C H A P T E R 2 5 Toward a Postcolonial of Indigenous Ian J. McNiven and

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 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 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 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 ’ rights and success is the future face of . 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 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 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 , 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, , 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, (1984) has been at framework provided by 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 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 on the sandstone sentational history and academic development. walls do not there routinely fall into the universal

424 ian j. mcniven and lynette russell classes of the human/cultural and the natural. The ogy. While strictly speaking Truganini’s remains were Wardaman experience reveals that differences between not archaeological, and their archaeological and Aboriginal constructions of his- bodies were part of the birth of prehistoric archaeol- torical narratives operate at both the ontological and ogy as Paleolithic survivals in the foundational work epistemological levels. As such, both narrative forms of Lubbock (1865, 1870). Truganini’s remains were can rarely be syncretized. handed back to the Tasmanian Aboriginal commu- Appropriation of aspects of indigenous culture by nity and were laid to rest during a private ceremony the dominant society has become so commonplace in 1976 (Moser 1995b:158; Ucko 1983:15; West 1994). as to largely pass unnoticed. Examples range from In this example, Truganini’s return coincided with the Qantas jumbo jet that is adorned with Aboriginal growing awareness that she was not simply “the last images to advertising for Northern Territory tourism Tasmanian”—a relic of a scientific past—but the ex- that emphasizes the timelessness and great antiquity emplar of a tragic history for thousands of contempo- of Aboriginal culture. Each of these feeds into a na- rary Aboriginal Tasmanians. In this sense, Truganini’s tionalistic discourse which reposits Aboriginal culture return represented an acknowledgment of ongoing as Australian culture (Byrne 1996). Appropriation also indigenous rights, rather than of a dead indigenous operates at a global level, with arguments for aspects of past which more belonged to others in a scientific Australian archaeology being of world significance, an present. importance which overrides indigenous significance At the 1982 Australian Archaeological Association and value. These examples of appropriation involve is- (AAA) annual meeting, Ros Langford (1983) delivered sues of hegemony not applicable to indigenous appro- a broadside on Australian archaeology. Her paper set priation of European culture during the early contact in train a paradigmatic shift in the discipline, much period (e.g., use of metal and glass) and more recently as did Vine Deloria Jr.’s scathing critique of American (e.g., use of cars). Similarly, appropriation of material anthropology in his 1969 book Custer Died For Your culture items of one Aboriginal group by another Ab- Sins: An Indian Manifesto. Langford’s paper, presented original group (e.g., southeastern Australian groups on behalf of the Tasmanian Aboriginal community, appropriating didgeridoos—a traditional musical in- echoed views held by many mainland Aboriginal peo- strument of northern Australia) is a form of diffusion ples in stating (Langford 1983:2), “We say that it is our not based on a colonial relationship. past, our culture and heritage, and forms part of our present life. As such it is ours to control and it is ours AUSTRALIAN ARCHAEOLOGY AND to share on our terms. That is the Central Issue of DEBATES OVER OWNERSHIP this debate.” The issue of control was linked directly The discipline of Australian archaeology has only re- with the broader issue of Western scientific research cently begun to engage meaningfully with Aboriginal on who were subject to colonial people. In the earlier part of the twentieth century, powers. In light of these calls for control, AAA passed archaeologists, both amateur and professional, con- a motion stating (Allen 1983:7), “That this conference ducted research with little or no interaction with acknowledges Aboriginal ownership of their heritage. . With the discipline becoming Accordingly, this conference calls on all archaeologists a profession during the late 1960s and early 1970s, to obtain permission from Aboriginal owners prior to Aboriginal people increasingly demanded greater in- any research or excavation of Aboriginal sites.” volvement in archaeological research and in what While many archaeologists by 1982 took consulta- became known as by the U.S. term “cultural resource tion with Aboriginal custodians as a given, the owner- management” (CRM) (Moser 1995a,b; Smith 2000). ship and control issue was not passed unanimously In particular, a debate over who owns the past became (Allen 1983:8–9). A year later the Australian Academy a major issue, initiated largely by Aboriginal people of Humanities held a symposium on the topic of who who felt they were not being considered in relation to owns the past, which revealed that Australian archae- research on their cultural heritage (McBryde 1985). ologists were taking the Aboriginal ownership and Support from the Australian Institute of Aboriginal control question seriously (McBryde 1985). These two Studies for the return and cremation of arguably the events heralded a new wave of Australian archaeol- most famous Australian Aboriginal skeletal remains, ogy as liaison between archaeologists and Aboriginal those of Truganini (Trukanini), marks the beginning people throughout the 1980s moved beyond simple of the decolonizing process in Australian archaeol- consultation to the point where research agendas, at

Toward a Postcolonial Archaeology of Indigenous Australia 425 least where human burials were concerned, became ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES: RELICS OR negotiated, cross-cultural affairs (Pardoe 1985). In- CULTURAL HERITAGE? creasing numbers of Aboriginal people became actively During the 1960s and 1970s, various Australian states involved in site surveys (particularly those associated enacted legislation to protect indigenous archaeologi- with the dramatic increase in CRM assessments for cal sites. This legislation was a direct result of lobbying developments), excavations, and site management by the archaeological community which had set itself (Creamer 1990). In some cases, Aboriginal elders and up as steward of Australia’s prehistoric past. Hence, corporations sought out archaeologists to undertake most legislation described these archaeological sites as research of their historical past, including both the pre- “relics” and made explicit reference to their scientific European contact and the contact periods. After much value (Edwards 1975; Flood 1989; Smith 2000; Ward philosophical and pragmatic debate, soul searching, 1983). As Sullivan (1985:146) noted, this style of legis- and some court battles (see below), many museums lation was “written more or less” by Euro-Australians agreed to Aboriginal demands for repatriation of cul- for the benefit of prehistoric archaeologists. As such, it tural materials (Hubert 1989; Meehan and Attenbrow embodied the “values of the dominant majority” (Mc- 1990). However, Australia has no legislation that en- Bryde 1986:24). Despite the good intentions of many shrines repatriation of human remains as the Native archaeologists who pushed for protective legislation, American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of it soon became apparent that the focus on preserving 1990 does for the United States (Thomas 2000; Mihe- relics had many problems. Critical was the general suah 2000; Watkins 2000). Indeed, a variety of com- failure of much legislation to recognize Aboriginal monwealth (Federal) and state legislation, policies, rights to their own cultural products, which promoted and attitudes interact with the varied circumstances alienation of Aboriginal people from the protection of indigenous people in different regions of Australia, process. In the case of ’s Aboriginal Relics making for a patchwork of local outcomes rather than Preservation Act of 1967–76, legislation was aimed the consistent application of a single framework. In at protecting relics that resulted from a “perceived many ways, the Australian repatriation scene better re- pristine and pure ‘tribal’ past” and that such remains flects the cultural and spiritual diversity of indigenous should be the property of the Crown (D. Trigger 1980). Australia than does NAGPRA for the United States Trigger noted that with relics legislation, “the equation (Kehoe 1998:214). is simple: Aboriginality (Aboriginal ‘culture’) equals Changes in field practice and museum policy gave ‘relics’ equals the past” (1980:152). This view went Aboriginal people demonstrable control over their hand in hand with a convenient assumption “that the heritage and helped redress the power imbalance that sites (and their creators) were dead” (Ucko 1983:14). had existed for so long. In all cases, however, only Treating and conceiving of “true” or “legitimate” Ab- a few members of Aboriginal communities had the original culture as an archaeological resource from the opportunity to work with archaeologists. As a re- prehistoric past at once monumentalized the pristine sult, pressure was placed on archaeologists to produce past and provided it with an epitaph (Byrne 1996). As short community reports written without technical Mary-Louise Pratt observed in her study on colonial jargon (plain-English reports), summarizing research descriptions of South America (1992:134): methods and results for local Aboriginal communities (Pardoe 1990). Eventually the importance of consul- The European imagination produces archaeological tation and feedback led to the development of the subjects by splitting contemporary non-European peoples off from their precolonial, and even their co- first code of ethics of the Australian Archaeological lonial, pasts. To revive indigenous history and culture Association (Davidson 1991; Davidson et al. 1995:83; as archaeology is to revive them as dead. The gesture Beck and McConnell 1986). Principle 5 of the code simultaneously rescues them from European forget- acknowledges that “the indigenous cultural heritage fulness and reassigns them to a departed age. rightfully belongs to indigenous descendants of that heritage” (Davidson et al. 1995:83, emphasis added). Stone and earthen engineering works constructed Despite continuing developments in working relation- by Aboriginal peoples of western Victoria illustrate ships between Aboriginal peoples and archaeologists the alienation process. Over the past thirty years, ar- during the 1990s (Davidson et al. 1995), the following chaeological research has documented elaborate engi- sections reveal a range of deep-seated philosophical neering works such as channels and weirs which have hurdles that continue to create tensions. been interpreted with the aid of nineteenth-century

426 ian j. mcniven and lynette russell historical observations as eel-trapping devices (Clarke tends to see landscapes in term of sites with varying sig- 1994; Coutts et al. 1978; Lourandos 1980; Williams nificance values based on what they can say about the 1988). These trapping facilities have become promi- past. Aboriginal people, like Native Americans, see all nent in Australian archaeological discourse because archaeological sites as significant and interrelated com- of their significance in theories of Late ponents of a contemporary cultural landscape (Anyon intensification (Lourandos 1997). Despite this signifi- and Ferguson 1995:915; Sullivan 1985:149, 152). Thus, cance, at no time was it pointed out that such facilities protecting only “important” or “representative” sites continue to be made and used by Aboriginal people as isolates and allowing the broader environmental of the region. Indeed, in 1995 one of us (McNiven) (cultural) context of these sites to be destroyed is seen witnessed Aboriginal people rebuild a temporarily to reinforce the Western notion of sites as archaeologi- dismantled eel trap across a creek that was identical cal resources to be quarried for scientific data on past in function to so-called prehistoric sites. Significantly, lifeways. It also inadvertently colonizes an indigenous, the Aboriginal men who rebuilt and used the trap totemic landscape of continuous spiritual meaning and thought it amusing that archaeologists believed such power centers with a secular, commodified landscape actions belonged to the prehistoric past. of discontinuous resource nodes (Strang 1997). Seeing Reviving the past as an archaeological phenome- archaeological sites as cultural heritage necessitates an non allowed the emergence of what Ellis (1994) calls integrated (cultural) landscape approach that acknowl- the archaeological paradigm of culture heritage man- edges the important role sites (both archaeological and agement. According to Ellis’s proposition, this model other sites) have in maintaining indigenous cultural equates Aboriginal cultural heritage with archaeological identity and a sense of place (Ellis 1994; L’Oste-Brown sites—with material traces of a scientifically legitimate, et al. 1998; Ross 1996). examinable, and significant past. Therefore only places It is easy to see how this alienation of past places that exhibit physical evidence of past human activity from present places follows from the European expe- are labeled cultural heritage sites. Sites without archaeo- rience, first at home in Europe where the prehistoric logical evidence, such as many Dreaming sites, sacred remains were long abandoned and far removed from sites, and sites of historical association, or sites with on- modern concerns, and then in the colonies of empire, going cultural significance generally, are omitted from whose indigenous peoples were, to colonial eyes, cul- this scheme. Thus institutionalized heritage manage- turally remote and incomprehensible. Nevertheless, ment privileges an archaeological past at the expense the inescapable links between past and present are of contemporary Aboriginal concerns (Byrne 1996:91). visible also in Europe, where the thousands of ancient Apart from placing many Aboriginal (nonarchaeologi- churches are both historical monuments and places cal) sites in danger due to lack of legislative protec- of contemporary spiritual activity. Accordingly, there tion, it also tells Aboriginal people that sites are only are uneasy comparisons and some outright conflicts, recognized to have cultural heritage significance if they when the present needs of the congregations interfere are significant for archaeological research and Western with the archaeological integrity of the building fab- scientific-historical voyeurism (Smith 2000:115). Ab- ric. Strikingly, some Christian communities in Europe original cultural sites become defined narrowly along have given up their ancient buildings, preferring to de- archaeological lines at the expense of nonphysical attri- fine their faith through how a group of people behave butes. In this connection, Mulvaney notes that for rock in the present, rather than by the church buildings that art sites in the Northern Territory (1993:110), are physical remnants of a past. The archaeological paradigm sends a clear message the mythological meaning is contained in more than to Aboriginal people; the dominant society interprets just the painted images, though often the art at a site real Aboriginal culture as a thing of the past. So it is is the only tangible (constructed) manifestation of the that archaeologists become the experts on Aboriginal mythological world. For the custodians the art is sec- ondary to other considerations, such as the Dreaming cultural heritage sites, and Aboriginal people rely on association of the place. In contrast, for the researcher, the expertise of intellectuals and academics to iden- casual visitor or tourism promoter, the art is the pri- tify and interpret these sites. This deeply problematic mary focus of their concerns. outcome is responsible for many continuing tensions between archaeologists and Aboriginal people. The issue of site context also has broader relevance for The negative effects of describing Aboriginal cul- defining cultural landscapes. Archaeological research tural heritage sites as archaeological sites is a key issue

Toward a Postcolonial Archaeology of Indigenous Australia 427 for many Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander groups, Within colonial Australia, academic and popular even in situations where activities associated with cer- representations established the Aborigines as com- tain sites—such as stone-tool manufacture sites—are posed of a series of immutable, distinctive, idiosyn- indeed a thing of the past. The Tasmanian Aboriginal cratic attributes (or essences), which circumscribed Land Council (TALC) has similarly assertively de- their specificity and begged the focus of European scribed the situation thus (TALC 1996:293): attention. As Said remarked (1993:8),

For some archaeologists the sites created by our an- imperialism [and] colonialism are supported and per- cestors are described as archaeological sites. What you haps even impelled by impressive ideological forma- recover from these sites is archaeological data. By de- tions that include notions that certain territories and scribing our sites and the information they contain as people require and beseech domination, as well as vari- “archaeological” you claim our heritage as your own. ous forms of knowledge affiliated with domination. Academic disciplines such as archaeology originally Furthermore (TALC 1996:294): established and later reiterated the primacy of Eu- ropean authority. Thus the ontological status of the Discussing the language you use to describe our heri- tage is not an exercise in telling you how to be “po- Aborigines is only ever stipulated in terms of an anti- litically correct.” Rather, we are using your everyday thetical relationship; that is, they are antipodal to the language to help us to understand how you think European observer who becomes expert in the culture about our sites. When you stop using the possessive she or he observes. The Aborigines are to be found adjective “archaeological” to describe our sites, you only where the colonizers are not, and they are to be will have started to accept that we are the rightful from a time in the past and not the observer’s present. owners and custodians of our heritage. The antithetical colonizer/colonized relationship, Said (1993:70; cf. Fabian 1983:118–123) reminds us, relies In these statements, TALC has identified the issue on “the authority of the observer, and of European geo- of the language of archaeology as a potent force in and graphical centrality, [which] is buttressed by a central of colonial appropriation. Few Australian archaeolo- discourse relegating and confining the non-European gists have explicitly engaged in the reflective discourse to a secondary racial, cultural, ontological status.” of their own language. The greatest risk posed by this view is that the past can only ever be written from the perspective of the ar- SUBJECTATION: THE END OF chaeological discipline. This approach simultaneously SCIENTIFIC DISCOURSE? turns Aboriginal cultural heritage into an academic The use of scientific language to describe Aboriginal commodity and denies in Western eyes the legitimacy cultural heritage has the effect of distancing this heri- of indigenous or nonscientific views of the past (TALC tage from its owners and sanitizing material remains 1996:295). This commodification of cultural heritage for study and display. The use of a uniquely Western is illustrated by the term “cultural resource manage- discourse of , among other things, has resulted ment.” In the late 1980s, archaeological consultants in the creation of a past that identifies historical epi- and government heritage officers in Australia began sodes as scientific phenomena and people as speci- replacing the term CRM with CHM, cultural heritage mens. Aboriginal culture becomes both subject and management. This change was in direct response to object of study. Producing the Aborigines as an object criticism by Aboriginal people that their cultural heri- of study and locating them on a temporal and spatial tage was not a resource. In Australia—as in the United map are aspects of the process termed “subjectation,” States—the term “resource” is usually associated with the simultaneous and mutually reinforcing actions of natural resources such as minerals that are exploited subordination and objectification (the production of for commercial value. Many Aboriginal people felt that “the Aborigines” as an object of study) that emerged their material heritage was being defined as a resource from the colonial process (Attwood 1989; Russell because it was viewed by the broader community as a 2001). This approach has it roots in Enlightenment scientific resource to be quarried by archaeologists for philosophies of the late eighteenth century that sought data to include in publications (symbolic capital) that to (re)describe, (re)classify, and objectify the world, were the basis of status and power. Thus, far from be- and to bring research and understanding of the world ing a simple semantic quibble, Aboriginal people felt under the hegemonic control of the state. this single word was an inappropriate way to describe

428 ian j. mcniven and lynette russell (and define) their cultural heritage. Essentially all Aus- in archaeological writings that make no mention of tralian archaeologists appreciated the value of this “people” and present a past frequented by artifacts, critique, and we now speak of CHM, not CRM. Signif- bones, and charcoal fragments. The use of an exclusive icantly, the term CRM does not seem to have the same language—a language which privileges the Western dis- negative connotations for Native Americans (Anyon cipline of archaeology and simultaneously reduces the and Ferguson 1995), although the same overtures of degree to which nonspecialists can interact within the “resource” apply—of something that has utilitarian discipline—is a key component of what we consider to value because it can usefully in some way be exploited be the colonial culture of archaeology. This approach (Hanna 1997:77; Syms 1997:53; Yellowhorn 1997:257, dehumanizes the past and imposes an appropriated, for a Canadian perspective on this issue). quasi-scientific veil over human history that is ultimately A specific example of subjectation and the privileg- the focus of study. Perhaps this is why so many archae- ing of scientific discourse is found in descriptions of ologists find it difficult to write archaeology books for Aboriginal cave burials of the Central Highlands of the general public; we have lost the language of human Queensland. Since the nineteenth century most of agency and the capacity for grand narrative. Storytell- these sites have been subjected to disturbance, nearly ers somehow got swept away in New Archaeology’s half have been ransacked, and the bark coffins re- quest for testable hypotheses, evolutionary models of moved by Euro-Australians. The removal of this ma- human behavior, and myopic statistical manipulations. terial raises the question of how and why this grave Importantly, we are not arguing for a simplification of robbing could occur when Euro-Australian graves archaeological discourse. Alternatively, we suggest that were generally considered sacred and rarely looted. a review of the language used would enable the writing The sanctity of the Aboriginal graves has been system- of a postcolonial archaeology, or at least a reflection on atically neutralized by a process of subjectation that and questioning of existing colonial practices. reduces the graves to mere ethnological specimens, relics of an appropriated, scientific past and culturally : AN OBSOLETE TERM? disengaged curios (McNiven 1996). In archaeological For over a century, Euro-Australians have explicitly discourse, the elaborate bark coffins, which are a fea- stated that the actions of Aboriginal people prior to ture of these graves, are referred to as either bark cylin- European colonial settlement did not constitute what ders or burial cylinders. All archaeological researchers would traditionally be called history (Attwood 1996a, and cultural heritage consultants working in the re- 1996b). Manning Clark (1968:4) in the opening pages gion over the past thirty years have used these clinical of his monumental A , remarked designations. The neutralizing and scientizing effect of that, of the way of life of the Aboriginal peoples “be- the term “cylinder” enables people to feel comfortable fore the coming of European civilization, little need, when they view, open, and/or collect such remains. In or indeed can, be said.” For Clark (1968:3, 5) history marked contrast, the term “coffin,” as recommended is the realm of civilizations, not for those who failed to by McNiven (1996), is emotive, bringing forth notions “emerge from a state of barbarism.” It was a widely held of religious sanctity. Breaking open a bark cylinder to belief that Aboriginal people had no history prior to look at its contents (human remains) becomes simply the coming of Europeans. In this sense, Aborigines had a physical act of entering secular space to examine cultures and lifeways that commanded the attention of scientific specimens; breaking open a coffin is an act anthropologists and prehistorians, while Europeans had of desecration and the defilement of a sacred place. civilization and history and the attention of historians. Similarly, crawling into a burial cave becomes a secular Trigger (1985:34) notes that “the original differenti- act of entering a geological feature; entering a “burial ation between history and anthropology was a product crypt,” a term recommended also by McNiven (1996) of colonialism and ethnocentrism. Anthropology was for these sites, gives the act of entry a whole new phe- initiated as the study of peoples who were alleged to nomenological meaning and significance. lack history.” Although Daniel Wilson coined the term Archaeology abounds with other examples of sub- “prehistory” in the context of Scottish archaeology jectation and what Odawa Native American Cecil King (The Archaeology and Prehistoric Annals of Scotland, (1997:116) eloquently refers to as the “linguistic cages” 1851), the term had universal currency. Wilson sub- of scientific discourse. In particular, the use of sci- sequently applied the term to the and the entific terminology reduces the degree to which the Native American past in his Prehistoric Man (1862). He past is seen as human. This dehumanized past is seen opens Prehistoric Man with, “The object aimed at in the

Toward a Postcolonial Archaeology of Indigenous Australia 429 following work is to view Man, as far as possible, unaf- tremendous difference, and this meaning is conveyed fected by those modifying influences which accompany by all standard archaeology textbooks. (Nicholas and the development of nations and the maturity of a true Andrews 1997b:xiv–xv) historic period” (Wilson 1862:vii). At the same time, Because of the power of archaeology to create both a according to Glyn Daniel (1964:10), John Lubbock temporal and a cultural disjuncture between contempo- seriously considered using the world “antehistory” in- rary indigenous people and their ancestors, a pervasive stead of “prehistory” for his own 1865 book Pre-His- feeling has emerged among Australian archaeologists toric Times. But ever since its conception, the value of that the terms “prehistory” and “prehistoric” are pe- the term “prehistory” was questioned. In the 1950s, jorative and obsolete. Colin Pardoe (1990) was one of Daniel (1964:10) pointed out that some scholars the first Australian archaeologists to explicitly state and have complained that prehistory was a stupid name, publish his stand on the inappropriateness of the term because it was essentially a misnomer; it meant, logi- “prehistory” in the Australian indigenous context. He cally and etymologically, the time before history, and noted that in 1988 the Australian Institute of Aborigi- surely . . . there was, strictly speaking, no time in the nal Studies forwarded a motion to educational bodies past of man before he had any history. History was es- that “Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander history is the sentially human, unless one referred to natural history. history of Australia, and as such can not be segregated What was prehistory . . . but the earliest past of history? or relegated to the outskirts of Australian society or to This is, I suppose, logically correct—not that logic ‘prehistory’” (cited in Pardoe 1990:208). Such a view seems to enter very much into nomenclature; names stemmed from the fact that “ most often grow up and are not carefully thought out. have regularly objected to a European view of the past Wilson and Lubbock cemented the view that soci- that makes a distinction between history and prehis- eties with writing had a history while those without tory” (Pardoe 1990:208). (1990:157) writing had prehistory. The prefix “pre” immediately nicely summarized the situation thus: positions societies that did not possess writing, such While this is a world-wide convention applied to time as Aboriginal Australians, into the beginnings of a before writing, to Aborigines it seems racist. They judge European developmental sequence. While the term it to imply an inferior status, embracing both biological “prehistory” was coined to be interchangeable with evolution and simplistic culture. If Europeans can have the phrase “early European,” paradoxically in colonial history, they consider it offensive to lumber them with contexts such as Australia and America the term “pre- prehistory. They are satisfied that their oral traditions, history” signified “pre-European.” The label prehistory rituals and sacred places constitute history. To a people is part of the arsenal of the colonizer to represent the without writing, history need not be something writ- colonized as primordial, ancient, and somehow less ten down. Whatever conventional academic definitions worthy. “Prehistoric” and “prehistory” are the colonial dictionaries provide of “prehistory,” therefore, the fact products of social evolutionism and a hierarchical remains that its use is both misleading and offensive to those people with the greatest stake in Australia’s structuring of cultures. In this connection, it is irrel- past. There are strong emotive and educational reasons evant what currency and value the term “prehistory” why history departments should treat the entire hu- has in the context of the European past. Exported to man saga of colonising this continent as a single entity. other parts of the globe, particularly colonial contexts, Historians apply the designation Ancient History to the term is an insult to indigenous peoples, their pasts, several millennia in the Near and Middle East, for and their ancestors. example, so perhaps the Ancient History of Australia Questioning the usefulness and pejorative over- could serve a similar function as a dignified label to the tones of the word “prehistory” is not simply an issue past before AD 1788 (or AD 1606). for “watchdogs of political correctness” (Nicholas and Andrews 1997b:xiv). They continue: And the critique continues through to the present. Hemming (2002:60) states: the term prehistory is often misconstrued to mean “without history,” implying that archaeologists pres- The use of “prehistory” in Australian archaeology . . ent or support the view that indigenous peoples had . has helped create a false dichotomy between con- no history. What prehistory actually refers to is archae- temporary Aboriginal people and their pre-European ology done without use of, or access to, written re- pasts. Archaeology subordinates “real” Aborigines to a cords by the investigators of past human societies—a pre-colonial past it labels as prehistoric.

430 ian j. mcniven and lynette russell One area where the terms “prehistory” and “pre- curation of all related records and collections etc. . . . historic” continue to create problems for Australian Local commitment and participation should be ac- archaeologists is with archaeological sites dating to the tively sought and encouraged as a means of promot- period of European settlement, that is, to the past two ing the maintenance of the archaeological heritage. centuries. In much cultural heritage legislation and in This principle is especially important when dealing with the heritage of indigenous peoples or local cul- many cultural heritage (archaeological) impact assess- tural groups. ments associated with developments, non-Aboriginal sites or sites associated with European culture are While the overall thrust of the ICAHM Charter usually designated historical heritage. This designa- is commendable, the assumed equation of conserva- tion continues despite a general reluctance of heritage tion with preservation once more reflects archaeologi- managers to use the pejorative term “prehistoric” in cal values and the Western scientific tradition (Byrne relation to Aboriginal sites dating to before European 1991; McNiven 1994a). These values underpin the sta- settlement. As such, a situation has arisen where sites tus of museums and the collection and preservation of are often designated either Aboriginal or historic. For material culture in general—of cultures as old objects example, Victoria, like all states in Australia, has an Ab- rather than new people. original sites register for Aboriginal sites and a separate For some Aboriginal Australians, as with many in- historic sites register for non-Aboriginal (mostly Eu- digenous peoples of the world, conserving the signifi- ropean) sites. To undertake archaeological excavation cance of a cultural heritage site or object may involve of contact sites from the earlier colonial frontier can allowing its physical destruction. Examples include require a permit from Aboriginal Affairs Victoria (for Western Desert Aboriginal people masking sacred rock the Aboriginal cultural materials) and a separate per- art motifs by repainting and Kakadu peoples masking mit from Heritage Victoria (for the European cultural sacred rock art with mud to stop inappropriate ob- materials). Clearly this administrative divide becomes servation by Europeans (Mulvaney 1993:111). That increasingly complex and fuzzy (Lightfoot 1995:203) many Europeans, including cultural heritage manag- in contact contexts where material culture items in ers and archaeologists, consider such actions as de- their biographical travels pass (perhaps repeatedly) structive is exemplified by the uproar that surrounded from one cultural group to another (Wolski 2000). In the overpainting of Wandjina figures in the Kimberley a sense, the administrative divide has the potential to some years ago (Bowdler 1988; Mowaljarlai and Peck set up a catch-22 situation where the designation of 1987; Mowaljarlai and Watchman 1989; Mowaljarlai Aboriginal or European for particular items of mate- et al. 1988; Ward 1992). In other cases, letting burials rial culture requires detailed archaeological analysis, naturally erode away is seen as conserving their spiri- analysis that can only take place with an excavation tual significance among certain groups of Aboriginal permit from the relevant Aboriginal and/or European Australians (Pardoe 1985:66) and Native Americans sites authority. (Kluth and Munnell 1997:116). Perhaps the most widely discussed and contentious CONSERVATION VERSUS PRESERVATION: example of conserving the cultural significance of THE END OF “SCIENTIFIC” SIGNIFICANCE? archaeological materials through physical destruction One area where the archaeological paradigm contin- (i.e., nonpreservation) is the repatriation and reburial ues to clash with Aboriginal values is site management of Aboriginal skeletal remains from museums (Don- and the conservation of cultural heritage significance lon 1994; Lahn 1996; Mulvaney 1991; Pardoe 1985). values. A fundamental tenet of cultural heritage man- While most archaeologists understand why many Ab- agement philosophy is conserving site significance original people wish to have their ancestral remains through physical preservation. For example, Article reburied, the outrage over the call by members of the 6 of the International Committee on Archaeologi- Tasmanian Aboriginal community for the repatria- cal Heritage Management (ICAHM) Charter for the tion of excavated occupation deposits highlights the Protection and Management of the Archaeological confusion that persists over the differences between Heritage states (Cleere 1993:404): conservation and preservation. In 1995, TALC took members of La Trobe Uni- The overall objective of archaeological heritage man- versity’s School of Archaeology to court in order to agement should be the preservation of monuments obtain a large collection of Pleistocene archaeologi- and sites in situ including long-term conservation and cal materials which the university legally excavated

Toward a Postcolonial Archaeology of Indigenous Australia 431 (Allen 1995; Auty 1995; Smith 1999). TALC stated many years now, Australian archaeologists and cul- that materials excavated by the archaeologists must be tural heritage officers have been assisting Aboriginal returned to as these were of “great spiritual people excavate disturbed burials that are immedi- and psychological importance” and that reburial of ately, or within a few months, reburied near by in a safe these materials was necessary to “heal the wounds” location (McNiven 1991; Pardoe 1992). Furthermore, created by excavation (Murray and Allen 1995:871). La in the realm of salvage archaeology many projects Trobe objected to these demands, stating that the sites merely shift Aboriginal cultural materials (e.g., stone consisted “partly of garbage discarded by ” artifacts) immediately to the side of the impact zone of and contained “no human bones or teeth, ornaments development. In a strictly scientific sense, such actions or art which might be considered sacred” (Murray destroy the archaeological context of the materials, but and Allen 1995:871–872). The La Trobe archaeolo- from an indigenous heritage perspective, such actions gists also questioned the validity of cultural attach- conserve the cultural (particularly spiritual) signifi- ments of present Tasmanians to these sites, given that cance of the materials as they remain close to where the last evidence for use of the caves was more than the “old people” last used them within their cultural 10,000 years ago (Murray and Allen 1995:873; Maslen (landscape) context. 1995:31). Alternatively, it was argued by the La Trobe team that the cultural materials were of immense WORLD PREHISTORY: UNIVERSAL HERITAGE OR scientific significance on a world scale and should be COLONIAL METANARRATIVE? researched. This scientific significance was in effect The sites from southwest Tasmania at the center of seen to supersede any cultural or spiritual rights that the repatriation affair were described as exhibiting may be held by Tasmanian Aboriginal communities as world archaeological significance (Cosgrove and Allen “rightful” indigenous owners. 1996; Morell 1995; Mulvaney 1983). In terms of world The interaction highlighted the difficulty of dealing prehistory, this high significance value is well justified: with information, concepts, and abstractions drawn interpretation of the material remains provided rare from different knowledge systems (Smith 1999). For insights into human lifeways from Ice Age Australia the Tasmanians the materials needed to be reburied in (Allen 1996; Cosgrove 1995; McNiven 1994b; Jones order to conserve their cultural and spiritual signifi- 1990). However, some archaeologists took this world cance. While that would destroy the integrity, value, significance issue further; Rhys Jones, for example, and power of the materials in scientific terms, to the argued that “Australia’s deep historical sites are part of Tasmanians it represented a case of cultural conserva- the universal history of humankind” (cited in Morell tion by nonpreservation and the political emascula- 1995:1425). However, Aboriginal people see the issue tion of science. The Tasmanian government supported of world significance and universal heritage very dif- TALC’s demands (to repatriate and possibly to destroy ferently (TALC 1996:294): “From our perspective the the excavated materials), which we read as an ex- claims that parts of our heritage belong to all ‘man- plicit statement that put Aboriginal significance values kind’ and that they are of ‘world significance’ are one above scientific values. While such a decision may have more example of the continuing appropriation of our been politically expedient, it signaled a major change land and our heritage.” in government attitudes toward the importance of the The debate over differing Aboriginal and archaeo- social dimensions of cultural heritage and an endorse- logical perspectives on the issue of world significance ment of Aboriginal self-determination. The academics is not new in Australia. This issue, emerging in the involved, concerned about the long-term implications late 1970s, accelerated and intensified throughout the of the approach, noted that “if excavation means re- 1980s following calls for the repatriation of Aboriginal burial in ways which lead to the effective destruction skeletal remains, particularly those from the Murray- of the cultural materials or sites then it would be Darling basin (Doig 1991; Langford 1983:4; Mulvaney unethical for any of us to dig” (Murray 1996a:320; 1981, 1989; Webb 1987; Wettenhall 1988–1989). The McGowan 1996). dual processes of appropriation and dissociation are This debate between academic archaeologists and perhaps best illustrated by this archaeological meta- Aboriginal communities around the issues of conser- narrative of world prehistory. Notions of world pre- vation and preservation suggests to us that the acad- history, arising out of research into the deep past, are emy in many cases lags behind current archaeological frequently couched in terms that deny indigenous and cultural heritage practice in the public arena. For interests. They also revolve around Western scien-

432 ian j. mcniven and lynette russell tific questions and interests ultimately concerned with 1997:84). In an attempt to bring about a reconciliation more than local history. Under the guise of writing a between indigenous Australians and archaeologists, world prehistory for all humanity, indigenous people’s many Australian archaeologists have dispensed with pasts and interests have been subsumed (Ucko 1989). the idea that the scientific narratives of the past are innately superior to indigenous constructions of the STAKEHOLDERS OR HOSTS? past. To operationalize this stance, some archaeologists Repatriation disputes bring into sharp focus the po- have attempted to find syncretism between the diver- tential conflict between scientific (archaeological) sig- gent belief systems of Western science and Aboriginal nificance and cultural (Aboriginal) significance, and cosmology. Davidson (1995:4), for example, suggests between conservation and preservation. We would ar- that compatibility between the Aboriginal view that gue that much of this potential for conflict results from Aboriginal people have always been in Australia and the use of a significance value, in this case scientific sig- the archaeological view of human colonization by an nificance, which is set at the same conceptual level as immigrant population at least 40,000 years ago can cultural significance. This classificatory scheme, which be gained by stating that humans only “became Ab- under present Australian standards includes other sig- origines” after they entered Australia. In our dealings nificance values such as historical and educational, with Aboriginal communities in southern and eastern fixes Aboriginal people simply as an interest group, Australia, this view has little currency. Indeed, we sus- alongside such other stakeholders such as archaeolo- pect that few archaeologists understand the irony of gists and developers, in terms of archaeological sites Aboriginal people quoting the 40,000 years figure for (Marquis-Kyle and Walker 1992). This interest group the benefit of the non-Aboriginal population. When model, which currently pervades archaeological and Aboriginal people quote 400,000 years or even 500,000 cultural heritage management in Australia, is funda- years of occupation, as we have heard said by Aborigi- mentally flawed as it externalizes Aboriginal people to nal elders, it is clear that they want us to understand their own heritage (Boyd et al. 1996). Furthermore, the in our terms that they have been here for a “bloody model underpins calls by well-meaning archaeologists long time” (Russell 2001). Archaeologists might be that consultation between indigenous peoples and impressed by the number of zeros on a radiocarbon archaeologists “must be a dialogue between equals” date, whereas Aboriginal people are impressed that ar- (Swidler et al. 1997b:14; Sullivan 1985:153). We argue chaeologists are learning what they knew all the time! that the model needs to be replaced by a host and guest For some Australian archaeologists, reconciliation model that sees Aboriginal people not as equal stake- is possible by showing the factual basis and scientific holders but as the owners and controllers of their heri- validity of certain Aboriginal oral history and even tage. As such, they may wish (or not wish as the case myths (Campbell 1967). Flood (1995:140–141) re- may be) to have non-Aboriginal guests research their calls an “interesting myth” told by South Australian cultural sites on their own terms and conditions. Thus Aboriginal people about rising seas creating Kanga- the host and guest model of cross-cultural interaction roo Island. She suggests that the “story seems to be initiates the possibility of a further of based on fact” given our current understanding of sea archaeological practice. However, as a dehegemoniz- level rises associated with temperature rises after the ing strategy, the host and guest model may only truly Last Glacial Maximum. As Bednarik (1995) reflects, succeed when it is enshrined in legislation, or at the are Aboriginal people “supposed to applaud science very least interpreted legally as a dimension of native for re-discovering something that has been a corner- title rights (Godwin 2001:21). stone of their metaphysics since the ‘Dreamtime’?” (cf. Echo-Hawk 1997:91). Bednarik continues (1995:80), RECONCILIATION: BEYOND SYNCRETISM AND “The fact here is that eustatic fluctuations are a sci- SHARED HISTORY? entific hypothesis presented for falsification, and not Most Aboriginal people, like nearly all cultures of the a fact, while Aboriginal stories are abstracted factual world, use religious cosmology to frame the past and witness accounts handed down orally. So, who should construct historical narratives. This is a universal ap- be verifying whose ‘accepted fiction.’” proach and one of the defining features of humanity. The use of archaeology in native title land claims in However, most Westerners tend to give religious nar- Australia is an example where Aboriginal people have ratives pejorative labels such as “myth, superstition, initiated the step of drawing on archaeological knowl- legend, fable, fantasy” (Davidson 1991; Anyon et al. edge to help substantiate oral testimony (Lilley 2000).

Toward a Postcolonial Archaeology of Indigenous Australia 433 However, while many archaeologists believe such work recognizes not only two systems of knowledge but also demonstrates the value of archaeology to indigenous the potential of the scientific system to undermine the people, it needs to be kept in mind that the work is be- Wardaman system. This can only occur if attempts are ing done simply to win court cases. Aboriginal people made to reconcile the two knowledge systems; impos- are using Western knowledge as a weapon to fight the ing a linear time frame—as revealed by radiocarbon colonial legal system—a non-Aboriginal system with dating—on the cyclical time frame of Wardaman cos- non-Aboriginal rules. Aboriginal people employ ar- mology is one example. chaeological knowledge because they feel compelled to Many Aboriginal people do not accept archaeologi- do so. Indeed, every time archaeological information is cal constructions of their past as legitimate. In response presented as evidence, it is a tacit acknowledgment of to this criticism, some archaeologists have suggested the contempt that the broader non-Aboriginal com- that archaeological narratives are simply “another way munity has for the veracity of Aboriginal oral history. of telling . . . the human history of Australia” (Murray In the routine framework by which Australian courts 1996b:75). This so-called democratized view is seen address and judge indigenous land claims, a key role is to have legitimacy because “Aboriginal and Europe- taken by the anthropologists who gather together and ans have shared a common history” since 1788 (Al- collate indigenous knowledge in a “claim book.” Thus len 1988:82–83; Attwood 1992), while all Australians indigenous knowledge is brought to legal notice as it is share the prehistoric cultural heritage of the continent. translated by academics trained within the intellectual A number of problems undermine the intuitive appeal framework of scientific research. of this approach. First, the acceptance of divergent Similar problems arise when European historical views is within broader society, not within archaeo- records are used to test the validity of Aboriginal oral logical discourse; the privileged position of archaeol- testimony. This became very clear in the celebrated case ogy remains unchallenged. Second, many would argue of the building of a bridge at Lake Hindmarsh, South that Europeans and Aboriginal Australians have never Australia, when questions concerning the existence of shared the same history because each has been po- sites associated with secret Aboriginal women’s busi- sitioned on different sides of the colonial frontier— ness were tested by their consistency with historically as colonizer and colonized respectively (McGuire documented reports. Initial anthropological reports 1992:816–817). Furthermore, most Aboriginal people indicated these sites would be threatened by develop- see European attempts to incorporate “prehistoric” ment, and bridge construction was banned by the fed- Aboriginal heritage into a broadened Euro-Austra- eral government. However, a subsequent investigation lian heritage as an example of colonial appropriation. by the South Australian state government, undertaken While Euro-Australians may be keen to share their without Aboriginal support, concluded that claims for history with Aboriginal Australians as an act of rec- sacred sites were spurious, and the construction ban onciliation, the legacy of colonialism ensures that the was lifted (Bell 1998; Kenny 1996; Weiner 1999). reverse situation will not come easily. For this reason Perhaps an even greater philosophical challenge many Aboriginal people believe they are the rightful for the reconciliation process is to state that Western and exclusive custodians of mission sites, which Euro- scientific and Aboriginal cosmological views of the Australians often consider classic contexts of shared past can never be reconciled (Davidson 1991:249). history. For example, a fundamental aspect of the Lightning Harrison and Williamson (2002) use the term Brothers project, a study of the rock art and archaeol- “shared ” to explain and explore archaeology ogy of Wardaman country, is the acknowledgment of the postcontact period. Some of the sites examined that while archaeological research may reveal insights dating to this period include missions, outstations, into the antiquity of Wardaman rock paintings, such and reoccupied pastoral sites. Many of the contribu- chronological insights “should never undermine the tors acknowledge that they are using the shared his- other reality that to some [Wardaman] they may be tory paradigm as developed by Murray (1996c). timeless, Dreaming actualities (rather than represen- In Australia, missions are one of the most com- tations)” (David et al. 1990:83; see Williams and Mu- monly investigated contact period site types. These nunggurr 1989 for a discussion of Aboriginal concepts sites are also often designated shared sites (Harrison of nonlinear time). No ontological syncretism is at- 2002; McIntyre-Tamwoy 2002). The missionary pe- tempted to reconcile the two different narrative forms. riod in Australia began in 1823 with the establishment The approach taken by the Lightning Brothers project of mission stations in . In 1836, as

434 ian j. mcniven and lynette russell Victoria was being settled, the first mission stations constructed by Aboriginal people themselves, as well were established. Despite being locations to which as its public representation within the broader com- Aboriginal people were forcibly removed, these were munity, is central to the reconciliation debate. Ab- also locations where kinship ties were forged and new original concerns about the way their own pasts are connections made. Mission sites today are often highly presented “cannot be resolved simply by Aboriginal regarded by indigenous Australians who seek to man- people and archaeologists accepting that each other’s age and control this heritage (L’Oste-Brown et al. view of the past is different but valid. The problem is 1995). This high social significance often stems from more than a clash of belief systems—it is a clash of the fact that mission sites provided locales for resis- powers to control constructions of identity” (McNiven tance to colonial oppression in ways that might appear 1998:47, emphasis added). It simply does not mat- counterintuitive. ter how much archaeologists consult and hand out At one level, mission sites appear to be European community reports; the archaeological story is from sites, at another shared sites (Harrison 2002:39). How- the dominant, hegemonic side of the frontier. Few ever, for many Aboriginal people these sites are desig- Aboriginal people have any opportunity to engage nated Aboriginal and nothing more. On Fraser Island in public archaeological discourse because of their off the Queensland coast, one of us (McNiven) was the marginalized status within Australian society. Further- cultural heritage officer in 1993, undertaking a range more, Murray’s (1996b:77) post-processualist call for of heritage activities including site recording and man- a “polyvocal” archaeology where the “Australian pub- agement. Of the hundreds of Aboriginal sites on the lic will be able to make an informed choice between Island—including shell middens, stone artifacts scat- competing accounts of the past” may inadvertently ters, scarred trees, sacred lakes, ceremonial grounds, promote cultural imperialism as Aboriginal views are and burial places—only one site was considered too smothered by archaeological views of the dominant culturally important and sensitive for McNiven to culture. Consequently, polyvocalism may reinforce the visit. Badtjala elders told him that he could not enter colonial divide between black and white Australia. By the Bogimbah mission, an early Aboriginal reserve the same token, such a divide would also persist if operating between 1897 and 1904. Although strictly Aboriginal people deny non-Aboriginal Australians speaking the Badtjala people did not have the legal or any stake in that archaeology. The degree to which administrative power to prevent access to Bogimbah, Euro-Australians have a stake in Aboriginal heritage their connection to it, and perception of ownership is a complex issue as it goes to the heart of Austra- over it, were clearly paramount. lian national identity (Byrne 1996; Lattas 1992; Mur- A more significant problem with archaeologists’ ray 1992). If Australians push for a singular (shared) calls for shared rights in the Aboriginal past is the national identity, then appropriation of Aboriginal lack of recognition of the tremendous power differ- heritage will continue to grow. However, it remains ential between indigenous and archaeological voices. to be seen whether or not a more pluralistic national As Murray (1996b:75, 85) rightly points out, part of identity that covets cultural diversity and even semiau- the “power of archaeology” is its ability to “provide an tonomous indigenous states (such as exists for Torres additional source of information for constructing Ab- Strait Islanders) will subvert appropriation. originality.” The potential of this power is illustrated by the Kimberley region of , where THE WAY FORWARD: PARTNERSHIP RESEARCH many local Aboriginal people took deep offence at For Australian archaeology, the goal should be the cre- inferences by Grahame Walsh that the Bradshaw rock ation of a community-based archaeology built around art may have been made by non-Aboriginal people. partnerships between indigenous communities and Walsh’s radical interpretations were seen by Aborigi- archaeologists that employ mutually acceptable re- nal people to undermine their ancestral ties to their search agendas and interpretative frameworks. Such lands and to question their identity (McNiven and partnerships should be neither appropriationist nor Russell 1997). That most Australian archaeologists are hegemonic, but mindful of the host and guest rela- sympathetic to these concerns has nothing to do with tionship and respectful of indigenous cultural sensi- “political correctness” as Walsh (2000) purports; it is tivities (McBryde 1992:265). During the 1990s, many simply a rejection of scholarship underwritten by co- Australian archaeologists and Aboriginal communi- lonial tenets (McNiven and Russell 1997). ties experimented with such partnerships (Davidson In many ways, the issue of Aboriginal identity, as et al. 1995). At that time, Murray (1996d:733) pointed

Toward a Postcolonial Archaeology of Indigenous Australia 435 out that in many contexts we “simply do not know cance should not override indigenous demands that what partnership means and we have little concrete information on these cultural materials not enter the evidence for predicting the ways in which the politics public realm. of ownership, control and exclusion will play them- A key issue for all partnership projects is for ar- selves out.” With the turn of the new millennium, chaeologists and indigenous communities to not only fundamental tenets of successful partnership projects define research agendas but also continually reassess can be elaborated within the broader context of the if and how research results are going to be presented host and guest model. Yet issues remain. to the outside world. Through continual dialogue and Some archaeologists suggest that censorship may negotiation, archaeologists can become more fully be an issue in situations where archaeological research aware of potential changes in the social, political, and reveals information that challenges Aboriginal views cultural implications of their research. By the same of their past (Allen 1983:8; Biolsi and Zimmerman token, regular dialogue will ensure that Aboriginal 1997b:15; Murray 1992:13; 1996b:82; Nicholas and groups are kept continuously informed of results as Andrews 1997c:10–11). We find it difficult to believe they unfold. that any indigenous community, working within a The power of archaeology is far from democratic if partnership research project, would deliberately censor it places Aboriginal people in a position of having con- archaeological information they genuinely believed to stantly to reassess and redefine their identity in light be contradictory to their own oral traditions simply of new archaeological discoveries and interpretations for political expediency (Colley 2002:86). In this con- (Murray 1996b:83; Biolsi and Zimmerman 1997b:8). nection, Echo-Hawk (2000:288) argues that “scholars In this sense, reconciliation between archaeologists have a responsibility to go where the evidence goes, and Aboriginal people will only take place when Ab- and we should resist any impulse to tell only inof- original people gain greater control of their lives and fensive, esteem-building stories to either colleagues or identity. It is for this reason that all state governments constituencies.” in Australia, along with the Australian Archaeological Censorship, defined as a prohibition on public dis- Association, have taken the counterhegemonic step of semination (i.e., publication), is most likely to be an supporting Aboriginal demands for the right to veto issue in two situations. First, when archaeologists out archaeological research. This right to veto is a blunt of the blue present a draft manuscript of a publication measure of Aboriginal success in controlling archaeo- to a community and ask for permission to publish logical research. Alternatively, a measure of archaeol- results. If the community had no prior idea of the na- ogy’s success in making itself relevant to Aboriginal ture of the research results and no opportunity to be a people will be when Aboriginal people have the desire part of the publication writing process, then the com- to set archaeological research agendas and initiate munity may take offence and reject the publication partnership projects. These desires may be expressed request. In this situation, it is not the archaeological voluntarily or may come as a result of archaeolo- research results per se that cause offence but the pro- gists asking, What archaeological issues interest your cess that led to the reporting of those results. As Colley community (Whiteley 1997:196)? While some older (2002:87) points out, while some archaeologists might archaeologists see such moves as a threat to the sanc- find the concept of permission to publish unaccept- tity of academic freedom, our experience is that most able, “in practice such arrangements are usually a younger archaeologists would see it as the ultimate matter of common sense and politeness.” Second, if compliment. Perhaps the true test will be whether or archaeological research reveals materials (e.g., sacred not Aboriginal constructions of their past are accepted items) whose cultural significance might be jeopar- as legitimate within archaeological discourse. dized by publicity. For example, or excavation One of the first casualties of this new partnership may reveal cultural materials that have secret/sacred approach will be abandonment of the New Archaeol- associations for indigenous people (Dongoske and ogy/processualist emphasis on using the archaeologi- Anyon 1997:190). For this reason some archaeological cal record simply to explore universal models of human projects employ elders to participate in archaeological behavior (McGuire 1997:75). Indigenous peoples do excavation so that if sacred materials are uncovered, not want their cultural heritage to be alienated and appropriate mitigation measures (e.g., reburying the reduced to a laboratory for Western positivist science materials and closing down the excavation) can take (Trigger 1980:672; 1985:29–32). In its place we may place (Allen 1995:43). Put simply, scientific signifi- well see the rise of highly localized and particularistic

436 ian j. mcniven and lynette russell research agendas emphasizing local cultural being engaged is not traditional ar- and local community desires and needs. chaeological practice. At the very least the archaeology used will be contractual or partnership in scope. Yet ARCHAEOLOGY OF ORAL TRADITIONS the recovery of divergent archaeological information One key area where we see increasing use of archaeo- does not indicate that the oral tradition is histori- logical expertise by indigenous communities is in the cally wrong or inaccurate. The divergence may simply area of oral tradition. The approach to the archaeology reflect different symbolic and metaphoric strategies of oral tradition we advocate does not (con)test indig- employed in the construction of oral traditions to enous oral traditions but rather weds archaeological convey historical information. Holl (1995:193) makes practice with indigenous processes of constructing the point that “oral accounts are . . . a particular kind of historical narratives. Thus the archaeology of oral historical record.” Furthermore, “in order to be able to traditions needs to be set within a research process understand their meanings and grasp their complexity, that focuses on situations where complementarity and researchers must study the dynamics of at least a part compatibility between different knowledge bases is not of the social system and the contexts within which the only the goal but also essentially guaranteed. The key accounts were used and recorded.” In this connection, to ensuring complementarity is for the indigenous and Denton (1997:121) makes the interesting observation archaeological research partners to discuss what types that some oral traditions may also have been refined in of new information archaeological research is capable the past using archaeological and landscape evidence. of providing and tailor archaeological research so it In this sense, oral tradition and archaeology research produces information that augments understanding may have more in common than we think. of the traditional story (David et al. 2004). If episte- In our experience, while research may become local- mological complementarity cannot be found, then it ized, Aboriginal communities assume that archaeolo- is recommended that no integration of oral traditions gists use state-of-the-art analytical techniques. Such and archaeology take place. an assumption requires that archaeologists, including One obvious advantage of uniting archaeology with consulting archaeologists, keep up to date with ad- oral tradition is that it reinstates indigenous peoples vances in the discipline. To do otherwise undervalues as active agents in the construction and elaboration the potential significance of archaeological materials of their own histories. Oral traditions are no longer which many Aboriginal people read as being disre- represented within a colonial guise as time-locked spectful. This issue is becoming increasingly signifi- to a traditional and unchanging past (Echo-Hawk cant as more indigenous organizations establish their 2000:288). In contrast, oral traditions become reacti- own geographical information systems to manage vated as dynamic history that is available for reinvigo- their cultural sites and enter into high-level negotia- ration and recontextualization by new generations of tions with government bodies and with private cor- indigenous peoples if they so wish. In a sense, archaeo- porations involved with mining ventures, and so on. logical value-adding of traditional oral histories pro- With these increasing skill demands, some indigenous vides a mechanism by which younger generations of communities are giving support to their members indigenous peoples can reconnect with their heritage undertaking university training, by both formal de- by actively engaging in its augmentation. As a result, grees and specially designed short certificate courses, new generations will feel they are more part of the in archaeology and in cultural heritage management. stories because they have been actively involved in the Such changes have also placed demands on univer- construction of these stories. Archaeology provides el- sities to provide more relevant information on the ders with a new mechanism by which they can engage ever-changing sociopolitical landscape of researching younger generations to connect with their heritage. indigenous archaeological materials (Nicholas 2000; New archaeological insights should not undermine Wiseman 1998). the authority of elders if they have full control of the research process (McGhee 1997:235). In some cases, CONCLUSION indigenous communities may be more than happy In extending the metanarrative of world prehistory for archaeological research to be undertaken to test and drawing directly on the tenets of colonialism, the historical accuracy of certain dimensions of oral Aboriginal heritage is frequently incorporated into traditions and histories (Schmidt and Patterson 1995). discourses of nationalism. In 1999 a group of Austra- However, it needs to be kept in mind that the kind lian tourists were killed in a flash flood at Interlaken

Toward a Postcolonial Archaeology of Indigenous Australia 437 in Switzerland. Although none of those killed were recognize the power differential in the public represen- Aboriginal the memorial ceremony was marked with tation of indigenous and scientific knowledge systems, the haunting (recorded) sound of a didgeridoo. Ab- the distancing and dehumanizing of the lan- original culture, as is so often the case, was appropri- guage of science, a misunderstanding of the difference ated and repackaged in an attempt to create a signifier between conservation and preservation, the failure to of the Australian nation. While such actions might operationalize indigenous ownership of their heritage appear banal and innocuous, these are extensions of through the host and guest model of cross-cultural the colonial tenets we have outlined above—disasso- interaction, and the appropriation of the indigenous ciation and appropriation. The display resonates with past in the guise of shared history for the purpose of na- the argument that the and prehis- tionalism. While important advances have been made tory of Australia is “the inheritance of all Australians” to overcome these inadequacies, archaeologists must re- (Mulvaney 1981:20). Although it is reasonable to see main vigilant and continue to engage with these issues archaeological interpretations of the Aboriginal past and accelerate the process of academic decolonization. as the product of a shared discourse and liable to mul- tiple readings, appropriating Aboriginal culture for ACKNOWLEDGMENTS nationalist agendas is problematic. This chapter is the result of discussions with col- Theorizing the possibility of a decolonized archae- leagues and members of Aboriginal and Torres Strait ology is much more than an exercise in semantics. It is Islander communities over many years. In particular, an exercise that is likely to reveal very real and applica- we thank Luke Godwin, who continually challenges us ble results; it is also an exercise we must undertake. As to find new horizons in Australian Indigenous cultural Zimmerman (1997:56) has noted, “The profession of heritage research. Chris Chippindale, Bruno David, archaeology must change the most because it stands to Luke Godwin, and Laurajane Smith kindly provided lose the most.” A sobering and thought-provoking re- helpful and incisive comments on earlier versions of ality is that as public money for archaeology decreases, this chapter. it is Aboriginal funds designated for heritage assess- ments and subsequent archaeology that may save our REFERENCES profession. Working with and for indigenous commu- Allen, Harry. 1988. History matters: A commentary on di- nity organizations and including the wishes and con- vergent interpretations of Australian history. Australian cerns of those communities into our research agendas Aboriginal Studies 2: 79–89. will fundamentally change the way archaeology is Allen, Jim. 1983. Aborigines and archaeologists in Tasmania. practiced. Needless to say there are going to be a range Australian Archaeology 16: 7–10. ———. 1995. A short history of the Tasmanian affair. Aus- of Aboriginal views; despite popular representations, tralian Archaeology 41: 43–48. Aboriginal Australia is far from being homogeneous. Allen, Jim (ed.). 1996. Report of the Southern Forests Ar- In contemporary Australia there are over one hundred chaeological Project 1: Site descriptions, stratigraphies, and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander (ATSI) language chronologies. Bundoora: School of Archaeology, La Trobe groups divided into thirty-five regional administrative University. councils funded by the federal government as well as Anyon, Roger, and T. J. Ferguson. 1995. Cultural resources hundreds of registered ATSI organizations. Expecting management at the Pueblo of Zuni, New Mexico, USA. a unified indigenous response owes much to the heri- Antiquity 69: 913–930. tage of colonialism. It is almost impossible to predict Anyon, Roger, T. J. Ferguson, Loretta Jackson, Lillie Lane, how substantial will be the changes that come from and Philip Vicenti. 1997. Native American oral tradition partnerships; we need to see how things will unfold. and archaeology: Issues of structure, relevance, and re- In this chapter we have outlined a number of is- spect. In Nina Swidler, Kurt E. Dongoske, Roger Anyon, sues that reflect and act on Australian archaeology’s and Alan S. Downer, eds., Native Americans and archae- ologists: Stepping stones to common ground, 77–87. Walnut colonialism. Central to our argument is the contention Creek, CA: AltaMira. that indigenous archaeology, as practiced in a settler Attwood, Bain. 1989. The making of the Aborigines. Mel- colony such as Australia, has a legacy that connects it bourne: Allen & Unwin. (however unintentionally) to the domination strategies ———. 1992. Introduction. In Bain Attwood and John of the colonial project. We have highlighted some issues, Arnold, eds., Power, knowledge, and Aborigines, i–xvi. including the privileging of archaeological discourse in Bundoora: Press. Special edition of the construction of historical narratives, the failure to Journal of 35.

438 ian j. mcniven and lynette russell ———. 1996a. Introduction: The past as future: Aborigines, Clifford, James. 1988. The predicament of culture: Twenti- Australia, and the (dis)course of history. In Bain Attwood, eth-century , literature, and art. Cambridge: ed., In the age of Mabo: History, Aborigines, and Australia: Harvard University Press. vii–xxxviii. St. Leonards: Allen & Unwin. Colley, Sarah. 2002. Uncovering Australia: Archaeology, indig- ———. 1996b. Making history: Imagining Aborigines and enous people, and the public. Crows Nest: Allen & Unwin. Australia. In Tim Bonyhady and Tom Griffiths, eds., Pre- Condori, Carlos M. 1989. History and prehistory in Bolivia: history to politics: John Mulvaney, the humanities, and the What about the Indians? In Robert Layton, ed., Conflict public intellectual, 98–116. Carlton South: University of in the archaeology of living traditions, 47–59. One World Press. Archaeology 8. London: Unwin Hyman. Auty, Kate. 1995. Aboriginal cultural heritage: Tasmania and Cosgrove, Richard. 1995. The illusion of riches: Scale, resolu- La Trobe University. Aboriginal Law Bulletin 3(76): 20. tion, and explanation in Tasmanian human behaviour. Beck, Wendy, and Anne McConnell. 1986. The practice of International Series 608. Oxford: British Archaeological archaeology in Victoria: A proposal for guidelines. The Reports. Artefact 11: 3–11. Cosgrove, Richard, and Jim Allen. 1996. Research strategies Bednarik, Robert G. 1995. Review of “Archaeology of the and theoretical perspectives. In Jim Allen, ed., Report Dreamtime” by Josephine Flood. The Artefact 18: 80–82. of the Southern Forests Archaeological Project, vol. 1, Site Bell, Diane. 1998. Ngarrindjeri Wurruwarrin: A world that is, descriptions, stratigraphies, and chronologies, 21–30. Bun- was, and will be. North Melbourne: Spinifex. doora: School of Archaeology, La Trobe University. Bender, Barbara. 1998. Stonehenge: Making space. Oxford: Coutts, Peter J. F., Rudy K. Frank, and Phil Hughes. 1978. Ab- Berg. original engineers of the Western District, Victoria. Records Biolsi, Thomas, and Larry J. Zimmerman (ed.). 1997a. Indi- of the Victorian Archaeological Survey 7. Melbourne. ans and anthropologists: Vine Deloria, Jr. and the critique of Creamer, Howard. 1990. Aboriginal perceptions of the past: anthropology. Tucson: University of Arizona Press. The implications for cultural resource management in ———. 1997b. Introduction. In Thomas Biolsi and Larry Australia. In Peter Gathercole and David Lowenthal, eds., J. Zimmerman, eds., Indians and anthropologists: Vine The politics of the past, 130–140. London: Unwin Hyman. Deloria, Jr. and the critique of anthropology, 3–23. Tucson: David, Bruno, Ian McNiven, Val Attenbrow, Josephine University of Arizona Press. Flood, and Jacqueline Collins. 1994. Of lightning broth- Bowdler, Sandra. 1988. Repainting Australian rock art. An- ers and white cockatoos: Dating the antiquity of signify- tiquity 62: 517–523. ing systems in the Northern Territory, Australia. Antiquity Boyd, Bill, Maria Cotter, Wave O’Connor, and Dana Sat- 68: 241–251. tler. 1996. Cognitive ownership of heritage places: social David, Bruno, Ian McNiven, Josephine Flood, and Robyn construction and cultural heritage management. In Sean Frost. 1990. Yiwarlarlay 1: Archaeological excavations at Ulm, Ian Lilley, and Anne Ross, eds., Australian archaeol- the Lightning Brothers site, Delamere station, Northern ogy ‘95: Proceedings of the 1995 Australian Archaeological Territory. Archaeology in Oceania 25(2): 79–84. Association Annual Conference, 123–140. Tempus 6. St. David, Bruno, Ian McNiven, Louise Manas, John Manas, J., Lucia: University of Queensland Anthropology Museum. Sila Savage, Joe Crouch, Guy Neliman, and Liam Brady. Burke, Heather, Christine Lovell-Jones, and Claire Smith. 2004. Goba of Mua: Archaeology working with oral tradi- 1994. Beyond the looking glass: Some thoughts on socio- tion. Antiquity 78: 158–172. politics and reflexivity in Australian archaeology. Austra- Davidson, Iain. 1991. Archaeologists and Aborigines. Aus- lian Archaeology 38: 13–22. tralian Journal of Anthropology 2(2): 247–258. Byrne, Denis. 1991. Western hegemony in archaeological her- ———. 1995. Introduction. In Iain Davidson, Christine itage management. History and Anthropology 5: 269–276. Lovell-Jones, and Robin Bancroft, eds., Archaeologists and ———. 1996. Deep nation: Australia’s acquisition of an Aborigines working together, 3–5. Armidale: University of indigenous past. Aboriginal History 20: 82–107. New England Press. Campbell, A. H. 1967. Aboriginal traditions and the pre-his- Davidson, Iain, Christine Lovell-Jones, and Robin Bancroft tory of Australia. Mankind 6: 10. (eds.). 1995. Archaeologists and Aborigines working to- Clark, Manning. 1968. A history of Australia. Vol. 1, From the gether. Armidale: University of New England Press. earliest times to the age of Macquarie. Carlton: Melbourne Deloria, Vine, Jr. 1969. Custer died for your sins: An Indian University Press. manifesto. New York: Avon. Clarke, Anne. 1994. Romancing the stones: The cultural con- Denton, D. 1997. Frenchman’s Island and the Naatuwaau struction of an archaeological landscape in the Western bones: Archaeology and Cree tales of culture contact. Districts of Victoria. Archaeology in Oceania 29(1): 1–15. In G. P. Nicholas and T. D. Andrews, eds., At the cross- Cleere, Henry. 1993. The Charter for the Protection and roads: Archaeology and First Peoples in Canada, 105–124. Management of the Archaeological Heritage. Antiquity Department of Archaeology, Simon Fraser University. 67(255): 402–405. Burnaby, BC: Archaeology Press.

Toward a Postcolonial Archaeology of Indigenous Australia 439 Diamond, Stanley. 1974. In search of the primitive: A critique Lucia: University of Queensland, Aboriginal and Torres of civilization. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction. Strait Islander Studies Unit. Doig, Fiona. 1991. Reburial: Not just a black and white issue. Hanna, M. G. 1997. We can go a long way together, hand- Australian Natural History 23(9): 665. in-hand. In G. P. Nicholas and T. D. Andrews, eds., At Dongoske, Kurt E., and Roger Anyon. 1997. Federal ar- the crossroads: Archaeology and First Peoples in Canada, chaeology: Tribes, diatribes, and tribulations. In Nina 69–84. Department of Archaeology, Simon Fraser Uni- Swidler, Kurt E. Dongoske, Roger Anyon, and Alan S. versity. Burnaby, BC: Archaeology Press. Downer, eds., Native Americans and archaeologists: Step- Harrison, Rodney. 2002. Shared histories and the archaeol- ping stones to common ground, 188–196. Walnut Creek, ogy of the pastoral industry in Australia. In Rodney Har- CA: AltaMira. rison and Christine Williamson, eds., After Captain Cook: Donlon, Denise. 1994. Aboriginal skeletal collections and The archaeology of the recent indigenous past in Australia, research in physical anthropology: An historical perspec- 37–58. University Archaeological Methods Series tive. Australian Archaeology 39: 73–82. 8. Sydney: Archaeological Computing Laboratory, Uni- Echo-Hawk, Roger. 1997. Forging a new ancient history for versity of Sydney. Native America. In Nina Swidler, Kurt E. Dongoske, Roger Harrison, Rodney, and Christine Williamson (eds.). 2002. Anyon, and Alan S. Downer, eds., Native Americans and After Captain Cook: The archaeology of the recent indig- archaeologists: Stepping stones to common ground, 88–102. enous past in Australia. Sydney University Archaeologi- Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira. cal Methods Series 8. Sydney: Archaeological Computing ———. 2000. Ancient history in the New World: Integrat- Laboratory, . ing oral traditions and the archaeological record in deep Hemming, Steve. 2002. Taming the colonial archive: His- time. American Antiquity 65(2): 267–290. tory, native title, and colonialism. In Mandy Paul and Edwards, Robert. 1975. The preservation of Australian Ab- Geoffrey Gray, eds., Through a smoky mirror: History and original heritage. Canberra: Australian Institute of Ab- native title, 49–64. Native Title Research Series. Canberra: original Studies. Aboriginal Studies Press. Ellis, Bob. 1994. Rethinking the paradigm: Cultural heritage Holl, Augustin F. C. 1995. African history: Past, present, and management in Queensland. Ngulaig Monograph Series future. The unending quest for alternatives. In Peter R. 10. St. Lucia: University of Queensland, Aboriginal and Schmidt and Thomas C. Patterson, eds., Making alterna- Torres Strait Islander Studies Unit. tive histories: The practice of archaeology and history in Fabian, Johannes. 1983. Time and the other: How anthro- non-Western settings, 183–211. Sante Fe, NM: School of pology makes its object. New York: Columbia University American Research Press. Press. Hubert, Jane. 1989. A proper place for the dead: A critical re- Flood, Josephine. 1989. “Tread softly for you tread on my view of the “reburial” issue. In Robert Layton, ed., Conflict bones”: The development of cultural resource manage- in the archaeology of living traditions, 131–166. One World ment in Australia. In Henry Cleere, ed., Archaeological Archaeology 8. London: Unwin Hyman. heritage management in the modern world, 79–101. Lon- Jones, Rhys. 1990. From Kakadu to Kutikina: The southern don: Unwin Hyman. continent at 18,000 years ago. In Olga Soffer and Clive ———. 1995. Archaeology of the dreamtime: The story of pre- Gamble, eds., The world at 18,000 BP: Low latitudes, historic Australia and its people. 3rd ed. Sydney, Australia: 264–295. London: Unwin Hyman. Angus & Robertson. Kehoe, Alice B. 1998. The land of prehistory: A critical history Flood, Josephine, Bruno David, and Robin Frost. 1992. of American archaeology. New York: Routledge. Dreaming into art: Aboriginal interpretations of rock Kenny, Chris. 1996. Women’s business. Potts Point, Australia: engravings: Yingalarri, Northern Territory (Australia). In Duffy & Snellgrove. Mike J. Morwood and Doug R. Hobbs, eds., Rock art King, Cecil. 1997. Here come the anthros. In Thomas Bi- and ethnography, 33–38. Occasional Publication 5. Mel- olsi and Larry J. Zimmerman, eds., Indians and anthro- bourne: Australian Rock Art Research Association. pologists: Vine Deloria, Jr. and the critique of anthropology, Foucault, Michel. 1970. The order of things: An archaeology of 115–119. Tucson: University of Arizona Press. the human sciences. London: Tavistock. Kluth, Rose, and Kathy Munnell. 1997. The integration of Gero, Joan. 1989. Producing prehistory, controlling the past: tradition and scientific knowledge on the Leech Lake The case of New England beehives. In Valerie Pinsky Reservation. In Nina Swidler, Kurt E. Dongoske, Roger and Alison Wylie, eds., Critical traditions in contemporary Anyon, and Alan S. Downer, eds., Native Americans and archaeology, 96–103. Cambridge: Cambridge University archaeologists: Stepping stones to common ground, 112– Press. 119. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira. Godwin, Luke. 2001. The bureaucracy, the law, and Blacks Lahn, Julie. 1996. Finders keepers, losers weepers: A “social Palace: A history of management of one site in the Central history” of the Kow Swamp remains. Ngulaig Monograph Queensland Highlands. Ngulaig Monograph Series 18. St. Series 15. St. Lucia: University of Queensland, Aboriginal

440 ian j. mcniven and lynette russell and Torres Strait Islander Studies Unit. Anthropology Museum. Langford, Ros F. 1983. Our heritage: Your playground. Aus- McGuire, Randall H. 1989. The sanctity of the grave: White tralian Archaeology 16: 1–6. concepts and American Indian burials. In Robert Lay- Lattas, Andrew. 1992. Primitivism, nationalism, and indi- ton, ed., Conflict in the archaeology of living traditions, vidualism in Australian popular culture. In Bain Attwood 167–184. One World Archaeology 8. London: Unwin and John Arnold, eds., Power, knowledge, and Aborigines, Hyman. 45–58. Bundoora: La Trobe University Press. Special edi- ———. 1992. Archaeology and the first Americans. Ameri- tion of Journal of Australian Studies 35. can Anthropologist 94(4): 816–836. Lightfoot, Kenneth G. 1995. Culture contact studies: Rede- ———. 1997. Why have archaeologists thought the real In- fining the relationship between prehistoric and historical dians were dead and what can we do about it? In Thomas archaeology. American Antiquity 60(2): 199–217. Biolsi and Larry J. Zimmerman, eds., Indians and anthro- Lilley, Ian (ed.). 2000. Native title and the transformation of pologists: Vine Deloria, Jr. and the critique of anthropology, archaeology in a postcolonial world. Oceania Monograph 63–91. Tucson: University of Arizona Press. 50. Sydney: Oceania Publications. Mcintyre-Tamwoy, Susan. 2002. Places people value: Social L’oste-Brown, Scott, Luke Godwin, Gordon Henry, Ted significance and cultural exchange in post-invasion Aus- Mitchell, and Vera Tyson. 1995. “Living under the Act”: tralia. In Rodney Harrison and Christine Williamson, Taroom Aboriginal Reserve, 1911–1927. Cultural Heritage eds., After Captain Cook: The archaeology of the recent Monograph Series 1. Brisbane: Queensland Department indigenous past in Australia, 171–185. Sydney University of Environment and Heritage. Archaeological Methods Series 8. Sydney: Archaeological L’Oste-Brown, Scott, Luke Godwin, and Carl Porter. 1998. Computing Laboratory, University of Sydney. Towards an indigenous social and cultural landscape of the McNiven, Ian J. 1991. The Double Island Point Aboriginal Bowen Basin: Bowen Basin Aboriginal Cultural Heritage burials, coastal southeast Queensland. Australian Archae- Project. Cultural Heritage Monograph Series 2. Brisbane: ology 32: 10–16. Queensland Department of Environment. ———. 1994a. “Relics of a by-gone race”? Managing Aborigi- Lourandos, Harry. 1980. Change or stability? Hydraulics, nal sites in the Great Sandy Region. Ngulaig Monograph hunter-gatherers, and population in temperate Australia. Series 12. St. Lucia: Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander World Archaeology 11(3): 245–264. Studies Unit, University of Queensland. ———. 1997. Continent of hunter-gatherers: New perspec- ———. 1994b. Technological organisation and settlement tives in Australian prehistory. Cambridge: Cambridge in SW Tasmania after the Glacial Maximum. Antiquity University Press. 68(258): 75–82. Lubbock, John. 1865. Pre-historic times: As illustrated by ———. 1996. Ethnological specimens or Aboriginal graves? ancient remains, and the manners and customs of modern Managing Aboriginal burial crypts of the Central Queensland savages. London: Williams & Norgate. Highlands (Stage 1): Preliminary assessment and recommen- ———. 1870. The origin of civilisation and the primitive dations. Report to Queensland Department of Environ- condition of man: Mental and social conditions of savages. ment and Heritage, Central Coast Region, Rockhampton. London: Longman, Green. ———. 1998. Shipwreck saga as archaeological text: Re- McBryde, Isabel. 1986. Australia’s once and future archaeol- constructing Fraser Island’s Aboriginal past. In Ian J. ogy. Archaeology in Oceania 21(1): 13–28. McNiven, Lynette Russell, and Kay Schaffer, eds., Con- ———. 1992. The past as symbol of identity. Antiquity 66: structions of colonialism: Perspectives on Eliza Fraser’s ship- 262–266. wreck, 37–50. London: Leicester University Press. McBryde, Isabel (ed.). 1985. Who owns the past? Papers from McNiven, Ian J., and Lynette Russell. 1997. “Strange paint- the annual symposium of the Australian Academy of the ings” and “mystery races”: Kimberley rock-art, diffusion- Humanities. Melbourne: Oxford University Press. ism, and colonialist constructions of Australia’s Aboriginal McGhee, R. 1997. Presenting indigenous history: The First past. Antiquity 71: 801–809. Peoples Hall at the Canadian Museum of Civilization. Marquis-Kyle, Peter, and Meredith Walker. 1992. The il- In G. P. Nicholas and T. D. Andrews, eds., At the cross- lustrated Burra Charter. Canberra: Australian ICOMOS/ roads: Archaeology and First Peoples in Canada, 235–239. Australian Heritage Commission. Department of Archaeology, Simon Fraser University. Maslen, Geoff. 1995. The death of archaeology. Campus Burnaby, BC: Archaeology Press. News Review, August 31, 7, 31. McGowan, Angela. 1996. A view from the castle: Adminis- Meehan, Betty, and Val Attenbrow. 1990. Position and poli- tering Aboriginal heritage legislation in a changing policy cies of museums in Australia on human skeletal remains. environment. In Sean Ulm, Ian Lilley, and Anne Ross, Australian Archaeology 31: 52–60. eds., Australian archaeology ‘95: Proceedings of the 1995 Merlan, Francesca. 1989. The interpretative framework of Australian Archaeological Association Annual Conference, Wardaman rock art: A preliminary report. Australian 301–309. Tempus 6. St. Lucia: University of Queensland Aboriginal Studies 2: 14–24.

Toward a Postcolonial Archaeology of Indigenous Australia 441 Mihesuah, Devon (ed.). 2000. Repatriation reader: Who owns heritage. Meanjin 55(4): 725–735. American Indian remains? New York: Bison. Murray, Tim, and Jim Allen. 1995. The forced repatriation of Morell, Virginia. 1995. Who owns the past? Science 268: cultural properties to Tasmania. Antiquity 69: 871–874. 1424–1426. Nicholas, George P. 2000. Indigenous land rights, education, and Moser, Stephanie. 1995a. Archaeology and its disciplinary archaeology in Canada: Postmodern/postcolonial perspec- culture: The professionalisation of Australian prehistory. tives by a non-Canadian white guy. In Ian Lilley, ed., Native Ph.D. diss., University of Sydney. title and the transformation of archaeology in the postcolonial ———. 1995b. The “Aboriginalization” of Australian ar- world, 121–137. Oceania Monographs 50. Sydney: Oceania. chaeology. In Peter J. Ucko, ed., Theory in archaeology: A Nicholas, George P., and T. D. Andrews (eds.). 1997a. At world perspective, 150–177. London: Routledge. the crossroads: Archaeology and First Peoples in Canada. Mowaljarlai, David, and Cyril Peck. 1987. Ngarinyin cultural Department of Archaeology, Simon Fraser University. continuity: A project to teach the young people our cul- Burnaby, BC: Archaeology Press. ture, including the re-painting of Wandjina rock art sites. ———. 1997b. Preface. In At the crossroads: Archaeology and Australian Aboriginal Studies 2: 71–78. First Peoples in Canada, xiv–xvi. Department of Archaeology, Mowaljarlai, David, Patricia Vinnicombe, Christopher Chip- Simon Fraser University. Burnaby, BC: Archaeology Press. pindale, and Graeme Ward. 1988. Repainting of images ———. 1997c. Indigenous archaeology in the postmodern on rock in Australia and the maintenance of Aboriginal world. In At the crossroads: Archaeology and First Peoples culture. Antiquity 62: 690–696. in Canada, 1–18. Department of Archaeology, Simon Fra- Mowaljarlai, David, and Alan Watchman. 1989. An Aborigi- ser University. Burnaby, BC: Archaeology Press. nal view of rock art management. Rock Art Research 6: Pardoe, Colin. 1985. Cross-cultural attitudes to skeletal re- 151–153. search in the Murray-Darling region. Australian Aborigi- Mulvaney, D. John. 1981. What future for our past? Archae- nal Studies 2: 63–67. ology and society in the eighties. Australian Archaeology ———. 1990. Sharing the past: Aboriginal influence on ar- 13: 16–27. chaeological practice, a case study from New South Wales. ———. 1983. Franklin Valley defended. Nature 306: 636. Aboriginal History 14(2): 208–223. ———. 1989. Reflections on the Murray Black collection. ———. 1992. Arches of radii, corridors of power: Reflec- Australian Natural History 23(1): 66–73. tions on current archaeological practice. In Bain Attwood ———. 1990. Afterword: The view from the window. In S. and John Arnold, eds., Power, knowledge, and Aborigines, Janson and Stuart MacIntyre, eds., Through white eyes, 132–141. Bundoora: La Trobe University Press. Special 155–167. St. Leonards: Allen & Unwin. edition of Journal of Australian Studies 35. ———. 1991. Past regained, future lost: The Kow Swamp Pratt, Mary-Louise. 1992. Imperial eyes: Travel writing and Pleistocene burials. Antiquity 65: 12–21. transculturation. London: Routledge. Mulvaney, Ken. 1993. Which way you look: Rock art, a di- Ross, Anne. 1996. More than archaeology: New directions in lemma for contemporary custodians. Rock Art Research cultural heritage management. Queensland Archaeological 10(2): 107–113. Research 10: 17–24. Murray, Tim. 1992. Aboriginal (pre)history and Australian Russell, Lynette. 2001. Savage imaginings: Historical and archaeology: The discourse of Australian prehistoric ar- contemporary constructions of Australian Aboriginalities. chaeology. In Bain Attwood and John Arnold, eds., Power, Sydney: Australian Scholarly Publications. knowledge, and Aborigines. 1–19. Bundoora: La Trobe Russell, Lynette, and Ian J. McNiven. 1998. Monumental colo- University Press. Special edition of Journal of Australian nialism: Megaliths and the appropriation of Australia’s Ab- Studies 35. original past. Journal of Material Culture 13(3): 283–301. ———. 1996a. Archaeologists, heritage bureaucrats, Aborigi- Said, Edward. 1993. Culture and imperialism. London: nal organisations, and the conduct of Tasmanian archaeol- Chatto & Windus. ogy. In Sean Ulm, Ian Lilley, and Anne Ross, eds., Australian Schmidt, Peter R., and Thomas C. Patterson (eds.). 1995. archaeology ‘95: Proceedings of the 1995 Australian Archaeo- Making alternative histories: The practice of archaeology logical Association Annual Conference, 311–322. Tempus 6. St. and history in non-Western settings. Sante Fe, NM: School Lucia: University of Queensland Anthropology Museum. of American Research Press. ———. 1996b. Creating a post-Mabo archaeology in Austra- Smith, Laurajane. 1999. The last archaeologist? Material lia. In Bain Attwood, ed., In the age of Mabo: History, Aborig- culture and contested identities. Australian Aboriginal ines, and Australia, 73–87. St. Leonards: Allen & Unwin. Studies 2: 25–34. ———. 1996c. Contact archaeology: Shared histories? ———. 2000. A history of Aboriginal heritage legislation in Shared identities? Sites: Nailing the debate: Archaeology south-eastern Australia. Australian Archaeology 109–118. and interpretation in museums seminar, 7-9 April 1995. Stocking, George (ed.). 1985. Objects and others: Essays on Sydney: Historic Houses Trust of New South Wales. museums and material culture. Madison: University of ———. 1996d. Aborigines, archaeology, and Australian Wisconsin Press.

442 ian j. mcniven and lynette russell Strang, Veronica. 1997. Uncommon ground: Cultural land- Ward, Graeme K. 1983. Archaeology and legislation in Aus- scapes and environmental issues. Oxford: Berg. tralia. In Graham Connah, ed., Australian field archaeol- Sullivan, Sharon. 1985. The custodianship of Aboriginal ogy: A guide to techniques, 18–42. Canberra: Australian sites in southeastern Australia. In Isabel McBryde, ed., Institute of Aboriginal Studies. Who owns the past? Papers from the Annual Symposium ———. 1992. Ochre and acrylic: conflicting ideologies and of the Australian Academy of the Humanities: 139–156. divergent discourses in the issue of repainting of Aborigi- Melbourne: Oxford University Press. nal imagery. In Graeme K. Ward, ed., Retouch: Mainte- Swidler, Nina, Kurt E. Dongoske, Roger Anyon, and Alan nance and conservation of Aboriginal rock imagery, 31–38. S. Downer (eds.). 1997a. Native Americans and archae- Occasional Publication 5. Melbourne: AURA. ologists: Stepping stones to common ground. Walnut Creek, ———. 2000. Protocols for ethical research into indig- CA: AltaMira. enous Australian rock-markings. In Graeme K. Ward and ———. 1997b. Introduction. In Native Americans and ar- Claudio Tuniz, eds., Advances in dating Australian rock- chaeologists: Stepping stones to common ground, 11–15. markings: Papers from the First Australian Rock-Picture Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira. Dating Workshop, 114–120. Occasional Publication 10. Syms, E. L. 1997. Increasing awareness and involvement of Melbourne: AURA. Aboriginal people in their heritage preservation: Recent Watkins, Joe. 2000. Indigenous archaeology: American Indian developments at the Manitoba Museum of Man and values and scientific practice. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira. Nature. In G. P. Nicholas and T. D. Andrews, eds., At the Webb, Steve. 1987. Reburying Australian skeletons. Antiq- Crossroads: Archaeology and First Peoples in Canada, 53– uity 61(232): 292–296. 68. Department of Archaeology, Simon Fraser University. Weiner, James. 1999. Culture in a sealed envelope: The con- Burnaby, BC: Archaeology Press. cealment of Australian Aboriginal heritage and tradition TALC (Tasmanian Aboriginal Land Council). 1996. Will you in the Hindmarsh Island Bridge affair. Journal of the Royal take the next step? In Sean Ulm, Ian Lilley, and Anne Ross, Anthropological Institute 5: 13–210. eds., Australian archaeology ‘95: Proceedings of the 1995 West, Ida. 1994. Truganini. In David Horton, ed., The ency- Australian Archaeological Association Annual Conference, clopaedia of Aboriginal Australia, 1104–1105. Canberra: 293–299. Tempus 6. St. Lucia: University of Queensland Aboriginal Studies Press. Anthropology Museum. Wettenhall, Gib. 1988–1989. The Murray Black collection Thomas, David Hurst. 2000. The skull wars: Kennewick man, goes home. Australian Society, December-January, 17–19. archaeology, and the battle for Native American identity. Whiteley, Peter. 1997. The end of anthropology (at Hopi)? In New York: Basic. Thomas Biolsi and Larry J. Zimmerman, eds., Indians and Thomas, Nicholas. 1994. Colonialism’s culture: Anthropology, anthropologists: Vine Deloria, Jr. and the critique of anthro- travel, and government. Melbourne: Melbourne Univer- pology, 177–207. Tucson: University of Arizona Press. sity Press. Williams, Elizabeth. 1988. Complex hunter-gatherers: A late Trigger, Bruce G. 1980. Archaeology and the image of the Holocene example from temperate Australia. International American Indian. American Antiquity 45: 662–676. Series 423. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports. ———. 1984. Alternative archaeologies: Nationalist, colo- Williams, Nancy, and Daymbalipu Mununggurr. 1989. Un- nialist, imperialist. Journal of the Royal Anthropological derstanding signs of the past. One World Archaeol- Institute 19: 355–370. ogy 5. In Robert Layton, ed., Who needs the past? Indigenous ———. 1985. The past as power: Anthropology and the values and archaeology, 70–83. London: Unwin Hyman. North American Indian. In Isabel McBryde, ed., Who Wiseman, James. 1998. Reforming academia. Archaeology owns the past? Papers from the Annual Symposium of the 51(5): 27–30. Australian Academy of the Humanities, 11–40. Melbourne: Wolski, Nathan. 2000. Brushing against the grain: Excavat- Oxford University Press. ing for Aboriginal-European interaction on the colonial Trigger, David S. 1980. Aborigines, anthropologists, and frontier in western Victoria, Australia. Ph.D. diss., Uni- the Aboriginal relics issue in Queensland. University of versity of Melbourne. Queensland, Anthropology Museum, Occasional Papers in Yellowhorn, E. 1997. Archaeology and the Sechelt Indian Anthropology 10: 148–154. Self-Government Act. In G. P. Nicholas and T. D. Andrews, ———. 1983. Australian academic archaeology: Aboriginal eds., At the Crossroads: Archaeology and First Peoples in transformation of its aims and practices. Australian Ar- Canada, 252–265. Department of Archaeology, Simon chaeology 16: 11–26. Fraser University. Burnaby, BC: Archaeology Press. ———. 1989. Foreword. In Henry Cleere, ed., Archaeo- Zimmerman, Larry J. 1997. Remythologizing the relation- logical heritage management in the modern world, ix–xiv. ship between Indians and archaeologists. In Nina Swidler, London: Unwin Hyman. Kurt E. Dongoske, Roger Anyon, and Alan S. Downer, eds., Walsh, Grahame L. 2000. Bradshaw art of the Kimberley. Native Americans and archaeologists: Stepping stones to com- Toowong, Australia: Takarraka Nowan Kas Publications. mon ground, 44–56. Walnut Creek, CA: Altamira Press.

Toward a Postcolonial Archaeology of Indigenous Australia 443