DOCSLIB.ORG

Toward a Postcolonial Archaeology of Indigenous Australia Ian J

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Toward a Postcolonial Archaeology of Indigenous Australia Ian J C H A P T E R 2 5 Toward a Postcolonial Archaeology of Indigenous Australia Ian J. McNiven and Lynette Russell Over the past three decades, archaeology has been New Zealand, Maori concerns are expressed in the use going through a period of self-reflection, particularly of the Maori name Aotearoa in place of New Zealand, with regard to issues of gender, power relations, and the colonial name expressing that history in the words indigenous control. The best-known and most con- “new” and “Zealand,” the name of a Dutch province on troversial issues in regard to indigenous control are the other side of the world. Differing colonial experi- ownership of the past and the repatriation of cultural ences have led to different outcomes in law and land materials, whether human remains or artifacts, held ownership. The dispossession of Aboriginal Austra- by statutory bodies such as museums and universities. lians was never resolved in any kind of agreed treaty, In many situations, indigenous groups have regained while the dispossession of Maoris was formalized in control over their ancestral remains by recourse to the Treaty of Waitangi (1840). Again these outcomes, legal means. After heated debate and acrimonious liti- and the issues behind them, are paralleled by the U.S. gation, most Australian archaeologists now accept that experience where some indigenous Americans—Treaty indigenous (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander) Indians—came to such an outcome and some did not. control of indigenous archaeological materials in Aus- Seen from Australia, the United States is striking tralia is legitimate and part of the overall reconcilia- for the force with which scientific interest is expressed tion process between indigenous and nonindigenous and the weight it carries. Archaeology and anthropol- Australia. Indeed, some Australian archaeologists have ogy are largely still seen as disinterested sciences rather taken a somewhat self-congratulatory tone, in think- than the socially constructed kinds of knowledge they ing we “seem to be at the forefront in terms of the actually are (Deloria 1969). negotiation of relationships between archaeologists Increasing awareness of indigenous issues by ar- and indigenous people” (Burke et al. 1994:19). While chaeologists and their response reflects a slow de- important advances are being made, parallel develop- colonization of archaeology that mirrors broader ments are taking place in other major settler-colonial anticolonial changes in community attitudes towards contexts such as Canada and the United States (Biolsi who has a right to determine indigenous lifeways. In and Zimmerman 1997a; Nicholas and Andrews 1997a; Australia, these issues took on renewed significance in Swidler et al. 1997a; Watkins 2000). Furthermore, these the 1990s in the wake of the Mabo court case which changes have rarely been initiated by archaeologists; saw rejection of the two-hundred-year-old legal doc- rather, they have been developed by archaeologists trine of terra nullius—the view that Australia was an responding to indigenous demands for greater control empty land belonging to no one prior to European of their ancestral heritage. These changes have also colonization in 1788—and the recognition of extant grown out of governments and legislators responding native title, and the Federal government’s program to broader political lobbying by indigenous people for of “reconciliation” between Aboriginal and non-Ab- social justice and equality. original Australia. All these social, political, and legal The present chapter addresses these issues through changes set the scene for the development of a new, examples from Australia. We emphasize that the is- unique (Australian) archaeology tailored to accom- sues are not specific to Australia; the Australian story modate the desires of the country’s indigenous and is closely paralleled in the United States, Canada, and scientific communities. It will be the way Australians New Zealand, both in changing attitudes of archaeolo- decide to decolonize our unique colonial heritage (and gists and in wider social transformations. In Canada, its legacies) that ultimately will frame and constrain the recognition of First Nations’ rights and success is the future face of Australian archaeology. symbolized by the creation of the new provinces of the This chapter surveys anticolonial developments Arctic North, where indigenous interests are strong. In in Australian indigenous archaeology over the past 423 thirty years. Key conceptual issues that underpin We view the colonial culture of Australian archae- these developments are discussed and illustrated. ology as being composed of two intricately related However, the journey along the road of reconciliation concepts—disassociation and appropriation (Condori continues. Despite significant advances, Australian 1989; McGuire 1989). During the nineteenth and early archaeology remains underwritten by a number of twentieth centuries, Aboriginal people were disassoci- subtle and insidious theoretical constructs that have ated from their material heritage by suggestions that colonial origins. These constructs, we contend, con- some Australian archaeological sites belonged to other tinue to underscore many of the cross-cultural ten- “races.” We have identified two key examples of this sions that remain in Australian archaeology, in both process—rock art paintings from the Kimberley re- academic and public arenas. As a legacy of colonial gion in the northwest (McNiven and Russell 1997) circumstance, these constructs and tensions have rel- and stone circles in Victoria in the southeast (Russell evance for the practice of indigenous archaeology in and McNiven 1998). A more pervasive form of disas- other settler colonies such as North America. Indeed, sociation has been achieved by the deceptively simple looking under the surface of archaeology anywhere process of making the past an archaeologically con- in the world reveals that issues of power, control, structed past. The discipline of archaeology is founded and knowledge in regard to things of the past are in- on the premise that insights into the (pre)historic past variably entwined with issues of power, control, and are made via the analysis and interpretation of cultural knowledge in regard to things of the present. Even remains using Western scientific methods. As such, the ancient Stonehenge is now an overtly disputed place (pre)history of a region or a people can only be written (Bender 1998). following research by archaeologists. Feminist archae- ologist Joan Gero (1989:97) alerts us to the inherent COLONIAL CULTURE OF ARCHAEOLOGY imperialism of an archaeologically constructed past: Many authors have written on the history and colo- nial legacy of anthropology, James Clifford (1988) The expansion of archaeology must be seen as an and Nicholas Thomas (1994) among others, showing aspect of cultural colonialism in which one system of knowledge erodes and ultimately supplants the struc- anthropology to have been complicit in the colonial ture of alternative systems. [The] replacement by process (Diamond 1974). Foucault (1970) has argued archaeology of other means of approaching the past that the human sciences—especially anthropology, is not progressive but imperialistic. linguistics, sociology, and economics—construct hu- man subjectivities at the same time as they describe To those enculturated in the West, the archaeologi- them. The central theme of these definitions is the cat- cal charter might appear self-evident. However, the egorization of people into dichotomies, insiders/out- notion of an archaeologically constructed past takes siders, normal/abnormal, us/them. Along comparable on new meaning in colonial contexts where indigenous lines, George Stocking (1985:112) has described the peoples have their own historical narratives. For Ab- anthropological discipline as “primarily a discourse of original Australians the construction of historical nar- the culturally or racially despised.” ratives frequently draws on the religious interpretive In North America, Bruce Trigger (1984) has been at framework provided by the Dreaming or Dreamtime. the forefront of exploring how the historical develop- Senior Wardaman people in the Lightning Brothers ment of archaeology has rested on the representation country of the Northern Territory classify rock art as of Native Americans as a singular and primitive Other. either bulawula (paintings of human origin) or bu- For Trigger the history of archaeological research can warraja (Dreaming pictures) (David et al. 1990, 1994; be seen as an aspect of the history of anthropology. He Flood et al. 1992; Merlan 1989). Although from an ties the growth of both disciplines to North America’s archaeological perspective, all of the art would be clas- colonial history. As a result, archaeology was unavoid- sified as of human origin, senior Wardaman draw on ably colonialist, its structure serving to “denigrate na- Dreaming cosmology to “read” the art. Immediately tive societies and . demonstrate that they had been an archaeologist goes with Wardaman people into a static in prehistoric times and lacked the initiative to shelter with archaeological and rock art traces and develop on their own” (Trigger 1984:386). While Trig- remains, different perceptions come into play, and ger overstates the discipline’s intentionality, he is right the “single and obvious” observations and classes of to call our attention to the relationship between repre- Western knowledge fail: the marks
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Founding of Aboriginal History and the Forming of Aboriginal History
    The founding of Aboriginal History and the forming of Aboriginal history Bain Attwood Nearly 40 years ago an important historical project was launched at The Australian National University (ANU). It came to be called Aboriginal history. It was the name of both a periodical and a historiographical movement. In this article I seek to provide a comprehensive account of the founding of the former and to trace something of the formation of the latter.1 Aboriginal history first began to be formed in the closing months of 1975 when a small group of historically-minded white scholars at ANU agreed to found what they described as a journal of Aboriginal History. At that time, the term, let alone the concept of Aboriginal history, was a novel one. The planners of this academic journal seem to have been among the first to use the phrase in its discursive sense when they suggested that it ‘should serve as a publications outlet in the field of Aboriginal history’.2 Significantly, the term was adopted in the public realm at much the same time. The reports of the Committee of Inquiry on Museums and National Collections (the Pigott Report) and the Planning Committee on the Gallery of Aboriginal Australia, which were the outcome of an inquiry commissioned by the Whitlam Labor Government in order to articulate and give expression to a new Australian nationalism by championing a past that was indigenous to the Australian continent, both used the term.3 As 1 I wish to thank Niel Gunson, Bob Reece and James Urry for allowing me to view some of their personal
    [Show full text]
  • Changing Perspectives in Australian Archaeology, Part VII. Aboriginal
    AUSTRALIAN MUSEUM SCIENTIFIC PUBLICATIONS Robertson, Gail, 2011. Changing perspectives in Australian archaeology, part VII. Aboriginal use of backed artefacts at Lapstone Creek rock-shelter, New South Wales: an integrated residue and use-wear analysis. Technical Reports of the Australian Museum, Online 23(7): 83–101. doi:10.3853/j.1835-4211.23.2011.1572 ISSN 1835-4211 (online) Published online by the Australian Museum, Sydney nature culture discover Australian Museum science is freely accessible online at http://publications.australianmuseum.net.au 6 College Street, Sydney NSW 2010, Australia Changing Perspectives in Australian Archaeology edited by Jim Specht and Robin Torrence photo by carl bento · 2009 Papers in Honour of Val Attenbrow Technical Reports of the Australian Museum, Online 23 (2011) ISSN 1835-4211 Changing Perspectives in Australian Archaeology edited by Jim Specht and Robin Torrence Specht & Torrence Preface ........................................................................ 1 I White Regional archaeology in Australia ............................... 3 II Sullivan, Hughes & Barham Abydos Plains—equivocal archaeology ........................ 7 III Irish Hidden in plain view ................................................ 31 IV Douglass & Holdaway Quantifying cortex proportions ................................ 45 V Frankel & Stern Stone artefact production and use ............................. 59 VI Hiscock Point production at Jimede 2 .................................... 73 VII Robertson Backed artefacts Lapstone
    [Show full text]
  • Australian Aboriginal Art
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by The University of Sydney: Sydney eScholarship Journals online Australian Aboriginal Art Patrick Hutchings To attack one’s neighbours, to pass or to crush and subdue more remote peoples without provocation and solely for the thirst for dominion—what is one to call it but brigandage on a grand scale?1 The City of God, St Augustine of Hippo, IV Ch 6 ‘The natives are extremely fond of painting and often sit hours by me when at work’ 2 Thomas Watling The Australians and the British began their relationship by ‘dancing together’, so writes Inge Clendinnen in her multi-voiced Dancing With Strangers 3 which weaves contemporary narratives of Sydney Cove in 1788. The event of dancing is witnessed to by a watercolour by Lieutenant William Bradley, ‘View in Broken Bay New South Wales March 1788’, which is reproduced by Clendinnen as both a plate and a dustcover.4 By ‘The Australians’ Clendinnen means the Aboriginal pop- ulation. But, of course, Aboriginality is not an Aboriginal concept but an Imperial one. As Sonja Kurtzer writes: ‘The concept of Aboriginality did not even exist before the coming of the European’.5 And as for the terra nullius to which the British came, it was always a legal fiction. All this taken in, one sees why Clendinnen calls the First People ‘The Australians’, leaving most of those with the current passport very much Second People. But: winner has taken, almost, all. The Eddie Mabo case6 exploded terra nullius, but most of the ‘nobody’s land’ now still belongs to the Second People.
    [Show full text]
  • Deep Time Dreaming: a Critical Review
    NEW: Emerging Scholars in Australian Indigenous Studies Deep Time Dreaming: A Critical Review Natasha Capstick University of Technology Sydney, Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences, PO Box 123, Ultimo NSW 2017, Australia. [email protected] DOI: https://doi.org/10.5130/nesais.v4i1.1527 In 2017, Nature, the international journal of science, published research that pushed the dawn of human occupation in Australia even further into deep time: an estimated 65,000 years ago (Clarkson et al. 2017). Inevitably, questions were posed about how this discovery might affect not only our understanding of Australia’s Indigenous past, but also the global story of human evolution. Billy Griffiths’ 2018 book, Deep Time Dreaming: Uncovering Ancient Australia, chronicles developments in the field of Aboriginal archaeology from the mid-twentieth century to the current day, and is therefore well-situated to address the possible implications of these new findings. Deep Time Dreaming is an invaluable read due to the way it demonstrates that the study of deep time is not an isolatable pursuit; rather, archaeology is humanistic and often profoundly political, carrying consequences for how we identify and interact with the present. A 370-page work of historical non-fiction naturally runs the risk of becoming dry and uninspiring. To avoid such an outcome, Griffiths adopts an interlude storytelling structure that weaves together ‘miniature biographies’ of the key players in Australia’s archaeological past with a more personal, journalistic account of the author’s own experiences as an informal apprentice working alongside deep time scholars at significant sites all around the country.
    [Show full text]
  • Themes in the Archaeology of Holocene Australia
    THIS IS THE ACCEPTED VERSION OF THIS PAPER The final publication details are: Ulm, S. 2013 ‘Complexity’ and the Australian continental narrative: Themes in the archaeology of Holocene Australia. Quaternary International 285:182-192. doi:10.1016/j.quaint.2012.03.046 The final publication is available from: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1040618212002078 © 2013. This manuscript version is made available under the CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 license http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ ‘Complexity’ and the Australian continental narrative: Themes in the archaeology of Holocene Australia Sean Ulm Department of Anthropology, Archaeology and Sociology, School of Arts and Social Sciences, James Cook University, PO Box 6811, Cairns, QLD 4870, Australia Email: [email protected] Telephone: +61 7 4042 1194 Facsimile: +61 7 4042 1290 Abstract Accounts of long-term cultural change in Australia have emphasised the late Holocene as the period when ‘complexity’ emerged amongst foragers in Australia, associated with increased economic productivity, reduced mobility, population growth, intensified social relations and cosmological elaboration. These reconfigurations have often been interpreted as the result of continent-wide trajectories which began in the mid-Holocene, often termed ‘intensification’. These approaches have been found wanting as they homogenise diverse records of human adaptation into a single account which inexorably leads to the ethnographic present. The archaeological record tells a rather different story with fluctuating occupational intensity and even regional abandonments featuring in well-documented archaeological records. Instead, variability documented in the ethnographic and archaeological records can be understood as a product of local adaptations reflecting the operation of historically situated systems of social organisation in diverse environmental settings.
    [Show full text]
  • The Age of Australian Rock Art: a Review Michelle C
    Short Reports The Age of Australian Rock Art: A Review Michelle C. Langley1 and Paul S.C. Taçon2 Abstract The growing corpus of ‘direct dates’ for rock art around the world has changed the way researchers understand rock art. ‘Direct dating’ refers to methods for obtaining chronometric ages through the dating of material directly associated with motifs, thus providing minimum, maximum or actual ages. Materials associated with rock art that may be directly dated include the original media (e.g. beeswax), organic binders found in pigment, or natural coatings (e.g. wasp nests) which can either provide a terminus ante quem or terminus post quem for art. In Australia, 432 direct dates for rock art are now available, providing the basis for developing absolute chronologies for rock art regions and specific periods within them. In this paper we review the dating results but caution against using them to derive broad interpretations, especially continent-wide narratives and global comparisons. Figure 1 Location of sites included in this analysis. Note that Native Animals (NSW) and Pete’s Chase (QLD) are not shown as location Introduction information is not available. Only five reviews of the direct dating of Australian rock art have been undertaken. Bednarik (2002) presented a critical review north and south of 18ºS respectively. Ages were not calibrated of the processes for dating rock art but did not examine the where sample materials were not reported. For the purposes of direct dating of rock art in Australia in detail. David et al. (1999) examination, ages disputed by either the initial investigators or reviewed absolute dates for rock art in southeast Cape York subsequent commentators were not considered in the analyses Peninsula, while McDonald (2000) reviewed AMS determinations below, though they are included in the regional statistics and along with methodological issues for sites in the Sydney Basin.
    [Show full text]
  • Colonial Frontier Massacres in Australia 1788-1930: Sources
    Colonial Frontier Massacres in Australia 1788-1930: Sources © Ryan, Lyndall; Pascoe, William; Debenham, Jennifer; Gilbert, Stephanie; Richards, Jonathan; Smith, Robyn; Owen, Chris; ​ Anders, Robert J; Brown, Mark; Price, Daniel; Newley, Jack; Usher, Kaine, 2019. The information and data on this site may only ​ be re-used in accordance with the Terms Of Use. ​ ​ This research was funded by the Australian Government through the Australian Research Council, PROJECT ID: ​ ​ DP140100399. http://hdl.handle.net/1959.13/1340762 Colonial Frontier Massacres in Australia 1788-1930: Sources 0 Abbreviations 1 Unpublished Archival Sources 2 Battye Library, Perth, Western Australia 2 State Records of NSW (SRNSW) 2 Mitchell Library - State Library of New South Wales (MLSLNSW) 3 National Library of Australia (NLA) 3 Northern Territory Archives Service (NTAS) 4 Oxley Memorial Library, State Library Of Queensland 4 National Archives, London (PRO) 4 Queensland State Archives (QSA) 4 State Libary Of Victoria (SLV) - La Trobe Library, Melbourne 5 State Records Of Western Australia (SROWA) 5 Tasmanian Archives And Heritage Office (TAHO), Hobart 7 Colonial Secretary’s Office (CSO) 1/321, 16 June, 1829; 1/316, 24 August, 1831. 7 Victorian Public Records Series (VPRS), Melbourne 7 Manuscripts, Theses and Typescripts 8 Newspapers 9 Films and Artworks 12 Printed and Electronic Sources 13 Colonial Frontier Massacres In Australia, 1788-1930: Sources 1 Abbreviations AJCP Australian Joint Copying Project ANU Australian National University AOT Archives of Office of Tasmania
    [Show full text]
  • Issue Information
    Juengst and Becker, Editors Editors and Becker, Juengst of Community The Bioarchaeology 28 AP3A No. The Bioarchaeology of Community Sara L. Juengst and Sara K. Becker, Editors Contributions by Sara K. Becker Deborah Blom Jered B. Cornelison Sylvia Deskaj Lynne Goldstein Sara L. Juengst Ann M. Kakaliouras Wendy Lackey-Cornelison William J. Meyer Anna C. Novotny Molly K. Zuckerman 2017 Archeological Papers of the ISSN 1551-823X American Anthropological Association, Number 28 aapaa_28_1_cover.inddpaa_28_1_cover.indd 1 112/05/172/05/17 22:26:26 PPMM The Bioarchaeology of Community Sara L. Juengst and Sara K. Becker, Editors Contributions by Sara K. Becker Deborah Blom Jered B. Cornelison Sylvia Deskaj Lynne Goldstein Sara L. Juengst Ann M. Kakaliouras Wendy Lackey-Cornelison William J. Meyer Anna C. Novotny Molly K. Zuckerman 2017 Archeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association, Number 28 ARCHEOLOGICAL PAPERS OF THE AMERICAN ANTHROPOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION Lynne Goldstein, General Series Editor Number 28 THE BIOARCHAEOLOGY OF COMMUNITY 2017 Aims and Scope: The Archaeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association (AP3A) is published on behalf of the Archaeological Division of the American Anthropological Association. AP3A publishes original monograph-length manuscripts on a wide range of subjects generally considered to fall within the purview of anthropological archaeology. There are no geographical, temporal, or topical restrictions. Organizers of AAA symposia are particularly encouraged to submit manuscripts, but submissions need not be restricted to these or other collected works. Copyright and Copying (in any format): © 2017 American Anthropological Association. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored or transmitted in any form or by any means without the prior permission in writing from the copyright holder.
    [Show full text]
  • NAIDOC Week 2021
    TEACHER GUIDE YEARS F TO 10 NAIDOC Week 2021 Warning – Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander teachers and students are advised that this curriculumresource may contain images, voices or names of deceased people. Glossary Terms that may need to be introduced to students prior to teaching the resource: ceded: to hand over or give up something, such as land, to someone else. First Nations people: Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. NAIDOC: (acronym) National Aborigines and Islanders Day Observance Committee. NAIDOC Week: a nationally recognised week to celebrate the histories, cultures and achievements of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples. All Australians are invited to participate. sovereignty: supreme authority and independent power claimed or possessed by a community or state to govern itself or another state. Resource overview Introduction to NAIDOC Week – A history of protest and celebration NAIDOC Week is usually celebrated in the first full week of July. It’s a week to celebrate the histories, cultures and achievements of First Nations people. Although NAIDOC Week falls in the mid-year school holidays, the aim of each theme isn’t limited to those set dates. Schools are encouraged to recognise and celebrate NAIDOC Week at any time throughout the year to ensure this important event isn’t overlooked. Themes can be incorporated as part of school life and the school curriculum. NAIDOC stands for ‘National Aborigines and Islanders Day Observance Committee’, the committee responsible for organising national activities during NAIDOC Week. Its acronym has now become the name of the week. NAIDOC Week has a long history beginning with the human rights movement for First Nations Peoples in the 1920s.
    [Show full text]
  • Courage and Thoughtful Scholarship = Indigenous Archaeology Partnerships
    FORUM COURAGE AND THOUGHTFUL SCHOLARSHIP = INDIGENOUS ARCHAEOLOGY PARTNERSHIPS Dale R. eroes Robert McGhee's recent lead-in American Antiquity article entitled Aboriginalism and Problems of Indigenous archaeology seems to emphasize the pitfalls that can occur in "indige nolls archaeology." Though the effort is l1ever easy, I would empha­ size an approach based on a 50/50 partnership between the archaeological scientist and the native people whose past we are attempting to study through our field alld research techniques. In northwestern North America, we have found this approach important in sharillg ownership of the scientist/tribal effort, and, equally important, in adding highly significant (scientif­ ically) cullUral knowledge ofTribal members through their ongoing cultural transmission-a concept basic to our explana­ tion in the field of archaeology and anthropology. Our work with ancient basketry and other wood and fiber artifacts from waterlogged Northwest Coast sites demonstrates millennia ofcultl/ral cOlltinuity, often including reg ionally distinctive, highly guarded cultural styles or techniques that tribal members continue to use. A 50/50 partnership means, and allows, joint ownership that can only expand the scientific description and the cultural explanation through an Indigenous archaeology approach. El artIculo reciente de Robert McGhee en la revista American Antiquity, titulado: Aborigenismo y los problemas de la Arque­ ologia Indigenista, pC/recen enfatizar las dificultades que pueden ocurrir en la "arqueologfa indigenista
    [Show full text]
  • Archaeology and Development / Peter G. Gould
    Theme01: Archaeology and Development / Peter G. Gould Poster T01-91P / Mohammed El Khalili / Managing Change in an ever-Changing Archeological Landscape: Safeguard the Natural and Cultural Landscape of Jarash T01-92P / Wai Man Raymond Lee / Archaeology and Development: a Case Study under the Context of Hong Kong T01A / RY103 / SS5,SS6 T01A01 / Emmanuel Ndiema / Engaging Communities in Cultural Heritage Conservation: Perspectives from Kakapel, Western Kenya T01A02 / Paul Edward Montgomery / Branding Barbarians: The Development of Renewable Archaeotourism Destinations to Re-Present Marginalized Cultures of the Past T01A03 / Selvakumar Veerasamy / Historical Sites and Monuments and Community Development: Practical Issues and ground realities T01A04 / Yoshitaka SASAKI / Sustainable Utilization Approach to Cultural Heritage and the Benefits for Tourists and Local Communities: The Case of Akita Fortification, Akita prefecture, Japan. T01A05 / Angela Kabiru / Sustainable Development and Tourism: Issues and Challenges in Lamu old Town T01A06 / Chulani Rambukwella / ENDANGERED ARCHAEOLOGICAL LANDSCAPE OF THE WORLD HERITAGE CITY OF KANDY AND ITS SUBURBS IN SRI LANKA T01A07 / chandima bogahawatta / Sigiriya: World’s Oldest Living Heritage and Multi Tourist Attraction T01A08 / Shahnaj Husne Jahan Leena / Sustainable Development through Archaeological Heritage Management and Eco-Tourism at Bhitargarh in Bangladesh T01A09 / OLALEKAN AKINADE / IGBO UKWU ARCHAEOLOGICAL HERITAGE AS A BOOST TO NIGERIAN CULTURAL HERITAGE OLALEKAN AJAO AKINADE, [email protected]
    [Show full text]
  • Presentations
    Presentations CHIE ADACHI AND VERONICA DOBSON community language planning within the context of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians. She has immensely New ways of learning and teaching Arrente - enjoyed working on the development of online curriculum for developing language and culture course online Central and Eastern Arrernte language and culture with elders from Central Australia. The current paper explores ideas and issues around developing curriculum for learning and teaching of an Veronica Dobson is a highly respected elder from Central Indigenous Australian language. As part of a tertiary course Australia. She has extensively worked on the documentation at the newly established Australian Centre for Indigenous and revitalisation of Central and Eastern Arrernte language Knowledges and Education (ACIKE), the Central and Eastern and culture for many years as an educator. She was involved Arrernte language and culture curriculum has been developed. with establishing the orthography of this language. She also This paper presents a story of developing new ways of has extensive ecological knowledge of the land and takes great transmitting the Arrernte knowledge by creating multimode pride and joy in teaching this knowledge to young generations of learning and teaching space and incorporating the oral as well as non-indigenous people. tradition into non-traditional mode of online teaching with the For her significant contribution and services to the community Arrernte people. as a linguist, naturalist and ecologist, Veronica was appointed This paper also addresses the issues of: a Member of Order of Australia in 2011. She is an author of many books on Central and Eastern Arrernte language, land • Approaching and negotiating protocols to protect and and culture, and a figure that many people come across once share the Arrernte knowledge; they start learning about Arrernte.
    [Show full text]