights Declaration. This recognition of Indigenous rights was seen to exclude minority groups in many countries leaving their rights—and culture and heritage—
120 Western Australia makes reference to Indigenous peoples in its 1989 Constitution, and Queensland recognised Indigenous Australians in constitutional amendments in 2009 (NSW ALC 2010). 121 As of 23 November 2011, as well as 8 associate members (see www.unesco.org/new/en/member- states/countries/) 140 Truscott – Chapter 4 – Community Having a Say? unacknowledged.122 In some countries, minority, or ethnic, groups are not regarded as ‘indigenous’, yet feel their culture and heritage under threat of being subsumed by dominant and different ethnic, or tribal, groups. The recognition in the Cultural Diversity Convention possibly leads the way to wider, more inclusive UN statements for all minority or colonised communities, and a community archaeology approach for their heritage.
Ethical Codes for Professional Practice
International professional organisations have also declared a commitment to community involvement in the management of their heritage. Such recognition predates the international acknowledgements of the rights of Indigenous peoples, and is expressed in charters and codes for ethical practice. In 1990, two such declarations were passed, one by the International Council for Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS), the international ‘place heritage’ professional body, the other by the World Archaeological Congress (WAC), a major international archaeological association, with Australian national bodies following suit. These statements are:
ICOMOS Charter for Archaeological Heritage Management, proposed by ICOMOS’ International Committee on Archaeological Heritage Management (ICAHM), and adopted in Lausanne in 1990, which recognises that aspects of archaeological heritage ‘constitute part of the living heritage of indigenous peoples … participation of local cultural groups is essential’ (ICOMOS 1990: Introduction)
The WAC ‘First Code of Ethics’, adopted at WAC-2 in Barquisimeto, Venezuela, 1990, required members to ‘agree that they have obligations to indigenous peoples and that they shall abide by a series of principles’, also with a series of rules to adhere to before, during and after archaeological investigations (WAC 1990):
2. Members shall negotiate with and obtain the informed consent of representatives authorized by the indigenous peoples whose cultural heritage is the subject of investigation. 3. Members shall ensure that the authorised representatives of the indigenous peoples whose culture is being investigated are kept informed during all stages of the investigation.
122 given the definition of ‘indigenous’ largely applies to ‘settler’ countries. 141 Truscott – Chapter 4 – Community Having a Say? 4. Members shall ensure that the results of their work are presented with deference and respect to the identified indigenous peoples. WAC passed a resolution in 2013 heightening its recognition ‘the relationship of archaeology and archaeologists with extant custodial and affiliated communities’ particularly acknowledging local communities’ knowledge (WAC 2014):
The archaeological community increasingly engages with local communities through research and educational activities including public outreach. The World Archaeological Congress supports works presented at various sessions of WAC-7 in Jordan, as well as and institutional attempts such as ICCROM’s Living Heritage Approach, which exemplifies principles, methods, and theoretical frameworks for properly valuing and engaging with unique world views and knowledges possessed by local communities. These approaches illustrate the vital importance to custodial communities of such world views and knowledges. In recognition of this, WAC encourages systematic efforts to develop a scholarship of community engaged archaeology through which such work can be documented, problematized, and improved with the goal of achieving holistic knowledge, participatory research, sustainable community development and management of archaeological heritage.
The Australian Archaeological Association (AAA) Code of Ethics in 1991. Based on the WAC Code, informed by the same archaeologists in both organisations (Davidson 1991; Williams and Johnston 1991). This AAA Code of Ethics outlines principles of interaction by archaeologists with Indigenous communities. Amended in 2003 (AAA 2004), the later version appears to water down the insistence to include relevant Indigenous representatives from ‘shall’ to ‘will’ (AAA 1991:1, 2, 2004:3.4) The earlier AAA Code also insisted on feedback to relevant Indigenous community groups about archaeological work (AAA 1991:2, 3). Instead, the later version now directs AAA members to the AIATSIS Guidelines in regard to many such areas of ethical action (AAA 2004:3.4).
The Australian Association of Consulting Archaeologists (AACAI) Policy on Consulting with Aboriginal Communities, sets out key principles for involvement with Indigenous people, related to consulting with them about work related to ‘archaeological work, particularly fieldwork’ (AACAI nd:4). This Policy somehow is couched in less than mandatory terms, such as ‘should’ rather than ‘must’, or that ‘Aboriginal people have a right’ rather than ‘the right’ (AACAI
142 Truscott – Chapter 4 – Community Having a Say? nd:3), leaving a sense of being less than obligatory. The strength of all these various declarations, charters and codes is compared later in this section.
The Burra Charter (Australia ICOMOS Charter for Places of Cultural Significance), first strengthened its emphasis on community involvement in its 1999 amendment, continued in the 2013 version. The Charter provides for the right of relevant people or community group/s to be involved in their heritage, to participate, and be integrally involved in the ‘Burra Charter process’ to identify, assess, and manage places with which they have association (Australia ICOMOS 2013a: Articles 13, 26:3), and Article 12. Participation:
Conservation, interpretation and management of a place should provide for the participation of people for whom the place has significant associations and meanings, or who have social, spiritual or other cultural responsibilities for the place. Australia ICOMOS Statement on Indigenous Cultural Heritage asserts Indigenous rights over their heritage: to determine its significance, to make decisions about it, and control its potential confidentiality of information needs (Australia ICOMOS 2001).
Another national example providing guidance is Ask First: A guide to respecting Indigenous heritage places and values (AHC 2002). Ask First built on the Australian Government’s earlier 1990s efforts in partnership with other federal agencies, including the Australian Heritage Commission,123 that developed the Draft Guidelines for the Protection, Management and Use of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Cultural Heritage Places (DCA 1997).124 These Guidelines were drafted in consultation with peak Indigenous community groups and state/territory Indigenous heritage agencies, particularly Indigenous staff, throughout Australia. They were widely adopted informally, and recommended for national formal adoption by Justice Elizabeth Evatt in her 1996 review of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Act 1984 (Evatt 1996:Rec6.6). 125
123 The independent government agency identifying and advising on the National Estate 1976-2004. 124 These did not did not proceed, due to a change of government in 1996 (M C Truscott was project manager from late 1993 to late 1997). 125 Evatt recommended (6.6): The Commonwealth Government should actively encourage the adoption of the Guidelines for the Protection, Management and Use of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Cultural Heritage Places, developed by Department of Communication and the Arts (Cth) by all 143 Truscott – Chapter 4 – Community Having a Say? The prevalence of the term ‘guidelines’ may however suggest that in fact these statements are ‘recommendations’ or ‘advice’, rather than rules or regulations requiring adherence. No evidence has been found in this research, that the observance of any of these guidelines is monitored. However, one state example with regulatory observance requirements is found in New South Wales related to any impacts on Indigenous heritage, with the overarching Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Consultation Requirements for Proponents, acknowledging that ‘Aboriginal people are the primary determinants of the cultural significance of their heritage’ (NSW DECCW 2010a:iii). The consultation requirements relate both to ‘Aboriginal places’, being declared for their ‘special significance with respect to Aboriginal culture’ (NSW 1974: s.84), and ‘Aboriginal objects’, the tangible manifestations of the Indigenous past in NSW.
Two codes of practice apply to Aboriginal objects in the NSW system. One code of practice is applied generally as a ‘due diligence code’ (NSW DECCW 2010b), and the other, separately, for test archaeological excavations (NSW DECCW 2010c), that ‘specifies the minimum standards for archaeological investigation undertaken in NSW’ (NSW DEH 2013). This example from another state is relevant to this research, insofar as the Registered Aboriginal Organisations (RAO) in the ACT, are also involved in NSW regarding their heritage places and values. One RAO, the Little Gudgenby River, is also the Ngambri Local Aboriginal Land Council in NSW. It is suggested that these NSW separate codes and processes may only result in potential confusion for those not involved regularly in Indigenous heritage management in that state.
By contrast, Ask First, is a process that encompasses the engagement of the relevant Indigenous community in all aspects of their heritage, from their connections to the landscape, to Country, in the present that encompasses understandings of their past, relevant to archaeological inquiry. In following the broad Burra Charter process, As First, advises initial consultation with community groups prior to a heritage project formally starting, as shown in the process chart below (Figure 7, AHC 2002:8-11).
relevant Commonwealth, State and Territory agencies and by local authorities involved in land management and decisions concerning cultural heritage. 144 Truscott – Chapter 4 – Community Having a Say? Johnston126 (2013) is referring to Ask First when he regrets the loss of ‘minimum standards’ in Indigenous heritage practice today, particularly ahead of development. In many ways reflective of the community archaeology ideals, there is no evidence available as to how widely the Ask First process is applied, adopted or enforced.
126 Dave Johnston was consultant to the Australian Heritage Commission in developing Ask First from the earlier Draft Guidelines for the Protection, Management and Use of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Cultural Heritage Places (DCA 1997). 145 Truscott – Chapter 4 – Community Having a Say?
Figure 7: The Consultation Process in Ask First (AHC 2002:7)
The Australian Institute for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies (AIATSIS), another federal agency, has had Guidelines for Ethical Research in Australian Indigenous Studies since 2002.127 Reviewed in 2010, the new AIATSIS Guidelines
146 Truscott – Chapter 4 – Community Having a Say? have a strong ‘rights based’ approach fostering self-determination, and recognising intangible heritage (AIATSIS 2012). The draft discussion paper, leading to the revised Guidelines, highlighted the need for collaborative and participatory research, similar to community archaeology ideals. The draft was subsequently alerted to the risk of perpetuating an ‘unequal power differential’ in the wording used and amended accordingly (Davis 2010:9).128 AIATSIS requires that their guidelines be observed by those receiving an AIATSIS research grants.129
The above overview of international and national statements guiding heritage management practice has concentrated on the recognition of Indigenous communities’ say over their heritage. When assessed against Arnstein’s participation ladder (1969), the UN Indigenous Rights Declaration is the strongest, the other statements range in descending order from ‘control’ to ‘consultation’:
Community Control UN Indigenous Rights Declaration 2007 Australia ICOMOS Indigenous Statement 2001 (control over heritage information)
Negotiation WAC Code of Ethics (seeking ‘informed consent’)
Participation UNESCO World Heritage UNESCO Intangible Cultural Heritage (‘have a role’) Australia ICOMOS Burra Charter 1999, Indigenous and non-Indigenous heritage Ask First (involvement after initial ‘consultation’)
Consultation AACAI Policy AAA 2004 Code of Ethics (earlier reference to ‘informed consent’ no longer in the Code)
128 Emailed by Tony Boxall AIATSIS 4 November 2011, the draft discussion paper of early 2010 no longer being online, as well as providing a summary of changes in the 2012 Guidelines; also pers comm. Michael Davis, author email 4 November 2011. 129 The AITSIS research grants were suspended in 2012, and not reactivated since, due to budget cuts (see www.aiatsis.gov.au/research/grants/grants.html) 147 Truscott – Chapter 4 – Community Having a Say? This assessment is possibly simplistic or glib, for the charters and statements may reflect a semantic confusion over the term ‘consultation’, not defined in any document. But this confusion must be avoided, ‘consultation’ as noted being tinged among Indigenous Australians with ‘telling’, and with Arnstein’s definition of ‘tokenistic’ (1969). Nonetheless, ‘consultation’ is the term that persists in Indigenous heritage processes. And mistaken terminological slides between ‘must’ and ‘should’ may be assumed to have the same intent, but legally do not.
Recent discussions about the crisis for Indigenous archaeology in Australia (AIATSIS 2013b), includes comment by Indigenous archaeologists on these guidelines. The Burra Charter and Ask First are called on for more general application in Indigenous heritage processes, given the critical lack of applying ‘minimum standards’ (Dugay-Grist 2013; Johnston 2013). But as noted, Sam Wickman (2013) decries the lack of Indigenous input to the Burra Charter and the AAA Code of Ethics, instead calling for Australian governments to directly apply the UN Indigenous Rights Declaration to Indigenous heritage management.
4.1.2 Practising these Principles
How are such ethical principles implemented within Indigenous heritage management, given current social justice policy commitments, and how obliged are those working in Indigenous research and heritage management to meet them? Who ensures the application of such principles of Indigenous involvement or control, and how? In being applied are they informed by the community archaeology ideals?
Professional Obligations
The above ethical codes and guidelines bind members of the relevant bodies that have adopted the texts, ans government agencies that have adopted them as ‘best practice’. As such, compliance with guidelines may be part of a contract to undertake certain heritage projects, such as state heritage agency contracts require the Burra Charter process for non-Indigenous heritage, but this does not appear to be a requirement for Indigenous heritage projects. The analysis below identifies the various professional associations that those who work professionally in Indigenous heritage management may join, and the codes or charters they are obliged to meet.
148 Truscott – Chapter 4 – Community Having a Say?
Table 6: Professional Organisations and Ethics Codes / Guidelines
‘Professional’ Charters, Codes, Membership Numbers Membership Organisation Declarations relevant to (there is overlap with Eligibility Indigenous Heritage some belonging to all Management these organisations)
World Archaeological First Code of Ethics 1990 [update not provided No requirements Congress 2014]
Australian AAA Code of Ethics c1000130 No requirements Archaeological [1991] 2003 Association
Australian Association Policy on Consulting with 84 Full Members131 - Competence to of Consulting Aboriginal Communities MAACAI work as Archaeologists independent, professional consulting archaeologist; list of desirable skills; samples of work peer reviewed accepted by AACAI
ICOMOS132 ICOMOS Charter for 11,000+ in c100 Professional Archaeological countries133 requirements Heritage Management (ICAHM) 1990 Ethical Commitment Statement
Australia ICOMOS Burra Charter 2013 600 members (Australia ICOMOS 397 full (international) 3 years professional Charter for Places of M.ICOMOS experience and Cultural 7 young professionals support of 2 full Significance) 134 (under 30) members Statement on 104 associates Indigenous Cultural Heritage 2001 (Australia ICOMOS 2013b:10)
130 (pers comm. Xavier Carah AAA Membership Secretary, email 16 October 2013); it had been 1000 in early 2012, then dropped and about to reach that number again. 131 (pers comm. AACAI Secretariat email 26 October 2013) 132 The International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS), the international non-government professional cultural heritage association, includes a range of heritage professionals, spanning many disciplines: archaeologists, architects, historians, planners, and others. 133 11,088 individual Members, 95 National Committees (with other individual members from a range of countries) and 27 International Scientific Committees, as at November 2011 (ICOMOS www.icomos.org/en/about-icomos/mission-and-vision/mission-and-vision) 134 Dropped from 10 in 2011 (Australia ICOMOS 2011a:16). 150 Truscott – Chapter 4 – Community Having a Say? Members of the above organisations may belong to more than one, or all; however, the professional eligibility criteria vary. The archaeological associations do not require any professional experience to join. Australia ICOMOS has a multi-disciplinary membership and requires evidence of three years professional heritage work, supported by two full members, and a signed commitment to the various guidelines and international charters. Some Australia ICOMOS members work on Indigenous heritage projects, some exclusively, others occasionally; it is unclear how many members are Indigenous.135
Most Australian archaeologists work in the private sector, primarily in 'compliance archaeology', although some may work on management projects for land managers or funded by heritage grants or community-based projects. A survey undertaken in 2005 for the Australian Archaeological Association (Ulm et al 2005), updated in 2010 (Ulm et al 2013), with respondents in the following areas of archaeology:
Table 7: Australian Archaeologists according to type of archaeology (Ulm et al 2013)
AAA Survey 2005 2010 Total responding working 301 399 archaeologists Indigenous archaeology 52.2% 66.4% Historical archaeology 27.8% 19.9% Maritime archaeology 6.6% 4.0% Classical archaeology 3.3% Other136 7.5%
In December 2010, the number of archaeologists who are Indigenous Australians was understood to be 20 at the time of the launch of the Indigenous Archaeologists Association,137 but only three responded to the 2010 survey, whereas seven did in 2005138 (Ulm et al 2011:4).
135 Natica Schmeder, Membership Secretary, Australia ICOMOS Executive Committee indicated that this information is not held (email 10 October 2011), although information is given on membership application / renewal forms, it is not consistently provided nor is the available data collated (pers comm. Georgia Meros, Australia ICOMOS Secretariat email 14 October 2011). There were three Indigenous full members of Australia ICOMOS in 1998-99, when this author was president of Australia ICOMOS. 136 Explained as mostly university academics teaching across many areas, Middle Eastern or European rather than ‘classical archaeology, or teaching cultural heritage management (Ulm et al 2010:6) 137 This launch was at the AAA Conference at Bateman’s Bay, NSW, in December 2010. 138 Ulm at al note that this is 2.3% of the respondents to the 2005 survey, similar to the 2.5% of Aus tralians who are Indigenous recorded in the ABS 2006 census. 151 Truscott – Chapter 4 – Community Having a Say?
Table 8: Australian archaeologists according to type of work
AAA Survey 2005 2010 Consultant archaeologists 47.9% 52% Government heritage agencies 22.7% 15.9% Working in museums 4.3% 4.5% University teaching and 25.1% 25.3% research
Working in consultancy is the dominant activity, as the statistics from the survey show, with almost three-quarters of archaeologists involved in heritage management, when including museum work. As Sean Ulm et al note these statistics document (2013:37):
… the ongoing trend over the last two decades towards growth of the private sector and reduction or stasis in the university and museum sectors and downsizing of the cultural heritage functions of government agencies.
It is possible that heritage management agencies may not be downsizing, some are, such as the two-third cut to the federal heritage division between 2011 and 2013. Personal observation indicates that there are fewer staff appointments in that agency with relevant degrees or expert experience. If this is the case, an agency’s professional capacity may be compromised when dealing with consultant archaeologists and stakeholder groups such as Indigenous communities.
Members of the Australian Association of Consulting Archaeologists (ACCAI) are required to abide by a similar Code of Ethics to that of AAA. ACCAI was established in 1979, in response to the emergence of consultant archaeologists in Australia. Full members and associate members work in contract archaeology, while affiliates do not.
Table 9: ACCAI membership across states / territories
AACAI NSW Vic Qld WA SA ACT Tas Membership 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2013 2013 2013 2013 2013 2013 2013 Full* 19 24 12 27 12 9 8 12 5 5 5 6 0 1 Associate** 21 24 4 11 5 8 4 19 5 10 2 3 0 1 Affiliate** 8 6 1 1 8 7 1 4 0 2 2 2 1 2 **(AACAI Secretariat, pers comm. Georgia Meros 29 July 2010) with (AACAI Secretariat, pers comm. Cindy Shadiack 10 September and 26 October 2013) * Some 5 are duplicates, registered in more than one State (www.aacai.com.au)
152 Truscott – Chapter 4 – Community Having a Say? The assessment is based on peer review of sample work that is accepted as having an ‘appropriate standard’ by the AACAI Membership Committee (AACAI 2010). There are professional requirements to be a full member of AACAI, just as with Australia ICOMOS, and relate to proving competence to work independently as: - professional consulting archaeologists - with a broad range of research and management skills - site survey and recording, excavation, analysis and interpretation and, importantly, the assessment of site significance
Clearly not all consultant archaeologists are members of AACAI and thus not bound by the AACAI consultation policy. AACAI’s numbers of consultant archaeologists in 2010 represent half of those who responded in the same year as consultant archaeologists to the AAA survey. However, consulting archaeologists are members of AAA, and some, a few, members of Australia ICOMOS, and thus bound by the codes of practice of those organisations. The issue of adherence to these codes and policies is examined below.
Observing Standards of Practice
The various guidelines and codes described above rarely describe how archaeologists, heritage practitioners, and Indigenous communities actually participate together. The Australia ICOMOS Burra Charter provides a ‘process’ for approaching heritage management, and includes communities in that process (2013:Articles 12, 26). But it is Ask First that clearly stipulates bringing in the community throughout the heritage process, despite terming this involvement as ‘consultation’, as show in its flowchart (Figure 7 above).
It is relatively easy to rank these various statements according to how strongly community rights to their heritage are asserted, harder is finding out how well these principles are observed. Both AAA and AACAI have an ethics review process, based on complaints,139 but data about adherence is confidential. It is difficult to assess how aware those working in Indigenous heritage management are of these professional and ethical standards. However, a reminder about their responsibilities under the Code of
139 AAA has a Code of Ethics Review Subcommittee which coordinates any investigations into complaints received about alleged member breaches of the Code of Ethics, s4.3; AACAI has a policy and procedure for handling complaints against members (www.aacai.com.au/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=19&Itemid=31#_Procedure_for_ Handling) (AAA email reminder 4 November 2011) 153 Truscott – Chapter 4 – Community Having a Say? Ethics was emailed to all AAA members on 4 November 2011, the first time this occurred.
Project reports that outline ‘consultation’ processes, incorporating Indigenous heritage values, make it possible to assess if full ‘Ask First’ principles are followed, but few reports do this. The Burra Charter is the required standard in project briefs for historic heritage management, but the Burra Charter, or Ask First, or any of the other codes, do not seem to be set as the required professional standard in Indigenous heritage projects briefs. This is examined further in Chapter 6.
The various codes of ethics and professional guidelines outlined above all commit the members of those professional organisations to a practice that is inclusive of Indigenous community views. Such inclusion moves toward a real community archaeology level of collaboration. However without knowing the level of observation of these codes, it is difficult to assess their results. Nor is it known how the Indigenous community sees such processes and their level of control in them. None of the Indigenous views of archaeology presented later in this chapter refer to any guidelines, they are however negative about their level of control in archaeological or heritage practice.
4.2 Indigenous Heritage Laws and Community Role
Heritage legislation also reflects the trend towards an increasing sense of obligation to Indigenous communities and their heritages. Unlike codes of practice however, heritage legislation is a statutory obligation. The following section is divided into a general analysis based on recent studies, and an analysis of the current statutory system for Indigenous heritage in the two study areas, the ACT and Victoria.
4.2.1 Trends and Issues in Legislation
In 2013, all Indigenous heritage legislation in Australia was under review, including the legislation in Eastern Australia that had significant changes made over the last decade—Queensland (2003), the ACT (2004) and Victoria (2006). Various comparative overviews of Indigenous legislation throughout Australia have been produced as part of these review processes. Most recently and relevant to this research are that by the NSW Aboriginal Land Council (NSW ALC) that has compared key
154 Truscott – Chapter 4 – Community Having a Say? aspects in the legislation surveyed (Victoria, South Australia and Queensland) (2010:5): and that for the 2011 federal State of the Environment Report (Schnierer140 et al 2011:20-36, Appendices 1 and 2). The National Native Title Tribunal has reviewed ‘consultation’ requirements (NNTT 2010). It is not intended to repeat such an analysis here, but core issues are synthesised below, providing useful comparative data for the ACT and Victorian study areas.
The State of the Environment (SoE) report identified at a broad national level, key issues for Indigenous people about their heritage and how well they are resolved (Schnierer et al 2011:20): - Indigenous ownership and control of heritage is recognised - legal definitions of heritage reflect Indigenous concepts of heritage - exemptions for activities categorised as ‘low impact’ - heritage planning is incorporated into the heritage protection process
The NSW Aboriginal Land Council report has broadly looked at statutory processes Aboriginal Land Council (ALC). The NSW ALC looks more closely at the statutory mechanisms: definitions of heritage, who may speak for Country, Aboriginal control, funding, capacity building, education and public awareness. Their findings and the SoE’s are summarised below according to the topics relevant to this research.
Community Control
Table 10: Legislative recognition of Indigenous ownership and control by jurisdiction (Schnierer 2011:28, Table 2)
140 E Schnierer also undertook the report for the NSW Aboriginal Land Council (NSWALC 2010) 155 Truscott – Chapter 4 – Community Having a Say? This table vividly demonstrates how limited actual ‘control’ is in Indigenous heritage legislation across Australia (Schnierer 2011:28, Table 2). This principle, a key indicator of community archaeology, appears to be widely espoused but not realised. The NSW report notes Indigenous Australians are concerned about a lack of control in the three states reviewed: Queensland,141 Victoria and South Australia. Their finding led the NSW ALC to recommend mandating ‘consultation’, the Traditional Owners’ right to stop work, and to ‘reject proposals that would impact on cultural heritage’ (NSW ALC 2010:61)
Who Speaks for Country
A ‘hierarchy of rights’ approach was adopted to resolve ‘who speaks for Country’ in the 2003 Queensland system (Stephenson 2006; Cartlege 2004; Godwin 2002, 2009), and in Victoria in 2006. A ‘hierarchy of rights’ privileges certain groups over others, yet recognises other communities may have an interest and relationship to the heritage of that area. These hierarchies acknowledge longstanding occupation and more recent movements into an area by other Indigenous peoples, often enforced after European settlement. The primacy of Traditional Owners stands (NSW ALC 2010:60).
Cascades of rights are simplified by the state recognition of an Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Body (Queensland) or Representative Aboriginal Party (Victoria), but their functions differ. In Queensland, the Cultural Heritage Body is simply the contact point to identify the correct Aboriginal parties to consult (NRW 2008). The ‘chains of preference’ to identify which ‘Aboriginal party’ to consult is seen as comparable to the native title process (NNTT 2010:27), however at times this system perpetuates the conflicts about who speaks for country (NSW ALC 2010:26). By contrast, in Victoria considerable control is given the Registered Aboriginal Party (RAP), as presented in more detail later in this chapter.
Definitions
All the current Indigenous heritage legislation of the past decade in Eastern Australia (Queensland, ACT, Victoria) characterises Indigenous heritage according to the
141 This is despite the view by heritage lawyers that the Queensland statutes ‘are the most explicit of any Australian jurisdiction in upholding concepts of self‐ determination and respect for traditional laws and customs’ (NNTT 2010:30 quoting Boer and Wiffen 2006:290). 156 Truscott – Chapter 4 – Community Having a Say? significance to Aboriginal people of places or objects. However, none of these statutes provide definitions of the terms they use for any of the heritage significance criteria, define any significance, whether according to community values or ‘archaeological value’, or more general heritage criteria. It is argued below that the definitions are frequently circular in their argument, and thus potentially confusing.
Despite such shifts in legislation, Indigenous groups consider current definitions do ‘ not adequately recognise the Aboriginal communities’ more holistic sense of Aboriginal culture and heritage extending ‘beyond physical places to include “intangible cultural heritage”’ (NSW ALC 2010:10).142 The Indigenous view is that ‘stones and bones’ were still emphasised rather than ‘Aboriginal heritage as a living culture’ (NSW ALC 2010:10; Schnierer 2011:29). This perception led to recommendations for NSW to recognise intangible and Aboriginal concepts of heritage, beyond the ‘archaeological’ value (NSW ALC 2010:60).
The most recent SoE report identified the trend to more comprehensive understandings of Indigenous heritage: ‘areas’ or ‘cultural landscapes’, contemporary heritage, and ‘shared’ heritage, yet noted that little of this aspect of heritage is being listed (2011:29-30).
Funding
The NSW report recommends funds to enable ‘effective participation in cultural heritage protection’ (NSW ALC 2010:62). Financial resources are an integral element for a community’s capacity to perform the relevant roles for any heritage management system, whether it already has heritage skills or not. Some funding is provided to relevant Aboriginal groups in some states, but not in others. The situation differs in the two study areas, Victoria and the ACT, and are analysed regarding how effective funding is to raise a community’s capacity to have a greater role in its heritage.
Capacity building
Capacity to undertake a participatory role in heritage management requires knowledge and skills, and is a core element of the community archaeology model. This is
142 Knowledge, stories, song and dance (NSW ALC 2010:10) 157 Truscott – Chapter 4 – Community Having a Say? recognised by the NSW ALC recommendation for ‘adequate resources, funding and training for Traditional Owners’, identifying that training is needed to enable ‘effective participation in cultural heritage protection’, including for ‘… cultural mapping, … transmission of knowledge … governance … and training in cultural heritage management’ (NSW ALC 2010:62). The two case study areas, Victoria and the ACT, vary in their provision of such training to Indigenous communities. In Victoria Indigenous community heritage training is funded by the state government, and in the ACT it is not. Details are provided below at section 4.4 in this chapter.
Sharing Heritage
The NSW ALC identified public education about Indigenous heritage as needing greater attention with the wider public and decision-makers, such as local councils, were identified as recipients (NSW ALC 2010:61). Community archaeology seeks a sharing of information about the past and present values of an area to the wider society. This issue of sharing knowledge about heritage and its values is analysed in both case studies on shared projects in protected areas, and 'compliance archaeology' projects..
4.2.2 Ngun(n)nawal and Koori Heritage Systems
The ACT and Victoria have very different legislative solutions for the role of the Indigenous community when it comes to decisions about heritage management. Each system reflects the general national shifts in Indigenous heritage management summarised above, but to greater or lesser degrees.
Recognised Aboriginal Parties (RAPs) in Victoria are given a strong statutory say in their heritage, whereas in the ACT, the recognised groups have limited consultative roles. Another key difference is that Victoria has stand alone, separate legislation for Indigenous heritage,143 as in other states. In the ACT, Aboriginal heritage is included in the Territory’s integrated natural and cultural heritage legislation, that also includes objects. However, as will be shown below, Aboriginal heritage is treated somewhat differently in the ACT legislation to the other ‘types’ of heritage.
143 Although Aboriginal sites and places may also be included in the register under the Victorian Heritage Act 1995. 158 Truscott – Chapter 4 – Community Having a Say? What follows is not an in-depth analysis of the legislation in either state as it pertains to Indigenous heritage legislation, for this is available elsewhere as indicated, and drawn on where appropriate (North 2006; NSW ALC 2010; NNTT 2010; Schnierer et al 2011). Instead the précis highlights similarities and differences according to the key indicators of community archaeology, and with reference to the themes covered in the 2010 NSW Aboriginal Land Council analysis (NSW ALC 2010).
The recent reviews of the heritage legislation in each jurisdiction, ACT (Marshall 2010) and Victoria (AAV 2012c), provide insights into issues emerging after five years’ implementation of each statute. Indigenous community and individual comments similarly offer access to their perspective about the current systems and are detailed later in this chapter. The professional criteria for heritage practitioners, archaeologists, and others, are also analysed, as is training and capacity building. These topics set the scene for later analyses in the case study chapters of how well Indigenous heritage management is faring in these two jurisdictions, according to the community archaeology indicators.
Having a Say about Country? Control or Consultation
It is only in Victoria where Registered Aboriginal Parties (RAPs) meet the SoE’s three criteria for control: recognition of ownership, Indigenous consent required before damage or destruction, and consultation required before any harm, as shown above at Table 7 (Schnierer 2011:28 Table 2). Community rights over heritage build on roles held by Indigenous ‘corporations’ since 1987 in Victoria’s previous legislation.144 However, the 2006 legislation is considered the first time ‘Indigenous interests have ever featured in the planning system of Victoria’ (Porter and Barry 2013:24). In the ACT, the situation is different. The ACT Indigenous communities only have the right to be consulted, and lack any decision-making power, a situation continuing from the previous 1991 legislation (ACT 1991).145
144 The Victorian system had federal legislation, the Commonwealth Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act 1987 Part IIA Victoria, in parallel with its 1972 ‘relics’ legislation Archaeological and Aboriginal Relics Preservation Act 1972. 145 In the ACT, consultation with three recognised community groups occurred under the 1991 Land (Planning and Environment) (Consequential Provisions) Act 159 Truscott – Chapter 4 – Community Having a Say? Yet who has such a say and how are they identified? In Victoria, the Aboriginal Heritage Council holds a key state-wide role. The Council consists of eleven Traditional Owners, with ‘extensive knowledge and experience in cultural heritage management’, appointed by the Minister (AAV 2011a). The Council has the power to appoint ‘Registered Aboriginal Parties’ (RAPs),146 identified as a recognised native title party, according to this hierarchy of rights. If no RAP yet exists, control is by default with the government’s relevant heritage agency, Aboriginal Affairs Victoria, 147 in consultation with local communities, and the Aboriginal Heritage Council. By late 2013, there were ten RAPs appointed, with some 40% of Victoria not covered.148 As explained in February 2012 by Denise Lovett, then chair of the Aboriginal Heritage Council, to the Victorian parliament’s review of RAP appointments (Victoria 2012:7):
But the reason the other 40 per cent is not there is not because there are not any traditional owners; it is because the traditional owners are not coming together to make that agreement or they are competing against each other, as of course groups do.
The difficulty for the Aboriginal Heritage Council in appointing Registered Aboriginal Parties to their statutory role in heritage matters is reflected in Lovett’s comment. Overlapping claims of an area continue, as demonstrated in ongoing rejections of applications to be appointed as a RAP or Indigenous groups that have withdrawn.149 Nonetheless, such differences can be resolved within groups with intersecting claims as demonstrated by Peters-Little (2000:14); it just takes time.
It is the appointed RAPs, who have the major decision making role at the community level. One Victorian RAP, the Wurundjeri Tribe Land and Compensation Cultural Heritage Council (Wurundjeri Council), is the Indigenous case study in this research.
146 s.151(3) of the Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006 Victoria, RAPs described at Part 10, Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006, Victoria. Only incorporated bodies are allowed to be RAPs. This system sits within another new representative arrangement for Indigenous Victorians, being Local Indigenous Networks and Regional Indigenous Councils (DVC 2004. Changes to the appointments of RAPs as recommended by a parliamentary inquiry, tabled 14/15 November 2012, are not analysed, and no Victorian government decision has yet been made, although recommendations made in the Victorian Government’s Exposure Draft of 2 August 2014, submissions due 2 October 2014. 147 Formerly part of the Department of Planning and Community Development, and since 2013 in the Department if Premier and Cabinet. 148 There were nine RAPs as of July 2009, with the tenth appointed in December 2013, with no action during the parliamentary review of RAP appointments from early 2011 until November 2012. 149 45 have been rejected or have withdrawn applications many being extensions of areas covered by recognised RAPs, and seven applications are being considered. 160 Truscott – Chapter 4 – Community Having a Say? One of some four Representative Aboriginal Parties in Melbourne, the Wurundjeri Council’s area covers an extensive area from inner city Melbourne to its northern suburbs and surrounds, as far as the Great Dividing Range, as shown in Figure 8 below (VAHC 2013). Three descent family groups are on Council: the Nevins, Terricks, and Wandins, some 30 elders and 60 members (pers comm. Megan Goulding Director Wurundjeri Council 13 April 2011).
Figure 8: Map of Wurundjeri Tribe Land and Compensation Cultural Heritage Council, Appointed RAP Area, 21 October 2013 (VAHC 2013)
In the ACT, four Representative Aboriginal Organisations (RAOs) were declared in 2006, under the Heritage Act 2004 (ACT 2006:s14). Each RAO has an equal say across the entire Territory, rather than speaking for separate areas of the Territory. This different solution for whom to ‘consult’ partly stems from the Territory being small, 2358 km2 in size, and also a past ‘meeting place’ of various language groups, now identified as (ACT 2006): - Buru Ngunawal Aboriginal Corporation - Ngarigu Currawong Clan - Consultative Body Aboriginal Corporation on Indigenous Land and Artefacts in the Ngunnawal Area, changed to King Brown River Tribe
161 Truscott – Chapter 4 – Community Having a Say? - Little Gudgenby River Tribal Council150
The legal instrument appointing the RAOs outlines the scope of their consultative roles, primarily related to the heritage significance, registration, and the possible development impact on Indigenous places and objects (ACT 2006:s4). It is however the ACT Heritage Council that has decision-making powers about such matters, not the Indigenous community.
The ACT Heritage Council’s membership reflects its general natural and cultural heritage responsibilities in the nine council members, the legislation stipulating a wide range of expertise, and community representation—both the general community and the Indigenous (ACT 2004:3-17). One representative of the descendant Aboriginal community of Canberra, in the past always an Elder of one RAO, is generally on Council, although it is unclear if on a formal rotation. Also, until May 2011, there was another Indigenous member, not from the ACT originally, who is an archaeologist. In late 2014, no representative of the local descent groups was on Council, but the representative was an Aboriginal person, a long-time Canberra resident, from elsewhere in Australia.
The ACT Heritage Council has established various Council working groups (Marshall 2010:17), one being an Aboriginal Taskforce with four Council members. This Taskforce, drawing on relevant expertise, has included the Indigenous members, archaeologists, including an historic archaeologist, and a natural environment specialist, meeting a policy to ‘conduct[s] its meetings efficiently and effectively’ (pers comm. Jennifer O’Connell Assistant Manager, ACT Heritage Unit, 29 September 2011). Although aiming to meet four to six times a year, in 2013-14 the Aboriginal Taskforce met only twice (ACT 2014b:242).
The level of Indigenous control over heritage decisions is thus vastly different between the ACT and Victoria. While the intent of the ACT legislation appears inclusive, the current arrangement can only be said to be ‘tokenistic’. With a primarily consultative role, there is no real level of shared participation or leadership for the Indigenous communities. The identified Indigenous Council member is only one of
150 Now also using name Ngambri. 162 Truscott – Chapter 4 – Community Having a Say? nine, and currently is not representing the descendant groups. Also, Indigenous issues inevitably have a lesser profile in Council meetings, where urban built environment issues dominate the workload, despite the Aboriginal Taskforce recommendations being relayed to the full Council for decision.
Instead in Victoria, a very real level of control for Country is accorded the relevant recognised RAP, as with the Wurundjeri Council in Melbourne. This control consists of not only ‘ticking off’ pre-development survey reports, but RAPs have the right to refuse permission of a planning application if cultural heritage is not seen to be fully considered, although this latter condition has not yet been tested (Porter and Barry 2013:24).
Indigenous Heritage Definitions and Significance
Definitions of Indigenous places are at variance with other definitions of potential heritage places or objects, as they are defined by heritage value, rather than a description of type of place or object. Such characterisation by value collapses the accepted Burra Charter process of identifying a place, and only then, separately, assessing whether it has heritage significance or not. The ACT definition, according to significance, demonstrates this circularity (ACT 2004:s9):
Aboriginal place / object means a place / object of particular significance to Aboriginal people because of either or both of the following: (a) Aboriginal tradition; (b) the history, including contemporary history, of Aboriginal people.
There is no definition given for ‘tradition’.
Similarly, in Victoria, a place is defined by its value, as being (Victoria 2006:s5):
… of cultural heritage significance
Yet in the ACT, where the legislation covers alo the non-Indigenous cultural heritage and natural heritage, these latter are instead defined by describing the physical item (ACT 2004:s8):
Place includes the following: (a) a site, precinct or parcel of land; (b) an item at the place; 163 Truscott – Chapter 4 – Community Having a Say? (c) a building or structure, or part of a building or structure, at the place; …
The legislation in each of the study areas also explains significance. In Victoria, (Victoria 2006:s4):
"cultural heritage significance" includes— (a) archaeological, anthropological, contemporary, historical, scientific, social or spiritual significance (b) significance in accordance with Aboriginal tradition
However, these terms are not defined, and some overlap. Instead in the ACT, immediately following the section ‘defining’ Aboriginal heritage, the legislation significance criteria against which heritage places and objects, whether cultural or natural, are to be assessed for their heritage value and potentially listed in the ACT Heritage Register (ACT 2004:s10). These criteria provide the tools to identify all values for any type of place or object, whether natural, cultural—historic or Aboriginal, or both.151 However, the ACT has gone further, by adding another criterion at section 10, which makes understanding what significance definition to apply for Indigenous sites and objects (ACT 2004:s10):
(e) it is significant to the ACT because of its importance as part of local Aboriginal tradition
Again, the legislation not only does not define ‘tradition’, and appears to repeat the definition of an Aboriginal place or object, but also seems an unnecessary duplication or overlap of the ACT criterion for ‘social value’: (d) it is highly valued by the community or a cultural group for reasons of strong or special religious, spiritual, cultural, educational or social associations
The above outline of the ACT descriptions of the difference between the Indigenous and non-Indigenous places and objects are confusing and it is not understood why Indigenous heritage has been separated this way. It is suggested that the confusing part of the legislation describing Aboriginal places by significance, section 9, may complicate Indigenous heritage assessment. It would be much simpler to leave it out altogether, for the general significance criteria are sufficient to assess the heritage
151 These criteria, although different in format and numbering to those used in other jurisdictions, generally follow the ‘aesthetic, historic, scientific, social values’, set by the Australian Heritage Commission in 1986, akin to the newer HERCON version now being adopted by all jurisdictions. 164 Truscott – Chapter 4 – Community Having a Say? value of any cultural place or object found, whether identified as pertaining to Aboriginal past activities or not. The confusion the current descriptions or definitions bring is highlighted in the case study below dealing with 'compliance archaeology' (Chapter 6).
Also the ACT criteria have diverged from the widely used form for ‘scientific value’, relevant to the assessment of sites with archaeological potential.152 Andrew North correctly notes this criterion in the ACT ‘breaks with the Burra Charter emphasis’ (North 2006:158) and HERCON criterion 3 (see Attachment 2), being merged with other values such as educational potential (ACT 2004:s10):
(j) it has provided, or is likely to provide, information that will contribute significantly to a wider understanding of the natural or cultural history of the ACT because of its use or potential use as a research site or object, teaching site or object, type locality or benchmark site
The application of significance assessment criteria is investigated in the case study chapters. The analysis focuses particularly on ‘scientific’ and ‘social’ value and whether they meet community archaeology ideals for the inclusion of Indigenous values.
The hybrid nature of Aboriginal heritage in the ACT legislation, as well as the circularity in the definitions and assessment values, was raised in the ACT Heritage Council’s submission to the 2010 review of the Heritage Act 2004, clearly articulating the problem of mixing description with an attributed value (Pearson 2010:2):
The term ‘Aboriginal place or object’ is defined in s.9, and is a little problematic, in that it does not say who determines if a place is significant to Aboriginal people and why a place is of ‘particular’ significance. The problem also arises in Part 8 because it is not clear if a place found, say, during development is in fact an “Aboriginal place” if Aboriginal people did not know of it (ie how could it be “particularly significant”?). A revision of the Act might make it clearer by defining Aboriginal places by physical/historical attributes rather than assumed significance (ie it is or is not an Aboriginal place, without any initial and ill-defined assessment of significance).
Mike Pearson accurately outlines the problem of assuming prior knowledge or identification as ‘an Aboriginal place (or object)’ by the local Indigenous community,
152 As well as historic or natural places / objects. 165 Truscott – Chapter 4 – Community Having a Say? who may not know of it prior to its discovery. In some cases, places or objects may only be identified by archaeologists, possibly not recognisable to Aboriginal community members. Similarly, some community members may not be aware of aspects of their post-settlement history available in archival records, accessible to them and historians. In these latter situations, standard approved practice would assume that all accessible information would be available to an Indigenous community as part of their input to the significance assessment, but is it in practice?
Instead, in the ACT, the past notion of ‘blanket’ protection has been couched in terms of significance. Doing so causes unnecessary confusion between a place and its value. Instead a greater capacity to identify that significance and the nature of its value is recommended by applying the general heritage criteria that amply permit clarification of the specific nature of any form of heritage significance. These criteria suffice for an Indigenous community to voice the significance of place, or Country, to them. These criteria would also ensure a greater acknowledgement of places from ‘contact’ phases, and the more recent past, emphasising that Indigenous significance is not restricted to the archaeological past, an issue raised also by Brown (2008a). The issue of significance assessment processes is examined in the case study chapters.
4.3 Indigenous Views of Heritage Practice Aboriginal communities were also concerned that some archaeologists had failed to adequately recognise intellectual property and the cultural importance of particular sites and artefacts. … ‘We're all about providing certainty in regards to any type of development or impact on indigenous cultural heritage, whether it's a single artefact or a major site’ (Free 2004)
What do Indigenous communities think about current heritage management processes? Their views have been sought as part of the review of heritage legislation. Generally Indigenous community comments about heritage management processes show ongoing concern about tokenistic consultation, who speaks for Country, and what level of say that entails (eg DECC 2007a, b). Less is said about how much their views and understanding of Country are included in reporting in heritage projects, especially in 'compliance archaeology'.
166 Truscott – Chapter 4 – Community Having a Say? An outline of Indigenous views follows, beginning with general opinions, and then those from the two study areas, Victoria and the ACT. This synopsis provides a background to this research, including whether the community archaeology model or the aim of community ‘control’ is being met.
4.3.1 Some General Opinions
Two studies, one in-depth in South Australia (Roberts 2003), the other a ‘snapshot’ survey across Australia (Open Mind 2005), highlight Indigenous disquiet about their role in archaeology and heritage management. Although different in method, the two survey results portray a sense of lack of community control a decade ago. Some years later, the federal Indigenous Advisory Committee found that Indigenous heritage management was in a state of crisis (Mackay 2011). The following outline of Indigenous perspectives a decade ago provides a starting point to analyse whether there are any improvements in the context of community archaeology ideals.
Roberts (2003) identified ‘how Indigenous South Australians feel about archaeologists and archaeology’ in the early 2000s. Roberts’ results show that the Indigenous survey participants perceived a strong sense of exclusion and disempowerment in the archaeological process in the field. Her 16 participants had all worked with archaeologists. Roberts found both supportive and inhibitive factors in achieving meaningful collaborative archaeological research, some participants having positive experiences of working in the field and others negative; some experienced both.
The negative or inhibitive factors in working together included (Roberts 2003:174): - Power differences – - Lack of consultation – historical context general - Lack of trust - Lack of consultation – - Lack of respect report writing - Lack of explanation - Lack of professionalism - Poor communication of - Lack of holistic results approach
Roberts’ participants identified six ‘major supportive fields that contribute to meaningful archaeological research between Indigenous South Australians and archaeology’ (2003:148):
167 Truscott – Chapter 4 – Community Having a Say? - Working together - Proof of occupation and - Indigenous control over history research - Archaeology records - Archaeology as a information for the research tool for future Indigenous self- - Archaeology as determination reconciliation
Roberts refers to ‘archaeological research’. However, many of the projects are in fact pre-development surveys, such as for mining companies. It is however unclear which comments pertain to which type of project making it difficult to judge which archaeological project types result in more positive views. Some of the opinions shared with Roberts relate to specific individual archaeologists (not identified), suggesting some positive or negative factors may relate to inter-personal relationships and not the archaeological process. She concludes that although there is evidence that although ‘some of the many relationships between Indigenous South Australians and archaeologists are improving’ these are ‘tempered by … inhibitive feelings and “lived experiences”’ (2003:243).
The lack of consultation, from specific issues to a general lack of ‘proper consultation’, features strongly with six participants (Roberts 2003:193-94):
All the institutions, educational institutions, departments, they have all got problems with the word. They haven’t really defined the word ‘consultation’ (Participant 1) Well I think we have to be seen as equal partners in research—from stage one to completion (Participant 13)
These comments highlight a perceived lack of full collaborative approaches such as fostered by community archaeology.
Other issues are a lack of feedback, not sharing project publications, or the nature of the report (Roberts 2003:189-197). One participant criticises the lack of plain English, stating that he has to ‘interpret’ archaeologists’ spoken English into a simpler form, when they come to talk to his community (Roberts 2003:191):
… still having a jargon battle (Participant 1)
This lack of plain English feedback contravenes the commitment in the AAA Ethical Code of Ethics (AAA 2004:4.2):
168 Truscott – Chapter 4 – Community Having a Say? Members will disseminate the results of their work as widely as possible using plain language where appropriate
Three of Roberts’ participants find ‘sometimes archaeologists lacking a holistic or interdisciplinary approach to their work’, such as Participant 2153 (Roberts 2003:200):
The way I look at it you can’t separate archaeology from other things. … they just want to concentrate on archaeology, but to me it is all connected—the stories are all connected.
The comment that the relevant South Australian agency ‘places too much emphasis on archaeological sites’, perpetuating a separation of archaeology and anthropology is of concern to many Indigenous South Australians. Roberts notes changes need to occur at government level to re-cast this division between tangible and intangible heritage (2003:202). A decade ago such a separation ignores community archaeology principles to integrate different approaches and perceptions of the past and Country.
A different, more general snapshot of Indigenous views about heritage was taken during the 2006 federal State of the Environment reporting, when 24 Aboriginal community groups across Australia were interviewed (Open Mind 2005).154 The key issues raised are all related to heritage management (Open Mind 2005:15), as analysed below:
Funding and community autonomy to manage their heritage: - Inadequate and uncertain funding to ensure managing indigenous heritage - A lack of resources for local communities to physically manage their own cultural sites Lack of processes, or adherence to them, ahead of development: - Inconsistent or total lack of appropriate and timely consultation with Indigenous communities about developments concerning the regions - A lack of legal protection and enforcement to ensure that processes are followed Damage to heritage:
153 With in 2000, approximately 20-30 years experience of working with archaeologists in the field (Roberts 2003:316). 154 Fewer Indigenous organisations across Australia were interviewed than intended, limiting the dependability of the results (SOE 2006b). It was originally intended to interview 45 Indigenous organisations, but proved difficult in the timeframe available. The 24 bodies involved included cultural centres, keeping places, Native Title Representative Bodies and other community organisations with statutory heritage responsibilities, including the Wurundjeri Council (see Open Mind 2005:44). 169 Truscott – Chapter 4 – Community Having a Say? - Developments—housing estates, logging, quarries, wind farms and marinas—being constructed on culturally significant sites and destroying Indigenous heritage - Infestations—pests, ants, rabbits, cane toads, invasive plant species— in cultural sites - Effects of weather, flooding, climate change, fire and soil erosion on Indigenous sites - Widespread farming had wiped out some species of vegetation once used by ancestors for medicines Disconnection from heritage: - Restricted access to freehold and leasehold land, which impacted on spiritual connection to heritage by being unable to conduct ceremonies - A lack of commitment among the newer generation to care for country and carry on Indigenous traditions in the communities
The concern about a lack of timely consultation is telling, again reinforcing Indigenous views that they are treated perfunctorily in the management of their heritage. This survey did not record what Indigenous communities are pleased about regarding their role in heritage management.
The federal Indigenous Advisory Committee, with its Indigenous membership of considerable heritage expertise,155 for the 2011 State of the Environment report identified a series of concerns a broad, higher level perspective, rather than individual or community-based (Mackay 2011). These issues (Mackay 2011:1-2) are analysed below according to their themes:
Disconnection with values: - The cumulative effect of slowly losing spiritual values as more and more sites are damaged to the point that their value is no longer there, with no single body or watch-dog monitoring this at a national level - A lack of effective Indigenous engagement regarding projects to record Indigenous knowledge - loss of local places - A perception that removing items from their context does not destroy their value, and the management actions that follow on from this belief Indigenous concerns about heritage listing and statutory processes:
155 IAC members who participated in the workshop, 10 November 2010, were Melissa George, Chrissy Grant, Dave Johnson, Jason Field, Freda Tatipata, Elizabeth Wren. Several have worked in cultural heritage place management, including as archaeologist (Dave Johnston), within the federal heritage agency (Chrissy Grant, Dave Johnston, Elizabeth Wren). 170 Truscott – Chapter 4 – Community Having a Say?
- Inconsistent views on Indigenous heritage issues between state agencies and communities or peak bodies - Legislative changes over time weakening the protection of Indigenous heritage - Jurisdictional, legislative and management separation of nature from culture and art - contrary to the reality for Aboriginal people - People’s reluctance to list places on registers due to concerns about privacy and lack of faith in the process - A lack of Indigenous involvement in teaching archaeology in universities - Criteria/thresholds need to be determined by indigenous people - Assessments need to be made outside development pressures - There is no national data and perspective of listed and protected Indigenous heritage places Development pressures, again related to ‘listing’: - Listing is usually too late and done as a reaction to a proposal for development - Communities are wary of listing sites, because of "consent to destroy" provisions in legislation and public availability of information - Balance – cultural heritage is almost always seen to be outweighed by financial gain
Issues of the ‘who and how of consultation’ repeatedly emerge as problems as identified in all forums with Indigenous communities.156 In some cases, the emerging complexity in statutes appears to be onerous, and better ways to deal with this are needed. Control to Indigenous communities who then hire experts in various fields, may take away some of the concern by Indigenous communities that ‘consultation’ or ‘negotiation’ is tokenistic. Whether this results in the fullest input by all Indigenous groups is unclear, and will be examined in the case studies where possible.
Concerns of Indigenous Consultant Archaeologists
In the past five years, Indigenous archaeologists, most working as consultants, have expressed frustration at how Indigenous heritage is being managed (Dugay-Grist 2013; Johnston 2009, 2013a, b, c). A core concern is related to the process within land development, from mining to suburban expansion. These Indigenous archaeologists focus on 'compliance archaeology', given its dominant role about Indigenous heritage decisions. Their concerns include the lack of observance of ethical standards, as well
156 Such as in consultation efforts about changes to the system in NSW (DECC 2007a, b). 171 Truscott – Chapter 4 – Community Having a Say? as the lack of sharing about any results of archaeological inquiry in such 'compliance archaeology'.
Johnston (2013c) charges the system, especially in regard to pre-development survey processes, as suffering from a lack of national leadership since the appearance of ranking in significance assessment: national/state-territory/ local with the federal abandonment of the more comprehensive Register of the National Estate.157 He sees this failure as a lack of political will to maintain the national heritage standard, the Burra Charter process, adopted by all heritage agencies, and included in the principles and processes fostered in Ask First: A guide to respecting Indigenous heritage places and values (AHC 2002).
Johnston (2013c) also reasons that not applying more widely collaborative Indigenous heritage practice ahead of development as having benefitred both heritage and community in research, but yet to be fully incorporated into all Indigenous heritage management. As such, his perception agrees with Sullivan’s view of the differentiated approach towards ‘consultant archaeology’ in NSW as ‘a regulatory function’ separated from effective collaborative approaches (2008:108).
One solution to the lack of appropriate comprehensive inclusion of Indigenous values that Johnston (2009) proposes for 'compliance archaeology' is for an ‘ochre card’. This symbol would set a standard that would denote an ethical commitment in development processes, that encompasses ‘a more formal, meaningful and potentially accredited Indigenous run process of Indigenous Cultural Heritage Awareness training for individual Industry proponents and their staff’ (Johnston 2009). Johnston is primarily addressing remote Australia where he sees mining development resulting in a loss, or rather dismissal, of heritage, but his argument for awareness raising on ethical approaches to Indigenous heritage meets current professional standards.
Dugay-Grist (2013) critiques 'compliance archaeology' as lacking archaeological research results. He also notes that not sharing any research results, should they be available, with the relevant Indigenous communities contributes to a lack of
157 COAG agreed in 1997 ‘that heritage listing and protection should be the responsibility of the level of government best placed to deliver agreed outcomes’ resulting in the closure of the RNE in 2007, and being phased out from all statutory role in 2012 (DEWHA 2012). 172 Truscott – Chapter 4 – Community Having a Say? appreciation of the information of their past that archaeology can contribute. Grist views this lack as limiting a community’s opportunity to have a multi-faceted understanding of their past, as fostered in community archaeology principles. A question that follows is whether any consequent lack of understanding of the ‘scientific value’ of the artefacts found in pre-development surveys results in a greater allocation of ‘social value’ to such finds in pre-development surveys. This question is examined in the case study in Chapter 6.
4.3.2 Victoria – Responses to Heritage Legislation Review The legislation only deals with Aboriginal archaeology place or objects, not cultural heritage, and it needs to reflect that and that only. Including cultural heritage in the legislation actually has an adverse affect leaving our cultural heritage out. The flora and fauna, ceremony, family, land rights and bridging the gap are more important parts of our cultural heritage that this legislation ignores and more importantly wouldn’t have the time to address. (Xiberras 2012:1)
The recent review of heritage legislation in Victoria provides a good sense of Victorian Indigenous community views of current processes. The statutory five-yearly review of the Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006 legislation began in August 2011 with the release of a Discussion Paper by Aboriginal Affairs Victoria (AAV 2011d). Another, separate, but concurrent, review of the Representative Aboriginal Party appointment process was undertaken by the Parliament of Victoria (PoV 2012).158
Also, recent research into Indigenous rights, in relation to their heritage in planning contexts, include Wurundjeri responses to the new legislation, and are also presented below (Porter and Barry 2013). Both critiques, community and academic, provide a context for this research current legislation and Indigenous community attitudes towards this legislation and the Victorian heritage system.
Wurundjeri and other Indigenous Views of Legislation
Before outlining Indigenous responses to the 2006 legislation, it is useful to examine Aboriginal Victorians’ views about earlier legislation. In consultation about the proposed new legislation, included in the Discussion Paper, Aboriginal people in
158 This RAP review was announced early 2011, delayed with other workload pers comm. Caroline Williams, Executive Officer, Environment and Natural Resources Committee, Parliament of Victoria 17 May 2011, and reported November 2012. 173 Truscott – Chapter 4 – Community Having a Say? Victoria voiced disquiet in 2004 about who should be involved in cultural heritage (DVC 2004a). The issue of ‘who has a say’ dominated responses to this Discussion Paper. Aboriginal community’s responsibility for decisions, whether a state-wide or regional advisory bodies; the need for a greater role for women; the role of Inspectors and roles of particular people or groups; and the suggestion that ‘traditional owners’ have an exclusive role, dominated the 2004 responses to Victoria’s discussion paper which (DVC 2004b). Communities also put the need to recognise the diversity of connections to Country and disruption and movement of communities post-settlement, resulting in an acknowledgment of a ‘hierarchy of rights’ in Victoria.
The Victorian Wurundjeri Council, the case study group, makes a comparison between the pre-2006 and post-2006 Indigenous heritage system (Goulding et al 2009).159 Presented to AAA in 2009, this is a comprehensive view by this Representative Aboriginal Party under the new legislation, the Victorian Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006, of the changed benefits and impacts, opportunities and challenges.
The Wurundjeri Council see the only former ‘leverage’ as being their ‘consent to disturb powers’, whereas under the 2006 legislation they now have the capacity to be ‘a key player in driving the heritage clearance process’ (Goulding et al 2009:9). This greater level of control is viewed however as somewhat minimised by no longer having community-based inspectors. The Wurundjeri Council also note their relationship with the overall regulator, Aboriginal Affairs Victoria, was not close, and that they had lost power to them regarding Cultural Heritage Permits (Goulding et al 2009:18).
Yet, the Wurundjeri Council welcomed their greater involvement in ‘how assessments are conducted and the management outcomes’ (Goulding et al 2009:12). The Wurundjeri Council also consider they have ‘more ownership of the entire assessment process’, appreciating the greater contact with stakeholders, leading to an ‘increased connection’ with ‘sponsors’ (proponents), and greater understanding between them and the Wurundjeri community. Examples of the Council’s active engagement with potential partners on heritage issues is seen from 2009 with land managers such as
159 The Wurundjeri Council provided this researcher their results as shown in a Powerpoint presentation in December 2010. 174 Truscott – Chapter 4 – Community Having a Say? Melbourne Water, Parks Victoria, as presented in the next chapter. The Council also lobbied for the inclusion of their cultural heritage within large scale strategic planning by the then Growth Areas Authority,160 formed in 2006 to co-ordinate Melbourne’s Greenfield development across municipalities (Porter and Barry 2013:16, 33), as discussed in relation to pre-development surveys in Chapter 6.
Less is said about the opportunity to ensure a more rounded understanding of Country in assessments. Reference is made that the new system was an opportunity for ‘holistic assessments – not just archaeologically focussed’, and that this ‘leads to sensitive heritage management outcomes’ (Goulding et al 2009:19). Also, the Wurundjeri Council acknowledge the opportunity as recognised Traditional Owners, as a RAP, for ‘leverage for other management of Country outcomes (Country Plan)’, seen as one realm where Indigenous connections and understanding of Country can flourish. And as will be shown in the case studies, this is something pushed hard by the Wurundjeri Council, using their role under the Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006, as a ‘catalyst’ to achieve more strategic approaches to heritage (Porter and Barry 2013). Analysis in the case study chapters indicate that this ‘control’ or power to present their views, has had mixed results, with pre-development surveys still having a largely, or solely, archaeological emphasis.
The recent review of the 2006 Aboriginal Heritage Act in Victoria provides useful data about Indigenous community views about both the legislation and its application in Indigenous heritage management. The Wurundjeri Council’s 2009 assessment of the new system was initially largely positive, after little more than a year of operating as a Registered Aboriginal Party. Their views two years later are less hopeful, as given in their individual submission to the review of the 2006 legislation (WTLCCHC 2011), joining with the other RAPs to present a final submission after April 2012 (RAPS 2012). These stages of submission were part of an iterative review process with initial discussion paper, submission summaries, and final report (AAV 2011d; AAV 2012a, b; Victoria 2013).
160 Metropolitan Planning Authority since October 2013, expanding the role of the GAA. 175 Truscott – Chapter 4 – Community Having a Say? In their final submission, the Wurundjeri Council and others,161 submitted that ‘the formal processes of the Act focus on archaeological significance rather than cultural values’ (AAV 2012a:23).162 This observation is relevant to this research and analysed closely in Chapter 6, the case study on 'compliance archaeology'. The Wurundjeri Council submission dissects the issue in greater detail than AAV’s summary, explaining this imbalance and presenting a possible solution (WTLCCHC 2011a:3):
… tighter regulation of Cultural Heritage Advisors (CHAs). Currently almost all CHAs registered in Victoria are archaeologists who often take a purely archaeological point of view, and Aboriginal cultural values are often not given equal consideration when determining the significance of Aboriginal Places.
The Wurundjeri Council view that pre-development surveys are failing to incorporate the community’s understanding and associations with Country indicates that the current system is not meeting their 2009 expectations. This perception is examined in the case study on pre-development survey at Chapter 6.
Nonetheless, the Wurundjeri Council recognised that the 2006 legislation is in line with recognition that the ‘Indigenous Traditional Owners’ are the rightful owners of their heritage according to various state, national and international statements (WTLCCHC 2012:1, 2). The Wurundjeri generally see the Act as ‘working well’, providing Traditional Owners with ‘the foundations to effectively manage the Aboriginal cultural heritage within their Country’. They anticipate that with some small changes the RAPs will be able to grow into ‘sustainable corporations’ and ‘complete their cultural obligations to manage and protect Aboriginal cultural heritage’ (WT 2012:9).
Support for community control, and community views of heritage, features strongly in the review’s summary report on the second round of submissions (AAV 2012c). Most stakeholders advocated a more strategic, state-wide assessment of Aboriginal cultural heritage, rather than the current more piece-meal approach ahead of development
161 Also the Aboriginal Heritage Council, the Victorian Traditional Owner Land Justice Group, Gippsland Water, and Annette Xiberras. 162 This is an example of the use of ‘cultural values’ as being somehow separate form ‘archaeological significance’ or ‘scientific value’ as known under the Burra Charter, and HERCON terminology; it means of value to the relevant Aboriginal community, but as suggested elsewhere closes off any closer understanding of what is that value. 176 Truscott – Chapter 4 – Community Having a Say? (AAV 2012c:5). ‘Country mapping’ was seen as a possibility, and this is the subject of the collaborative partnerships case study in Chapter 5. Such an approach would comprise tangible and intangible Aboriginal cultural heritage, with the potential for a greater focus on Aboriginal ‘cultural significance’163— currently not happening with individual ‘cultural heritage plans’ from pre-development surveys. This option however received only mixed support.164
The option of a greater integration of Aboriginal cultural heritage management with environmental assessment and management received mixed views. One submission proposed an incorporation of certain natural environment data into ‘cultural heritage sensitivity’ mapping (AAV 2012c:20), thus reinforcing the natural-cultural unity of Aboriginal perceptions of Country.
The need for a greater understanding of the relationship between the Heritage Act 1995, the ‘general’ heritage legislation in Victoria, and an integration of broader heritage planning processes, such as for the built environment, with Indigenous heritage procedures, was fully supported (AAV 2012c:20). However, concern was expressed that CHAs (consultants) require educating about this general heritage legislation, perhaps highlighting their need to have a wider understanding of heritage management generally.
Options for any greater Aboriginal control received a mixed response, the Wurundjeri Council, and others’ view that the RAPs should grant cultural heritage permits was overwhelmingly supported (AAV 2012c:15). However, the proposal to transfer to the Aboriginal Heritage Council any residual powers from the head of the relevant government department received mixed views, although not outright rejection, the view being that this total control was too soon (AAV 2012c:21).
This Wurundjeri Council analysis of before and after is relevant to several aspects of this research, from the level of control, the results any heritage projects, to issues related to training and resourcing the Wurundjeri RAP, and others. These issues are examined in the case study chapters.
163 note a synonym for other than ‘archaeological’ 164 The 62 public submissions have not been analysed as to which stakeholder groups did not agree with this option (there were also three confidential submissions). 177 Truscott – Chapter 4 – Community Having a Say? Non-Indigenous Commentary – Victoria
The review saw concerns raised about the role and the capacity of consultants, ‘cultural heritage advisors’ (CHAs) to meet community expectations for a more holistic approach to their heritage. Proposed options for change received a mixed reception (AAV 2012c:9-10).
Accreditation models were discussed with both support and opposition. Several local government submissions however rejected higher standards perceiving these would result in higher fees (AAV 2012c:8). Australia ICOMOS agreed higher standards of practice were needed (Australia ICOMOS 2011b), and the Aboriginal Heritage Council recommended professional accreditation that includes ‘experience’ as eligibility criterion. It was suggested that this would result in more Aboriginal CHAs, rather than eligibility based only on university qualifications that may not include Aboriginal heritage studies (VAHC 2011:30).
There was however relatively little comment on the Wurundjeri Council’s expressed concern about the dominance of archaeological expertise in the accreditation process. The proposed ‘guidelines for cultural heritage advisors to demonstrate appropriate experience and knowledge required relating to the management of Aboriginal cultural heritage’, had more general agreement, although still not uniformly supported.
A more comprehensive identification of all heritage and its values was suggested. The option for ‘better landscape scale assessment’ was ‘mostly supported’, but although the CHAs welcomed working more closely with RAPs on country mapping, but they were resistant to it being imposed as a pro bono effort (AAV 2012c:9). Nonetheless, the report does not appear to recognise that skills to assist in country mapping or facilitating significance assessment outside ‘scientific value’, may not be found among archaeologists. The option to ‘develop a framework for assessing cultural significance’, received mixed views, with some suggesting the Burra Charter as the relevant model, and that CHAs receive training in ‘determining significance’ (AAV 2012c:15). Separately two archaeologists, Allia and Griffin (2011), one with Melbourne Water, the other with the Wurundjeri Council, proposed a session at the 2011 AAA conference on how to record Indigenous cultural values in archaeological investigations for pre-development surveys in response to community concerns.
178 Truscott – Chapter 4 – Community Having a Say? These options will be discussed in further detail in Chapters 5 and 6. In Chapter 5, cultural significance assessments are examined within collaborative landscape assessments or cultural mapping. The analysis demonstrates that some approaches in protected areas are ensuring a fuller integration of all significance of Country as sought in the community archaeology model. In Chapter 6, the critique of pre-development surveys demonstrates a continuing failure to do so.
The Victorian Government presented an Exposure Draft of its Aboriginal Heritage Amendment Bill on 2 August 2014 regarding both the appointments of Representative Aboriginal Parties, and the review of the Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006 (PoV 2014). The parliamentary inquiry into RAP appointments, starting February 2011, had previously tabled an earlier report, when the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs, Jeannette Powell, had announced some immediate changes to processes under the Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006, prior to the finalisation of its review, primarily taking the recording of stone scatters out of any pre-development survey process (Powell 2012):
… to improve the Aboriginal cultural heritage system … streamlining the recording of artefacts to recognise that isolated and low density artefacts exist right across Victoria, and do not necessarily indicate that an area is a place of particular scientific significance
The Victorian Government’s Exposure Draft makes no reference to stone scatters, however, no final response is due until after 2 October 2014, being the deadline for public comments. However, the above decision by the Victorian Government has bearing on issues related to significance assessment, for inherent in this is that such scatters are not of heritage value, seeming to suggest they will not be protected. There is apparently no consideration of their potential to demonstrate past human activity, nor that individual artefacts may be of ‘social’ value to the relevant community members. This decision also pre-empts consideration of the report on the legislation review which appears to accept the need for better significance assessment. This issue and other decisions announced by the Minister that day, which appear to all be technical procedures, will be analysed in Chapter 6 dealing with 'compliance archaeology'.
179 Truscott – Chapter 4 – Community Having a Say? 4.3.3 Capital Country – Responses to ACT Heritage Review We would call for the ACT Government under this Heritage Act to … undertake a look at the operations of the Victorian Governments Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006 (Vic). (Bell 2010)
Wally Bell’s view, as one of Canberra’s Aboriginal Elders, that Victoria’s system might be an improvement to that in the ACT, was a factor in my choice of Victoria as a comparative study area for this research. The review of the ACT Heritage Act 2004 began with the release of a discussion paper in March 2010, inviting submissions that led to a report with recommendations prepared by the consultant undertaking the review, Duncan Marshall (2010). Covering both natural and cultural heritage, the latter encompassing both ‘historic’ and Indigenous, the discussion paper posed key issues concerning Aboriginal heritage for the Review (ACT TAMS 2010a:12): - What role(s) should the Aboriginal community play in the assessment and management of Aboriginal heritage? - How should members of Aboriginal communities be identified and chosen to participate in any heritage management processes? - What mechanisms could be used to support fair and effective Aboriginal participation in heritage assessment and management
Ngun(n)awal, Ngambri, Ngarigo Comments
The Aboriginal submissions165 provide a sense of how the Registered Aboriginal Organisations (RAOs) see the current heritage process in the ACT, with the following suggested areas for improvement for their involvement. The main views were that the heritage system should:
consult Elders on all activities that will impact on Country (Bell 2010, Buru Ngunawal Aboriginal Corporation RAO HAS24166)
abide by international human rights declaration, particularly the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, and UNESCO Declaration on the Protection of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions (Shane Mortimer, Ngambri Elder HAS01; Paul House 2010 Ngambri, Little Gudgenby River RAO HAS25)
165 These and other submissions, not made confidential, were accessed via the ACT Heritage Unit, as although the review indicated that submissions would be accessible online, they were not put online. 166 The HAS numbers identify the submissions to the legislation review. 180 Truscott – Chapter 4 – Community Having a Say?
have separate legislation for Indigenous heritage, as well as an autonomous Aboriginal Heritage Council (Paul House Ngambri, Little Gudgenby River RAO HAS25)
have an expert independent panel to assess who can speak for country (Paul House, Ngambri, Little Gudgenby River RAO HAS25); identified through proven descent and have ‘Nation Offices’ established, such as Ngarigu and Ngunnawal, set up register of all descendants (Ngarigo Consultancy167 HAS04)
have a process that does not have the tokenistic approach to heritage of current land planning and development (Bell 2010, Buru Ngunawal Aboriginal Corporation RAO HAS24)
have a requirement for full assessments of archaeological and Aboriginal cultural significance prior to any land releases or any major capital works (Bell 2010, Buru Ngunawal Aboriginal Corporation RAO HAS24)
have early Aboriginal representation in the development planning stages (Ngarigo Consultancy HAS04)
adopt a model like the Victorian legislation and system, that ‘would enhance the ACT Government’s stature in cultural heritage management’ (Bell 2010, Buru Ngunawal Aboriginal Corporation RAO HAS24)
The RAOs are clearly seeking a greater say, if not greater control, over their heritage. This analysis is arrived at despite their ongoing use of the term ‘consultation’, which as shown, can often lead to communities’ having only a minimal decision-making role about their heritage. The legislation reviewer, Duncan Marshall, commented that clearly articulated principles are needed, and that the views in the RAO’s submissions views accord with principles found in the Victorian legislation’s objectives
(Victoria 2006:s3):
(a) to recognise, protect and conserve Aboriginal cultural heritage in Victoria in ways that are based on respect for Aboriginal knowledge and cultural and traditional practices (b) to recognise Aboriginal people as the primary guardians, keepers and knowledge holders of Aboriginal cultural heritage
167 Understood to be Yukembruk Merung Ngarigo Consultancy, an Aboriginal stakeholder company based in Bega, NSW, not the ACT Ngarigu Currawong Clan RAO. 181 Truscott – Chapter 4 – Community Having a Say? The Discussion Paper asked a question about intangible heritage and its values, that seems curious, seeking views on whether ‘language, oral tradition, social practices, craft skills and performing arts’ should be included in the legislation: (ACT TAMS 2010a:11). This question appears to separate such values from place—and object, rather than recognising that they are an integral part of heritage, including Indigenous heritage. Whilst not specified in ‘social value’, these cultural activities are the expression of such intangible connections, and relevant in the case of Indigenous heritage to identifying ‘part of Aboriginal tradition’ (ACT 2004:s10). Wally Bell, a Ngun[n]awal Elder,168 clearly makes this point, but also that the continuity of such practice on Country is essential (Bell 2010):
The Act must hold responsibility for the protection of intangible heritage particularly for Aboriginal culture as it is an oral living history that is still apart of today’s society. It should be protected at all costs through the continued practice that is our culture which is all the intangibles listed …. These can be recorded to a certain extent but there are still secret/sacred areas and customs that belong and are known only to the Ngunawal Traditional Owner people and must remain so.
The RAOs’ call for a separate heritage law or separate council may reflect a sense that Aboriginal heritage is neither sufficiently controlled by Indigenous communities nor getting adequate recognition. The ACT Heritage Council’s workload is greater for urban or ‘built’ issues, and may seem to overpower other aspects of heritage, such as Indigenous or natural. These RAOs are familiar with and also involved in the NSW heritage system across the border from the ACT. In NSW, there is separate legislation, as well as local land councils,169 which often have a central or at least co-ordinating role in heritage processes.
Separate legislation for Aboriginal heritage however risks becoming removed from broader heritage considerations. For example, as noted above, in Victoria where there is separate Indigenous heritage legislation, its legislation review recommended a more integrated approach in heritage processes. This advice resulted from a perception that statutory separation resulted in a compartmentalisation of activity and understanding (AAV 2012c:20), inferring that separate legislation has its own problems.
168 There are two versions of the spelling for this group name, one family preferring one ‘n’, the other two. 169 Established under the NSW Land Rights Act 1983. 182 Truscott – Chapter 4 – Community Having a Say? There is a sense of frustration in the calls that international acknowledgement of indigenous rights be observed in the ACT. One submission suggests that omitting reference to the UN Indigenous Rights Declaration is either deliberate or a continuing ethnocentricism, and that Indigenous heritage is a ‘plaything’ of others (Shane Mortimer HAS01).
Non-Indigenous Commentary – ACT
As in Victoria, submissions were also made by consultants working in Indigenous heritage in the ACT. These commentaries present similar views to Indigenous community members, stating, as summarised below, that the ACT should:
recognise Aboriginal community as the authority on ‘cultural’ matters (GML Heritage 2010; Biosis 2010a)
support Aboriginal organisations including their full reimbursement for time spent on heritage work. There was also a call for separate engagement of Aboriginal organisations, not via heritage consultants, as currently occurs to ensure impartiality and objectivity (Biosis 2010a)
have early assessment for Greenfield areas, suggesting separate assessment processes for archaeological and for Aboriginal values (GML Heritage 2010); early cultural heritage surveys; and early inclusion of Aboriginal consultation from inception of the process (Biosis 2010a)
The last point is a clear affirmative response to the Discussion Paper’s question ‘Should archaeological assessments be undertaken by Government prior to releasing land to developers?’ (ACT TAMS 2010a:13). However, it is intriguing that this question refers only to ‘archaeological assessments’, maintaining an inherent assumption that ‘Indigenous heritage’ is limited to archaeological remains. The question appears ignorant of the advance in comprehensive landscape heritage surveys, or cultural mapping, as described in the previous chapter.
The emphasis in this question also disregards the broadened definition of Indigenous heritage in both study areas, as based on having ‘particular significance to Aboriginal people’, that includes intangible values of Country. Most other submissions that responded to this question do not query this narrow notion of heritage identification,
183 Truscott – Chapter 4 – Community Having a Say? despite agreeing with early identification. The submission made by the company Biosis is an exception in seeking a separate process for identifying ‘Aboriginal values’ (2010a), as is Australia ICOMOS in fostering a regional approach in its submission (2010).170
Marshall (2010:90, Recommendation 61), the reviewer, concurs with the many submissions that agreed on early identification, recommending that development only take place after ‘robust up-front heritage surveys and studies’. However, his review report on this question does not refer to the extensive Australian experience of comprehensive landscape or cultural mapping. This shortfall in Indigenous heritage practice appears to be a barrier to any genuine shift to community archaeology practice (eg Bryne et al 2001; Sullivan 2008), and is examined in the case study on pre-development surveys in Chapter 6.
On 25 September 2014, the ACT Legislative Assembly passed the ACT Government’s Heritage Legislation Amendment Bill (ACT 2013), with amendments regarding the proposed changed to the ACT Heritage Act 2004 (ACT LA 2014). In 2013, the ACT Government had presented the Bill proposing a greater role for Registered Aboriginal Organisations, although without clarification. The Bill also proposed to allocate protection to all Aboriginal sites and objects without seeking any significance assessment (ACT 2013:5):
… to ensure that all Aboriginal places and objects are protected under the Act, without the need to meet any thresholds or tests of ‘particular significance’.
This protection of all sites and objects has now been confirmed (Gentleman 2014; ACT 2014a, see Attachment 1). This approach is in contrast to the Victorian response to ‘dismiss’ individual surface artefacts, and given the current process of site removal in pre-development surveys, it is unclear how this decision will be effected.
170 Also the Canberra Archaeological Society (HAS33), Environmental Defender’s Officer (HAS33), Department of the Environment, Climate Change, Energy and Water (HAS28), Department of Education and Training (HAS35), all submitted in 2010. 184 Truscott – Chapter 4 – Community Having a Say? 4.4 Capacity to Manage Indigenous Heritage
Current systems for the identification of Indigenous sites, places, and landscapes demand knowledge and experience by both Indigenous communities and heritage experts. The community archaeology ideals encompass capacity building for community members. The following analysis presents what skills are imparted in various training programs to raise levels of expertise. Such capacity building ranges from cross-cultural awareness, to governance and heritage management proficiency: site identification, heritage assessment, such as the application of significance criteria, land and site management, and heritage interpretation.
Some training towards fuller collaborative heritage management has been provided in the two study areas. Victoria developed a training program for Indigenous community members over more than a decade, building on past courses (eg Richards 2004; RMIT 2006; AAV 2009; La Trobe University 2009, 2013). However, minimal training has been delivered to community members in the ACT (Lynley Wallis pers comm. 10 May 2011). The following review finds an inconsistency in the provision of relevant skills, being largely limited to archaeological techniques.
4.4.1 Indigenous Community Heritage Management Capacity
The following examines two areas that build capacity for Indigenous groups to take on a greater decision-making role regarding their heritage. Knowledge about their heritage is central, yet competence and experience in administrative roles and dealing with government agencies and corporate groups, such as developers, is essential to operate in this system. Similarly, a familiarity and experience with heritage processes is also fundamental to taking greater control and ensuring community views are heard.
Governance
The dire need for capacity building for Indigenous communities in areas of governance was recognised in 2001 by the then Social Justice Commissioner, Bill Jonas (2001). This has been recognised in Victoria, which assists by funding $20,000 to each Representative Aboriginal Party (RAP) on appointment given these RAPs’ major role in decisions about Indigenous heritage on their Country in the Victorian
185 Truscott – Chapter 4 – Community Having a Say? statutory process. Each RAP is then eligible for further annual funding of some $40,000 to $50,000 a year (pers comm. Harry Webber AAV 13 April 2011). Prescribed fees are included in the legislation that can be charged for their role in pre-development surveys and site assessments reporting (AAV 2008:5).171
The Victorian system also recognises the need for other technical forms of assistance, and will support governance training so that the RAPs can operate within, and with, government and corporate administrative systems. Elements of such administrative and governance training are (AAV 2010c:2): - provision of training on governance, for example, managing board meetings, complying with the legal requirements of Annual General Meetings, annual reporting and preparation of audited financial reports; - training and ongoing workshops on roles and responsibilities under the Act; - assisting in development of pro-forma materials, such as letters; - assisting in the development of policies and procedures; and - promoting the development of stakeholder relationships.
Megan Goulding, CEO of the Wurundjeri Council from 2005-2012, perceived a need for skills development for the Wurundjeri Council members. A key area was the ability to work in committees, and therefore such training was enabled (pers comm. Megan Goulding 13 April 2011).
The Wurundjeri Council has 45 staff on its books. There are some twenty in the office, many part-time, most being Wurundjeri, funded for a range of responsibilities in nine programs. Pre-development survey payments fund a considerable proportion of the organisation’s income. Some key positions are, or have been, held by archaeologists, none of whom are Indigenous:
the Executive Director who managed the growing range of activities, and left in March 2012 after seven years in the role; replaced first by an interim CEO with business management skills, and since by someone with strong education and community development skills
Manager, Cultural Heritage, a full-time archaeologist with responsibility mainly for pre-development surveys and RAP ratification of reports
171 Updated 2014, not included in this research. 186 Truscott – Chapter 4 – Community Having a Say?
another archaeologist, part-time, also dealing with place heritage, who has undertaken special longer term projects beyond pre-development surveys
a natural resource manager steering the ‘Country Plan’ project
In the ACT, there is no government funding for the Registered Aboriginal Organisations (RAOs). The individual situation for each RAO varies, but three of the four operate from their ‘front room’. One other is also a Local Aboriginal Land Council under the NSW Aboriginal Land Rights Act 1983, the Ngambri LALC, based just across the ACT border in Queanbeyan, NSW. This RAO partially uses its NSW LALC office for its ACT role, with paid office staff assisting in both NSW and ACT functions. None of the ACT RAOs directly hire heritage professionals.
The need for governance training was raised at the time of the 2008 Inquiry into the Namadgi Management Plan. The Inquiry was triggered by the wider Canberra community’ concerns regarding the lack of sufficient consultation, and the terms of reference focussed on these issues including those relevant to Indigenous community consultation and capacity (ACT LA 2008a:1): - the effectiveness of consultation with key stakeholders - the nature and level of participation by the Interim Namadgi Advisory Board in developing the Draft Plan of Management
The Inquiry was advised that training for the Interim Indigenous Advisory Board members in public service, committee and legislative processes and administration would have been beneficial for the members, as noted by a Board member, Mike Pearson: ‘I suspect that some of the Aboriginal members would have benefited from … exposure training to how the public service operates’ (ACT LA 2008b:41).
Heritage Management Capacity
The capacity to manage heritage, from identification, to significance assessment, and decisions about the future of heritage within competing land uses, is one element of the proposed community archaeology model. The following summarises the provision of relevant training and other capacity building for the relevant Indigenous communities.
187 Truscott – Chapter 4 – Community Having a Say? Victoria - Heritage Management Competence
Victoria implemented a series of training programs for members of Victorian Aboriginal communities over a decade, many building on earlier courses. The following courses built on earlier ones, with many community members participating in more than one course. These training focussed on archaeological survey approaches in the skills taught, yet increasingly includes elements of wider heritage management:
2011-2012 – annually, Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Management, Certificate IV TAFE172 course (Course Code 22222Vic), delivered by La Trobe University, with 20 students in 2011, and held in nine separate sessions. This course was developed by Aboriginal Affairs Victoria (AAV) ‘in partnership with La Trobe University and [in] close consultation with Indigenous organisations’ (La Trobe 2009, 2013).
2009-2010 – A pilot for the La Trobe University course in Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Management, trialled over a year;173 18 students did the course, with 16 graduating, and three of these going on to university to study archaeology (pers comm. Maddy Maitri174 email 7 December 2010).175 It is understood that the course included how to administer the Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006, a ‘good practical effort’ (pers comm. Brian Egloff 24 October 2014).
2009 – Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Management Workshops held in Beechworth 1-3 July 2009, and Kalorama 29-31 July 2009 (AAV 2009:2), undertaken by 55 Indigenous Victorians and a prerequisite introductory course for the pilot Certificate IV course (Tierney 2010:15).
2006 – Training onsite by an AAV and Parks Victoria partnership at Keilor and Sunbury archaeological sites, and Plenty Gorge this latter also with RMIT University as well as the Wurundjeri Council (eg RMIT News 2006). This training was in preparation for the new 2006 Aboriginal heritage legislation in Victoria (pers comm. Julia Cusack176 email 18 May 2011, Cusack 2006).
172 Technical and Further Education level of tertiary training. 173 Over nine individual weeks between October 2009 and September 2010. 174 Senior Educator for Certificate IV course in Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Management at La Trobe University during 2010. 175 This pilot course was funded by AAV and covered course costs. Students were generally eligible for AbStudy175 for their living costs (Tierney 2010:14-15). The pilot costs were covered by AAV including students’ AbStudy175 living costs (Tierney 2010:14-15). 176 Julia Cusack was Heritage Project Officer – Capacity Building at AAV 2004-2006. 188 Truscott – Chapter 4 – Community Having a Say?
2001-2004 - Aboriginal Communities Heritage Investigation Program (ACHIP), delivered by AAV, with joint funding from the then federal Aboriginal and Torres Strait Island Commission (ATSIC) and the Victorian Government (Richards 2004; Carter 2004). For example, 14 participants from the Wurundjeri were involved in 2001 in the Kulin Nation Regional Cultural Heritage Program at Bundoora Park,177 (Stellini 2003). Project partners, such as the Wurundjeri Council, had ‘an equal voice in decision making ‘and were ‘responsible for providing trainees and Elders to participate’ (Richards 2004:12). The program covered skills in survey methods: site survey, site recording, and artefact identification (Richards 2004:14; Carter 2004).
ACT - Heritage Management Competence
There has been limited training in the ACT in heritage management skills, although it is generally viewed by many in discussion that participating in archaeological surveys provides ‘on the job’ training.
2007-08 – Cultural Heritage Training for Representative Aboriginal Organisations was allocated $15,000 by the ACT Heritage Grants (ACT Heritage 2007). The training has yet to take place with the funds held by the ACT Heritage Unit. Various plans for the training delivery, such as by consultants,178 or by the ANU’s Institute for Professional Practice in Heritage and the Arts, were not realised (Sandy Blair IPPHA 25 January 2014).179 At the time of funding, the training was seen as (ACT Heritage 2007):
… a cultural heritage training program for Aboriginal people that will be unique to the ACT. The training/development program would focus on reinforcing knowledge that they may already have developed and expanding on-site recording and risk mitigation skills for archaeological sites. 2003-04 – a two-day training course for approximately a dozen young/er Indigenous Ngunnawal community members, and relevant government agencies,
177 Bundoora Park is 180ha parkland within the City of Darebin 15km north of central Melbourne, and within the area now covered by the Wurundjeri Council RAP. 178 There was an understanding that two archaeological consultants in the ACT would provide the course, but that did not proceed (pers comm. Norma Richardson 18 July 2010) 179 The ACT Heritage Unit then held discussions with the ANU’s Institute for Professional Practice in Heritage & the Arts (IPPHA), which indicated that a course outline was being prepared (pers comm. Sandy Blair, IPPHA 25 February 2011; Mary-Clare Swete-Kelly Archaeologist ACT Heritage Unit 30 June 2011), however eventually this proposal was abandoned (Sandy Blair IPPHA 25 January 2014). 189 Truscott – Chapter 4 – Community Having a Say? to provide an understanding of archaeological techniques. This was provided directly by the ACT Heritage Unit staff, in particular by Lynley Wallis, the then ACT Heritage Archaeologist (pers comm. Samantha [née Mckay] Simpson180 15 April 2011). This idea of training was triggered after the destructive bushfires in January 2003, when members of the local Aboriginal communities assisted in the fire trail surveys. As Wallis recalls (pers comm. 10 May 2011):
This timing was in many ways fortuitous. The surveys by the ACT Heritage Unit, led by volunteer archaeologists and assisted by the Indigenous community members, provided a ‘spur’ to appreciating the need for skills development. This was for two reasons: the elders were out ‘on Country’ and realised how little the younger community members knew, ‘they didn’t know anything’, they also saw that ‘western’ archaeological skills could be useful.
One of the participants in that program was a graduate of the cultural heritage management program at the University of Canberra. A small training manual was produced, and a presentation made for ACT government agencies on the Territory’s Indigenous archaeological heritage. Wallis saw the benefits of skills development as providing a pathway to employment in parks or the heritage agency (pers comm. Lynley Wallis 10 May 2011). Attempts to find further funding for training, such as from AIATSIS, were not successful until the 2007-08 ACT grant.
2002-2006 – a trainee program for two Indigenous people each year begun by Parks ACT (pers comm. Deb Melaluca181 and Adrian Brown182 15 June 2011). This program did not include cultural heritage management, but general parks management. Those trained were not necessarily or exclusively of ACT Indigenous descent, some were, such as Adrian Brown in the first round (now the Ngunnawal Ranger for Parks ACT) and Daniel Williams in December 2002 (pers comm. Adrian Brown email 7 July 2011)
The Green Teams funded by the Caring for our Country program have also received Certificate II and III training in land management, with in the ACT, some
180 Archaeologist with ACT Heritage Unit at that time. 181 Partnerships Coordinator - Community and Visitor Programs, ACT Parks and Conservation Service. 182 Caring for Ngunnawal Country Ranger, ACT Parks and Conservation Service. 190 Truscott – Chapter 4 – Community Having a Say? limited exposure to cultural heritage management presented by the Canberra Institute of Technology (see Chapter 5)
Australian Alps Liaison Committee training has also been provided to some ACT community members (see Chapter 5)
4.4.2 Capacity for Specialists in Indigenous Heritage
Professional competence is clearly a factor in obtaining best practice from those working in Indigenous heritage management. Those working in this field in the two study areas, Victoria and the ACT, include academics, museum staff, heritage agency staff, parks staff, and heritage consultants. Given the different size and population of each area, the professional resources are very different in each jurisdiction. Some staff in both jurisdictions are Indigenous, not always from the Country involved. It is not proposed to analyse those employed in government agencies, instead examining the publicly available information about the capacity of those working as consultants on Indigenous heritage projects.
Consultants’ Skills
Professional consultants working in Indigenous cultural heritage in Victoria are termed Cultural Heritage Advisors (CHAs), and must apply to be accepted on the government list for this role. The appropriate qualifications were specified by the then Minister for Aboriginal Affairs,183 specified according to the Aboriginal Heritage Act2006 (s.189(1)) for CHAs (pers comm. Harry Webber AAV 13 April 2011). CHAs must apply as an individual not a company, resulting in all CHA names and backgrounds being available online (AAV 2011b). The criteria to be eligible as a Cultural Heritage Advisor are given as follows (AAV 2011c): - a degree in archaeology, or anthropology, or history, or cultural heritage management, or such as earth sciences, geography, environmental science, planning or surveying, all requiring some studies related to Australia
183 Office of Aboriginal Affairs Victoria, since 9 April 2013, when the new Premier the Hon Dr Denis Napthine MP announced the transfer of Aboriginal Affairs Victoria to the Victorian Department of Premier and Cabinet (Public Record Office Victoria 2013 Agency VA3101: Aboriginal Affairs, Victoria (known as Department of Aboriginal Affairs (1991-1992) www.access.prov.vic.gov.au/public/component/daPublicBaseContainer?component=daViewAgency&e ntityId=3101) 191 Truscott – Chapter 4 – Community Having a Say? - full membership of, or eligibility for, Australian Association of Consulting Archaeologists Incorporated, or Australian Anthropological Society Incorporated, or Australian Council of Professional Historians
The only degree that is guaranteed to provide any understanding or experience of heritage significance criteria is that in cultural heritage management. Such knowledge is however a core part of the role of a CHA. Nor is there any requirement that archaeology, anthropology or history degrees include Australian knowledge.
Since 2001, provision has been made to recognise experience, as well as the Certificate IV in Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Management for Indigenous Victorians, provided by La Trobe University.
Analysis of Cultural Heritage Advisors listed in Victoria shows their qualifications, disciplines, years of experience, and membership of professional associations, in April 2011 (AAV 2011b):
Table 11: Cultural Heritage Advisors Victoria 2011 (AAV 2011b)
Indicator Number Comment Number of CHAs 145
Indigenous 3 / 4? unclear 2 with BA(Hons) Archaeology 1 Diploma Number of firms 56 Sole Practitioners 26 (one listed as Melbourne Water) Qualifications BA 1 BA Honours 108 (75%) Since 2000 30 (54%) (Honours or Grad Dip, or MA Since 2006 48 (33%) prelim) (of these last 2yrs 15 (10.5%)) 5 degrees in anthropology Post-graduate Masters / 36 (25%) 4 graduate degrees in cultural Doctorates heritage management 1 graduate degree in anthropology Since 2000 15 (42%) Professional associations Australia ICOMOS 1 (also ACCAI member) Others may not have identified ACCAI 19 (13%) Others may not have identified
The situation in the ACT is different. There is no regulatory recognition of heritage professionals such as in Victoria, nor eligibility criteria. Until late 2012, the ACT
192 Truscott – Chapter 4 – Community Having a Say? Heritage Unit maintained a ‘List of Archaeological Consultants’ for Indigenous heritage management, available on request. The ACT Heritage Unit now has an ‘ACT Heritage Consultants and Trades Directory’ online (ACT EPD 2013), updated, calling for a wider range of skills and expertise, accompanied by a curriculum vitae (pers comm. Can Ercan email 25 October 2012).
The ‘ACT Heritage Consultants and Trades Directory’ list covers 21 categories from ‘access’ to ‘lighting’ but includes more recognisable heritage skills such as ‘archaeology’, ‘architects’, ‘heritage management’, Indigenous cultural heritage’, and ‘social heritage assessment’184 (ACT EPD 2013). Analysis of the following categories and the responses was made for those dealing with Indigenous heritage, listed both in 2010 and in 2012, and the categories they tick, as shown in Table 12 below:185
Table 12: ACT Heritage Consultants by categories
Consultants Archaeology Heritage Historians Indigenous Oral Social *2010 and Management Cultural History Heritage Heritage Assessment 2012
only ACT 13 21 14 12 11 based *Firm 1 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No *Firm 2 Yes Yes No Yes No No Firm 3 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Firm 4186 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Of the 16 firms or sole practitioners on the 2010 ‘List of Archaeological Consultants’ only five are still listed on the 2012/13 Directory. Of these, two have merged their businesses, leaving only four firms. One of the three firms whose reports are analysed in the pre-development survey case study (chapter 6), is not listed in the 2012/13 ACT Directory, and the then sole practitioner in that 'compliance archaeology' analysis has since retired.
Unlike Victoria, the ACT listed consultancy firms do not indicate how many staff there are, and the nature of their academic backgrounds. The expertise, including
184 Rather than ‘social value’ significance assessment. 185 Note this researcher has ticked the following categories, but has not been working in Indigenous Heritage Management in the ACT since 2010 (the period of this research). 186 Primarily works in historic heritage. 193 Truscott – Chapter 4 – Community Having a Say? range and level experience and qualifications of all the potential consultants is obscured. It is consequently difficult for those seeking professional advice, whether government agencies, developers, or Indigenous communities themselves, to make an informed choice.
Two ACT indigenous consultants have also registered in the 2012/13 directory, both members of the same RAO (the Buru Ngunawal Aboriginal Corporation), and have ‘ticked’ the following categories:
Table 13: ACT Indigenous consultants’ expertise
Consultants Archaeology Heritage Historians Indigenous Oral Social Management Cultural History Heritage Heritage Assessment
Buru No No No Yes No No Ngunawal Aboriginal Corporation Thunderstone No No Yes Yes Yes No Aboriginal and Cultural Land Management Services
Neither of the two archaeological consultancy firms included in the pre-development survey case study analysis in Chapter 6 claim to have skills in ‘social heritage assessment’, nor do the two Indigenous consultants.
Among the 16 consultant firms or sole practitioners on the ACT Consultants list six individual archaeologists are full AACAI members (ACCAI 2013). Of these six only one is regularly employed in the ACT on 'compliance archaeology'. It is not known how many of these consultants are AACAI associates.187 Three associates are shown in the ACT, but their expertise is not understood, for the names of associate members are not listed online. One consultant is known to be a member of Australia ICOMOS. How well these consultants meet their ethical obligations is considered in the case studies.
187 Affiliates are not practising in field archaeological consultancy work. 194 Truscott – Chapter 4 – Community Having a Say? Cross-Cultural Awareness
It is unclear how much experience those providing specialist skills, such as archaeology or cultural heritage management, have in dealing with culturally different groups, such as Australian Indigenous communities. In both study areas, cross-cultural awareness raising is however provided to non-Indigenous staff working on heritage matters in land management agencies.
The Victorian Wurundjeri Council has an active program to raise understanding of Indigenous perspectives of Country and their past with government, or non- government agencies.188 Agencies, such as VicForests, that seek ‘awareness training’ for their staff meet at the Wurundjeri Centre to plan the program, and pay them for this training (Nathan Trushell, VicForests 2011) 189:
The opportunity to meet and talk with local communities is extremely valuable in improving our understanding of Indigenous culture and heritage
However, no evidence was found that any RAPs introduce such cross-cultural awareness training to archaeologists, or cultural heritage practitioners, nor is it apparently provided in university courses in archaeology.
In the ACT, cross-cultural awareness raising sessions have been presented in the past.
… One of the most successful training exercises, for example, was that all board members went to a cultural awareness workshop exercise with Indigenous communities, which I think affected everybody because it opened perspectives, particularly from the point of view of the non-Aboriginal participants. (Mike Pearson, 190 a former member of the Interim Namadgi Advisory Committee, ACT LA 2008a:41)
Five cross-cultural training courses were provided in the ACT from 2002 to 2004 to staff of key stakeholder agencies for Aboriginal cultural heritage by a consultant,191
188 First provided to VicForests, 23 June 2011. 189 For example, this researcher observed a meeting on 12 April 2011 between the Wurundjeri and Parks Victoria arranging a major program for cross-cultural training as a component of the Victorian Aboriginal cultural heritage management system. 190 Later Chair, ACT Heritage Council. 191 ‘Graham Moore of Gurrungutti Enterprises, who was also working part time as an Aboriginal Sites Officer for NSW NPWS' (pers comm. Terence Uren email 13 May 2011). 195 Truscott – Chapter 4 – Community Having a Say? assisted by Ngunnawal Elders.192 The then Co-ordinator for the Interim Namadgi Advisory Board, Terence Uren, describes the course content (pers comm. email 13 May 2011):
… pre-contact society; the impact of European colonisation; the effect of government policy on Aboriginal people; the extent of racism and disadvantage faced by Aboriginal people today; and issues related to cross-cultural communication.
In the ACT, there is no ongoing formal cross-cultural awareness training and none for archaeologists or heritage consultants. Adrian Brown, the Ngunnawal Ranger with Parks ACT, sees cross-cultural awareness raising as a core element in his heritage interpretation tours, rather than something to be provided separately (pers comm. 15 June 2011). But it is unknown whether heritage consultants go on such site visits with this ranger, and thus gain an understanding of different Indigenous cultural perspectives of the landscape.
4.5 Challenges for Community Control?
Various issues emerge from this overview of the statutory and ethical framework for Indigenous heritage in the study areas of Victoria and the ACT. The current processes for Indigenous community participation in heritage management in Australia show an increased clarity, yet an increased complexity. Statements and definitions appear largely to meet the ideals of community archaeology: a true recognition of Indigenous communities’ say about their heritage, and their full(er) involvement. In that sense, at least for Victoria, the current system and statutes reflect community archaeology principles.
The identification of who should be involved in the decision-making process appears a clear advance. However, despite ‘hierarchies of rights’ being established in some jurisdictions, including Victoria, community conflicts and confusions continue about which Indigenous community/ies or individuals should be involved. Ongoing concern is expressed by communities relating to ‘who speaks for Country’, suggesting that
192 ‘Each course had ~25 participants. The first course (3 days and 2 nights) ran in 2002 and was attended by board members and Environment ACT managers. Two courses were run in 2003 (each 1 afternoon, 1 night and 1 full day) and were aimed at staff who were most likely to work with Aboriginal trainees employed by Environment ACT. Two further courses were run in 2004 (each 1 afternoon, 1 full day, 1 morning and 2 nights) aimed at Parks and Conservation staff who had not already attended a course.’ (pers comm. Terence Uren email 13 May 2011). 196 Truscott – Chapter 4 – Community Having a Say? current processes to identify the right community or individuals are not [always] working. The past disruption, displacement and fragmentation of Indigenous society at and since European colonisation are likely to be a reason for this difficulty, but also make understandable the urgent need for communities to (re)establish their identity by connecting to and caring for Country.
However, despite the legislation suggesting a greater say for Indigenous communities over their heritage, something is lacking. For Indigenous views expressed in the reviews of legislation in both study area jurisdictions, suggest these new processes are either not being fully implemented or are misunderstood, even in Victoria where there is genuinely a greater control.
Indigenous community concern about significance assessments is voiced about the current legislation despite the statutes in both study areas defining Indigenous heritage according to its significance to Indigenous people. The Indigenous submissions to the legislation reviews in the study areas all censure the current emphasis on ‘archaeological’ or ‘scientific’ values alone. This focus on one value is despite the EIS/EES processes clearly seeking social and historic values also. Why this persistent emphasis on the scientific values alone is unclear, other than because archaeologists are dominant in the Indigenous heritage management process. The Indigenous communities all point to an insufficient inclusion of ‘social value’ in the current heritage management practice, despite the advances made in social value assessment in heritage practice generally.
The lack of a comprehensive inclusion of all values, particularly of Indigenous knowledge and associations, such as by cultural mapping processes, is consistently raised in the Indigenous comments. As mentioned repeatedly, however, the national heritage standard that applies to all expressions of cultural heritage, including Indigenous heritage, requires all values to be identified. The above review of the definitions of heritage and significance criteria in Victoria and the ACT suggest a lack of clarity in their definition of cultural values. Whether this is a reason for not being applied sufficiently according to communities will explored by looking at significance assessment in the case study chapters on shared heritage identification (Chapter 5) and ‘development archaeology’ (Chapter 6).
197 Truscott – Chapter 4 – Community Having a Say? Perhaps the reason for the apparent discrepancy between the rhetoric and on-the-ground reality for community participation in Indigenous heritage management is related to a lack of sufficient knowledge, understanding, and capacity to apply the current systems. The theory, the statutory contexts, and the underlying recognition of Indigenous rights, should provide a platform for best practice community archaeology, but community views indicate it is not fully in place. The guide given by professional principles is one example. A possible reason is one of insufficient capacity to practise what is promoted in the new systems, this despite the professional principles and codes clearly providing guidance that closely echo the aims of community archaeology.
It is unclear whether Indigenous communities know about these principles, or whether those government agencies dealing with land management and land development, or developers, know these standards. It is equally unclear what heritage agencies or Indigenous community bodies are doing to ensure best practice that meet community archaeology ideals in Indigenous heritage management and are there models for this. These questions are investigated in the case study chapters, with more inclusive practices examined in Chapter 5, compared with the continued apparent failure to meet key aims in 'compliance archaeology' in Chapter 6.
Thus the core research focus, whether community archaeology has informed Indigenous heritage practice in Australia?, cannot be answered ‘yes’ resoundingly. It appears to be more a wish than reality. The following comparative case studies investigate possible reasons for the apparent lack of a full adoption of community archaeology by looking at Indigenous heritage management in two different land management systems for the possible answers to this question.
198 Truscott – Chapter 5 – Collaborating on Country
5 COLLABORATING ON COUNTRY
… I’m proud to be protecting their [the ancestors’] stories of Aboriginal people coming together for ceremony, marriage, trade and lore for our future generations. The Namadgi Rock Art Working Group reflects our traditional ways of meeting and exchanging knowledge, and maintaining the spiritual, social and environmental connectivity between Traditional Caretakers. (Adrian Brown, Ngunnawal Country Ranger, ACT Parks and Conservation Service) (ACT TAMS 2013b)
Introduction
Adrian Brown’s positive statement about a project in the ACT’s Namadgi National Park is one example of community members’ responses to projects analysed in this case study. It is the first of two in this research thesis, with its focus on publicly funded shared projects in protected areas, in which whether and how the community archaeology model is applied. In doing so, this research analyses key propositions for community archaeology (eg Greer et al 2002; Hollowell and Nicholas 2009) that the community archaeology model is applicable to Indigenous heritage management. Reasons given are because 'community archaeology’s application in land management contexts, such as national parks, brings about a more integrated understanding of the past and present values of Country, and benefits the relevant community.
In situating this case study and the individual reviewed projects on public land, today’s government policies that include funding Indigenous communities on public land are presented as a context for this research. Both this background information and my analysis of this case study’s collaborative projects, provide a comparison in Indigenous heritage management for the other case study on community involvement in pre-development surveys (Chapter 6).
Finding out about Country and all its values to community members is an important first step to be able to work together to ensure that management practices sustain those values. The case study projects in this chapter include reconnecting Elders with Country, teams reinstating indigenous flora, and collaborative heritage identification for future management planning. Current comprehensive methods to identify all values of Country such as cultural mapping techniques are applied in some projects and their value for a community participative approach is explored. The case study
199 Truscott – Chapter 5 – Collaborating on Country projects are analysed as to whether the processes and results are informed by the community archaeology principles. In doing so, the factors that lead to success or failure in the programs are identified.
The core research questions related to community archaeology principles are applied in this case study to test whether community archaeology indicators are met in the projects’ process, such as the level of community control over the project. Processes are examined whether or not they achieve any increased knowledge of the past and an integrated understanding of the past and meanings of Country, incorporating all sources of information. The projects are also analysed regarding whether this information is shared with the wider society.
Similarly, the projects are investigated as to the benefits received by the Indigenous communities involved in the projects, both social and economic. Examples for such benefits are well-being from the enhanced [re]connection to Country for the community, and the possible opportunities for economic well-being from such [re]engagement with Country.
The projects selected for this case study claim to enhance an integrated knowledge of Country, enable reconnections with Country, and assist cultural-natural resource management. Whether these claims are justified is one question asked in this chapter; the claims are partially met, in some projects largely. Some case study projects are moving towards formal shared heritage management. The results of this analysis indicate a strong potential for shared collaborations in ‘managing Country’ that incorporate all Indigenous heritage values.
5.1 Contexts for Collaboration Indigenous peoples around the world are claiming and … achieving recognition of land rights through a variety of legal and institutional mechanisms. … the recognition of Indigenous rights and title places a very specific onus on planning systems … how might we understand this relationship … and the lived experience of Indigenous recognition in land-use planning? (Porter and Barry 2013:9)
Control over ‘Country’ and its heritage values are likely to be enhanced where a community has legal title over Country—‘their land’. However, there is relatively little land owned outright by Indigenous communities in non-remote Australia. The
200 Truscott – Chapter 5 – Collaborating on Country following section describes the various land management arrangements in the study areas as a context for this review of collaborative heritage processes. The focus is on public land and government funded projects. As a comparative case study with Indigenous heritage and land development, this chapter seeks to identify how different contexts, such as land purpose, ownership, and administrative systems, may enable better circumstances for community archaeology collaborations for Indigenous heritage management.
5.1.1 Land Management Arrangements
Community archaeology calls for a greater control or partnership in decisions about their heritage, whether it is ‘pure’ archaeological research or land management decisions. Australia has a wide range of arrangements for a greater Indigenous community control over their Country. These partly result from a dramatic increase in Indigenous Australians’ land ownership which is now about 20% of all Australian land (AHRC 2009:124).
Such Indigenous land tenure has led to a mix of land management ‘partnerships’. Below, the land systems in place are outlined that do, or do not, enable a greater and growing connection with Country in the study areas of Victoria and the ACT. These land systems range from Indigenous land ownership, native title recognition, and various shared agreements, such as in national parks. These options provide a context for the projects analysed in this case study, for in all cases, the community did not own the land involved.
Indigenous Land Ownership
In south-eastern Australia, a high proportion of land is freehold title but there are also large areas of Crown land: national parks, other nature reserves, and forestry lands. State legislation in some states can grant certain Crown land to an Aboriginal community, and since 1993, the Native Title Act may provide access to land. The native title legislation also provides arrangements for cultural heritage management agreements with owners of leasehold or Crown land.
There are also options for Indigenous community acquisition of Crown land by the Commonwealth. The federal agency, the Indigenous Land Corporation (ILC), can
201 Truscott – Chapter 5 – Collaborating on Country purchase land on the open market for communities, often in less remote Australia (ILC 2013). 193 Providing freehold title to the community, the program is seen as part of the federal government’s ‘Closing the Gap’ policy194 (COAG 2007), and ‘assists Indigenous people to achieve ongoing economic, environmental, social and cultural benefits’ (ILC 2011a), one key criterion for such purposes being ‘access to and protection of cultural and environmental values’ (ILC 2011b), despite often being very small land parcels (Pollack 2001:ix), unlike in more remote Australia. There is no land rights legislation in either the ACT or Victoria, unlike for example the Northern Territory since 1976, or New South Wales from 1983.195
Formal ‘handbacks’ of national parks, or other ‘protected reserves’, to Indigenous communities is another means of land ownership. In such cases, there are usually lease-back agreements between the state and community for the area to continue as a national park with a majority of Aboriginal representatives on the Management Board (eg Egloff et al 2005).196
Native title claims and resultant land use agreements can give an Indigenous community a say over heritage (NNTT 2011) 197 However, Indigenous Land Use Agreements between landowner and native title claimants are largely confidential (Neate 2001:17), and therefore the provisions for cultural heritage are unclear. As a result, information is less available to Indigenous communities about the benefits of this option.
193 Established in 1995, the Indigenous Land Corporation (ILC) had acquired 244 properties across Australia up to 30 June 2013. The 2014 statistics were not available by September 2014. 194 An early federal Labor Government initiative, COAG committed itself to closing the gap in life expectancy between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians on 20 December 2007; post-dating Prime Minister’s ‘Apology’ 13 February 2008, on 20 March 2008 the Indigenous health equality summit statement of intent was signed by the Australian Government, Indigenous health bodies and the ATSI Social Justice Commissioner (www.naccho.org.au/Files/Documents/statement_intent%20signed%20copy%2020-3-8.pdf). 195 The Commonwealth’s Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976, provding almost 50% of the Territory to Indigenous communities, and the New South Wales Land Rights Act 1983. 196 Protected areas such as national parks are under state legal authority. The few exceptions are on Commonwealth land, external territories, and in the Northern Territory, where for Kakadu and Uluru- Kata Tjuta national parks the Federal Government of Australia undertakes park management on a lease-agreement with the relevant Aboriginal communities. 197 This can include various owners, those with freehold title or public ‘owners’ of Crown land, such as national parks. 202 Truscott – Chapter 5 – Collaborating on Country However, no native title claims have succeeded in the ACT, and none of native title recognitions or agreements in Victoria cover Wurundjeri Council lands. No land parcels are owned outright in the ACT, while lands owned in Victoria are small, although of considerable heritage significance. Owned land parcels and other land agreements relevant to the case studies in Victoria and the ACT are specified below regarding heritage management.
Victorian Aboriginal Land Ownership
On 19 November 2012, the title of two sites was handed to the Wurundjeri Council by the Commonwealth government (Macklin 2012). The two sites: Mt William Axe Quarry (7.510ha), and Sunbury Earthen Rings (9.078ha), were purchased by the Indigenous Land Corporation on 29 March 2011 for the Wurundjeri Council under the criterion: ‘access to and protection of cultural … values’ (ILC 2011b).198 Both these sites had long been recognised for their archaeological heritage significance, proclaimed as Archaeological Areas under s15 of the 1972 legislation, the Aboriginal and Archaeological Relics Preservation Act, at that time making them the property of the Crown. The ‘Mount William Stone Hatchet Quarry’ was also included in the National Heritage List in February 2008 (Commonwealth of Australia Gazette 2008).
Earlier ILC purchases on Wurundjeri Country are Coranderrk Homestead in 1999 and Springfield Gorge in 2000, both for the Wandoon Estate Aboriginal Corporation. Changes in recognition of the Wandoon, now considered part of the Wurundjeri Council (Aboriginal Heritage Council 2009:1). The Wandoon is considered to be part of the ‘Woi wurrung people’ by the Aboriginal Heritage Council of Victoria, who refused the Wandoon their application to be a separate Registered Aboriginal Party in 2009. As the Wandoon were members or eligible to be members of the Wurndjeri Council, the Council did not see it necessary to appoint another RAP over that Country. Currently, one section of the former mission continues to be managed by the Wandoon Estate Aboriginal Council, and another area, by the Wurunjderi Tribe.
But there has long been legal entitlement to land for Aboriginal people in Victoria. The state enacted the earliest legal ‘Aboriginal people’s entitlement to land’ in
198 These were two of 32 properties purchased by mid-2012 by the ILC program for Victorian Aboriginal communities. 203 Truscott – Chapter 5 – Collaborating on Country Australia with the Aboriginal Land Act 1970. This was in response to Aboriginal activism and public protest with the deeds of two remaining Aboriginal reserves, Lake Tyers (Ramahyuck) and Framlingham, passing to the Aboriginal communities under Trusts (MoADOPH 2000). Neither reserve is on Wurundjeri land, although many Wurundjeri were transferred to Lake Tyers Reserve in 1924, then returning to Wurundjeri Country; others went sent to Corranderrk Mission Station on Wurundjeri land.
ACT Aboriginal Land Ownership
The Indigenous Land Corporation has not purchased any land for Aboriginal community groups in the ACT, because there is no freehold title to land, all ACT land being leased for up to 99 years from the Commonwealth. The ideal that ‘No Crown land in the Territory shall be disposed of for any estate of freehold’199 was enacted for the new national capital at the time of federation.200
In 1996 and 1997, some ACT Aboriginal communities made native title claims on Namadgi National Park, and for Parliament House (Haberkern 2009). In 2001, on condition that the native title claims were withdrawn, the ACT offered a ‘Namadgi Special Aboriginal Lease’ over the Park for a period of 99 years (Haberkern 2009:1). Upon withdrawal, an agreement was reached between the ACT Native Title Claim Groups and the ACT Government (DHCS 2010; Mazel 2003), however, to date, no Special Lease arrangement has commenced nor any final co-management arrangement agreed with Indigenous communities.
The special lease offer also specified interim management arrangements for Aboriginal Parties’ involvement in managing the Park until the formal Lease commenced (eg ACT LA 2008b:11). Appointed by the relevant ACT Minister in 2001, the Interim Namadgi Advisory Board consisted of five Aboriginal members and five non-Aboriginal members (Mazel 2003),201 and between 2002 and 2005 the 2007 Namadgi National Park Plan of Management was drafted in consultation with the
199 s9 Seat of Government (Administration) Act 1910, all freehold title in the area of the capital territory, formerly NSW was rescinded and compensation made to landowners. 200 s125 Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 201 The 2001 agreement indicated that once the Namadgi Special Lease is negotiated there is to be a statutory Board of Management, with six each of Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal members. 204 Truscott – Chapter 5 – Collaborating on Country Board (ACT LA 2008b:6). The draft Plan resulted in agreements on the ‘terms and conditions for permanent cooperative management arrangements’ (Haberkern 2009:3). But before the Plan’s adoption in 2008, the Interim Namadgi Advisory Board had stopped meeting in 2006, formally ending in 2007 (ACT LA 2008b; Haberkern 2009:2). The relevant ACT parliamentary committee recommended that ‘a joint management board be established for permanent cooperative management’ (ACT LA 2008b:18). However, this was not pursued and the current 2010 Namadgi National Park Plan of Management no longer makes any strong commitment to joint management, instead stating (ACT TAMS 2010b:21):
The ACT Government is committed to Aboriginal involvement in land management and negotiations are continuing on the most appropriate arrangements to facilitate this outcome.
Despite this apparent lack of government commitment, those government staff involved in the Indigenous community’s role in Namadgi National Park, sense a ‘new call for an Interim Advisory Committee again’ pending final negotiations (pers comm. Deb Melaluca202 ACT Parks and Conservation Service 15 June 2011). Also, these staff are clear that some of the Indigenous programs implemented since the Interim Namadgi Advisory Board were appointed in 2001 are a direct result of its actions and recommendations, including the projects reviewed below.
The new actions include training and employment of Aboriginal rangers, interpretation programs, and associated training, this last as part of the Australian Alps Traditional Owners Group, formally Indigenous Reference Group (AANP 2008). Other projects have also taken place related to the park, and these are examined in this chapter regarding how well they foster both Indigenous identification of their heritage values and employment on Country, resulting in more collaborative management.
Cultural Heritage Agreements
No formal ‘Co-Management Agreements’ for protected areas such as national parks exist yet for the ACT groups or the Wurundjeri, despite having connections to
202 Deb Melaluca is both the Partnerships Coordinator - Community and Visitor Programs, and the Secretariat for the Indigenous staff: Murumbung Yurung Murra, for the ACT Parks and Conservation Service. 205 Truscott – Chapter 5 – Collaborating on Country Country in the Australian Alps. Wurundjeri land covers an area of Victoria’s Alpine National Park, and ACT groups have connections to Country in the ACT’s Namadgi National Park, and Kosciuszko National Park in NSW.
However, the Australian Alps Liaison Committee’s Indigenous Reference Group includes the ACT groups and the Wurundjeri (AALC 2008a). Advanced initially by the Cultural Heritage Working Group, the Reference Group consists of relevant Elders, and holds regular meetings. The Australian Alps Liaison Committee also provides heritage training courses dedicated to Indigenous people working in the Alps (eg AALC 2008a:3-4).
However, outside national parks, there is a stark difference between the ACT and Victoria in statutory arrangements for heritage agreements. In Victoria, agreements can be made to manage or protect Aboriginal cultural heritage with a private or public owner under the Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006 (Victoria 2006:s68), but do not appear to be applied in the ACT. In Victoria, the agreements are voluntary and ‘at least one of the parties to a cultural heritage agreement must be a registered Aboriginal party under Part 10 of the Act’ (AAV 2010a:1). Such an agreement about an Aboriginal place or object can deal with the protection, maintenance or use of land, access by Aboriginal people, or rehabilitation of a place or object (AAV 2010a:21).
These agreements can be relatively passive. For example, for one stone arrangement, the landowner agrees that the RAP has ‘access to the place four times a year to conduct maintenance and to observe ceremony’ and will fence the arrangement to protect it from stock (AAV 2010b:2). One agreement for a more active partnership in heritage management is that between Melbourne Water and the Wurundjeri Council on the Merri Creek Indigenous Community Values Project. Melbourne Water, the Victorian Government agency responsible for Melbourne’s water supply and sewage, has jointly funded, with Parks Victoria, a liaison officer with the Wurundjeri to identify the community heritage values of Melbourne’s waterways (Porter and Barry 2013:32; Melbourne Water 2013:64). This ‘partnership’ for Merri Creek is examined later in this chapter.
A provision for heritage agreements in the ACT appears to relate entirely to ‘built heritage’. Such agreements—part 15, Heritage Act 2004 (ACT Heritage 2011)—are
206 Truscott – Chapter 5 – Collaborating on Country between the Minister (of heritage) with a person, the ‘owner’, to conserve the heritage significance of the place, not between an owner and a community group (ACT Heritage 2011). No agreement has been applied to any Aboriginal place or object (pers comm. Mary Clare Swete-Kelly 26 May 2011). Despite being limited to the built environment in the past, there does not appear to be any exclusion to making such an agreement between a land manager and Aboriginal community.
5.1.2 Community, Country and Government Funding
Various governments have fostered Indigenous involvement in land management over many decades, including state-based programs for Aboriginal rangers in national parks. Increasing recognition of land rights saw the term ‘caring for country’ emerge to describe Indigenous communities managing land—their ‘Country’, for example the Northern Land Council in 1995 (Weir et al 2011:1). Federal governments also responded, enabling Indigenous communities to ‘care for Country’ according to traditional knowledge, initially in remote Australia, such as the Indigenous Protected Area (IPA) program since 1998 (DSEWPaC 2012), now across all regions.
Since 2008, the federal Labor government ‘Caring for our Country’ program203 has explicitly recognised these Indigenous projects as ‘an important part’ of the Australian Governments’ commitment to ‘Closing the Gap’ (NRM 2011b). Despite its title,204 the program includes broad-ranging natural resource management.205 The program incorporates Indigenous projects, recognising that natural resource management (NRM) can provide continuity for a ‘traditional’ Aboriginal approach to Country, integrating cultural and natural resource management (CNRM). Various reviews of ‘caring for country’ land management partnerships indicate benefits to Indigenous communities and that the Indigenous perspective is valuable to sustaining biodiversity (eg Weir et al 2011; Hunt et al 2009).
203 Caring for our Country and natural resource management policies are jointly managed by the Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities and the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, see www.nrm.gov.au. 204 Overtaking the previous ‘Caring for Country’ program that was dedicated to Indigenous land and heritage management. 205 Replacing the previous Natural Heritage Trust programs (see www.nht.gov.au/). 207 Truscott – Chapter 5 – Collaborating on Country Funding is under an array of different projects categories,206 including direct funding to community groups, such as Indigenous bodies. Catchment management authorities or natural resource management organisations (NRM 2011a) also receive funding for projects that include Indigenous communities.
Ngunnawal Country Control
In the ACT, no funding from the Caring for our Country program, or its precursors,207 has gone directly to any Aboriginal community; it is unclear whether any grants have been sought. Instead Caring for our Country has funded the ACT NRM Council, with a strong commitment to Indigenous engagement in its Business Plan (ACT NRM Council 2009).208 The Council also has an Indigenous member from the Canberra descendant Indigenous families.209 An Indigenous NRM Facilitator, within the ACT government unit that acts as the NRM Secretariat, is the key contact between the ACT NRM Council and the Canberra ‘Ngunnawal’ families (pers comm. John Feint Manager NRM Program ESDD 1 April 2011).
Aims are that by 2015 ‘Traditional knowledge has actively influenced significant decision making in Namadgi National Park and more broadly …’ and by 2020 a doubling from 2008 of ‘Indigenous employment and active participation in natural resource management’ (ACT NRM Council 2009:60). Various Indigenous projects have been funded under the Caring for our Country program since 2008,210 and community activities, such as ‘bush tucker tours’, have developed as a result,
206 ‘Business Plans’, ‘Community Action Grants’, and other funding. 207 Caring for our Country integrates the Australian Government's previous natural resource management initiatives, including the Natural Heritage Trust, the National Landcare Program, the Environmental Stewardship Program and the Working on Country Indigenous land and sea ranger programs (Caring for our Country website: www.nrm.gov.au/about/caring/). 208 ‘The Council is a non-statutory advisory committee to the Minister for the Environment and Sustainable Development. The Council's operations are supported by the Australian Government's Caring for our Country Initiative and ACT Government complementary funding.’ (www.actnrmcouncil.org.au) The Council is supported by and administered from within the ACT public service. 209 Currently, Ms Caroline Hughes (appointed until October 2014), of the Bell clan from the Ngunnawal Nation, traditional owners of the ACT and Region[perhaps this should be a sentence]. As Director of the Yurauna Indigenous Centre at the Canberra Institute of Technology, Ms Hughes has been involved in the development and implementation of the accredited Conservation and Land Management program for Indigenous employees, a program initiated and developed by the ACT NRM Council through Caring for our Country funding. (from www.actnrmcouncil.org.au/about/council/members#ross). 210 Building on past projects since 1997 when the first National Heritage Trust funding started. 208 Truscott – Chapter 5 – Collaborating on Country although the total funding to Indigenous projects is unclear from NRM reports. These include:
2009-10: A Natural Resource Management Program for ACT Schools: Understanding the Land through the Eyes of the Ngunnawal People (ACT NRM Council 2010)
2010-11, 2011-12: Green Team ‘Yurung Dhaura’ (ACT ESDD 2012a:147, 2013b:307)
2011-12, 2012-13: Traditional Ecological Knowledge identification with Elders on Country Workshops (part of Yurung Dhaura project) (ACT NRM Council 2011a)
2012-13: ‘Ngunnawal Warriors’, an extension of the Yurung Dhaura Green Team beyond the Cotter (planned for 2012-13) – part of additional funding of $2,718,000 over two years ending 2012-13, NRM 2011d; ACT NRM Council 2011:b)
2011-12: Ngunnawal Bush Resources Book (ACT ESDD 2012b:279)
Wurundjeri Country Control
In Victoria, the Wurundjeri Council received direct Caring for our Country (CfoC) funding towards Indigenous projects, in contrast to funding arrangements in the ACT. The Wurundjeri Council received a total of $473,000 over three years (2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12) from the CfoC program. Some of this funding came to the Wurundjeri Council via the Port Phillip Westernport Catchment Management Authority (PPWCMA). Each year’s funding had a different focus, but as shown below, the projects are connected, all aiming to strengthen a Wurundjeri reconnection with Country.
Direct funding to the Wurundjeri Council gives the community a greater say in what projects it proposes, but also a greater responsibility in the implementation of the projects. The Wurundjeri Council response has been to employ a part-time facilitator (Wurundjeri Council Narrap Plan Manager) to steer the projects with the Wurundjeri Elders, and liaise with government and other partners. This role is financed by some of its grant funding. The following are the funded projects:
209 Truscott – Chapter 5 – Collaborating on Country
2009-10: ‘Wurundjeri Country Plan and Partnership Framework – Stage 1’: $150,000211 allocated from the Catchment Authority (PPWCMA 2010:13), which was later named the ‘Narrap212 Country Plan’
2010-11: ‘Wurundjeri Traditional Ecological Knowledge for biodiversity conservation’: $125,000 allocated (PPWCMA 2011:29)
2011-12: ‘Wurundjeri Country Management and Training’: $198,000 direct grant (NRM 2011c)213
2012-13: ‘Remnant vegetation restoration on Merri Creek’, involving local and Indigenous communities: $87,938 allocated to the Merri Creek Management Committee Inc (NRM 2012)
The first funding was both to [re]connect community with Country and to draft a ‘country plan’.214 A draft Narrap Country Plan was completed in late 2010 with its statement ‘Understanding Country’ explaining the Wurundjeri ‘irrevocable and continuing associations with each other and our land and water’ (WTLCCHC 2010:4). The draft Plan stresses that ‘there is no distinction between the natural and cultural worlds’, and notes challenges related to Working in Country, with some ‘first steps’ as future priorities (WTLCCHC 2010:8,10-15,16-18): - Exploring direct management and co-management arrangements - Retention of undeveloped Country within the metropolis - Mechanisms for easy access to Country and its resources - Cultural Mapping and Cultural Ecological Knowledge - Advancing Our Knowledge about our Heritage - Cultural Awareness Training - Building our Organisational Capacity - Sharing our ‘model’ with other Traditional Owners
This Wurundjeri plan for ways to maintain, retain, and sustain connections to Country gives a framework for community activities, such as tours on Country. A later stage of
211 Funded by the Port Phillip and Westernport Catchment Management Authority (PPWCMA), as part of $495,000 for community projects of a total of $2,996,000 to PPWCMA in 2009-10 for one year (www.nrm.gov.au/funding/approved/2009-10/pubs/2009-10-base-level-approved.pdf). 212 ‘Narrap’ meaning ‘ground’ or ‘country’ in the Woiwurrung language (WT 2010:1). 213 From the Caring for our Country Business Plan open call process, and based on the completion of a Country Plan and the acquisition of Mt William and Sunbury sites. 214 A ’country plan’ is A Caring for Country Plan is a landmark document that was developed with extensive consultation with Traditional Owner groups. It was developed to compliment the regional natural resource management plan and ensure that Traditional Owner aspirations for land and water management are adequately represented. 210 Truscott – Chapter 5 – Collaborating on Country this Narrap Country Plan prioritises tasks and timeframes to achieve these goals, and identifies the necessary resources and partners (WTLCCHC 2011b). For although receiving direct grants, the Wurundjeri Council sought and received advice from PPWCMA’s Regional Landcare Coordinator (PPWCMA 2011:16). The Wurundjeri Council has also developed partnerships for its projects with PPWCMA, as well as Parks Victoria and Melbourne Water (PPWCMA 2011:29).
5.2 ‘Caring for our Country’
Individual projects funded by ‘Caring for our Country’ in the case study areas are reviewed below as to how well they meet community archaeology indicators. The analysis focuses on the processes of gathering community knowledge and the benefits gained by the community. Clear community benefits emerge from this analysis, although limited by the short-term, stop-start nature of the projects or shifts in funding priorities.
5.2.1 Reconnecting with Country Due to the displacement of Wurundjeri people in the past Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK) is not always available within the Community. Some is found within in books and other historical records. An important part of determining the cultural importance place was compiling known historical and ethno-historical sources. The collection and review of written sources for this project provided a means for Wurundjeri members to re-examine the history of connections to place. (WTLCCHC 2012:7)
The Caring for our Country (CfoC) program has a priority to include ‘community skills, knowledge and engagement’ in natural resource management. One means is to ‘Ensure the continued use, support, and reinvigoration of traditional ecological knowledge to underpin biodiversity conservation’ (NRM 2011b). Despite this explicit recognition of an integrated ‘cultural and natural resource management’ (CNRM), the reviewed projects below suggest that this is not so readily achieved.
Wurundjeri Elders on Country
The first Caring for our Country funding to the Wurundjeri Council aimed to ‘engage[d] Wurundjeri people in discussing and deciding on the environmental and cultural assets on traditional country’ (PPWCMA 2011:29). A draft ‘Country Plan’
211 Truscott – Chapter 5 – Collaborating on Country resulted from a range of activities (WTLCCHC 2010). Central to the Plan’s activities was taking Elders onto Country to places they knew of but had not visited before (pers comm. Kristal Buckley, Manager Major Projects, Wurundjeri Council, 12 April 2011). Being on, and knowing Country, was not possible for many of the older Wurundjeri community members when younger in Victoria, limited by the former government policies of reservation, removal, or assimilation. The approach emphasised cultural mapping and ‘cultural ecological knowledge’, and was very similar to that used four decades earlier for the NSW Sacred Sites survey work (see Chapter 2), and Egloff’s work at Mumbulla Mountain in 1977 (1979).
One example of a cultural heritage place Wurundjeri Elders visited while developing the Country Plan is Bullum Bullum Aboriginal Place, near Deer Park on the Kororoit Creek. A Declared Aboriginal Place,215 this major archaeological site has 'the strongest concentration of prehistoric materials to be described in the inland reaches of the Melbourne area’ (Egloff 1988). The area is also important for its rare flora and fauna, notably the Striped Legless Lizard (Delma impar), and the ‘Bullum Bullum’, meaning ‘white butterfly’ in the Woiwurrung language.216 Bullum Bullum’s conservation management plan (Context 2000; PPWCMA 2003) is implemented by a joint management committee with the Wurundjeri Council, Aboriginal Affairs Victoria, other state agencies, local governments, and community interests.217
The Narrap Plan project also aimed to reconnect all the Wurundjeri community with Country. Elders’ visits on Country, and Men’s and Women’s camps and a Children’s Day were all held ‘on Country; and shared with other community members by a newsletter, ‘Narrap Bulletin’. The newsletter also provided updates on the drafting of the Country Plan, and Elders and Wurundjeri staff shared their achievements at conferences (such as AAA). The newsletter reported on the development of natural resource management skills by the Green Team project, discussed below. Such
215 And as such acquired by the state in 1989 by the State Government as Crown Land. 216 Spoken by the Wurundjeri and other groups in the region. 217 The Advisory Committee of management agencies includes representatives from the Wurundjeri Tribe Land & Compensation Cultural Heritage Council, Kulin Nation Cultural Heritage Organisation, Aboriginal Affairs Victoria, Shire of Melton, City of Brimbank, Local residents, Koori Gardening Team, DNRE, Melbourne Water, Victoria University of Technology and Mowbray College. (PPWCMA 2003). 212 Truscott – Chapter 5 – Collaborating on Country sharing of the Elders’ reconnections with Country with the wider Wurundjeri community allowed younger generations a fuller engagement with this project.
The second stage funding from Caring for our Country forced changing priorities from the Narrap Country Plan’s initial aims. The priority was instead to identify ‘traditional ecological knowledge’ (WTLCCHC 2011b). However, a contribution to the broader Country Plan concept was met by developing traditional knowledge protocols that define TEK and set out a framework for the use of TEK within natural resource management (WTLCCHC 2012).
The Wurundjeri Elders and community developed the Wurundjeri TEK Protocols with the Narrap Plan Manager. Wurundjeri partners consulted included: the Port Phillip and Westernport Catchment Management Authority, Melbourne Water, and Parks Victoria. Considerable emphasis is placed in the Protocols on the integrated cultural-natural quality of Country and its values, stressing that natural projects must include Wurundjeri input to identify and protect associated cultural connections. Wurundjeri intellectual and economic rights to those values and heritage are strongly emphasised throughout the text.
Wurundjeri partners, such as Melbourne Water, have issues about the strong Wurundjeri claims for intellectual property, that are currently being negotiated before formal statutory partnership agreements are signed (pers comm. Fiona McConachie Wurundjeri Council Narrap Plan Manager 17 December 2012). The issues include the control by Wurundjeri Elders in any land management decisions made in the Wurundjeri area, and that ‘All cultural values determined by the Wurundjeri Council and its members remain the property of the Wurundjeri Council’ (WTLCCHC 2012:4). It is understood that Melbourne Water preferred to continue a shared decision process based on shared responsibility for heritage. By the end of 2014, no partnership agreement had been signed, yet Melbourne Water continues to work collaboratively with the Wurundjeri Council on heritage matters (Melbourne Water 2014:39).218
218 It is understood informally that Melbourne Water is planning to develop a reconciliation plan to build improved partnerships with Traditional Owner Groups, including RAPs. 213 Truscott – Chapter 5 – Collaborating on Country ACT Elders on Country Workshops
The Caring for our Country project in the ACT that fostered Canberra Elders to visit Country had a different project management approach. It was funded and facilitated by the NRM team within the ACT government. Participants for this ‘going on Country’ TEK program were members of the United Ngunnawal Elders Council, alternative members, other Aboriginal community members, the Yurung Dhaura team members, and Indigenous staff of the ACT Heritage Unit— some 25 in all. It was emphasised and agreed that community members were participating as individuals, not as representatives of the different and differing Canberra Aboriginal family groups, given the ongoing conflict between the groups as to which has traditional ownership of the land (pers comm. Jo Donovan Indigenous NRM Facilitator 19 January 2012). However, given that the four RAOs in the ACT were in disagreement about who ‘spoke for Country’ (eg ACT 2012), this arrangement was perhaps the more strategic.
Identification of a ‘birthing tree’ in the Orroral Valley219 in Namadgi National Park is an example of a place of traditional value identified by Canberra Elders on Country (pers comm. Jo Donovan Indigenous NRM Facilitator 18 November 2011). This recognition took place in August 2011 as part of the CfoC funded three-day workshop. The field day was preceded with a day’s introduction to ‘traditional ecological knowledge’ concepts to the participants, and followed by a day debriefing and planning future activities.220
These workshops and visit on Country built on an earlier ‘site awareness’ session to start identifying community values. That process included two days dedicated to only Indigenous participants, providing them space to gain ‘ownership’ and gain confidence, in view of the ‘shame thing’,221 an Indigenous community expression for
219 That also has historic heritage sites such as the remains of the Orroral Valley [Space] Tracking Station and the Orroral Valley Homestead are found. 220 Held at the ACT Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Cultural Centre, Yarramundi Reach, Canberra. 221 The concept of shame used by Aboriginal English speakers is broader than the non-Indigenous use of the word. The meaning of shame extends to include embarrassment in certain situations (Leitner & Malcolm 2007:169) and is often due to attention or circumstances rather than as the result of an action by oneself (Vallance & Tchacos 2001). The feeling of shame can totally overwhelm and disempower a person. 214 Truscott – Chapter 5 – Collaborating on Country embarrassment, over their fragmented knowledge of Country (pers comm. Jo Donovan Indigenous NRM Facilitator 19 January 2012). On the last day non- Indigenous land managers, such as Namadgi Park rangers, and representatives from Catchment Management Authorities, joined Indigenous community members at the workshop, to share their different understandings of heritage and its management.
The ‘tool’ used for recording the birthing tree was a ‘Values and Interests Recording Form’ developed in NSW, presented to the workshop participants by the facilitator Mick Kelly (Heritage Information Officer, Balranald Area Far West region, NSW Office of Environment and Heritage). This form identifies two key categories of Aboriginal ‘interest’: ‘Activities on Country values’ or ‘Country values’ as shown below (see full form Attachment 3): - The ‘activities on Country values’ refer to ‘cultural, spiritual, social and /or economic practice’ at a place - Country values’ refer to ‘physical and, cultural observances and beliefs’
Each of these has various sub-categories as evidence of ‘Country values’, for example, ‘birthing places’ is part of the ‘ceremony and traditional practices’ group.
Table 14: From NSW ‘Values and Interests Recording Form’ Country Values (Mick Kelly, Heritage Information Officer, Balranald Area Far West region, NSW Office of Environment and Heritage)
The benefits for the community from the application of this form and the accompanying process are explained by Kelly (pers comm. 18 September 2014) as:
… what we call the Values, Interests and Priorities (VIP) … process … the access to land that the community valued as high along with their sites within the landscape. Without the access to Country they can’t maintain connection to places and sites which is a major key to Aboriginal peoples’ identity as they belong to the land … all leading to the final outcome … a healthy individual, family and community … they now call this Well-being.
215 Truscott – Chapter 5 – Collaborating on Country It is not clear how well this form’s types of places, or values, developed in far western NSW, relate to Country values as understood in Ngunnawal/Ngambri/Ngarigu Country. The ACT area has very different landscape and language groups. Also, it is unclear what consultation with the communities in Canberra took place before the form’s use, and it was recommended to the ACT Heritage Unit to adopt using the form, which it has yet to do (pers comm Daisy Chaston ACT Heritage Unit 17 September 2014).
This identification by ACT Elders of Country values was included as part of the Yurung Dhaura ‘green team’ project (see below), characterised as ‘documenting community traditional ecological knowledge’ (ACT ESDD 2011a). The workshop process allowed knowledge to be shared among community Elders, and with the younger Yurung Dhaura team. It is however unclear what confidentiality arrangements were assured, although the team was required to obtain Elders’ permission before the results of TEK were incorporated in biodiversity conservation management at the Cotter (pers comm. Jo Donovan Indigenous NRM Facilitator 18 November 2011).
Further field days on Country and workshops have been held since, with more planned—and held, over the summer of 2012-13 before the end of the funding for the Yurung Dhaura team (pers comm. Jo Donovan, Indigenous NRM Facilitator, ACT NRM Facilitator 18 November 2011; COAG 2012:73-74). The Yurung Dhaura team and Caring for the Cotter project are cited as an exemplar case study for the goal in the federal Government’s Native Vegetation Framework to ‘advance the engagement and inclusion of Indigenous peoples in management of native vegetation’ and that by 2016 ‘culturally appropriate approaches have been implemented that involve Indigenous peoples in native vegetation management’ (COAG 2012:72). The Indigenous ‘green team’ program, such as the Yurung Dhaura project in the ACT, as well as implemented in Victoria are analysed below.
5.2.2 Green Teams – Working in Country
Capacity building is a key aspect of the community archaeology ideal. The Caring for our Country program’s priority is to access ‘community skills, knowledge and engagement’ in natural resource management, and increase community participation
216 Truscott – Chapter 5 – Collaborating on Country (NRM 2012). This aim has led to Indigenous teams being funded to work on Country, at the same time providing training to them.
‘Working on Country’ funded rangers in national parks are one component of the CfoC program, another priority are ‘Green Teams’. The Green Team program in both the ACT and with the Wurundjeri in Victoria forms another case study in this chapter.
Caring for the Cotter Yurung Dhaura Team - ACT … Applicants will Work on Country in the ACT and will undertake a range of tasks including pest animal and weed control, collecting and growing native trees and planting tree seedlings on areas of land that need to be repaired, water quality testing, building paths and fences and protecting and interpreting Aboriginal culture and heritage. … Evidence of Aboriginal descent … Willingness to work outdoors and undertake study. (ACT 2011a)
This advertisement led to the first four members of the ACT Green Team program to be contracted for two years from 2010-11 to 2012-13 funded by the Caring for our Country program (ACT NRM Council 2011a). Named the ‘Yurung Dhaura’ (Strong Earth) team by the ACT United Ngunnawal Elders Council, in July 2013 the team won the ACT NAIDOC ‘Caring for Country’ award (Chivers 2013).
The Yurung Dhaura team consisted of three males and one female, with an Indigenous team leader, in temporary public service positions for two years until June 2013.222 The Yurung Dhaura team project was part of a larger collaborative effort with other community groups, funded $877,000 for the ‘Caring for the Cotter Catchment’ project (NRM 2010).
The Yurung Dhaura Green Team’s project was to assist its members ‘to work on Country in biodiversity conservation and land management’, as part of the larger project (ACT NRM Council 2011a). The team experienced a mix of work and training: four days a week working in the field with on-the-job training, and one day studying at the Canberra Institute of Technology (CIT) 223. The team’s main task was to ‘restore at least 76ha of high conservation ecosystems and protect at least 6.4km of
222 The positions for this team as ‘Aboriginal Land Management Trainees’ with an annual salary of $42,000, were advertised on 20 January 2011, as was that of the Team Supervisor, with a salary of $65,000. ASO Class 2 and ASO Class 5 respectively in the ACT public service. 223 The ACT name for its technical and further education institution (TAFE). 217 Truscott – Chapter 5 – Collaborating on Country streambank in the catchment’, massively damaged in the 2003 bushfires224 (ACT NRM Council 2011a).
Another community volunteer group, the non-Indigenous Greening Australia Team, both partnered and trained the Yurung Dhaura group, and described their achievements (Greening Australia 2011):
… So far the team have learnt seed collecting and processing techniques, planting techniques, nursery care, seed propagation, riparian restoration, vegetation and biodiversity monitoring and are assisting Greening Australia in developing a Bush Tucker garden funded by an ACT Environment Grant 2011-12. …
Between December and April 2011 the Yurung Dhaura team had ‘exceeded some of their restoration targets’ (ACT NRM Council 2011a), such as laying pig baits, removing pine tree wildings, and planting one hectare with native trees and shrubs (ACT NRM Council 2011a). These descriptions of this green team’s fieldwork are couched in natural environment scientific terms, with no reference to cultural heritage, or Country, in this or any other reports. These summaries ignore the team’s role to also identify TEK with Elders. However, replacing exotic plants—burnt out by the 2003 wildfires, with edible native plants225 is presented in the Canberra Times as ‘Healing the land with food, medicine’ (Thomson 2012:13), providing a stronger sense of ‘caring for Country’, and cultural renewal.
The focus on the natural environment is also demonstrated in the content of the Yurung Dhaura team’s CIT Certificate II and III courses. Only three if 62 elective units in the Certificate II course are on cultural heritage, the majority being horticulture, with others on land management and business studies (CIT 2011a). The subsequent Certificate III Conservation and Land Management course has only one unit related to cultural heritage (CIT 2011b), its structure highlighting a separation of science and culture in a rather ‘western’ approach.
224 The 2003 bushfires burnt out 164,000 hectares in the ACT, being almost 70% of the Territory (total 240,000ha) (ACT 2009:7). 225 Native bulbine lily and berries of the tufted perennial herb Diaella longifolia (Canberra Times 2012:13) 218 Truscott – Chapter 5 – Collaborating on Country Later Caring for our Country funding in 2011-12, 2012-13 sought a wider involvement of young Indigenous Canberrans.226 Titled ‘Ngunnawal Warriors – Aboriginal Youth Connecting to Country’, the project is no longer as a ‘green team’ working in Country, but is a broader capacity building project envisaged to equip the young with ‘traditional and contemporary bush skills, cultural interpretation techniques, leadership tools and land and natural resource management methods, … and skills to secure future employment’ (ACT NRM Council 2011b). This project clearly intends to enable a greater re-engagement with Country, a stated aim being to ‘develop pride in their cultural heritage’ (ACT NRM Council 2011b). Since July 2013, the CfoC has not funded any Indigenous projects in the ACT.
Wurundjeri Narrap Team
In Melbourne, Victoria, the Wurundjeri Council established the Narrap green team in the second year of the Caring for our Country funding. The aim was to manage the natural resources in the three areas owned by the Wurundjeri, particularly Sunbury Rings, and Mt William. Although these two sites were not formally handed back until October 2012 (Macklin 2012), a management plan flagging Wurundjeri actions had been prepared earlier (pers comm. Fiona McConachie Wurundjeri Council Narrap Plan Manager 17 December 2012).
The Narrap Team consists of three Wurundjeri community members, all male, and one non-Indigenous team leader,227 paid out of the CfoC funds, with similar salary levels as paid in the ACT. Also as in the ACT, TAFE Certificate III training is a program requirement. The team are primarily involved in removing exotic weeds and replacing them with indigenous plants. The team also operates in other areas of Wurundjeri Country, such as along Merri Creek. For example, in spring 2012, the Narrap Team dug up and separated the tubers of chocolate lilies (Dichopogon strictus) to enhance their propagation,228 in partnership with the Merri Creek Management
226 Part of $2,718,000 CfoC funding over two years, ending 2012-13. 227 It had been intended to stipulate that this role be undertaken by an Indigenous person (pers comm. Fiona McConachie 17 December 2012). 228 Spread of this plant is understood to have been maintained in the past as part of traditional gathering of the tubers as food. 219 Truscott – Chapter 5 – Collaborating on Country Committee (pers comm. Fiona McConachie Wurundjeri Council Narrap Plan Manager email 5 October 2012).
The Narrap Team also leads community volunteers onto Country on ‘cultural days’ to assist transplantations, and renew, enhance and sustain community connections to Country. The program has taken Elders to more distant parts of Wurundjeri land, such as for a picnic at Mt William since the handover (pers. comm. Fiona McConachie Wurundjeri Council Narrap Plan Manager email 17 December 2012).
The Narrap team funding from CfoC ended in mid-2013, with further funding sought for some short-term projects under the program’s ‘Community for Action’ grants. But the short-term nature of funding makes any certain long-term employment unlikely and a more precarious economic benefit for the community. In the future, the Wurundjeri plan to go on a business footing and be paid for services in managing land for local governments.
5.2.3 Comments
The Caring for our Country Indigenous projects analysed here all have a strong natural environment perspective. This is despite the Caring for our Country program statements recognising the Indigenous all-inclusive approach to ‘Country’, with no natural-cultural heritage divide.
The Caring for Cotter Yurung Dhaura project is an example of this attitude, with its emphasis on the removal of exotic plants and maintaining native species. Similarly, the Wurundjeri Narrap Team’s role is to ensure indigenous plants continue in the peri-urban Melbourne grasslands. The program’s TAFE level training for Indigenous community members barely includes cultural heritage management, and has no emphasis on an integrated approach. Nonetheless, the ACT Yurung Dhaura Team members say they ‘now feel empowered and have increased self-esteem, confidence, pride and positivity from being gainfully employed in work they value’ (ACT EPD 2014a).
Similarly, both ‘Going on Country’ in the ACT and the Wurundjeri Elders’ Narrap Country Plan facilitated positive outcomes for the communities. These projects
220 Truscott – Chapter 5 – Collaborating on Country prompted strengthened connections and shared story and memory passed on by forebears since European settlement, and from the Elders to younger community members. Such generational transmission took place in the ACT with the young Yurung Dhaura green team interviewing elders as part of the ‘Going on Country’ project related to their indigenous vegetation project and the subsequent development of the Ngunnawal Plant Use field guide book (ACT EPD 2014b). In Victoria, the Narrap newsletter shared Elders’ stories and experiences of Country with the wider Wurundjeri community, again including the Narrap Green Team, about indigenous plants and their place in Country. In both study areas, guided walks on Country have increased, and in the ACT exhibits about indigenous plant foods are shown at Floriade since 2012 (ACT EPD 2014a). The visits to Country did not include any aspect of archaeological heritage in the ACT. However in Victoria, the Wurundjeri Elders were introduced to Bullum Bullum, an important site giving them an insight into how archaeology provides other perspectives of Country.
The level of control varied between the study areas. In the ACT, the projects were co-ordinated by the NRM secretariat within the ACT environment agency, by an Indigenous manager, although not of the Canberra community. In Victoria, Wurundjeri Council staff, albeit non-Indigenous, co-ordinated their Caring for our Country projects. However, neither community can plan ahead for the longer-term under this program, given the precarious and changing nature of its funding.
5.3 Cultural Heritage Collaborations
Collaborative projects aimed at improved management of identified Indigenous heritage values are analysed below. The two examples are different, yet similar. Both projects entail gathering Indigenous views of their heritage together with archaeological knowledge. The differences are that the ACT project centres on a single site type: rock art, whereas in Melbourne, a wider exploration of all known values is assembled for an area of Country. Their similarity is the strong community input in both case studies, and both generally follow the community archaeology model. Scientific values from previous archaeological studies are shared as well as gathering community knowledge, and both projects economically benefit the community. As such, each project provides an exemplar for heritage practice in these regions and more widely. 221 Truscott – Chapter 5 – Collaborating on Country 5.3.1 Namadgi Rock Art Collaboration The Conservation Management Plan for Namadgi’s rock art sites protects and maintains Indigenous culture through shared decisions and actions guided by the Namadgi Rock Art Group. The work is also contributing significantly to building better partnerships for local Aboriginal groups with Park management and will have long-term benefits for the preservation of the stories and cultural heritage values of rock art sites, and will develop ongoing opportunities for the traditional custodians to participate in monitoring, maintenance and interpretation of these important spiritual places. (Landcare ACT 2011)
The Namadgi Rock Art Working Group won the 2011 Indigenous Landcare Award229 for ‘working towards culturally sustainable land use and/or enhancing or protecting an area on behalf of the community’ (ACT ESDD 2011, 2012a:149). This Canberra Indigenous working group was formed for the Namadgi National Park Rock Art Conservation Project in 2009, a project that developed an increasingly collaborative approach over its next three years, as acknowledged by this national award.
The project’s task was to prepare a conservation management plan (CMP) for the seven heritage-listed rock art sites in the national park.230 The plan was developed based on the Burra Charter process, and in a highly participative collaboration to integrate all community knowledge with past archaeological results. This approach has resulted in a longer-term Indigenous community advisory role for their heritage in this national park.
Namadgi National Park lies in the west and southwest of the ACT and is part of the Australian Alps. Declared in 1984, the Park is 106,095 hectares, being 46% of the Territory. The rock art sites all lie at the base of steep valley slopes over 1000 metres above sea level, the subject of past rock art studies (Officer 1989), and archaeological research (eg Flood 1971, 1973, 1980, Flood et al 1987), and historic contact (eg Avery 1994; Truscott et al 2006) and the 1912 survey map (NAA 2014). No overall archaeological survey covers the Park or the rock art surrounds, instead site recordings are added to the GIS map when identified randomly or as part of other projects.
229 Given by Leighton Holdings 230 Middle Creek, Nursery Swamp I, II, III, Rendezvous Creek, Yankee Hat I, II. 222 Truscott – Chapter 5 – Collaborating on Country The Namadgi Rock Art project was triggered by the 2003 bushfires that burnt 95% of the park.231 The sites had extensive damage, particularly the three open to the public, as wooden viewing platforms and interpretation signage located under the rock overhang burnt fiercely, impacting the paintings on the rock shelter surfaces (INRAWG 2009). All the Namadgi rock art sites needed long-term conservation, management planning, and monitoring to be developed in the conservation management plan. The CMP brief for the rock art sites also required an updated statement of the significance for the group of sites and individually, asking for a ‘stronger reflection of Aboriginal cultural significance’, with (INRAWG 2009:1):
… a need to consider the sites in their group and landscape context, and recognition of the importance of the sites as ongoing locations for education both within the Aboriginal community and in the broader community.
Partnerships
A working group was set up comprising all relevant Indigenous groups as The Interim Namadgi Rock Art Working Group (INRAWG). The group included all four RAOs, the United Ngunnawal Elders Council, and Parks and Conservation Indigenous staff or trainees,232 and ACT Heritage Unit staff, these latter ACT government Indigenous staff forming the ‘Murumbung Yurung Murra’ (INRAWG 2009:30-31).
This project was partially funded by ACT Heritage Grants over three years, 2008-09 to 2010-11. This funding did not go to the ACT Indigenous communities but to the heritage consultant Stepwise Heritage and Tourism.233 Other support came from ACT Parks, Conservation and Lands, a project partner as the management agency for Namadgi National Park, providing staff, meeting venues, and field logistics. The Indigenous participants were initially not paid; later it was agreed that sitting fees and travel costs would be paid to the interim working group members.
The extension of the project to three years from the original one year, was encouraged by the heritage consultant who suggested that a better Conservation Management Plan
231 The bushfires also destroyed >500 houses in Canberra with four deaths. 232 Not necessarily members of Canberra Indigenous descent communities. 233 2008-09 $16,150; 2009-10 HG09/40 $16,685; 2010-11 $18,336 223 Truscott – Chapter 5 – Collaborating on Country would be delivered by staged activities centrally involving both the Indigenous community and park managers (INRAWG 2009:3; Wilson et al 2010).
Finding Indigenous views and values We see the rock art sites of Namadgi as a powerful reminder of the long connection people have with the landscape. The sites provide us with an opportunity to appreciate, understand and respect Namadgi as a cultural landscape, and to respect Aboriginal culture, past, present and future. (Members of the Namadgi Rock Art Working Group 2010)
Indigenous views are welcomed and gathered from the outset of the project, a result of an intentionally participative planning approach. This method was part of the argument for the CMP’s longer timeframe. The process included various iterative consultative steps with members of the local Indigenous communities and others. The project consultant supported the Working Group in their deliberations and facilitated the process through the stages. These stages are based on the Burra Charter and Ask First models, and reflect the ongoing commitment by participants (Wilson et al 2010): - A comprehensive audit of all previous studies, research and technical reports that included the results of past consultation - Telephone calls to RAOs to introduce the project (September 2008) - A one-day issues and ideas session (1 October 2008) - Individual sessions with each RAO in their settings (homes) (May 2009) - A four-day Rock Art Site Monitoring and Maintenance Course (May 2009) - A four-day Conservation Management Planning Workshop (June and August 2009) - A five-day field program to implement a new systematic monitoring program (March 2010) - Record keeping, storage etc
The project consultant claims success in establishing a co-operative approach among the Indigenous groups (INRAWG 2009:31):
In spite of the differences that exist between certain families and groups in the region, consultation with members of the ACT Indigenous community prior to the CMP workshop demonstrate that there is an overall aspiration for ‘inclusiveness’, and a strong desire for increased involvement of traditional owners and custodians in the management of the Namadgi rock art sites.
The Indigenous participants were said to show an increasing understanding and confidence in operating within this cross-cultural heritage planning forum. The initial ‘brainstorm’ of ideas in October 2008, that included non-Indigenous stakeholders,
224 Truscott – Chapter 5 – Collaborating on Country ‘identified around 100 issues that were then grouped into themes to assist the conservation planning process’ (AALC 2008-09). The priority was given to Indigenous community issues, privileging Indigenous perspectives in the management of the sites (from INRAWG 2009:102, Appendix E): - identifying the priority of a community perspective on decisions - acknowledging and respecting traditional owners and elders - fostering ongoing knowledge with visits by Aboriginal children and a mentoring program
Priority was also given to consultation and liaison reinforcing these points, impressing Euroka Gilbert, ACT Heritage Aboriginal Liaison Officer, ‘by the high priority that the participants placed on community consultation, both with the Aboriginal community and the wider community’ (AALC 2008b:4). A greater profile of the community understanding of the sites was achieved by (INRAWG 2009:102-3, Appendix E): - inclusive decision-making and effective consultation mechanisms - better communication between government and traditional owners - more information to the public and politicians
The Indigenous group also saw a need to identify and agree on public stories, and consider Indigenous names for the sites. The Working Group also raised the question of repainting the rock art, although not pursued in the project or management plan.
The RAOs gave a greater emphasis to the sites themselves and their significance rather than broader connections to Country in individual consultation in May 2009 (INRAWG 2009:47): - The sites need to be considered in their landscape context - These sites are part of our cultural knowledge and therefore need to be protected. If we lose our cultural knowledge we cannot pass it on - These sites are important for instilling a sense of pride in our community - These sites are significant because they connect people to place - These sites are connected to people’s identity
These views express the ‘social value’ of these sites for the Canberra Indigenous families. Prior to this project, individual communities or community members had shared some of their general understandings and stories of this area in various publications or guided tours (eg Bell 1999, 2003; House 2003; C Brown 2007). Also, presentations as part of cultural and heritage seminars and symposia provided a platform to present community connections with the landscape (eg House 2009).
225 Truscott – Chapter 5 – Collaborating on Country These previous accounts were rarely connected to specific sites or spaces but provided a sense of place that became more grounded in this project, with its specific focus on the rock art sites.
Indigenous understanding of the rock arts sites broadened and deepened after applying other significance criteria in the CMP workshop in late 2009 (Hall and Wilson 2009a, 2009b). This was the first time any participants had applied heritage significance criteria in preparing a statement of significance (pers comm. Nicholas Hall 23 July 2010; INRAWG 2009:47-48). This is perhaps surprising, however, the use of all criteria widened perceptions of heritage significance beyond heritage significance being only ‘scientific’ or ‘social’ value. One result was not only Indigenous community participants’ recognition of the rock art sites’ archaeological research potential, but also aesthetic values in their unique style, and historic value. Community members did not specifically mention ‘employment’ in a survey of their preferences for the rock art sites’ future management. However, their wishes for the sites’ future management provide some potential for an economic return with longer-term roles for the Aboriginal community. The identified roles include the ongoing engagement of the Working Group for the sites’ management, conservation, and interpretation, and the potential for the community to develop cultural tourism (INRAWG 2009:71,73). These functions were identified during a five-day field program to develop a sites’ monitoring and maintenance plan—final phase of the CMP project (2010-11) (INRAWG 2009:70).
The ‘curation of documents, records and objects’ was identified in the CMP as part of future management. The Namadgi Rock Art Working Group informed the approach adopted, resulting in the following system being observed (pers comm. Nicholas Hall Stepwise 29 June 2011): - Separate boxes for each RAO to be housed with the archives, accessible only to the relevant RAO, with two other lockable boxes proposed for men and women
This arrangement is additional to the generally agreed archival system for the Namadgi National Parks rock art. All records are to be catalogued and kept together, according to each site, or element of a site, as part of their management, especially
226 Truscott – Chapter 5 – Collaborating on Country ongoing monitoring of the rock art sites’ condition. All will be held safely in hard copy and digitised versions with the parks service and ACT Heritage Unit.
Comments
The Namadgi National Park Rock Art Project is seen as an ‘ongoing success’ by the ACT Parks and Conservation Service, and attributed by the Service’s Manager Regional Operations, Brett McNamara (ACT TAMS 2013a) to:
the foundation of a simple idea built on an approach of genuine cooperation and partnership. This is a project that as a Park Service we are incredibly proud of and celebrate – it is indeed best practice cultural heritage management.
Analysis of the Namadgi rock art project indicates that it meets most elements of community archaeology. Although the community did not initiate the project, nor directly receive the grant funds, the process became highly collaborative, respectful of Aboriginal voices, with clear two-way communication. The extension of the project from one to three years was in recognition of the Interim Working Group’s wish to have more time to fully include Aboriginal views rather than a more cursory consultative process. The result was a full collaboration or partnership between the Indigenous groups, and other stakeholders, being the Namadgi National Park manager, the ACT Heritage Unit.
The extension of time and grant funding brought about more comprehensive results for the rock art sites’ management and their community contribution. The project in consciously following the Burra Charter, and Ask First, principles, gave time to each step of the process. In doing so, the project meets the Barunga Protocols recommendation for a longer-term, staged, approach (Smith and Jackson 2008).
The Namadgi rock art project compiled all available information, enhancing knowledge on all sides, including a sharing of past archaeological results, and Indigenous information (some of the latter was kept confidential). The Indigenous community has a greater understanding of heritage management planning, site management, heritage significance assessment, and issues related to technical rock art conservation. The Namadgi Park management gained a better understanding of Indigenous perspectives of heritage and meanings of Country. As a result, ongoing
227 Truscott – Chapter 5 – Collaborating on Country Indigenous input into the implementation of the Namadgi Rock Art management plan is assured.
The Indigenous community had no formal role at the project’s outset, yet by the end, the community did have a formal role, as represented by the Namadgi Rock Art Indigenous Working Group. The Working Group has an ongoing management responsibility, overseeing the implementation of the management plan, and ‘providing annual training in contemporary rock art assessment, maintenance and recording techniques, and introducing an ongoing Aboriginal perspective to the conservation of the sites’ (ACT TAMS 2013). The Working Group meets biannually, providing ongoing employment from sitting fees (pers comm. Adrian Brown Ngunnawal Ranger ACT Parks and Conservation Service 4 April 2013). Otherwise no employment was gained, yet economic opportunities for the community, beyond individual community members employed by the Park, are emerging in cultural tourism from this collaborative project.
The Namadgi rock art project was undertaken in a national park, managed by a government agency. Parks ACT has responsibility for natural and cultural values, and there is an in-principle commitment to greater Indigenous involvement at a statutory level. However, it is unclear when the Interim Indigenous Advisory Committee might be restarted, or when joint management arrangements will be formalised. Only then will the relevant communities have a more secure role in the Indigenous heritage management in Namadgi.
The Landcare Award is a considerable recognition of the success of this collaboration between Indigenous community, heritage experts, and land managers, particularly the role of the Namadgi Rock Art Indigenous Working Group. The Working Group also won the 2012 ACT NAIDOC Caring for Country award. These accolades are likely to enhance community pride and sense of identity, as described by Adrian Brown at the outset of this chapter, and are all benefits of community participation and sharing knowledge in the project.
228 Truscott – Chapter 5 – Collaborating on Country 5.3.2 The Merri Creek Indigenous Community Values Project The rivers, creeks and land we manage today were places of spiritual and community activity of the past, present and future, and we acknowledge the Traditional Owners of the land. Cultural heritage plays a key role in our water resource planning and delivery. We regard it as an important legacy to pass on to future generations. (Melbourne Water 2010:32)
The Merri Creek Indigenous Community Values Project also largely meets community archaeology principles. This project assembled information about all cultural heritage places and values in the Merri Creek catchment area,234 including the results of past archaeological surveys and research, and contemporary cultural heritage values. The values of this part of Country to the Wurundjeri community will be acknowledged and managed by the catchment administrator, Melbourne Water, in partnership with this Indigenous community.
Carried out by the Wurundjeri Council, fostered and funded by Melbourne Water, Merri Creek Indigenous Community Values Project addressed ‘the “gap” in Indigenous cultural heritage assessments’ (Parmington et al 2011:1). This ‘gap’ is understood to be a past lack of identification and assessment of places of ‘social value’ to the Wurundjeri. The Merri Creek project also enabled a ‘process of cultural reclamation where traditional practices were revived in the interests of the health and wellbeing of Wurundjeri members’ (Parmington et al 2012:58). The project applied cultural mapping, particularly the ‘map biography’ method, as a major tool for its gathering of all information to identify all possible values of the Merri Creek area of Wurundjeri Country. The Merri Creek Indigenous Community Values Project provides insights into how community archaeology, in its ideal for a comprehensive understanding all values associated the past and present, can be applied collaboratively with other interest groups within urban areas.
Partnerships
The Merri Creek project is part of a growing collaboration with Indigenous groups by Melbourne Water (2010:32):
234 The Merri Creek Catchment is part of Melbourne Water’s water supply responsibilities that includes 8400km of rivers and creeks in the Port Phillip and Westernport regions. 229 Truscott – Chapter 5 – Collaborating on Country … regular information sessions with RAPs … Cultural heritage field days … Cultural Awareness and Compliance training to 140 staff, developed and delivered in partnership with the Wurundjeri,235 … community cultural activities, such as hosting the Wurundjeri and Wadawurrung during NAIDOC week.
Melbourne Water is accountable not only for water quality, but also for the recognition and protection of other values on its land, including heritage. Melbourne Water’s Cultural Heritage Strategy (2008) commits it to an increased inclusion of community and Indigenous groups to manage all values of its land. This Strategy is seen as demonstrating an early recognition of the high cultural sensivity of this area, ‘a catalyst for Melbourne Water’s more collaborative approach’ (Porter and Barry 2013:32). The Strategy’s commitment, and the capacity to authorise agreements between land managers and Registered Aboriginal Parties (RAPs) under the 2006 Aboriginal Heritage Act, saw a partnership formed between Melbourne Water and the Wurundjeri Council.236
This two-way collaboration was added to by the Merri Creek Management Committee (MCMC) who were another stakeholder in the Merri Creek project. The MCMC comprises various catchment municipalities and others,237 it being an ‘environmental coordination and management agency formed in 1989 to achieve a shared vision for the waterway corridors of the Merri Creek Catchment’ (MCMC nd). One MCMC member is the Friends of Merri Creek (FoMC), a community environment group, with which the Wurundjeri were already collaborating on Country.238 The Wurundjeri recognised that in forming links with these groups ‘information shared could only benefit management recommendations proposed by the Wurundjeri’ (Parmington et al 2011:6).
235 Melbourne Water indicates that it ‘was the first time a RAP and agency had facilitated a training program together’ (2010:32). 236 Wathaurung Aboriginal Corporation, Taungurung Clans Aboriginal Corporation and Gunaikurnai Land and Waters Aboriginal Corporation. (Melbourne Water 2010:32) No formal partnership between the Wurundjeri Council and Melbourne Water had been signed as of early 2014. 237 Its members include all the municipalities in the catchment: the Darebin, Hume, Moreland, Whittlesea and Yarra City Councils plus Mitchell Shire Council, the Friends of Merri Creek and the Wallan Environment Group. Representatives of these member groups form a Committee of Management which develops policy and guides MCMC's activities. (www.mcmc.org.au/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=78&Itemid=184) 238 As observed by this researcher in April 2011 in a meeting between MCMC and the Wurundjeri regarding various joint projects. 230 Truscott – Chapter 5 – Collaborating on Country Finding Merri Creek’s Story
The project approach chosen by the Wurundjeri Council was to bring together all known information to identify all heritage values —from past records, going onto Country with community members, and in mapping workshops, as shown below Parmington (et al 2011b:7).
Figure 9: Project Stages showing method for the Merri Creek Indigenous Cultural Values Project by Wurundjeri Council (Parmington et al 2011b:7)
This approach by the Wurundjeri Council for the Merri Creek project may seem obvious, even basic, but the analysis in this research, especially in regards to pre-development surveys, suggests that the diagram is a timely and useful reminder. As shown above, the expectation is for a comprehensive collation and identification of all known information, as illustrated above. This research demonstrates that this collation of all prior available information does not usually take place.
There is considerable information about Merri Creek’s heritage, both natural and cultural—from Wurundjeri story, to ethnohistorical and historical records, heritage studies, and archaeological survey reports. Merri Creek centred in Wurundjeri Country, traverses 70km of regional, peri-urban and suburban Melbourne, joining the
231 Truscott – Chapter 5 – Collaborating on Country Yarra River before Port Phillip Bay.239 The Merri Creek area is thus layered with pre- and post-settlement evidence, 19th century industrial activity, and urban expansion.
Merri Creek’s importance to the Wurundjeri for cultural and spiritual reasons features is recognised in many early colonial accounts. Historical records suggest that John Batman’s Treaty was signed with Wurundjeri people at Merri Creek (Harcourt 2001; Clark and Heydon 2004:27). Assistant Commissioner William Thomas frequently noted camps at the confluence of Merri Creek and Yarra River between 1841 and 1847 (Clark and Heydon 2004:27). In 1843-44, Thomas describes large multi-tribal gatherings of up to 800 people at the same location, for law, exchange and ceremony, including gaggip (friendship) ceremonies (Clark and Heydon 2004:48).
These reports were gathered by the Wurundjeri during the heritage identification project, that took many steps, many iterative (Parmington et al 2001:8-10): - Identifying possible places along Merri Creek and environs to visit - Field visits with further confirmation of areas of possible significance - Follow-up visits - Questionnaire for community members – completed during field visits or in workshops - Interviews in workshops after field visits
The compilation of all past documentation extended to recent times resulting in a list of known and possible heritage. This record was preparation for the Wurundjeri Council prior to visits on Country to possible heritage locations in the Merri Creek landscape.
The field visits targeted known or probable areas of significance over several days. Meetings and informal workshops were held before field visits with the Merri Creek Management Committee and Friends of Merri Creek, who assisted in identifying areas of mutual interest. These groups also participated in the field excursions, resulting in shared perspectives about scientific, including archaeological, evidence, water health, and biodiversity. Places of cultural importance identified, both before and after, going on Country, were especially the Merri Creek headwaters, and the
239 Merri Creek rises in the foothills of the Great Dividing Range, near Wallan Wallan to the north of Melbourne and flows north-south for some 70km. Joined by several tributaries, Merri Creek first traverses rural areas, then 21 outer and inner suburbs of Melbourne, joining the Yarra at the suburb of Abbotsford. The Creek flows through and watered many past industrial activities in the 19th and 20th centuries. 232 Truscott – Chapter 5 – Collaborating on Country Creek’s confluences with its tributaries, and at Yarra Bend. The visits permitted a better understanding of landscape and places, their condition, and management issues.
As well as many meetings before and after field visits, two formal workshops were held afterwards at the Wurundjeri centre, to extend and integrate this cultural mapping process. Led by Wurundjeri Elder ‘Ringo’ Terrick, the workshops charted Elders’ knowledge resulting from visits to Country, the questionnaire results, and with topographical, geographical data on Melbourne Water maps. Place identification applied land use and occupancy, or ‘map biography’, processes, developed by Aboriginal Canadians (Tobias 2000:2, 65; 2009). Current concerns about Merri Creek and its environs were also recorded (Parmington et al 2011:10).
Indigenous knowledge and values - The evidence of trade throughout a large part of the Country is demonstrated by the stone artefacts and other Indigenous archaeological remains. This aspect lends them greater cultural significance, and contributes to the story of traditional cultural life. … - The relatively undisturbed condition of the landscape allows Wurundjeri people an opportunity to experience their Country to some extent ‘as it was’. (Parmington et al 2012:63)
The spiritual importance of the Merri Creek and environs as a past initiation and ceremonial area was well understood by the Wurundjeri people. However, this project allowed a more extensive and nuanced understanding of the landscape to emerge, by cultural-mapping from going on Country, from interviews and questionnaires. These integrated techniques were required, but also importantly they needed ‘a level of a level trust … to be established before Aboriginal people cho[o]se to communicate the sorts of information that is being sought’ (Parmington et al 2011:14). The process took time before ‘values imbedded in stories that are culturally sensitive or highly personal in nature’ could be shared during visits to ‘relevant locations’ (Parmington et al 2011:14). Wurundjeri leadership was seen as important to gaining individual community members’ trust.
A questionnaire asked community members to share their knowledge, seeking what stories and importance were connected to places. Wurundjeri Elders and community members completed the survey either during the field visits or in the workshops (Parmington et al 2011:8). The questionnaire had ten questions ranging from 233 Truscott – Chapter 5 – Collaborating on Country knowledge of the area to questions about the nature of the importance of the place referred to or visited. The questions sought to establish what traditional stories were known of the place, of its flora and fauna, or waterways, or of any camps or resource collection sites. The questions targeting values of a place are very similar to heritage significance assessment criteria:240 whether a place was connected with a key individual; was a reference point shaping community identity; had long connection with the community; or had special cultural attributes (Parmington et al 2011:8).
The strong current, ongoing, values of the landscape emerged as a key aspect of Merri Creek’s significance for Wurundjeri Elders (Parmington et al 2001a:11). Different cultural meanings between women and men were acknowledged, while ‘Cultural renewal and continuing cultural practices’ were seen particularly as ‘essential’ to caring for Country’ (Parmington et al 2012:63).
The 170 year old original ethnographic records of past Wurundjeri life are well-known to the community as a record of what the early colonists saw, and how they understood what they were seeing. As such, this review also serves as a comparison and reminder that revisiting such primary sources can show how popular telling, or repeating excerpts, can distort what was actually written at the time. Nonetheless, leaving the phenomenon of ‘read back’ aside, comparison between community memories and oral history and these early accounts also provide the Wurundjeri with information on contrasting perceptions and accounts at that time.
The results of past archaeological research have provided ‘physical evidence of Indigenous land and resource use’ (Parmington et al 2012:62), and are of cultural value in a number of ways to the Wurundjeri (Parmington et al 2012:63): - They provide tangible evidence of the long and sustainable use of the land. - They also provide evidence of trade and movement through Country; of relations between clans, and with other Kulin groups. - Stone artefacts speak of long use, long time; of ancestors and a strong community. - The density of the artefacts and other archaeological/cultural places within the wider landscape shows that the land was heavily utilised, and lived in with sustainable cultural practices.
240 Such as those identified in the HERCON significance assessments. 2 34 Truscott – Chapter 5 – Collaborating on Country The project’s integrated record at one time and place allows for a comprehensive understanding of Wurundjeri heritage connections to Merri Creek and its environs. The resultant report to Melbourne Water included recommendations about future management. The report also recognised that it was important to continue to update the information about the heritage values of Merri Creek. All future studies are to be aware of and use the report (Parmington et al 2011:17):
Although it can ‘stand alone’, it would be useful for future management of the Merri Creek if this report is included as an Appendix to archaeological and ecological reports undertaken in the area of the Merri Creek Catchment.
This is salutary advice given the proliferation of studies occurring today, even being undertaken by one agency in partnership with one community group. It can be too easy over time for such information to be forgotten or mislaid.
Comments
When the Merri Creek project is reviewed against the community archaeology ideals, it is seen as satisfying them to a high degree. Community leadership, the centrality of community knowledge of their landscape, combined with scientific knowledge, and the possibility for economic and social benefit, are all largely met.
Directly undertaken by the Wurundjeri Council with Melbourne Water funding, the Merri Creek project had a high level of community control. An Elder was employed to lead the project, and technical staff such as archaeologists, were part of his team, rather than directing the process. The Council’s leadership of the Merri Creek project demonstrates the Council’s growing ‘internal capacity and vision’, building relationships with government agencies, and transforming more traditional unequal relationships to partnerships (Porter and Barry 2013:35-36).
Community members had full participation throughout the project. They were involved in revisiting early ethno-historical reports, and past archaeological studies. This compilation of all previously known information triggered community members to share their individual accounts, heard from grandmothers’ stories and other family members. Drawing all the information together in one location provided a reference
235 Truscott – Chapter 5 – Collaborating on Country point by which to ‘re-examine the history of Merri Creek as well as the traditional connection’ (Parmington et al 2001a:7).
The Merri Creek project exemplifies an integrated approach to Country that is increasing in various parts of Australia (see Weir et al 2011; Hunt et al 2009). This information gathering is perhaps an obvious and logical method, and well-known to anthropologists, yet one that has been too rarely applied in urban areas. This issue is examined in regard to pre-development surveys in Chapter 6.
A long-term role for the Wurundjeri heritage is assured on the Merri Creek public land, given Melbourne Water’s statutory responsibility for this water catchment’s natural and cultural values. Funding to the Wurundjeri is also certain for any impact studies required in the catchment. Economic benefits may also accrue from other projects around Merri Creek, such as for the Wurundjeri Narrap Green Team, currently still based on short term funding. Also, Elders-led cultural tours sharing stories of Country have increased and are now informed by the extra understanding from the Merri Creek project.
However, the Wurundjeri will not continue to have the level of control they had during the Merri Creek project. In future, managing the Indigenous values of Merri Creek and environs will be a ‘collaboration’ or partnership with Melbourne Water under the terms of the formal agreement currently being negotiated. Strengthened relationships are likely to continue with other stakeholders, such as with the Merri Creek Management Committee since 2011 on Caring for our Country funded projects (eg MCMC 2013).
The beneficial outcomes for the Wurundjeri community extend well beyond partnering in the future management of the Merri Creek heritage values. Beyond the economic benefits gained from this as well as influencing decisions about Wurundjeri heritage, there are socio-cultural gains. A strengthened community identity with place has resulted from this project’s process of reclamation of knowledge of Country, increasing the community’s social capital, and capacity. The Wurundjeri’s heightened capacity to argue for a landscape or larger scale strategic approach with planning and land management agencies is also shown in its Country Plan Protocols. Past community frustration at the site-by-site approach in land management is mitigated in
236 Truscott – Chapter 5 – Collaborating on Country such landscape approaches, as expressed by a Wurundjeri Elder as their heritage being ‘one big cultural landscape… Because it’s taking into account that everything’s connected to everything else’ (as quoted by Porter and Barry 2013:334).
5.4 Analysis against 'Community Archaeology' Indicators
The projects in this case study vary in nature, despite all being on public land, with government funding, primarily grants, and with input from government agencies. The projects also vary regarding how well they meet community archaeology ideals. In this chapter various projects were reviewed against the key questions in this research:
Has community archaeology informed the projects?
If so, has the approach to the project provided benefits to the community?
And has the project increased knowledge about the past by applying the community archaeology principles?
The analysis against the community archaeology indictors shows some projects do reflect the community archaeology model to a high degree, others do not. It was found that some projects were more collaborative, others were not. Some of the projects aimed for a comprehensive understanding of all aspects of cultural heritage on Country, and as the discussion below indicates, largely achieved this. Other projects had a narrower goal, although emphasising the importance of community members reconnecting with Country. The economic and social benefits to the community also varied, but provided a greater heritage management capacity and some economic benefit. The comparative analysis below at Table 15 and subsequent discussion provide detail on how well or not community archaeology indicators are met, and identify key issues.
237 Truscott – Chapter 5 – Collaborating on Country
Table 15: Assessment of community archaeology criteria for Partnership projects
PROJECTS COMMUNITY PROJECT APPROACH UNDERSTANDING CAPACITY AND EMPLOYMENT CONTROL OF COUNTRY AND VALUES
Landscape Indigenous Enhanced Significance Interpretation Skill Gains / Employment / Approach Input Knowledge Assessment Training Income
ACT Namadgi Rock Art Yes becoming Yes largely Yes Yes Yes In future? Yes Some partnership Going on Country No Some Some? No No No Some No Yurung Dhaura Green No No No No No No Yes Nat Env Yes Team
Wurundjeri Victoria Merri Creek Yes community control Yes Yes Yes Some? No Yes Yes Country Plan Yes community control Some Yes Yes No No No No? Narrap Green Team Yes delegated power No No No No No Yes Nat Env Yes
Criteria for ‘Community Archaeology’ Indicators: Community Control: Indigenous community control over process and decisions made about their heritage (Arnstein Ladder) Landscape approach: Comprehensive inclusion of physical and intangible cultural aspects of landscape Indigenous Input: Inclusion of Indigenous understandings in the project process Enhanced Knowledge: Increased knowledge and understanding of Country – tangible and intangible elements of place Significance Assessment: Application and understanding of all heritage significance criteria Interpretation: Sharing knowledge of Country and heritage values to Indigenous community and general public, including different media and cultural tourism Skill Gains / Training: Education / Training in heritage management, including archaeological and other techniques, cross cultural, significance assessment, general governance Employment / Income: Employment related to management of Indigenous heritage
238 Truscott – Chapter 5 – Collaborating on Country
5.4.1 Positives and Negatives of Public Land Partnerships
The above comparative analysis between the two study areas, Victoria and the ACT, and the various projects on Country, clearly indicates the consistently higher level of community control held in Victoria. The Victorian projects also more consistently meet other community archaeology indicators.
Community Control
The Indigenous communities in the ACT have little authority within the system and this is reflected in the limited say over all the projects reviewed. The ACT communities’ level of power and input over decisions that affect them is largely at the level of consultation, or ‘tokenism’ in Arnstein terms. Instead the Wurundjeri Council in Victoria, have far greater statutory control, and had considerable direction over the individual projects, approaching the level of ‘delegated power’ in Arnstein terms.
A core reason for the ACT lack of control at the project level is that they have not received direct funding to manage any of the projects analysed in this case study chapter. As a result the Canberra communities did not manage the projects themselves, and were dependent on direction by the government agency for the CfoC projects, and a heritage consultant for the Namadgi Rock Art project. By contrast the Wurundjeri has applied for and received direct funding for most of the projects. The projects were led by Wurundjeri staff both Indigenous and non-Indigenous heritage experts. In doing so, the Council benefited from its capacity, funding itself, or from government partners, staff with relevant professional and administrative experience, and initiating strong relationships with land management bodies.
Vagaries in funding arrangements can make long-term planning difficult for the Indigenous community, as well as the land managers. Limitations range from a dependency on government funding; changing objectives of grant funding programs; and the short-term nature of some government funding programs.
Yet there is considerable potential for the Indigenous community to achieve more lasting collaborative partnership as these projects are on public land. Such areas of land are retained for
239 Truscott – Chapter 5 – Collaborating on Country enduring purposes, whether national parks, nature reserves, or water catchments, with a concomitant commitment to protecting natural and cultural values. Such areas have management programs, based on statutory management plans, and budgeted accordingly, with performance management reporting requirements. Longer-term frameworks for land management bodies is beneficial for ongoing collaboration, and the Wurundjeri Council has pursued such with relevant bodies in Victoria. The Council’s Country Plan Protocols also assure a level of control over land- management decisions.
Formal management agreements with the relevant land management agency provide a greater guarantee for any community. This is proceeding for the Wurundjeri Council with Melbourne Water, given Melbourne Water’s commitment to including Indigenous communities in their Cultural Heritage Strategy. Yet even so, the Wurundjeri input is assured in its role as a RAP for any impact decisions for the Merri Creek catchment. By contrast in the ACT, the Rock Art Working Group’s ongoing role may therefore be more tenuous, subject to changing policy or funding, rather than any statutory certainty. For although RAOs have a role in pre-development decisions in the ACT, and the legislative amendments passed on 25 September 2014241 promise a greater role from them, there is no current regulatory arrangement with the Park manager for any parternship. The possibility of a special lease or co-management with the community for Namadgi National Park appears to have receded since first committed to in principle over a decade ago.
Collaborative Project Approach
All the projects resulted in community members going on Country, both Elders and the younger generation. For many it was their first time to many parts of their landscape. The projects however varied regarding how comprehensive the project approach was in terms of a community archaeology model, such as the inclusiveness towards all knowledge of Country, and the economic and social benefits.
Some projects did not have the aim to gather information from community members but rather introduce them to Country. The Green Team projects fit into this type, facilitating an awareness
241 Just as this research was completed.
240 Truscott – Chapter 5 – Collaborating on Country of Country by working on land management, and learning about indigenous plants. A younger generation in both study area became familiar with both current ‘western’ land management approaches, and gained understanding of their past uses and meanings of the aspect of Country.
Other projects however did aim to gather Indigenous information about Country, generally from community Elders. Various methods were used, some long-used, such as anthropological approaches, others more recent, although similar, such as in cultural mapping. Building on known information from past oral histories and ethnographies, Elders’ going on Country triggered a sharing of memory and story of place, reconnecting them with their ancestral landscape. The ‘Going on Country’, in both the ACT and Victoria (Narrap Plan), as well as the major projects: the Namadgi Rock Art and along Merri Creek, fit into this method of seeking Indigenous knowledge.
All the projects examined in this case study covered larger areas of land, rather than individual sites. In that sense they all dealt with ‘landscape’, however, few projects had the aim of an all- encompassing collation of all known cultural heritage information of that landscape. However, the Green Team projects concentrating on ‘traditional ecological knowledge’ separated natural from cultural despite the program’s rhetoric about recognising their inseparability in Indigenous views of Country.
The Merri Creek project is the one that fits this model landscape approach to the highest degree, gathering all available Indigenous heritage information. The Namadgi Rock Art project also meets this approach to a high degree, although limited by a focus on a specific site type within the landscape. However, the gaps between the individual sites were partly backfilled by the community members contributing their layer of meaning to the entire landscape, but historical and other archaeological aspects were not sought. Both these projects provide models for more comprehensive approaches to identifying Indigenous heritage. Both projects provide some future ongoing community role in managing that heritage.
Understanding of Country
An understanding of Country was achieved to some degree in all the projects, but only two aimed for a comprehensive knowledge and insights derived from different perspectives—and from both
241 Truscott – Chapter 5 – Collaborating on Country tangible and intangible heritage. These two projects are the Namadgi Rock Art project in the ACT, and the Merri Creek project in Victoria.
The results vary as said, for the Merri Creek project collated all the available evidence, whereas the Namadgi project had a focus on the values of the seven rock art sites within Country. However, neither the Merri Creek nor the Namadgi Rock Art project is known to have identified gaps in information, nor future research questions. One gap in the Namadgi Rock Art approach was in not collating data up to recent times. The Namadgi area was an Aboriginal community retreat after first contact when the Tuggeranong district was first settled by European from 1828 (Truscott 2009). It is therefore a considerable gap in the Namadgi Rock Art approach not to have collated post-contact tangible evidence.
Both the Namadgi Rock Art and the Merri Creek projects have ensured much available Indigenous knowledge is incorporated into the records of each landscape and into future management. This is a genuine community archaeology effort in both instances, despite the Namadgi Rock Art project being less comprehensive. Both provide important data compilations for ongoing management for the areas. Similarly, the other projects, either ‘Going on Country’ or ‘Working on Country’ raised community connections with Country, providing a social context for future involvement with their heritage within and by the community.
Community members in both cases indicated that these improved understanding of heritage provided means to argue more specifically why places have importance beyond the general claim for ‘community cultural value’. Wurundjeri community members were introduced to how all the evidence provided a different perspective on the values of Country in the Merri Creek project. But the only complete heritage significance assessment is the Namadgi Rock Art project. This was a first at applying all criteria for the ACT Indigenous communities, and an awakening to the research and historic value of the rock art sites.
Sharing understanding of Country is a core community archaeology aim. However, none of the projects in this case study shared the results with a wider public, nor was such ‘publication’ part of the aims of the reviewed projects. However, it is anticipated that that knowledge shared in ‘cultural tourism’ will be enhanced by the knowledge gained in these projects, although not
242 Truscott – Chapter 5 – Collaborating on Country initiated by them. Visits on Country already take place in both study areas, guided in the ACT Parks by a Ngunnawal ranger, now a community Elder, and in Victoria by Wurundjeri Indigenous staff.
Capacity Development and Employment
A principle of community archaeology is that the community grows its capacity to manage its heritage and to gain employment in so doing. Although none of the projects in this case study had long-term employment as a main aim, capacity development was core to some of the projects reviewed. A summary of skills is presented below showing which projects provided these skills to the Indigenous community, and where (Table 16).
Table 16: Skills Development Comparison
Skill ACT Projects Victoria (WT) Projects Identifying traditional ecological knowledge (TEK) Yurung Dhaura Green Team Narrap Green Teams Natural Environment Training (TAFE) Yurung Dhaura Green Team Narrap Green Teams
Cultural mapping to identify and record traditional sites Going on Country Narrap Plan Partially met Partially met Understanding of value of archaeological sites Namadgi Rock Ar Merri Creek Understanding and applying heritage significance criteria Namadgi Rock Art Merri Creek Partially met Heritage Management Namadgi Rock Art Partially met Project Administration / Governance Merri Creek
Again the two projects that achieved the most against a community archaeology indicator were the Namadgi Rock Art Project and the Merri Creek Project. These two projects imparted the broadest range of skills to Indigenous community members. The Green Teams received intensive on-the-job skills in natural environment weed management and an understanding of indigenous flora. TAFE certificate training was integral to these CfoC projects, however the cultural heritage training was minimal, without an inclusive ‘culture-nature’ approach.
The only projects that provided fulltime employment were the Green Teams in both study areas, and to the Wurundjeri project leader for the Merri Creek project. That project results in future
243 Truscott – Chapter 5 – Collaborating on Country economic benefit when the Wurundjeri are paid for their impact assessment advice. Such an economic benefit from employment is seen as an integral element of community archaeology.
The employment exception was the Namadgi Rock Art Project, which initially only reimbursed travel costs, later adding sitting fees for any further meetings. However, these payments were for the project duration only, with no expectation of longer-term income. However since then, the Working Group has ongoing sitting fees for its responsibility to provide advice on the implementation of the sites’ Conservation Management Plan.
At a broader level, the Wurundjeri Council has had having management control of these projects, and successfully delivered the projects’ aims. In doing so, the Council is seen to have grown its capacity in project administration, governance, and understanding of current land decision- making processes (Porter and Barry 2013). The Council has strengthened relationships with land management agencies, resulting in their heightened standing with these bodies and the greater consideration of their heritage in the process. Their Country Plan and its Protocols states their position and authority regarding land-use impacts on their heritage.
5.4.2 Issues for an Indigenous Heritage Model
This review of publicly funded projects on public land provides some insights into issues related to meeting the community archaeology ideal. Although some of the projects examined do reflect the ideal, the analysis also exposes various issues that constrain realising a fully collaborative partnership for a community to have a greater input and benefit from its heritage.
The positive features for the community of some of these projects are identified as:
Community Control Having the leadership or being a full partner in a project, developing community trust and confidence as a result Collaborative Approach Reconnecting with Country especially at a landscape scale Gathering all available information, tangible and intangible Having a longer timeframe to undertake the project and plan ahead Increased Knowledge
244 Truscott – Chapter 5 – Collaborating on Country Becoming familiar with all available information together, resulting in a more ‘uninterrupted and continuous story of Country’ (Sullivan 2008:108) Understanding other perspectives, such as scientific results from archaeological research, natural environment management approaches, all cultural heritage criteria to better define heritage significance Capacity and Employment Operating with those that have these other interests and perspectives Training in relevant skills to build community capacity Funding and income assurance
The challenges for the community identified in some of these projects are:
Community Control Being directed by others without having any real input Collaborative Approach Restricting the project to a small area disconnected from other parts of the landscape Lacking an integrated approach to all available information and views Lacking a multi-disciplinary approach Having short timeframes Shifting program priorities making longer-term planning and commitment difficult Increased Knowledge Not collating collected knowledge with other available information Not sharing available knowledge widely (unless confidential) Not identifying gaps in knowledge nor future research questions to pursue Capacity and Employment Training limited to narrow areas of heritage management, such as natural environment Temporary employment dependent on short-term policies or funding programs
These issues are discussed further in the conclusion of this thesis, having been compared with the positive and negative results of development on Country, the other case study, presented in the next chapter.
245 Truscott – Chapter 6 – Development on Country
6 DEVELOPMENT ON COUNTRY
We only sieve dirt all day (pers comm. ACT RAO member 2009242) Aboriginal heritage seen to be ‘in the way’ of development … We are currently at a critical precipice (Indigenous Advisory Committee) (Mackay 2011:5)
Introduction
These views expressed by both a community member involved in 'compliance archaeology' as well as national Indigenous heritage leaders on the federal Indigenous Advisory Committee (IAC) reflect archaeological heritage commentary over a decade ago and since (eg Byrne et al 2001; Sullivan 2008; McIntyre-Tamwoy 2013). It appears that little has changed regarding this aspect of Indigenous heritage management. The IAC suggests there is now a sense of urgency, about the ‘conflict of interest between those developing land and protecting heritage’, with a growing ‘distrust of the current process to protect heritage’ (Mackay 2011:5).
This chapter is the second case study that examines current practice for Indigenous heritage in pre-development surveys in the study areas, Victoria and the ACT. Indigenous communities’ dissatisfaction with the results of pre-development survey is voiced in the legislation reviews as reported above in Chapter 4. Key censure revolves around the lack of a comprehensive landscape approach, disregarding Indigenous meanings. As a summary, the key issues from an Indigenous perspective are:
the perpetuation and primacy of an ‘archaeological’ approach, yet with limited improved understanding of the past
little or no recording of Indigenous cultural values
little or no recognition of post-contact history
inadequate significance assessment of places and spaces identified, and generally limited to ‘scientific’ (research) value
little or no reporting of pre-development survey results in accessible language
242 Source requested confidentiality (September 2009).
247 Truscott – Chapter 6 – Development on Country The reasons for this apparent lack of a more integrated approach to the identification of Indigenous heritage ahead of development projects are unclear. As already noted, considerable shifts have occurred in other other spheres of Indigenous heritage management, including more collaborative approaches and inclusive identification methods, such as cultural mapping, both meeting community archaeology ideals. Therefore, in this case study a detailed analysis of the context and results of pre-development surveys seeks to discover reasons that this aspect of Indigenous heritage management appears to have a different approach. The framework for the pre-development survey process for Indigenous heritage is therefore analysed in order to assess whether this context is a reason for the difference.
This case study centres on development and Indigenous heritage examines suburban expansion in peri-urban areas, known as ‘Greenfield’243 developments in both Victoria and the ACT. This type of pre-development survey was chosen both for its prevalence in Indigenous heritage management in Australia, and because it is the prevalent form of pre-development survey for the communities in both study areas. The results of pre-development surveys are examined in the written reports, in order to assess to what degree community and other criticisms are valid. In examining this aspect of Indigenous heritage management, the core research questions related to community archaeology principles are applied.
Method
The pre-development survey reports were analysed according to whether the 'community archaeology indicators’ were met and to what degree. In doing so, this case study provided essentially exploratory information as to how collaborative, and inclusive of Indigenous knowledge, is this aspect of archaeological heritage practice with the community. As with the other case study, the indicators fell into three categories: control, knowledge, and community benefits.; and the capacity building and employment gained. All these are critiqued against the criterion for community collaboration or control, applying again the Arnstein Ladder as one tool for the analysis.
243 ‘Greenfield’ is the term used in both jurisdictions for the development of peri-urban areas for new suburbs.
248 Truscott – Chapter 6 – Development on Country The processes of pre-development surveys are reviewed, seeking any application of community archaeology principles, Firstly, the process of each project was analysed regarding the level of community control, measured against the Arnstein Ladder. Secondly, the pre-development survey reports are analysed as to whether they achieve any increased knowledge of the past and an integrated understanding of the past and meanings of Country, incorporating all sources of knowledge. The processes are also examined for evidence that survey results are shared with the wider society. And lastly, the pre-development survey process was investigated in both jurisdictions as to the benefits received by the Indigenous communities, both social and economic including the capacity building and employment gained. This last is understood as building community well-being from their involvement management decisions about Country.
But first, this chapter examines the statutory planning and administrative context for pre-development surveys in the two study areas. In doing so, this research seeks to understand what is organisationally different with this Indigenous heritage management activity to that found in protected areas.
6.1 Context for 'Compliance Archaeology'
One difference for Indigenous heritage management practice on peri-urban land to that on protected areas, is that the area will be subject to land-use change. Planning agencies have a responsibility to ensure that land is available to meet population growth and economic development. Instead in national parks, there is a long-term commitment to environmental, including heritage, protection, with minimal, or no, change. Does this factor result in different approaches to heritage management, including Indigenous heritage, or not? This section examines the planning regimes in the two study areas as they relate to land development, and issues that may arise as a result for Indigenous heritage management.
6.1.1 Planning Systems
No heritage management system operates in a vacuum. Statutory heritage management processes sit beside and within broader planning and environmental systems. Planning laws guide decision-making over land use, with many competing interests for available land parcels. The planning systems that frame decisions about land use marginally differ in the ACT and Victoria.
249 Truscott – Chapter 6 – Development on Country Both jurisdictions conform, as do all Australian jurisdictions, by requiring heritage, environmental factors (ACTPLA 2012),244 to be taken into account for any development decisions. The planning structures, systems, and processes in both jurisdictions are complex with cascading statutes, strategies regulations/codes, processes, and terms alien to the general public. The relevant planning legislation in the ACT is the Planning and Development Act 2007, and in Victoria the Planning and Environment Act 1987.
Both study areas are covered by more than one level of government. For Melbourne, there is the typical state / local government layering, with more than one Melbourne metropolitan local government area on Wurundjeri Country. However, a state level agency, the former Growth Areas Authority,245 now Metropolitan Planning Authority, was established in 2006 to co-ordinate
‘all parties involved in planning and development of Melbourne’s growth areas’ (GAA 2013a). In the ACT, the federal National Capital Authority covers National Land, but the ACT Planning and Land Authority (ACTPLA) has responsibility for Territory Land. ACTPLA’s Territory Plan ‘provides a framework to manage development, assess development applications, and guide development on future urban land as well as manage public land’ (ACTPLA 2009:1; emphasis added).
Commitments to heritage are made in key planning statements in both study areas. The ACT’s responsibility to heritage is described in the Territory Plan’s ‘Strategic Direction’ for ‘social sustainability’ (ACTPLA 2010:4, emphasis added):
1.25 Heritage and cultural values will be safeguarded, including in particular those of the Territory’s Aboriginal peoples and those derived from both its rural history and urban development as the National Capital.246
And in Victoria, the planning commitment for Greenfield areas is ‘Respecting heritage and integrating the past with the future is an important part of the former Growth Area Authority’s planning for Melbourne’s newest communities’ (GAA 2013b:1,3), including:
244 Listed in the ACT as well as heritage (both natural and cultural), are water use, erosion and sediment control, contamination, hazardous materials, trees. 245 An independent state statutory authority, reporting directly to the Victorian Minister for Planning. 246 This statement goes on to commit to urban / suburban areas: ‘The distinctive qualities of residential areas and other places, as well as elements of community heritage, will also be recognised and their conservation promoted.’
250 Truscott – Chapter 6 – Development on Country - Incorporating Aboriginal heritage sites into precinct structure plans - Overview of traditional cultural knowledge and Aboriginal heritage values
This early and larger scale commitment post-dates pre-development survey processes analysed in this case study. It is understood to be partly the result of considerable advocacy by the Wurundjeri Council from their first recognition as a RAP in 2009, urging such a commitment earlier (Porter and Barry 2013:34, 36).
Currently, those proposing a land-use change, whether a government entity or private land developer, are required to identify and assess such values before the development. The proponent must refer the proposal, when first submitted to relevant bodies, for advice as to what values are known, and what further action is required to ensure their protection. In the ACT, the Heritage Council is one of the ‘entities’ (ie statutory organisations) to which such referrals must be made (ACTPLA 2013a).247 In Victoria, the proponent must approach the relevant Registered Aboriginal Party/ies (DPCD 2011). The authority of the relevant RAP within the Victorian planning process is highlighted by this simple difference. It must be noted however, that on land available for development, planning systems limit consideration of Indigenous involvement to their cultural heritage, as against broader rights, such as land rights as Traditional Owners (Porter and Barry 2013:24).
Heritage, environmental values, and also traffic, utilities, water and air quality etc, are all triggers for pre-development studies for an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) in the ACT, and Environmental Effects Statement (EES) in Victoria. These statements are presented to the relevant planning authority, ‘interested’ entities, and the public for comment, before a decision is made. The following flow-charts demonstrate these statutory processes (ACTPLA 2013a; DPCD 2011a).
247 Another in the ACT is the Conservator of Flora and Fauna, although the Heritage Council also is responsible for natural heritage, this does not cover all environmental / biodiversity values.
251 Truscott – Chapter 6 – Development on Country
Figure 10: ACT EIS process (ACTPLA 2013)
252 Truscott – Chapter 6 – Development on Country
Figure 11: Victoria EES process (DPCD 2011a)
253 Truscott – Chapter 6 – Development on Country
The key difference between the two planning systems is the greater control held by a Registered Aboriginal Party in the Victoria process, as they sign off on any pre-development survey report. In that sense, ‘RAPs become a little like a planning authority’ (Porter and Barry 2013:24). However, it is still the consultant archaeologist who contracts RAP members for the field survey, not the RAP. And considerable influence rests with the proponent (sponsor), the developer, whether government or private, with financial responsibility for steering the suburban development. Once an EIS/EES is deemed necessary, the following interaction with heritage and Indigenous communities takes place that results in pre-development surveys, as shown for Victoria.
Figure 12: Role of Registered Aboriginal Party (RAP) in Victorian EES process (DPCD 2007:3)
254 Truscott – Chapter 6 – Development on Country
Figure 13: Development and Archaeological Investigations (draft 2010), ACT Heritage Unit
255 Truscott – Chapter 6 – Development on Country In the ACT, the relevant ‘proponent’ is the ACT Land Development Agency (LDA). A government agency, it may develop Territory land itself, in which case it contracts any EIS studies directly. Otherwise LDA sells land leases to developers, who then have the responsibility for any such impact assessments.
Scrutiny of systems in both jurisdictions indicates a late, and therefore short, timeframe for consideration of heritage prior to development. Heritage identification in the ACT is triggered only far along the land use change planning process for such ‘future urban areas’ (ACTPLA 2012:15), despite the five-year timeframe given in the ACT to ensure land is ‘planning ready’. The stages for ‘future development, including for residential purposes’ (ACTPLA 2013b), begins with broad level ‘structure plans’, then ‘concept plans’, then finally estate plans. Only then is heritage finally considered (ACTPLA 2013a). In Victoria as noted, there is a recent commitment to earlier heritage consideration (GAA 2013b), but this was not the case for the pre-development survey reports analysed in this case study.
The later heritage identification processes also means that the area to be surveyed is generally already planned to a high degree. The location of streets, housing, and infrastructure locations are already on paper. As a result, usually fairly small ‘estate’ areas are studied, limiting a capacity to undertake a broader landscape or cultural mapping approach. In Victoria, this has frustrated the Wurundjeri which has sought a more proactive than reactive approach (Porter and Barry 2013:24).
6.1.2 Expectations versus Reality? … much of what happens in planning and land management is ‘on the ground’, and sometimes what happens in real life looks very different from how it appears in the legal and policy documents (Porter and Barry 2013:12)
Porter and Barry’s analysis of Indigenous rights within planning systems, that includes the Wurundjeri Council experience, critiques this potential for a gap between apparent intention, or rhetoric and reality, particularly as perceived by Indigenous communities. There seems to be a slip between cup and lip in what is stated will be done and what is delivered.
Examination in this research of the terminology used in planning codes, consultancy briefs, and reports, confirms the possibility of a general misunderstanding of what perhaps is intended and
256 Truscott – Chapter 6 – Development on Country what provided. With a focus on the ACT, this section examines what is expected, what requested, and what delivered in the pre-development survey process. This critique looks at how well understood are the stated objectives for Indigenous heritage as triggered by proposed Greenfield developments, the planning strategic policy document stating (ACTPLA 2010:4, sl.25):
Heritage and cultural values will be safeguarded, including in particular those of the Territory’s Aboriginal peoples and those derived from both its rural history and urban development as the National Capital
This objective is within the ACT Territory Plan’s commitment to ‘social sustainability’ in its Statement of Strategic Direction (ACTPLA 2010).248 Although this statement to safeguard ‘heritage and culture’ seems clear, it is not on closer scrutiny. The statement implies that ‘cultural values’ are separate and inherently different from ‘heritage values’. The planning documents do not define either term, neither in relation to the ACT Heritage Act 2004, nor explained in any planning documents.
Those who are centrally involved in the application of this aspect of heritage and planning in the ACT do not appear to understand these terms uniformly. A query to the ACT government agencies, both the land developer and the heritage agency,249 uncovered a misunderstanding. An officer dealing with Aboriginal heritage presented the ACT Heritage Unit’s understanding of ‘heritage and culture’:
I understand there is no meaningful difference between the terms. We treat 'heritage' and 'cultural' as the same thing. (pers comm. Daisy Chaston ACT Heritage Unit via LDA by email 12 August 2013)
However, the relevant ACT Land Development Authority officer, when clarification was sought as to their grasp of the meaning of ‘heritage and culture’, understood these terms differently:
I had assumed that by including the word 'cultural' the intent was to cover areas of human anthropology (e.g. human nature, experiences and its place in history) whereas 'heritage' would be more attributable to more physical objects and other attributes that depict how groups interact in society. (pers comm. Kerry Browning Senior Project Manager Development Division Land Development Agency by email 12 August 2013)
248 This Statement states that ‘The principles for sustainable development follow a ‘triple bottom line’ approach with specific principles relating to environmental, economic and social sustainability’ (ACTPLA 2010:1).. 249 Passed to the ACT Heritage Unit for its view by the ACT Land Development Authority.
257 Truscott – Chapter 6 – Development on Country There is clearly a disparity about ‘what’ is to be safeguarded between the two agencies with core roles for Indigenous heritage management in areas subject to development.
The confusion appears to persist in what the development proponent contracts consultants to do as part of the requirement that ‘heritage and culture will be safeguarded’. The ACT Land Development Agency indicated the following was sought in their studies (pers comm. Kerry Browning Senior Project Manager Development Division Land Development Agency ACT by email 20 June 2013):
The requirements for studies in green field sites includes both European and Aboriginal heritage. This picks up historic (European) rural use of land as well Indigenous archaeological surveys.
This statement perpetuates the confusion of what aspects of heritage or culture are sought in the pre-development planning. The very Land Development Agency officer who understands that ‘culture’, or intangible heritage, or ‘social value’, is to be safeguarded, indicates that ‘Indigenous archaeological surveys’ alone are required. The ACT Heritage Unit indicated that it is not advised of the briefs and has no input (pers comm. Mary Clare Swete-Kelly 1 July 2011).250
By contrast, the Victorian expectations for a pre-development survey are prescriptive and clear about what is required, including the community’s input, in the regulations for the Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006, requiring (Victoria 2009). For an ‘activity area … to be … developed’, a report, a ‘Cultural Heritage Management Plan’, is required with the contents stipulated. This regulatory outline is contrasted below at Table 17 with the ACT’s ‘C&H’ studies template provided by the LDA (pers comm. Kerry Browning Senior Project Manager Development Division Land Development Agency ACT by email 19 June 2013).
250 This researcher was not able to access any individual briefs in this research.
258 Truscott – Chapter 6 – Development on Country
Table 17: Requirements for Pre-development Survey Reports
Pre-development Survey Report Requirements in ACT Pre-development Survey Report Requirements in (pers comm. Kerry Browning Senior Project Manager Development Division Land Development Agency Victoria (AAV 2010d) ACT by email 19 June 2013)
The main studies procured (in stages) are: Background (Desktop) Assessment Stage 1 Heritage study (desk top and field survey); All investigations require a background assessment to Stage 2 heritage study (field work, salvage, recording etc); and, collect contextual information. Preparation of Cultural Management Plans. A background assessment needs to: The ‘Statement of Requirements’ includes: − search the VAHR for information relating to the investigation Provision of cultural & heritage services to undertake assessments (Stage 1 and 2) of sites identified for land release. Such assessments are undertaken as part of a raft of studies required for preparing land for − review reports on the VAHR and other published release in the ACT and can be done in parallel or following other associated studies. works about Aboriginal cultural heritage in the region The services include, but are not limited to: − review historical and ethno-historical accounts of Aboriginal occupation of the region Documenting consultation with the four ACT Representative Aboriginal Organisations (RAOs) carried out in the course of the cultural heritage assessment − review the landforms or geomorphology of the area Description of the environmental setting of the study area − review the land use history of the study area Desktop review of relevant heritage databases and literature, providing a background of local and − collect and review oral history relating to the area. regional archaeology and history for the study area including consultation with ACT Heritage Unit and Territory and Municipal Services (TAMS) Significance assessment Field survey of the study area and associated methodology for recording Parameters Cultural heritage significance should be assessed in Salvage of sites accordance with section 4 of the Act. Significance Sub-surface investigation at sites here is defined as including: Detailed recording of findings a) archaeological, anthropological, contemporary, historical, scientific, social, or spiritual significance
and Preparation of Heritage and/or Cultural Management Plans b) significance in accordance with Aboriginal Preparation of Report/s including: tradition. Standard format cover sheet Assessing the significance of Aboriginal cultural Executive Summary heritage values requires input from relevant Table of Contents Aboriginal people. Site Description and location Illustrations
259 Truscott – Chapter 6 – Development on Country
The illusion of a comprehensive identification of all ‘heritage and culture’ is perpetuated in the ACT in the reports submitted as part of the pre-development process. A key document in the process is a draft EIS report submitted by the project developer to ACTPLA. This is an overarching summary of the findings of various specialist studies, including heritage, that are submitted with the summary. The summary echoes the language of the Territory’s planning documents for heritage: ‘Heritage and cultural values will be safeguarded, including in particular those of the Territory’s Aboriginal peoples’ (eg AECOM 2012:39). It is apparently not appreciated that only a narrow aspect of ‘heritage’ is contracted. Again there is a contradiction in the language used, for this EIS summary of results also states (emphasis added):
The Aboriginal, European and natural heritage values of the Proposal site, along with potential impacts on these values that may result from the Proposal, have been considered during preparation of the EIS.
But not all Aboriginal values have been ‘considered’, let alone resulting in their safeguarding, for the Indigenous heritage pre-development survey report, attached to the EIS summary, demonstrates that an archaeological survey alone has been undertaken. And again terms are confusing: ‘considered’ is not a synonym for ‘safeguarded’, instead meaning ‘thought about’, ‘reflected on’, or ‘borne in mind’, even ‘examined and discussed’, but does not denote ‘kept safe’ or ‘protected’.
Similarly, the language in the titles and text of the consultants’ pre-development survey reports may mislead or confuse the general reader, developers and planning authorities, even perhaps heritage staff. Titles of reports may imply a wider range of heritage and values are assessed prior to development, rather than only archaeological heritage: ‘Cultural Heritage Assessment’, ‘Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment’, ‘Management of Impacts to Cultural Heritage Values’, ‘Cultural Heritage Plan / Cultural Heritage Management Plan’. These are terms used in the ACT reports, and they are applied indiscriminately to the same type of report.
In Victoria, the statutory term for such a pre-development survey report is ‘Cultural Heritage Management Plan’, and ‘Cultural Management Plan’ in the ACT. This name has increasingly been adopted in Indigenous heritage legislation, regulations and
260 Truscott – Chapter 6 – Development on Country guidelines across Australia, since first adopted in 2002 in Queensland with its new legislation. However, the term ‘Cultural Heritage Management Plan’ appears to have a different application to that accepted in the Burra Charter process, where a ‘Conservation Management Plan’ requires all values to be identified with a policy and plan for the ongoing protection of those values (Australia ICOMOS 2000; Walker and Marquis-Kyle 2004). The reason for this apparent gap may be that many consultant archaeologists have not had experience or training in broader heritage management, as the statistics outlined above in Chapter 4 suggest.
Nonetheless, the developers’ EIS summaries all appear confident that heritage is covered sufficiently. Further misunderstanding may result from other studies as part of the EIS, that could potentially be thought to also relate to heritage identification, yet to not. These include for example, ‘Landscape and Visual’ study, and ‘Community Consultation’251 (eg AECOM 2012:71-87, 208-216). However, these are not targeting heritage values, such as ‘aesthetic significance’, or ‘social value’, or other community associations and meanings for the area being considered.252 It may be that the developer is unaware that not all heritage values: aesthetic, historic, scientific, and social, are involved in such pre-development surveys, particularly given the misleading language described above.
Concerns that expectations do not meet reality is confirmed by the findings of cultural heritage students in the ‘Indigenous Societies and Heritage’ unit,253 at the University of Canberra. The project in late 2010, done in partnership with the ACT government’s Heritage Unit, had the students review four reports, one a scoping study, and three field survey reports, in class workshops. A summary of the outcome of the students’ appraisals was provided (pers comm. Brian Egloff email 17 March 2011), as presented below:
251 ‘Community consultation’ does not include heritage values, but is the standard planning process when the community can comment on the proposed development. 252 Natural heritage appears to be covered separately in topics such as ‘flora and fauna’, and ‘soils and geology’, with apparently no reference to natural heritage in any of such studies, although the ACT Heritage Act 2004 covers both cultural and natural. 253 Part of Cultural Heritage Management course, Donald Horne Institute for Cultural Heritage, University of Canberra. 261 Truscott – Chapter 6 – Development on Country - The background or scoping studies do not meet minimum standard of an historical overview of land use to the present; no use of historic maps254 - People who have known and used the landscape were not spoken with - Predictive modelling? Or perhaps because of a lack of geological / geomorphological scoping resulted in a lack of anticipation of a certain type site: axe-grinding grooves … - The ‘scoping study’ was also found to have a lot of unnecessary padding - The field suvey reports were found to be at a very basic level; with poor quality images and technical display; and again with ‘padding’: repetitive unnecessary text - The reports were not ‘self-analytical - Significance assessment was poorly understood, with neither the concept of significance, nor the ACT heritage criteria (2004), being applied in uniform or informed manner - The different reports resulted in fragmented information that was neither synthesised in the reports themselves nor apparently planned to be integrated later
Archaeologists at the ACT Heritage Unit acknowledged these concerns (pers comm. Mary Clare Swete-Kelly 1 July 2011). At that time, the Government’s response to the review of the ACT Heritage legislation was yet be presented. This delay stayed active change to the current processes until the ACT Legislative Assembly passed the ACT Government’s Heritage Amendment Bill 2013 on 25 September 2014 (ACT LA 2014), just at the time this research ended.
6.2 Analysis of 'Compliance Archaeology' Reports
The following section presents this research’s analysis of 'compliance archaeology' reports for the two study areas, the ACT and Victoria, Wurundjeri Tribe Country, against the community archaeology indicators. The results are discussed in light of the planning system, and its expectations of such pre-development surveys, as presented above.
6.2.1 Comparison of Pre-development Survey Reports
Forty-nine pre-development survey reports were analysed in the ACT. All, bar a couple, date to 2010, and were made available in June 2011. Apart from one report by a lone practitioner, three different consultancy firms produced the other reports, being
254 Such as the ‘Federation Map’ of 1912, and the detailed field books from the comprehensive valuation surveys of every structure (including fence or shed), and land use, for the purposes of compensation to landowners for the change from freehold to leasehold with the declaration of the Federal Capital Teritory (now ACT) (NAA 2014). 262 Truscott – Chapter 6 – Development on Country nine, sixteen and twenty respectively. The Wurundjeri Tribe made fifteen Victorian pre-development survey reports available in January 2012, by five consultancy firms. These reports for the ACT and Victoria are listed in Appendix 2.
The reports range in subject matter. Those in Canberra cover development areas throughout the city’s outskirts, with a slight majority of the surveys related to infrastructure: roads, bridges, sewer / stormwater drains and water projects. The others deal with new suburban expansion. No studies cover extensive areas, most being quite small scale. In Victoria, half were infrastructure, and half residential, three of these being very small—individual suburban residential blocks proposed for sub-division. The reports individually cover different stages of pre-development survey, including identification surveys: ‘cultural heritage assessments’, to recommended actions based on findings and significance assessment: ‘conservation management plans’.
Each of the reports was assessed against the package of community archaeology indicators, as described above in this chapter’s introduction. It is acknowledged that the aim of these pre-development surveys is different to for example, Indigenous heritage management projects in reserve areas, with a potential for a different emphasis on different indicators. For example, these pre-development surveys are not prima facie undertaken to interpret heritage, or to plan or provide long-term cultural tourism, and few results were found against these community archaeology indicators. Overall, the analysis found a marked shortfall from the ideals of community archaeology in both study areas as Table 18 shows. My research confirms the rather scathing findings of University of Canberra cultural heritage students’ review in 2010 of some ACT pre-development survey reports, as summarised above.
263 Truscott – Chapter 6 – Development on Country
Table 18: Assessment of community archaeology criteria for development projects
STUDY AREA COMMUNITY PROJECT APPROACH UNDERSTANDING CAPACITY AND CONTROL OF COUNTRY AND VALUES EMPLOYMENT
Landscape Indigenous Input Enhanced Significance Interpretation Skill Gains / Employment / Approach Knowledge Assessment Training Income
ACT Very limited No Very limited Very Very limited and N/A Fieldwork ‘on Yes limited poorly understood the job’ only
Wurundjeri To a high degree Areas Yes, but not Very Limited N/A Fieldwork and Yes Victoria surveyed too reflected in limited artefact analysis small reports
Criteria for ‘Community Archaeology’ Indicators: Community Control: Indigenous community control over process and decisions made about their heritage (Arnstein Ladder) Landscape approach: Comprehensive inclusion of physical and intangible cultural aspects of landscape Indigenous Input: Inclusion of Indigenous understandings in the project process Enhanced Knowledge: Increased knowledge and understanding of Country – tangible and intangible elements of place Significance Assessment: Application and understanding of all heritage significance criteria Interpretation: Sharing knowledge of Country and heritage values to Indigenous community and general public, including different media and cultural tourism Skill Gains / Training: Education / Training in heritage management, including archaeological and other techniques, cross cultural, significance assessment, general governance Employment / Income: Employment related to management of Indigenous heritage
264 Truscott – Chapter 6 – Development on Country
6.2.2 Community Control
The core element of community archaeology is the Indigenous community’s control, or considerable say, over decisions about their heritage. The difference in decision- making powers between the two study areas is stark as shown in the analysis of the pre-development survey reports. The Victorian Registered Aboriginal Parties, such as the Wurundjeri Tribe, have clear statutory decision-making powers over decisions related to their heritage, the ACT Representative Aboriginal Organisations do not. The following table itemises these differences:
Table 19: Formal role of Indigenous community in pre-development survey process
Victoria ACT Developer and consultant required to meet with Prior meetings about the project are restricted to RAP at RAP’s office throughout process, logistical arrangements, and do not always take including regarding ‘social value’ place
RAP representatives must be present throughout RAO representatives are invited to be present the fieldwork during the fieldwork, but cannot always be present, and are not required by the statutory system
The pre-development survey report, the Cultural RAOs are invited to comment on the final draft Heritage Management Plan, must be signed off by report, but this is not a statutory requirement and the RAP such comments are not always made
The study by Porter and Barry (2013:36) notes the Council’s ‘power and authority that RAP status affords had meant the Wurudjeri Council can cleverly capitalise on the desire for “certainty” within urban development’. The Country Plan that the Wurundjeri Council has developed, with its TEK protocols, suggests a confidence, capacity and commitment, taking a leadership role to achieve a greater control over decisions about their heritage on Wurundjeri Country. Yet as this analysis of pre- development processes shows, they have been more limited to date in this area of Indigenous heritage management in ensuring a more strategic consideration of the community’s meaning of Country is fully considered.
However, the above summary of the different community roles in the pre-development survey process highlights the ‘consultation’ limits for the ACT RAOs. Their role may be interpreted as ‘tokenistic’ in Arnstein terms, whereas the
265 Truscott – Chapter 6 – Development on Country Victorian RAPs have considerable responsibility as partners in the system, with power, not fully delegated, yet ‘delegated power’, in the decision-making process.
In the ACT, some Indigenous community members presented their perspectives on their role as part of the 2010 legislation review, seeking a greater control and leadership over their heritage. The Victorian model was cited as a preferred system. A greater acknowledgement of Indigenous values over Country was wanted in pre- development survey reports, as was the retention of sites in situ, or the ‘return to Country’ (redeposition) of artefacts, including in Victoria.
The relevant governments in both study areas had not finally responded to the reviews of the legislation for Indigenous heritage when about to complete this research, although initial responses have been made (ACT 2013b; Victoria 2013). However, on 25 September 2014, just at the completion of this research and its submission, the ACT Legislative Assembly passed the ACT Government’s Heritage Legislation Amendment Bill 2013, with further changes (ACT LA 2014).
The amendments came into effect immediately, and provide blanket protection to all Aboriginal archaeological sites and places, ‘protected by the legislation, both the tangible archaeological sites, and intangible heritage ‘associated with the custom, rituals, institutions, beliefs … of Aboriginal people’ (ACT LA 2014:4). However, in the ACT, any ‘historic’ heritage associated with the ‘history of Aboriginal people, particularly after European settlement’, such as buildings, are specifically ruled out of being defined as Aboriginal place or objects (ACT LA 2014:4). Thus the past 190 years of potential Aboriginal association or meanings do not receive ‘blanket’ protection.
However, an information sheet of those changes related to Indigenous heritage are still primarily couched in ‘archaeological’, or tangible, terms (Gentleman 2014, Attachment 1; ACT 2014a), although noting the ‘need for further investigation that, …which might include artefact analysis, oral histories, community consultation, and/or further historical, environmental or other research’ (see Attachment 1, ACT 2414a:1). It remains unclear whether the ACT RAOs, or RAPs such as the Wurundjeri Tribe, will have greater or lesser control of their heritage.
266 Truscott – Chapter 6 – Development on Country The following discussion of the reviews of the pre-development survey reports details flaws for Indigenous heritage identification, including archaeological inquiry. It is clear that this process is not informed by community archaeology processes, and does not result in any real gain in knowledge about the past. One benefit is that of economic gain to those members of the ACT Indigenous communities who undertake fieldwork for pre-development surveys. In the case of the Wurundjeri in Victoria this financial benefit extends to the larger community, as a proportion of the fieldwork fee is kept to develop cultural capital. The following critique highlights many issues that need to be addressed before it can be said that Indigenous heritage and the relevant community/ies benefit as claimed for the community archaeology model.
6.2.3 Pre-development Survey Approach
The examination of the pre-development survey reports identified whether a comprehensive, integrated approach was taken to the area proposed for development. If comprehensive, all known layers of past and more recent interaction with that area were included. These comprise an all-encompassing background history collated, public Indigenous knowledge shared, and a field survey undertaken with both archaeological techniques and ‘cultural mapping’ with the relevant Aboriginal Elders and other community members.
The ‘background study’ should be of all known evidence: ethnographical and historical records to the present, past archaeological studies, and input by the relevant community/ies about their oral history and knowledge of Country. Only then can gaps in information be identified, such as research questions, as well as areas to be targeted for a field survey. This analysis found mixed results as to following such a process, some being quite formulaic.
Landscape or Site-Based Approach
The reports analysed did not survey large areas, no entire landscapes, but parts thereof, potentially an entire proposed suburb, and in Victoria most were very small areas. The introductions to the reports provided some contextual introduction on the area to be studied. These preliminary desktop background studies vary, but in the
267 Truscott – Chapter 6 – Development on Country ACT most provide a summary of the environment in which the study is located, an Aboriginal cultural / archaeological ‘context’, and ‘historical context’.
In Victoria, the background information is more extensive. The format of pre-development survey reports is prescribed, the survey area is set into a much wider context both in time and space—from the Pleistocene to Holocene, and post-contact, and regionally and state-wide. Although each consultancy firm has a tendency to repeat the same background text when in the same general study area, the Victorian format ensures that the key required topics of the background desktop study are met, and can draw on an extensive summary (ACHM 2010). In the ACT this varies, although each consultancy firm has the same almost formulaic text. These background summaries are limited to the district within the ACT where the survey is located, not across the entire territory, not beyond its borders, and not all phases of Indigenous occupation. None in the ACT synthesise all available information.
Few of the ACT reports include the Indigenous post-contact history in the pre-development survey background study. This is despite considerable information being in the public domain that refers to the post-contact story of Aboriginal people in the area to be surveyed, such as Avery’s comprehensive history (1994).
In the ACT, such post-contact information is also available as oral or published histories from family members of today’s RAOs (Bell 1999, 2003; House 2003; House 2004). Also, archival material, general local histories, published reports and genealogies provide important data about the intertwined lives of Indigenous Australians and the newcomers. Many Aborigines continued to live on Country from European settlement in 1824, some working for pastoralists until the late 19th century, when the NSW Protectorate of Aborigines moved people to reserves established not far outside the area to become the ACT.255 The selection and establishment of Canberra, as the national federal capital from 1911, saw some returning to work on building Canberra, with increasing numbers returning later to permanently live in the ACT.
255 Although not so far away: to Yass, Tumut, Cowra. 268 Truscott – Chapter 6 – Development on Country Most of the ACT reports provided a very brief summary of land use since the 1824 European settlement of the Canberra district, but only one consultancy firm refers to the 1912 ‘Federation Map’. However, none of the surveys draw sufficiently on this resource to identify changes to the landscape documented on it 100 years ago. The map is a unique collation of the 1911-12 compensation valuation survey of all built structures in the new Federal Capital Territory (now ACT), with a detailed descriptions of all houses, sheds, fences, vegetation, crop fields, etc, by surveyor and valuer Moriaty, for compensation to landowners (NAA 2014). None of the surveys identify land use history up to the present.
By contrast, in Victoria, the post-contact connections to Country are also well known, including the movement to Aboriginal reserves beyond Wurundjeri Tribe Country, and included in the background studies. Also, there is a difference in the two study areas in how before, during and after the field-survey, the Indigenous community knowledge is sought and incorporated into the pre-development survey report, as outlined next.
Whether the background desktops are more or less comprehensive. In the field, all the pre-development surveys limited themselves to the identification of tangible, physical evidence, and that generally limited to Indigenous ‘archaeological’ sites and artefacts. There is no real attempt at connecting the past 200 years or so of contact with the on- ground remains and today’s descent communities, whether Indigenous or not.
Indigenous Input
Different community consultation processes are applied as the comparative analysis reveals. In Victoria, to ascertain the Wurundjri community’s prior knowledge of the part of Country subject to the pre-development survey, special interviews, meetings, and / or workshops are held with Wurundjeri Tribe Elders. Also at times Elders’ visits are made on Country to identify Indigenous story and values to be incorporated into such pre-development ‘heritage studies’, although no structured ‘cultural mapping’ is undertaken as part of the EES process. The Victorian approach results in a more comprehensive sense of Country being identified, before, during or after a 'compliance archaeology' survey, although this research finds it is nonetheless limited.
269 Truscott – Chapter 6 – Development on Country The very small areas surveyed limits the inclusion of any specific community knowledge of Country, as the analysis demonstrated.
Also the report format for CHMPs requires the documentation of consultation to (AAV 2010d:3): - identify the RAP representatives, if any, who participated in Management Plan meetings and/or consultation (including tele-conferencing, video conferencing and internet hook-ups as acceptable alternatives to meetings); and, � - identify RAP representatives, if any, who participated in any field assessment.
Also, once a draft CHMP is written, it is submitted to the relevant RAP, such as the Wurundjeri Tribe for approval, in consultation between the consultant, developer (at times), Wurundjeri Tribe archaeologist, and Elders. This researcher had opportunity to observe a meeting between the Wurundjeri Council and a developer at the end of a project, commenting on the draft CHMP in April 2011. I noted the active role that the Elder had in the discussion as well as the staff archaeologist. This process, a statutory requirement, is not merely administrative. These meetings including the last are other opportunities to ensure any relevant Indigenous knowledge is incorporated. They also provide the community with control to ensure their views about how the archaeological material should be treated are carried out, such as ‘return to Country (redeposition) on or near the site.
Unlike Victoria, the ACT currently does not hold such consultative sessions, and there is limited, if any, discussion about such knowledge in the field. No identification results of intangible values associated with the survey area or of the surrounding landscape, whether of the pre-contact past or the past 200 years of shared history. The ACT Heritage Council’s Indigenous Working Group will go onsite at times to consider recommendations from a 'compliance archaeology' survey report. However, although this committee generally includes an Elder from one of the four RAOs, this is not a community-based consultative process to identify Indigenous values for Country as undertaken in Victoria.
It is unclear why the RAOs in the ACT are not approached for their advice and knowledge prior to any field survey; the only meetings held relate to logistical arrangements for the fieldwork, and often these by telephone or email. It may be that 270 Truscott – Chapter 6 – Development on Country persistence of the ‘archaeological model’ prevents taking a wider consultative approach, for it is the consultant archaeologist who contacts the RAOs about fieldwork. There is no wider consultation identified or required in the process, nor provision for it in terms of payment for such community input. In fact, the only financial provision is for time spent in the field. Nor is there payment for their time spent in providing comments on draft reports.
Dedicated consultation with community members regarding ‘cultural’ values prior to the fieldwork, appears not to be suggested by any of the participants: such not by the community groups, the consultants, the heritage agency, the developers or planners. This is despite such gathering of knowledge of Country by oral history and family accounts can be gained before fieldwork from RAO members—and paid for, just as the consultants are paid, for their preparation of background studies.
The reports are silent about the fact that there has been no real attempt to identify ‘culture’, using the ACT term, understood by the Land Development Agency to indicate community values. Instead there is no clarification, especially in the ACT, that no genuine process of gathering Indigenous knowledge of Country has been made. Given the language of the planning systems, this lack of transparency, although probably not deliberate obfuscation, masks the project’s proponent appreciating that the report has not fully met its requirements. This omission reinforces an impression that the pre-development survey process is merely a planning tick-box exercise, a compliant, mechanistic, form of archaeology, rather than heritage identification. The inclusion, or not, of the community meaning of Country is presented further in this analysis below at the section on the community archaeology indicator: Understanding Community Meaning of Country.
The Indigenous community view of their limited role in the pre-development survey process and decision-making can be scathing, as the reference to only sieving dirt suggests. This comment is reminiscent of the description of the role in NSW for Indigenous contribution (Byrne et al 2001:5; emphasis added):
‘Aboriginal consultation’ had been developed by archaeologists. But rather than ‘inputting’ Aboriginal people’s own values (the social significance of the places) into the assessment process what ‘Aboriginal consultation’ did was bring local Aboriginal people into
271 Truscott – Chapter 6 – Development on Country the work of archaeology (e.g., helping record stone artefacts in the field, sieving dirt on excavations).
6.2.4 Increased Knowledge of Country
An increased knowledge and understanding of Country, including all tangible and intangible elements of place is one of the core ideals of community archaeology. The original concept aims to share both scientific, archaeological knowledge, and that of the local community in a collaborative process, with results fully accessible. This research identifies that these elements of understanding Country need to be extended beyond archaeological research, and important component of heritage identification, and community understandings, to other sources of knowledge. This case study’s investigation demonstrates that pre-development surveys do not contribute very much, if any, new knowledge.
Four community archaeology indicators are reviewed in the pre-development survey reports regarding knowledge of Country: the increased scientific knowledge of the past, the greater understanding of the Indigenous meaning of Country, the nature of the importance of these, and its sharing more widely. The reports were reviewed regarding whether these indicators are met, and to what level. Essentially the results of the analysis against these indicators suggest that community archaeology is not met in this aspect of Indigenous heritage management.
Enhanced ‘Scientific’ Knowledge of Past
In the ACT and Victoria, none of the pre-development survey reports enhance scientific knowledge of the past. Archaeological sites and artefacts are recorded, and then removed for storage. Despite the archaeological expertise of consultants doing the pre-development surveys in the ACT and Victoria, there is little, if any, information gained about past lifestyles as a result. The potential may be there from the survey results but they are not realised; it appears the system followed does not permit a structured research approach that demands research questions before field work, then substantial analysis of any findings, and their interpretation.
For no archaeological research questions are applied to the area to be surveyed in any of the pre-development surveys. Nor is it reported what research questions emerge
272 Truscott – Chapter 6 – Development on Country from the fieldwork results. As already observed, the background statements prior to the fieldwork are descriptive rather than analytical, some few having summaries of sites or artefacts previously found, and in some cases predictive site locations. None of these background summaries specify what the evidence indicates for past lifestyles. Similarly, the reports present the findings of sites and their contents, but none provide any synthesis that updates the background history made at the outset of the study. No reports provide any summary of what information the new evidence found indicates about past lifestyles.
In terms of the data gathered, such as sites and artefacts, the reports reviewed are scrupulous in recording these facts. However, it was difficult to fully comprehend the number or range of archaeological sites in both study areas from pre-development survey reports. Numbers and types of sites are recorded in the reports, but their identification numbers change in the reporting process. For example, in the ACT a site’s ‘name’ may change from a ‘district’ identifier, such as G1 (Gungahlin site 1), to a suburb identifier, ‘Crace 3’. These name changes make it difficult to ascertain whether it is the same site or a new one. Also there were difficulties finding previously recorded sites again, even if the later survey were only months after and by the same consultant. Such confusing records are not unique to pre-development survey reports, but add considerable barriers to evaluating what the recorded sites represent.256
There are other limitations to a full archaeological analysis of the survey findings. Artefacts are described and removed for storage. There is no expectation that the survey team will undertake further scientific analysis. In the ACT, there is generally no subsequent artefact analysis.257 Any commitment to future analysis is unclear, as the changes in legislation demonstrate. In the ACT, the future study of archaeological artefacts was acknowledged in the then Heritage Objects Act 1991 s6 d (ACT 1991): 1. The artefacts are to be stored in a safe, dry place in the care of the ACT Heritage Unit …258
256 GIS records are updated only much later that the studies, or development decisions. 257 An exception was the Cotter Dam pre-development survey [ref], where an extensive analysis was undertaken (pers comm. Mary Clare Swete-Kelly 1 July 2011). 258 … until the local Aboriginal community have a suitable Keeping Place for the storage of this part of their heritage. 273 Truscott – Chapter 6 – Development on Country 2. The artefacts may be studied by qualified persons with permission of the Heritage, Museums and Galleries Section, Department of the Environment, Land and Planning, but only in ways which will not adversely affect the heritage significance of the artefacts.
But in the ACT Heritage Act 2004, this acknowledgement to future research disappears, not even mentioned in section 115 referring to a ‘Repository for Territory- owned Aboriginal objects’ (ACT 2004).
In Victoria, there is a commitment to a greater level of post-fieldwork analysis of the artefacts, which is undertaken by trained RAP members. A more detailed description appears in the report, but there is no interpretation to give the community or the wider public a sense of what use these artefacts had or what lifestyle they portray. In Victoria, again there is no commitment to further research options, with instead a strong commitment to a ‘return to Country’ reburial of artefacts.
The language in the reports as noted is also a barrier to understanding the results of such 'compliance archaeology'. The data that may provide some sense of the past is hidden in the scientific language used, impeding understanding by those outside the discipline. Without plain English, a commitment under the AAA code of ethics, either the survey report itself, or a plain English summary, the survey results are inaccessible to the Indigenous community. The reports are likely to be opaque to key decision makers: the developers and planning agencies, some heritage agency officials or council members, potentially impeding better Indigenous heritage management. The wider community’s appreciation of Indigenous heritage may be blocked and the reports an obstacle to those wishing to comment on the proposed development during the EIS/EES consultative process.
The pre-development survey reports demonstrate that currently ‘compliance archaeology’ in both study areas provides no real opportunity for thorough archaeological research. The results of a full archaeological analysis could people the past, important not merely for science, but for the Indigenous community’s ongoing connection to Country, and to wider society’s appreciation. The considerable funds spent on the pre-development process appear, based on this analysis, to produce little benefit to archaeology, heritage or the Indigenous community.
274 Truscott – Chapter 6 – Development on Country Understanding Community Meanings of Country
The reviewed pre-development survey reports contain little about the Indigenous meanings of Country in either study area. As discussed above regarding processes for Indigenous input, none of the pre-development surveys applied any cultural mapping approaches, despite early consultation with Elders prior to surveys in Victoria. For the Wurundjeri Council, this lack may result from these pre-development projects being small areas, potentially curbing any ability to include meanings of place not specifically in the survey area. The more recent GAA commitment to early strategic inclusion of Indigenous heritage, strongly encouraged by the Wurundjeri Council, may change this in the future.
In the ACT as noted above, there is no policy or statutory requirement for consultation before the fieldwork about the possible knowledge of the area to be surveyed, and such does not take place. In regards RAO comment on the pre- development survey report, this is not formally required either, although there is some or occasional input after the draft report is written.259 The survey reports do not indicate, in either Victoria or the ACT, a concerted effort once in the field to fully engage the community members onsite to contribute this aspect of their heritage. In some reports, the community members assisting the survey indicated that the artefacts found had ‘cultural value’. In Victoria, the pre-development survey reports do not generally report on this aspect of Indigenous heritage, beyond a comprehensive statement in the ‘background assessment’, often due to the small size of the survey area. However the community cultural, or ‘social’, value of the artefacts has resulted in their being returned to Country for reburial after analysis. In the ACT, the ‘cultural value’ of artefactual material is also claimed by community members.
In the ACT, the absence of effort to identify community meanings of areas being surveyed of Country may be due a residual notion that the local Indigenous communities have not retained knowledge of Country. One consultant260 shared her experience with this researcher of community members with some patchy knowledge from great-grandparents, and their distress that they were unable to relay fuller
259 Many of the reviewed reports were drafts and most did not have any comments from the RAOs. 260 Requested confidentiality (1 September 2010). 275 Truscott – Chapter 6 – Development on Country knowledge, ‘unlike Indigenous people from remote Australia’. It was the view also of the then ACT Heritage Unit, that ‘there was very little surviving cultural knowledge for the ACT’.
It is however this researcher’s experience that the current community members are comfortable with what they know, and in sharing it between community members, have a greater confidence in their [re]connection to Country. This was clearly during the Namadgi Rock Art project presented in the previous chapter, but in the case of pre-development surveys such knowledge is still not actively sought.
Nor is the procedure during field survey clear, for no reports have any explanation of the consultative method used when, or if, identifying Indigenous knowledge or values while in the field. The report analysis shows that very few indicate that intangible values were identified. Also, a wider sense of Country linking the area surveyed to the surrounds is recorded. For example, one ACT consultant noted one RAO’s frustration that the small pre-development survey area did not permit the inclusion in its report of important places in the viewshed (pers comm. Alistair Grinbergs261 18 May 2010).
This example demonstrates how the current system of small survey areas is defeating the supposed intention of these pre-development studies. By contrast, at a listed Indigenous heritage site in the ACT, Gubur Dhaura, the connections across the landscape across suburban rooftops, is vividly interpreted for visitors by signage and story262 (eg Bell and Overton 2012). Community understanding of story and meanings of Country contributed meaningfully to the interpretation of this ochre quarry, undertaken with the community by the Land Development Authority and the ACT Heritage Unit. These agencies are the very same that steer the safeguarding of ‘heritage and cultural values’ during the EIS process. It is also noted that this understanding of Country was gathered in the very landscape concurrently with several of this research’s pre-development surveys, which do not attempt to incorporate Indigenous knowledge into their reports.
261 Not an author of any of the reports analysed in this case study. 262 And guided visits by the local Indigenous community members are available. 276 Truscott – Chapter 6 – Development on Country The lack of a fully collaborative consultative process forgoes what Indigenous knowledge there is, preventing such information from becoming a part of the significance assessment applied during such pre-development surveys. Significance assessment is discussed below, but it would appear that both process and practice combine to limit gaining the best possible understanding of all aspects of the place being studied.
Significance Assessment
The process and expression of the significance assessment in the reports suggests a lack of understanding of, or discomfort with, this process by those consultants doing the pre-development surveys. All reports refer to the Burra Charter without applying its significance assessment process. Only one of the analysed reports was there a more than basic level of understanding and application of the significance criteria.
As a reminder, the significance criteria in the two study areas, Victoria and the ACT, differ. The legislation in both jurisdictions have criteria that seek a widening of heritage identification from only archaeological, or ‘scientific’, value, as shown below (Table 20, emphasis added).
Table 20 – Significance Criteria – ACT and Victoria
ACT significance criteria263 Victoria significance definition Heritage Act 2004 Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006 Those for cultural heritage264 are as follows (emphases added) [ref]: (a) it demonstrates a high degree of technical or creative cultural heritage significance achievement (or both), by showing qualities of innovation, includes— discovery, invention or an exceptionally fine level of
application of existing techniques or approaches; (a) archaeological, (b) it exhibits outstanding design or aesthetic qualities valued by anthropological, contemporary, the community or a cultural group; historical, scientific, social or (c) it is important as evidence of a distinctive way of life, taste, spiritual significance; and tradition, religion, land use, custom, process, design or
function that is no longer practiced, is in danger of being lost or is of exceptional interest; (b) significance in accordance with Aboriginal tradition; (d) it is highly valued by the community or a cultural group for reasons of strong or special religious, spiritual, cultural, educational or social associations; (e) it is significant to the ACT because of its importance as
263 As noted in Chapter 3, the ACT criteria are not aligned with those in other jurisdictions; although also seeking ‘aesthetic, historic, scientific, and social values’, they differ in terminology and sequence. 264 Other criteria are dedicated to the natural environment 277 Truscott – Chapter 6 – Development on Country
part of local Aboriginal tradition; (f) it is a rare or unique example of its kind, or is rare or unique in its comparative intactness; (g) it is a notable example of a kind of place or object and demonstrates the main characteristics of that kind; (h) it has strong or special associations with a person, group, event, development or cultural phase in local or national history; (j) it has provided, or is likely to provide, information that will contribute significantly to a wider understanding of the natural or cultural history of the ACT because of its use or potential use as a research site or object, teaching site or object, type locality or benchmark site;
As flagged in Chapter 3, both sets of criteria double up, or ‘overlap’, unnecessarily, are repetitious. Community, or ‘social value’ (ACT criterion (d), Victoria ‘social or spiritual significance’) is covered and does not require a separate criterion or definition for Indigenous values, ‘according to tradition’ is already covered by ‘social value’. The use of the term ‘cultural’ value is a term particularly used in pre- development survey reports as a contrast to ‘scientific value’, rather than referring to the wording of the criteria. ‘Cultural value’ is a very broad expression, which in general heritage usage applies to all criteria: historic, aesthetic, social and scientific values, and is therefore potentially confusing as to what is specifically meant.
It is understood that in the ACT, the consultant archaeologists had all been reminded that they were to apply all criteria in pre-development survey projects (pers comm. Jazz Foxlee ACT Heritage Unit 16 June 2010; also Mary Clare Swete-Kelly ACT Heritage Unit 1 July 2011). However, they are not being applied. After listing all the ACT criteria and referring to the Burra Charter process, the reports then revert to the application of only ‘scientific’, or archaeological significance assessment, and to some degree Indigenous ‘cultural’. It is therefore useful to understand better what is understood by ‘scientific value’.
Scientific Value
The current ACT criterion is different to that widely accepted for ‘scientific value’ across all general heritage agencies in Australia, including Victoria265, and accepted
265 The Victorian Heritage Act 1995, which does not primarily cover Indigenous heritage, adopted the HERCON criteria in 2008. 278 Truscott – Chapter 6 – Development on Country for adoption in the ACT (2013b)266 is the HERCON criterion (Attachment 2): 3. Potential to yield information that will contribute to an understanding of our cultural or natural history.
This HERCON definition of ‘scientific value’ is quite clear in intent. However, the separate Indigenous agencies do not apply these criteria, and the Aboriginal Heritage Act in Victoria uses terms that overlap and are potentially confusing, for example, ‘archaeological’ and ‘scientific’ are essentially the same, referring to ‘research value’.
So what do contract archaeologists, centrally involved in pre-development surveys, understand by these terms? In the ACT, two of the consultancy firms provide definitions in all their reports:
… Aboriginal archaeological sites are generally of high research potential because ‘they are the major source of information about Aboriginal prehistory’ (quoting Pearson and Sullivan 1995: 149). Indeed, the often great time depth of Aboriginal archaeological sites gives them research value from a global perspective, as they are an important record of humanity’s history. Research potential can also refer to specific local circumstances in space and time–a site may have particular characteristics … that mean it can provide information about certain aspects of Aboriginal life in the past that other less or alternatively valuable sites may not (Burke and Smith 2004: 247-8). When determining research potential value particular emphasis has been placed on the potential for absolute dating of sites. (Biosis 2010b:16) Archaeological significance values (or scientific values) generally are assessed on the potential of a site or place to generate knowledge through archaeological research or knowledge. Scientific significance should be assessed according to timely and specific research questions (research potential) and representativeness. (CHMA 2010:27)
Although these definitions of ‘research or scientific value’ are basically in line with current heritage guidelines, such as the HERCON criteria (see Appendix 1), there are problems with their application within the study areas’ 'compliance archaeology' systems. Nor is there any framework for the application of this criterion, neither identified research questions, nor any indication of what information the item being
266 As part of the ACT Government’s response to the 2010 heritage legislation review, and adopted on 25 September 2014, just as this thesis was completed. 279 Truscott – Chapter 6 – Development on Country assessed—site or artefact—brings, or might bring, to an improved understanding of the past in the location surveyed. As such, the scientific value criterion is not applied.
The significance sections in the reports also show an ignorance of general heritage significance assessment practice, as fostered in the Australia ICOMOS Burra Charter process (Australia ICOMOS 2000:14). Elements of these ‘archaeological value’ assessments apply ranking measures, and identify ‘conservation value’, as part of the significance assessment process; neither are used in the Burra Charter process. Ranking is applied—low, medium/moderate or high, presumed to emerge from an assessment of the research potential of a site, or artefact. Yet, such ranking is meaningless when no research questions are stated, nor any analysis given as to why an item is seen as either ‘high’ or ‘low’ in its research potential. Is an artefact of low scientific value because everything is already known about such an artefact, or is it low, because it is a surface find, not in situ, thus limiting its informational potential, or? None of this is made clear in the assessments.
Conservation Value
Similarly, there appears to be a different approach to the term ‘conservation value’ being defined by one archaeological consultant in the ACT as:
… based on the condition of the site, the potential for future research if new techniques are developed and the educational potential of the site. (Biosis 2010b:16)
This explanation suggests that either this term should be replaced by ‘condition’, or as one or other of two criteria: scientific value, or a site’s capacity to demonstrate a type of place (or object):
HERCO criterion 4. Importance in demonstrating the principal characteristics of a class of cultural or natural places or environments. ACT criterion (g) it is a notable example of a kind of place or object and demonstrates the main characteristics of that kind;
Another consultant evaluates a site after excavation as having ‘low conservation value’, because it has been disturbed by excavation:
This is in consideration of the site type, contents, lack of research potential and disturbed context as a result of the test pit excavations. (CHMA 2010:27)
280 Truscott – Chapter 6 – Development on Country In effect, this statement is referring to the site not providing ‘sufficiently significant’ information. But why the information resulting from the excavation is not sufficient or significant is not explained, given no research questions are given. Instead the site more correctly could be assessed as having ‘low research value’, or limited potential for interpretation and presentation to the public, but the term ‘low conservation value’ is misleading.
If indeed what is meant is the site’s ‘condition’, then this is something that should normally not be confused with its significance but inform what decisions are made about its future management.
‘Cultural Value’ Aboriginal cultural values were discussed with the RAOs in the field as a component of the archaeological survey. While no specific information was provided regarding the value of individual sites, there was a general consensus that the artefacts and associated archaeological deposits recorded at Kenny were of significance to the RAOs. Furthermore, there was a general consensus that where possible it would be preferred if the sites could be conserved in their current state. (NOHC 2010a:43)
The above quote is a rare insight into the Indigenous community members contributing their knowledge and values associated with place as part of the pre- development survey process. However, this contribution while in the field results in a very general statement. The reviewed pre-development survey reports recorded some few similar statements that the sites and artefacts found were of ‘cultural value’. However, no reports indicated what methods were used to identify this value, and the reports do not record any genuine assessment of ‘cultural value’ to indicate Indigenous attachment and association.
There is otherwise limited opportunity for the Indigenous community to contribute their understanding of Country in the ACT. And despite the greater consultative process in Victoria, the pre-development survey reports analysed are also largely limited to the finding of ‘archaeological’ sites and artefacts. In both study areas, almost the only finding for Indigenous values is that the physical remains of their ancestors’ past activity have ‘cultural’ value.
281 Truscott – Chapter 6 – Development on Country But such identification of this ‘cultural value’, as recorded in the above quote, would seem somewhat perfunctory, given it is based solely on a discussion in the field. 267 And this identification is not carried through as being equal to the ‘scientific value’ in the report’s recommendations. Development advice is based solely on the ‘scientific value’ that includes removal for some sites or artefacts found to have ‘low significance’ (NOHC 2010a:62): - ‘If development impact is anticipated in the vicinity of Aboriginal recordings’, surface collection for some of these identified sites and sub- surface further work on others
In this example, the developer receives no advice that there are constraints because the sites have ‘social value’ to the Indigenous community. The only constraints in the report’s section on ‘Conservation of Aboriginal Heritage Places’ are based on low, medium, high ‘conservation value’, with ‘nil constraints’ over some with ‘medium conservation value’ (NOHCa 2010:73-74).
It thus appears that Indigenous community value is not respected within the pre- development survey system. There are no appropriate methods for the community to relay the connections they have to the area being surveyed beyond random comments by the field worker. And without a more comprehensive understanding of all possible Indigenous associations, the allocation of ‘cultural value’ to sites and artefacts is too restrictive and overly blunt. A more sophisticated articulation of ‘why’ a site or artefact is important to the community is needed, within a wider, more nuanced context. Such an inclusive approach is missing in the current pre-development survey recommendations for Indigenous heritage.
Victorian Indigenous communities indicated their desire for a greater prominence for ‘cultural significance’ in legislation recommendations for a pre-development survey processes (AAV 2012a:23, see Chapter 4). But this recommendation was not seen as limiting scientific approaches: ‘Refocusing the system towards an emphasis on cultural significance should not diminish the requirement for high quality archaeological work being conducted where needed’ (AAV 2012c:5).
267 This researcher had no opportunity to observe such discussions in the field. 282 Truscott – Chapter 6 – Development on Country Sharing Knowledge of Country The King Brown Tribal Group is keen to see Interpretation on the site about general Aboriginal activity in that local area, and would also like a workshop on scar trees and how they were used by Ngunnawal people. (Adrian Brown for King Brown email 19/10/2010, Biosis 2010c:25 – Appendix 1).
This advice is a rare example of that given by the RAOs after being forwarded the consultant’s draft pre-development survey report.268 It is also a rare example of the reports that propose interpretation to the public of sites or heritage elements found in the survey. In this case, the issue of scarred trees being protected in situ was raised by the RAOs, including one in a ‘pocket park’, as recommended by one of the RAOs, the Buru Ngunawal Aboriginal Corporation (Biosis 2010c:26), and to the developer by the consultant Biosis (2010c:19). However, these pre-development survey reports do not address any future use of the sites that stay in situ, such as for public interpretation purposes.
Further, the reports do not summarise their findings to indicate any sense of how people lived in the past, and the reports are couched in inaccessible technical language. As already noted, plain English would make the reports more accessible to those making planning and heritage decisions, as well as members of the general public. The lack of plain English makes more difficult any future plan to interpret the spaces that have been surveyed.
6.2.5 Capacity Development and Employment
One of the ideals of community archaeology is that the community gain capacity to manage its own heritage, and as a result grow in social and economic capital. However, there was no indication of any specific capacity transference in the reports reviewed—to either the consultants or the community members, whether formal, or informal.
By contrast, the financial benefit to the community from its engagement with pre-development survey work is readily available from the reports. In the majority of cases, the time spent on a project, such as on field survey, is recorded in the reports,
268 It is unclear what proportion of reports receive comments, most only given in the field. 283 Truscott – Chapter 6 – Development on Country providing a sense of income to individual community members and / or the community more generally.
Training
In order to achieve a comprehensive understanding of place, a comprehensive application of relevant expertise is required. The Burra Charter reinforces this principle in its statement that ‘all the knowledge, skills, and disciplines which can contribute to the study and care of the place’ should be used (Australia ICOMOS 2013a:Article 4.1). However, my analysis suggests that this principle is not followed in the pre-development survey process. However, it is difficult to prove this view as the expertise of the consultants undertaking pre-development surveys is not available, particularly in the ACT, other than that they all studied archaeology.
Yet the range of skills needed for a pre-development survey to identify all relevant heritage is broad. The skills needed encompasses the following:
Understanding of legal and planning systems; communication skills with different interest groups, teamwork, cross-cultural participation; project administration and report preparation
And the specialist disciplines that are likely to be needed are:
geography, geology / geomorphology, environment, history, archaeology, anthropology, cultural heritage management, that includes significance assessment …
It cannot be expected that any one individual can have all these skills, and multi-disciplinary teams are therefore needed. In neither jurisdiction is it stipulated that a team with relevant expertise is required to undertake a pre-development survey. But the expectation or requirements for expertise and experience to undertake such pre-development survey work differ markedly between the ACT and Victoria.
In Victoria, consultants, or ‘Cultural Heritage Advisors’, in order to be registered as such, are required to have an academic qualification from one of the above range of disciplines. However, there is no proof required that one has heritage experience, other than for Aboriginal persons who have undertaken non-university training.
284 Truscott – Chapter 6 – Development on Country Otherwise, the qualification in ‘cultural heritage management’ is merely one of the options, not a requirement. But there is no requirement that a pre-development survey consultancy team indicate that it represents all, or most, skills to meet a full identification and assessment of all potential heritage values.
In the ACT, there is no formal registration process to undertake pre-development survey, requiring proof of qualifications and experience. Instead the consultants self- select the experience they provide against a list produced by ACT Heritage. This consultants directory is available online, but ACT Heritage specifically makes a disclaimer that they cannot endorse the work of the consultants recommending anyone hiring them to undertake their own checks (ACT EPD 2013).
The only training mentioned in any of the pre-development survey reports is related to those involved in the subsequent land development under ‘Unanticipated Discovery Protocols’. Most of the Victorian reports and two in the ACT recommend such training, that ‘provides guidance on the identification of items of potential geomorphological and archaeological significance’ (eg NOHC 2010b:33).
The two study areas also vary in the training Indigenous community members have received about managing their heritage. In Victoria, the Registered Aboriginal Parties, as described above, are to have ‘expected knowledge’ of the legislation and heritage management issues, site identification and prediction, and management options (AAV 2010c). Understanding significance and a capacity to assess significance is not mentioned, however, Wurundjeri Tribe members have participated in past Victorian heritage field training and the Certificate IV archaeological heritage course at La Trobe University.
As previously noted, general community capacity training is also available to the Victorian RAPs. The Wurundjeri Council is also regarded as having brought about a strong administrative and technical capability in ‘transformative’ ways by gaining funding for staff, such as from Melbourne Water, noted in Chapter 5. Porter and Barry (2013:35) observe that the Wurundjeri Council had ‘human and financial resoures, key skills and legitimacy [as a RAP] … visionary leadership, and pre-existing relations with government’ that provided a catalyst to their push with GAA for an
285 Truscott – Chapter 6 – Development on Country earlier, more strategic, less ‘mechanistic’ approach to pre-development survey processes.
In the ACT by contrast, there is no requirement for expertise from members of the Representative Aboriginal Organisations, and little if any training. The last field training on the identification of stone tools was a decade ago in 2003, but many of the younger RAO community representatives now undertaking pre-development survey fieldwork with consultants have not had that training. Informal interviews with consultants in the ACT, indicate that such community members are provided ‘on the job’ training ‘on the job’ in the field. However, none of the pre-development survey reports indicate what all the tasks are for such RAO members, nor the specifics of that training.
The limited ‘consultation’ role that the RAOs have in the process under the Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006, also limits their administrative role. There are no accompanying programs to develop governance competence, nor funding to support their role, potentially hindering their capacity to advocate more strongly for their heritage.
Economic Benefit The Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006 (Vic) and the Cultural Heritage Management Plan (CHMP) system has become an important source of employment for Aboriginal communities in Victoria. In that respect, it has had a positive impact by ensuring that not only can we as traditional owners look after our country, but that we are able to raise some funds to do so and employ our people in the process. (Xiberras 2012:1)
A central component of the community archaeology model is the economic benefit from an Indigenous community’s engagement with their heritage. Analysis of the community’s economic benefit from 'compliance archaeology' shows this activity to have the highest economic return, compared to participation on protected areas. However, the income from being involved in pre-development surveys is entirely dependent on the level of land development. This factor means that income varies throughout Victoria, being more reliable in peri-urban areas, such as for the
286 Truscott – Chapter 6 – Development on Country Wurundjeri Tribe.269 In the ACT, all four RAOs share the income from pre- development survey fieldwork, and they are only paid for the fieldwork and not other input, a key difference to the income gained from pre-development survey work in Victoria. Other differences between the study areas follow.
Only Field Work or Other Roles
There is no statutory requirement in the ACT to include members of the RAOs in such archaeological investigative fieldwork. Although the ACT ‘Heritage Council strongly recommends that RAOs are included, remuneration is viewed as a matter to be negotiated between each individual group and the proponent organisation’ (pers comm. Mary Clare Swete-Kelly ACT Heritage Archaeologist email 14 July 2011). Any payment for pre-development projects in the ACT is limited to fieldwork participation. There is no payment for other time spent by RAOs, such as input into the proposed methodology, or comment on draft reports, limiting the community’s economic capital from this aspect of managing their heritage.
By contrast, Registered Aboriginal Parties in Victoria, such as the Wurundjeri Tribe, are entitled to fees for the following input into pre-development heritage projects (AAV 2008:5) - Consulting with the sponsor (developer) about the assessment - Participating in the assessment (fieldwork), and artefact assessment - Consulting with the sponsor about the recommendations in the ‘cultural heritage management plan’ (report) - signing off the CHMP Revenue to Community Organisation
In Victoria, the Wurundjeri Tribe retains a proportion of the fees for time spent by its members on any pre-development project. This permits the RAP to support their general administration, as well as the fulltime employment of an archaeologist to administer the pre-development survey role for the Wurundjeri Tribe, as one Wurundjeri Tribe Elder explains:
RAP field assistants can charge anywhere up to $880 per day for archaeological field assistant fees. At best, the award wage for this
269 RAPs in some regional areas of Victoria with little development suffer financially accordingly (pers comm. Harry Webber AAV 13 April 2011). 287 Truscott – Chapter 6 – Development on Country work is $250 per day, the rest of this goes to the TO’s270 to remain sustainable and not relying on government hand outs. (Xiberras 2012:4)
In the ACT individual representatives of the different RAOs are paid directly. It is not known whether any of these payments are pooled by any RAO for their community use.
In Victoria a Registered Aboriginal Party, such as the Wurundjeri Tribe, also benefits from state funding support for its role in under the Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006 (see Chapter 4). There is no such government support to the RAOs in the ACT.
Single community representation
In Victoria, a single RAP is identified as having the Indigenous community responsibility in any ‘compliance archaeology’ project, with some very few exceptions. In the ACT, there are four RAOs with equal consultative rights. It is common for three Wurundjeri Tribe field workers to be involved in a single ‘compliance archaeology’ project, but in the ACT there is potentially one from each RAO, or different RAO members on different days of the fieldwork. Thus payments for pre-development surveys in ACT are divided among all four RAOs, and among a number of individual members in each RAO.
‘Compliance Archaeology’ Income
The actual income from pre-development surveys for the individual RAO or even RAP is difficult to fully calculate. None of the Indigenous organisations in the two study areas report publicly on their financial situation, such as in an annual report. Despite a request, the annual financial ‘benefit’ to Wurundjeri Tribe was not divulged. And too few reports were available from the Wurundjeri to calculate the annual income from pre-development survey projects. Hourly rates are suggested in guidelines some years ago by the relevant government agency, Aboriginal Affairs Victoria; see Table 21 below (AAV 2008:5).
270 Traditional Owners, meaning the Wurundjeri Tribe Elders. 288 Truscott – Chapter 6 – Development on Country
Table 21: Suggested fees for RAP pre-development survey roles (AAV 2008:5)
In the ACT, the consultant archaeologist generally pays the individual RAO member who undertook the fieldwork, rather than directly by the developer.271 Also, in the ACT the individual fieldworkers often are expected to have their own insurance, rather than being covered by either the developer or the consultant, whichever hires them directly. In Victoria, the RAP covers its own insurance for all its workers.
The pre-development survey reports in the ACT provided some sense of the community members’ fieldwork income. These reports generally itemised the hours of each RAO member’s participation in archaeological fieldwork. An accurate account of the field survey hours is required by the developer, because the time in the field may change from the original estimation, depending on the nature and extent of finds.
This record permitted an estimation of remuneration in the ACT to be calculated as shown below in Table 22; full details at Appendix 3), based on the understood hourly rate of about $100 at that time.272 It is only an estimate, because one of the three consultants did not indicate the hours worked by the RAO members in their reports,
271 Either the government Land Development Agency or private developer. 272 It is understood that the current daily fee is generally c$1000, although a half-day may have a special price, as do some tasks (pers comm. Mary Clare Swete-Kelly 20 July 2011).
289 Truscott – Chapter 6 – Development on Country only the number of days. It is known that in many cases full ‘8-hour’ days were not worked, sometimes only one or two hours. However, these calculations provide a minimum estimate of income for individual RAO members.
Table 22: Summary estimate of fieldwork income for ACT RAO members – 2010
RAO Known ‘Days’ Total Paid?? Hours* [some likely to be >8hours] Calculated as 8hr days $ rounded up
BNAC 136.5 66? 83,500 Range of individual 4 individuals totals: 30,000 to 8000
KBTG 90 65? 76,500 Range of individual 5 individuals totals: 27,000 to 3000
LGTRC 119.5 43?? [data missing for one 58,600 RAP] Range of individual 6 individuals totals: 16,100 to 500
NCC 111.75 38? 52,100 Range of individual 7 individuals totals: 17,500 to 2000
Estimated 457.75 212? $270,700 Total individual pay range (incomplete) 30,000 to 500 / year 22 individuals BNAC: Buru Ngunawal Aboriginal Corporation KBTG: King Brown’s Tribal Group LGRTC: Little Gudgenby River Tribal Council NCC: Ngarigu Currawong Clan *This table presents the time spent on fieldwork for pre-development surveys. The ‘known hours’ are those where the reports have attached the timesheets for individual RAO representatives on individual days of the project. One consultant merely attaches a ‘sign-off’ sheet, and indicates which ‘days’ work has taken place but does not itemise hours worked on any of those days. The ‘known hours’ column in the table also indicates for each individual RAO representative how many individual days and how many different projects these hours represent, and the ‘days’ columns how many projects. In some few / two? reports it is ‘claimed’ that certain representatives were present but their records are not attached, and thus not included in the tabulation. Not all pre-development surveys have all RAOs represented.
290 Truscott – Chapter 6 – Development on Country This analysis of the ACT Indigenous communities’ income from ‘compliance archaeology’ indicates quite a healthy income as a total for the RAOs but not individually. The total received by two of the four RAOs approximates a higher than average annual income for one person in Australia, being $63,856 at that time.273 But individually, the amount earned is well below that average and below the 2010 national minimum wage of $29,634.80.274 However, it must be remembered that this work is not fulltime, in fact far less. And any income from such pre-development survey fieldwork reflects the availability of individual RAO representatives for any project, or on any day.
6.3 Discussion of Pre-Development Survey Analysis
This case study has reviewed how well pre-development survey meets the ideals of community archaeology by assessing the pre-development survey reports in the ACT and for the Wurundjeri Tribe in Victoria. The answer is not at all well. Current pre-development survey processes do not meet and are clearly not informed by community archaeology principles, however much the statutes, policies and programs suggest they do; it is a case of rhetoric not matching reality. Both jurisdictions see minimal, if any, gains in understanding of Indigenous heritage from this pre- development process, despite Victoria’s Indigenous heritage management system giving considerable control to the relevant Indigenous community.
In both study areas there is limited, if any, improved knowledge of the past obtained from the archaeological survey data, with the artefacts and other physical records, collected and packaged away, with no questions asked—or answered. There is little, if any, inclusion of communities’ views of Country in the survey reports, and naught gathered about recent uses of landscape and historic connections since colonisation. No information is summarised from these surveys that can readily be shared with either the Indigenous communities or the wider public. One clear benefit however, that concurs with community archaeology ideals, are the earnings received by the Indigenous communities or the fieldworkers. Such income is an economic benefit to
273 February 2011 ABS: $63,856 (calculated from ABS 6302.0 - Average Weekly Earnings, Australia, Feb 2011 LATEST ISSUE Released at 11:30 AM (CANBERRA TIME) 19/05/2011 (www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/[email protected]/mf/6302.0) 274 ref (www.fairwork.gov.au/pay/national-minimum-wage/pages/2011-annual-wage-review.aspx) 291 Truscott – Chapter 6 – Development on Country individual community members in the ACT bolstering well-being, as it is also in Victoria, where the survey payments also contribute to the overall sustainability of the Wurundjeri Councils.
But describing the results and failings of the pre-development survey process in this case study is not enough. Why is this archaeological model persisting, and with no archaeological benefit, over a decade after Byrne et al’s findings (2001), and Sullivan’s more recent critique (2008). More collaborative partnerships in other Indigenous heritage identification projects complement the scientific approach with a more comprehensive understanding of Country. The above critique suggests three core administrative reasons for the stasis in the pre-development aspect of Indigenous heritage management:
the land development ‘business model’ has a profit based priority which dominates and appears to prevail over other considerations, such as for heritage (and the environment)
the timeframes applied for heritage impact studies in the land development systems are too short
the land development and planning authorities are disconnected from those dealing with protected areas
The business model for consultant archaeologists is another factor that this research identifies, with the following issues emerging:
a lack of professional comprehension, experience or leadership to ensure that the pre-development system meets the statutory expectations for heritage
These issues provide barriers for the relevant Indigenous communities, whether they have the statutory rights, as in Victoria, or even the administrative capacity as the Wurundjeri Council undoubtedly has. Examination of these issues provides insights into what might be shifted to ensure a better Indigenous heritage management model.
Development Priorities
Land developers’ primary goal is to gain a profit on their investment, and speed is the essence in the development ‘business model’. The priority for the planning systems is to deliver land available for a different, and generally more intensive land use. It is 292 Truscott – Chapter 6 – Development on Country currently developers, whether private or government, that pay for any environmental studies, including heritage, prior, to approval to develop. Any requirements to assess other values are seen, at least anecdotally, as a ‘problem’ (eg C Johnston 2011:3). Given developers’ priorities, this less than positive view is perhaps understandable, especially if heritage, or environmental, factors require a change to the planned development, impacting on economic profit.
However, such negativity is not useful when balancing public commitments to both environment and heritage values, and housing, infrastructure and economic expansion. Adding to this sense of conflict is the greater economic impost in changing development plans late in the planning process. A better balance could be struck by reaching a more cocomprehensive understanding of the heritage values well ahead of development. In doing so, a change to the current development model is needed regarding who pays for such heritage and environment EIS studies.
Impact Assessment Timeframes
New suburbs have in principle been designed—on paper, before EIS studies are undertaken. Without earlier input from heritage identification, the such development plans risk cutting across occupation or industrial sites, through pathways and sightlines to story places, whether part of Indigenous or settler history. There is little reason why relevant heritage could not be kept in situ to contribute to an understanding of the layered past by new residents if earlier heritage surveys were undertaken and the final plan incorporated heritage.
However, currently environment impact studies, including heritage, are only contracted late in the planning of a development proposal, despite planning systems’ longer timeframes. But the current short timeframe persists as it is the developer who pays for EIS studies, and the developer is only identified late in the ACT five year process to be ‘planning ready’ for a new suburb.
The short timeframe makes it very difficult to shift to a more comprehensive, genuine community archaeology approach, to fully identify and protect heritage on land being made ready for urban expansion. For it is clear that certain aspects of heritage can only be identified with a longer time to do so. A full Burra Charter process would
293 Truscott – Chapter 6 – Development on Country include the compilation of current knowledge from all sources: historic records, oral histories, past sites surveys, historic and archival research on post-settlement activities; before going into the field, both as community visits on Country, as part of a ‘cultural mapping’ approach, as well as field surveys of all physical features, with a fuller analysis of all data, including archaeological material; and, once having collated all this, a thorough significance assessment. This all requires a longer time than the current archaeological survey just ahead of land clearance for develoment. This is particularly the case in the ACT, as the shift in for an earlier more integrated approach in Melbourne by the former Growth Areas Authority, now Metropolitan Planning Authority, is likely to improve the situation.
Management Silos
It is strange that there is no professional drive for better results for Indigenous heritage in the pre-development survey procedure. Sullivan’s description of ‘consultant archaeology’ being ‘cordoned off’ remains true (2008:108). Others suggest that the adherence to the current system, that Sullivan also describes as ‘mechanistic’ (2008:108), is due to ‘institutional inertia’ (Porter and Barry 2013:55). However, this research suggests the reason, at least in the ACT, is partially the lack of communication across the boundaries of the different government agencies responsibility, as outlined below.
Observation during this research, discussion with government agency staff, and the published reports, suggest operational administrative ‘silos’. No consistent communication links have been found between the agencies dealing with planning and land development and those managing protected areas. Perhaps the different agencies consider they differ, but they miss the opportunity to share experiences. Despite different roles, both have a role to protect cultural heritage, and such exchange could assist them develop appropriate responses to meet their responsibilities.
The ACT Heritage Unit with the Heritage Council is the one body within the ACT government that do have a responsibility on any land for best practice heritage management. The heritage agency is concurrently dealing with processes with much better results for heritage, such as shown in the case study on protected areas. They
294 Truscott – Chapter 6 – Development on Country are surely therefore aware other options for pre-development surveys, and do return reports at times for more work (pers comm. Mary Clare Swete-Kelly 1 July 2011), but accepts nonetheless the narrow frame of the archaeological model. There appears to be no forum at senior levels of government agencies to communicate on Indigenous heritage issues. Senior leadership is needed on this matter, from either or both the United Elders Council and the ACT Heritage Council, for the Indigenous officers in the various agencies, and the RAOs, have a very limited voice.
In Victoria, the responsibility is shared, and potentially fragmented, between the RAPs, such as the Wurundjeri Tribe, the Aboriginal Heritage Council, and the government agency, Aboriginal Affairs Victoria. However, the new integrated approach may ensure a capacity to ensure a more comprehensive understanding of the meanings of Country early before development. The Wurundjeri Council is recognised for using its statutory responsibilities to push for more strategic and integrated responses across the expanding development on Wurundjeri Country. However, its direct responsibility has allowed it to development direct relations and partnerships with agencies, which in turn increasingly recognise their responsibility to partner with Indigenous communities.
Lack of Heritage Leadership
The persistence of the ‘archaeological model’ in the current development planning system is curious, given the clear regulatory statements that all Indigenous heritage values are to be identified. My research has not found any clear reason why the heritage ‘industry’ is continuing this narrow approach. It is unclear why only archaeologists are contracted to do pre-development surveys, why it is not clarified to those contracting heritage studies that archaeologists cannot identify all Indigenous heritage values. There is no analysis among those working in the system of its failings, and no overall drive to seek either better archaeological results, or to alert planning and other authorities that not all Indigenous heritage values are being sought or found. There has been very limited discussion in professional forums on this issue. In AAA, most conference meetings that include cultural heritage, focus on the ‘how to’, rather than the overall aims of archaeology in such pre-development assessments. And there is no debate in multi-disciplinary forums such as ICOMOS, despite concern being occasionally voiced. 295 Truscott – Chapter 6 – Development on Country This research suggests there is an acceptance of the current status quo in the system, whether by the consultants, the planners, the heritage agency, or the Indigenous community. Are they unable within the current structures to raise such matters with planners and developers, and heritage agencies? It is suggested that this lack of occupational concern amounts to a professional failure, for surely consultants are aware of the minimal results from the pre-development survey process. None seem to query the status quo, although some have urged earlier surveys in the planning timeframe in the legislation reviews in both study areas.
Similarly, the archaeological model is separated from and ignores general heritage processes, which could ensure a full heritage assessment in pre-development survey reports. Instead, this evaluation of the pre-development survey system suggests there is little understanding of how far the shortfall is between the espoused aim and the output. The reports are accepted by the agency signing off, whether the Wurundjeri Tribe in Victoria, or the Heritage Council in the ACT, as well as the relevant planning agencies and developers. There is no demurral, and no public protest by the relevant communities, other than in the opportunity to comment the legislation reviews in both jurisdictions.
Perhaps the prevailing separation from the general heritage systems for Indigenous heritage legislation, and perhaps most consultant archaeologists’ separation from other heritage practitioners, is the reason that they do not raise the issue that other values are not being identified. Also the lack of experience or wider knowledge of heritage significance assessment, including for research potential, shows clearly in the pre-development survey reports analysed in this case study. It is likely that this is a lack of training in academic or other professional courses. Burra Charter processes, such as outlined in Ask First, are not applied. This case study highlights the need for one ‘language’ for significance assessment in Australia, as in the Burra Charter, and a greater understanding by all those involved in what the terms imply.
296 Truscott – Conclusion
7 CONCLUSION
At their core, indigenous archaeologies respect openness, multivocality, personal engagement, ethics, sharing of authority and interpretation, local and cultural knowledge, and the fact that history matters to people.… These goals are shared by many collaborative archaeologies, … but the intersection of colonialism, sovereignty, dispossession, and anthropology’s tainted history with indigenous people make collaborative indigenous archaeology a unique enterprise. (Atalay 2012:39)
7.1 Research Question: Aims and Results
This conclusion synthesises the results of this research into the possible application of 'community archaeology' in aspects of Australia’s Indigenous heritage management. The chapter consists of this introductory summary of the reasons for undertaking the research, the resultant research questions, its process and briefly the key research results. The following sections go into the results in more detail. Processes are examined to identify which might be more consistently implemented to improve and ensure community-based Indigenous heritage management.
7.1.1 The Research Background
This research, begun part-time a decade ago, was generated by the then attention being given within Australia to the concept of 'community archaeology'. Two publications at the outset of the 21st century, and their apparently opposing views of Australian archaeological practice, inevitably raised various questions that triggered the direction of this research and provided its parameters.
One publication, What is Community Archaeology? (Marshall 2002a), suggested a new way forward for Indigenous archaeology and heritage management, giving the community control. Marshall particularly praised Australian archaeol: Social Significance: a discussion paper (Bryne et al 2001), rather than praising current practice, panned it, at least in NSW. This report found that archaeological heritage management was failing badly both the study of past cultures and the living descendants of that past.
297 Truscott – Conclusion The increasing international and Australian literature in shared, collaborative, projects between archaeologists and indigenous communities, demonstrated different understandings of 'community archaeology', despite having core elements. These are explored in Chapter 2. But there was little research into testing the claims.
Thus the research questions emerged from this review of the current circumstances of Australian Indigenous heritage and the debate about community archaeology, or Indigenous participation. The research questions aimed to assess whether today’s Indigenous heritage management are informed by the community archaeology model, and whether it results in better understanding of the past, and benefits the relevant Indigenous community. The key questions that guided this research are:
What is community archaeology?
Has community archaeology informed indigenous heritage practice in Australia?
Has community archaeology provided benefits to Indigenous communities?
Has community archaeology increased knowledge of the past?
Does community archaeology have a future?
These research questions are essentially aimed at identifying what changes in current Australian Indigenous heritage management might be made to foster a greater integration of all knowledge and expertise. Such changes in Indigenous heritage management practice would see an approach that respects different understandings of the past and present values of landscape, as well as benefitting the relevant Indigenous community whose heritage it is.
7.1.2 What is 'Community Archaeology'?
The notion of community archaeology was first promulgated by archaeologists discovering Indigenous communities’ different insights on their past and of Country. The elements that formed a ‘package’ of positive aspects, or elements, of community archaeology for the local community were identified as:
community control of its heritage
inclusion of community views of the past, adding to a comprehensive understanding of Country based on all available knowledge
298 Truscott – Conclusion
greater community wellbeing resulting from employment and capacity building, such as training, related to their heritage
These aspects were adopted for this research as indicators of the 'community archaeology' model.
An initial question in analysing what was meant by 'community archaeology', was to ask whether community archaeology was new. The literature review showed the claims that community archaeology is new approach, are both true and false (see Chapter 2). Assertions for community archaeology, primarily from academic research archaeologists, were informed by new generational insights of Indigenous communities’ unique understandings of their past, and its heritage value (see Chapter 3). But there has also long been an appreciation of this different worldview by certain archaeologists, anthropologists, and others working with Australian Indigenous communities on their culture, their landscape, and today’s meanings. Yet community archaeology is also new in the sense that it fosters community control as a core concept, and takes place in a different social context.
For since earlier interactions between archaeologists and community, there have been changes to the situation within which Indigenous archaeological research takes place, as outlined in Chapters 2 and 4. An understanding of Indigenous rights to have a say in decisions about their heritage saw statutory and ethical responses. Legislation gave a greater say to Indigenous peoples, or so it supposes. Ethical professional standards have been developed binding those dealing with Indigenous heritage—archaeologists, heritage practitioners, to a range of obligations to include, collaborate, give Indigenous a first say, or so it seems (see Chapter 4).
A core aspect of such legislation and codes of practice is the inclusion of all relevant knowledge, not merely archaeological research, nor community knowledge. Inherent in community archaeology’s aims is an approach that encompasses many other sources of information, including history and anthropology, with a strong integrated landscape approach. The continuity and renewal of contact with Country and its meanings for an Indigenous community today are seen as central elements in the collation of all knowledge. This research found that recognition of this aspect is strong, but rarely fully incorporated in the case study projects in this research. 299 Truscott – Conclusion 7.1.3 Research Process
The aim of this research was to test community archaeology ideals against current Indigenous heritage management. A research method was established to explore the thesis that community archaeology is a means to meet ambitions, and some statutory claims, for a true Indigenous say over their heritage. A case study approach was adopted and a lengthy search for the area and projects for analysis.
The areas selected for the research are in south-eastern Australia, as most Aboriginal people live in urban or inner regional areas (Altman et al 2007), and is also where most land development occurs. The Australian Capital Territory (ACT) and Victoria were chosen as the case study areas given their relatively recent heritage legislation and current statutory reviews, and my professional familiarity with past and present systems in these jurisdictions. Consultation and negotiation with relevant Indigenous communities in those jurisdictions, heritage agencies and other decision-makers, resulted in agreement to pursue the research.
Academic research was not analysed, as none was being undertaken in the agreed study areas during this research. But the focus for this research was largely set because most decisions about Indigenous heritage are made within land management planning. This fact led to two core areas of inquiry: protected area management and 'compliance archaeology', particularly pre-development surveys (Chapters 5 and 6).
In order to answer the research questions listed above, the case studies were analysed according to the community archaeology indicators: a genuine say over decisions; the inclusion of the Aboriginal understanding of Country, as well as other sources of information, archaeological and historical; and whether opportunities for economic and social well-being result. In examining these aspects of a number of individual projects in each heritage management category, I sought the communities’ publicly stated views, as well as reports, and the views of heritage staff, land managers, and developers. A summary of the comparative analysis against these indicators of the two case studies in each of the two jurisdictions is provided below at Table 23.
300 Truscott – Conclusion In essence, this research has sought a model that meets the wish by Indigenous Australians for an improved community-based, 'community archaeology', approach for their communities and their heritage.
7.1.4 Research Results
This research found that the community archaeology model is not fully met in either of the two study areas, the ACT or Victoria. Some projects did meet the ideal to some degree in Victoria, but in the ACT only one project approached the community archaeology principles, however that to a high degree. Generally, most projects only applied partial elements of community archaeology. No project in any case study met all the indicators for a fully collaborative community approach. Indigenous heritage management projects in protected areas had the greatest likelihood to reflect most such indicators.
The comparative analysis of the research results against the 'community archaeology' indicators in two case studies, protected area management and pre-development surveys, is shown in Table 23 below. This summation of the case study projects provides the following answers to the questions about community archaeology and Indigenous heritage management set for this research (see Introduction and above). Further discussion of the results follows in the next section.
Has community archaeology informed indigenous heritage practice in Australia?
Despite the results, it cannot be said that community archaeology has informed Indigenous heritage management practice as such, at least not consciously. The community archaeology elements do not appear to be fully understood and therefore do not consistently inform Indigenous heritage management, although they are applied in some projects.
It is however considered that the approach in these projects reflects the shift to a greater ethical inclusion of the relevant Indigenous community in decisions about their heritage. As such Indigenous heritage management mirrors community archaeology principles, with in some cases possibly a subliminal adoption, rather than deliberate adoption of some community archaeology principles.
301 Truscott – Conclusion Beyond the possible lack of explicit implementation of all the 'community archaeology' elements in Indigenous heritage projects, there are other barriers. These obstacles range from a lack of capacity and expertise, but largely external, such as insufficient understanding of administrative frameworks and land planning and development processes, as discussed below at section 7.4. These problems are not insurmountable, and they could be moderated by the wider recognition and adoption of the 'community archaeology' collaborative model by all stakeholders.
Has community archaeology provided benefits to Indigenous communities?
The potential benefits to a community vary in the projects analysed. Social and economic benefits occur in both jurisdictions and include recognition of the right to decide about their heritage, particularly in Victoria. In this state, the research results indicate that if assessed against the Arnstein Ladder of community particpation, a true delegation of power, and genuine partnerships are achieved. This is not the case in the ACT, where the consultation role for the local Indigenous communities is according to the Arnstein measure, merely tokenistic.
In regard to other community benefits, this research shows that the community gains economically such as funding individuals to work on their heritage, or the building capacity to manage their heritage, gained from field and TAFE training, are more mixed. The uneven results for any community benefits from their involvement in individual projects, either protected land management or pre-development surveys, is demonstrated in Table 23 below.
It is however clear from the case study research that the more the project meets the community archaeology model, the greater the benefit to the community. But, as most projects do not meet the model fully, if at all, there is a disruptive inconsistency in developing any advantage for the community. The nature of the benefits that do occur, however intermittently, are discussed in more detail in the presentation of the results following section.
Has community archaeology increased knowledge of the past?
Apart from two projects in the protected land management case study, one in the ACT and the other in Victoria, the research demonstrated limitations in the increased
302 Truscott – Conclusion understanding of the past. These two projects demonstrate a strong community archaeology approach, and are comprehensive in their methods drawing together all available information and community knowledge.
However, the pre-development surveys, in particular, lack any real analysis of the survey results in terms of research questions. In most cases, there is limited or no collation of the Indigenous community’s knowledge as part of individual surveys. In essence the research demonstrates that community archaeology principles are not applied in 'compliance archaeology'.
Both case studies, protected area management and pre-development surveys, indicated that there is greater opportunity to share the information gained, both to the rest of the community, as well as the general public. The research did find however, although not analysed, that the Indigenous communities in both jurisdictions are sharing their cultural knowledge with the general public. But although planned for the future in a few instances, the projects examined in this research are not included or specifically informing current programs of sharing traditional knowledge of Country.
Does community archaeology have a future?
This research demonstrates that the application of the 'community archaeology' model provides a strong potential for an Indigenous community to realise a greater say about its heritage. The model can provide a more comprehensive understanding of all the meanings, tangible and intangible, and scientific and social values of a community’s Country, and benefit the community socially and economically. As such, this collaborative model of heritage management for Indigenous communities has a future, indeed should have a future.
However, the current Indigenous heritage management systems in Australia have statutory, workable and attitudinal barriers to a full adoption of the community archaeology model. Therefore despite a general, although variable, recognition of Indigenous rights to their heritage, these obstacles need removal before a more integrated and comprehensive Indigenous heritage management is guaranteed.
The following sections of this concluding chapter critique the research results in the case studies. Elements of community archaeology that are met, and where they fail, 303 Truscott – Conclusion are discussed. The implications from these results are canvassed below in this conclusion. The positive heritage processes where the Indigenous community can flourish in their heritage management are presented, as are the possible barriers that seem to stifle the community’s capacity to do so.
The conclusion ends with some suggestions as to how an improved Indigenous heritage practice might be achieved are given based on the 'community archaeology' ideals and key elements. A model is presented that both encompasses a stronger, but better role for ‘archaeology’, that with other expertise, including non-scientific understandings, contributes to a more comprehensive understanding of the past and present landscape.
304 Truscott – Conclusion
Table 23 – Summary of Case Study Analysis of Case Studies against Community Archaeology Indicators
CASE STUDY COMMUNITY PROJECT APPROACH UNDERSTANDING CAPACITY AND EMPLOYMENT CONTROL OF COUNTRY AND VALUES
Landscape Indigenous Enhanced Significance Interpretation Skill Gains / Employment / Approach Input Knowledge Assessment Training Income
Protected Areas ACT Partnership - some Yes – some Yes Yes Yes Partial Yes Partial Victoria Partnership / Delegated Yes Yes Yes Partial Partial Yes Partial Power Pre-development Survey ACT Consultation No No / limited No / Limited Partial No Partial Yes Victoria Delegated Power No Partial No / Limited Partial No Partial Yes /Partial Criteria for ‘Community Archaeology’ Indicators: Community Control: Indigenous community control over process and decisions made about their heritage (Arnstein Ladder) Landscape Approach: Comprehensive inclusion of physical and intangible cultural aspects of landscape Indigenous Input: Inclusion of Indigenous understandings in the project process Enhanced Knowledge: Increased knowledge and understanding of Country – tangible and intangible elements of place Significance Assessment: Application and understanding of all heritage significance criteria Interpretation: Interpretation of Country and heritage values to Indigenous community and general public, including different media and cultural tourism Skill Gains / Training: Education / Training in heritage management, including archaeological and other techniques, cross cultural, significance assessment, general governance Employment / Income: Employment related to management of Indigenous heritage
305 Truscott – Conclusion
7.2 Community Archaeology: A Capital Case or Winning Way?
As noted above, this research of the case studies demonstrates that elements of the community archaeology ideals are applied in each project, but not all in any. None of the case studies analysed achieves all components for a genuine collaboration, if not control, by Indigenous communities in managing their heritage. Individual elements are applied, whether having a leadership role, or taking a landscape approach, or integrating scientific knowledge with intangible information, or gaining heritage skills.
The following section provides a final analysis of the research results. against each of the community archaeology indicators. This assessment of the process of the many projects in this research can provide communities and others with experience and knowledge about the most comprehensive and effective approaches to Indigenous heritage management. The problems and weaknesses of some processes are also identified, particularly the impact of a fragmented approach to Indigenous heritage that is found to persist.
7.2.1 'Community Archaeology’ Comparisons
Practices in both case study areas highlight successes and failures in meeting any true, full and consistent say by Indigenous communities in their heritage management. In the ACT and with the Wurundjeri Tribe in Victoria, involvement of Indigenous communities varies in ‘development archaeology’ and management in protected areas. But the analysis of individual projects in the case studies indicates many elements of successful community archaeology approaches, with positive outcomes for the community and its heritage.
A brief summary against the community archaeology indicators below highlights the differences in each state. Although these positive results are neither comprehensive nor consistent, they provide elements for a future model, if they can be applied more widely and consistently for Indigenous heritage management in both study areas.
306 Truscott – Conclusion 7.2.2 Community Control
The statutory roles for the Indigenous community in Victoria and the ACT are quite different. As this research demonstrates, the ACT Representative Aboriginal Organisations can only be said to have a primarily ‘tokenistic’ consultation role (Arnstein 1969), in Victoria by contrast, the role of a Registered Aboriginal Party is one of power, as in Arnstein’s ‘delegated power’ or full partnership, providing control to a great degree.
This difference informs many other aspects of the results in Indigenous heritage management in each jurisdiction as outlined in this research. It is much more difficult in the ACT under the legislation from 2006 to 2014 to achieve a high level of collaboration, a sense of equal partnership. This difference largely informs how far the ideal of community archaeology can be met for community control or at least a high level of collaboration. It is as yet unclear what the 25 September 2014 changes will make under this indicator.
The Victorian system therefore allows formal agreements or management partnerships with bodies managing land that is part of Country. The Wurundjeri Tribe are benefitting from this system, such as with Melbourne Water, to gain a comprehensive understanding of all the heritage and values of Country as well as have a role in management. They also directly own sites of heritage significance. In the ACT, there are four RAOs with an equal role across the Territory, but with no authority, their function is less clear, and is primarily consultative. Agreements with land owners, including government, are not available to the RAOs, or not yet tested. None of the RAOs directly own any heritage places.
In both jurisdictions however, that ‘control’ is limited, heritage and biodiversity and other ‘public good’ values are required to be balanced against by other interests: infrastructure, primary industries, industrial development, urban spread. This research has found a continuing imbalance in pre-development survey, whereas in other cases, such as protected reserves: water catchments, national parks, there is very real opportunity for Indigenous values and voices to be sustained alongside other interests.
307 Truscott – Conclusion In the ACT, achieving a greater community control may continue to be complicated by the recognition of four RAOs recognised across the Territory. However this research has demonstrated that it does not impinge on many individual heritage projects. Therefore it is considered that it is possible to arrive at a more integrated, proactive heritage management strategy in the Territory, as proposed at the end of this conclusion.
7.2.3 Project Approach
The following focuses on the process of the project rather than the results, although there is an overlap. The core question is whether the projects have met or approached 'community archaeology' principles for a high level of community collaboration, if not control, and the gathering of community knowledge.
Indigenous Input
The inclusion of Indigenous understandings in the project process was reviewed in each project. The results show that Indigenous community members’ knowledge was sought in many projects reviewed in the case studies, but not all. Some projects drew on that community knowledge, and also enabled that understanding of Country to be reawakened and shared, such as by visits on Country. The visits: Going on Country in the ACT, and the Narrap Country Plan in Victoria, were for many Elders the first time to that part of Country, given the relative remoteness or inaccessibility. Similarly, the Namadgi Rock Art and the Merri Creek projects provided an opportunity to access past records, reflect on memory and story, and build on this combined information to establish new understandings. These methods are relevant to all Indigenous heritage projects.
The pre-development surveys are the exception to a genuine Indigenous input of their heritage understanding, in most cases even in Victoria. The survey process, particularly in the ACT, allows too little time or meeting spaces to gain an Indigenous input. The areas being surveyed were generally too small, and the approach too narrow, to link associations between that locale and beyond.
308 Truscott – Conclusion Landscape Approach
This indicator identifies whether projects undertake a comprehensive inclusion of physical and intangible cultural aspects of landscape, which goes beyond only archaeological or community value identification. The Merri Creek project provides a very effective exemplar for a comprehensive landscape approach in an area or region for future projects seeking to identify all Indigenous heritage values. The collation of known records of the past—archaeological, ethnographic, and later information, the sharing of these with community members, the going on Country to visit sites and places of possible meaning or memory, and the various cultural mapping tools applied in the field and in workshops, resulted in an major resource for future management, interpretation, and further research.
Otherwise, this research found that some other projects analysed show a trend towards a comprehensive ‘landscape approach’, yet none of them are fully multi-disciplinary, including the historic and natural environments. Also, although some projects other than the pre-development surveys include archaeological knowledge, none seek new archaeological understandings. Nonetheless, the processes used deserve replicating in future Indigenous heritage management, but with the addition of ensuring all possible other values are identified, or flagged for future research.
7.2.4 Understanding of Country
The above processes provided some, few, cases a context for enhanced knowledge about the past, and Country. The successful projects are highlighted below as exemplars for future Indigenous heritage management.
Enhanced Knowledge
This indicator of the application of the community archaeology model seeks an increased knowledge and understanding of Country. Two projects undertaken on reserve land were those that most comprehensively brought together such known information and values of a part of Country. The Namadgi Rock Art Project, in preparing a heritage management plan with the relevant communities, added Indigenous understanding to past research
309 Truscott – Conclusion results. The Merri Creek study enabled the community to compile a thorough collation into one record of all past and present understanding of the area, adding considerable knowledge from community members. Both of these were largely collations of past information, with a backfilling of Indigenous knowledge, that had not previously been gathered. The Going on Country projects in both Victoria and the ACT have also provided an opportunity to connect story and memory with place.
However, other projects have been quite limited in their contribution to any enhanced knowledge of the past. And gaining the past’s continuity into today’s traditions, stories and meanings is also quite limited, or fragmented. No research questions are required in either state for pre-development surveys. In both the ACT and Victoria, there are some summaries that set the sites found within predictivity models, but the survey reports do not indicate what information this adds to how people lived in that past. Of ongoing concern is the separation, or disregard, of the post-contact past in most projects analysed.
Significance Assessment
This research reviewed whether and how well all heritage significance criteria were applied. Understanding why a place is significant is important to assist its ongoing recognition in current heritage processes. However, this aspect of heritage management, arguing why a place or landscape is important, was applied only in the Namadgi Rock Art project, and the pre-development surveys. Of these, only the Namadgi project fully applied all current ACT heritage significance criteria. In ACT and Victoria, the pre- development survey reports show that ‘scientific’ value assessment was attempted, and that ‘cultural value’, meaning ‘social value’ to the Indigenous community, was sketchily sought.
The assessment of all heritage criteria in the Namadgi Rock Art project provides an example for other Indigenous projects. The full range of criteria permit a more nuanced understanding of why and how aspects of Country are significant, again aiding future protection and management.
310 Truscott – Conclusion Interpretation
Key to the 'community archaeology' model is that knowledge gained from such projects benefits the community, often by sharing this information about Country with society at large, by different media and cultural tourism. Sharing information about Country was briefly analysed in both case studies: in protected areas and in pre-development survey reports.
The reviewed heritage projects indicate that only very general knowledge is shared about Country. But in both study areas, current or recent projects such as those critiqued in public areas, or the pre-development surveys, deserve to be an opportunity for a deeper sharing of the past and present meaning of Country. Of concern is that the reports analysed, particularly the pre-development survey reports, indicate an ongoing barrier to sharing results with both the local Indigenous community and the wider public. The reports are not produced, nor summarised, in plain English, a breach of professional ethical commitments to ensure project results are accessible to relevant community groups.
One area of community ‘control’ over its heritage is in initiating or leading projects sharing their story of Country. However, such sharing of story projects were not analysed in detail against community archaeology indicators in this research. Both the Wurundjeri Tribe and the Canberra Indigenous communities undertake interpretation and presentation of Country in cultural tours, special events such as multi-cultural festivals, and in some cases in publishing stories for children telling traditional stories. The inclusion of such accounts into syntheses for the general public from all available information, from cultural mapping projects, to ethnographic records, to archaeological analyses, is suggested as one aspect of community archaeology to be pursued in future Indigenous heritage management.
7.2.5 Capacity and Employment
A core principle in community archaeology is that the Indigenous community benefit from its heritage and specifically from those projects related to the identification of its
311 Truscott – Conclusion past and present values. This research found that a start was made such as facilitating Elders to reconnect with less accessible Country, and the Green Team Caring for our Country programs have provided a context, a place, for the community’s younger members’ sense of Aboriginality.
Skills Gain / Training
This research identified however that overall some projects fell short in the training and employment benefits to the community from the project. The training was insufficient to provide the community with the wellbeing that can emerge from a confident ability to manage their heritage, as the following summarises. The projects reviewed demonstrate a recognition that Indigenous community members can benefit by acquiring skills in heritage management. Of all the projects reviewed, the Namadgi Rock Art project uniquely took the Indigenous participants through every step of developing a conservation management plan, from identifying the place and past information, to collecting new data, and revisiting heritage significance, to identifying future management issues and solutions, and ongoing monitoring. This project was in many ways also an on-the-job training exercise, imparting to those involved the heritage process, a general ability to follow it another time. It is an exemplar for all Indigenous heritage management in the study areas.
The formal training provided in TAFE on-the-job, and in-class, training within the Caring for our Country Green Teams projects in both study areas also deserve ongoing support, although needing a stronger cultural heritage focus. The exemplar for this is the recent Victorian, Certificate IV, that teaches general heritage principles.
Such training also needs to go in other directions, yet this research shows a mixed delivery in areas of cross-cultural awareness. For example, in Victoria the RAPs, including the Wurundjeri, provide extensive cross-cultural training to land management agencies, but in the ACT this no longer occurs. Such awareness raising is not delivered to consultant archaeologists in either study area, yet would raise the capacity of those dealing with communities in a community archaeology approach.
312 Truscott – Conclusion Communities, in managing their heritage, are engaging with complex project administration and governance in land use decision-making processes. Support for community capacity building enhances such governance skills is provided in Victoria; this does not take place in the ACT.
Employment / Income
An economic benefit is regarded in the community archaeology model as appropriate for the community’s input to managing its heritage. This aspect of the community archaeology package is met somewhat randomly according the case analysis.
The Victorian example suggests a way for an Indigenous community to benefit economically from its role in heritage management. The relative autonomy of a RAP, such as the Wurundjeri Tribe, has allowed it to develop a business model based on pooling its income from pre-development surveys. By paying the field workers an agreed proportion of the survey fees, and also collecting a proportion of Welcome to Country payments, the community has an income to develop and expand its heritage and cultural activities. The community has hired a director and archaeologists to provide expert administrative and heritage leadership, and has funds to start up other cultural ventures.
In the ACT the current system does not foster such community growth from their heritage. Some small changes in the system could instil a community archaeology approach that could result in community benefits closer to those possible in Victoria.
7.3 Barriers to Realising the ‘Community Archaeology’ Model
If there is to be a realisation of the community archaeology ideals in Indigenous heritage management it is important to understand the reasons behind its current lack of comprehensive implementation. Beyond the understanding that there is no genuinely conscious following of its elements, this research also explored the reason for the limited application of more inclusive Indigenous heritage management. It is considered that the reasons are systemic. Indigenous heritage management appears to be based on organisational assumptions entrenched in their policy and program administration. As an
313 Truscott – Conclusion example, the archaeological model dominates pre-development surveys, although policies and regulations seek wider aims for Indigenous heritage. Such attitudinal or structural mindsets are barriers to a more collaborative, inclusive Indigenous heritage management.
My research identifies core obstacles within the prevailing systems that hinder collaborative Indigenous heritage management:
Capacity and Experience
Administrative Frameworks
Timeframes and Funding
The probable reasons related to these three impediments to a more inclusive, comprehensive Indigenous heritage management are discussed below. It is likely that some or all overlap to some extent to reinforce the mechanistic approach to aspects of Indigenous heritage management.
7.3.1 Capacity and Experience
Analysis of the case studies identifies that a lack of comprehensive heritage experience impedes meeting community archaeology ideals. The full range of skills and experience required to undertake a fully collaborative, integrated identification of Indigenous heritage is lacking in almost all case-study projects. Among those undertaking the projects, agency staff steering the projects, and among Indigenous community members, there is not the breadth of skills, nor the depth of experience to meet either the community archaeology model, or statutory expectations.
The skills most needed are the application of standard heritage management principles and processes, that include significance assessment; community facilitation skills and community resourcing; research expertise in relevant disciplines; and understanding land management and planning. Probable causes for this gap between rhetoric and reality are presented below.
314 Truscott – Conclusion Heritage management principles and processes
This research found no evidence that national standards for heritage management are stipulated for any of the projects examined in the case studies, whether the Burra Charter process or the Ask First guide. Assessment of the projects, their aims and process, and contract briefs—when available, indicate that there are gaps between the expectation as shown in policies and statutes, and what is undertaken. The nationally accepted standards by all ‘general’ heritage agencies, are akin to the community archaeology ideals. The Burra Charter’s step-by-step approach assures consideration of all aspects of a place and its values, including that relevant skills and experience are applied (Australia ICOMOS 2013a:10, 3 Article 4.1). Ask First, espousing the Burra Charter process, emphasises that Indigenous people ‘are the primary source of information on the value of their heritage and how this is best conserved’ (AHC 2002:6).
The absence from Indigenous heritage project briefs of any requirement to apply these principles and processes, is a probable cause for the mixed results in the projects analysed, with phases of the past and facets of potential significance ignored. Such gaps are most prevalent in the pre-development surveys, but also occur in the shared projects in protected areas.
Reasons identified in this research for these national standards not being applied are a lack of knowledge about the standards, or a view that they do not apply to Indigenous heritage. The cause for this unawareness or dismissal may relate to the system within which Indigenous heritage management is operating. This research identifies an inconsistent presentation of cultural heritage theory and practice within university courses, such as archaeology, and the separation of Indigenous heritage management from broader heritage management.
The separation of agencies dealing with heritage can result in infrequent communication about heritage processes between those involved in either Indigenous or non-Indigenous heritage, including at conferences. And although in the ACT, all heritage—cultural or
315 Truscott – Conclusion natural, has one statute and one agency, this separation persists. I have observed275 that little opportunity was taken for staff to cross the divides between different areas of responsibility, given work pressures at that time. As a result, consultants and those working in Indigenous heritage agencies may not be able to share core heritage principles to others ‘outside heritage’ involved in decisions that affect Indigenous heritage.
Past and present national forums to exchange understanding of heritage, have had limited ability to transfer their understanding to community and independent consultants. The National Indigenous Cultural Heritage Officers’ Network and Taskforce did not continue after the Australian Heritage Commission was abolished in 2004.276 The Heritage Chairs and Officials of Australia and New Zealand (HCOANZ) does cover Indigenous heritage, but its main emphasis is on the historic environment (HCOANZ 2004).
So it can be difficult for Indigenous community members to become aware of principles and processes that apply to their heritage, and their potential for better results for that heritage. This problem was identified by Indigenous archaeologists in 2013 as an issue limiting Indigenous control over their heritage (eg Grist 2013; Johnston 2013). By contrast, learning about and applying all significance criteria was seen as empowering by Indigenous participants in the Namadgi Rock Art project (see Chapter 5). It is unclear therefore how the new ‘blanket’ protection of Indigenous heritage sites in the ACT since September 2014 will operate, if any effort to identify and explain significance is abandoned (ACT 2014a; Attachment 1). This decision is in contrast with the concurrent decision to apply a wider range of studies to Indigenous surveys, such as ‘community consultation, oral histories, and/or further historical … research’ (ACT 2014a:1, Attachment 1).
Community resourcing and facilitation
Community archaeology seeks control for the community, or at least an equal partnership, over decisions about their heritage. However, this research has demonstrated,
275 During working inhouse on a heritage project at the ACT Heritage Unit between 2007-08. 276 When the Australian Heritage Commission Act 1975 was also abolished, and the Commission replaced by the Australian Heritage Council.
316 Truscott – Conclusion by comparing Victoria with the ACT, that greater leadership is hampered by a lack of resourcing. An understanding of heritage processes is important in land planning and management contexts, but having administration and governance skills is equally necessary. The community is thus better able to negotiate a better outcome for their heritage interests with multiple parties, such as government agencies and land developers.
However, a community’s ability to contribute about its heritage can only fully occur with appropriate resources. One cause for the ACT RAOs’ difficulty in having their views heard is that there has been neither financial support nor training available for their role. By contrast, the RAPs in Victoria have such support, and that combined with their greater statutory control, allows them to develop greater capacity. This research, and others’ (eg Porter and Barry 2013), demonstrate the initiative taken by the Wurundjeri Council with land managers, such as Melbourne Water. Such a leadership role on the part of the Indigenous community, fostered on both sides, provides an exemplar for those wishing to adopt a community archaeology model. However, more coherent capacity-building strategies for communities are needed in both study areas.
What is needed for those interacting with community groups is proven experience to establish confidence and trust with community members that Indigenous heritage management processes will not be tokenistic ‘consultation’. Such facilitation skills are as necessary in urban Australia, as in remote areas. However this research indicates that those working with communities have an inconsistent capacity and experience to do so. In neither Victoria nor the ACT, are consultants, nor heritage agency staff, required to prove their experience in working in cross-cultural contexts. The national standard, Ask First: a guide to respecting Indigenous heritage places and values (AHC 2002) points to how to work with a community on their heritage decisions. Yet ultimately, leadership by the community is the best option, for ‘An absence of free, prior and informed consent in Indigenous decision-making processes has often contributed significantly to failures in Indigenous affairs’ (AIATSIS 2008).
317 Truscott – Conclusion Research expertise in relevant disciplines
The application of all relevant research expertise and experience is essential for a comprehensive heritage management, akin to the community archaeology ideals. As a reminder: ‘Conservation should make use of all the knowledge, skills and disciplines which can contribute to the study and care of the place’ (Burra Charter Article 4.1, Australia ICOMOS 2013a), a process that ensures all aspects of heritage are included.
Analysis in this research showed varied success in identifying all aspects of heritage, the Merri Creek and Namadgi Rock Art projects meeting this objective to a high degree. But in most projects, and in all pre-development surveys, two primary areas were missing, ‘post-contact’ histories, including oral histories from the Indigenous community, and a comprehensive ‘cultural’ mapping of community values.
The primary reason for this deficiency appears to be a gap between expectations as framed in statutes and policies, and reality in how they are understood and implemented on the ground. As noted for the ACT, only archaeological surveys are contracted, despite the relevant government land development agency expecting both archaeological surveys and Indigenous values to be gathered.
In order to secure a more inclusive result for Indigenous heritage identification and management, two core areas of expertise are cultural heritage management experience and a capacity to facilitate community engagement, have already been discussed, The range of research disciplines most likely to be needed are archaeology, history, anthropology, built environment, and natural environment. This list is similar to that Cultural Heritage Advisor eligibility in Victoria. However the Victorian system does not require local knowledge and experience, All consultants contracted in either study areas should show they have local knowledge in their field, and where to find information. Also, every consultancy team should be able to demonstrate relevant experience in cultural heritage management.
318 Truscott – Conclusion Understanding of Land Management and Planning
The projects reviewed suggest a general understanding of land planning and management processes is useful when framing a conservation management plan. Such a plan has as a core aim the retention of the tangible in place, and the continuity of intangible values. Expertise in land management is not necessary but familiarity is helpful to ensure the best outcome for such heritage values.
It is unclear from this research how competent those working in cultural heritage management are in this context. However, the section below on the separation between land management and heritage agencies suggests more communication and understanding in both directions would assist a smoother process for Indigenous heritage management.
7.3.2 Administrative Framework
A lack of a whole-of-government approach in the study areas is another barrier to a more collaborative Indigenous heritage management, with fragmented responses to Indigenous heritage issues. No overarching cross-agency forum exists for senior officials from the different land management bodies in the ACT. It is unclear how much the Victorian Aboriginal Heritage Council engages with government agencies beyond Aboriginal Affairs Victoria.
The cause for this fragmentation is unclear. It may be that agencies’ different systems vary and may become increasingly segregated affecting how Indigenous heritage identification and management operate with their structures. It may be ‘institutional inertia’, found to be a risk in Victoria by Porter and Barry (2013:55). Or it may result from a ‘silo mentality’ maintaining disparities in praxis, despite all having a responsibility for the environmental and cultural resources on the land they manage. The reason for no integrated approach may be due to various factors that block interaction across agencies, such as work pressures or unawareness. Yet, the lack of any structured communication between land, environment and heritage agencies hinders them from sharing successful Indigenous heritage management methods, and establishing shared goals, with strategies and processes to achieve them.
319 Truscott – Conclusion However, Victorian Indigenous communities, such as the Wurundjeri Tribe, have a direct connection with relevant organisations, such as the Municipal Planning Authority, with its role to co-ordinate planning processes. But this research demonstrates the ACT the Aboriginal communities are at the end of a long chain of dependencies. The communities are generally separated from the broader dynamics of decisions about land. It is therefore difficult for the RAOs to propose more collaborative ways of undertaking a heritage project which they have experienced with another land management agency.
Aboriginal staff in ACT agencies have the opportunity as part of the Murumbung Yurung Murra forum to meet and share their work program insights and experiences across land management, heritage, conservation and cultural interpretation responsibilities. However, they are relatively junior public servants. The United Ngunnawal Elders Council has an advisory role to the ACT Government in relation to ‘heritage and connection to land matters for the Ngunnawal people’ (ACT 2013), but has no direct role in any decisions, or longer term strategic planning.
It should however not necessarily be the Indigenous community’s role, or junior staff, however capable, to act as a go-between, a conduit, between decision-making agencies. Nonetheless, two successful projects, the Namadgi Rock Art and Merri Creek projects were demonstrated at conferences with park management agencies (eg Wilson et al 2010; Parmington et al 2011). But these models for good processes and successful outcomes were not shared with decision-makers across other relevant government agencies.
This separation between agencies, and the missed opportunities from not taking a whole- of-government approach, thus risking ignoring better ways of heritage management, is hardly a revelation. What is surprising is that it persists, but the reason for this is a symptom of such division: decision-makers without a primary concern for Indigenous heritage will not realise what other options exist. Heritage experts, archaeologists, public servants in the heritage agency, and Indigenous community leaders, may not feel they have a role to speak up.
320 Truscott – Conclusion 7.3.3 Timeframes and Funding
The Namadgi Rock Art project in the ACT demonstrates how an extended timeframe is beneficial, as fostered by the Barunga Protocols. This project was able to develop trust and confidence between a community, heritage professionals, and land managers, and so able to elicit more sharing of information between community and heritage experts, and convey methods for heritage management. The results are persuasive of this approach’s advantages, especially as they have resulted in not only a heritage management plan, but long-term community involvement, and ongoing funding.
Yet analysis of other projects in this research show that generally they are brief and temporary. The shortest time allocated is to pre-development surveys that may only consist of a short meeting, or telephone call before fieldwork, and that fieldwork may at times last no more than a day. The Caring for our Country Green Teams program provided one or two years’ employment, yet this work was for a narrow aspect of Indigenous heritage: indigenous plants.
The research results also find that Indigenous heritage management projects frequently take place late in a longer-term process. A key example is in planning where pre- development surveys generally only occur once a development plan has reached a final stage. Time pressures result and a fuller landscape identification process takes time. As a result, planning systems negate or at least hinder a full identification of a landscape’s heritage values, if only because economic business models drive the development process.
Alternatively, there is a stop-start element to projects, making longer term strategic heritage management directions difficult to realise. For example, the Country Plan for the Wurundjeri Tribe had to shift direction midway in its two-phase course because of changed program priorities. Similarly, funding is generally short term and temporary; none of the programs or projects reviewed had ongoing financial support.
321 Truscott – Conclusion 7.4 Future Possibilities for 'Community Archaeology'?
This research’s exploration of community archaeology in the ACT and in Victoria results in an understanding of the benefits of this model for Indigenous heritage management, as well as drawbacks to its full implementation. The following is a recommended approach to better Indigenous heritage management practice, an integrated heritage identification and management strategy that follows the community archaeology ideals.
The proposed Indigenous heritage management strategy has been devised only for the ACT system, drawing heavily on the positive aspects of the Victorian system, without at this stage demanding statutory change. The proposal nonetheless addresses the current gaps in the heritage management process.
This Indigenous heritage strategy proposes some relatively minor changes for a greater responsibility for the RAOs as part of the integrated heritage process. They have however not been discussed with them. This heritage strategy includes raising levels of understanding of heritage processes that are likely to build the communities’ capacity to take on a leadership role for their heritage. As shown in the literature survey a greater say in heritage has the potential to increase community pride, and grow the communities’ social capital.
The projected integrated heritage strategy is based on Australia’s accepted best practice standards, the Burra Charter and Ask First. Applying these standards would contribute to the ACT government meeting its responsibilities to heritage, the Indigenous communities, and the wider society.
7.4.1 Acknowledging Community
Some of the ACT RAOs sought separate Indigenous heritage legislation during the legislation review, such as is in place in Victoria.277 However, it is this researcher’s view that one risk in such separate legislation, is that Indigenous heritage may be even less respected and recognised than it is currently within the present ACT heritage system.
277 As noted, the following recommendation about the role of the RAOs has not been tested with them.
322 Truscott – Conclusion Such a separation may result in further relegation of Indigenous heritage to the ‘prehistoric’ past, perpetuating the current domination of an archaeological perspective. It is highly likely to perpetuate the current separation from the past 200 years of co-existent story of the Indigenous residents and and non-Indigenous incomers. For these reasons, the following changes are recommended to ensure a greater say by communities on decisions about their heritage within the statutes that bring together all aspects of heritage, place and object, cultural and natural. As such, the ACT legislation has the potential to embrace Indigenous meanings of Country that may enable a more integrated ‘culture-nature’ perspective of heritage.
Collaboration if not Control
The community archaeology model seeks control or at least an equal partnership for the Indigenous community in the research into and management of its heritage. It is therefore recommended that significantly more influence be available to the RAOs. The Victorian system gives such groups considerable statutory power. Even if that does not occur in the ACT in the short term, there are ways to ensure that a greater say and leadership is accorded the RAOs.
In order to achieve this greater say about their heritage for the RAOs in the ACT, they need to be allocated a greater responsibility in all decision-making steps. It is therefore recommended that the Heritage Council, as well as having the current single Indigenous member on Council, establish an Advisory Indigenous Heritage or working group that differs from the current Working Group. The difference would be leadership beyond the Heritage Council, with a majority Indigenous membership with the representation by all RAOs, to be headed by the Indigenous Council member, and advisers from staff and other Council members. This could happen immediately without statutory amendments being required. Funding for this change are discussed below.
Other Collaborative Approaches
A whole-of-government approach to Indigenous heritage management across all land tenures could resolve the problem of the fragmented approach to heritage generally,
323 Truscott – Conclusion including Indigenous heritage. It is therefore recommended that an inter-agency committee be established to ensure that the Territory Plan’s commitment to Indigenous heritage and culture is met across those tenures. Senior officials of the following agencies should be members of this group: Heritage Unit or Council, Land Development Agency, ACT Parks and Recreation, and the ACT Land and Planning Agency, as well as the United Ngunnawal Elders Council.
An inter-agency team of staff of the above agencies is also recommended to co-ordinate and oversee technical aspects of the recommended early and integrated heritage identification and management project. This team should have expertise in areas relevant to this project: heritage—Indigenous, historic and natural heritage, heritage interpretation and cultural tourism, and park management and development processes, wherever possible being Indigenous.
Funding
It is suggested that funding for this integrated Indigenous heritage strategy project be by contributions from the Heritage Grants Community Heritage Partnerships, Land Development Agency, and ACT Parks and Recreation. The Land Development Agency could recoup its costs from developers later in the land development process.
7.4.2 Mapping Country
An integrated, comprehensive identification of all heritage values, cultural—Indigenous and non-Indigenous, and natural, is recommended be undertaken in areas not yet developed in the ACT and that this process also be undertaken in a ‘district’, or regional, approach, to include the adjoining protected areas, such as national park/s and reserves. The steps to be undertaken are:
Gathering together all past records
Analysing all the past records and compiling information for each location within the area / district being studied
324 Truscott – Conclusion
Identifying gaps that require further research, including physical confirmation or identification on Country, cultural mapping with the community, both on Country and in other workshops
Assessing the significance once all information gathered applying HERCON criteria
Sharing this knowledge to Ngunnawal, Ngambri, and Ngarigu members/ groups, and the wider Canberra community
Wherever appropriate this should be collated with ‘historic’ and natural knowledge and records, in order to have an integrated approach, as well as to end a separation between Indigenous and non-Indigenous history.
It is also recommended that the same process be undertaken by those areas already overlaid by sub/urban development or other infrastructure, as a second staged project to interpret that past information within the ‘city’, as ‘“Country” in the City’.
Gathering Past Information
Gathering and reviewing all known information is the first step in any heritage project, whether archaeological research, or an all-encompassing heritage identification project and is recommended here. The Wurundjeri Merri Creek project, reviewed in this research, provides an exemplar for this process. Records might be primary or secondary, primary including historical accounts, ethnographies, past maps, photographs, diaries, survey records, and other reports. Secondary sources provide information on primary records, and include histories based on these, as well as archaeological research reports, and pre-development survey reports.
It is strongly recommended that this compilation of past history include information up to the present. The available information relates to different phases of human activity: the deep past of some 21,000 years of human activity; the arrival of Europeans into the area from 1820 and its selection in 1908 as the site for the national capital and subsequent development; and the continuing sense of place, memory, and story of the descendant Aboriginal groups.
325 Truscott – Conclusion The collation of records needs to include land use, the historic and natural history, and contact and post-contact interactions between Indigenous and non-Indigenous, to the present, including the return of local Indigenous community members from NSW reserves to Canberra as noted in the 2012 genealogical study. This compilation should cover the entire ACT, but could be approached regionally, by district, priorities decided according to imminent development pressures, and including all land tenures in that area.
This data once gathered will need analysing for its information to be compiled according to location and the nature of the information. This analysis will also identify any gaps in knowledge, and future research questions.
Although the priority should be land where the current use may be changed soon, it is suggested that it is logistically beneficial to capture the sources of information about other areas of the ACT at the same time. Undertaking documentary research of Canberra already overlaid by sub/urban development anticipates a recommended supplementary phase being a proposed heritage interpretation strategy.
This second stage of this analysis of the collected records is to examine information relating to the areas of Canberra settled before pre-development surveys were undertaken. This information can add to that publicly known already, but also deepen its understanding, or infill gaps in understanding of layers of past activity and Indigenous connections, within the older suburbs of the city, as a ‘“County” in the City interpretation program.
Experts undertaking this phase of the integrated heritage identification project should have relevant discipline backgrounds and a familiarity with the ACT’s history. They also need to have experience in research, where records are found, and a capacity to produce the information in a GIS format [to be kept confidential before the entire process is completed]. Indigenous community members should be members of this team wherever their skills are relevant, or in a trainee role.
326 Truscott – Conclusion Finding Country
Once the gaps in knowledge have been identified from analysing all collated past records, a targeted process of finding new information to fill those gaps is recommended. Depending on the nature of the gaps, these may consist of:
seeking further records where appropriate, repeating the process outlined above
gathering the community’s information about Country
undertaking archaeological surveys, to both re-identify sites recorded in the past, and find new evidence, and ensuring that these results are fully analysed
The identification of community knowledge of Country should be led by the communities with an agreed facilitator. It is recommended that a range of cultural mapping methods be used, such as ‘use and occupancy’ and traditional Indigenous knowledge recording. The Wurundjeri Merri Creek project provides an example to follow, as do the ACT community’s experiences of Going on Country with community elders and Green Team members. The community / ies will have control over which information may be made public, and which is confidential and what access arrangements there may be to the latter. The archiving arrangements are to be decided by them, and the Namadgi Rock Art project provides an example for this.
The surveys to identify past and new tangible sites need to ensure that both Indigenous and non-Indigenous features are recorded.
Experts undertaking this step in the integrated heritage identification project should have the relevant skills and experience in the ACT, and if not involved in the collation and analysis of the past records, be fully briefed, with a thorough understanding of the nature of the physical sites likely to be found.
Significance Assessment
A full significance assessment is then to be applied to all places and spaces identified both in the record collation and in the field surveys and cultural mapping processes. It is necessary to have an overview of the entire landscape being studied, including adjoining
327 Truscott – Conclusion land tenures, before significance can properly be applied to make comparative assessments as to what it is rare or representative, what research gaps may be filled, and what importance a place has in demonstrating the past today. The Namadgi Rock Art project is the only project reviewed in this research that fully applied a full significance assessment, although the complete methodology is not reported.
Only those with experience in applying significance criteria should carry out this process, in collaboration with Indigenous community members. To ensure a high and consistent level of understanding of the significance assessment method, it is recommended that a short training course be presented beforehand.
Management Planning
Heritage management plans are to be developed according to best practice principles based on the Burra Charter. The plans are to ensure that the heritage values of areas of Country found in the above processes are respected and taken into account early in any proposed changes to that area of Country. Such considerations are to be undertaken early, but can only do so, if the heritage identification, significance assessment and management planning are in place well ahead of such proposed development.
Sharing Country
Sharing information about the results of heritage projects is a core component of community archaeology. This is an area of activity that the two case studies did not address substantially. The information about Canberra’s Indigenous past and its meanings today has been insufficiently revealed to date to the wider Canberra community, despite a number of interpretation projects at individual sites and in the Tracks project.
It is therefore strongly recommended that the comprehensive knowledge derived from the above integrated heritage identification project’s results be shared with the wider community. An interpretation strategy should be agreed to by the inter-agency committee. An expert team with interpretation and presentation experience should develop this heritage interpretation strategy. This interpretation team should be advised
328 Truscott – Conclusion by the identification project steering committee and the RAOs, with input from Australian Capital Tourism.
This information can be made available in different formats and to different audiences. It is however strongly recommended the integrated heritage identification project’s interpretation strategy build on the ‘Canberra Tracks’ website and proposed app. It is also recommended that instead of a ‘dots on the map’ interpretative approach, that links between individually presented sites or nodes of meaning are made. The Gubur Dhaura site presentation is an example of how this can be done. It is recommended that these interpretations and presentations incorporate past landscapes including pre-Holocene information, to indicate past human responses to climate changes.
A second stage of this interpretive project would be to interpret the past within the older parts of Canberra. This ‘“Country” in the City’ project would draw on the collected past information to provide a virtual cultural map of past connections and associations that are now overlaid by the federal capital. In this way, missed opportunities to make the past visible as the new is built, can be backfilled. Currently the marginal level of available interpretation, increasingly skews a sense of past Indigenous activities, as well as pastoral 19th century occupation, to the more remote or rugged areas of the ACT.
The inclusion of the RAOs throughout the planning and implementation would be a necessity, and it is recommended that the RAOs take leadership in any cultural tourism initiatives. In the ACT, none of the four RAOs have a developed cultural tourism business, unlike the Wurunderi Tribe in Victoria. It is recommended that by building on the interpretation efforts to date, such a community-based activity could be a future priority for socio-economic growth. The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Centre and Yarramundi Reach, provided for cultural use for all Indigenous residents in Canberra, has the potential to [again] become a centre for the RAOs, It is recommended that this centre be actively revived as a centre for all the RAOs to conduct their heritage and cultural responsibilities, as well as a cultural tourism centre.
329 Truscott – Conclusion 7.4.3 Building Capacity
A comprehensive capacity building strategy is recommended be developed and implemented as part of the integrated heritage identification project across the ACT. This should ensure a common level of understanding of heritage processes and relevant skills for key members of each of the RAOs. This training should build on and expand knowledge and experience gained during some of the projects analysed in this research. The Namadgi Rock Art project which took participants through the entire process as recommended in the Burra Charter, and provides a model for such heritage training.
Victoria’s example established as Certificate IV training course, co-ordinated by the Department of Archaeology in La Trobe University, is possibly relevant for adoption in the ACT. It is also recommended that cultural mapping tools be included in such a course. An example of the application of such identification processes is given in the Wurundjeri Merri Creek project. Possible providers of such a course are IPPHA, ANU, or the Donald Horne Institute of Cultural Heritage, the University of Canberra.
It is also recommended that the RAOs be provided with project administration and governance skills. A possible provider is the Canberra Institute of Technology (CIT), which provides targeted professional development short courses, with assistance from the CIT’s Yurauna Centre.
Those non-community members involved in heritage projects in the ACT should have a consistent standard of heritage management knowledge and experience, that includes the relevant ethical codes and professional principles. It is therefore recommended that heritage professionals and archaeologists, both consultants, and staff with government agencies, are provided with opportunities for short courses in a range of areas related to best practice heritage management including:
cross-cultural awareness
general heritage management processes
significance assessment
awareness of current professional ethical codes, and standards
330 Truscott – Conclusion Such capacity development might be funded by a dedicated priority of the ACT Heritage Grants’ Community Heritage Partnerships Projects. This would be a proactive investment in better future Indigenous heritage management. Some short courses, such as significance assessment, could be made available to both Indigenous community members, as well as heritage practitioners, and held at regular intervals.
It is also recommended that all briefs for heritage grant projects, consultancies for pre- development surveys, and protected area management are required to follow the requirements of the Burra Charter and Ask First.
7.5 Final statement
Does community archaeology have a future? It is suggested that the answer is ‘yes’. This research has explored how and where this collaborative approach to heritage is working, and can work, in the various domains where Indigenous heritage is considered. And this research has found that the community archaeology ideals can provide a better approach to Indigenous heritage management in the future. A conscious application of its tenets, all of them, has the opportunity to reconcile different understandings of the past and today’s landscape, of Country. Community archaeology also has the opportunity to provide more consistent benefits to the relevant Indigenous community.
The concepts inherent in community archaeology provide the relevant community a greater say about their heritage. A greater community authority is however unlikely to take place unless all parties take a mindful approach. The current stasis in 'compliance archaeology', today’s multiple land use pressures, and governance barriers combine to make change unlikely unless a concerted effort it made. A better and more consistent future Indigenous heritage management depends on both Indigenous communities and those involved in Indigenous heritage to purposely engaging with other decision-makers to realise community archaeology’s potential.
331 Truscott – References
REFERENCES
(Note that all websites are current unless otherwise stated)
AAA (Australian Archaeological Association) 1975 Meeting of Australian Archaeological Association, Section 25A, 46th ANZAAS Congress, Canberra January 1975 (http://dspace.flinders.edu.au/xmlui/handle/2328/87).
AAA (Australian Archaeological Association) 1991 Codes of Ethics.
AAA (Australian Archaeological Association) 2004 Code of Ethics last amended 14 December 2004 (www.australianarchaeologicalassociation.com.au/ethics).
AAA (Australian Archaeological Association) 2010 Challenges for archaeology in understanding cultural and natural landscapes: Local, national and global perspectives, 9-13 December 2010, Australian National University, held at Bateman’s Bay, NSW (http://australianarchaeology.com/past-conferences/).
AAA (Australian Archaeological Association) 2011 The Sociality of Archaeology, 1-3 December 2011, University of Southern Queensland, Toowoomba, Queensland (http://australianarchaeology.com/past-conferences/).
AACAI (Australian Association of Consulting Archaeologists Incorporated) nd AACAI Policy on consulting with Aboriginal Communities (www.aacai.com.au/about- aacai/policies/).
AACAI (Australian Association of Consulting Archaeologists Incorporated) 2014 ACAI Recommended Minimum Fees Scale (www.aacai.com.au/about-aacai/policies/).
AALC (Australian Alps Liaison Committee) 2008a Terms of Reference - Australian Alps Indigenous Reference Group (AAIRG) (www.australianalps.environment.gov.au/publications/alps-program/pubs/aairg- terms-of-reference.pdf).
AALC (Australian Alps Liaison Committee) 2008b ‘Conserving Rock Art’, News from the Alps 38 (www.npaact.org.au/res/File/PDF/ALPS%20NEWS%2037%20.pdf).
AALC (Australian Alps Liaison Committee) 2008-09 ‘News: big or small on Alps-based projects, people and events: conserving rock art’, Newsletter 37 Summer 2008-09 (www.australianalps.environment.gov.au/publications/newsletters/no37.html).
AAV (Aboriginal Affairs Victoria) 2008 Fees and Conduct Guidelines for Registered Aboriginal Parties (from 2013 at
333 Truscott – References www.dpc.vic.gov.au/images/documents/Aboriginal_Affairs/Fees_and_conduct_g uidelines_for_registered_aboriginal_parties.pdf).
AAV (Aboriginal Affairs Victoria) 2009 ‘Past and Present – Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Management Workshops’, flyer issued by AAV, Department of Planning and Community Development with La Trobe University /www.vaeai.org.au/_uploads/_ckpg/files/ACHM%20Workshops%202014%20bro chure.pdf).
AAV (Aboriginal Affairs Victoria) 2010a Cultural Heritage Agreements (from 2013 at www.dpc.vic.gov.au/images/documents/Aboriginal_Affairs/Aboriginal-Heritage- Agreement-Form.pdf).
AAV (Aboriginal Affairs Victoria) 2010b Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006 Aboriginal Heritage Protection Declarations & Cultural Heritage Agreements (from 2013 at www.dpc.vic.gov.au/images/documents/Aboriginal_Affairs/Information-Sheet- on-Aboriginal-Heritage-Protection-Declarations-and-Cultural-Heritage- Agreements.pdf).
AAV (Aboriginal Affairs Victoria) 2010c Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006 Information Sheet The Role of Registered Aboriginal Parties (RAPs) (from 2013 at www.dpc.vic.gov.au/images/documents/Aboriginal_Affairs/Info-Sheet-The-Role- of-RAPs.pdf).
AAV (Aboriginal Affairs Victoria) 2010d Cultural Heritage Management Plan for the purposes of the Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006 (from 2013 at www.dpc.vic.gov.au/images/documents/Aboriginal_Affairs/Format-in-which-a- Cultural-Heritage-Management-Plan-must-be-Prepared.pdf).
AAV (Aboriginal Affairs Victoria) nd Guidelines on Appropriate Qualifications for Cultural Heritage Advisors (from 2013 at www.dpc.vic.gov.au/images/documents/Aboriginal_Affairs/Guidelines-on- Appropriate-Qualifications-for-Cultural-Heritage-Advisors.pdf).
AAV (Aboriginal Affairs Victoria) 2011a Aboriginal Heritage Council, online explanation (www.dpcd.vic.gov.au/indigenous/aboriginal-heritage-council).
AAV (Aboriginal Affairs Victoria) 2011b Public List of Cultural Heritage Advisors, online list (from 2013 at www.dpc.vic.gov.au/images/documents/Aboriginal_Affairs/cultural%20heritage %20advisor%20list%20-%20october%202014.pdf).
AAV (Aboriginal Affairs Victoria) 2011c Victorian Aboriginal Heritage Register - application to be listed as a Cultural Heritage Advisor (from 2013 at www.dpc.vic.gov.au/images/documents/Aboriginal_Affairs/Application-to-be- Listed-as-a-Cultural-Heritage-Advisor.pdf).
334 Truscott – References AAV (Aboriginal Affairs Victoria) 2011d Discussion Paper Review of the Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006, September 2011 (from 2013 at www.dpc.vic.gov.au/images/documents/Aboriginal_Affairs/Aboriginal-Heritage- Act-2006-Discussion-Paper.pdf).
AAV (Aboriginal Affairs Victoria) 2012a Summary of Submissions and Consultation: Review of the Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006, April 2012 (from 2013 at www.dpc.vic.gov.au/images/documents/Aboriginal_Affairs/Summary-Of- Submissions-and-Consultation.pdf).
AAV (Aboriginal Affairs Victoria) 2012b Issue and Options Paper: Review of the Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006, April 2012 (from 2013 at www.dpc.vic.gov.au/images/documents/Aboriginal_Affairs/Options-Paper- Aboriginal-Heritage-Act.pdf).
AAV (Aboriginal Affairs Victoria) 2012c Summary Report: Review of the Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006, August 2012 (from 2013 at www.dpc.vic.gov.au/images/documents/Aboriginal_Affairs/Review_of_the_Abor iginal_Heritage_Act_2006.pdf).
ABC (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) 2010 ‘Behind the News – Aboriginal Art’, 31 August 2010 (www.abc.net.au/btn/story/s2994518.htm).
ABC (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) 2012 ‘Elders share traditional ecological knowledge’, by Chrissy Arthur, posted on ABC News on 18 October 2012 (www.abc.net.au/news/2012-10-18/elders-share-traditional-ecological- knowledge/4320180).
ABC News 2011 ‘Cotter dig’, Stateline ACT, Friday 1 April 2011 (www.abc.net.au/news/2011-04-01/cotter-dig/2632000).
ABS (Australian Bureau of Statistics) 2002a National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Survey, Australian Bureau of Statistics Cat No 4714.0 (www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/[email protected]/Lookup/4714.0Main+Features12002?O penDocument).
ABS (Australian Bureau of Statistics) 2002b Social Capital and Social Wellbeing: A Discussion Paper (www.abs.gov.au/websitedbs/D3110122.NSF/6ead87599a9a3b0bca256eaf00836e b9/150bcb152250ddcfca256c220080ba47!OpenDocument).
ABS (Australian Bureau of Statistics) 2003 Mineral Exploration Land Access Expenditure 2001-02 (Supplement Survey of) (www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/[email protected]/DOSSbyTopic/DE786708C1013B26CA256 DEA0076C6FA?OpenDocument).
335 Truscott – References ABS (Australian Bureau of Statistics) 2004 Information Paper: Measuring Social Capital - An Australian Framework and Indicators, Cat No 1378.0 (www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/[email protected]/0/12E3FA31D28C73A4CA256E36007761F 5).
ABS (Australian Bureau of Statistics) 2006 Aspects of Social Capital, Australia, Australian Bureau of Statistics Cat No 4911.0 (www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/[email protected]/mf/4911.0).
ABS (Australian Bureau of Statistics) 2007 Population Distribution, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians, 2006, ABS Cat No 4705.0 (Latest Issue Released at 11:30am (CANBERRA TIME) 15/08/2007 (online at www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/[email protected]/b06660592430724fca2568b5007b8619/14e7a 4a075d53a6cca2569450007e46c!OpenDocument).
ABS (Australian Bureau of Statistics) 2008 National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Survey: Language and Culture, ABS Cat No 4714.0 (Latest Issue Released at 11:30 AM (CANBERRA TIME) 30/10/2009) (www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/[email protected]/Latestproducts/4714.0Main%20Features 52008?opendocument&tabname=Summary&prodno=4714.0&issue=2008&num= &view=).
ABS (Australian Bureau of Statistics) 2010 The City and the Bush: Indigenous Wellbeing across Remoteness Areas, Cat No 4102.0 - Australian Social Trends, Sep 2010, (Previous Issue, Released at 11:30 AM (CANBERRA TIME) 29/09/2010, updated 13 December 2010) (www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/[email protected]/Lookup/4102.0Main+Features10Sep+20 10).
ABS (Australian Bureau of Statistics) 2012 Census of Population and Housing - Counts of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians, 2011, Cat No 2075.0 (LATEST ISSUE Released at 11:30 AM (CANBERRA TIME) 21/06/2012, First Issue) (www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/[email protected]/Lookup/2075.0main+features32011).
ACHM (Australian Cultural Heritage Management) 2010 Indigenous Cultural Heritage and History within the Metropolitan Melbourne Investigation Area, a desktop study report to the Victorian Environmental Assessment Council, by Shaun Canning and Frances Thiele (www.veac.vic.gov.au/documents/Indigenous%20Cultural%20Heritage%2 0and%20History%20within%20the%20VEAC%20Melbourne%20Metropo litan%20Investigation%20Area.pdf).
ACT 1991 Land (Planning and Environment) (Consequential Provisions) Act 1991 (repealed) (www.legislation.act.gov.au/a/1991%2D118/).
336 Truscott – References ACT 2004 Heritage Act 2004, 2011 version, ACT Legislation website (www.legislation.act.gov.au/a/2004-57/current/pdf/2004-57.pdf).
ACT 2006 Heritage (Representative Aboriginal Organisations) Declaration 2006 (No 1)* Notifiable instrument NI2006–298, made under the Heritage Act 2004, s14, by John Hargreaves, MLA Minister for the Territory and Municipal Services, 15 August 2006 (www.legislation.act.gov.au/ni/2006-298/current/pdf/2006-298.pdf).
ACT 2011a Gazetted Notices for the week beginning 20 January 2011, ACT GovernmentGazette, pp9-10 (www.jobs.act.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0008/184139/Gaz_27_01.pdf).
ACT 2012 Out Kin Our Country, ACT Government Genealogy Project, report by ACT Community Services Directorate, August 2012 1(www.dhcs.act.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0011/346556/ACT_Government_G enealogy_Project.pdf).
ACT 2013 Heritage Legislation Amendment Bill 2013: Summary statement (www.environment.act.gov.au/heritage/review_of_the_heritage_act_2004/heritag e_legislation_amendment_bill_2013_summary_statement).
ACT 2014a Information Sheet: Approvals Processes for Archaeological Works in the ACT, based on amendments to legislation on 25 September 2014 (www.environment.act.gov.au/heritage/about-us/approvals-processes-for- archaeological-works-in-the-act).
ACT 2014b Environment and Sustainable Development Directorate Annual Report 2013-2014 (www.environment.act.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0018/644112/2013-14- Annual-Reports_ACCESS.pdf)
ACT EPD (Environment and Planning Directorate) 2013 Consultants and Trades Directory (www.environment.act.gov.au/heritage/development-at-heritage- sites/consultants_and_trades_directory).
ACT EPD (ACT Environment and Planning Directorate) 2014a Yurung Dhaura Aboriginal team cares for the Cotter, Natural Resource Management website report (www.environment.act.gov.au/environment/natural_resource_management/aborig inal_team_cares_for_the_cotter).
ACT EPD (ACT Environment and Planning Directorate) 2014b Ngunnawal Plant Use: a traditional Aboriginal plant use guide for the ACT Region, published 8 September 2014.
337 Truscott – References ACT ESDD (Directorate of Environment and Sustainable Development) 2011 2011 ACT Landcare Award Categories (www.environment.act.gov.au/environment2/2011_act_landcare_award).
ACT ESDD (Directorate of Environment and Sustainable Development) 2012a Annual Report 2011-12, Section A8-12 (www.environment.act.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/581846/ESDD_Annua l_Report_2012-11-SectionA8-A10.pdf).
ACT ESDD (Directorate of Environment and Sustainable Development) 2012b Annual Report 2011-12, Section C - Legislative and Policy reporting: C21 - Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders reporting (www.environment.act.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0007/581848/ESDD_Annua l_Report_2012-11-SectionC.pdf).
ACT Heritage 2007 ACT Heritage Grant Program Successful Projects 2007-2008 (www.cmd.act.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0017/147401/Updated_2007- 2008_grants_web_info.pdf).
ACT Heritage 2011 What is a Heritage Agreement?, information sheet 10 on ACT Heritage Legislation, 9 March 2005 (www.environment.act.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0019/581005/10_ACT_Heri tage_legislation_-_Heritage_agreements.pdf).
ACT LA (Legislative Assembly for the Australian Capital Territory) 2008a Standing Committee on Planning and Environment (Reference: Namadgi national park draft plan of management) Transcript of Evidence 13 May 2008, Members: Mr M Gentleman (Chair), Ms M Porter (Deputy Chair), and Mrs V Dunne, Tuesday 13 May 2008 (www.hansard.act.gov.au/hansard/2005/comms/plan30.pdf).
ACT LA (Legislative Assembly for the Australian Capital Territory) 2008b Standing Committee on Planning and Environment Inquiry into the Namadgi National Park Draft Plan of Management, July 2008, Report 34 (www.parliament.act.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0009/380673/34peNamadgi.p df).
ACT LA 2014 The Legislative Assembly for the Australian Capital Territory, Heritage Legislation Amendment Bill 2013 (Government Amendments), Supplementary Explanatory Statements 25 September 2014 (www.legislation.act.gov.au/es/db_47674/20140925-59058/pdf/db_47674.pdf).
ACT NRM Council 2009 ACT NRM Communiqué 5/2009:2, Minutes of Council meeting for 6 October 2009 (http://actlandcare.org.au/files/Special%20Nov%2009%20News%20of%20our%2 0world_0.pdf).
338 Truscott – References ACT NRM Council 2010 Understanding the Land through the Eyes of the Ngunnawal People, published in partnership between the ACT NRM Council, ACT Department of Education and Training, ACT Department of Environment, Climate Change, Energy and Water.
ACT NRM Council 2011a ‘Yurung Dhaura Caring for the Cotter Catchment Project’ (archived at http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/143847/20131217- 0001/www.actnrmcouncil.org.au/node/171.html).
ACT NRM Council 2011b ‘Caring for our Country Regional Investment: Ngunnawal Warriors’, Council post by John Feint, Executive Director, ACT NRM Council, 3 November 2011 (archived at http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/143847/20131217- 0001/www.actnrmcouncil.org.au/node/184.html).
ACT PCL (Parks Conservation and Lands) 2008 ‘Cultural Landscape, Sites and Artefacts’, a series of brochures are accessible via this website (www.tams.act.gov.au/play/pcl/heritage/aboriginal_heritage_in_the_act/aborigina l_sites).
ACT TAMS (Territory and Municipal Services) 2010a Heritage Act 2004 Review – Discussion Paper, Department of Territory and Municipal Services (online at www.tams.act.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0009/185940/Heritage_Act_2004_Re view_Discussion_Paper.pdf).
ACT TAMS (Territory and Municipal Services) 2010b Namadgi National Park Plan of Management 2010 (www.tams.act.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/387930/Final_Namadgi_Natio nal_Park_Plan.pdf).
ACT TAMS (Territory and Municipal Services) 2013a Namadgi Rock Art Working Group Preserving the rock art sites in Namadgi, statement by Brett McNamara, Manager Regional Operations, National Parks and Catchments, ACT Parks and Conservation Service made on ACT Territory and Municipal Services website as part of Caring for Ngunnawal country program (www.tams.act.gov.au/parks- recreation/caring_for_ngunnawal_country/namadgi_rock_art_working_group site updated 4 April 2013).
ACT TAMS (Territory and Municipal Services) 2013b Statement by Adrian Brown, Ngunnawal descendent, and Ngunnawal Country Ranger, ACT Parks and Conservation Service, Namadgi Rock Art Working Group Preserving the rock art sites in Namadgi, made on ACT Territory and Municipal Services website as part of Caring for Ngunnawal country program (www.tams.act.gov.au/parks- recreation/caring_for_ngunnawal_country/namadgi_rock_art_working_group site updated 4 April 2013).
339 Truscott – References ACTPLA (ACT Planning and Land Authority) 2009 Territory Plan (www.actpla.act.gov.au/tools_resources/legislation_plans_registers/plans/territory _plan).
ACTPLA (ACT Planning and Land Authority) 2010 ‘Statement of Strategic Directions’, Part 2 of ACT Territory Plan (www.legislation.act.gov.au/ni/2008- 27/copy/74258/pdf/2008-27.pdf).
ACTPLA (ACT Planning and Land Authority) 2012 Non Urban Zones Development Code (www.actpla.act.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/31973/Non_Urban_Zones.pd f).
ACTPLA (ACT Planning and Land Authority) 2013a ACT EIS Process flowchart online (www.actpla.act.gov.au/topics/design_build/da_assessment/environmental_assess ment/environmental_impact_statements/eis_process).
ACTPLA (ACT Planning and Land Authority) 2013b Future urban area land online (www.actpla.act.gov.au/topics/property_purchases/land_release/future_urban_lan d).
AECOM 2012 Proposed Mugga Landfill Expansion - Stage 5 - Draft Environmental Impact Statement, report to ACTPLA 20 December 2012 (www.actpla.act.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0007/32839/Mugga_Stage_5_EIS_ v4-0-01.pdf).
Agnew, N, and J Bridgland 2003 Call for papers WAC-5, World Archaeological Congress, no longer online.
Agnew, N, and J Bridgland (eds) 2006 Of the Past, for the Future: Integrating Archaeology and Conservation, Proceedings of the Conservation Theme at the 5th World Archaeological Congress, Washington DC, USA, 22-26 June 2003, Getty Conservation Institute, Los Angeles.
AHRC (Australian Human Rights Commission) 2009 2008 Native Title Report, report by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commissioner and Social Justice Commission, AHRC Report 2/2009 (www.humanrights.gov.au/sites/default/files/content/social_justice/nt_report/ntre port08/pdf/ntr2008.pdf).
Ah Kit, J 1995 Aboriginal aspirations for heritage conservation, Historic Environment 11(2&3):34-36.
AHC (Australian Heritage Commission) 1975 Australian Heritage Commission Act.
340 Truscott – References AHC (Australian Heritage Commission) 1985 Annual Report, Australian Government Publishing Service, Canberra.
AHC (Australian Heritage Commission) 1990 ‘Queanbeyan Case Study’, Annual Report 1989-90, p31, AGPS: Canberra.
AHC (Australian Heritage Commission) 1991 The National Estate Grants Program: information for Aboriginal communities and organizations, Canberra.
AHC (Australian Heritage Commission) 1994a People's places: identifying and assessing social value for communities, report of the Social Value Workshop, held at the University of Melbourne on 20 October 1993, edited by Sandy Blair (and Marilyn Truscott).
AHC (Australian Heritage Commission) 1994b Representativeness and Aboriginal archaeological sites, report of the Representativeness Workshop held at the Australian Heritage Commission on 8 November 1993, edited by Gary Dunnett and Sue Feary.
AHC (Australian Heritage Commission) 1998, 2000 Protecting Local Heritage Places: A guide for communities (www.environment.gov.au/heritage/ahc/publications/commission/books/pubs/prot ecting-local-heritage-places.pdf).
AHC (Australian Heritage Commission) 2001 Heritage Economics: Challenges for heritage conservation and sustainable development in the 21st Century, Conference Proceedings, 4 July 2000, Australian National University, Canberra (www.environment.gov.au/system/files/resources/1d7ebe21-dc0b-4b89-a655- 5453fce681e5/files/heritage-economics-2000.pdf).
AHC (Australian Heritage Commission) 2002 Ask First: A guide to respecting Indigenous heritage places and values, prepared for the AHC by Dave Johnston (www.environment.gov.au/system/files/resources/4afff65c-00dd-4001-878b- a28d8831293a/files/ask-first.pdf; followed from DCA 1997 Draft Guidelines for the Protection, Management and Use of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Cultural Heritage Places, developed by the Department of Communications and the Arts, with the Australian Heritage Commission, Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies and the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission.
AIATSIS (Australian Institute for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies) 1999 Research of Interest to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples, report to the Australian Research Council (ARC).
AIATSIS (Australian Institute for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies) 2009 Theme: Health, Perspectives on urban life: connections and reconnections,
341 Truscott – References National Indigenous Studies Conference 2009, 29 Sept-01 Oct 2009 (www.aiatsis.gov.au/research/conf2009/papers/health.html).
AIATSIS (Australian Institute for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies) 2010 Theme: Indigenous Wellbeing, Seminar Series 1-2010 (www.aiatsis.gov.au/research/seminarseries/2010-1.html).
AIATSIS (Australian Institute for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies) 2011a Theme: Wellbeing and Resilience, Young and Old: connecting generations, National Indigenous Studies Conference 2011, 19-22 September, Canberra (www.aiatsis.gov.au/research/conf2011/papers/wellbeing.html).
AIATSIS (Australian Institute for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies) 2011b Research Grants approved 2011 (http://aiatsis.gov.au/research/grants/grants2011.html).
AIATSIS (Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies) 2012 Guidelines for Ethical Research in Indigenous Studies, 2nd edition (www.aiatsis.gov.au/research/docs/GERAISJune2011.pdf).
AIATSIS (Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies) 2013a Panel Discussion: ‘The Right to Protect Sites’, Native Title Conference 2013 Shaping the Future, 3 June 2013 (www.aiatsis.gov.au/ntru/culturalheritage).
AIATSIS (Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies) 2013b Culture in crisis? The protection and trade of Indigenous heritage in the 21st century, Seminar Series, Semester 2, 2013 (www.aiatsis.gov.au/research/seminarseries/SeminarSeries2013-2.html).
Alexander, M 2011 ‘Heritage and Cultural Mapping’, keynote address at AIATSIS Native Title Conference, Canberra, June 2011, Central Desert Native Title Services Ltd (www.aiatsis.gov.au/ntru/documents/Alexander_Michelle.pdf).
Alistair Grinbergs Heritage Solutions 2008 Archaeological Investigations at Block 1671 Tuggeranong ACT, report for ACTEW AGL.
Allen Consulting Group 2005a Thoughts on the ‘When’ and ‘How’ of Government Historic Heritage Protection, Research Report 1 prepared for the Heritage Chairs and Officials of Australia and New Zealand (online at www.heritage.vic.gov.au/page.asp?pf=1&submit_action=&ID=402).
Allen Consulting Group 2005b Valuing the Priceless: The Value of Historic Heritage in Australia, Research Report 2 prepared for the Heritage Chairs and Officials of Australia and New Zealand (online at www.heritage.vic.gov.au/ page.asp?ID=402; last updated 8/1/2008; first viewed January 2006) (now at www.dpcd.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/36885/allens_rpt2_pt1.pdf).
342 Truscott – References Allen Consulting Group 2007 Review of the Aboriginal Heritage Regulations 2007: Regulatory Impact Statement, prepared for Aboriginal Affairs Victoria.
Allen, H, and C Phillips 2010 ‘Maintaining the Dialogue: Archaeology, Cultural Heritage and Indigenous Communities’, in Caroline Phillips and Harry Allen Bridging the divide: indigenous communities and archaeology into the 21st century, One World Archaeology Series 60, pp233-254, Walnut Creek, Ca: Left Coast Press.
Allen, J 1995 A short history of the Tasmanian affair, Australian Archaeology 41:42-48.
Allen, J 1999 Antiquity, in T Murray (ed) Archaeology of Aboriginal Australia: A Reader, Allen & Unwin, NSW.
Allia, S, and D Griffin 2011 Recording Indigenous Cultural Values within Archaeological Investigations, proposed session for AAA 2011 Conference, The Sociality of Archaeology, 1-3 December 2011, Toowoomba, Queensland (http://australianarchaeology.com/past-conferences/).
ALRC (Australian Law Reform Commission) 2003 Essentially Yours: The Protection of Human Genetic Information in Australia (ALRC Report 96) 36 Kinship and Identity – Legal definitions of Aboriginality, p915 (www.alrc.gov.au/sites/default/files/pdfs/publications/ALRC96_vol2.pdf).
Altman, J C, G J Buchanan and L Larsen 2007 The Environmental Significance of the Indigenous Estate: Natural Resource Management as Economic Development in Remote Australia, CAEPR Discussion Paper No 286, ANU College of Arts and Social Sciences.
AMEC (Australian Association of Mining and Exploration Companies) 2013 Submission 024 (www.pc.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/122574/sub024-resource- exploration.pdf).
Arnstein, S R A 1969 Ladder of Citizen Participation, Journal of the American Institute of Planners 35 (4):216-224 (see http://lithgow-schmidt.dk/sherry-arnstein/ladder- of-citizen-participation.html).
Atalay, S 2006a ‘Guest Editor’s Remarks: Decolonizing Archaeology’, American Indian Quarterly 30(3&4):269-279.
Atalay, S 2006b ‘Indigenous Archaeology as Decolonizing Practice’, American Indian Quarterly 30(3&4):280-320.
Atalay, S 2007 ‘Global Application of Indigenous Archaeology: Community Based Participatory Research in Turkey’, Archaeologies: Journal of the World Archaeological Congress 3(3):249-270.
343 Truscott – References Atalay, S 2012 Community-Based Archaeology: Research with, by, and for Indigenous and Local Communities, University of California Press.
ATSIC (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission) 1997 National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Tourism Industry Strategy, Canberra: ATSIC (http://www.atsic.gov.au/programs/noticeboard/Industry_Strategies/tis/contents.a sp).
Attwood, B, and J Arnold (eds) 1992 Power, Knowledge and Aborigines. La Trobe University Press, Melbourne.
AustLII (Australian Legal Information Institute) Native Title Act 1993, Commonwealth Consolidated Acts, Legal Information Institute, a joint facility of UTS and UNSW Faculties of Law (online at www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/nta1993147/).
Australia ICOMOS 1979 The Australia ICOMOS Guidelines for the Conservation of Places of Cultural Significance (“Burra Charter”) (http://australia.icomos.org/wp-content/uploads/Burra-Charter_1979.pdf).
Australia ICOMOS 1996 Assessing Social Value[s]278: Communities and Experts, a workshop held by Australia ICOMOS, convened by Sheridan Burke in Sydney, December 1994, edited by Marilyn Truscott, and sponsored by the Australian Heritage Commission.
Australia ICOMOS July 1998a Cultural Heritage Places Policy: Visions, Policies and Implementation Strategies (http://australia.icomos.org/publications/other- publications/).
Australia ICOMOS 1998b Code of the Ethics of Co-existence in Conserving Significant Places (http://australia.icomos.org/wp-content/uploads/Code-on-the-Ethics-of- Co-existence-in-Conserving-Significant-Places-1998.pdf).
Australia ICOMOS 2000 The Burra Charter 1999: The Australia ICOMOS Charter for Places of Cultural Significance, with associated Guidelines and Code on the Ethics of Co-existence. Australia ICOMOS Incorporated, Melbourne (http://australia.icomos.org/wp-content/uploads/BURRA_CHARTER.pdf).
Australia ICOMOS 2001 Statement on Indigenous Cultural Heritage (http://australia.icomos.org/wp-content/uploads/Australia-ICOMOS-Statement- on-Indigenous-Cultural-Heritage.pdf).
Australia ICOMOS 2010 Submission to Review of the Heritage Act 2004, HAS33.
278 Note the title was to be ‘social value’ but there was a printer’s error
344 Truscott – References Australia ICOMOS 2011a Annual Report 2010-2011, presented to ICOMOS Australia members at the Annual General Meeting, 27th October, 2011 Melbourne, Australia (http://australia.icomos.org/wp-content/uploads/Australia-ICOMOS- Annual-Report-2010-11.pdf).
Australia ICOMOS 2011b Australia ICOMOS Submission to Review of Victorian Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006, 28 November 2011 (www.dpc.vic.gov.au/images/documents/Aboriginal_Affairs/International- Council-on-Monuments-and-Sites-Submission.pdf).
Australia ICOMOS 2013a The Burra Charter: The Australia ICOMOS Charter for Places of Cultural Significance, adopted by the Australia ICOMOS AGM 31 November 2013 (http://australia.icomos.org/wp-content/uploads/The-Burra- Charter-2013-Adopted-31.10.2013.pdf).
Australia ICOMOS 2013b Annual Report 2012-2013 (http://australia.icomos.org/wp- content/uploads/Australia-ICOMOS-Annual-Report-2012-13.pdf).
Avery, S 1994 Aboriginal and European Encounter in the Canberra Region: a question of change and the archaeological record, BA (Hons) Thesis, Department of Archaeology and Anthropology, ANU, Canberra (online at www.kunama.com/custlaw/CUSTIND.HTM).
Bahn, P (ed) 2004 The New Penguin Dictionary of Archaeology, Penguin Books, London.
Balme, J, and M Wilson 2004 Perceptions of Archaeology in Australia amongst educated young Australians, Australian Archaeology 58:19-24.
Barker, B 2003 Hierarchies of Knowledge and the Tyranny of Text: Archaeology, ethnohistory and oral traditions in Australian Archaeological Interpretation, paper presented at World Archaeological Congress 5, Washington DC, in Working with Indigenous Communities sub-theme, June 2003.
Beck, W, D Murphy, C Perkins, and T Perkins, with A Smith and M Somerville 2005 Aboriginal ecotourism and archaeology in coastal NSW, Australia: Yarrawarra Place Stories Project, in C Smith and M Wobst (eds) Indigenous Archaeologies: Decolonizing Theory and Practice (One World Archaeology 47), pp226-241, Abingdon & New York: Routledge.
Behrendt, L 2007 The Urban Aboriginal Landscape (www.uws.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0007/6928/Behrendt_Final.pdf).
Bell, D 1999 Mununja the butterfly: the first storybook in traditional Aboriginal language from south-eastern Australia, ACT & Districts Aboriginal Council
345 Truscott – References of Elders Association Inc, text in Ngunnawal and English, Brolga Press, Gundaroo, NSW.
Bell, D 2003 Dyirri the frog, text in Ngunnawal and English, ACT & Districts Aboriginal Council of Elders Association Inc, Brolga Press, Gundaroo, NSW.
Bell, W 2010 Buru Ngunawal Aboriginal Corporation 2010 Submission to Review of ACT Heritage Act 2004, submission HAS24.
Bell, W, and M Overton 2012 ‘Gubur Dhaura Red Ochre Ground: Melding Heritage with Suburbia’, paper presented at the 2012 ACT and Region Annual Australian Heritage Partnership Symposium, Wally Bell, Chairman Buru Ngunawal Aboriginal Corporation, Mark Overton, ACT Land Development Agency (www.nationaltrust.org.au/Assets/8278/1/MarkOvertonandWallyBellLDA- GuburDhauraheritageinsuburbia.pdf).
Bender, B 2006 Place and Landscape, in C Tilley, W Keane, S K chler, M Rowlands and P Spyer (eds) Handbook of Material Culture, pp. 303–314, London: Sage.
Betz, B 2008 Putting the past to use: A plea for community archaeology, Save Antiquities for Everyone website, feature article (www.savingantiquities.org/feature_page.php?featureID=10).
Bhabha, H K 1994 The Location of Culture, Routledge
Biosis 2010a Submission to Review of the Heritage Act 2004, HAS10.
Biosis 2010b ACT Crace Estate Stage 2 Residential Development – Scarred Tree Cultural Heritage Assessment, report for Crace Developments Pty Ltd, October 2010.
Biosis 2010c ACT Crace Estate Stage 2 Residential Development – Scarred Tree Conservation Management Plan, report for Crace Developments Pty Ltd, October 2010.
Birckhead, J, T de Lacy and L Smith (eds) 1992 Aboriginal Involvement in Parks and Protected Areas, Aboriginal Studies Press, Canberra.
Birckhead J, R Greiner R, S Hemming, D Rigney, M Rigney, G Trevorrow, and T Trevorrow 2011 Economic and Cultural Values of Water to the Ngarrindjeri People of the Lower Lakes, Coorong and Murray Mouth, River Consulting: Townsville (www.riverconsulting.com.au/reports/Ngarrindjeri__Aug2011.pdf).
346 Truscott – References Bird, C, and D Frankel 1998 University, community and government: Developing a collaborative archaeological research project in western Victoria, Australian Aboriginal Studies 1:35-39.
Birdsell, J B 1970 Local group composition among the Australian Aborigines: a critique of the evidence from field work conducted since 1930, Current Anthropology 11(2):115-142, quoted in Gray 2000.
Blair, S, and M C Truscott 1988 Australian Heritage Commission agenda item: Proposal to explore ‘social value’ further.
Blair, S, and M C Truscott 1989 Cultural Landscapes: their scope and recognition, Historic Environment 7(2):3-8.
Blair, S, and S Feary 1995 Regional assessment of cultural heritage: A new approach based on community and expert partnerships, Historic Environment 11(2&3):15-21.
Boer, B, and G Wiffen 2006 Heritage Law in Australia, Oxford University Press, Melbourne.
Boladeras J 2002 ‘It's Easier to be Black if you're Black’: Issues of Aboriginality for Fair-Complexioned Nyungar People, unpublished MA thesis, Curtin University of Technology, Perth.
Bolt, R 2009 Urban Aboriginal identity construction in Australia: an Aboriginal perspective utilising multi-method qualitative analysis, PhD thesis, University of Sydney (http://prijipati.library.usyd.edu.au/bitstream/2123/6626/3/RJBOLT_2009thesis.p df).
Bowdler, S 1981 Unconsidered trifles? Cultural resource management, environmental impact statements and archaeological research in New South Wales, Australian Archaeology 12:123-133.
Bowdler, S 1983 Aboriginal Sites on the Crown-Timber Lands of New South Wales, Forestry Commission of New South Wales.
Bowdler, S 1984 Archaeological significance as a mutable quality, in S Sullivan and S Bowdler (eds) Site Surveys and Significance Assessment in Australian Archaeology, Proceedings of the 1981 Springwood Conference on Australian Prehistory pp1-9, Department of Prehistory, Research School of Pacific Studies, Australian National University, Canberra.
Bowdler, S 1995 Needs and priorities for conserving Aboriginal places of cultural significance, in S Sullivan (ed) Cultural Conservation: Towards a National
347 Truscott – References Approach, pp349-356, publication of a workshop held in 1986, Special Australian Heritage Commission Publication Series 9, Australian Government Publishing Service, Canberra.
Bowler, J M 1970 Late Quaternary environments: a study of lakes and associated sediments in south-eastern Australia, PhD thesis, Australian National University, Canberra.
Bowler, J M, and A G Thorne 1976 Human remains from Lake Mungo: discovery and excavation of Lake Mungo III, in R L Kirk and A G Thorne (eds) The Origin of the Australians, pp127–138, Canberra: Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies.
Brown, C 2007 Stories of the Ngunnawal: Ngunnawal Elders, Journey of Healing (ACT) Inc.
Brown, S 2007 Landscaping heritage: Toward an operational cultural landscape approach for protected areas in NSW, Australasian Historical Archaeology 25:33–42.
Brown, S 2008a Mute or Mutable? Archaeological Significance, Research and Cultural Heritage Management in Australia, in More Unconsidered Trifles, special volume to mark retirement in 2007 of Sandra Bowdler, Australian Archaeology 67:19-30.
Brown, S 2008b Telling stories: managing cultural values at Yuraygir National Park, Australia', in Josep-Maria Mallarach (ed) Protected Landscapes and Cultural and Spiritual Values, pp38-50, IUCN, GTZ and Obra Social de Caixa Catalunya. Kasparek Verlag, Heidelberg.
Brown, S 2010 Cultural Landscapes: A Pratical Guide for Park Management, Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water, NSW Government, Sydney.
Bruchac, M, S Hart and H M Wobst (eds) 2010 Indigenous Archaeologies: A Reader on Decolonization, Left Coast Press.
Burke, H, C Lovell-Jones and C Smith 1994 Beyond the Looking-Glass: Some Thoughts on Sociopolitics and Reflexivity in Australian Archaeology, Australian Archaeology 38:13-22.
Byrne, D 2002 An archaeology of attachment: Cultural heritage and the post contact, in R Harrison and C Williamson (eds) After Captain Cook: the archaeology of the recent Indigenous Past in Australia, Sydney University Archaeological Methods Series 8; pp135-146, Archaeological Computing Laboratory, Sydney.
Byrne, D, H Brayshaw and T Ireland 2001 Social Significance: a discussion paper, Research Unit, Cultural Heritage Division, NSW National Parks and Wildlife
348 Truscott – References Service (www.environment.nsw.gov.au/resources/cultureheritage/SocialSignificance.pdf).
Byrne, D, and M Nugent 2004 Mapping Attachment: A spatial approach to Aboriginal post-contact heritage, NSW [then] Department of Environment and Conservation (www.environment.nsw.gov.au/nswcultureheritage/MappingAttachment.htm).
Cabeza, A 2006 Reflections on Archaeological Heritage and Indigenous Peoples in Chile, in Finding Common Ground: the role of Stakeholders in Decision making, series of papers as Part 4 of N Agnew and J Bridgland (eds) Of the Past, for the Future: Integrating Archaeology and Conservation, pp.125-130, Proceedings of the Conservation Theme at the 5th World Archaeological Congress, Washington DC, USA, 22-26 June 2003, Getty Conservation Institute, Los Angeles.
Caldwell, J R 1959 The new American archaeology, Science 129:303–307.
Carman, J 2011 Stories we tell: myths at the heart of ‘community archaeology’, Archaeologies: Journal of the World Archaeological Congress 7(3):490-50.
Carter, R 2004 My land: sharing, communicating and building cultural heritage partnerships, Papers of the Archaeology and Indigenous Communities session at Australian Archaeological Association Conference, Jindabyne, December 2003, The Artefact 27:5-7.
CBA (Council of British Archaeology) 2009 Community Archaeology Forum (online at www.britarch.ac.uk/caf/wikka.php?wakka=HomePage, last updated 10/9/09; last viewed 21/9/2009).
CBA (Council of British Archaeology) 2014 CBA Community Archaeology: Archaeology for all website (www.archaeologyuk.org/community).
Chesterton, John 2001 Defending Australia’s Reputation: How Indigenous Australians Won Civil Rights, Part 2, Australian Historical Studies 32(117):201-221.
Chivers, J 2013 ACT NAIDOC Award Winners 2013, unofficial announcement 7 July 2013 (https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/actindnetwork/conversations/topics/21000) .
CHMA (Cultural Heritage Management Australia) 2010 Cuppacumbalong Sub-Surface Archaeological Investigations (Blocks 6 and 8) Conservation Management Plan, for Bruce Gibbs.
CIT (Canberra Institute of Technology) 2011a ‘Conservation and Land Management – Certificate II’, CIT Building and Environment Centre
349 Truscott – References (http://cit.edu.au/future/courses/conservation_and_land_management_certificate_i i).
CIT (Canberra Institute of Technology) 2011b ‘Conservation and Land Management – Certificate III’, CIT Building and Environment Centre (http://cit.edu.au/future/courses/conservation_and_land_management_certificate_i ii).
Clark, I, and T Heydon 2004 A bend in the Yarra: A history of the Merri Creek protectorate station and Merri Creek Aboriginal School 1841–1851, Aboriginal Studies Press, Canberra.
Clark, I, J Sutherland and G Young 1994 Cultural mapping: a handbook, prepared by AIATSIS Pac Rim Planning, Sydney, for the federal Department of Communications and the Arts.
Clark, K 2011 Essay: ‘Only Connect’- The social, economic and environmental benefits of cultural heritage, commissioned for Australian Heritage Strategy by the Australian Heritage Council (www.environment.gov.au/heritage/strategy/pubs/essay-benefits-clark.pdf), references at (www.environment.gov.au/heritage/strategy/pubs/essay- bibliography-clark.pdf).
Clarke, A 1994 Winds of Change: an archaeology of contact in the Groote Eylandt archipelago, Northwest Australia, unpublished PhD thesis, the Australian National University.
Clarke, A 2000 Time, tradition and transformation: the negotiation of cross cultural engagements in Groote Eylandt, northern Australia, in R Torrence and A Clarke (eds), The Archaeology of Difference: Negotiating cross cultural engagements in Oceania. One World Archaeology 33; pp. 142-181. Routledge, London and New York.
Clarke, A, and A Paterson 2003 Cross-cultural archaeology: an introduction, Archaeology in Oceania 38(2):49-51.
Clarke, A, and P Faulkner 2005 Living archaeology in the Madarrpa homeland of Yilpara, in J Lydon and T Ireland (eds) Object Lessons: Archaeology and Heritage in Australia, pp225-242, Australian Scholarly Publishing, Melbourne.
COAG (Council of Australian Governments) 2007 ‘Closing the Gap Strategy’ signed 20 December 2007 [find actual doc] (www.healthinfonet.ecu.edu.au/closing-the- gap/key-facts/what-is-the-history-of-closing-the-gap).
COAG (Council of Australian Governments) 2012 Australia’s Native Vegetation Framework, Standing Council on Environment and Water, Australian
350 Truscott – References Government, Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, Canberra.
Colley, S 2002 Uncovering Australia: Archaeology, Indigenous people and the public, Allen and Unwin, Sydney.
Colley, S 2005 ‘Consumer choice’ and public archaeology in and beyond the academy, Australian Archaeology 61:56-63.
Colley, S, and S Ulm 2005 Teaching, learning and Australian archaeology, Australian Archaeology 61:7-10 (http://researchonline.jcu.edu.au/16636/1/colley%26ulm_2005.pdf).
Colmar Brunton Social Research 2004 Market research for the ‘Distinctively Australian’ programme, unpublished report to the Australian Heritage Council.
Commonwealth of Australia Gazette 2008 Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999: Inclusion of a Place in the National Heritage List, Gazette Special No. S 41, 25 February 2008 (www.environment.gov.au/heritage/laws/publicdocuments/pubs/105936_01.pdf).
Conner, A 2001 Sharing Stories, Drawing on the Past: Strategies for Producing Educational Resources for the Community Archaeology Project at Quseir, Egypt, MA thesis, Department of Archaeology, University of Southampton.
Conner, A, L El Nemr, M Seymour 2002 Salma and Samir in Roman Quseir, Quseir Heritage and Department of Archaeology, University of Southampton.
Context Pty Ltd 2000 Bullum Bullum Aboriginal Place Conservation Management Plan, with Urban Initiatives landscape Architects for Aboriginal Affairs Victoria.
Council of Europe 1992 European Convention on the Protection of the Archaeological Heritage (Revised), Valetta 16.I.1992 (Valetta Convention) (http://conventions.coe.int/treaty/en/treaties/html/143.htm).
Creamer, H 1975 From the ‘Cultural Bind’ to a solution – The survey of Aboriginal sacred sites in New South Wales, Australian Archaeology 2:17-23.
Creamer, H 1990 Aboriginal perceptions of the past: implications for cultural resource management in Australia, in P Gathercole and D Lowenthal (eds) The Politics of the Past, pp130-40, London: Routledge.
Creswell, J W 1998 Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage (quoted in Zach 2006).
351 Truscott – References Cusack, J 2006 Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006 Education and Training Framework, October 2006 for Aboriginal Affairs Victoria.
DAA (Department of Aboriginal Affairs) 1981 Report on a Review of the Administration of the Working Definition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra.
DAFF (Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) 1992 National Forest Policy Statement (www.daff.gov.au/rfa/publications/nfp-statement).
DAFF (Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) 2014 Regional Forest Agreements, reports online (www.daff.gov.au/forestry/policies/rfa).
Dalley, C 2004 Control and Power in Australian Community Archaeology: Case studies from Waanyi Country, Northwest Queensland, BA (Hons) thesis, School of Social Science, University of Queensland (http://eprint.uq.edu.au/archive/00004353/).
David, B I, I McNiven, L Manas, S Savage, J Crouch, G Neliman and L Brady 2004 Goba of Mua: Archaeology working with oral tradition, Antiquity 78:158-172.
Davidson, I 1991 Notes for a Code of Ethics for Australian Archaeologists working with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage, Australian Archaeology 32:61-64.
Davidson, I, C Lovell-Jones and R Bancroft (eds) 1995 Archaeologists and Aborigines Working Together, University of New England Press, Armidale, NSW, based on a poster session and interviews at the AAA annual conference in Jindabyne, NSW, 1991, funded by the Australian Heritage Commission.
DCA (Department of Communications and the Arts) 1997 Guidelines for the Protection, Management and Use of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Cultural Heritage Places, developed by the Department of Communications and the Arts, with the Australian Heritage Commission, Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies and the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission.
Domicelj, J, and D Marshall 1994 Diversity, Place and the Ethics of Conservation: A Discussion Paper, on behalf of Australia ICOMOS for the Australian Heritage Commission.
DPCD (Victorian Department of Planning and Community Development) 2007 Aboriginal cultural heritage and the environment effects process, Environment Effects Advisory Note, August 2007 (www.dpcd.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0020/133229/Final_Advisory_Note _Aborignal_Cultural_Heritage_DPCD_8th_October_2007.pdf).
DPCD (Victorian Department of Planning and Community Development) 2011 How does the EES process work? flowchart
352 Truscott – References (www.dpcd.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0007/140983/How-does-the-EES- process-work-2011.pdf).
DSEWPaC (Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities) 2012 About Indigenous Protected Areas (www.environment.gov.au/indigenous/ipa/background.html). du Cros, H 2002 Much More than Stones and Bones: Australian Archaeology in the Late Twentieth Century, Melbourne University Press, Melbourne.
Dugay-Grist, M 2009 Moving around the landscape: We all go home be it physical and / or spiritual, paper presented in Culture and Heritage Section 1- Indigenous archaeologies and the urban environment: maintaining our culture and heritage, AIATSIS 2009 Conference Perspectives on urban life: connections and reconnections, Canberra.
Dugay-Grist, M 2013 To Do or not to Do; Archaeology and its Future as a Discipline within Australia, a paper given 16 September 2013, at the AIATSIS Research Seminar Series 2013/2, as part of Culture in crisis? The protection and trade of Indigenous heritage in the 21st century (online at www.aiatsis.gov.au/research/seminarseries/06_MDugay-Grist_160913_000.MP3)
DVC (Department for Victorian Communities) 2004a New Victorian Cultural Heritage Legislation: Discussion Paper (no longer online).
DVC (Department for Victorian Communities) 2004b New representative arrangements for Victorian Indigenous communities? News and Events (www1.dvc.vic.gov.au/aav/news_events/ last updated 7/4/2004, accessed 1/3/2008).
Earl, G 2002 Constructing Places: Roman Architecture and the Mind’s Eye. A Thesis on the Application of Spatial Theories and Computer Visualisation to Experience an Egyptian Red Sea Port around AD 120, unpublished doctoral thesis, Department of Archaeology, University of Southampton. eftec 2005a Valuation of the Historic Environment: the scope of using results of valuation studies in the appraisal and assessment of heritage-related projects and programmes – Executive Summary, Report to English Heritage, the Heritage Lottery Fund, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and the Department of Transport, July, London, by Economics for the Environment Consultancy (www.english-heritage.org.uk/publications/valuation-historic- environment/valuation-historic-environment-exec-summary.pdf). eftec (Economics for the Environment Consultancy) 2005b Valuation of the Historic Environment: the scope of using results of valuation studies in the appraisal and assessment of heritage-related projects and programmes - Final Report, report to
353 Truscott – References English Heritage, the Heritage Lottery Fund, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and the Department of Transport, July, London (www.english- heritage.org.uk/publications/valuation-historic-environment/valuation-historic- environment-final-rep.pdf).
Egloff, B J 1979 Mumbulla Mountain An Anthropological and Archaeological Investigation, Occasional Paper No 4, NSW NPWS, Sydney.
Egloff, B J 1981 Wreck Bay: an Aboriginal fishing community, Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies, Canberra.
Egloff, B J 1987 Aboriginal reserve cemeteries in North Central New South Wales: the nomination of places to the Register of the National Estate, report with ANUTech for Australian Heritage Commission.
Egloff, B J 1988 Deer Park Aboriginal Site Archaeological Investigations, report to the Victoria Archaeological Survey, ANUTech Pty Ltd.
Egloff, B J 1990 Wreck Bay, an Aboriginal fishing community, Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies, revised version of 1981 publication with the Wreck Bay Aboriginal Community.
Egloff, B J 2006a Introduction, to ‘Finding Common Ground: the role of Stakeholders in Decision making’, series of papers as Part 4 of N Agnew and J Bridgland (eds) Of the Past, for the Future: Integrating Archaeology and Conservation, pp85-86, Proceedings of the Conservation Theme at the 5th World Archaeological Congress, Washington DC, USA, 22-26 June 2003, Getty Conservation Institute, Los Angeles.
Egloff, B J 2006b Conservation, Researchers, and Aboriginal Heritage: A Perspective from Coastal Southeastern Australia, in ‘Finding Common Ground: the role of Stakeholders in Decision making’, series of papers as Part 4 of N Agnew and J Bridgland (eds) Of the Past, for the Future: Integrating Archaeology and Conservation, pp87-93, Proceedings of the Conservation Theme at the 5th World Archaeological Congress, Washington DC, USA, 22-26 June 2003, Getty Conservation Institute, Los Angeles.
Egloff, B J 2010 ‘A Past For Our Future: International Reflections of Archaeological Heritage Conservation and Management’, preliminary draft of manuscript being prepared for publication preliminary draft of manuscript being prepared for publication.
Egloff, B J, and J Fingleton 1994a ‘Goonininup or the Swan Brewery: values of Aboriginal fringe dwellers and European heritage’, in Joan Domicelj and Duncan Marshall (eds) Diversity, Place and the Ethics of Conservation: A Discussion
354 Truscott – References Paper, pp45-56, Appendix A: Goonininup/Swan Brewery Case Study, on behalf of Australia ICOMOS for the Australian Heritage Commission.
Egloff, B J, and J Fingleton 1994b ‘Australia’s Alps: natural parks, cultural systems and world heritage’, précis of issues as presented at the 1991 Symposium on Cultural Heritage of the Australian Alps by Australian Alps National Parks, in Joan Domicelj and Duncan Marshall (eds) Diversity, Place and the Ethics of Conservation: A Discussion Paper, pp57-77, Appendix B: Australian Alps Case Study, on behalf of Australia ICOMOS for the Australian Heritage Commission.
Egloff, B J, N Peterson and S Wesson 2005 Biamanga and Gulaga: Aboriginal Cultural Association with Biamanga and Gulaga National Parks, Office of the Registrar, Aboriginal Land Rights Act 1983 (NSW), Surry Hills, NSW.
Eisenhardt, K M 1989 Building theories from case study research, Academy of Management Review, 14(4):532–550 (quoted in Zach 2006).
English, A 2002 More than Archaeology: Developing Comprehensive Approaches to Aboriginal Heritage Management in NSW, Australian Journal of Environmental Management 9:218-227.
Evatt, E 1996 Review of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act 1984, Report to Commonwealth of Australia.
Field, J, J Barker, R Barker, E Coffey, L Coffey, E Crawford, L Darcy, T Fields, G Lord, B Steadman, and S Colley 2000 Coming Back: Aborigines and Archaeologists at Cuddie Springs, Public Archaeology 1(1):39-42.
Finkel, E 1998 Aboriginal groups warm to studies of early Australians, Science 280 (29 May):1342-1343.
Flood, J 1971 Preliminary excavation report on Bogong Cave and shelters, Tidbinbilla Range, ACT.
Flood, J 1973 The moth-hunters: investigations towards a prehistory of the south-eastern highlands of Australia, published PhD thesis, Australian National University.
Flood, J 1980 The moth hunters: Aboriginal prehistory of the Australian Alps, Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies, Canberra.
Flood, J 1995 Aboriginal Sites: identification and significance assessment at the national level, in S Sullivan (ed) Cultural Conservation: Towards a National Approach, pp195-218, publication of a workshop held in 1986, Special Australian Heritage Commission Publication Series 9, Australian Government Publishing Service, Canberra.
355 Truscott – References Flood, J, B David, J Magee, and B English 1987 Birrigai: a Pleistocene site in the southeastern highlands, Archaeology in Oceania 22:926.
Flyvbjerg, B 2006 Five Misunderstandings About Case-Study Research, Qualitative Inquiry 12(2):219-245, Sage Publications.
Fourmile, H 1989 Who owns the past? Aborigines as captives of the archives, Aboriginal History 13:1-8.
Frederickson, C 2005 Archaeology out of the classroom: Some observations from the Fannie Bay Goal field school, Darwin, Australian Archaeology 61:41-47.
Free, S 2004 Aboriginal archaeologists take a stand, ABC News in Science interview by Anne Salleh with [the late] Steve Free at the launch of the Indigenous Archaeological Association, AAA Conference, Armidale, 16 December 2004 (www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2004/12/16/1266812.htm).
GAA (Growth Areas Authority) 2013a Home Page (www.gaa.vic.gov.au/); since 9 October 2013, the Metropolitan Planning Authority (www.mpa.vic.gov.au).
GAA (Growth Areas Authority) 2013b Respecting and Preserving our Heritage in Melbourne’s Newest Suburbs, in Growth Area News 12:1, 3, June 2013 (www.mpa.vic.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Growth-Area-News_June- 2013.pdf).
Gandhi, V 2008 Aboriginal Australian heritage in the postcolonial city: sites of anti- colonial resistance and continuing presence, PhD thesis, Faculty of the Built Environment, University of New South Wales (at http://www.unsworks.unsw.edu.au).
Gardiner-Garden, J 2000 The Definition of Aboriginality: Research Note 18, 2000–01, Parliamentary Library, Information and Research Services, Parliament of Australia.
Gardiner-Garden, J 2003 Defining Aboriginality in Australia, Current Issues Brief Index 2002-03, Parliamentary Library, Information and Research Services, Parliament of Australia (www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_ Library/Publications_Archive/CIB/cib0203/03Cib10).
Geering, K, and C Roberts 1992 Current limitations on Aboriginal involvement in Aboriginal site management in centralwest and northwest New South Wales, in J Birckhead, T de Lacy and L Smith (eds) Aboriginal Involvement in Parks and Protected Areas, pp207-214, Aboriginal Studies Press, Canberra.
356 Truscott – References Gentleman, M 2014 Letter regarding changes to ACT heritage legislation, from Minister for Planning—and Heritage, 25 September 2014 (see Attachment 1).
Glazier, D 2003 We make the diamond shine: Archaeological Communities in Quseir, Egypt, unpublished doctoral thesis, Department of Archaeology, University of Southampton.
Godden Mackay Heritage Consultants 1999 The Cumberland/Gloucester Streets Site, The Rocks: Archaeological Investigation Report, Volumes 1, 3–5, prepared for the Sydney Cove Authority, Godden Mackay Logan Pty Ltd, Sydney (for Volume 2, see Karskens 1999).
GML Heritage 2010 Submission to Review of the Heritage Act 2004, HAS16.
Godwin, L 2002 The Anthropology of Artefacts: Aboriginal Perceptions of Artefacts in Northwestern Queensland, unpublished paper presented at Land and Sea - Common Ground and Contemporary Issues for Australasian Archaeology Conference, Townsville.
Godwin, L 2009 ‘It’s my Party: Aboriginal Parties in Queensland, ILUAs, the Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Act and the Federal Court’, paper given at AAA conference, December 2009, Flinders University, Adelaide.
Godwin, L, and S L’Oste-Brown 2002 A past remembered: Aboriginal ‘historical’ places in central Queensland, in R Harrison and C Williamson (eds) After Captain Cook: the archaeology of the indigenous recent past in Australia Sydney University archaeological methods series 8, Sydney, NSW: Published by Archaeological Computing Laboratory, University of Sydney, pp191-212.
Gojak, D 2007 ‘Two hundred years of secret visitors: the history of a pseudo- archaeological concept’ paper given in Secret Visitors: Understanding and Confronting Pseudo-Archaeology session, AAA Conference New Ground, Sydney University, 21-26 September 2007.
Gojak, D 2008 Book review: Inauthentic Archaeologies: Public Uses and Abuses of the Past by Troy Lovata, Left Coast Press, 1977, Australian Archaeology 66:72-74.
Golson, J 1975 Archaeology in a changing society, Australian Archaeology, 2:5-8.
Gosden, C 2001 Postcolonial archaeology: issues of culture, identity, and knowledge, in Ian Hodder (ed) Archaeological Theory Today, pp241-261, Cambridge, UK: Malden, Ma: Polity Press; Blackwell Publishers, 2001.
Goulding, M 2001 Cultural Places, Contested Spaces: An Approach to Managing Aboriginal Peoples’ Attachments to Landscape. Coffs Harbour Region Cultural
357 Truscott – References Heritage Study, Stage 1, a report to the New South Wales National Parks and Wildlife Service, Goulding Heritage Consulting, Carlton, Victoria.
Goulding, M 2002 Cultural Places, Contested Spaces: An Approach to Managing Aboriginal Peoples’ Attachments to Landscape, Coffs Harbour Region Cultural Heritage Study, Stage 2, a report to the New South Wales National Parks and Wildlife Service, Goulding Heritage Consulting, Carlton, Victoria.
Goulding, M 2003 Operationalising Social Significance Assessment: A New Approach to Integrating Community Values in NPWS Cultural Heritage Investigations, a report to the Cultural Heritage Division, NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service, April 2003.
Goulding, M 2004 Eurobodalla Shire Aboriginal Heritage Study Brief, unpublished manuscript prepared by Goulding Heritage Consulting for Eurobodalla Shire Council, 1/11/2004.
Goulding, M 2005 Reflecting on Project Outcomes, in Aboriginal Living Places Project, a report to the New South Wales Department of Environment and Conservation. Goulding Heritage Consulting, Carlton, Victoria.
Goulding, M, D Griffin and Wurundjeri Elders 2009 ‘New Victorian Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006: A Registered Aboriginal Party’s Perspective’, paper given at in the session “Old Problems New Shit” or “Old Paradigms, New Applications”: The Application of Cultural Heritage Legislation in Modern Cultural Heritage Situations’, 13 December 2009, AAA conference, Flinders University, Adelaide.
Gray, G 2000 '[The Sydney school] seem[s] to view the Aborigines as forever unchanging': southeastern Australia and Australian anthropology (This is a revised version of the paper originally presented to the collegium 'Aboriginality in the Southeast' held at the Australian National University, 1997. This volume of Aboriginal History commemorates the contribution of Kwementyaye Perkins (1936-2000) to what was once called Aboriginal advancement), Aboriginal History 24:175-199.
Greening Australia 2011 ‘Yurung Dhaura Aboriginal Land Management Team’, Latest News, Capital Region and National Land, Community webpage, December 2011 (www.greeningaustralia.org.au/community/news- item?newsItemId=354&state=5&newsListingUrl=community/capital- region&nationalId=7).
Greer, S 1989 ‘Northern Directions: a community-based approach in archaeology’, unpublished paper presented at Australian Archaeology Association conference, at Mildura.
358 Truscott – References Greer, S 1995 The Accidental Heritage: Archaeology and identity in Northern Cape York, Doctoral dissertation, Department of Anthropology and Archaeology, James Cook University of Townsville.
Greer, S 1996 Archaeology, Heritage and Identity in Northern Cape York Peninsula, in S Ulm, I Lilley and A Ross (eds) Australian Archaeology ’95: Proceedings of the 1995 Australian Archaeological Association Annual Conference, Tempus 6:103- 106, Queensland Anthropology Museum, University of Queensland, St Lucia, Qld.
Greer, S 1999 Archaeology, history and identity in coastal Cape York, .in I J McNiven and J Hall (eds) Australian Coastal Archaeology, pp 113-118, Canberra: ANH Publications, Department of Archaeology and Natural History, RSPAS, Australian National University.
Greer, S 2001 Book Review of I Lilley (ed) Native Title and the Transformation of Archaeology in the Postcolonial World, Oceania Monograph 50, 2000, University of Sydney, Archaeology in Oceania April 2001 36(1):47.
Greer, S 2010 Heritage and Empowerment: community-based Indigenous cultural heritage in northern Australia, International Journal of Heritage Studies 16(1&2):45-58.
Greer, S, and M Fuary 2008 Community Consultation and Collaborative Research in Northern Cape York Peninsula – a retrospective, Archaeological Heritage 1(1):5-15.
Greer, S, R Harrison and S McIntyre-Tamwoy 2002 ‘Community based archaeology in Australia’, in Y Marshall, Y (ed) Community Archaeology, World Archaeology 34(2), Routledge Press.
Greiner, R, S Hemming and D Rigney 2010 The Contribution of Water-based Ecosystems to Ngarrindjeri Wellbeing, seminar given at AIATSIS 7 June 2010 (abstract, audio and video at www.aiatsis.gov.au/research/seminarseries/2010- 1.html).
Guilfoyle, D 2006 Aboriginal Cultural Heritage and Regional Studies: an illustrative approach, [then] Department of Environment and Conservation, NSW (www.environment.nsw.gov.au/nswcultureheritage/AboriginalCulturalHeritageRe gionStudies.htm).
Haber, A 2010 This is Not an Answer to the Question “Who is Indigenous”?, in Margaret Bruchac, Siobhan Hart and H Martin Wobst (eds) August 2010 Indigenous Archaeologies: A Reader on Decolonization, Left Coast Press.
359 Truscott – References Haberkern, N 2009 Overview of native title and joint management arrangements for protected and other conservation areas in the Australian Capital Territory, compiled for the Native Title Research Unit, Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies (www.aiatsis.gov.au/ntru/docs/researchthemes/ntlw/jointmanagement/JointManag ementACT.pdf).
Hall, N 2008 Stepping Stones for Heritage: steps for developing natural and cultural heritage plans and management programs, Stepwise Heritage and Tourism website diagram (www.stepwise.net.au/planning/ss_heritage_web.pdf).
Hall, N, and M Wilson 2009a Rock Art Site Monitoring and Maintenance Training, Namadgi National Park, April-May 2009, training facilitators’ report to Namadgi National Park, for Stepwise Heritage and Tourism (http://namadgirockart.bounce.com.au/#/documents/4544928201).
Hall, N, and M Wilson 2009b Namadgi National Park Rock Art Sites Conservation Management Plan Workshop, Namadgi National Park, Workshop sessions 1-3 June and 19 August 2009, facilitators’ report to Namadgi National Park, for Stepwise Heritage and Tourism (http://namadgirockart.bounce.com.au/#/documents/4544928201).
Hamilakis, Y 2007 The Nation and its Ruins: Antiquity, Archaeology, and National Imagination, Oxford: Oxford University Press, UK.
Harcourt, R 2001 Southern Invasion. Northern Conquest: Story of the Founding of Melbourne, Golden Point Press, Blackburn South.
HarrisInteractive 2000 Exploring Public Perceptions and Attitudes about Archaeology, report for the Society for American Archaeology, by Maria Ramos and David Dugane (www.saa.org/Pubrel/publiced.poll.html last updated 31/3/2004, accessed 16/5/2008).
Harrison, R 2002 Shared histories and the archaeology of the pastoral industry in Australia, in R Harrison and C Williamson (eds) After Captain Cook: The archaeology of the recent indigenous past in Australia, Sydney University Archaeological Methods Series 8:37-58, Archaeological Computing Laboratory, University of Sydney.
Harrison, R 2003 Ngarranganni/Ngamungamu/Jalanijarra: ‘lost places’, recursiveness and hybridity at Old Lamboo pastoral station, southeast Kimberley, unpublished PhD thesis, Centre for Archaeology, University of Western Australia.
Harrison, R 2005 Dreamtime, old time, this time: Archaeology, memory and the present- past in a northern Australian Aboriginal community, in T Ireland and J Lydon
360 Truscott – References (eds) Object Lessons: Archaeology and heritage in Australia, pp243-264, Australian Scholarly Publishing, Melbourne.
Harrison, R 2006 Aboriginal people and pastoralism 1850-1950, in I Davidson, J S Ryan, and A Piper (eds.) High Lean Country: Environment, Peoples and Tradition in New England, pp. 111-121, UNSW Press, Sydney.
Harrison, R, and C Williamson (eds) 2002a After Captain Cook: the archaeology of the indigenous recent past in Australia Sydney University archaeological methods series 8, Sydney, NSW: Published by Archaeological Computing Laboratory, University of Sydney; also as Harrison, Rodney, and Christine Williamson (eds) 2004 After Captain Cook: the archaeology of the indigenous recent past in Australia, Indigenous Archaeologies Series in support of the World Archaeological Congress, AltaMira Press, Walnut Creek, California.
Harrison, R, and C Williamson 2002b ‘Introduction: ‘Too many Captain Cooks’? An archaeology of Aboriginal Australia after 1788’, in R Harrison and C Williamson (eds) After Captain Cook: the archaeology of the indigenous recent past in Australia Sydney University archaeological methods series 8:1-13, Sydney, NSW: Published by Archaeological Computing Laboratory, University of Sydney.
HCOANZ 2004 Heritage Chairs and Officials Australia and New Zealand (HCOANZ) Terms of Reference (www.environment.gov.au/heritage/info/pubs/hcoanz-terms- reference.pdf).
Head, L 1998 Risky representations: The 'seduction of wholeness' and the public face of Australian archaeology, Australian Archaeology 46:1-4.
Heard, G, S-E Khoo and B Birrell 2009 Intermarriage in Australia: patterns by birthplace, ancestry, religion and indigenous status, Monash University. Centre for Population and Urban Research.
Hepp, G D 2010 The difficulty of disentangling archaeology from colonialism, October 20, 2010, online review of McNiven, Ian J and Lynette Russell 2005 Appropriated Pasts: Indigenous Peoples and the Colonial Culture of Archaeology. Archaeology in Society. Altamira Press, New York (www.amazon.com/review/R2FSLG5NQJAA31).
Heritage Victoria 2002 Casselden Place Archaeology Project, website; project co-ordinator Leah McKenzie (www.heritage.vic.gov.au).
Hetherington, M 2013 A Scattered Landscape: archaeology of late-Holocene Indigenous coastal occupation near Cape Preston, Western Australia, submission 16 to the Productivity Commission Inquiry into Mineral and Energy Resource Exploration.
361 Truscott – References Hiscock, P 2012 Cinema, Supernatural Archaeology, and the Hidden Human Past, Numen 59(2-3):156-177.
Hodder, I 1985 Postprocessual archaeology, Advances in archaeological method and theory 8:1-26.
Holcombe, S 2009 Guidelines for Indigenous Ecological Knowledge management (including archiving and repatriation), Component 1 (of 3), The Australian government and the Northern Territory government (http://archanth.anu.edu.au/sites/default/files/documents/IEKdatamanagementGui delinesHolcombeFinal.pdf).
Hollowell, J, and G Nicholas 2008 A critical assessment of uses of ethnography in archaeology, in Q Casteneda and C Matthews (eds) Ethnographic Archaeologies: Reflection on Stakeholders and Archaeological Practices pp63-94, AltaMira Press, Lanham, Md.
Hollowell, J, and G Nicholas 2009 Using ethnographic methods to articulate community- based perceptions of cultural heritage management, Public Archaeologies 8(2):141-160.
Hope, J, and M A Stresau 1991 Aboriginal heritage project management workshop, for National Estate Grants Program, Canberra.
Hope, R M 1974 Report of the Committee of Inquiry into the National Estate, Canberra, Australian Government Publishing Service.
House, M 2003 ‘Kymin and Kangaroo: a Ngambri love story’, Book 4, Tales from Ngambri History, ACT Department of Education, Youth and Family Services, Tuggeranong, ACT.
House, P H 2004 Uriarra Moth Stone: a Ngambri site of significance, Environment ACT.
House, P 2009 ‘National Living Treasures: a perspective on the history of the Ngambri, and their story of survival’, as part of Layers of significance – Reconciliation Place and the Acton Peninsula, Canberra, with Leanne Dempsey, Mandy Doherty, Anne Faris, Professor Amareswar Galla, Paul House, Andrew Smith and Benita Tunks, 28 August 2009, National Museum of Australia Sites of Memory Symposium (transcript of audio recording online at www.nma.gov.au/audio/transcripts/NMA_sites_memory_session3_20092608.htm l, published 23 February 2010).
House, P 2010 Submission to Review of the Heritage Act 2004 for Ngambri and Little Gudgenby River Tribal Council, HAS25.
362 Truscott – References Howard, P 2003 Heritage: Management, Interpretation, Identity, Continuum, London and New York.
Hunt, J 2005 Capacity Development in the International Development Context: Implications for Indigenous Australia, ANU Centre for Aboriginal Economic Policy Research Discussion Paper 278.
Hunt, J 2010 Partnerships for Indigenous development: International development NGOs, Aboriginal organisations and communities, ANU Centre for Aboriginal Economic Policy Research Working Paper 71.
Hunt, J, J Altman, K May 2009 Social benefits of Aboriginal engagement in Natural Resource management, ANU Centre for Aboriginal Economic Policy Research Working Paper 60, also published as J Hunt, J C Altman, and K May 2009 Social Benefits of Aboriginal Engagement in Natural Resource Management, Report to the Natural Resource Advisory Council, Sydney).
ICOMOS 1990 The International Council on Monuments and Sites Charter for the Protection and Management of the Archaeological Heritage, also known as the ‘Lausanne Charter’, developed by the ICOMOS International Scientific Committee of Archaeological Heritage Management (ICAHM), ICOMOS, Paris, (www.international.icomos.org/charters.htm).
ILC (Indigenous Land Corporation) 2011a Land Acquisition website page (www.ilc.gov.au/site/page.cfm?u=128).
ILC (Indigenous Land Corporation) 2011b Land Purchased VIC [Victoria] website page (www.ilc.gov.au/site/page.cfm?u=206).
ILC (Indigenous Land Corporation) 2013 Land Acquisition Program website page (www.ilc.gov.au/Land-Acquisition-Program).
Inglis, J T (ed) 1993 Traditional Ecological Knowledge: Concepts and Cases, International Program on Traditional Ecological Knowledge, Canadian Museum of Nature, and International Development Research Centre, Ottawa, Canada (www.idrc.ca/EN/Resources/Publications/openebooks/683-6/index.html).
INRAWG (Interim Namadgi Rock Art Working Group) 2009 Draft Conservation Management Plan and Conservation Management Program for the Rock Art Sites of Namadgi National Park, in conjunction with Stepwise Heritage and Tourism (http://namadgirockart.bounce.com.au/#/documents/4544928201).
Ireland, T 2002 Giving value to the Australian historic past: Historical archaeology, heritage and nationalism, Australasian Historical Archaeology, 20:15-25 (http://ashadocs.org/aha/20/20_04_Ireland.pdf).
363 Truscott – References Isaacson, K, and S Ford 2005 ‘Looking forward – looking back: shaping a shared future’, in C Smith and M Wobst (eds) Indigenous Archaeologies: Decolonizing Theory and Practice (One World Archaeology 47), Abingdon & New York: Routledge, pp354–367.
Jackson, M, and R Kennett 2011 Review: Living Proof: The essential data-collection guide for use-and-occupancy map surveys, Terry Tobias 2009, Australian Aboriginal Studies 2011(1):103-105, review compiled for the North Australian Indigenous Land and Sea Management Alliance (http://ecotrust.org.au/wp- content/uploads/2011/08/NAILSMA-review-Living-Proof.pdf).
Jackson, S, R Lennox, C Neal, S Roskams, J Hearle, and L Brown 2014 Engaging Communities in the ‘Big Society’: What Impact is the Localism Agenda having on Community Archaeology?, The Historic Environment 5(1):74-88.
Jameson Jr, J H 2003 Purveyors of the Past: Education and outreach as Ethical Imperatives in Archaeology, in L J Zimmerman, K Vitelli and J Hollowell-Zimmer (eds) Ethical Issues in Archaeology, pp153-162, Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira.
Janke, T 1998 Don't Give away Your Valuable Cultural Assets: Advice for Indigenous Peoples, Indigenous Law Bulletin 4(11):8-11.
Johnston, C 1992 What is Social Value?, Australian Heritage Commission Technical. Publications Series Number 3, Australian Government Publishing Service, Canberra, 1992.
Johnston, C 2011 Essay: What are the community expectations for heritage, commissioned by Australian Heritage Council, for the Australian Heritage Strategy (www.environment.gov.au/topics/heritage/australian-heritage- strategy/past-consultation/australian-heritage-strategy).
Johnston, D 2009 An 'Ochre Card' for Australian Industry: Yet another Urban Indigenist archaeological expression, in session CH1.1: Indigenous archaeologies and the urban environment: maintaining our culture and heritage, AIATSIS Conference, Perspectives on urban life: connections and reconnections, October 2009 (www.aiatsis.gov.au/research/conf2009/papers/CH1.1.html).
Johnston, D 2013a Who is Standing up for the Protection of Our Australian Indigenous Heritage Sites and Places? Australian Archaeology, Heritage Legislation, Cultural Heritage Management Practice and the Impact of Native Title: An Indigenous Archaeologist's Reflection of the Last 20 years, presentation at Native Title Conference 2013: Shaping the Future, 3 June 2013.
Johnston, D 2013b ‘The protection and management of Australia’s Indigenous sites and cultural heritage values: a crisis of neglect’, a paper given 5 August 2013, at the
364 Truscott – References AIATSIS Research Seminar Series 2013/2 The protection and management of Australia’s Indigenous sites and cultural heritage values: a crisis of neglect, flyer (www.aiatsis.gov.au/research/seminarseries/documents/AIATSIS_seminar1_2013 0805.pdf).
Johnston, D 2013c ‘The protection and management of Australia’s Indigenous sites and cultural heritage values: a crisis of neglect’, a paper given 5 August 2013, at the AIATSIS Research Seminar Series 2013/2 The protection and management of Australia’s Indigenous sites and cultural heritage values: a crisis of neglect, (mp3 at www.aiatsis.gov.au/research/seminarseries/DJohnston_050813.mp3).
Jonas, W 1991 Consultation with Aboriginal people about Aboriginal heritage, AGPS: Canberra.
Jonas, W 2001 Social Justice Report 2001, Chapter 3: Indigenous governance and community capacity building, annual report by the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner, Australian Human Rights Commission (www.humanrights.gov.au/social_justice/sj_report/sjreport01/chapter3.html#92).
Jones, A 2004 Egypt, Communities and the Museum as Muse: New Perspectives on Representing Egyptian Heritage, unpublished MA thesis, Department of Archaeology, University of Southampton.
Jones, A 2008 ‘Do Not Prefer the Son of a Somebody to an Ordinary Man’: Collaborative Archaeology and the Representation of the Egyptian Past in Museum Displays, Unpublished doctoral thesis, Department of Archaeology, University of Southampton.
Kabaila, P 2011 Survival Legacies: stories from Aboriginal settlements in southeastern Australia, Canprint, Canberra, ACT.
Karskens, G 1999 The Cumberland/Gloucester Streets Site, The Rocks: Archaeological Investigation Report, Volume 2: Main Report—New Perspectives from The Rocks, prepared for the Sydney Cove Authority and the Heritage Council of New South Wales, in conjunction with Godden Mackay Logan Pty Ltd, Sydney, (see Godden Mackay 1999 for Volumes 1, 3–5).
Kelly, R 1974 ‘Report on Investigations of Aboriginal Sites in the Bellbrook Area’, October 1974, Aboriginal Sites Register, Site Cards 21 6 014, DEC, Cultural Heritage Division, Hurstville.
Kelly, R 1975 From the ‘Keeparra’ to the ‘Cultural Bind’ - An Analysis of the Aboriginal Situation, Australian Archaeology, 2:13-17 (https://dspace.flinders.edu.au/jspui/bitstream/2328/133/3/1975002013017_final.p s).
365 Truscott – References Kerber, J E 2006 Cross-Cultural Collaboration: Native Peoples and Archaeology in the Northeastern United States, Lincoln and London, Nebraska: University of Nebraska Press.
Kijas, J 2005 Revival, renewal and return: Ray Kelly and the NSW Sites of Significance Survey, Sydney: New South Wales Department of Environment and Conservation (www.nationalparks.nsw.gov.au/PDFs/Revival_Renewal_Return.pdf).
Lahn, J 1996 Finders keepers, losers weepers: a social history of the Kow Swamp remains, Ngulaig 15, University of Queensland, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders Studies Unit.
La Salle, M 2010 Community Collaboration and Other Good Intentions, Archaeologies: Journal of the World Archaeological Congress 6(3):401-422.
La Trobe University 2009 ‘Managing the past – for a better future’, La Trobe University News, 23 October 2009 (www.latrobe.edu.au/news/articles/2009/article/managing-the-past---for-a-better- future).
La Trobe University 2013 ‘Certificate IV in Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Management (Course Code: 22222VIC)’ website page (www.latrobe.edu.au/humanities/study/pathways/certificate-iv-in-aboriginal- cultural-heritage-management).
Lampert, R J 1971 Burrill Lake and Currarong; coastal sites in southern New South Wales, Terra Australis 1, Department of Prehistory, Research School of Pacific Studies, Australian National University, Canberra.
Lampert, R J 1975 Summary of Section 25A presentations at the 46th ANZAAS Conference in Canberra, January 1975, 46th ANZAAS Congress, Australian Archaeology 2:34-36.
Landcare ACT 2011 2011 ACT Landcare Award Winners (Word attachment at http://actlandcare.org.au/node/476).
Langford, R 1983 Our heritage – Your playground, Australian Archaeology 16:1-6.
Langton, M 1981 Urbanizing Aborigines: the social scientists great deception, Black alternatives in Australia, Brisbane; Social Alternatives, pp16-22.
Langton, M 1985 Looking at Aboriginal women and power: fundamental misunderstandings in the literature and new insights, ANZAAS, papers presented at ANZAAS Festival of Science, Clayton, Monash University.
366 Truscott – References Lennon, J, M Pearson, D Marshall, S Sullivan, P McConvell, W Nicholls and D Johnston 2001 Part 6: Indigenous control of Indigenous heritage, Natural and Cultural Heritage, Australia State of the Environment Report 2001 Theme Report, CSIRO Publishing on behalf of the Department of the Environment and Heritage, Canberra. (www.environment.gov.au/system/files/pages/c49f6eb3-5bd7-46c7- bc35-7913ea82e330/files/part06.pdf).
Leo, D 2000? 2002 Heritage Archaeology in Australia: Analysing the entangled cultural constructions of Aboriginal heritage by Aboriginal people, Antiquarians, and archaeologists, BA (Hons) thesis, University of Queensland.
Liebmann, M, and U Z Rizvi (eds) 2008 Archaeology and the Postcolonial Critique, AltaMira Press.
Liebmann, M 2008 Introduction: The Intersections of Archaeology and Postcolonial Studies, in M Liebmann and U Z Rizvi (eds) Archaeology and the Postcolonial Critique, AltaMira Press.
Lilley, I (ed) 2000 Native title and the transformation of archaeology in the postcolonial world, Oceania Monograph 50, University of Sydney; republished 2007 by Left Coast Press, Walnut Creek, Ca.
Lilley, I 2005 Archaeology and the Politics of Change in a Decolonizing Australia, in J Lydon and T Ireland (eds) Object Lessons: Archaeology and Heritage in Australia, pp89-106, Australian Scholarly Publishing, Melbourne.
Lilley, I and M Williams 2005 Archaeological Significance and Indigenous Knowledge: A View from Australia, in Clay Mathers, Timothy Darvill, and Barbara Little (eds) Heritage of Value, Archaeology of Renown: Reshaping Archaeological Assessment and Significance, pp227-257, University of Florida Press, Gainesville.
Lovell-Jones, C 1992 Observer and observed: A comparative study of Aboriginal participation in archaeological research, paper presented at Archaeology in the Early 1990s research seminar, 22-24 August, reproduced in an unpublished collection of papers of the same name, Department of Archaeology and Palaeoanthropology, University of New England.
Lovell-Jones, C 1995 Observer and observed: Aboriginal consultation in New South Wales and Queensland, in I Davidson, C Lovell-Jones and R Bancroft (eds) Archaeologists and Aborigines Working Together, University of New England Press, Armidale, NSW.
Lydon, J, and T Ireland (eds) 2005 Object Lessons: Archaeology and Heritage in Australia, Australian Scholarly Publishing, Melbourne.
367 Truscott – References Lydon, J, and U Rizvi 2010a ‘Introduction: Postcolonialism and Archaeology’, in J Lydon and U Rizvi (eds) Handbook of postcolonial archaeology, World Archaeological Congress research handbooks in archaeology, 3:17-32, Left Coast Press, Walnut Creek, Ca.
Lydon, J, and U Rizvi (eds) 2010b Handbook of postcolonial archaeology, World Archaeological Congress research handbooks in archaeology, Left Coast Press, Walnut Creek, Ca.
Lynott, M J 2003 The Development of Ethics in Archaeology, in L J Zimmerman, K D Vitelli and J Hollowell-Zimmer (eds) Ethical issues in Archaeology, pp17-27, Walnut Creek, California: AltaMira Press.
McBryde, I 1974 Aboriginal Prehistory in New England: an archaeological survey of northeastern New South Wales, Sydney University Press.
McBryde, I (ed) 1985 Who Owns the Past: Papers from the Annual Symposium of the Australian Academy of the Humanities. Melbourne: Oxford University Press.
McDavid, C 1997 Descendants, Decisions, and Power: The Public Interpretation of the Archaeology of the Levi Jordan Plantation, In the Realm of Politics: Prospects for Public Participation in African-American Archaeology, special issue of Historical Archaeology, 31(3):114-131.
McDavid, Carol 2007 Beyond Strategy and Good Intentions: Archaeology, Race and White Privilege, in B J Little and P A Shackel (eds) 2007 Archaeology as a Tool of Civic Engagement, Rowman Altamira.
McDavid, C, and F McGhee 2010 Commentary: Cultural resources management, public archaeology and advocacy, in J Lydon and U Rizvi (eds) Handbook of postcolonial archaeology, World Archaeological Congress research handbooks in archaeology, Volume 3:481-494, Walnut Creek, Ca: Left Coast Press.
McDonald, H 2006 Understanding Public Involvement with Australian Heritage, Final Research report commissioned by the Commonwealth Department of Environment and Heritage through Deakin University (made available by the author 16 October 2012).
McDonald, H 2011a Understanding the antecendents to public interest and engagement with heritage, European Journal of Marketing 45(5):780-804 (www.emeraldinsight.com/0309-0566.htm)
McDonald, H 2011b Essay: What are the community expectations for heritage protection?, commissioned for Australian Heritage Strategy by Australian Heritage Council (www.environment.gov.au/heritage/strategy/pubs/essay- expectations-mcdonald.pdf).
368 Truscott – References McDonald, J J 1996 The conservation of landscapes - A strategic approach to cultural heritage management, in S Ulm, I Lilley and A Ross (eds) Australian Archaeology '95: Proceedings of the 1995 Australian Archaeological Association Annual Conference, Tempus 6, pp113-121, St Lucia: Anthropology Museum, University of Queensland.
McGowan, A 1996 A view from the castle: Administering Aboriginal heritage legislation in a changing policy environment, in Sean Ulm, Ian Lilley and Anne Ross (eds) Australian Archaeology 95: Proceedings of the 1995 Australian Archaeological Association Annual Conference, Tempus 6, pp301-310, St Lucia: Anthropology Museum, University of Queensland.
McIntyre-Tamwoy, S 2000 Red Devils and White Men, unpublished PhD thesis, School of Archaeology, Anthropology and Sociology, James Cook University, Townsville.
McIntyre-Tamwoy, S 2002 Places people value: social significance and cultural exchange in post-contact Australia, in R Harrison and C Williamson (eds) After Captain Cook: the archaeology of the recent Indigenous Past in Australia, Sydney University Archaeological Methods Series 8; pp. 171-190, Archaeological Computing Laboratory, Sydney.
Mackay, R 1996 Regional Assessment Program review: assessment of cultural research methods and analysis, report prepared for Australian Heritage Commission.
Mackay R 2011 DSEWPaC Indigenous Advisory Committee State of the environment 2011 workshop – summary notes, report prepared for the Australian Government Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities on behalf of the State of the Environment 2011 Committee. Canberra, DSEWPaC (www.environment.gov.au/system/files/pages/01bbb859-4aca-4999-a2e3- d85768f822fb/files/soe2011-supplementary-heritage-iac-soe2011-workshop- notes.pdf).
Mackay, R 2006 Whose Archaeology? Social Considerations in Archaeological Research Design, in Finding Common Ground: the role of Stakeholders in Decision making, series of papers as Part 4 of N Agnew and J Bridgland (eds) Of the Past, for the Future: Integrating Archaeology and Conservation, Proceedings of the Conservation Theme at the 5th World Archaeological Congress, pp.131-135, Washington DC, USA, 22-26 June 2003, Getty Conservation Institute, Los Angeles.
McKeown, S 2010 Framework for Measuring Wellbeing: Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples, presentation to AIATSIS of ABS Framework (www.aiatsis.gov.au/research/docs/pdfs2010/McKeown22032010ppt.pdf).
369 Truscott – References Macklin, J 2012 Victorian cultural sites handed back to traditional owners, Press Release issued by Jenny Macklin, federal Minister for Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, with Dawn Casey, Chairperson, Indigenous Land Corporation, and Rob Mitchell, Federal Member for McEwen, 19 October 2012 (www.robmitchell.com.au/Editor/assets/press_releases/2012/121019_mt%20willi am%20%20sunbury%20land%20handback.pdf).
McManamon, F P, Jodi A Barnes, and A Stout 2008 Contemporary Archaeological Resource Management and the ‘Liberals’ Dilemma, in F P McManamon, J A Barnes and A Stout (eds) Managing Archaeological Resources, Global Context, National Programs, Local Actions, pp17-34, Left Coast Press, Walnut Creek, Ca.
McNiven, I, and L Russell 2005 Appropriated Pasts: Indigenous Peoples and the Colonial Culture of Archaeology, AltaMira Press, Walnut Creek, USA.
Madden, C 2000 Planning for the Future. Statistical Profile: Community Cultural Development (http://2014.australiacouncil.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0016/32632/sp_ccd.pdf ).
Malloy, M 2003 Introduction, in L Derry and M Malloy (eds) Archaeologists and Local Communities: Partners in Exploring the Past, ppix-xiii, Washington DC: Society for American Archaeology.
Marshall, D 2010 Australian Capital Territory Heritage Act Review, prepared for the Minister for the Arts and Heritage (www.cmd.act.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0019/154315/reduced_ACT_Heritag e_Act_Review_4Aug10.pdf).
Marshall, Y (ed) 2002a Community Archaeology, World Archaeology 34(2), Routledge Press.
Marshall, Y 2002b What is community archaeology? in Yvonne Marshall (ed) Community Archaeology, World Archaeology, 34(2):211-219.
Marshall Y 2009 Community Archaeology, in B Cunliffe, C Gosden and R Joyce (eds) The Oxford Handbook of Archaeology, Oxford University Press.
Mason, R (ed) 1999 Economics and Heritage Conservation, a Meeting Organized by the Getty Conservation Institute, December 1998, J Paul Getty Trust, Los Angeles.
Matthews, C N, C McDavid, P Jeppson 2011 Dynamics of Inclusion in Public Archaeology: An Introduction, Archaeologies: Journal of the World Archaeological Congress 7(3):482-489.
370 Truscott – References Mazel, O 2003 Agreement between the Australian Capital Territory and ACT Native Title Claim Groups, Joint Management Agreement regarding Namadgi National Park, 1 January 2001, online summary by ‘ATNS’: agreements, treaties and negotiated settlements project, Indigenous Studies Program, University of Melbourne (www.atns.net.au/agreement.asp?EntityID=1843 last updated 20 June 2005).
MCMC (Merri Creek Management Committee) nd ‘About Us’ website (www.mcmc.org.au/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=78&Itemi d=184).
MCMC (Merri Creek Management Committee) 2013 Wildflowers or weeds? Can you dig it?, Merri News, November 2013:1.
Meehan, B 1975 1975 Shell Bed to Shell Midden, PhD thesis, Australian National University.
Meehan, B 1982 Shell Bed to Shell Midden, Canberra: Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies.
Meehan, B, and R Jones (eds) 1988 Archaeology with ethnography: an Australian perspective, Dept. of Prehistory, Research School of Pacific Studies, The Australian National University, Canberra.
Megaw, J V S, and A Roberts 1974 The 1967 excavations at Wattamolla Cove - Royal National Park, New South Wales, in J V S Megaw (ed) The Recent Archaeology of the Sydney District: Excavations 1964-1967, pp. 1-12 Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies, Canberra, ACT.
Melbourne Water 2008 Cultural Heritage Strategy 2008-2011: Preserving and Promoting our Cultural Heritage (www.melbournewater.com.au/content/library/about_us/who_we_are/our_heritag e/cultural_heritage_strategy_2008-2011.pdf).
Melbourne Water 2010 Annual Report 2009/10 (www.melbournewater.com.au/content/library/publications/reports_archive/annua l_reports_archive/Melbourne_Water_Annual_Report_2009-10.pdf).
Melbourne Water 2013 Healthy Waterways Strategy: A Melbourne Water strategy for managing rivers, estuaries and wetlands, Chapter 4 Management Approaches (www.melbournewater.com.au/aboutus/reportsandpublications/key- strategies/Documents/MW-HWS-Chapter4_Management%20approaches.pdf).
Melbourne Water 2014 Annual Report 2013/14 (www.melbournewater.com.au/aboutus/reportsandpublications/Annual- Report/Documents/Annual_Report_2015_WEB.pdf).
371 Truscott – References Melton Shire Council nd Bullum Bullum Aborginal Place, Burnside, Information Flyer (www.melton.vic.gov.au/Files/BullumBullumInfoFlyer.pdf).
Merriman, N (ed) 2004 Public Archaeology, Routledge, London and New York.
Miller, D, and C Tilley1984 ‘Ideology, Power and Prehistory: An Introduction’, in D Miller and C Tilley (eds) Ideology, Power, and Prehistory, Cambridge University Press, UK.
MoADOPH (Museum of Australian Democracy Old Parliament House) 2000 ‘Aboriginal Lands Act 1970 (Vic)’, on Documenting Democracy website, developed in conjunction with the National Archives of Australia (http://foundingdocs.gov.au/item-sdid-24.html).
Moore, D R 1975 Archaeologists and Aborigines, Australian Archaeology, 2:8-9.
Mortimer, S 2010 Submission to Review of the Heritage Act 2004 by a Ngambri Elder, HAS 1.
Moser, S 1995 Archaeology and its Disciplinary Culture: The Professionalisation of Australian Prehistoric Archaeology, unpublished PhD thesis, School of Archaeology, Classics and Ancient History, University of Sydney, Sydney.
Moser, S, D Glazier, J E Phillips, L Nasser el Nemr, M S Mousa, R N Aiesh, S Richardson, A Conner, M Seymour 2002 Transforming Archaeology through Practice: Strategies for Collaborative Archaeology and the Community Archaeology Project at Quseir, Egypt, World Archaeology, Vol. 34, No. 2, Community Archaeology, pp220-248; also reports on University of Southampton website from 1999 at www.arch.soton.ac.uk/Research/QuseirDev/.
Mulvaney, D J 1984 Foreword – Archaeology in Queensland, Queensland Archaeological Research 1:4-7 (https://www.library.uq.edu.au/ojs/index.php/qar/article/view/316).
Mulvaney, D J 1989 Encounters in place: outsiders and Aboriginal Australians 1606-1985, for the Australian Heritage Commission, University of Queensland Press.
Mulvaney, D J, and E B Joyce 1965 ‘Archaeological and Geomorphological Investigations on Mt Moffat Station, Queensland’, Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 31:147-212.
Murphy, L 1996 The Political Application of Cultural Heritage Management: Indigenous Participation or Indigenous Control?, in S Ulm, I Lilley and A Ross (eds)
372 Truscott – References Australian Archaeology 95: Proceedings of the 1995 Australian Archaeological Association Annual Conference, Tempus 6, University of Queensland, pp141-48.
Murray, T 2002 Epilogue: An archaeology of Indigenous/non-Indigenous Australia from 1788, in R Harrison and C Williamson (eds) After Captain Cook: the archaeology of the indigenous recent past in Australia Sydney University archaeological methods series 8:213-223, Sydney, NSW: Published by Archaeological Computing Laboratory, University of Sydney.
Murray, T 1996 Archaeologists, Heritage Bureaucrats, Aboriginal Organisations, and the Conduct of Tasmanian Archaeology, in S Ulm, I Lilley and A Ross (eds) Australian Archaeology 95: Proceedings of the 1995 Australian Archaeological Association Annual Conference, Tempus 6, University of Queensland, pp311-322.
NAA (National Archives of Australia) 2014 Valuations of FCT holdings (Moriarty and Smith valuations), 1911–27, NAA A358, cited in Government Records about the Australian Capital Territory: Research Guide, Chapter 3 Early Administration of the Capital (http://guides.naa.gov.au/records-about-act/part1/chapter3/3.1.aspx).
Neate, G 2001 ‘Indigenous Land Use Agreements: Some legal issues’, Native Title Forum 1-3 August 2001, Customs House Brisbane, President National Native Title Tribunal.
Ngũgĩ, wa Thiong’o 1986 Decolonising the Mind: The Politics of Language in African Literature, Heinemann Educational Books.
Nicholas, G P 2001 The past and future of Indigenous archaeology: Global challenges, North American perspectives, Australian prospects, Australian Archaeology 52:29-40.
Nicholas, G P 2006 Decolonizing the Archaeological Landscape: the Practice and Politics of Archaeology in British Columbia, American Indian Quarterly 30(3&4):350-380.
Nicholas, G P 2010a Seeking an End of Indigenous Archaeology, in C Phillips and H Allen Bridging the divide: indigenous communities and archaeology into the 21st century, One World Archaeology series 60, Walnut Creek, Ca: Left Coast Press, pp233-254.
Nicholas, G P (ed) 2010b Being and Becoming Indigenous Archaeologists. Left Coast Press, Walnut Creek, Ca (http://www.lcoastpress.com/book.php?id=277).
Nicholas, G P 2014 Reconciling Inequalities in Archaeological Practice and Heritage Research, in Transforming Archaeology From Excavation to Engagement, S Atalay, L Clauss, R McGuire and J Welch (eds), Left Coast Press, Walnut Creek, CA, pp133-158.
373 Truscott – References Nicholas, G P, and J H Hollowell 2007 Ethical challenges to a postcolonial archaeology: [the legacy of scientific colonialism], in Y Hamilakas and P Duke (eds) Archaeology and Capitalism: From Ethics to Politics, pp59–82, Walnut Creek, California: Left Coast Press.
Nichols, S 2006 Out of the Box: Popular Notions of Archaeology in Documentary Programmes on Australian Television, Australian Archaeology 63:35-46.
Nichols, S, J Prangell and M Haslam 2005 Hearts and Minds: Public archaeology and the Queensland school curriculum, Australian Archaeology 61:71-79.
Niezen, R 2010 A New Global Phenomenon?, in Margaret Bruchac, Siobhan Hart and H Martin Wobst (eds) August 2010 Indigenous Archaeologies: A Reader on Decolonization, Left Coast Press.
NNTT (National Native Title Tribunal) 2010 Commonwealth, State and Territory Heritage Regimes: summary of provisions for Aboriginal consultation, a report to the NSW Aboriginal Land Council, December 2010 (www.alc.org.au/media/61790/101221%20nntt%20heritage%20regimes%20abori ginal%20consultation%20final.pdf).
NNTT (National Native Title Tribunal) 2011 ‘About Indigenous Land Use Agreements’ (www.nntt.gov.au/Indigenous-Land-Use- Agreements/Pages/Aboutindigenouslanduseagreements.aspx).
NOHC (Navin Officer Heritage Consultants) July 2009 Murrumbidgee to Googong Water Transfer Project: Cultural Heritage Assessment including Subsurface Testing Program, report to ACTEW Corporation by Navin Officer Heritage Consultants Pty Ltd (online at www.actpla.act.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0015/15045/App_I_Cultural_Herita ge_Assessment_including_Subsurface_Testing_Program.pdf).
NOHC (Navin Officer Heritage Consultants) 2010a Suburb of Kenny, East Gungahlin, ACT: Cultural Heritage Assessment, a report to ACT Planning and Land Authority (ACTPLA), March 2010.
NOHC (Navin Officer Heritage Consultants) 2010b East Lake Electrical Infrastructure Implementation Project: Proposed Underground Transmission Cable Route Option Eleven, Jerrabomberra Wetlands Nature Reserve, ACT, Archaeological and Geomorphological Subsurface Testing Program, a report to Purdon Associates, June 2010.
North, M A 2006 Protecting the past for the public good: archaeology and Australian heritage law, PhD thesis, University of Sydney (http://ses.library.usyd.edu.au/handle/2123/1602).
374 Truscott – References NRM (Natural Resource Management) 2010 ‘2010-11 business plan successful projects. Business plan projects funded through the open call process’, Caring for our Country website (www.nrm.gov.au/funding/approved/2010-11/pubs/successful- projects-open-call-2010-11.pdf).
NRM (Natural Resource Management) 2011a ‘Caring for our Country Funded Projects’, program website (www.nrm.gov.au/funding/index.html).
NRM (Natural Resource Management) 2011b ‘About Caring for our Country’; program website page (www.nrm.gov.au/).
NRM 2012 Caring for our Country: 2012-13 business plan successful projects. Business plan projects funded through the open call process (www.nrm.gov.au/funding/approved/2012-13/pubs/2012-13-successful-all.pdf).
NRW 2007 ‘Duty of Care’, Queensland Department of Natural Resources and Water, Cultural Heritage website (www.nrw.qld.gov.au/cultural_heritage/legislation/duty_of_care.html, last amended 13/12/2007, accessed 2/3/2008).
NSW 1974 National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974, No 80 for New South Wales, current version for 14 August 2014 (www.legislation.nsw.gov.au/viewtop/inforce/act+80+1974+FIRST+0+N).
NSW ALC (NSW Aboriginal Land Council) 2010 Caring for Culture: Perspectives on the effectiveness of Aboriginal cultural heritage legislation in Victoria, Queensland and South Australia, prepared by Eloise Schnierer, Watego Legal and Consulting, for the Policy and Research Unit, NSW ALC, August 2010 (www.alc.org.au/media/69363/caring%20for%20culture%20final.pdf).
NSW DECC (Department of Environment and Climate Change) 2008 Cultural landscapes and park management: a literature snapshot, a report for the cultural landscapes: connecting history, heritage and reserve management research project, written by Steve Brown (www.environment.nsw.gov.au/resources/cultureheritage/07137cultlandresearch. pdf).
NSW DECC (Department of Environment and Climate Change) 2011 ‘Aboriginal Studies Glossary’, as given on the NSW HSC Website from NSW Department of Environment and Climate Change (http://hsc.csu.edu.au/ab_studies/glossary/2236/glossary2.htm).
NSW DECC (Department of Environment and Climate Change) 2007a ‘Aboriginal heritage impact permit: interim community consultation requirements for applicants’, NSW Department of Environment and Climate Change website (www.environment.nsw.gov.au/nswcultureheritage/dec_consultation_080103_Re
375 Truscott – References viewInterimRequirementsForAHIP.htm, last updated 26/2/2008, accessed 1/3/2008).
NSW DECC (Department of Environment and Climate Change) 2007b ‘Discussion Paper: Reviewing the Interim Community Consultation Requirements for Applicants for Aboriginal Heritage Impact Permits’, NSW Department of Environment and Climate Change website (www.environment.nsw.gov.au/nswcultureheritage/dec_consultation_080103_Re viewInterimRequirementsForAHIP.htm, last updated 26/2/2008, accessed 1/3/2008).
NSW DECCW (Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water) 2010a Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Consultation Requirements for Proponents, April 2010 (www.environment.nsw.gov.au/resources/cultureheritage/commconsultation/0978 1ACHconsultreq.pdf).
NSW DECCW (Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water) 2010b Due Diligence Code of Practice for the Protection of Aboriginal Objects in New South Wales, 13 September 2010 (www.environment.nsw.gov.au/resources/cultureheritage/ddcop/10798ddcop.pdf) .
NSW DECCW (Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water) 2010c Code of Practice for Archaeological Investigation of Aboriginal objects in NSW (www.environment.nsw.gov.au/resources/cultureheritage/10783FinalArchCoP.pd f).
NSW DECCW (Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water) 2010d Cultural landscapes: A practical guide for park management, (www.environment.nsw.gov.au/resources/cultureheritage/20100052CulturalLands capes.pdf). NSW DEH (Department of Environment and Heritage) 2013 Code of Practice for Archaeological Investigation of Aboriginal objects in NSW, webpage (www.environment.nsw.gov.au/licences/archinvestigations.htm).
NSW Heritage Office 2007 Community-based Heritage Studies: A Guide, originally published 1999, revised 2005, 2007 (www.heritage.nsw.gov.au/docs/info_community2007.pdf).
OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) 2001 The Wellbeing of Nations: The Role of Human and Social Capital, Education and Skills OECD Centre for Educational Research and Innovation, Paris, France.
376 Truscott – References O'Faircheallaigh, C 2006a Aborigines, Mining Companies and the State in Contemporary Australia: A New Political Economy or ‘Business as Usual’? Australian Journal of Political Science 41(1):1-22.
O'Faircheallaigh, C 2006b Mining Agreements and Aboriginal Economic Development in Australia and Canada, Journal of Aboriginal Economic Development 5(1):74-91.
Officer, K 1989 Namadgi Pictures: The Aboriginal Rock Art Sites within the Namadgi National Park, ACT - Their recordings, significance, and conservation, Vols 1 & 2, a report to the ACT Heritage Unit and the ACT Parks and Conservation Service.
Onus, S 1975 Archaeologists and Aborigines, Australian Archaeology 3:2.
Open Mind 2005 State of Indigenous cultural heritage - A survey of Indigenous organisations, Technical Report by the Open Mind Research Group, prepared for the 2006 Australian State of the Environment Committee (www.deh.gov.au/soe/2006/technical/indigenous-heritage/index.html, last updated, accessed in 2005 as the coordinator of this report).
Owen, T, and J Steele 2005 Perceptions of archaeology amongst primary school aged children, Adelaide, South Australia, Australian Archaeology 61:64-70.
Paradies, Y C 2010 Beyond Black and White: Essentialism, Hybridity, and Indigeneity, in Margaret Bruchac, Siobhan Hart and H Martin Wobst (eds) August 2010 Indigenous Archaeologies: A Reader on Decolonization, Left Coast Press.
Parmington, A, D Griffin, F McConachie, and S Allia 2011 ‘Partnerships and Indigenous Cultural Values recording within Victoria: the Merri Creek Project’, paper presented to the 2011 Australian Archaeological Association (AAA) Conference, The Sociality of Archaeology, University of Southern Queensland, Toowoomba, Queensland, 1-3 December 2011.
Parmington, A, D Griffin, F McConachie, and S (née Allia) Rakoczy 2012 ‘Partnerships and Indigenous Cultural Values recording within Victoria: the Merri Creek Cultural Values Project’, in Berelov, I, M Eccleston, and D Frankel (eds) 2012 Excavations, Surveys, and Heritage Management in Victoria Volume 1, papers presented at the first Victorian Archaeology Colloquium 2012, supported by Archaeology Program, La Trobe University; Heritage Services, Aboriginal Affairs Victoria; Biosys Research Pty Ltd; Australian Cultural Heritage Management, edited with the assistance of Shaun Canning, pp57-66.
Paterson, A 2010 The archaeology of historical indigenous Australia, in J Lydon and U Rizvi (eds) Handbook of postcolonial archaeology, World Archaeological
377 Truscott – References Congress research handbooks in archaeology, 3:165-184, Walnut Creek, Ca: Left Coast Press.
PC (Productivity Commission) 2003 Social Capital: Reviewing the Concept and Policy Implications, Research Paper, AusInfo, Canberra.
PC (Productivity Commission) 2006a Conservation of Australia’s Historic Heritage Places, Inquiry Report No 37, report to the Australian Government, 21 July 2006, Canberra (www.pc.gov.au/inquiry/heritage/docs/finalreport, last updated 9/4/2008, accessed July 2006).
PC (Productivity Commission) 2006b Submissions to Inquiry on the Conservation of Australia’s Historic Heritage Places (www.pc.gov.au/projects/inquiry/heritage/docs/submissions).
PC (Productivity Commission) 2013 Non-Financial Barriers to Mineral and Energy Resource Exploration, Inquiry Report No 65, report to the Australian Government, 27 September 2013 (www.pc.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/128469/resource-exploration.pdf).
Pearson, M 2010 ACT Heritage Council submission to ACT Heritage Review, HAS 34.
Pearson, M, and S Sullivan 1995 Looking after Heritage Places: The basics of heritage planning for managers, landowners and administrators, Melbourne University Press, Melbourne.
Pearson, M, Artlab Australia, D Marshall, W Nicholls and S Sullivan 2001 Implementing State of the Environment Indicators for Knowledge and Condition of Heritage Places and Objects, Australia State of the Environment Technical Paper Series (Natural and Cultural Heritage), Series 2, Department of the Environment and Heritage.
Peter Freeman & Partners and M Walker 1988 Queanbeyan heritage study report.
Peters-Little, F 2000 The community game: Aboriginal self-determination at the local level, AIATSIS Research Discussion Series 10, Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies, Canberra (http://aiatsis.gov.au/sites/default/files/products/discussion_paper/littlefp-dp10- community-game-aboriginal-self-definition-local-level.pdf).
Phillips, A 2002 Management Guidelines for IUCN Category V Protected Areas: Protected Landscapes/Seascapes, Best Practice Protected Area Guidelines Series No. 9, World Commission on Protected Areas, IUCN Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK (https://portals.iucn.org/library/efiles/documents/PAG-009.pdf).
378 Truscott – References Phillips, C, and H Allen 2010 Bridging the divide: indigenous communities and archaeology into the 21st century, One World Archaeology Series 60, Walnut Creek, Ca: Left Coast Press.
Phillips, J E 2001 Object Life-Ways: “Archaeological” Objects, Collaborative Field Methods, and Strategies for Presenting the Past at Quseir, Egypt, unpublished MA thesis, Department of Archaeology, University of Southampton.
Pollack, D P 2001 Indigenous land in Australia: A quantitative assessment of Indigenous landholdings in 2000, Discussion Paper No 221, Centre for Aboriginal Economic Policy Research, Australian National University (http://caepr.anu.edu.au/sites/default/files/Publications/DP/2001_DP221.pdf).
Pollard, K 2008 Indigenous Inspired Transformations in Archaeological Theory, Method and Practice, unpublished BA (Hons) thesis, Charles Darwin University.
Porter, E (Libby) 2006 Rights or containment? The politics of Aboriginal cultural heritage in Victoria, Australian Geographer 37(3):355-374 (http://eprints.gla.ac.uk/25330/).
Porter, E (Libby), and J Barry 2013 Planning with Indigenous Customary Land Rights: An investigation of the shifts in planning law and governance in British Columbia, Canada, and Victoria, Australia, final project report, Monash University, University of Glasgow, ESRC (http://profiles.arts.monash.edu.au/libby-porter/files/2012/07/Final-report-May- 2013.pdf).
Potter, E (ed) 2012 Making Indigenous place in the Australian city, Special Issue Postcolonial Studies Volume 15:2.
PoV (Parliament of Victoria) 2012 Inquiry into the Establishment and Effectiveness of Registered Aboriginal Parties, report to the Parliament of Victoria by its Environment and Natural Resources Committee, Parliamentary Paper No191, Session 2010-2012, tabled 14?? 15 November 2012 (www.parliament.vic.gov.au/images/stories/committees/enrc/RAP/FINAL_RAP_ WEB_Main_document_31_October_2012.pdf).
Powell, J, Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Victoria 2012 Media Release: Registered Aboriginal Parties report tabled, 15 November 2012 (www.premier.vic.gov.au/images/stories/documents/mediareleases/2012/Novemb er/121115_Powell_-_Registered_Aboriginal_Parties_report_tabled.pdf).
PPWCMA (Port Phillip and Westernport Catchment Management Authority) 2010 Annual Report 2009/10 (www.ppwcma.vic.gov.au/Resources/PublicationDocuments/73/200910%20PPP WCMA%20Annual%20Report.pdf).
379 Truscott – References PPWCMA (Port Phillip and Westernport Catchment Management Authority) 2011 Annual Report 2010/11 (http://ppwcma.vic.gov.au/Resources/PublicationDocuments/78/PPWC_4855%20 Annual%20Report%202010-11%20D6.V2.pdf).
Prangnell, J, A Ross, and B Coghill 2010 Power Relations and community involvement in landscape-based cultural heritage management practice: an Australian case study, International Journal of Heritage Studies 16(1&2):140-155.
Prott, L V 2011 Strengths and Weaknesses of the 1970 Convention: An Evaluation 40 years after its adoption, Background paper on for meeting on ‘The fight against the illicit trafficking of cultural objects The 1970 convention: past and future’, UNESCO 15-16 March 2011, UNESCO CLT/2011/CONF.207/7 (www.unesco.org/new/fileadmin/MULTIMEDIA/FIELD/Brussels/pdf/strengths% 20and%20weaknesses%20of%20the1970%20convention.pdf).
Putnam, R 1995 Bowling Alone: America’s Declining Social Capital, Journal of Democracy 6(1):65-78 (http://xroads.virginia.edu/~HYPER/DETOC/assoc/bowling.html).
Pyburn, A K 2008 Public Archaeology, Indiana Jones, and Honesty, Archaeologies: Journal of the World Archaeological Congress 4(2):201-204.
Ramsay, J 2010 Concepts of Beauty and Aesthetics as Applied to Cultural Landscapes: Changes and Challenges, presented at international seminar, Prepared for presentation at the international seminar on Earth and Water: Perceptions of Landscape Beauty, Yangzhou, China, November 2010.
Reeves, M B 2004 Asking the ‘Right’ Questions: Archaeologists and Descendant Communities, in Paul A Shackel and Erve J Chambers (eds) Places in mind: public archaeology as applied anthropology, Critical perspectives in identity, memory, and the built environment, New York; London: Routledge, pp71-81.
Richards, T 2004 The Aboriginal Community Heritage Investigations Program, Papers of the Archaeology and Indigenous Communities session at Australian Archaeological Association Conference, Jindabyne, December 2003, The Artefact 27:11-22.
Rigney, L-I 2001 A first Perspective of Indigenous Participation in Science: framing Indigenous Research towards Indigenous Australian Intellectual Sovereignty, Kaurna Higher Education Journal 7:1-13 (www.flinders.edu.au/yunggorendi- files/documents/Paper%20no2%20lirfirst.pdf).
RMIT (Royal Institute of Technology University) 2006 Course Title: Heritage Planning: Indigenous and Post-Colonial, Bendigo Campus, 1-3 December 2006 (www.rmit.edu.au/courses/015406).
380 Truscott – References Roberts, A L 2003 Knowledge, Power and Voice: An Investigation of Indigenous South Australian Perspectives of Archaeology, unpublished PhD thesis, Flinders University.
Roberts, A L 2009 Book review: Heritage, Communities and Archaeology by Laurajane Smith and Emma Waterton, Duckworth Press 2009, Australian Archaeology 69:84-85.
Rolfe, J, and J Windle 2003 Valuing the Protection of Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Sites, The Economic Record, Vol 79:585-595 (special issue).
Rose, D B 1984 The saga of Captain Cook: Morality in Aboriginal and European law, Australian Aboriginal Studies 2:24-19.
Rose, D B 1996 Nourishing Terrains: Australian Aboriginal Views of Landscape and Wilderness, Australian Heritage Commission.
Rose, D B 2001 ‘The saga of Captain Cook: remembrance and morality’, in B Attwood and F Magowan (eds) Telling Stories: Indigenous history and memory in Australia and New Zealand, pp61-79, Allan & Unwin, Sydney.
Ross, A, and members of the Quandamooka Aboriginal Land Council 1996 Aboriginal approaches to cultural heritage management: A Quandamooka case study, in S Ulm, I Lilley and A Ross (eds) Australian Archaeology ’95: Proceedings of the 1995 Australian Archaeological Association Annual Conference, Tempus 6, Queensland Anthropology Museum, University of Queensland, St Lucia, Qld, pp107-112.
Ross, A, and S Coghill 2000 Conducting a community-based archaeological project: An archaeologist’s and a Koenpul man’s perspective, Australian Aboriginal Studies 1&2:76-83.
Ross, A, K Pickering, J Snodgrass, H D Delcore, R Sherman 2011 Indigenous peoples and the collaborative stewardship of nature: knowledge binds and institutional conflicts, Left Coast Press, Walnut Creek.
Ross, A, S Ulm, and B Tobane 2013 Gummingurru: a community archaeology knowledge journey, Australian Archaeology 76:62-69.
Rudd, K 2008 Apology to Australia’s Indigenous Peoples, by Kevin Rudd, Member for Griffith, Prime Minster of Australia, House of Representatives Official Hansard No 1, 2008 Wednesday, 13 February 2008, Forty-Second Parliament First Session—First Period, by Authority of the House of Representatives (http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/chamber/hansardr/2008-02- 13/toc_pdf/5694-
381 Truscott – References 9.pdf;fileType=application%2Fpdf#search=%22chamber/hansardr/2008-02- 13/0000%22 or www.openaustralia.org/debates/?id=2008-02-13.3.2).
Russell, L 2004 Indigenous community aspirations: heritage, education and the possibility of self-determination, Papers of the Archaeology and Indigenous Communities session at Australian Archaeological Association Conference, Jindabyne, December 2003, The Artefact 27:23-28.
Russell, L, and I J McNiven 1998 Monumental colonialism. Megaliths and the appropriation of Australia’s Aboriginal past, Journal of Material Culture 3(3):283-299.
SAA (Society for American Archaeology) 2000 ‘Poll finds Public Support of Archaeology’, Press Release, 17 March 2000 (www.saa.org/Pubrel/publiced.poll.html last updated 31/3/2004, accessed 16/5/2008).
Said, E W 1978 Orientalism, Pantheon Books, New York.
Salleh, A ‘Pseudoarchaeology says Vikings came to Australia’, News in Science, ABC Science Online report, 27 August 2007 (www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/2007/2013186.htm).
Scham, S 2010 Colonialism, conflict, and connectivity: public archaeology’s message in a bottle, in Jane Lydon and Uzma Rizvi (eds) Handbook of postcolonial archaeology, World Archaeological Congress research handbooks in archaeology, 3:459-469, Walnut Creek, Ca: Left Coast Press.
Schnierer, E, S Ellsmore and S Schnierer, Watego Legal and Consulting Pty Ltd 2011 State of Indigenous Cultural Heritage, as part of the national State of the Environment reporting 2011 heritage under Commonwealth, state and territory heritage legislation (www.environment.gov.au/system/files/pages/3f0dc683-4f21- 4611-95f8-f6604297c916/files/soe2011-supplementary-heritage-state-indigenous- cultural-heritage.pdf).
Scott, C 1990 Social significance, local significance and a community's sense of place: a report to the Australian Heritage Commission on the outcomes of three community workshops Queanbeyan June 29/30 July 1, 1990.
Senate Committee 1998 Access to Heritage: User charges in museums, art galleries and national parks, report by the Senate Environment, Recreation, Communications & the Arts References Committee for the Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia, July 1998.
382 Truscott – References Seymour, M 2002 Transforming Archaeology through Practice: strategies for collaborative archaeology and the Community Archaeology Project at Quseir, Egypt, World Archaeology 34(2):220-248.
Shackel, P A, and E Chambers, (eds) 2004 Places in Mind: Public Archaeology as Applied Anthropology (Critical Perspectives in Identity, Memory and the Built Environment), Routledge, New York.
Shanks, M, and C Tilley 1987a ReConstructing Archaeology, Cambridge University Press, UK.
Shanks, M, and C Tilley 1987b Social Theory and Archaeology, Blackwell Polity, UK.
Shanks, M 2006a Commentary on website about his and Tilley’s publication ReConstructing Archaeology (http://documents.stanford.edu/michaelshanks/73, last modified 26 December 2006).
Shanks, M 2006b Commentary on website about his and Tilley’s publication ReConstructing Archaeology (http://documents.stanford.edu/michaelshanks/74, last modified 21 December 2006).
Sheehan, N, and I Lilley 2008 Things are Not Always What They Seem: Indigenous Knowledge and Pattern Recognition in the Archaeological Interpretation of Cultural Landscapes, in Chip Colwell-Chanthaphonh and T J Ferguson (eds) Collaboration in Archaeological Practice: Engaging Descendant Communities, pp87-115, AltaMira Press, Ca.
Simpson, F 2008 Community Archaeology under Scrutiny, Conservation and Management of Archaeological Sites, 10(1):3-16.
Simpson, F, and H Williams 2008 Evaluating Community Archaeology in the UK, Public Archaeology 7(2):69-90.
Slack, K 2003 Community Controlled Merchandising: A Methodology for the Development of a Range of Souvenirs Inspired by Archaeological Finds from Quseir Al-Qadim, Egypt, unpublished MA thesis, Department of Archaeology, University of Southampton.
Smith, C, and H Burke 2010 Heritage Futures Cooperative Research Centre (CRC) Application Prospectus (https://www.crc.gov.au/Information/default.aspx or www.academia.edu/222152/Prospectus_for_Heritage_Futures_CRC).
Smith, C, and G Jackson 2008 The Ethics of Collaboration: Whose Culture? Whose Intellectual Property? Who Benefits? in Colwell-Chanthaphonh and T J Ferguson (eds) Collaboration in Archaeological Practice: Engaging Descendant Communities, pp171-199, AltaMira Press, Ca.
383 Truscott – References Smith, C, and M Wobst (eds) Indigenous Archaeologies: Decolonizing Theory and Practice (One World Archaeology 47), Abingdon & New York: Routledge.
Smith, L 1995 What is this thing called post-processual archaeology ... and what is its relevance to Australian Archaeology?, Australian Archaeology 40:28-32.
Smith, L 1996 Archaeological knowledge and the governance of indigenous material culture in south-eastern Australia, unpublished PhD thesis, University of Sydney.
Smith, L 2000 A history of Aboriginal heritage legislation in south-eastern Australia, Australian Archaeology 50:109-118.
Smith, L 2004 Archaeological Theory and the Politics of Cultural Heritage, London: Routledge.
Smith, L 2006 Uses of Heritage, London: Routledge.
Smith, L, and E Waterton 2009 Heritage, Communities and Archaeology, Duckworth Press.
Smith, L, and A Clarke (eds) 1996 Issues in Management Archaeology, Tempus 5, Anthropology Museum, University of Queensland, St Lucia, Qld.
Smith, L, A Morgan and A van der Meer 2003 Community-driven research in cultural heritage management: the Wanyi Women’s History Project. International Journal of Heritage Studies 9(1):65-80.
Smith, Linda 1999 Decolonizing Methodologies: Research and Indigenous Peoples, Zed Books, London.
Smith, N 2006 Quseir Gateway: Community Archaeology-Driven Considerations Surrounding the Design of an Online, Web 2.0 Inspired Multi-Media Resource, unpublished MSc thesis, Department of Archaeology, University of Southampton.
SoE (State of the Environment) 2006b ‘Indicator: NCH-11 Funds provided to heritage and other agencies for Indigenous heritage places’, State of the Environment Report, [then] Department of Environment and Heritage, Canberra (www.environment.gov.au/node/22227).
SoE (State of the Environment) 2006b ‘Indicator NCH-20 Number of people working in indigenous organisations, number of indigenous enrolments in university heritage courses, number of Indigenous people employed by agencies involved in Indigenous programs & management of Indigenous heritage, State of the Environment Report, [then] Department of Environment and Heritage, Canberra (www.environment.gov.au/node/22234).
384 Truscott – References SoE (State of the Environment) 2011a Australia: State of the Environment 2011: Part 9 – Heritage, Independent report to the Australian Government Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, report by the 2011 Australian State of the Environment Committee (www.environment.gov.au/soe/2011/report/heritage/pubs/soe2011-report- heritage.pdf).
SoE (State of the Environment) 2011b Australia: State of the Environment 2011: State of Indigenous cultural heritage 2011, produced by Eloise Schnierer, Sylvie Ellsmore and Stephan Schnierer, Watego Legal and Consulting Pty Ltd December 2011, for the Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, on behalf of the State of the Environment 2011 Committee (www.environment.gov.au/soe/2011/report/heritage/pubs/soe2011- supplementary-heritage-state-of-indigenous-cultural-heritage.pdf).
Spivak, G C (ed) 1990 The Post-colonial Critic: Interviews, Strategies, Dialogues, Psychology Press.
Stephenson, B 2006 Queensland’s Indigenous Cultural Heritage Legislation: A critique, Journal of South Pacific Law 10(2) (www.paclii.org/journals/fJSPL/vol10no2/4.shtml, accessed 22/3/ 2008).
Stepwise 2008 Stepping Stones for Heritage, planning tool by Stepwise for Heritage and Tourism (www.stepwise.net.au/planning/steppingstones_heritage.php).
Stockton, E 1975 Archaeologists and Aborigines, Australian Archaeology, 2:10-12.
Sullivan, S 1975 The State, People and Archaeologists, Australian Archaeology, 2:23-31.
Sullivan, S 1983 The interim Aboriginal Sites Committee in NSW: communication between archaeologists and Aborigines, M Smith (ed) Archaeology at ANZAAS 1983, West Australian Museum, Perth.
Sullivan, S 1996 Reflexions of 27 Years, in S Ulm, I Lilley and A Ross (eds) Australian Archaeology ’95: Proceedings of the 1995 Australian Archaeological Association Annual Conference, Tempus 6:1-11.
Sullivan, S 2004 Local involvement and traditional practices in the World Heritage system, in Eléonore de Merode, Rieks Smeets and Carol Westrik (eds), Linking Universal and Local Values: Managing a Sustainable Future for World Heritage, pp.49-55, a Conference organised by the Netherlands National Commission for UNESCO, in Collaboration with the Netherlands Ministry of Education, Culture and Science, 22–24 May 2003,World Heritage Papers 13 Paris: UNESCO World Heritage Centre (http://whc.unesco.org/documents/publi_wh_papers_13_en.pdf).
385 Truscott – References Sullivan, S 2007 Review of ‘Appropriated Pasts: Indigenous peoples and the colonial culture of archaeology’ by Ian McNiven and Lynette Russell, Aboriginal History 31:208-210.
Sullivan, S 2008 More unconsidered trifles? Aboriginal and archaeological heritage values: integration and disjuncture in cultural heritage management practice, in More Unconsidered Trifles, special volume to mark retirement in 2007 of Sandra Bowdler, Australian Archaeology 67:104-115.
Sullivan, S, and S Bowdler (eds) 1984 Site Surveys and Significance Assessment in Australian Archaeology: Proceedings of the 1981 Springwood Conference on Australian Prehistory, Department of Prehistory, Research School of Pacific Studies, Australian National University, Canberra.
Sullivan, S, N Hall and S Greer 2008 Learning to walk together and work together: Providing a formative teaching experience for Indigenous and non-Indigenous heritage managers, in Francis P McManamon, Andrew Stout and Jodi A Barnes (eds) 2008 Managing Archaeological Resources: Global Context, National Programs, Local Actions, One World Archaeology Volume 58, Left Coast Press, Ca, pp34-64.
Susino, G 1999 Thesis abstract: Fitting Pictures and Stories: A Study of Archaeology as a Resource, University of Sydney, 1996, Australian Archaeology 49 (Dec 1999):69.
TALC (Tasmanian Aboriginal Land Council) 1996 Will You Take the Next Step?, in S Ulm, I Lilley and A Ross (eds) Australian Archaeology ’95: Proceedings of the 1995 Australian Archaeological Association Annual Conference, Tempus 6, Queensland Anthropology Museum, University of Queensland, St Lucia, Qld, pp293-300.
Taylor, L 1994 The Aesthetics of Kunwinjiku Site, in Australian Heritage Commission, More Than Meets the Eye: Identifying and Assessing Aesthetic Value, pp39-44, report of the Aesthetic Value Workshop held at the University of Melbourne, 27 October 1993, edited by Juliet Ramsay and John Paraskevopoulos.
Thomas, N 1994 Colonialism's culture: anthropology, travel and government, Melbourne University Press.
Thomson, P 2012 ‘Healing the land with food, medicine’, Sunday Canberra Times, 4 November, p13.
Throsby, D 1997 ‘Seven questions in the economics of cultural heritage’, in M Hutter and I Rizzo (eds), Economic Perspectives on Cultural Heritage, MacMillan Press, London, pp13-30.
386 Truscott – References Throsby, D 2001a Conceptualising Heritage as Cultural Capital, in Australian Heritage Commission (ed) Heritage Economics Challenges for heritage conservation and sustainable development in the 21st Century, Conference Proceedings of 4 July 2000, Australian National University, Canberra, pp10-17.
Throsby, D 2001b Economic aspects of cultural heritage, Economics and Culture, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp84-85.
Throsby, D 2003 Determining the value of cultural goods: how much (or how little) does contingent valuation tell us?, Journal of Cultural Economics 27:275-285.
Throsby, D 2006 Does Australia Need a Cultural Policy? Platform Paper No. 7, Currency Press, Sydney.
Throsby, D 2007a Tourism, heritage and cultural sustainability: Three golden ruless, in L F Girard and P Nijkamp (eds) Cultural Heritage, Local Resources and Sustainable Tourism, Routledge, London.
Throsby, D 2007b The Value of Heritage, paper given at Heritage Economics Workshop ANU, 11–12 October 2007, held by then federal Department of the Environment and Water.
Tierney, H G 2010 AARD Site Recording and Monitoring Workshops: an Assessment, a report to the Aboriginal Affairs and Reconciliation Division and Flinders University, produced as part of the assessment for ATCH8508 Directed Study in Cultural Heritage Management graduate topic in the Department of Archaeology, Flinders University (www.flinders.edu.au/ehl/fms/archaeology_files/dig_library/directed_studies/AR CH8511%20Tierney.pdf).
Tindale, N B 1965 Progress in Australian Archaeology. Archaeology and the Living People in Australia, A.N.Z.A.A.S. Hobart, Summary of papers in Section F, August 1965, 3 pages, H Allen, 1996 Ethnography and Prehistoric Archaeology in Australia. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 15:137-159.
Tobias, T N 2000 Chief Kerry’s Moose: a guidebook to land use and occupancy mapping, research design and data collection, a joint publication of the Union of BC Indian Chiefs and Ecotrust Canada (online at www.ubcic.bc.ca/files/PDF/Tobias_whole.pdf).
Tobias, T N 2009 Living Proof: The essential data-collection guide for Indigenous use- and-occupancy map surveys, Ecotrust Canada and Union of BC Indian Chiefs, Vancouver, BC.
Torre, de la, M (ed) 2002 Assessing the Values of Cultural Heritage, Research Report, The Getty Conservation Institute, Los Angeles.
387 Truscott – References Torre, de la, M, and R Mason 1999 Economics and Heritage Conservation: Issues and Ideas on Valuing Heritage, US/ICOMOS Symposium 1999 (www.icomos.org/usicomos/Symposium/SYMP99/delatorre.htm accessed September 2008).
Torre, de la, M (ed) 2005 Heritage Values in Site Management: Four Case Studies, with M de la Torre, M G H MacLean, R Mason and D Myers, The Getty Conservation Institute, Los Angeles.
Torrence, R, and A Clarke 2000 Negotiating difference: practice makes theory for contemporary archaeology in Oceania, in R Torrence (eds) The Archaeology of Difference: negotiating cross-cultural engagements in Oceania, One World Archaeology 38, London: Routledge, pp1-31.
TRA (Tourism Research Australia) 2011 State of the Industry 2011, report for Commonwealth Department of Resources, Energy and Tourism, Canberra (www.ret.gov.au/tourism/Documents/nltts/State_of_the_Industry_2011.pdf).
Trigger, B G 1984 Alternative archaeologies: nationalist, colonist, imperialist, Man (NS)19:355-370.
Trigger, B G 2000 A History of Archaeological Thought, Cambridge University Press, UK.
Trigger, B G 2006 A History of Archaeological Thought, 2nd edition, Cambridge University Press, UK.
Truscott, M C 1987 ‘Conflicts between Old and New: Traditional Owners and Sites Managers in Australia’, Proceedings of the ICOMOS International Symposium Old Cultures in New Worlds, Washington DC, USA.
Truscott, M C 1993 ‘Local Community and Cultural Heritage Management in Australia’, Archaeological Heritage Management, International Scientific Symposium Heritage of Asia and Oceania pp112-124, ICOMOS 10th General Assembly, Colombo, Sri Lanka, August 1993.
Truscott, M C 1994a Report to UNESCO and the National Monuments Council of Namibia on strategic directions for Namibia's heritage, including tourism strategies, and conservation management plan for Brandberg Massif.
Truscott, M C 1994b Indigenous Cultural Heritage Protection Program, paper presented at Australian Archaeological Association Conference, Darwin, 9-11 December 1993, Australian Archaeology 39:127-129.
388 Truscott – References Truscott, M C 1995 ‘AHC Criteria and the Aboriginal National Estate’, in S Sullivan (ed) Cultural Conservation: Towards a National Approach, Australian Heritage Commission, Special Australian heritage publication series No 9, pp571-576.
Truscott, M C 1996 ‘Archaeological Heritage Management: the role of the Client and Contributor', keynote address, session C, in C Mousseau (ed), Archaeological remains, in situ preservation: proceedings of the Second ICAHM International Conference, pp25-36 (held in Montréal, Québec, Canada, October 11-15, 1994), Ontario: ICOMOS International Committee on Archaeological Heritage Management Conference.
Truscott, M C 2004a Is Community Archaeology the Future? An examination of community-based archaeology in Australia today and its origins, paper presented at the Archaeology and Indigenous Communities session at Australian Archaeological Association Conference, Jindabyne, December 2003, The Artefact 27:29-35.
Truscott, M C 2004b Contexts for Change: Paving the Way to the 1999 Burra Charter, Burra 25, Historic Environment 18(1):30-34.
Truscott, M C 2006 Review of Public Archaeology, edited by Nick Merriman, Routledge, London and New York, 2004, in Historic Environment 19(2):57.
Truscott, M C 2009 Connecting Today’s Canberra with Traces of its Past, Canberra Historical Journal 63:20-37; issue dedicated to Canberra Centenaries.
Truscott, M C, and L Smith 1993 Some descriptive statistics of permanent employment in Australian archaeology, in H du Cros and L Smith (eds) Women in Archaeology: A Feminist Critique, pp217-221, Canberra: Department of Prehistory, Research School of Pacific Studies, Australian National University, Occasional Papers in Prehistory 23.
Truscott, M C, and D Young 2000 Revising the Burra Charter: Australia ICOMOS updates its guidelines for conservation practice, Conservation and Management of Archaeological Sites 4(20):101-116.
Truscott, M C, A Grinbergs, K Buckley and M Pearson 2006 Assessment of the cultural heritage values of the Australian Alps National Parks, unpublished report, Department of the Environment and Heritage, Australian Government, Canberra.
Tsey K, J McCalman, R Bainbridge and C Brown 2012 Improving Indigenous community governance through strengthening Indigenous and government organisational capacity, Resource sheet No 10, produced for the Closing the Gap Clearinghouse, Canberra: Australian Institute of Health and Welfare and Melbourne: Australian Institute of Family Studies (www.aihw.gov.au/closingthegap/documents/resource_sheets/ctgc-rs10.pdf).
389 Truscott – References Tuhiwai Smith, L 1999 Decolonizing Methodologies: Research and Indigenous Peoples, University of Otago Press, Dunedin.
Tuhiwai Smith, L 2012 Decolonizing Methodologies: Research and Indigenous Peoples, 2nd edition, Zed Books, New York, USA.
Tully, G 2005 Community Archaeology, Children and Culturally Relevant Learning: The Trial of a New Methodology, Quseir, Egypt, unpublished MA thesis, Department of Archaeology, University of Southampton.
Tully, G 2007 Community archaeology: general methods and standards of practice, Public Archaeology, 6(3):155-187(33).
Tully, G 2009 Ten Years On: The Community Archaeology Project Quseir, Egypt, Treballs d’Arqueologia 15:s63-78 (http://ddd.uab.cat/pub/tda/11349263n15p63.pdf).
Tully, G 2010 ‘Answering the calls of the living’: Collaborative practice in archaeology and ancient Egyptian daily life exhibitions in Western museums, unpublished doctoral thesis, Department of Archaeology, University of Southampton.
Ulm, S, S Nichols and C Dalley 2005 Mapping the shape of contemporary Australian archaeology: Implications for archaeology teaching and learning, Australian Archaeology 61:11-23.
Ulm, S, G Mate, C Dalley, and S Nichols 2013 A Working Profile: the changing face of professional archaeology in Australia, Australian Archaeology 76:34-43 (http://australianarchaeology.com/journal/a-working-profile/)
UN (United Nations) 2007 United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, adopted by General Assembly Resolution 61/295 on 13 September 2007 (www.un.org/esa/socdev/unpfii/en/drip.html).
UNEP (United Nations Environment Programme) 1992 1992 Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 3-14 June 1992, UN Doc. A/CONF.151/26 (vol. I) / 31 ILM 874 (1992) (www.unep.org/Documents.Multilingual/Default.asp?DocumentID=78&ArticleI D=1163).
UNESCO 1972 Convention concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage (http://whc.unesco.org/archive/convention-en.pdf)
UNESCO 2003 Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage (http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0013/001325/132540e.pdf).
390 Truscott – References UNESCO 2005 Convention on the on the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions (http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0014/001429/142919e.pdf).
UNESCO Bangkok 2010 Cultural Mapping (www.unescobkk.org/culture/tools-and- resources/tools-for-safeguarding-culture/culturalmapping/).
University of Melbourne 2011 Public Good Theory, online page by Centre for SDIs and Land Administration (www.csdila.unimelb.edu.au/sis/Public_Policy_Theories/Public_Good_Theory.ht ml).
VAHC (Victoria Aboriginal Heritage Council) 2011 Second submission to the review of the Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006 (www.dpc.vic.gov.au/images/documents/Aboriginal_Affairs/Victorian- Aboriginal-Heritage-Council.pdf).
VAHC (Victoria Aboriginal Heritage Council) 2013 Wurundjeri Tribe Land and Compensation Cultural Heritage Council, Appointed RAP Area (www.dpc.vic.gov.au/images/Wurundjeri-wv-21OCT13.pdf).
Venn, T J, and J Quiggan 2005 Accommodating Indigenous Cultural Heritage Values in Resource Assessment: Cape York Peninsula and the Murray-Darling Basin, Australia, Murray-Darling Program Working Paper: MO5_5, Risk & Sustainable Management Group, University of Queensland (www.uq.edu.au/rsmg/WP/WPM05_5.pdf).
VicForest 2011 ‘Training with Wurundjeri improves cultural awareness’, VicForest Media Release 23 June 2011 (www.vicforests.com.au/assets/indigenous%20training%20improves%20cultural %20awareness%20-%20wurundjeri%20(june%20'11.pdf).
Victoria 2004 Constitution (Recognition of Aboriginal People) Act 2004 Act No. 73/2004 (www.legislation.vic.gov.au/Domino/Web_Notes/LDMS/PubStatbook.nsf/51dea4 9770555ea6ca256da4001b90cd/D5701FB94CCE9A05CA256F47001AE36D/$FI LE/04-073a.pdf).
Victoria 2006 Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006 (www.legislation.vic.gov.au/domino/Web_Notes/LDMS/LTObject_Store/LTObj St6.nsf/DDE300B846EED9C7CA257616000A3571/93CE8C831944E2BFCA257 96E0079F2E1/$FILE/06-16aa011%20authorised.pdf).
Victoria 2009 Aboriginal Heritage Regulations 2007 S.R. No. 41/2007 Version No. 2, incorporating amendments as at 28 May 2009
391 Truscott – References (www.legislation.vic.gov.au/domino/Web_Notes/LDMS/LTObject_Store/LTObj St4.nsf/0/1b8ebbcf267b0433ca25776100334c06/$FILE/07-41sr002.pdf).
Victoria 2012 Transcript, Environment and Natural Resources Committee: Inquiry into the establishment and effectiveness of registered Aboriginal parties Melbourne — 27 February 2012 (www.parliament.vic.gov.au/images/stories/committees/enrc/RAP/Transcripts/27 _February_2012/Victorian_Aboriginal_Heritage_Council.pdf).
Victoria 2013 Review of the Aboriginal Heritage Act Victorian Government Response, 17 June 2013 (www.dpc.vic.gov.au/images/documents/Aboriginal_Affairs/Victorian- Government-Response-Review-of-the-Aboriginal-Heritage-Act.pdf).
WAC (World Archaeological Congress) 1990 First Code of Ethics (www.worldarchaeologicalcongress.org/site/about_ethi.php#code1).
WAC (World Archaeological Congress) 2014 Resolution concerning the relationship of archaeology and archaeologists with extant custodial and affiliated communities, 2014 WAC-7 Resolutions, endorsed by WAS Executive after WAC meeting in Jordan, January 2013 (www.worldarchaeologicalcongress.org/events/congresses/623-wac-7- resolutions).
Walker, M, and P Marquis-Kyle 2004 The Illustrated Burra Charter: good practices for heritage places, Australia ICOMOS Inc.
Wallis, L, D Johnston and L Wiseman 2004 ‘Cultural Heritage, Native Title, Industry and Custodians: A Working Paper. Draft paper presented in the AIATSIS Seminar Series, 25 October 2004, with kind permission of the authors.
Ward, G 2013 A legacy of heritage: the role of AIATSIS in promoting Indigenous cultural heritage research and protection, a paper given 23 September 2013, at the AIATSIS Research Seminar Series 2013/2, as part of Culture in crisis? The protection and trade of Indigenous heritage in the 21st century (flyer online www.aiatsis.gov.au/research/seminarseries/documents/20130923_SeminarFlyer_ Ward.pdf).
Ward, G, B J Egloff and L Godwin 1989 Archaeology of an Aboriginal Historic Site: recent research at the Collarenebri Aboriginal cemetery, Australian Aboriginal Studies 89/1:262-267.
Waterton, E 2005 Whose Sense of Place? Reconciling Archaeological Perspectives with Community Values: Cultural Landscapes in England, International Journal of Heritage Studies 11(4):309-325.
392 Truscott – References Waterton, E, and S Watson (eds) 2011 Heritage and Community Engagement: Collaboration or Contestation?, a special issue of the International Journal of Heritage Studies, London: Routledge.
Watkins, J 2000 Indigenous Archaeology: American Indian values and Scientific Practice, AltaMira Press, Walnut Creek.
Watkins, J 2003a Beyond the margins: American Indians, First Nations and Archaeology in North America, American Antiquity 68(2): 273-286.
Watkins, J 2003b Archaeological Ethics and American Indians, in Zimmerman, L, K D Vitelli and J Hollowell-Zimmer (eds) Ethical Issues in Archaeology, Society for American Archaeology with Altamira Press.
Watson, S, and E Waterton 2010 Heritage and Community Engagement: Collaboration or Contestation, Engagement, paper presented at World Archaeological Congress, Dublin, Ireland, 2008, International Journal of Heritage Studies 16(1&2):1-3.
Weiner, J F, L Godwin and S l’Oste-Brown 2002 Australian Aboriginal Heritage and Native Title: An Example of Contemporary Indigenous Connection to Country in Central Queensland, National Native Title Tribunal Occasional Paper Series 1/2002 (www.nntt.gov.au/publications-and-research/tribunal- research/documents).
Weir, J K 2010 Cultural Flows in Murray River Country, Australian Humanities Review 48:131-142.
Weir, J K, C Stacey, and K Youngetob, 2011 The Benefits Associated with Caring for Country: Literature Review, undertaken by AIATSIS of the Caring for Our Country Program for the federal Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities (www.environment.gov.au/indigenous/workingoncountry/publications/pubs/benef its-cfc.pdf).
Wikipedia ‘Community Archaeology’ 15 November 2013 (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_archaeology).
Williams, E, and D Johnston 1991 The World Archaeological Congress (WAC) and the WAC First Code of Ethics, Australian Archaeology 32:64-67.
Williams, S, and Peter Pope 2005 Findings: How Community Archaeology Creates Social Capital and Builds Community Capacity, Archaeology Unit, Memorial University of Newfoundland, for the Newfoundland Archaeological Heritage Outreach Project (www.arts.mun.ca/nahop/SocialCapital.html).
393 Truscott – References Wilson, C L 2007 Indigenous Research and Archaeology: Transformative Practices in/with/for the Ngarrindjeri Community, Archaeologies: Journal of the World Archaeological Congress 3(3):320-334.
Wilson, M, N Hall and B Ford 2010 ‘The Namadgi Rock Art Conservation Project’, presented at the National Parks Association Symposium Caring for Namadgi – Science and People, 5-7 May 2010, authors with Stepwise Heritage and Tourism Pty Ltd.
Windle, J, and J Rolfe 2003 Valuing Aboriginal cultural heritage sites in Central Queensland, Australian Archaeology 56:35-41.
Winter, I (ed) 2000 Social Capital and Public Policy in Australia, Australian Institute of Family Studies, Melbourne.
WTLCCHC (Wurundjeri Tribe Land & Compensation Cultural Heritage Council) 2010 Draft Narrap Country Plan, 27 October 2010, by Kristal Buckley, then Wurundjeri Tribe Narrap Plan Manager, unpublished, received from Fiona McConachie Wurundjeri Tribe Narrap Plan Manager email 25 June 2012.
WTLCCHC (Wurundjeri Tribe Land & Compensation Cultural Heritage Council) 2010-11 Narrap Bulletin 03, newsletter on the Country Plan.
WTLCCHC (Wurundjeri Tribe Land & Compensation Cultural Heritage Council) 2011a Wurundjeri Trib Land Council’s Submission to the Review of the AHA 2006 (from 2013 at www.dpc.vic.gov.au/images/documents/Aboriginal_Affairs/Wurundjeri- Tribe-and-Compensation-Cultural-Heritage-Council-Submission.pdf).
WTLCCHC (Wurundjeri Tribe Land & Compensation Cultural Heritage Council) 2011b Narrap Country Plan, Section 2, written by Fiona McConachie, unpublished, received from Fiona McConachie Wurundjeri Tribe Narrap Plan Manager email 25 June 2012.
WTLCCHC (Wurundjeri Tribe Land & Compensation Cultural Heritage Council) 2012 Wurundjeri Traditional Knowledge Protocols: Definitions and Partnership, June 2012 unpublished, received from Fiona McConachie Wurundjeri Tribe Narrap Plan Manager email 25 June 2012.
Wille, S J 2008 Museum Archaeology Education: Can Archaeology Be Socially Relevant In Urban School Settings?, World Archaeological Congress. Dublin, Ireland.
Xiberras, A (Urban Colours) 2012 Wurundjeri Tribal Elder Response to the Aboriginal Heritage Act review (from 2013 at www.dpc.vic.gov.au/images/documents/Aboriginal_Affairs/Annette-Xiberras- Submission.pdf).
394 Truscott – References Yin, R K 2003 Case study research: Design and methods (3rd ed), Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Zach, L 2006 Using a Multiple–Case Studies Design to Investigate the Information- Seeking Behavior of Arts Administrators, in Lynda M Baker (ed) ‘Research Methods’, Library Trends 55(1):4-21, University of Illinois.
Zeppel, H 2001 Indigenous Heritage Tourism and its Economic Values in Australia, in Australian Heritage Commission, Heritage Economics: Challenges for heritage conservation and sustainable development in the 21st Century, Conference Proceedings, 4 July 2000, Australian National University, Canberra, pp (www.environment.gov.au/system/files/resources/1d7ebe21-dc0b-4b89-a655- 5453fce681e5/files/heritage-economics-2000.pdf).
Zimmerman, L 2005 First, be humble: Working with Indigenous peoples and other descendant communities, in Claire Smith and Hans Martin Wobst (eds), Indigenous Archaeologies: Decolonizing Theory and Practice, pp301-314, Routledge.
Zimmerman, L 2008 Unusual or ‘Extreme’ Beliefs about the Past, Community Identity, and Dealing with the Fringe, in Chip Colwell-Chanthaphonh and T J Ferguson (eds) Collaboration in Archaeological Practice: Engaging Descendent Communities, pp55-86, AltaMira Press.
395 Appendix 1 – Glossary
APPENDIX 1 - GLOSSARY
Archaeology
This term (archeology USA English), from the Greek arkhaîos (ancient) and lógos (discourse, used for ‘study of’), is defined as:
The study of the past through the systematic recovery and analysis of material culture. The primary aims of the discipline are to recover, describe and classify this material, to describe the form of behaviour of past societies, and finally to understand the reasons for this behaviour. In the Old World the term tends to refer to the body of techniques and theories used in achieveing these goals, whereas in the New World archaeology refers also to the subject matter. Archaoelogy is truly an interdisciplinary subject, and has borrowed many of its major theoretical and methodological concepts and approaches from history and anthropology. (Bahn, P (ed) 2004 The New Penguin Dictionary of Archaeology) (note I am using the ‘Old World’ definition as explained above) different approaches to archaeology include:
Culture history – the organisation of the archaeological record into a basic sequence of events in time and space. Cutlure history is based on induction and the normative view of culture. Explanations for changes in culture-historical sequences include diffusion and migration, and have been criticised by processual archaeologists for not being explanations at all, but merely descriptions of behaviour. Culture history remains the primary goal of most archaeological work in many areas, despite the addition of processual studies to the discipline. New Archaeology (processual) – a development in the 1960s aimed at making archaeology more scientific, now more often referred to as ‘processual archaeology’. It is proposed that archaeology should openly state its assumptions and use specific scientific procedures derived from positivism. Some new archaeologists believed that laws of human behaviour were obtainable by using the correct methodologies. Key elements in new archaeology were cultural evolution and general systems theory. (see also deduction, deductive-nomological, hypothetico-deductive reasoning, induction) Postprocessual archaeology - a school of archaeological thought which rejects most of the tenets of the new or processual archaeology. It is based on the notions that culture must be understood as sets of symbols that evoke meanings, and that these meanings vary depending on the particular contexts of use and the specific histories of both artefacts and the people
397 Appendix 1 – Glossary who use them. Material culture is also vital to the control and exercise of social power over individuals. Explanation of human behaviour cannot be reduced to ecological factors, but rather must be sought within the cultures themselves, as specific, often idiosyncratic responses to particular conditions.
The notion that archaeology is about excavation is demonstrated by the definitions provided in two highly regarded dictionaries:
the study of human history and prehistory through the excavation of sites and the analysis of physical remains (Concise Oxford Dictionary 2006), or the systematic study of any culture, especially a prehistoric one, by excavation and description of its remains (Macquarie Australian Encyclopaedic Dictionary 2006)
‘Archaeological sites’
A shorthand term to indicate those places where physical cultural remains can be subjected to archaeological inquiry, whether standing structures, ruins, surface or sub-surface remains …
Capacity-building
The UNDP defines ‘capacity building’ as (1997):
… the process by which individuals, groups, organisations, institutions and societies increase their abilities to (1) perform core functions, solve problems, define and achieve objectives, and (2) understand and deal with their development needs in a broad context and in a sustainable manner.
Community
Often used today, [especially?] as ‘the community’ to refer to the people of the place, region or country more generally, current definitions being:
A group of people living together in one place, especially one practising common ownership; … the community the people of an area or country considered collectively; a group of people having a religion, race, profession, or other characteristic in common; the condition of having certain attitudes and interests in common (Concise Oxford Dictionary 2006), or All the people of a specific locality or country; a group of people within society with a shared ethnic or cultural background, especially within a
398 Appendix 1 – Glossary larger society; a group of people with a shared profession; a group of people living together and practising common ownership; the community the public (Macquarie Australian Encyclopaedic Dictionary 2006)
Country A term used by Aboriginal people to refer to the land to which they belong and their place of Dreaming. Aboriginal language usage of the word country is much broader than standard English. (Australian Museum Glossary of Indigenous Terms (http://australianmuseum.net.au/Glossary- Indigenous-Australia-terms last updated 5 February 2009)
Heritage
Meaning both property that is inherited by an individual, an inheritance, but also in the sense of a society’s inheritance, and also defined as
Valued things such as historic buildings that have been passed down from previous generations; … of special value and worthy of preservation (Concise Oxford Dictionary 2006), or The culture, traditions, and national assets preserved from one generation to another … Heritage item – a landscape, place, work, building or relic of such significance for past, present, or future generations that is deemed worthy of being preserved (Macquarie Australian Encyclopaedic Dictionary 2006)
Indigenous Peoples
The United Nations and no official definition, see:
UN 2004 ‘The Concept of Indigenous Peoples’, Workshop on Data Collection and Disaggregation for Indigenous Peoples, New York, 19-21 January 2004, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Division for Social Policy and Development. Secretariat of the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues PFII/2004/WS.1/3, Jose R. Martinez Cobo, the Special Rapporteur of the Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities, in his famous Study on the Problem of Discrimination against Indigenous Populations. 279 … a working definition of “indigenous communities, peoples and nations”. In doing so he expressed a number of basic ideas to provide the
279 UN Doc. E/CN.4/Sub.2/1986/7 and Add. 1-4. The conclusions and recommendations of the study, in Addendum 4, are also available as a United Nations sales publication (U.N. Sales No. E.86.XIV.3). The study was launched in 1972 and was completed in 1986, thus making it the most voluminous study of its kind, based on 37 monographs.
399 Appendix 1 – Glossary intellectual framework for this effort, which included the right of indigenous peoples themselves to define what and who is indigenous. The working definition reads as follows: Indigenous communities, peoples and nations are those which, having a historical continuity with pre-invasion and pre-colonial societies that developed on their territories, consider themselves distinct from other sectors of the societies now prevailing on those territories, or parts of them. They form at present non-dominant sectors of society and are determined to preserve, develop and transmit to future generations their ancestral territories, and their ethnic identity, as the basis of their continued existence as peoples, in accordance with their own cultural patterns, social institutions and legal system. …
Social capital The investment in the form of institutions, relationships, voluntary activity, and communications that shape the quality of social interaction within a community (Macquarie Australian Encyclopaedic Dictionary 2006) The networks of relationships among people who live and work in a particular society, enabling that society to function effectively (Concise Oxford Dictionary 2006)
From www.infed.org/biblio/social_capital.htm:
Social capital is the 'the aggregate of the actual or potential resources which are linked to possession of a durable network of more or less institutionalized relationships of mutual acquaintance and recognition' (Bourdieu 1983: 249). Social capital is defined by its function. It is not a single entity, but a variety of different entities, having two characteristics in common: they all consist of some aspect of a social structure, and they facilitate certain actions of individuals who are within the structure' (Coleman 1994:302). Whereas physical capital refers to physical objects and human capital refers to the properties of individuals, social capital refers to connections among individuals – social networks and the norms of reciprocity and trustworthiness that arise from them. In that sense social capital is closely related to what some have called ‘civic virtue’. The difference is that “social capital” calls attention to the fact that civic virtue is most powerful when embedded in a sense network of reciprocal social relations. A society of many virtuous but isolated individuals is not necessarily rich in social capital (Putnam 2000:19). Social capital refers to the institutions, relationships, and norms that shape the quality and quantity of a society's social interactions... Social capital is
400 Appendix 1 – Glossary not just the sum of the institutions which underpin a society – it is the glue that holds them together (The World Bank 1999).
Sustainability Sustainable: 1 able to be sustained: designed or developed to have the capacity to continue operating perpetually, by avoiding adverse effects on the natural environment and depletion of natural resources (Macquarie Australian Encyclopaedic Dictionary 2006) Sustainable development: economic development designed to meet present needs whilst also taking into account future costs, including costs to the environment and depletion of natural resources. (Macquarie Australian Encyclopaedic Dictionary 2006)
Use Value
The definitions provided below are those provided in the Getty Conservation Institute discussions on (Mason 2002:13); they are in ‘plain English’ rather than more complex definitions provided in economic dictionaries:
Use Value (Market Value): Use values are market values—the ones most easily assigned a price. Use values of material heritage refer to the goods and services that flow from it that are tradable and priceable in existing markets. For instance, admission fees for a historic site, the cost of land, and the wages of workers are values. Because they are exchanged in markets, these values can be easily expressed in terms of price, and they are susceptible to economists’ many analytical tools based on neoclassical theory. Nonuse Value (Nonmarket Value): Nonuse values are economic values that are not traded in or captured by markets and are therefore difficult to express in terms of price. For instance, many of the qualities described as sociocultural values are also nonuse values. They can be classed as economic values because individuals would be willing to allocate resources (spend money) to acquire them and/or protect them. The economics field describes nonuse values as emanating from the public- good qualities of heritage—those qualities that are “nonrival” (consumption by one person does not preclude consumption by someone else) and “nonexcludable” (once the good/service is provided to anyone, others are not excluded from consuming it). A public archaeological site would exhibit these qualities very clearly. Markets fail to provide public goods and services, and nonuse values therefore pose a difficult methodological problem for economists. … Nonuse values are often broken down into the following, closely related categories (which are not exhaustive) in order to specify exactly which qualities of heritage motivate economic decisions:
401 Appendix 1 – Glossary Existence Value: Individuals value a heritage item for its mere existence, even though they themselves may not experience it or “consume its services” directly. Option Value: The option value of heritage refers to someone’s wish to preserve the possibility (the option) that he or she might consume the heritage’s services at some future time. Bequest Value: Bequest value stems from the wish to bequeath a heritage asset to future generations.
Value The regard that something is held to deserve; importance or worth. Material or monetary worth. … Considered to be important or beneficial (Concise Oxford Dictionary 2006). That value of a thing because of which it is esteemed; desirable or useful … worth merit, or importance; material or monetary worth …; force, import or significance (Macquarie Australian Encyclopaedic Dictionary 2006).
402 Appendix 2 – List of Pre-Development Survey Reports
APPENDIX 2 – LIST OF PRE-DEVELOPMENT SURVEY REPORTS
ACT
AHC (Archaeological Heritage Surveys) February 2010 Conservation Management Plan Block 1617 Belconnen, ACT, prepared by Patricia Saunders for National Zoo and Aquarium.
Biosis November 2009 Angle Crossing Cultural Heritage Survey, report for Purdon Associates Pty Ltd.
Biosis November 2009 Macgregor West Estate 2: Cultural Heritage Study – Sub-Surface Testing Program, report for Village Building Co.
Biosis March 2010 Angle Crossing: Cultural Heritage Study Sub-Surface Testing Program Purdon Associates Pty Ltd.
Biosis May 2010 Clunies Ross Street Temporary Car Park, Acton, ACT: Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Study, report for Hindmarsh.
Biosis August 2010 Molonglo Stage 2: Detailed Heritage Assessment – Aboriginal and Historical Heritage, report for ACTPLA.
Biosis September 2010 11kV power supply to HMAS Harman Data Centre – Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment, report for ActewAGL.
Biosis October 2010 Crace Estate Stage 2 Residential Development – Scarred Tree Cultural Heritage Assessment Report for Crace Developments Pty Ltd.
Biosis November 2010 Crace Residential Development Stage 2 Aboriginal Scarred Trees – Conservation Management Plan Report for CIC Australia Pty Ltd.
Biosis December 2010 Mugga Lane Landfill Extension – Block 2227 Hume – European and Aboriginal Heritage Assessment. Report for ACT NOWaste Department of Territories and Municipal Services.
CHMA (Cultural Heritage Management Australia) 1 December 2010 Belconnen Block 1617 Proposed Expansion of the National Zoo and Aquarium Method Statement for Sub-surface Investigations.
CHMA (Cultural Heritage Management Australia) 15 December 2010 Cuppacumbalong Sub-Surface Archaeological Investigations (Blocks 6 and 8) Conservation Management Plan, prepared by Rose O’Sullivan and Stuart Huys for Bruce Gibbs.
403 Appendix 2 – List of Pre-Development Survey Reports CHMA (Cultural Heritage Management Australia) 15 December 2010 Hume West Industrial Estate: Site HW1/PAD2 Conservation Management Plan, prepared by Rose O’Sullivan and Stuart Huys for LDA.
CHMA (Cultural Heritage Management Australia) 15 September 2010 Canberra Data Centre – Proposed Sewerage Pipeline – Cultural Heritage Survey and Conservation Management Plan, prepared for CBRE Town Planning.
CHMA (Cultural Heritage Management Australia) 2 June 210 Bonner 3 Monitoring Addendum to the Bonner Conservation Management Plan, report by Rose O’Sullivan to LDA.
CHMA (Cultural Heritage Management Australia) 20 February 2010 Coombs, Wright and Environs Recent European Cultural Heritage Investigations, report to ACTPLA.
CHMA (Cultural Heritage Management Australia) 2010 AMTECH Industrial Estate, CHMA (Cultural Heritage Management Australia) 25 March 2010 East Lake Cultural Heritage Assessment and Conservation Management Plan, prepared by Stuart Huys and Sophie Collins for ACTPLA.
CHMA (Cultural Heritage Management Australia) 26 March 2010 Harrison 4 Residential Estate: Aboriginal and European Heritage Assessment: Stage 2 Conservation Management Plan, prepared by Sophie Collins for Land Development Agency (LDA).
CHMA (Cultural Heritage Management Australia) 29 July 2010 Harrison 4 Residential Estate: Aboriginal and European Heritage Assessment Stage 3, Interim Report by Stuart Huys to LDA.
CHMA (Cultural Heritage Management Australia) 4 January 2010 Kings Highway Deviation Aboriginal Heritage Salvage and Test Pitting Program, report by Stuart Huys to SMEC Pty Ltd.
CHMA (Cultural Heritage Management Australia) 4 October 2010 Coombs, Wright and Environs Salvage of Aboriginal Site MCW1, Addendum Report by Stuart Huys and Sophie Collins to ACTPLA.
CHMA (Cultural Heritage Management Australia) April 2009 Majura ParkwayDetailed Archaeological Investigations, report by Stuart Huys to SMEC Pty Ltd.
CHMA (Cultural Heritage Management Australia) January 2009 Majura Parkway Detailed Archaeological Investigations, report by Stuart Huys to ACTPLA.
CHMA (Cultural Heritage Management Australia) November 2009 Harrison 4 Residential Estate: Aboriginal and European Heritage Assessment: Desktop Study
404 Appendix 2 – List of Pre-Development Survey Reports and Survey – DRAFT, report by Sophie Collins to Land Development Agency (LDA).
GML Heritage November 2010 Lanyon Historic Site—Slab Hut Conservation Management Plan—Archaeological Investigation Proposal, report prepared for the Cultural Facilities Corporation for submission to ACT Heritage.
NOHC (Navin Officer Heritage Consultants) 13 April 2010 Proposal to Conduct a Program of Archaeological Test Excavations along a Proposed Trench for an Underground Transmission Line, Jerrabomberra Wetlands Nature Reserve, to ACT East Lake Electrical.
NOHC (Navin Officer Heritage Consultants) April 2010 Conservation Management Plan Kenny, ACT Management of Impacts to Cultural Heritage Values, prepared for ACT Planning and Land Authority (ACTPLA).
NOHC (Navin Officer Heritage Consultants) April 2010 Conservation Management Plan Moncrieff, ACT Management of Impacts to Cultural Heritage Values, prepared for ACT Planning and Land Authority (ACTPLA).
NOHC (Navin Officer Heritage Consultants) April 2010 Implementation of the Moncrieff Precinct Code Cultural Heritage Assessment, report to the ACT Planning and Land Authority (ACTPLA).
NOHC (Navin Officer Heritage Consultants) August 2010 Casey 3 Residential Estate, ACT Cultural Heritage Assessment, report to Cardno Young.
Navin Officer December 2010 Tidbinbilla Land Management Facility, Birrigai, ACT Cultural and Natural Heritage Assessment, report to the Department of Justice and Community Safety, Capital Works and Infrastructure.
Navin Officer East Lake Electrical Infrastructure Implementation Project, ACT Cultural Heritage Assessment July 2009 A Report to Purdon Associates.
NOHC (Navin Officer Heritage Consultants) January 2010 Throsby District Playing Fields Cultural Heritage Assessment, report to Cardno Young.
NOHC (Navin Officer Heritage Consultants) July 2010 Cultural Heritage Assessment of Part Block 51, Gungahlin ACT Cultural Heritage Assessment, report to Land Development Agency.
NOHC (Navin Officer Heritage Consultants) July 2010 Moncrieff Stage 2 Cultural Heritage Investigations Work Method Statement For Non PAD Areas.
405 Appendix 2 – List of Pre-Development Survey Reports NOHC (Navin Officer Heritage Consultants) June 2010 East Lake Electrical Infrastructure Implementation Project, ACT Proposed Underground Transmission Cable Route Option Eleven Jerrabomberra Wetlands Nature Reserve, ACT Archaeological and Geomorphological Subsurface Testing Program, report to Purdon Associates.
NOHC (Navin Officer Heritage Consultants) March 2010 Suburb of Kenny, East Gungahlin, ACT Cultural Heritage Assessment, report to ACTPLA.
NOHC (Navin Officer Heritage Consultants) May 2010 Cuppacumbalong Homestead Precinct, ACT Cultural Heritage Assessment, report to Mr Bruce Gibbs.
NOHC (Navin Officer Heritage Consultants) May 2010 Stormwater Drain and Associated Infrastructure Cooleman Ridge Chapman, ACT Aboriginal and Historical Archaeological Assessment. A Report to GHD.
NOHC (Navin Officer Heritage Consultants) November 2009 ACT Water Security Program Enlarged Cotter Dam European Heritage – CMP Archival Recording and Salvage Program, report to Bulk Water Alliance.
NOHC (Navin Officer Heritage Consultants) November 2009 Amaroo to Bonner Trunk Sewer Main Aboriginal and European Cultural Heritage Assessment, report to Bill Guy and Partners Pty Ltd.
NOHC (Navin Officer Heritage Consultants) November 2009 Amaroo to Bonner Trunk Sewer Main Conservation Management Plan Management of Impacts to Cultural Heritage Values, prepared for Bill Guy and Partners Pty Ltd.
NOHC (Navin Officer Heritage Consultants) November 2009 Murrumbidgee to Googong Water Transfer Project Cultural Heritage Assessment including Subsurface Testing Program, report to ACTEW Corporation.
NOHC (Navin Officer Heritage Consultants) November 2010 Block 5, Section 39 Nicholls, ACT Cultural Heritage Assessment, report to the Land Development Agency.
NOHC (Navin Officer Heritage Consultants) November 2010 Murrumbidgee to Googong Water Transfer Project – ACT Aboriginal and Historical Heritage Impact Mitigation Program, report to Bulk Water Alliance.
406 Appendix 2 – List of Pre-Development Survey Reports Victoria
ACHM (Australian Cultural Heritage Management) 2011 Cultural Heritage Management Plan for the Yarra Bend Park Main Yarra Trail Eastern Freeway Underpass Upgrade.
ACHM (Australian Cultural Heritage Management) 2011 Cultural Heritage Management Plan for the Sunbury Electrification Project.
ACHM (Australian Cultural Heritage Management) 2010 Voluntary Cultural Heritage Management Plan for the new Dights Falls Weir and Fishway.
ACHM (Australian Cultural Heritage Management) 2010 Cultural Heritage Management Plan for 9 Sylvester St, Oak Park.
Biosis 2009 Tarrone Gas-fired Power Station and Gas Pipeline, Victoria: Cultural Heritage Assessment.
Dr Vincent Clark & Assoc 2011 Cultural Heritage Management Plan for 9 Sylvester St, Oak Park.
Ecology and Management Partners 2011 Residential Subdivision, Ridge Road, Whittlesea, Victoria: Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Management Plan, Number 11436.
Terraculture Heritage Consultants 2010 16 Margaret Street, Oak Park Residential Subdivision Cultural Heritage Management Plan Number: 11271.
Terraculture Heritage Consultants 2010 Aitken Creek North and DP5B Highlands Estate Subdivision, Craigieburn Cultural Heritage Management Plan.
407 Attachment 1 – ACT Heritage Legislation Changes 25 September 2014
ATTACHMENT 1 – ACT HERITAGE LEGISLATION CHANGES 2014
409 Attachment 1 – ACT Heritage Legislation Changes 25 September 2014
410 Attachment 1 – ACT Heritage Legislation Changes 25 September 2014 See this Information Sheeet at www.environment.act.gov.au/heritage/about-us/approvals- processes-for-archaeological-works-in-the-act (ACT 2014a).
411 Attachment 1 – ACT Heritage Legislation Changes 25 September 2014
412 Attachment 2 – HERCON Heritage Significance Criteria
ATTACHMENT 2 – HERCON HERITAGE SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA
(This set of criteria was adopted by the National Environment Protection and Heritage Council (EPHC) at its meeting on 17 April 2008.)
1. Importance to the course or pattern of our cultural or natural history.
2. Possession of uncommon rare or endangered aspects of our cultural or natural history.
3. Potential to yield information that will contribute to an understanding of our cultural or natural history.
4. Importance in demonstrating the principal characteristics of a class of cultural or natural places or environments.
5. Importance in exhibiting particular aesthetic characteristics.
6. Importance in demonstrating a high degree of creative or technical achievement at a particular period.
7. Strong or special association with a particular community or cultural group for social, cultural or spiritual reasons. This includes the significance of a place to Indigenous peoples as part of the continuing and developing cultural traditions.
8. Special association with the life or works of a person, or group of persons, of importance in our history.
413 Attachment 3 – NSW Values and Use Recording Form
ATTACHMENT 3 – NSW VALUES AND INTERESTS RECORDING FORM Assessment Name:
Values and Interests Polygon Information
Name:
Stakeholder:
Date Recorded: Polygon ID:
Issues Recorded: Recorders Names:
415 Attachment 3 – NSW Values and Use Recording Form
Map/Sketch Photo/s
Photo ID:
Interests Recorded
Recognition of Country:
Land Access:
Water Access:
Resources Use:
416 Attachment 3 – NSW Values and Use Recording Form
Traditional Practice and expression:
Aboriginal Owned Land:
Environmental and Biodiversity
Conservation:
Statutory Protection of Cultural
Heritage:
Funding of Heritage and Conservation
Works:
Aboriginal Training and Employment:
Aboriginal Technical Support:
Activities on Country Recorded
Caring for Country:
Access to land:
Access to Water:
Traditional and sustainable resource use:
Cultural Practice and expression:
Fishing:
Hunting:
Site and Place Management:
Learning and Passing Knowledge:
417 Attachment 3 – NSW Values and Use Recording Form
Connection Back to Country:
Recording/sharing living memories:
Country Values Recorded
Geographic Features:
River, estuarine, coastal ecosystems:
Wetlands:
Native Vegetation:
Species Ecological Communities:
Aboriginal Site, objects and places:
Spiritual Connection and dreaming:
Ceremony and traditional practices:
Cultural landscapes and associations:
Post contact landscapes:
7.6 Interests
A responsibility identified by an Aboriginal community to manage activities that, related to an Aboriginal value or, could impact the Aboriginal value, is known as interest. The interest is often linked to a place (Aboriginal value). An interest, when derived from value with a spatial expression may translate into preferences for on-ground participation and/or works in identified areas. The interests are also known as sought outcomes. These sought outcomes could be any of the following, depending upon the
418 Attachment 3 – NSW Values and Use Recording Form category of value.
Recognition of country Land access rights Water access rights Resource use rights Traditional practice and expression on country Aboriginal owned land Environmental and biodiversity conservation Statutory protection of cultural heritage Funding of heritage and conservation works Aboriginal training and employment Aboriginal technical support Community ownership of knowledge Others
7.7 Activities on Country Values
Activity on country values category refers to cultural, spiritual, social and/or economic practice occurred in a particular place. This category has the following sub-categories.
1. Caring for country This sub-category is to contain details about the following:
Weed control Fire management Feral animal control including large vertebrates, cane toads, insects, fish etc Sacred sites management Tourism management Catchment management Planning, policy and legislation
2. Access to Land This sub-category is to be used to describe the reason for the access to private/public owned land. The access to the land could be for the purpose of carrying out cultural activities.
3. Access to Water This sub-category can be used to describe the necessity for
419 Attachment 3 – NSW Values and Use Recording Form
access to water resources. The water source can be accessed for cultural purposes, such as manufacturing traditional artefacts, hunting, fishing, gathering, recreational, and cultural and ceremonial purpose. The access can be also for drinking, food preparation, washing and watering domestic gardens etc.
4. Traditional and This can be used to describe details about traditional and sustainable resource sustainable resource use. This could contain details about the use use of, figs, berries, wild plums, yams, wile lilies, wild bananas, mulga apples, bush tomatoes, wild orange truffles, bush onions, gall nuts, quondong trees, roots, grains, medicine plants, pearling etc.
5. Cultural practice and This sub-category is to be used to capture details about expression traditional practices such as, pre-contact Aboriginal activities, trading, tools and artefacts making, clothes making, basketry, fire farming, canoe making, food preparation, traditional ceremonies, warfare, marriages, funerals. This also contain details about return to country days, art making, singing, dancing and music.
6. Fishing This is to contain following details about fishing and fishing techniques such as spear fishing, eel trapping, net fishing, line fishing, fish traps, shellfish collection, turtle fishing and yabbies (Fresh water crayfish).
7. Hunting This sub-category can be used to capture details about hunting, kangaroos, small marsupials, moths, dugongs, ducks, goannas, emus, swans, lizards, snakes, honey ants, frogs etc.
420 Attachment 3 – NSW Values and Use Recording Form
8. Site and place This sub-category could be used to describe details about management Aboriginal site management methods. These methods can be,
Repatriation Site recording Site excavation Stone artefact analysis Graffiti and other damage removal Site fencing Site signage Limit public access to sites
9. Learning and passing This sub-category can be used capture details about oral of knowledge histories, cultural camps, Aboriginal languages, and tool making demonstrations etc. This helps learning and passing of knowledge to present and future generations.
10. Connection back to This is to contain details about corroboree, camping, visiting country family members, swimming, sports and physical activities.
11. Environmental This sub-category to contain details about discovery tours, education field trips, school programs and initiatives.
12. Recording and This sub-category is to be used to capture details about sharing living sharing the stories of past experience, recording oral histories memories and stories for future generations, publishing stores and books.
7.7 Country values
Country values refer to physical and, cultural observances and beliefs. Following are the sub-categories.
421 Attachment 3 – NSW Values and Use Recording Form
1. Important geographic / This sub-category explains the nature about the landscape feature landscape. This section can be used to describe the significance of the location. For example, mountains, lakes, valleys, rivers, bays, beaches, rocky outcrops, water holes, deserts etc.
2. Rivers, estuarine, or costal This sub-category could contain details about the ecosystem following types of places that have Aboriginal significance.
Semi-enclosed costal body of water with one or more rivers or streams flowing into it. Distinct environment, where water and land join, such as salt marshes, mangroves and bays.
3. Wetlands This could contain details about wetlands include swamps, marshes, billabongs, lakes, salt-marshes, mudflats, mangroves, coral reefs, fens, and peat-lands.
4. Native Vegetation This sub-category could contain details of,
Predominately intact and native vegetation, Presence of some exotic and pest species, 50% cover of exotic and pest species, Complete cover by exotic and pest species, Cleared.
5. Species and ecological This sub-category could contain details of, communities Species – that are capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring. Ecological community – a collection of plants and animals that interact in a specific time and place.
6. Aboriginal sites, objects This sub-category is to contain details about the following
422 Attachment 3 – NSW Values and Use Recording Form and places Aboriginal sites and/or object types.
Burials Rock art sites Stone arrangements Artefact scatters Scarred/modified trees Grinding grooves Shell mounds Fish traps Stone quarries Ceremonial rings Hearths Non human bones/organic material deposits Habitation structures Conflict sites Earth mounds Ochre quarries Water holes Aboriginal ceremony and dreaming sites Aboriginal resource and gathering sites Potential archaeological deposits
7. Spiritual connection and This sub-category to contain details about the following: dreaming Dreaming trials Spiritual places/attachments
8. Ceremony and traditional Following details are part of this sub-category: practices Ceremonial places Initiation sites Birthing places Men’s and women’s sites
9. Cultural landscapes and This sub-category to contain details about the following: associations Travelling routes, tracks, pathways, and trade routes Story places Camps, meeting places, social places, and trading camps Named places Recreational places Ancestor’s country
423 Attachment 3 – NSW Values and Use Recording Form
Views of the mountains etc.
10. Post contact landscapes Details associated to the following items are to be held by this sub-category:
Massacre sites Historic, fringe camps Places where people worked Missions and reserves
424