Archaeological Heritage Management in the Modern World

Henry Cleere

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2012
• Print ISBN: 9780415214483
• eBook ISBN: 9781135122928
• Topic: Social Sciences
• Subtopic: Archaeology
• Index: Social Sciences

Representing the latest thinking in this fast-moving and often emotive field, this book offers a remarkably comprehensive international coverage of the public aspects of archaeology. The process of survey and inventory, rescue and archaeology, conservation and protection have until now been studied largely on the basis of individual countries and their administrative and legislative structures. Now, by virtue of its broad geographical coverage, this volume provides many rights and guidelines not hitherto brought into focus: the history and philosophy of archaeological heritage management, case studies (regional, national and specialised), and the training and qualification of archaeologists for heritage management.

This book is essential reading for all students, researchers and practitioners concerned with archaeological heritage management, public administration and the legal community whose work involves archaeological issues.

REGIONAL AND COUNTRY STUDIES

8 ‘Tread softly for you tread on my bones’: the development of cultural resource management in Australia

JOSEPHINE FLOOD

The development of heritage protection

The first historic site in Australia to be declared as such by law was Captain Cook’s landing place at Kurnell, south of Sydney in 1899, and two years later the Royal Australian Historical Society was founded. However, it was not until after World War II that public interest in heritage conservation quickened both in Europe and in Australia. The impetus came from the community rather than government, and the National Trust movement (a voluntary non-governmental organization) commenced in 1945. There is now a National Trust in every state, with a total membership of some 85 000 (out of a national population of 15 million).

During the 1970s the efforts of the National Trust to preserve Australia’s cultural heritage were joined by what is probably the first unique feature of the conservation movement in Australia: the development of’green bans’ by the trade unions. The first green bans were placed by the Builders Labourers Federation, who refused to work on a site if to do so would mean destroying a place of heritage value. The green bans movement spread from union to union and from state to state, arousing public concern over heritage issues and leading eventually to both State and Federal Government reviews and legislation (Mundy 1981).

The Australian Heritage Commission was established in 1975 to compile a Register of the National Estate, which was defined as ‘Those places, being components of the natural environment of Australia, or the cultural environment of Australia, that have aesthetic, historic, scientific or social significance or other special value for future generations as well as the present community’ (Australian Heritage Commission Act 1975: Section 4(1)).

The National Estate therefore includes places of natural environmental significance, such as forests, wetlands, geological formations and habitats of rare plants or animals, as well as historic sites, structures, buildings and gardens, shipwrecks, Aboriginal sites and places of archaeological value, both Aboriginal and historic. The Register of the National Estate is a public, fully computerized database, easily accessible to planners, developers, conservationists, researchers, educationalists and the community at large (Australian Heritage Commission 1981, 1985a). The computer information system contains information (at 30 June 1987) on 16 400 data entries, of which 7990 are actually on the Register of the National Estate. The compilation of a comprehensive, accurate and up-to-date register will clearly, by its nature, be a continuing process over many years.

Particular current concerns of the Commission are the formulation of detailed criteria and guidelines for assessing the significance of sites (cf. Sullivan & Bowdler 1984) and the institution of financial incentives as a means of conserving the national heritage (Australian Heritage Commission 1985b). Some other issues in cultural resource management have been tackled by Australia ICOMOS (the Australian National Committee of the International Council on Monuments and Sites). These include the development of a set of objectives for legislation to protect the National Estate (see Appendix 1), a Charter for the Conservation of Places of Cultural Significance (the Burra Charter) and for regulation of archaeological work (Appendix 2) and guidelines for the establishment of cultural significance (Appendix 3).

Aboriginal sites legislation

Since the 1960s Australia has developed reasonably comprehensive legislation to protect both the Aboriginal and the European heritage. The resolution of conflicts between development and conservation interests has involved the governments of Australia and a large number of voluntary and private organizations. The powers of the Federal Government are limited by a constitution which gives most of the responsibility for heritage, environment and planning to the State Governments, except for those actions carried out by the Federal Government in transacting its own business (this includes the power to legislate with regard to Aboriginal affairs). This Federal/State division of authority has led to a proliferation of different state laws governing heritage matters, overlain by five Federal Acts.

Legislation to protect Aboriginal sites came before that aimed at conserving the European heritage. During the late 1960s and early 1970s all Australian states introduced some legislative measures to protect Aboriginal ‘relics’, which were basically archaeologically visible sites and archaeological artefacts. This archaeological bias was not surprising, in view of the strong lobbying and input into the legislation by archaeologists concerned at the threat of damage or loss of sites from amateur unscientific research, private collectors and development pressures.

Characteristic of the legislation of this period was the focus on archaeological sites and neglect of sites which contain no material evidence of Aboriginal occupation, but which are sacred or significant to Aborigines as part of their religious beliefs in accordance with Aboriginal tradition. Other common features of this legislation (quoted in full in Edwards 1975) were the control of archaeological research, particularly of excavation, the establishment of State Government advisory committees dominated by non-Aborigines and with strong archaeological input, and the ‘blanket protection’ of Aboriginal sites and artefacts.

The system of overall statutory protection for Aboriginal artefacts and all sites containing material traces of Aboriginal culture means that artefacts cannot be collected, nor can sites be damaged or destroyed except with written permission of the State Government agency after the appropriate salvage archaeology has been done. Ownership of sites remains with the landowner, but landowners, like the public, are subject to the provisions of the legislation. Artefacts discovered or collected after the introduction of the relevant State Act became the property of the Crown. This system has advantages over that operating in the USA, where the rights of private property owners seem to be given more weight than the need to conserve the national heritage.

All of these Aboriginal heritage Acts designate a State Government authority such as the State national parks service or museum to administer the legislation and manage the sites, and an official repository for artefacts is also usually specified. These Acts have generally worked well, but legislation that is suitable for the urbanized southern half of Australia may not be appropriate for the tropical north, where the traditional Aboriginal life-style is still strong.

The Western Australian legislation of 1972 partially recognized these differences, by including special provisions for Aboriginal custodians and traditional use of sites and artefacts, and for the protection of sacred sites, including those lacking visible traces of Aboriginal culture. These were defined as ‘any place, including any sacred, ritual or ceremonial site, which is of importance or of special significance to persons of Aboriginal descent’ (Western Australia Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972: Section 5(b)).

The recognition given in the Western Australian Act that sacred sites exist was a step forward, and was followed in 1978 by the Aboriginal Sacred Sites Act of the Northern Territory. The principal functions of the Aboriginal Sacred Sites Protection Authority set up under this Act are (Aboriginal Sacred Sites Act 1978: Section 13):

(a) to establish and maintain a register of sacred sites;

(b) to examine and evaluate all claims for sacred sites made to it by Aboriginals;

(c) to record sacred sites, with full details of significance to the traditional Aboriginals, including any story, of each sacred site and any relevant factors including custodianship of the sacred site.

It should be noted that ‘evaluate’ in (b), above, is not defined in the Act, and the process of evaluation has not yet been formalized in any Australian legislation, regulations or guidelines. This remains a task to be tackled by cultural resource managers, anthropologists and archaeologists.

Another piece of legislation (Native and Historical Objects and Areas Preservation Act 1955–60) administered by the Northern Territory Museum relates to protection of Aboriginal and historic archaeological sites and artefacts in the Northern Territory, dealing with ‘relics’ rather than sacred sites. This division of Aboriginal cultural resources into two types – sacred and non-sacred – has worked remarkably well, although inevitably there is some overlap, as when a rock-painting site containing an occupation deposit is also a site of great traditional significance to contemporary Aborigines. The advantage of such a distinction between archaeological and sacred sites is that without it all sites tend to be termed significant or sacred. As Sullivan (1985, p. 149) stated in a recent book on the question of ‘Who owns the past?’:

For Aborigines, sites have strong symbolic or religious value. Some sites are specifically sacred or significant, but all sites are, to many Aborigines, tangible proof of their ancestors’ life in Australia from what is, to them, literally time immemorial. The Aboriginal community regards all Aboriginal sites as ‘sacred’ sites in this sense, and uses this term increasingly in southeastern Australia to describe all Aboriginal sites.

Sites provide evidence of prior occupation of the whole of Australia by Aborigines, and are a basis for land rights claims. There has never been any agreement or treaty with Aborigines to acknowledge this prior ownership, and from the Aboriginal point of view this occupation is illegal. The issue of custodianship of sites is, for this reason, inextricably bound up with the issue of land rights. Assertion of custodianship of sites is for Aborigines at least a symbolic assertion of their ownership of Australia.

The most recent piece of legislation relating to Aboriginal sites is the federal Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders Heritage Protection Act of 1986. The aim of this Act is to protect places and artefacts of particular significance to Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders in accordance with their traditions. It was designed to enable direct and effective action to be taken by the Federal Government to deal with situations where significant Aboriginal sites or artefacts are under threat and where State or Territory laws are lacking or not enforced.

An interesting feature of the Act is the very broad definition of a significant Aboriginal area, which can embrace a newly discovered archaeological site such as Kutikina Cave in south-west Tasmania, a cave whose significance and even existence was unknown to contemporary local Aborigines until it was discovered by archaeologists, but which can now be claimed as a significant Aboriginal place under the terms of this Act. Other points of interest are the extremely heavy penalties for contravention of a provision of a declaration, such as knowingly setting foot on a declared significant site. The penalty involved is a fine of up to $A10 000 or a period of imprisonment not exceeding five years, or both, for an individual, or a fine of up to $A50 000 for a body corporate.

No site has yet been declared under the Act, but the auction sale of one collection of artefacts has been prevented by declaration. It is in relation to significant artefacts that the Act may well prove to be most useful, since there are glaring inadequacies in existing State legislation governing the sale of Aboriginal traditional artefacts. It should also be mentioned that Australia has recently become a party to the 1970 Unesco Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property, by the passing of the Protection of Movable Cultural Heritage Bill 1985.

The Federal Government is wisely keeping the issue of protection of significant sites and artefacts separate from the far more contentious issue of land rights. However, the land rights issue inevitably affects both cultural resource managers and archaeologists. Many landowners are reluctant to give permission for archaeological research to be carried out on their property in case it leads to discovery of significant Aboriginal sites, and hence to the fear of an Aboriginal land claim, although the Federal Government has made it very clear that only unalienated Crown land and not private property will be subject to land claims. Sites have even been deliberately destroyed by landowners in the course of this white backlash. It is a difficult situation, and the sooner the land rights issue is resolved satisfactorily, the better.

Consultation and involvement

The 1970s revealed an additional skill needed by Australian prehistorians: the ability to communicate effectively with Aborigines. Gone are the days when archaeologists could dig away and pose their theoretical problems without dealing with living people or concerning themselves with social or ethical problems. The need both to consult and to involve Aborigines in archaeology is very clear, and the ethical, philosophical, legal, social and political arguments in favour are overwhelming. In addition, archaeological research has much to gain from consultation, and most archaeologists should see the benefits and relevance of consultation from the point of view of self-interest, if nothing else.

The desirability of consultation with Aboriginal people regarding all aspects of research and management of their sites has been accepted by the Australian Archaeological Association (the archaeologists’ professional body), which accepted a motion proposed by the Tasmanian Aboriginal Centre at its 1982 Annual General Meeting in Hobart that (Allen 1983):

This conference acknowledges Aboriginal ownership of their heritage. Accordingly, this conference calls on all archaeologists to obtain permission from the Aboriginal owners prior to any research or excavation of Aboriginal sites.

Likewise, in recognition of the rights of Aboriginal people in decisions regarding the disposition of their cultural heritage, Government Sites Authorities have, through the National Aboriginal Sites Authorities Committee, expressed the view that adequate consultation with Aborigines on all aspects of work affecting their heritage should be a basic principle of Aboriginal cultural resource management.

Aboriginal people are very concerned about custodianship and who shall be the guardians of knowledge of the past (Willmot 1985). They want to have a greater say in archaeological work and to be involved in decisionmaking about any activities which might adversely affect sites, and about the kind of research that is done into Aboriginal culture, in order to ensure that it is not offensive and is of relevance to Aboriginal people.

These are very reasonable aspirations, but they still seem threatening to some archaeologists, who fear exclusion from research opportunities, a downgrading in the importance of prehistoric archaeological sites relative to sacred sites, and possibly censorship of unacceptable theories about the Aboriginal past. Although these fears are understandable, they are probably groundless for several reasons.

Since the acknowledgement by the Australian Archaeological Association and by the National Aboriginal Sites Authorities Committee of the need for consultation and involvement of Aboriginal peopl...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Series Page
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• List of contributors
• Foreword
• Contents
• Preface
• Introduction: the rationale of archaeological heritage management
• Approaches to Heritage Management
• Regional and Country Studies
• Case Studies
• Training and Qualification of Archaeologists for Heritage Management
• Index