MAPPING DREAMING

Georgia Melville, Heritage Consultant Context Pty Ltd & Sean Fagan, Cultural Heritage Projects Officer / Traditional Owner Wadawurrung Introduction This presentation explores an attempt to protect the Aboriginal place of Bun-a-nyung (Mount Buninyong or Big hill like knee) under the Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006. Through it we are keen to share this process and its outcomes with today’s audience in order to think about the opportunities and the problems that are experienced by TOs (Traditional Owners) & OAAV (Office of Aboriginal Affairs) trying to protect intangible places under government legislation and to create wider dialogue about this. With only eight minutes, this presentation hopes to provide a brief understanding of the registration process under State legislation, it then moves quickly through the process to try to get Bun-a-nyung on the Victorian Aboriginal Heritage Register, and ends with some possible points for discussion and perhaps future action. Bun-a-nyung Dreaming Bun-a-nyung forms part of Wadawurrung Country. It is an integral feature of the Keyeet Balug clan’s land. The mountain is a tangible reminder of how the landscape came to be and continues as such. It represents the wider landscape of when two men fought until mortally wounded, to take their final resting places as Bun-a-nyung (Mount Buninyong) and (). It is hard to separate Bun-a-nyung as a physical place from it’s layers of intangible connections, however to protect it, this separation is required. The same landscape’s values are many. Mindi the serpent, a feared being throughout the Kulin nations also finds its home at Pitfield, the same place where Bun-a-nyung and Derrinallum clashed. While the views to Bun-a-nyung are valued for their natural character, while also looking like a man lying down with his knees up. The place is also part of a complex navigation, cultural, communication and trade network between clans, and is one of many important vantage points on Country together with and to places like , Anakie Youang, the , Mount Emu, Mount Misery, the Otways and the surf coast and Bellarine Peninsula. This is not to mention the physical cultural heritage of the place, such as scarred trees and stone artefacts. Bun-a-nyung and Derrinallum have already been blown further wounds by recent development - Bun-a-nyung is an increasingly popular place for residential properties and infrastructure, such as a telecommunications tower and a house that has scalped a ridge top, while Derrinallum’s side has been quarried into, as seen in these photos. An attempt to protect the Dreaming under legislation Under the Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006, Wathaurung Aboriginal Corporation (or Wadawurrung) has cultural heritage responsibility for Bun-a-nyung however Derrinallum is ucrrently not in the same RAP (Registered Aboriginal Party) area. Both places form part of the Victorian Volcanic Cones but as Bun-a-nyung is categorised as QVN (Extrusive Tholeiitic to alkaline basalts, minor scoria and ash) and Derrinallum QVS (Extrusive Scoria), only Derrinallum is afforded an automatic layer of cultural heritage sensitivity. Yet even if Bun-a-nyung was automatically considered such an area, the scalping of the mountain ridge to build the property shown in the previous photo would have not triggered a CHMP (Cultural Heritage Management Plan). However, if registered as an Aboriginal place, a permit would be required for any type of activity deemed harmful. Wadawurrung approached OAAV to begin the process of protecting Bun-a-nyung. As an Aboriginal place, it is acknowledged by both parties that it should be registered as such to afford the place due protection. This is what the Act states: The Secretary must record details of the following in the Register (a) all known Aboriginal places in ….(s145). An Aboriginal place is an area in Victoria or the coastal waters of Victoria that is of

1 cultural heritage significance to the Aboriginal people of Victoria …(s5) (including land, water, natural features, landscapes, sites, deposits, land for human remains to be re-interred, buildings or structures). Cultural heritage significance includes (a) archaeological, anthropological, contemporary, historical, scientific, social or spiritual significance; and (b) significance in accordance with Aboriginal tradition (s4). Aboriginal tradition means (a) the body of traditions, observances, customs and beliefs of Aboriginal people generally or of a particular community or group of Aboriginal people; and (b) any such traditions, observances, customs or beliefs relating to particular persons, areas, objects or relationships (s4). However, the registration of ‘intangible’ heritage places is not such a common happening on the VAHR (Victorian Aboriginal Heritage Register). Although it is acknowledged by all parties that this is integral to meet with the proper protection of places, the process and available resources have yet to catch up with good will. A few intangible places have been previously recorded using a single point with a limited extent, yet under recent practice a place must now have a polygon extent (a large area boundary around the whole perimeter of the place). Also lacking are firm mechanisms to ‘collect and assess evidence’ for intangible places. Because of this, OAAV and Wadawurrung worked together to create the process as follows: Complete an Intangible Heritage Component Form Process: Complete the form (description, community associations, sources of evidence, location) Outcome: OAAV completed the draft form content based on Wadawurrung input and other research The intangible heritage component form is outdated, so a more appropriate version and guidelines were developed and used for this project (yet to be formally adopted, but in the process of being considered). Create a polygon boundary for the place Requirement: Create a polygon boundary for the place Outcome: OAAV staff (GIS, registrar, anthropologist and archaeologist) and Wadawurrung worked together to develop the boundary using the mountain’s contour lines combined with a site visit But how long is a piece of string? Where do you stop? Evidence the place is significant to people (more than one person) Requirement: A signed Statement of Significance from Wadawurrung (representing a community of Traditional Owners) Outcome: Not yet complete. A rushed Statement of Significance could potentially be used against Wadwurrung in other forums (such as by developers in VCAT). There are limited resources for Wadawurrung to produce this kind of document. The requirements of Registered Aboriginal Parties under the Act means that TOs have to first react to legislated project deadlines– this is particularly pressing in regions of high growth. This limits resources for self- activated projects such as this one. Evidence the place has intergenerational significance (25 yrs +) Requirement: Provide sources to evidence the intergenerational nature of value Outcome: Sources to evidence this comprise historical texts describing the Dreaming plus the signed Statement of Significance from Wadwurrung. Confirm what will trigger a permit (what constitutes harm) Requirement: Wadawurrung to stipulate what constitutes harm to the place Outcome: Not yet completed - Lack of time and financial resources has put this on hold. Ideas to date seems indicate harm may be linked to works that change the geomorphology of the mountain, stripping the place of its overall natural character and blocking the view line from and to the mountain.

2 Submit all of these components to the VAHR for registration This is still pending the completion of other tasks. Learnings, Reflections, Questions The heritage sector’s separation of intangible and tangible is similar to the separation of nature/culture or environment/heritage. It doesn’t make sense in all world views and at times can be perceived as offensive. If it is known that a place is important to Aboriginal people, such as Bun-a-nyung, what is getting in the way of registration when both the community and OAAV want this to happen? We think it comes down to resourcing and process clarity - both internal and external. The goodwill is there, it is just making it happen. Why do we need to firmly evidence a place is important to more than one person and intergenerationally for intangible places but not for tangible places when there is no differentiation of threshold under the Act? A good discussion question! Where does the intergenerational threshold come from? We understand it has perhaps been drawn from a well known dictionary’s definition of ‘tradition’, combined with an informal adoption of the non-Aboriginal heritage sector’s general principle to assess significance. However, is this appropriate for Aboriginal places? How do you draw a boundary line around an intangible place? We believe it is important to find a happy medium between community needs and what is realistic under legislative frameworks. Follow a clear logic, which usually needs to be created on a case-by-case basis. How do you ensure state protection measures are followed by local place users? One way of doing this, also an aim of this project, is to develop a local overlay schedule that will trigger the agreed upon permit requirements (linked to the Significant Landscape Overlay for example)

Thank you.

3