The Rights of Indigenous People in Archaeology and Cultural Heritage Using a Case Study from Lutruwita / Tasmania
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
The rights of Indigenous people in archaeology and cultural heritage using a case study from lutruwita / Tasmania Silas A.F. Piotrowski Bachelor of Arts (Archaeology), Honours – The University of Queensland Master of Liberal Arts (Cultural and Environmental Heritage) – Australian National University 0000-0002-6769-0291 A thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy at The University of Queensland in 2021 School of Social Science i Abstract The contention that an Indigenous people’s culture and heritage is fundamental to their enjoyment of human dignity is accepted in modern archaeology. Yet it is also accepted that often archaeology has dispossessed Indigenous people of that cultural heritage. In response, some archaeologists have sought to deal with their discipline’s problematic past in relation to Indigenous rights. In the same manner, cultural heritage managers have also sought to understand the impact of their work on human rights. Such efforts are ground-breaking, but their implications for archaeology as heritage practice are not clearly defined. I aim to contribute to the conversation about how the practice of archaeology might incorporate an acknowledgement of Indigenous rights, particularly those rights relating to cultural heritage. To do so, I examine a case study in which human rights and cultural heritage intersect, and determine the processes and agents of change in human rights practices. Tasmania’s abundant history of change (and contrary lack thereof) in social, political, and scientific discourse relating to Indigenous culture and heritage make it a useful focus in this regard. I employ a complementary suite of methods including interviews, participant observation and discourse analysis to record what is said and done about Indigenous cultural heritage, and how this impacts Indigenous rights. I take an approach to human rights that defines them in terms of what people wish to do with their lives, within their own frame of moral reference, rather than referring to ideas that have become codified within a system of rights or laws. In doing so, I demonstrate that although people’s rights aspirations may sometimes be occluded by their use of certain language or action, such acts nonetheless champion those aspirations. Because what defines human rights is so personally, culturally and socially contingent, archaeological and heritage practice that is rights-aware needs to be built on an understanding of what people’s aspirations are, and the contexts in which such acts take place. As a result, the approach to human rights that I advocate for archaeology is built on the principles of early and meaningful community engagement, latitude for people to advance their own rights outcomes, maintaining a flexible view to rights centred on individual autonomy, and an acceptance that conflict over rights is inevitable. Fortunately, for the most part, these principles are already implied in best-practice cultural heritage management. By adopting these principles, and the definition of human rights I outline, archaeology can employ a practical and responsive approach to the rights of Indigenous people. i Declaration by author This thesis is composed of my original work, and contains no material previously published or written by another person except where due reference has been made in the text. I have clearly stated the contribution by others to jointly-authored works that I have included in my thesis. I have clearly stated the contribution of others to my thesis as a whole, including statistical assistance, survey design, data analysis, significant technical procedures, professional editorial advice, financial support and any other original research work used or reported in my thesis. The content of my thesis is the result of work I have carried out since the commencement of my higher degree by research candidature and does not include a substantial part of work that has been submitted to qualify for the award of any other degree or diploma in any university or other tertiary institution. I have clearly stated which parts of my thesis, if any, have been submitted to qualify for another award. I acknowledge that an electronic copy of my thesis must be lodged with the University Library and, subject to the policy and procedures of The University of Queensland, the thesis be made available for research and study in accordance with the Copyright Act 1968 unless a period of embargo has been approved by the Dean of the Graduate School. I acknowledge that copyright of all material contained in my thesis resides with the copyright holder(s) of that material. Where appropriate I have obtained copyright permission from the copyright holder to reproduce material in this thesis and have sought permission from co-authors for any jointly authored works included in the thesis. ii Publications included in this thesis No publications included. Submitted manuscripts included in this thesis No manuscripts submitted for publication. Other publications during candidature 1. Piotrowski, S., and F. Hamilton, The role of archaeology in the equitable management of wilderness areas, Proceedings of AAA and NZAA Joint Conference, Auckland, 2018. Contributions by others to the thesis No contributions by others. Statement of parts of the thesis submitted to qualify for the award of another degree No works submitted towards another degree have been included in this thesis. Research involving human or animal subjects School of Social Science Approval Number: 2016001378, The University of Queensland Human Research Ethics Committee B, November 2016. School of Social Science Approval Number: 2016001378 Amendment, The University of Queensland Human Research Ethics Committee B, July 2017. iii Acknowledgments I am thankful to my supervisors Annie Ross and Ian Lilley for their patience and attention over the course of many, terrible drafts of this thesis. For inspiring me into the field through their way of teaching and doing archaeology. From them I have learnt very much. To the Tasmanian Aboriginal people who have, out of their own generosity, taught me about their culture and their Country. I am particularly indebted to Aunty Patsy Cameron, Fiona Hamilton, and Robert Anders. To all of the friends, partners, housemates, and colleagues over the past five-odd years who have put up with the crankiness and general anxiety that goes with this kind of thing. iv Financial support This research was supported by an Australian Government Research Training Program Scholarship and the NZAA / AAA 2018 Conference Subsidy Scheme for Indigenous and Student Participants. Keywords archaeology, human rights, Indigenous rights, cultural heritage, Tasmania v Australian and New Zealand Standard Research Classifications (ANZSRC) ANZSRC code: 210101 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Archaeology, 50% ANZSRC code: 950302 Conserving Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage, 50% Fields of Research (FoR) Classification FoR code: 2101 Archaeology, 100% vi Table of Contents LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES ................................................................................................................ 1 ABBREVIATIONS ................................................................................................................................. 2 ABORIGINAL CORPORATIONS AND OTHER BODIES IN TASMANIA ................................................................... 3 CLARIFICATIONS ON TERMINOLOGY ........................................................................................................ 4 CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................. 6 DEFINING RIGHTS, DEFINING INDIGENEITY ....................................................................................................... 6 PROBLEM DEFINITION: THE UNEASY RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN INDIGENOUS RIGHTS AND ARCHAEOLOGY ..................... 8 RATIONALE FOR RESEARCH ......................................................................................................................... 13 RESEARCH AIMS ....................................................................................................................................... 13 RESEARCH METHODS ................................................................................................................................ 15 THESIS OUTLINE ....................................................................................................................................... 17 PART A: THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK ............................................................................................ 21 CHAPTER 2: HOW ARE CULTURAL HERITAGE AND HUMAN RIGHTS CONNECTED? ............................................. 22 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................ 22 THE RECOGNITION OF CULTURE AND HERITAGE RIGHTS IN INTERNATIONAL LAW ................................................... 22 LINKING ARCHAEOLOGY AND HERITAGE PRACTICE WITH HUMAN RIGHTS: POSSIBILITIES AND ISSUES ......................... 27 SUMMARY .............................................................................................................................................. 35 CHAPTER 3: AN APPROACH TO HUMAN RIGHTS, CULTURE, AND HERITAGE ..................................................... 37 INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................................