Anthony J. English Ellen Lee Managing the Intangible Sanctuaries of Dreams hen many of us think about parks and protected areas, we envisage landscapes that are associated with concepts such as beauty,space, and “getting away from it all.” For some, these areas are sanctuar- Wies, not just for fauna and flora but for the dreams we hold for our future quality of life (Hales 1989: 144). This seems a large burden to place on protected areas, but many would subscribe to it. Clearly, the aim of “conserving nature” does not encompass all of the values that are associated with protected areas. This is evident in even a cursory glance at the history of the park movement. Political forces linked to nationalism and Romantic concepts about well-being played a guiding role in the emergence of parks and continue to influence their establishment (e.g., Everhardt 1983). Indeed, many scientists would argue that until recently, biodiversity conserva- tion has never been the primary force behind park creation (e.g., Nix 1997). In reality, all protected areas are linked to complex intangible values that can be difficult to define or even to reconcile with the core aims of park management agencies. Some of these values, such as the nature lover’s desire to experience quiet or the firsthand sighting of a rare bird, are often easily accommodated. In contrast, others may have a historical, political, or cultural dimension that gen- erate significant emotion and debate. Such values may derive from people’s life history or sense of their own identity and may lead them to question the wisdom of agency actions. This chapter considers whether management can in fact rec- ognize and provide for the multitude of intangible values that are tied to park landscapes. Defining the Intangible an urban person places on the intrin- Intangible values are by their sic existence of a park. This person nature difficult to measure or define. may feel that the park adds somehow Recognizing them presents a chal- to the quality of the world in which lenge, as park management is com- she lives, as well as satisfying her belief monly focused on tangible outcomes. in the protection of areas, places, and Goals associated with infrastructure, species from development. At another law enforcement, income generation, level, an intangible value may be char- fire, and pest species are perhaps more acterized by a group’s desire to see an easily articulated and translated into event or person commemorated management action. Because of this, through the protection of a landscape the values held by a park agency can and its associated built heritage. sometimes overshadow the intangible Battlefields, historic sites, or what have ones at the heart of a society’s attach- been termed “places of shame” where ment to place. indigenous people have been massa- Intangible values are highly varied. cred by colonizers may encapsulate They may include the importance that these values. Volume 21 • Number 2 2004 23 The concept of nonmaterial values plex ties that bind Aboriginal people intersects with physical places as well to “country” may seem too great to as activities undertaken by people, allow us to include them in the same either singly or in groups. These val- paragraph. This seeming disjunction, ues may be manifest in indigenous however, encapsulates the fact that people’s attachment to a cultural site park management intersects with or a nonindigenous family’s memory intangible values on many levels. of returning each year to the same campsite for holidays. Intangible val- Can Intangible Values ues may be expressed in these cases by Be Managed? visiting and using these places, there- Ever since the declaration of the by bringing people into direct contact first formal national park at with the rules and regulations govern- Yellowstone, approaches to managing ing a park. protected areas have evolved in com- plex ways. This can be seen in the Underlying this chapter is the key development of park management point that protected area boundaries agencies around the globe. Today, are overlain on environments that have many combine specialists in disci- a history of human presence and in plines including ecology, law, history, many cases a recent or existing human archaeology, and public education. It use. This means they cannot be neatly would appear that this evolution is a excised from human memory or cul- response to a number of key factors turally defined ways of perceiving and that reflect our changing understand- valuing landscapes. Parks are embed- ing of parks. Chief among these in ded in social, economic, and political many countries is our growing under- systems that ensure the values we standing of ecosystem complexity and place on them are linked to ongoing the need to integrate protected areas debates about our place in the world. into the management of surrounding To some extent, the different class- tenures and land uses. es of protected areas recognize the This shift in understanding has presence of diverse values and the been matched by increased attention need for parks to cater to a wide range to the intangible values of parks. of activities or functions. It is not pos- Despite this, there is a danger that pro- sible, however, simply to exclude or tected area managers encourage or erase values from an area of land by even adopt the myth that their role is classifying it in a particular way. The to deal primarily with the conservation ongoing debate about “wilderness” in of biodiversity and ecosystem health. countries like Australia illustrates this Such a view, while attractive, is belied well. This concept is opposed by by the day-to-day uses of parks and indigenous groups who see these areas the continued expression of complex as having a human history and mean- attachments to their landscapes. ing. Equally, those who wish to light a Such a view has come under pres- fire as part of their bush-camping sure as parks have been established in experience may question the rules of developing countries where the luxury wilderness area managers that forbid of setting aside areas of land for “con- such an activity. servation” simply does not exist. Here, The difference in scale between the park management has come face-to- embers of a camper’s fire and the com- face with the need to encompass con- 24 The George Wright FORUM cepts such as resident communities, The growth of the environment move- consumptive uses of wildlife, and the ment is a central part of this shift and recognition of cultural obligations and encapsulates the presence of increased interests on land management. The community scrutiny of decision mak- management of an iconic park such as ing. This has resulted in active combat Royal Chitwan in Nepal is a good in the courts and on the picket line example (Nepal and Weber 1993). that has influenced the outcome of In developed countries, similar elections. It is no surprise that there issues have arisen in the face of land has been a burgeoning literature on claims and the expression of native concepts such as collaborative man- title interests by indigenous people. In agement and community involvement some cases, this has prompted the (e.g., Hunt and Haider 2001). Land emergence of jointly managed parks management agencies around the where attempts are being made to world have had to confront and develop collaborative approaches that respond to these concepts. This, too, satisfy Western agendas and those of has brought intangible values some local people. Australia in particular visibility as engagement with commu- has attempted to tackle this issue in a nity members automatically exposes range of parks, including Uluru-Kata- managers to complex values-based juta and Kakadu in the Northern issues. Territory (DeLacy and Lawson 1997) The management of intangible val- and Mutawintji in . ues is brought into relief when we con- This has forced park agencies to sider interaction between indigenous actively consider complex intangible people and parks. The Western ap- values and their relationship to practi- proach is to describe, categorize, and cal management activities such as the split into different categories. The tra- control of fire and pest species and the ditional indigenous approach is often messages that are conveyed to visitors. allegorical—to tell a story that illus- In the same way, the concept of trates a value, rather than to clearly “protected landscapes” has emerged describe the value itself. A place will to challenge the view that parks can, or often be significant because of many should, be divorced from the historic, overlapping values, illustrated through economic, and cultural systems in both stories and repetitive activities— which they are embedded. Lucas “It has everything we need to live,” or (1992) points to the protected land- “It is where we come together each scapes of England, Wales, and France year.” But often the place is felt/seen to as examples where management must have an intrinsic value in and of itself. accommodate and value modified “We come there every year because it lands with mixed uses. The same con- is a special place” (not “It is a special cept is applied in the Annapurna place because we come there every Conservation Area in Nepal (Stevens year”). To describe a place in this way 1997). is to see oneself within the place, as Overlying these developments is part of it. the fact that the last few decades have The act of “defining” intangible witnessed significant change in the values is itself not culturally neutral—it relationship between the community comes from the Western scientific tra- and government in many countries. dition. Nonetheless, if we do not de-

Volume 21 • Number 2 2004 25 fine intangible values in some way, it values seems to rarely surface in the will be virtually impossible for them to mission statements or policies of park influence management practices. management agencies. Understanding An implicit assumption in protect- of what this concept means and how it ed area management has been that by interacts with park landscapes is still managing the physical, we can avoid overshadowed by agency attention to cultural or subjective biases. This is issues that, while inseparable from based on a Western, scientific intangible values, are more easily approach to management. That is, if clothed in the language of science or we can understand the physical prop- bureaucracy. erties and relationships of natural resources, we can manage them sus- Nuts and Bolts tainably.The assumption lying behind Numerous activities that can be this approach is that the values of defined as core business by park agen- these resources lie purely in their cies, such as fire and pest species man- physical nature. This also implies that agement, can be conducted collabora- we can understand the complex rela- tively with local people in a way that tionships between resources and the affirms cultural knowledge and peo- forces of nature by understanding ple’s intangible values. An obvious their physical nature alone. In its example of this is the adoption of extreme form, this is also an approach Aboriginal firing practices in park that effectively removes human beings management programs in some parts and their actions from the ecosystem of Australia (Parks Australia 1997). in order to make it “pure.” The This activates nonmaterial values assumption in this case is that if we associated with Aboriginal people’s can just remove all traces of human custodial interests in country and the influence from a protected area (e.g., desire to ensure that their culture is through environmental cleanup), it applied and alive. will be pure, self-regulating, self-per- Local people can possess an inti- petuating wilderness. mate knowledge of fauna, flora, land Some of the weaknesses of this use history, fire, and ecosystem approach are obvious. If tangible/ processes that has developed through physical values are articulated sepa- long-standing interaction with a land- rately from intangible values, it will be scape. Often this knowledge has harder to develop management prac- crossed generations through story and tices that respect both kinds of values practical experience. This knowledge in an integrated fashion. Human can be ignored or discarded by park beings are part of nature, and there are managers who are trained to see parks virtually no places on Earth that have as tools to redress past human effects not had human beings as part of their on the landscape. At one extreme, “natural” history. One person’s parks can be viewed as “wilderness” wilderness is another person’s home- and in a sense devoid of human values, land. Each has its own intangible val- except for those that champion the ues in terms of symbolism, aesthetics, preservation of “nature.” cultural meaning, and identity. Many other activities, such as the Despite growing awareness of this provision of educational tours and challenge, the concept of intangible information, can actually foster a

26 The George Wright FORUM response among park visitors that is definitive list, but it reveals the com- enriching and significant. People may plexity of this issue. choose to return to a park where they have had such an experience and, in a Imagining Country: sense, weave these visits into their life Intangible Values and the New and personal history. People may also South Wales Experience seek to gain understanding of other The experience of the New South cultures or ways of life by visiting Wales National Parks and Wildlife parks. In Australia, the concept of rec- Service (NPWS), Australia, in coming onciliation is seen as an important goal to grips with intangible values in pro- of many parks, especially those where tected areas can be used to illustrate visitors can learn from Aboriginal peo- common issues and opportunities. ple about how they view the land- Over the last five years, the agency has scape. invested significant resources in To be effective, nonmaterial values research and planning that seek to need to be explicitly acknowledged by engage the diverse intangible values park managers, even where they are linked to parks. While the effects of seen to conflict with the agency’s view this work on park management are still of why a park exists and how it should to be properly realized, it reveals some be cared for. This can be as simple as of the steps that an agency must pur- using the indigenous names for fauna sue if it is to achieve this aim. and flora or significant landscape fea- During this time, NPWS’s Cultural tures. It can be as complex as main- Heritage Division (CHD) has assessed taining evidence of human-modified intangible values in a range of con- landscapes through ongoing interven- texts. These include exploration of the tion or finding resources and strate- values that Aboriginal people attach to gies to maintain historic structures. biodiversity and environmental health Table 1 attempts to explain how some (English 2000, 2002) as well as the nonmaterial values can be addressed ties that bind Europeans to structures by management actions. This is not a and landscapes that have been encom-

Table 1. Some examples of how management can address nonmaterial values.

Nonmaterial value Management action Psychological benefit or well- Provision of access and infrastructure to support activities such as bush being generated by visiting a walking, camping, and education in ways that respond to the needs of park landscape different groups and provide them with a valued experience Protection of cultural Active assessment of the social and cultural meaning and significance of park landscapes and valued cultural landscapes. This might combine active conservation of particular places, places research into an area’s land use history, and recognition of people’s knowledge about the land and of the continued importance of interaction with, and use of, valued places. Reconciliation between Joint management, cultural tourism, and education programs cultures Education and learning A blend of experiences for park visitors that reflect the multiple values of a protected area Cultural values and Continued access for indigenous people to carry out cultural practices and community health recording of people’s history and memory Intrinsic value of landscape Management of ecosystem health processes Volume 21 • Number 2 2004 27 passed within park boundaries (Veale adjustments to include important 1997, 2001). Attention has also been archaeological sites, and once the nat- given to the values placed on parks in ural area is identified, its cultural val- the Australia’s multicultural society by ues are then determined. Thus, cultur- looking at how Australians of al values are still seen as secondary in Macedonian (Thomas 2001) and this process. Vietnamese backgrounds perceive and On the other side of the coin, most use park landscapes. cultural heritage legislation, with its For many decades, intangible val- background in Western historical ues were largely ignored or else not thinking, focuses on the identification explicitly addressed by the NPWS in and designation of cultural heritage its approach to management. The sites and is particularly suited to deal- work of the CHD has changed this, ing with built heritage, such as build- primarily because it has shifted itself ings, and archaeological sites. from an emphasis on archaeological Intangible cultural values are consid- investigations to those that engage liv- ered significant, but natural values are ing people and their connections to rarely considered in the initial identifi- place. This research has raised impor- cation stages, and then only as being tant issues that articulate intangible complementary to or a subset of the values. At its core has been the attempt cultural values. Most natural parks are to “imagine country”—that is, to pic- large geographical areas. Most cultural ture the complex social and cultural heritage sites are small geographical links between people and landscapes areas. In both cases, the legislative and that reside in memory, feelings, and policy process for the establishment beliefs. and management of these parks and sites reflect this reality.When we iden- Protected Areas tify places with both cultural and natu- and First Nations in Canada ral values, giving their cultural and In Canada, most legislation provid- natural elements equal attention, we ing for the establishment of protected must move to a more integrative con- areas focuses on natural values. In fact, cept of protected areas, such as cultur- natural parks are seen by many as al landscapes. Cultural landscapes, wilderness areas, with as little human some of which are quite large by tradi- impact as possible. However, in the tional historic site standards, have last decade or so, partly as a result of characteristics that do not fit very well the influence of northern Aboriginal with the sets of legislative and policy groups in the settlement of land processes and mechanisms for either claims, this view has begun to change, natural parks or cultural heritage sites. and the cultural values of natural parks They do, however, provide the inte- are beginning to be recognized. gration of intangible and tangible, and However, it is still the case that the natural and cultural, values. identification of areas for considera- Table 2 compares and contrasts tion of natural parks uses natural crite- protected areas, historic sites, and cul- ria identified by Euro-Canadian scien- tural landscapes in terms of evaluation tists for determining what areas criteria, size of geographical area, should be protected. Minor consider- whether subsurface protection is ation may be given to boundary needed, and whether natural and cul-

28 The George Wright FORUM Table 2. Comparison of protected natural areas, historic sites, and cultural landscapes.

Protected Natural Historic Sites Cultural Landscapes Area (e.g., National Park)

Evaluation Natural values Cultural or historic Cultural and natural criteria values values

Size of Large geographical Small geographical Large geographical geographical area areas to protect areas to protect areas to encompass all ecosystems, buildings, building values watersheds complexes, and archaeological sites

Subsurface Statutory protection No protection of Subsurface protection protection of subsurface subsurface may be needed

Tangible or Tangible and Tangible and Tangible and intangible values intangible values intangible values intangible values for relating to natural relating to both natural and features historic/cultural cultural features and features the landscape as a whole

Balance of natural Cultural or historical Natural values Cultural and natural and cultural values secondary secondary values integrated values in area management tural values are balanced in the man- hand. agement of the area. This is made worse in a situation The use of traditional natural parks where Aboriginal communities do not or cultural heritage site designations have adequate land tenure to protect can put considerable stress on com- these places themselves. On the other munities who would like to have their hand, governments who have land special places recognized and protect- management responsibilities must ed from inappropriate development, answer to many constituencies, and bureaucrats who are faced with including the heritage and environ- trying to force-fit park or site propos- mental lobbies, as well as development als into legislative or policy molds that and industrial sectors whose main are not really meant for the purpose at interest is resource extraction, such as

Volume 21 • Number 2 2004 29 lumbering and mining or hydroelec- 2001b). tric development. Park management plans have to Parks, protected areas, protected deal with the conflicting values of all landscapes, cultural landscapes, and such interested parties. Since the mid- working landscapes are terms that 1980s in Canada, with a renewed fed- describe a range of places with lesser eral government policy on the settling or greater amounts of human interven- of comprehensive land claims with tion. The term used in any particular Aboriginal peoples, management case generally relates to the reasons for regimes for national parks have which the place is “set aside” and how evolved considerably. Pressure from it is used. All of these places have Aboriginal peoples for recognition of intangible values ascribed to them by their cultural, natural, and economic both local and nonlocal people and interests in protected areas has meant groups—beauty is in the eye of the that the objectives for protected area beholder. creation have broadened to include Clashes of values can occur cultural and intangible values, as well between the intangible values of differ- as natural values. In some parts of ent cultural groups or between differ- Canada (in the North in particular), ent interest groups—they simply limited land entitlements combined reflect the different values these with the opportunity for involvement groups place on the protected area in in cooperative protected area manage- question. There are various ways of ment regimes have led some dealing with these differences. Often, Aboriginal groups to view the estab- in the Canadian situation, protected lishment of protected areas in a posi- area planners work for government tive light. In such cases, the creation of (federal, provincial, or territorial) and protected areas provides an expanded are expected to reflect broad societal area of influence and traditional use values in the regimes established. For for Aboriginal peoples. Of the forty- example, national parks are set aside one national parks and reserves in “to protect for all time representative Canada, more than one-third have natural areas of Canadian significance advisory boards of some sort, with sig- in a system of national parks, and to nificant Aboriginal, and in some cases encourage public understanding, local non-Aboriginal, representation. appreciation, and enjoyment of this However, there are also examples natural heritage so as to leave it unim- where the concept of a protected area paired for future generations” (Parks is an alien one to cultural groups who Canada 2001a). have a holistic view of the landscape “Most lands have some kind of and who have difficulty in setting part interest or commitment for uses such of the landscape aside and treating it as oil and gas development, mining, differently from other areas. In a hydro-electricity, forestry, agriculture national system of protected area man- and private recreation. Land-use con- agement, a monolithic approach to the flicts and jurisdictional issues will have management of protected areas will to be resolved in cooperation with the make it difficult to incorporate intangi- provinces, territories, Aboriginal peo- ble values into management practices. ples, and all interested parties includ- In fact, the question has been asked, ing local residents” (Parks Canada “By creating guidelines and giving

30 The George Wright FORUM certain areas an international designa- tices is the challenge. In many cases, tion, are we adding to the homoge- the recording of place names and the nization of landscapes and cultures?” associated stories can lead toward (IUCN 1999: 41). determining what management regimes or actions would be appropri- Values-Based Management/ ate. This is because the stories often Knowledge-Based Management carry implicit or explicit advice on Values-based management has how people should behave toward the recently become a popular term, par- land, the animals, plants, and each ticularly in the field of the conserva- other. The landscape is alive with tion of cultural heritage. Here, in theo- meaning, and to be able to read it and ry,the evaluation of a protected area or understand it, people must interact of a cultural resource will help deter- with it. Place name studies and oral mine the nature of its value, which will history projects are an excellent way to in turn be used to determine how it begin to articulate the intangible val- should be managed and what about it ues of a local Aboriginal community should be protected and respected. related to a protected area , as well as Knowledge-based management is a to begin to understand at least one term frequently used to describe a sci- perspective on how the landscape has entifically based management regime. evolved to become what it is today. While the values- and knowledge- Sustainability is a concept useful in based management concepts are not defining objectives for protected area identical, neither are they contradicto- management. We can speak of the sus- ry or mutually exclusive. A merging of tainability of values, the sustainability these two concepts might go a long of landscape(s), and the sustainability way toward dealing appropriately with of management practices. One way to intangible values from different cultur- examine management practices is to al perspectives. try to determine what needs to be If we wish to manage protected done to ensure the sustainability of areas in a way that respects and sus- intangible values. We should not tains intangible values, we must do it underestimate the challenge implied collaboratively and be conscious of by trying to understand change and our thought processes and our cultur- evolution when it comes to dealing al biases. In addition, often the way to with protected areas and intangible elicit traditional knowledge or values values. We all know that landscapes is not at brainstorming sessions in evolve over time, as do ecosystems and meeting rooms or through scientific cultural systems. We are beginning to analysis. The landscape is the book in approach an understanding of how which the values are written, and landscapes and ecosystems have being on and in the land is far more become what they are today, but our likely to elicit intangible values view is limited with regard to under- through experience, reminiscence, standing how much and what kind of and storytelling. How to capture these change is desirable or acceptable for values in such a way that respects their the future. In other words, what are intangible nature but still allows them the limits of acceptable change? We to be analyzed and understood and will need to determine measures of transmitted into management prac- health or sustainability and establish

Volume 21 • Number 2 2004 31 regular monitoring programs to deter- essential to achieving sustainable mine the effects of our management protected landscapes. practices. • It is important to define a moving scale of limits of acceptable change Conclusion to reflect natural and cultural evolu- To sum up, these are some princi- tion and changing values. ples to follow to establish management regimes for protected landscapes that The management of nonmaterial or deal with intangible values: intangible values presents many chal- lenges. It requires park agencies to rec- • The determination of values and ognize previous, and continuing, asso- the resulting management deci- ciations between people and parks sions must be participatory and that have been generated through involve local people in a significant community and family history,person- way. al aspirations, and diverse ways of per- •A thorough recording of communi- ceiving the meaning or significance of ty knowledge, oral histories, and landscapes. place names is a good way to artic- Much has been said of the need to ulate intangible values. manage parks not as islands in a sea of •A cookie cutter approach cannot be development but as part of a patch- used. Management decisions must work of land tenures and uses (e.g., flow from an understanding of all of Nix 1997). Managing and understand- the values of the protected land- ing nonmaterial values involves a simi- scape, both tangible and intangible. lar philosophy. The “core” aims of •Values that appear to be in conflict park creation and “nature” conserva- must be carefully examined and tion must be set within a social and reconstructed to determine cultural context, and this requires us whether there is really a conflict to understand the dynamic interac- and, if so, exactly what it is. tions between people and place that • Once values are clearly articulated are embedded in the very fabric of and the appropriate management protected areas. Conservation itself actions are determined, ways of needs to be understood as a culturally measuring success and change defined activity, one that is open to must be identified and adopted. biases that reflect the distribution of Monitoring and follow-up are power within human societies.

References DeLacy, T., and B. Lawson, B. 1997. The Uluru-Kakadu model: joint management of Aboriginal-owned national parks in Australia. In Conservation Through Cultural Survival: Indigenous People and Protected Areas, ed. S. Stevens. Washington, D.C.: Island Press, 155–189. English, A. J. 2000. An emu in the hole: exploring the link between biodiversity and Aboriginal cultural heritage in New South Wales, Australia. Parks 10:2, 13–25. ———. 2002. The Sea and the Rock Gives Us a Feed: Mapping and Managing Gumbaingirr Wild Resource Use Places. Hurstville, NSW: New South Wales National Parks and Wildlife Service. English, A. J., J. Erskine, and S. Veale. 1997. Cultural heritage assessment of , central western NSW.Unpublished report by the New South Wales National Parks and Wildlife Service to the Wellington and Peak Hill Local Aboriginal Land Councils. Everhardt, W. C. 1983. The National Park Service. Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press. 32 The George Wright FORUM Hales, D. 1989. Changing concepts of national parks. In Conservation for the Twenty-first Century, ed. D. Western and M. Pearl. New York: Oxford University Press, 139–144. Hunt, L., and W. Haider. 2001. Fair and effective decision making in forest management plan- ning. Society and Natural Resources 14: 873–887. IUCN. 1999. Landscape Conservation: An International Working Session on the Stewardship of Protected Landscapes. 15–17 June. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN. Lucas, P. H. C. 1992. Protected Landscapes: A Guide for Policy-makers and Planners. London: Chapman & Hall. Nepal, S. K., and K. E. Weber. 1993. Struggle for Existence: Park–People Conflict in the Royal Chitwan National Park, Nepal. Bangkok: Asian Institute of Technology. Nix, H. A. 1997. Management of parks and reserves for the conservation of biological diversity. In National Parks and Protected Areas: Selection, Delimitation and Management, ed. J. J. Pigram and R. C. Sundell. Armindale, N.S.W.: Centre for Water Policy and Research, University of New England, 11–36. Parks Australia. 1997. Kakadu National Park Plan of Management. Canberra: Australian Government Printer. Parks Canada. 2001. Canada National Parks Act. On-line at parkscanada/Library/acts/ acts_ehtm. ———. 2001b. National Parks System Plan. On-line at parkscanada/np/np_ehtm. Ponte, F., M. Marsh, and R. Jackson. 1991. Indigenous hunting rights: ecological sustainability and the reconciliation process in Queensland. Search 25: 258–61. Stevens, S. 1997. Annapurna Conservation Area: empowerment, conservation and development in Nepal. In Conservation through Cultural Survival: Indigenous People and Protected Areas, ed. S. Stevens. Washington, D.C.: Island Press, 237–262. Thomas, M. 2001. A Multicultural Landscape: National Parks and the Macedonian Experience. : New South Wales National Parks and Wildlife Service and Pluto Press. Veale, S. 1997. Land use history of , north west New South Wales. Unpublished report by the New South Wales National Parks and Wildlife Service to the Muruwari Tribal Council. ———. 2001. Remembering Country: History and Memories of Towarri National Park. Sydney: New South Wales National Parks and Wildlife Service.

Anthony J. English, Research Unit, Cultural Heritage Division, New South Wales National Parks & Wildlife Service, P.O. Box 1967, Hurstville, New South Wales 2220 Australia; [email protected] Ellen Lee, Archaeological Services Branch, National Historic Sites Directorate, Parks Canada Agency, 25 rue Eddy, 6e étage 25-6-W, Pièce 173, Hull, Québec K1A 0M5 Canada; [email protected] 1

Volume 21 • Number 2 2004 33