identifying the intangible: best practice in victorian
TRANSCRIPT
Identifying the Intangible: Best Practice in Victorian Consulting Archaeology
by
Rochelle Bloom
BA (McGill University)
Submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of
Master of Cultural Heritage (Honours)
Deakin University
March 2014
TABLE OF CONTENTS Page
Abstract 5
List of Terms/Acronyms 6
Chapter 1 – Introduction 9
Literature Review 10
• 1.1 Heritage Practice and Theory 11
• 1.2 Victorian Heritage Legislation and Agencies 15
• 1.3 Development of Commercial Archaeology 17
• 1.4 Methodology of Commercial Archaeology 19
• 1.5 Growing Recognition of Intangible Heritage 21
Chapter 2 – Research 28
• Methodology 28
• Potential Bias 33
Chapter 3 – Results 36
Chapter 4 – Discussion 38
• Overview of Victorian Heritage Legislation 38
§ The Heritage Act 1995 38
§ The Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006 40
• Issues
§ 4.1 Legislation 44
o 4.1.1 Prioritisation of Development 44
o 4.1.2 Intangible Heritage not Explicitly Mentioned 47
o 4.1.3 Lack of Standards and Guidelines 49
o 4.1.4 Definitions 51
o 4.1.5 Difficulty of Registering Intangible Heritage 54
o 4.1.6 Legislation not Integrated 56
§ 4.2 Significance Assessment 58
§ 4.3 Consultation 64
o 4.3.1 Methods of Consultation 71
§ 4.4 Skill Set and Qualifications 74
§ 4.5 Bias 82
§ 4.6 Privileging of Values 86
§ 4.7 Sensitivity of Information 91
§ 4.8 Community’s Inability to Provide Information 93
§ 4.9 Commercial Context 96
Chapter 5 – Conclusion 103
Appendices
• Appendix 1: Interview Questions 106
• Appendix 2: Plain Language Statement 107
Bibliography 109
5
ABSTRACT
This paper will gauge the ability of compliance-driven consulting archaeology to identify and protect intangible heritage in Victoria. Though there has traditionally been a tendency to privilege tangible heritage over intangible in archaeology, there is currently growing recognition of the importance of intangible heritage. Criticism, however, suggests that Victorian heritage legislation, namely the Heritage Act 1995 and the Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006, fails to explicitly and directly recognize and protect intangible values. Without a legal requirement to identify them, intangible heritage values are frequently omitted in the investigation of sites for Cultural Heritage Management (CHM). This can be attributed to a number of factors including the theoretical underpinnings of Victorian archaeology and heritage legislation, the academic training of archaeologists in Victoria, and the time-sensitive nature of most contract archaeology work. The varying perceptions of what constitutes the appropriate procedures for identifying, assessing and protecting intangible heritage in a commercial context can result in inconsistent and, in cases, ineffective methodological approaches. A review and analysis of relevant heritage literature, stakeholder submissions a review of the legislation, and the perspectives of archaeological consultants working within the current framework will assist in identifying the obstacles hindering the identification and protection of intangible heritage in Victoria.
6
LIST OF TERMS/ACRONYMS
AACAI: Australian Association of Consulting Archaeologists Inc. AAV: Aboriginal Affairs Victoria AHC: Australian Heritage Commission Archaeological assessment: A survey undertaken by a licensed archaeologist for a defined project area within those areas determined to have archaeological potential in order to identify archaeological sites, followed by evaluation of their cultural heritage value, and determination of their characteristics. Based on this information, recommendations are made regarding the need for mitigation of impacts and the appropriate manner of mitigating those impacts. CHA: Cultural Heritage Advisor CHMP: Cultural Heritage Management Plan CMP: Conservation Management Plan Consultant Archaeologist: [also consultant, archaeological consultant, consulting archaeologist]: An archaeologist who enters into an agreement with a client to undertake or supervise archaeological fieldwork, produce reports and provide technical advice. Cultural Heritage Management: the profession and practice of managing cultural heritage. It is comprised of “the range of principles, strategies and processes put into place to conserve elements of the cultural environment such as sites, places and artefacts of cultural, historical, social and scientific value and significance” (Clarke & Smith 1996: 3-4). FPIC: (Free, Prior and Informed Consent): "The right of communities to exercise control, to the extent possible, over their own economic, social and cultural development" (ILO 1989 Art. 7). ICOMOS: International Council on Monuments and Sites
7
Neoliberalism: A politico-economic theory endorsing free trade, privatisation, and minimal government intervention in business. New Archaeology: A form of archaeology, dating from the 1960s, that takes a scientific, problem-oriented, deductive approach to research. NNNMAC: Nindi-Ngujarn Ngarigo Monero Aboriginal Corporation NTSV: Native Title Services Victoria NSWALC: New South Wales Aboriginal Land Council Positivism: A philosophy that recognises the validity of only that information which can be scientifically verified or which is capable of being derived from logical or mathematical proof. Processual archaeology: A form of archaeological theory investigating the underlying historical processes that cause cultural change through application of scientific methodology. Proponent: An entity, which may consist of individuals, private corporations or government bodies, which is undertaking a development project. RAP: (Registered Aboriginal Party): The Aboriginal people recognised by the Victorian Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006 as the primary guardians, keepers and knowledge holders of Aboriginal cultural heritage. Stakeholder: Anyone with an interest in the property or archaeological site in question Traditional Owners: Traditional Aboriginal owners are Aboriginal people who have, in accordance with Aboriginal tradition, social, economic and spiritual affiliations with, and responsibilities for, the lands or any part of them. UNDRIP: United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples VAHC: Victorian Aboriginal Heritage Council VAHR: Victorian Aboriginal Heritage Register
8
VAS: Victoria Archaeological Survey VHI: Victorian Heritage Inventory VHR: Victorian Heritage Register VTOLJG: Victorian Traditional Owners Land Justice Group
9
CHAPTER 1 - INTRODUCTION
The traditional view of archaeology as entirely concerned with material culture is being
challenged by a more holistic perspective, which recognises the value of a more integrated view
of culture. Victorian archaeological theory, legislation and practice have long been dominated by
a focus on tangible culture due to the historical context in which they developed. Compliance-
driven consulting archaeology, in particular, has traditionally privileged material culture. In
recent years, however, there has been growing recognition of the importance of intangible
cultural heritage, which has been reflected in the legislation. In spite of this, there is a question of
whether increasing acceptance of values other than archaeological or scientific within the
legislation has translated to the level of practice in the field for compliance-driven consulting
archaeology. This is of particular relevance as consulting archaeology constitutes a major field of
employment for Victorian archaeologists (Smith and Campbell 1998: 177-178; Webber 2013;
Zorzin 2012: 76).
This paper will gauge the ability of compliance-driven archaeology to identify and
protect intangible heritage values in Victoria. An examination of current practice will identify the
issues that inhibit the identification and assessment of intangible heritage values, preventing their
recognition and protection. Several factors will be considered, including the historical and
theoretical foundation of commercial archaeology in Australia, the academic training of
Victorian archaeologists, and the constraints of compliance-driven archaeology. A review of the
Heritage Act 1995 and the Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006 will assist in framing the regulations
that currently govern commercial archaeology in Victoria. Analysis of the submissions and
consultation resulting from the Review of the Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006 will contribute to an
10
understanding of the views and priorities of the different stakeholders in regards to protection of
intangible heritage. A more comprehensive understanding of the perspectives and practices of
heritage practitioners will be attained through a series of interviews. An examination of how
different consulting archaeologists view intangible heritage and the role of heritage management,
whether or not they incorporate intangible values into their investigations, and how they have
been able to do so will illustrate the opportunities and constraints for best practice in the field.
Literature Review Intangible cultural heritage is important for providing individuals and communities with a
sense of identity and continuity with the past; it provides a dimension of human experience and
human values that cannot be derived from the study of fabric alone (Haig 2010: 369; Kiriama
2012: 70). The Convention for the Safeguarding of Intangible Cultural Heritage 2003 defines
intangible cultural heritage as the ‘practices, representations, expressions, knowledge, skills – as
well as the instruments, objects, artefacts and cultural spaces associated therewith – that
communities, groups and, in some cases, individuals recognize as part of their cultural heritage’
(UNESCO 2003: Art. 2.1). Intangible cultural heritage is typically expressed as the culture that is
practiced as part of people’s daily lives, comprising beliefs and worldviews, traditions and
knowledge, language, transient performances, rituals and events (Australia ICOMOS 2013c: 9;
DPCD 2010; Haig 2010: 369). Intangible values may be linked to tangible items, may exist
independent of tangible remains, or might have once been connected to tangible remains that no
longer exist (Australia ICOMOS 2013b: 4; Australia ICOMOS 2013c: 9). Intangible values are
also important to consider for significance assessment of tangible heritage and may comprise a
key component of a place’s significance (Australia ICOMOS 2013b: 4).
11
In spite of this, the important contribution of intangible heritage is often not recognised
and several factors have resulted in a distinction between tangible and intangible cultural
heritage in Victorian archaeological practice. Though progress has been made in the integration
of the discipline, there remains a tendency to privilege material culture, particularly within a
commercial context. The roots of this dichotomy stretch back to the development of the
discipline and its adoption for regulatory purposes. While there is growing recognition of the
importance of intangible heritage, particularly at an international level, the underlying notions
embedded in Victorian legislation, policy and practice continue to have a lasting effect.
Understanding the factors that have influenced current practice and perspectives necessitate an
examination of the history and development of heritage practice and theory, heritage legislation
and heritage agencies, and consulting archaeology in Victoria.
1.1 Heritage Practice and Theory
As early as the 19th century, archaeology established its identity through its alliance with
evolutionary science, utilising claims of scientific knowledge over material culture to provide
supposedly objective expertise on cultural and social evolution (Smith and Campbell 1998: 177).
These claims would contribute significantly to colonial discourses justifying the governance and
treatment of native peoples. Many aspects of current heritage theory and methodology in
Australia date to developments in the late 1960s and early 1970s, which further bestowed
archaeological discourse with scientific authority and established the discipline as a technology
of government and regulation (Porter 2006; Smith and Campbell 1998; Smith 2000; Smith 2010;
Smith 2012). At the time, concerns arose regarding conservation of archaeological sites and
unregulated amateur activity, coinciding with growing debate on the nature and significance of
12
Aboriginal heritage and increasingly assertive Aboriginal cultural claims (Smith 2000: 115;
Smith 2012: 3).
As a means of gaining international acceptance and establishing itself as professional and
relevant discipline, Australian archaeology explicitly adopted the processual methodology and
philosophies of the ‘New Archaeology’ (Smith 2000). The New Archaeology embraced
positivist philosophies stressing the generation of archaeological laws, predictive models and
hypothesis testing and established methodology for the objective, scientific interpretation of
archaeological data (Smith and Campbell 1998: 178-179; Smith 2000: 116; Trigger 1989: 301-
302). It promoted a rigorous method of archaeological investigation in which data was
systematically collected with the conviction that methodological approaches of analysis and
interpretation could control or remove subjective bias (Smith 1996: 70). As a consequence of
embedding the processual discourse in its philosophy and methodology, Australian archaeology
cemented its affiliation with science while distancing it from its early twentieth-century
associations with history (Brown 2008: 25).
The processual discourse, which had established the professionalism of archaeology and
asserted their ability to make objective statements about the past, also helped to establish
archaeologists as stewards for the past and the protectors of humanity’s heritage (Smith 2012: 3-
4). Despite growing awareness of Aboriginal rights, this period was characterized by the
entrenched belief that Aboriginal people were a dying race and that their culture was therefore
endangered (NNTT 2009: 3; Smith 1996: 69). With these assumptions of the 'relict' nature of
Aboriginal culture, it was accepted that archaeologists, as guardians of the past and experts on
material culture, had the duty to assume pastoral care of a ‘dead’ past (Smith 2000: 112).
13
The processual discourse and rhetoric used by archaeologists to stress scientific neutrality
appealed to Australian policy makers who adopted it as a ‘technology of government’ (Smith
2000). Archaeologists, acknowledged as ‘experts’ on material culture, were given the authority
to make claims about the past; their knowledge was used to define and regulate Aboriginal
claims about the nature of their culture (Porter 2006; Smith and Campbell 1998: 174; Smith
2000: 109-111, 115). Archaeological discourse stressing the scientific nature of material culture
was adopted to depoliticise notions of Aboriginality, identity and place, which challenged
notions of emerging Australian nationhood (Porter 2006: 361; Smith 2000: 109, 115-116).
The heritage movement of the 1960s and 1970s marked the redevelopment of the concept
of heritage as material rather than as a spiritual or cultural concept, linking cultural identity to a
material inheritance and places (Ireland 2002: 17, 22). Antiquarian interest in collection and
protection of objects from the past derives from the belief that relics of the past are necessary for
cultural identity and are desirable in their own right, a sense of disruption between the past and
present, a perception of threat to the relics of the past, and the view of tangible items as a limited
and vanishing resource (Ireland 2002: 17-18). Heritage discourse positions tangible culture as the
vessels of cultural meaning, which serve as a physical embodiment of the culture and preserve a
static representation endowed with research potential (Ireland 2002: 17). The discourse
privileges tangible culture over intangible and places importance on aesthetics, monumentality,
grandeur and age (Smith 2012: 2).
The rise of preservationist discourses in the twentieth century was part of an international
phenomenon which occurred in reaction to accelerated social and environmental change with
14
populations feeling the effects of two world wars, industrialisation, urban redevelopment and
scientific progress (Ireland 2002: 17). With the progression of post-war urban development and
expansion, the landscape was transformed at an unaccustomed rate resulting in the destruction of
historic sites and places valued by the community (Smith 1996: 68; Smith 2012: 3). Awareness
of the rapid destruction of both Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal heritage motivated archaeologists
to lobby for legislation to protect the sites as part of their role as ‘stewards of the past’ (Smith
1996: 68; Smith 2012: 3).
The acceptance of archaeologists as experts endowed with the authority to make
pronouncements over the interpretation of material cultural enabled them to wield significant
influence in the framing of Australian heritage legislation (Smith 1996: 69; Smith 2000: 109,
112). Legislative recognition of archaeological expertise and acknowledgment of their authority
to safeguard the past resulted in the establishment of the framework for Cultural Heritage
Management (Smith 2000; Smith 2012: 3). Archaeologists’ authority was further reinforced
through their roles in administering, interpreting and implementing the new legislation, which
enabled them to help the government regulate heritage and cultural claims (Smith 1996: 69;
Smith and Campbell 1998: 186-187).
Archaeological participation in the creation of the various Acts which regulate heritage,
as well as the prevailing beliefs and assumptions at the time the field of cultural heritage
management developed in Australia, have had a lasting impact on heritage legislation and
practice. The legislation privileged archaeological expertise and scientific claims to knowledge
over community values, tangible culture over intangible and promoted the idea of protecting a
static vision of pre-contact Aboriginal culture (Brown 2008; Clarke & Johnston 2003: 2; Godwin
15
& Weiner 2006: 137; NNTT 2009: 4). Archaeological, rather than anthropological, discourse
was the primary academic influence in framing the legislation, privileging claims to scientific
knowledge over cultural interpretations of the past (Smith and Campbell 1998: 186). Emphasis
was on ‘relics,’ demonstrating the importance of material culture and denying the significance of
intangible aspects of cultural heritage (Smith 2000: 112). Due to acceptance of archaeologists as
spokespeople for the Aboriginal past (Smith 1996), archaeologists, rather than the Indigenous
community, were the primary group consulted in creation of Aboriginal legislation. Aboriginal
cultural heritage was considered largely in term of objects and archaeological sites and its value
to prehistory or antiquity rather than its significance to the contemporary community, as
exemplified by use of the term ‘relic’ to describe the remains of Aboriginal occupation (NNTT
2009: 3-4). This privileging of material culture and archaeological expertise has had a lasting
effect on Victorian heritage legislation and practice.
1.2 Victorian Heritage Legislation and Agencies
An examination of the evolution of Victorian heritage legislation can provide insight into
the changing perspectives of the government, the public and heritage practitioners regarding
Aboriginal cultural heritage and the conservation of heritage. The first Victorian heritage
legislation was the Archaeological and Aboriginal Relics Preservation Act 1972. The
Archaeological and Aboriginal Relics Preservation Act provided blanket protection for all relics
and remains from the Aboriginal occupation of Victoria, made it mandatory to report the
discovery of Aboriginal ‘relics,’ and authorised the creation and maintenance of a heritage
register (NNTT 2009: 13). The heritage legislation was administered first by the National
Museum of Victoria, then by the Victorian Relics Office when it was established in 1973 (NNTT
2009: 3, 13; Smith 2000: 112). The Victorian Relics Office became the Victoria Archaeological
16
Survey (VAS) in 1976 (Smith 2000: 112). The VAS encompassed both historical and Aboriginal
archaeology with all archaeologists working within the same government heritage agency
(Ireland 2002: 19).
Though the Archaeological and Aboriginal Relics Preservation Act offered improved
measures for protection of the material remains of the past, critics noted the under-representation
of Aboriginal people in decision-making, the lack of clear and consistent processes, deficient
accountability measures and the emphasis on destruction rather than conservation of heritage
(NNTT 2009: 13). With growing recognition and acceptance of Aboriginal rights in the 1970s
and 1980s, there was a pressure to involve Aboriginal people in making decisions about their
heritage; though archaeological emphasis on ‘relics’ continued within the established legislative
model, Indigenous consultation and participation in heritage studies and conservation increased
(NNTT 2009: 4). In the 1980s, the Victorian government attempted to amend the legislation, but
it was prevented from passing through Parliament by the State Opposition’s Upper House
majority (NNTT 2009: 6, 13). In response, the Victorian government turned to the
Commonwealth government, which added Part IIA to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
Heritage Protection Act 1984 (Cth) to provide protection for Aboriginal objects and places of
particular significance to Aboriginal people in Victoria in accordance with their traditions
(NNTT 2009: 6, 13). Part IIA of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection
Act 1984 provided Victorian Aboriginal people with the opportunity to request emergency,
temporary or other declarations if they believed that Aboriginal objects or places were under
threat (NNTT 2009: 13). Part IIA also empowered the Minister to forcibly acquire any
Aboriginal cultural property if the Minister believed it to be irreplaceable and there were no
other options for its protection (NNTT 2009: 13).
17
In the 1990s, changes to the legislation occurred that resulted in the dismantling of the
VAS and the separation of different branches of archaeology into different government agencies
operating under different legislation; Aboriginal archaeology fell under the jurisdiction of
Aboriginal Affairs Victoria, while Historical and Maritime archaeology became the
responsibility of Heritage Victoria (Ireland 2002: 19; Smith 2000: 112; Zorzin 2012: 76). The
Heritage Act 1995 replaced the Historic Buildings Act 1981, the Historic Shipwrecks Act 1981
and part of the Archaeological and Aboriginal Relics Preservation Act 1971 to provide
protection for historical archaeological places and objects in Victoria (DPCD 2010). In 2006, the
Aboriginal Heritage Act replaced the Archaeological and Aboriginal Relics Preservation Act
1972 and the Commonwealth repealed Part IIA of the Commonwealth Aboriginal and Torres
Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act 1984 (DPCD 2010; Kiriama 2012: 67).
1.3 Development of Commercial Archaeology
In addition to the development of legislation to protect heritage, the preservationist
movement of the 1960s and 1970s also resulted in the birth of cultural heritage management
(CHM) and the field of commercial archaeology (Clarke & Smith 1996: 4; Smith 2012: 3). CHM
is comprised of “the range of principles, strategies and processes put into place to conserve
elements of the cultural environment such as sites, places and artifacts of cultural, historical,
social and scientific value and significance” (Clarke & Smith 1996: 3-4). Integrated pieces of
Federal and State legislation establish the process, which is administered and enforced by
government departments or statutory authorities (Clarke & Smith 1996: 3-4; Stockton &
Stevenson 1984: 73). Regulations dictate that development proponents to carry out impact
assessments before projects are permitted to proceed in order to determine the nature, extent and
18
significance of ‘resources’ in the area that may be directly or indirectly affected by the proposed
development (Stockton & Stevenson 1984: 72). Accordingly, the client or sponsor of the impact
assessment, typically a company, department or private individual who has been obliged to fund
the research as part of a legal and moral requirement, employs archaeologists to investigate the
archaeological and cultural heritage that comprises part of the potential resources to be
investigated (Stockton & Stevenson 1984: 72). Though the archaeological work is compliance-
driven, it is also perceived to provide a social and public relations advantage (Stockton &
Stevenson 1984: 72-73)
In the 1980s, the commercial archaeology industry expanded when the neoliberal transition
resulted in the privatisation of archaeology in Victoria (Zorzin 2012: 76-78). As the state
withdrew from archaeological fieldwork, archaeological services that had once been overseen by
the Victoria Archaeological Survey (VAS) were fragmented and privatised (Zorzin 2012: 76-77).
While the government maintained regulatory authority, scientific research process was removed
from the purview of state archaeology services and industry competition was introduced to
archaeology (Zorzin 2012: 76-77). This resulted in the creation of the archeological consulting
industry, which soon became the dominant field of archaeological employment (Smith and
Campbell 1998: 177-178; Webber 2013; Zorzin 2012: 76). The archaeological consulting
industry grew rapidly due to consideration of moral responsibilities imparted by new
international regulation of heritage management (Zorzin 2012: 77). The dominance of consulting
archaeology has persisted in recent years, with expansion of the field accelerating in Victoria
after the implementation of the Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006 (PwC 2012: 39; Zorzin 2012: 76).
Comprehensive surveys of Australian archaeologists undertaken in 2005 and 2010 continue to
demonstrate the growth of the private sector, with an increase in Indigenous archaeology and
19
decrease in other subfields, most notably historical archaeology (Ulm et al 2010, 2013).
1.4 Methodology of Commercial Archaeology
The methodology typically associated with commercial archaeology makes it difficult, if
not impossible, to appropriately assess intangible heritage. Commercial archaeology subscribes
to the factory model of production in which efficiency is prioritized in order to maximize profit
and achieved through standardization, dividing tasks into component activities, and mechanized
practices (Shanks & McGuire 1996: 80, 84-85). The adoption of this mode of production for
consulting archaeology is fitting as it conforms to the neoliberal economic philosophy, which
restructures economic activities towards maximization of profits, prioritizing development and
economic growth (Zorzin 2012: 78).
The work generated by statutory regulations typically entails undertaking archaeological
surveys of proposed development areas with research funded by development proponents (Byrne
2003: 18; Stockton and Stevenson 1984: 72-73). Places of significance are mapped on a two-
dimensional landscape and are accorded significance in terms of archaeology and management
terms through their status as ‘known’ sites as identified by an archaeological ‘expert’ (Porter
2006: 364). By classifying and defining the site by a set of accepted criteria, the heritage
becomes a tangible object of management that can be classified, mapped, recorded on registers
and regulated (Porter 2006: 364). Awareness of the presence of heritage sites through mapping
and registration is essential for land management decisions; information relating to previously
recorded sites, such as setting, context, related material and associations, is used to develop
predictive models that help determine the location of other heritage sites (Brown 2008: 23; Porter
2006: 364). Through the identification of site locations, damage can be avoided or mitigated,
20
providing an increased level of certainty that development will not be interrupted or disrupted by
heritage claims (Porter 2006: 364). For work relating to impact assessments, consulting
archaeologists develop predictive models using previous archaeological investigations, ethno-
historical literature and knowledge of geography and geomorphology to determine what they
might find in the activity area (Byrne et al 2003: 15).
Criticism of the methodology employed by commercial archaeologists portrays it as
mechanistic and as more concerned with statutory compliance than with generating research
(Bergman and Doershuk 2004; Brown 2008: 26; Byrne 2009). While the factory model and
standardisation of commercial archaeology have been beneficial in ensuring quality control in
practice and bestowing an air of respectability and professionalism to the field, it has been
accused of producing an inferior archaeological product (Shanks & McGuire 1996: 85). The
factory model privileges profit and promotes meeting standards with the minimum effort
necessary to attain approval for development rather than attempting best practice (Bergman and
Doershuk 2004: 88).
Studies undertaken within a cultural heritage management context are often perceived as
following state legislated, standard-enforcing guidelines for fieldwork, analysis and reporting
which result in the generation of many “reports with homogenized results that often only cover
basic data description,” but fail to provide information about past human behaviour (Bergman
and Doershuk 2004: 88; Byrne 2009: 230-231, 248; Sullivan 2008: 108). This approach is
viewed as promoting the mass recording and inventorying of archaeological sites and objects as
an end to itself, reducing understanding and interpretation of heritage to its material components
and dehumanising the past (Bergman and Doershuk 2004: 88; Brown 2008: 23-26; Byrne at al
21
2003: 9; Byrne 2009: 230-231, 245). The practice assumes a traditional, scientistic perception of
heritage as objects and sites to be studied and managed by archaeologists, distinct from the
cultural intangibles that constitute them (Byrne et al 2003: 114; Ellis 2011; Godwin & Weiner
2006: 137; Smith 2012: 1-2). These conflicting views on the roles and responsibilities of
consultant archaeologists, and on whether commercial archaeology ought to privilege
compliance over research, have had a marked impact on Victorian archaeological practice and
the investigation of intangible heritage.
1.5 Growing Recognition of Intangible Heritage
The history and development of Victorian heritage practice and theory, the socio-
historical context in which the original heritage legislation was created, and the factors resulting
in the development of cultural heritage management in Victoria have all had lasting effects on
contemporary heritage practice. The distinction between tangible and intangible heritage, the
scientific orientation of Victorian archaeology and the privileging of archaeological expertise are
all still implicitly or explicitly embodied in current legislation and methodology. In recent years,
however, there has been a growing inclination towards developing a more integrated approach to
heritage, in which multiple values are recognised without prioritisation. The traditional
identification of heritage as strictly the material remains of the past, such as sites, places,
monuments and objects (Sculthorpe 2005: 172; Smith 2012: 1-2) is no longer accepted by all
practitioners. There is increasing recognition of the importance of other values, including social
and spiritual, or consider anthropological as well as archaeological perspectives (NSWALC
2012: 60).
22
Many writers argue that the distinction between tangible and intangible heritage is
artificial and inappropriate (Godwin & Weiner 2006; Haig 2010; Kurin 2004; King 2013;
NSWALC 2012; Smith 2012). Some argue that “everything cultural is intangible” due to the
values humans invest in objects (King 2013: 294). Heritage is not simply the tangible remnants
of the past, but the associations and meanings that are essential for connecting the past and
present for evolving, living cultures (Ellis 2011; Haig 2010: 366).
Over the last few decades, growing acceptance of the importance of intangible heritage has
been reflected in its increasing recognition in heritage legislation and guidelines (Truscott 2003:
2). The United Nations Convention for the Safeguarding of Intangible Cultural Heritage 2003
provides a framework for the protection of intangible cultural heritage recognizing that cultural
heritage is transmitted from generation to generation and is constantly recreated by communities1
(Shearing 2006: 3). The Convention defines heritage as the ‘practices, representations,
expressions, knowledge, skills – as well as the instruments, objects, artefacts and cultural spaces
associated therewith – that communities, groups and, in some cases, individuals recognize as part
of their cultural heritage’ (UNESCO 2003: Art. 2.1).
Growing recognition of the importance of intangible value is particularly apparent through
examination of the successive versions of the Burra Charter. The 1979 Burra Charter prioritised
fabric, reflecting its origins as a charter mainly concerned with the conservation of built heritage
(Byrne et al 2003: 19; NNTT 2009: 4). However, with each subsequent revision, the Burra
Charter recognizes intangible elements more explicitly.
1 Notably, Australia has not yet ratified the Convention for the Safeguarding of Intangible Cultural Heritage 2003 (Shearing 2006: 3).
23
The Burra Charter 1999 recognised that intangible values are an integral aspect of heritage
significance in its definitions and ensured that intangible values are considered throughout the
heritage conservation process (Truscott 2003: 6). The 1999 revisions expanded the understanding
of cultural significance and the concept of social value by recognizing that significance is not
limited to the fabric of a place (Australia ICOMOS 1999: 22). Instead, it also identifies
significance as embodied in the place itself, setting, use, associations, meanings, related places
and related objects (Australia ICOMOS 1999: Article 1.2). It notes the need to respect spiritual
values and significant associations between people and place and that these values and
associations should be interpreted and investigated (Articles 24.1 and 24.2). The Charter
encourages the co-existence of varied and conflicting cultural values (Australia ICOMOS 1999:
Article 13) and clarifies the need to consult and involve people who hold special associations and
meanings with a place throughout the process of conservation and management (Australia
ICOMOS 1999: Articles 12 and 26.3).
The Burra Charter 2013 recognises the importance of intangible values even more
explicitly than earlier versions. In its definitions, it stresses that a place may have both tangible
and intangible dimensions (Australia ICOMOS 2013: Article 1.1). In the Explanatory Notes
addressing ‘setting’, the Charter emphasizes the combination of tangible and intangible factors
that compose or contribute to the cultural significance of the environment of a place. These can
include:
Structures, spaces, land, water and sky… views to and from a place and along a cultural route; sensory aspects such as smells and sounds; … historical and contemporary relationships, such as use and activities, social and spiritual practices, and relationships with other places, both tangible and intangible (Australia ICOMOS 2013: Article 1.12).
24
The 2013 revisions also make a crucial change to applying the Burra Charter process to
conservation practice; the Charter notes that in addition to providing opportunities for groups
and individuals with associations with a place to contribute to and participate in understanding
cultural significance and participate in conservation and management, they should also be
involved in the identification of cultural significance (Australia ICOMOS 2013: Article 26.3).
Additionally, the Burra Charter 2013 Practice Notes further stress the importance of intangible
values and include difficulties associated with them among the various issues which beset
heritage practitioners along with practical guidance on how to address these issues (Australia
ICOMOS 2013a; Australia ICOMOS 2013b; Australia ICOMOS 2013c). Furthermore, the
Practice Notes state that all of the criteria used to evaluate cultural heritage significance may
have both tangible and intangible aspects, and that is necessary to acknowledge both (Australia
ICOMOS 2013c: 2).
Growing acceptance of the intertwined nature of tangible and intangible heritage is
particularly apparent in recent literature discussing Aboriginal culture (Clarke & Johnston 2003;
Godwin & Weiner 2006; NSWALC 2012). The distinction between the different types of
heritage is criticized as illogical due to Aboriginal cosmology, in which material remains of the
past are imbued with intangible meanings (Godwin & Weiner 2006). The material remains
associated with human activity are infused with significance and thought to possess sacred or
spiritual qualities (Godwin & Weiner 2006). They are not simply a tangible connection to the
past, but are culturally significant in the community’s currently existing cosmology, profoundly
enmeshed with notions of identity, community, beliefs and connection to land (Godwin &
Weiner 2006; Haig 2010: 369; Sculthorpe 2005: 172).
25
The growing acceptance of the importance of intangible heritage is not necessarily
extended to studies of non-Indigenous archaeology. The historical development of the discipline
and discourse has meant that non-Indigenous culture is typically not associated with ‘intangible’
heritage and anthropological study (Ellis 2011; Trigger 1989). Archaeology has typically had
close associations with either history or anthropology; traditionally, the discipline has been
closely affiliated with history in regards to the study of the culture of the practitioners’ ancestors
or civilizations with much associated documentation, while anthropology is utilised to study
Paleolithic or “more recent, technologically less-advanced cultures to which they do not believe
their own society is closely related” (Trigger 1989: 372). The History/Anthropology dichotomy
is apparent in the tendency of heritage listings and discourses to consider intangible values only
in relation to minority cultures (Byrne et al 2003; Ellis 2011: 158; Haig 2010; Ireland 2002). In
keeping with Ghassan Hage’s study of multiculturalism in Australia, ‘historical’ and ‘social’
significance is ascribed to the cultural values of the mainstream, white, Anglo-Australian
population, while ‘intangible’ values are attributed to marginalised communities including
Aboriginal groups and ethnic communities (Byrne et al 2003: 112-113; Ireland 2002: 23). Non-
indigenous intangible values tend to be classified and categorised separately as ‘arts’ or
‘folklore’ (Truscott 2003: 2).
This distinction between the classification of Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal heritage is
challenged by acknowledgement of the wide range of intangible cultural heritage belonging to
the Australia’s diverse communities (Leader-Elliott & Trimboli 2012; Truscott 2003). Intangible
heritage may include the cultural knowledge systems, rituals and practices of Aboriginal
communities as well as the knowledge associated with ‘Australian’ traditions, skills, arts, trades
and practices in addition to traditions imported with various immigrant groups and their
26
subsequent evolution in Australia (Leader-Elliott & Trimboli 2012: 114). It is therefore
necessary to apply a holistic approach to heritage assessment and interpretation for the heritage
of all of the various communities to whom it belongs (Greer at al 2002).
However, while considerable progress has been made in recognising and protecting
intangible heritage, many issues continue to affect its consideration in archaeology. The
following examination of heritage legislation and practice in Victoria will identify the obstacles
to a holistic approach to heritage assessment, interpretation and protection and explore
practitioners’ perspectives on how to address them.
28
CHAPTER 2 – RESEARCH
Methodology
The intention of this paper is to address issues relating to the identification of tangible and
intangible values in Victorian compliance-driven commercial archaeology. It aims to determine
the ability of Victorian consulting archaeologists to incorporate both tangible and intangible
values in their assessments of heritage for Cultural Heritage Management Plans and/or
Conservation Management Plans and illustrate the opportunities and constraints for best practice
in the field. This will involve examination of the different perspectives on what constitutes
heritage and heritage protection, how archaeologists identify different values and ensure that
they are protected, the role of heritage legislation in Victorian archaeology, and the issues that
may affect the incorporation of intangible heritage values in commercial archaeology.
Methodology included an examination of current Victorian heritage legislation, a review of the
submissions and consultation on current Victoria heritage legislation, discussion of issues
enumerated in heritage literature and interviews with a selection of consulting archaeologists.
The project is an example of applied research as it has been designed to address a specific
problem, namely the issues confronting heritage practitioners and best practice in consulting
archaeology (Collis & Hussey 2003: 13). The research paradigm employed a phenomenological
framework and focused on qualitative data in order to explore the motivations and perceptions of
practitioners while following an inductive line of reasoning to develop hypotheses through
empirical observation (Collis & Hussey 2003: 13-15, 49, 55).
In order to assess the strengths and weaknesses of legislation protecting heritage in
29
Victoria, the project examined key legislation such as the Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006 and
Heritage Act 1995 to determine how they provide for the identification and protection of
intangible heritage values. A further understanding of the different perspectives on the strengths
and weaknesses of the legislation was attained through the Review of the Aboriginal Heritage Act
2006 published on the Aboriginal Affairs Victoria (AAV) website (AAV 2011; AAV 2012). The
AAV has published a summary of submissions and consultation with interested stakeholders
including local government, cultural heritage advisors, Traditional Owners, Registered
Aboriginal Parties and the Victorian Aboriginal Heritage Council, professional associations,
water and catchment management authorities, and developers (AAV 2012). Human ethics
clearance is not required for this portion of the research because submissions on the website only
include those of individuals and organizations that gave AAV permission to publish their views
or comments on a website accessible to the general public (AAV 2011). The website has
approximately 140 submissions which it has published and made accessible to the public. The
summary and all of the available submissions were reviewed in order to understand the different
opinions and priorities regarding the treatment of intangible heritage by consultant archaeology.
Examination and assessment of current legislation were supplemented by a discussion of
perspectives on the integration of intangible heritage values expressed in heritage literature. This
incorporated views from a range of academic focuses including Aboriginal archaeology,
historical archaeology, heritage studies, anthropology and geography (Byrne et al 2003; Brown
2008; Greer et al 2002; Kiriama 2012; NSWALC 2010).
In order to gain insight into the perceptions of consulting archaeologists working in
Aboriginal and historical archaeology, interviews were conducted with archaeological
consultants with substantial experience working in Victoria. The interviews provide the
30
consultants’ perspectives on how the heritage legislation is applied, illustrate their views on
intangible heritage, and assist with understanding the realities of working in the field. The
involvement of human participants at this stage of the research project necessitated Human
Research Ethics Clearance. Compliance with the requirements described on the Deakin
University Human Research Ethics website (Deakin University n.d.) involved the completion of
human research ethics training and the associated quiz and submission of various documents to
the Deakin Human Ethics Committee for approval. The project was deemed to qualify as low
risk research, which permitted an Expedited Review by the Faculty of Arts and Education
Human Ethics Advisory Group (HEAG). The application for Expedited Review included
submission of a Low Risk Application form, a Plain Language Statement and Consent form, a
Withdrawal of Consent Form and a list of the interview questions (See APPENDIX 1).
Interviews were conducted with a selection of ten consulting archaeologists to determine
the realities of, and opportunities for, identification and protection of intangible values in
consulting archaeology. As the emphasis of a phenomenological paradigm is on the quality and
depth of data, seeking to capture the “richness of detail and nuance of the phenomena being
studied”, this research project employed a small sample to obtain the required interviews (Collis
& Hussey 2003: 56-57). The small sample size was also necessary due to time constraints and
the need to follow the project’s timeline. It is assumed, however, that even with a small sample it
will be possible to generalize from the experiences of selected participants if “analysis has
captured the interactions and characteristics of the phenomena” that is being studied (Collis &
Hussey 2003: 60).
31
Directories formed the sampling frame from which the sampling units were drawn (Collis
& Hussey 2003: 155). Participants were selected from the list of Cultural Heritage Advisors
listed on the Aboriginal Affairs Victoria website (AAV 2013) and from the Heritage Victoria
Consultant and Contractor Directory (Heritage Victoria 2011). The lists are available to the
public and provide information and contact details for qualified heritage consultants including
the heritage management companies that employ them, their mobile numbers and email
addresses, and their qualifications.
Heritage consultants included on these lists comply with the criteria mandated by the
relevant legislation. Cultural Heritage Advisors must meet the requirements listed in the
Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006 Section 189(1), which ensure that they are “appropriately qualified
in a discipline directly relevant to the management of Aboriginal cultural heritage, such as
anthropology, archaeology or history; or have extensive experience of knowledge in relation to
the management of Aboriginal cultural heritage” (AAV 2006). For inclusion in Heritage Victoria
Consultant and Contractor Directory, historical Archaeologists must “have a minimum of an
honours degree in archaeology (or equivalent qualification) and not less than three years
experience as a historic archaeologist” and heritage consultants need to possess “tertiary
qualification in a heritage related discipline and not less than 3 years experience working on
heritage studies, heritage assessments, heritage impact assessments, conservation management
plans, or providing advice on the conservation and management of heritage places, objects and
collections” (Heritage Victoria 2011).
In order to keep systematic and sampling bias to a minimum, different sampling
techniques were employed. This is necessary as “with a relatively small sample, simple random
32
sampling might result in some members of the population being significantly under or over-
represented” (Collis & Hussey 2003: 157). The goal of the sample design was to consult heritage
practitioners with experience in both Aboriginal and historical archaeology so that they could
offer informed opinions about the relative strengths and weaknesses of the sub-disciplines. As a
result, most of the consultants selected for interviews were listed on both registers. Additionally,
the interview participants were limited to archaeologists who have several years experience
working in consulting archaeology in order to ensure their familiarity with the subjects under
discussion. In order to avoid over-representing any single company in the sample, no more than
a single consultant from any company was interviewed. The companies were selected randomly
from the directories before considering individual consultants (Collis & Hussey 2003: 158).
After the selection of ten different companies was made using a random number table, a sub-
sample was chosen by randomly selecting consultants from those companies (Collis & Hussey
2003: 156-158).
Initial contact with potential interview participants was be made by email. Enclosed in
the email was be a letter explaining the project and a copy of the Plain Language Statement for
the potential participants to view (See APPENDIX 2). Consent was be established by giving
participants a Plain Language Statement and Consent Form to read and sign before participating
in the investigation.
Interviews focused on how different consulting archaeologists view intangible heritage
and the role of heritage management, whether or not they incorporate intangible values into their
investigations, and how they have been able to do so in order to illustrate the opportunities and
constraints for best practice in the field. The interviews also help to elucidate the differences
33
between the identification and protection of intangible values in Aboriginal and historical
consulting archaeology. The interviews were semi-structured, using prepared questions, but left
open-ended and employing probes to explore answers in more depth (Collis & Hussey 2003:
168). This approach ensured a level of standardization among the different interviews while
allowing for individual responses that contribute to understanding of the underlying notions that
shape the consultants’ opinions and beliefs (Collis & Hussey 2003: 168). The interviews were
recorded, transcribed and reviewed in order to ascertain their accuracy.
In order to maintain the anonymity of the informants, the data from the interviews was
collected in identifiable form, but the identifiers were removed afterwards and stored
anonymously (Deakin n.d.). To further ensure that this project does not contain information that
will enable the identification of the participants, they will only be referenced in this paper by
their interview sequence numbers.
Potential Bias
The methodology for this paper was, however, subject to some degree of bias. Though a
random sample of participants was initially selected for the interviews, the final sample is
composed of the practitioners who responded to the invitation to participate. Those who chose to
respond are not necessarily representative of the entire field and are likely to have skewed the
study towards the practitioners who have particularly strong feelings about the subject matter.
Additionally, in choosing to interview only practitioners who possess substantial experience
working in consulting archaeology, the participants were all senior members of companies,
which may also have resulted in certain opinions being over-represented.
34
Another inherent issue in attempting to equally address the issues confronting the
investigation of intangible heritage in both Aboriginal and historical archaeology is the vast
discrepancy in available information and concern given to the two sub-disciplines. There is
significantly more literature and attention devoted to the issues confronting the investigation of
Aboriginal intangible heritage than for non-Indigenous (Gibbs et al 2008: 29). The availability of
information on the issues confronting intangible Aboriginal heritage is also augmented by the
recent Review of the Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006 (AAV 2011; AAV 2012) and the accessibility
of stakeholder submissions; there is no comparable information available on the Heritage Act
1995.
There was a similar bias towards Aboriginal heritage in the interviews. As a result of the
requirements introduced in the Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006, there has been an increase in the
amount of Indigenous archaeological work in the private sector and a corresponding decrease in
historical archaeology (Ulm et al 2013). Therefore, while consultants may have experience in
both subfields and be listed as qualified consultants on directories for both, the nature of the
available work means that the majority of available archaeological work is related to Aboriginal
heritage. As a result, many of the interview subjects were able to provide more information on
Aboriginal heritage than on non-Indigenous.
The information gathered from Victorian heritage legislation, heritage literature,
submissions to the Review of the Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006, and interviews with Victorian
consulting archaeologists was assessed to examine the affect that the legislation has had on
35
practice and explore whether and how heritage practitioners identify intangible heritage in
consulting archaeology. A summary of the findings will help to demonstrate the current state of
consulting archaeology in Victoria and determine its relation to legislative requirements.
Findings will assist in determining opportunities and constraints for identification of intangible
heritage in the field, which can contribute to an understanding of possibilities for best practice.
36
CHAPTER 3 - RESULTS
The following analysis of the constraints and opportunities relating to the assessment and
protection of intangible heritage in a commercial context will commence with an overview of
key Victorian heritage legislation. The subsequent section will offer a breakdown of the various
issues that have been identified as hindering the assessment and protection of intangible values
by the interviewed consultants, submissions to the Review of the Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006
and heritage literature. In order to facilitate an understanding of the various issues, I have
organised the discussion into the general categories with which they are associated. For the
purpose of this paper, the issues are divided into discussion of: legislation, significance
assessment, consultation, skill set and qualifications, bias, privileging of values, sensitivity of
information, communities’ inability to provide information, and difficulties caused by the
commercial context. Though these categories represent the main factors identified as inhibiting
the identification and protection of intangible heritage, in reality most of the issues result from a
combination of multiple factors. Due to the division between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal
heritage characterising the Australian heritage industry (Greer at al 2002: 266; Haig 2010: 367;
Truscott 2003: 2), discussion of the issues will attempt to demonstrate the differing ways in
which the legislation and practitioners address the different sub-fields. The description of the
issues will be followed by the responses offered within the literature, submissions and
interviews, enumerating some of their suggestions for overcoming the aforementioned issues and
offering their opinions on the opportunities for achieving best practice. Following the discussion
of each individual issue, I have provided a summary of the key points raised in regard to each
theme.
37
It is critical to note that the information provided in interviews and within submissions
represents the opinions and perceptions of consultants and other stakeholders. These perceptions
might be at odds with the actual requirements of the legislation and do not necessarily reflect the
views or practices of all or most heritage practitioners. They are, however, important for
illustrating the thoughts of those involved in the heritage management process and how reality in
the field may differ from what the legislation dictates and is supposed to achieve. There are
undoubtedly numerous practitioners, among them many of those consulted for this paper, who
subscribe to best practice and go beyond the minimum standards mandated by legislation.
38
CHAPTER 4 - DISCUSSION
Overview of Victorian Heritage Legislation
The Heritage Act 1995
The Heritage Act 1995, administered by Heritage Victoria, identifies and provides
protection for heritage places and objects of significance to the State of Victoria (DPCD 2010).
The main purpose of the Heritage Act 1995 is to “provide for the protection and conservation of
places and objects of cultural heritage significance and the registration of such places and
objects” (Heritage Victoria 1995 s.1). The Act includes provisions for historical archaeological
sites and artefacts; historical buildings, structures and precincts; gardens, trees and cemeteries;
cultural landscapes; shipwrecks and relics; and significant objects (DPCD 2010). The Heritage
Act does not apply to places or objects that are of cultural heritage significance only on the
grounds of their association with Aboriginal tradition or traditional use (Heritage Victoria 1995
s.5).
Under the Act, places and objects of cultural heritage significance in Victoria can be
protected and managed thorough different statutory mechanisms such as the Victorian Heritage
Register, the Victorian Heritage Inventory, and Heritage Overlays (Heritage Council 2012: 3).
The Victorian Heritage Register (VHR) lists places, objects and shipwrecks of cultural heritage
significance to the State of Victoria (Federation of Australian Historical Societies n.d.). In order
to be added to the VHR, nominations must address the criteria for assessment of cultural heritage
significance adopted by the Heritage Council (Federation of Australian Historical Societies n.d.;
Heritage Victoria s.8[1]).). The Victorian Heritage Inventory (VHI) is a list of all known
historical archaeology sites in Victoria maintained by Heritage Victoria (Federation of Australian
Historical Societies n.d.). Heritage Overlays operate under a local planning scheme and assist in
39
protecting heritage of local significance as well as places included in the VHR (Federation of
Australian Historical Societies n.d.; Heritage Council 2012: 3). Significance thresholds are
applied to establish the level of cultural heritage significance that a place or object must possess
in order to justify its inclusion on the relevant heritage listing (Heritage Council 2012: 3).
Under the Heritage Act, a Conservation Management Plan (CMP) is the principal
document providing guidelines for the conservation and management of heritage places enabling
development proponents to make informed decisions about heritage places (Heritage Council
2010: 4). CMPs identify the heritage values and significance of a place, the conservation policies
recommended to protect the place’s significance in the face of change, and the strategy through
which the policies will be implemented (Heritage Council 2010: 4).
Practitioners undertaking work in non-Indigenous heritage under the Heritage Act 1995
may come from a range of fields. Heritage Victoria has an online directory that provides a list of
qualified heritage consultants and contractors and describes the work undertaken by different
professionals as well as the necessary criteria for qualification (Heritage Victoria 2011). The
directory is divided into a variety of categories for the various specialists such as heritage
consultants, historical archaeologists, landscape architects, architectural historians, conservation
architects and historians (Heritage Victoria 2011). As this paper is examining Victorian
consulting archaeology, only the qualifications of heritage consultants and historical
archaeologists will be examined, as those are the categories under which archaeologists may be
listed.
Heritage Victoria differentiates between heritage consultants and historical archaeologists.
40
Heritage consultants are engaged for “heritage studies, heritage assessments, heritage impact
assessments, conservation management plans, advising on the conservation and management of
heritage places, objects and collections” (Heritage Victoria 2011b). Heritage consultants must
possess a
tertiary qualification in a heritage related discipline and at least three years of experience working on heritage studies, heritage assessments, heritage impact assessments, conservation management plans, or providing advice on the conservation and management of heritage places, objects and collections (Heritage Victoria 2011b).
Historical archaeologists are engaged for “site surveys, analysing and recording features,
excavation, conservation, producing and publishing excavation/site reports, assessing
archaeological impact of development” (Heritage Victoria 2011a). Historical archaeologists
included in the Heritage Victoria Directory have a minimum of an honours degree in
archaeology or an equivalent qualification and at least years of experience working as a historical
archaeologist (Heritage Victoria 2011a).
The Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006
The Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006 is the legislation providing for the recognition,
protection and of Aboriginal cultural heritage in Victoria and connecting it to planning and
development processes (AAV 2006 s. 1; DPCD 2010). One of the stated objectives of the
Aboriginal Heritage Act is “to recognise, protect and conserve Aboriginal cultural heritage in
Victoria in ways that are based on respect for Aboriginal knowledge and cultural and traditional
practices” (AAV 2006 s. 3). Some of its key provisions include the establishment of Cultural
Heritage Management Plans (CHMPs) and Cultural Heritage Permit processes, the introduction
and management of a system of Registered Aboriginal Parties, and the establishment of the
Victorian Aboriginal Heritage Council (VAHC) (AAV 2006). The Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006
41
also established the Victorian Aboriginal Heritage Register (VAHR). The VAHR holds the
information on all known Aboriginal cultural heritage places as well as information on object
collections, discoveries of Aboriginal human remains and all documents prepared in relation to
the Act (DPCD 2013).
Another of the actions of the Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006 was to define the purpose of
Cultural Heritage Management Plans (CHMPS) and the circumstances under which they must be
undertaken (Heritage Council 2010: 4; Webber 2013). A CHMP is a written report, complying
with prescribed standards, that involves the assessment of an area to determine the nature of any
Aboriginal cultural heritage that is present and provides recommendations for measures to be
taken before, during and after an activity to manage and protect the Aboriginal cultural heritage
identified in the activity area (AAV 2006 s. 42, 43[1]; Webber 2013). The Act defines Aboriginal
cultural heritage as the Aboriginal places and objects that are of cultural heritage significance to
the Aboriginal people of Victoria as well as Aboriginal human remains (AAV 2006 s. 4, 5).
The Act describes the procedures for assessment in the production of a CHMP as
including “research into information relating to Aboriginal cultural heritage; and a ground survey
to detect the presence of Aboriginal cultural heritage; and the disturbance or excavation of land
to uncover or discover Aboriginal cultural heritage” (AHA 2006 section 43[2]). Development
proponents are responsible for ensuring that CHMPs are prepared for projects involving high
impact activities planned in areas identified as having cultural heritage sensitivity that have not
been subjected to significant ground disturbance (Kiriama 2012: 68; Webber 2013). Once the
CHMP is approved, the recommendations of a CHMP become compliance requirements for the
client (Webber 2013).
42
The Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006 has been praised for making a number of
improvements over previous Victorian Aboriginal heritage legislation. The Act has created a
clearer legislative framework for the protection and management of Aboriginal Heritage,
improving the protection of tangible Aboriginal cultural heritage (Kiriama 2012: 71). The
legislation has also provided a means of ensuring that Traditional Owners have greater direct
involvement in the management and conservation of their heritage (Kiriama 2012: 71). For the
purposes of commercial archaeology, the Act has been helpful in integrating the protection of
Aboriginal heritage more fully into the planning and development processes and providing a
greater degree of certainty to sponsors early in the development process so that they know what
they must do to comply with the legislation (DPCD 2010; Kiriama 2012: 71).
Cultural Heritage Advisors (CHAs) play a major role in the management of Aboriginal
cultural heritage under the Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006 and are engaged to assist development
proponents with the preparation of CHMPs (AAV 2006a). A CHA is a person who is recognised
as being appropriately qualified to undertake cultural heritage assessments. The Aboriginal
Heritage Act 2006 establishes the criteria that are necessary to qualify as a CHA and Aboriginal
Affairs Victoria (AAV) manages and maintains a list of CHAs in order to control access to the
Register and assist development proponents in identifying practitioners with appropriate
qualifications and experience (Webber 2013).
AAV stresses that the roles of a CHA require that that they possess the ability to
undertake assessments and prepare written technical reports that meet specified standards (AAV
2006a). Heritage practitioners must meet the requirements of the Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006
43
in order to be engaged as CHAs. According to the Act, CHAs must either be (a) appropriately
qualified in a discipline directly relevant to the management of Aboriginal cultural heritage, such
as anthropology, archaeology or history; or (b) have extensive experience or knowledge in
relation to the management of Aboriginal cultural heritage (AAV 2006 s.189[1]).
The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs established further guidelines for appropriate
qualifications as determined by Section 189[2] of the Act. These include:
• a degree in archaeology, involving studies in Australian archaeology, to at least Honours level; or
• a degree in anthropology, involving studies in Australian Aboriginal culture, to at least Honours level; or
• a degree in history, involving studies in Australian Aboriginal history, to at least Honours level; or
• a certified qualification, to at least Honours level, in a related area of studies such as earth sciences, geography, environmental science, planning or surveying involving studies in South Eastern Australian contexts; or
• a certified qualification to at least graduate diploma or graduate certificate level in Cultural Heritage Management or Cultural Resource Management involving studies in Australian cultural heritage management; or
• full membership, or eligibility for full membership, of the Australian Association of Consulting Archaeologists Incorporated;
• ordinary membership or fellowship of the Australian Anthropological Society Inc. or eligibility for ordinary membership or fellowship;
• recognition as a Professional Historian under the national criteria endorsed by the Australian Council of Professional Historians. (AAV 2006a).
Though the Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006 states that a CHA must either (a) be
appropriately qualified in a discipline directly relevant to the management of Aboriginal cultural
heritage, such as anthropology, archaeology or history; or (b) have extensive experience or
knowledge in relation to the management of Aboriginal cultural heritage (AAV 2006 s.189[1]),
44
in practice there is typically a tendency to limit CHA approval to qualified archaeologists
(Interview 7; VTOLJG 2011: 21). While the Regulations (AAV 2007 s.61[3]) specify that a
disturbance or an excavation for a complex assessment must be supervised by a person
appropriately qualified in archaeology and that it must be carried out in accordance with proper
archaeological practice, the legislative criteria for qualification as a CHA do not mandate an
archaeological qualification.
The Act’s prioritization of scientific knowledge and archaeological expertise, however,
means that is much more difficult to gain approval for registration as a CHA if an individual
possesses a non-archaeological qualification (Interview 7). Furthermore, guidelines do not exist
to clarify what constitutes ‘extensive experience or knowledge’ under Section 189[1](b), which
has prevented the qualification of knowledgeable Traditional Owners as CHAs using that
criterion (VTOLJG 2011: 21). Unlike specialists for non-Indigenous heritage, there is an
assumption that archaeologists are capable of providing the ‘total package’ for Aboriginal
cultural heritage in a commercial context (Byrne et al 2003: 16).
Issues 4.1 Legislation
4.1.1 Prioritisation of Development
Heritage literature, interviews conducted with archaeological consultants, and
submissions to the Review of the Aboriginal Heritage Act have identified the prioritisation of
development over the protection of heritage as an issue within consulting archaeology. Several of
the interviewed consultants stated their belief that both Indigenous and non-Indigenous heritage
legislation privileges development and promotes a system of ‘managed destruction,’ in which
45
intangible heritage is not adequately protected and is particularly vulnerable (Interview 2;
Interview 4; Interview 5; Interview 6; Interview 9). In particular, several sources question the
efficacy of the Aboriginal Heritage Act and imply that it promotes a system in which the vast
majority of sites are excavated, registered and then destroyed to make way for development
(Brown 2008: 25; Interview 2; Interview 5; Interview 6; Interview 10; VTOLJG 2011: 22). One
archaeologist stated that since the implementation of the Act, most sites have been “registered
and subsequently destroyed. There is no protective element to the CHMP process; there is a
massive destructive element. The CHMP process is a facility to allow destruction of heritage as
opposed to preservation of heritage” (Interview 2).
The interviews conducted with consultants provided insight into some of the other
obstacles to the protection of intangible heritage. In the case of non-Indigenous intangible
heritage, a consultant expressed the belief that “lack of consultation and the lack of public
awareness of the awareness of the importance of some non-Aboriginal heritage results in a lack
of regard or protection for it” (Interview 6). However, information gathered in the interviews
suggested that one advantage for non-Indigenous communities is that in some instances they can
prevent the destruction of intangible heritage important to them if they are “vociferous in
identifying it and fighting for it” (Interview 4). In contrast, the consultant expressed the belief
that it is much more difficult for Aboriginal communities to make their voices heard in similar
situations and government officials give their concerns considerably less weight in
considerations of whether or not development can proceed (Interview 4). This difference in
consideration of heritage is perceived to relate in large part to the skepticism with which
Aboriginal claims of intangible heritage are treated, particularly in situations where it concerns
traditions that have been relearned or rediscovered (Interview 3; Interview 4). For Aboriginal
46
heritage, one archaeologist explained that it is “very difficult to argue [for the recognition and
protection of intangible heritage] unless it is already particularly well-known and well-
recognised” (Interview 4).
A number of the informants have also expressed the belief that Victorian heritage
legislation is too weak to enforce protection of heritage (Interview 2; Interview 6; Interview 7).
Various stakeholders suggested that the Aboriginal Heritage Act is not strong enough to enforce
its regulations and does not provide adequate protection for heritage (Interview 4; Kiriama 2012:
72; VTOLJG 2011: 28), while others noted the frequency with which Heritage Act fails to
protect heritage (Interview 6). In a submission to the review of the Act, the Victorian Traditional
Owners Land Justice Group (VTOLJG) stated that though the Aboriginal Heritage Act describes
the penalties for violating the regulations, “in reality the enforcement provisions have no teeth:
there are insufficient resources provided for enforcement under the Act, and there is a lack of
willingness on the part of authorities to prosecute offences” (VTOLJG 2011: 28). One of the
consultants echoed this sentiment, noting that inspectors do not go out to project sites to ensure
that activities are being carried out in accordance with legislation unless someone higher up in
the government has them do so (Interview 4). Similarly, one of the consultants stated the belief
that “it is a bit of a battle to protect non-Aboriginal heritage. Even though technically speaking it
is protected and you could be prosecuted for harming heritage that is more than fifty years old, in
practice it never happens and fifty year plus buildings get destroyed all the time” (Interview 6).
In response to the perceived prioritisation of development, various submissions to the
review of the Aboriginal Heritage Act stated the need for the legislation to promote a heritage
management approach and prioritise the protection and conservation of heritage rather than
47
permitting the perpetuation of the current system in which ‘managed destruction’ and salvage
work dominate (Australia ICOMOS 2011: 2; VTOLJG 2011a: 7; Wathaurung Aboriginal
Corporation 2012: 1). Submissions and interviews argued that successful protection of heritage
would require stricter enforcement of the legislation and prosecution for violations (Interview 6;
VTOLJG 2011).
Both Aboriginal and historical heritage legislation are perceived as prioritising development and as being too weak to enforce protection of heritage. It is particularly difficult to protect Aboriginal intangible heritage unless it something already particularly well known and recognised, while protection of non-Indigenous intangible heritage is hindered by a lack of public awareness and the lack of a legislative requirement to undertake consultation. In situations in which the community is vocal about their attachment to a heritage place, it is more likely that this will result in protection for non-Indigenous heritage places due to skepticism with which Aboriginal claims of intangible heritage are often greeted. In response, stakeholders argue for prioritisation of protection and a heritage management approach rather than ‘managed destruction’ with stricter enforcement of regulations and prosecution of violations.
4.1.2 Intangible Heritage not Explicitly Mentioned
Another factor that informants identified as hindering protection of intangible values is
that neither the Heritage Act nor the Aboriginal Heritage Act explicitly mentions intangible
heritage or provides guidelines on how to assess it properly (Interview 2). Kiriama (2012: 72-73)
explains that while legislation such as the Aboriginal Heritage Act has been progressive in
recognising community involvement in heritage management, it does not explicitly require
assessment of intangible values. Various consultants expressed the opinion that though
investigation of intangible heritage is implied, it is not mandated nor is it strongly enforced,
making it difficult to argue for its protection (Interview 1; Interview 2; Interview 4; Interview 7;
Interview 8). They noted that legislative requirements can be fulfilled without an adequate
48
investigation of intangible values and CHMPs are often approved without any regard for
intangible heritage because the minimum requirements have been met (Interview 1; Interview 2;
Interview 6; Interview 8; Interview 9). As a result, emphasis remains on the protection of physical
places and material objects with less acknowledgment of intangible elements (Byrne 2009: 243;
Kiriama 2012: 72-73). One of the archaeologists suggested that intangible heritage is typically
only investigated further when it is already known that it exists or if the community is vocal about
protecting it (Interview 4). While some consultants choose to research intangible heritage beyond
the minimum effort suggested by the legislation, it is at their own discretion (Interview 1).
Both the heritage literature and interviews highlighted the need for intangible heritage to
be explicitly recognized in the legislation for both Indigenous and non-Indigenous heritage if
there is any hope to realistically provide it with protection (Interview 4; Kiriama 2012: 73).
Smith (1996: 74) has explained that in situations in which archaeologists and other heritage
practitioners might recognize the moral benefits of informed consultation with communities in
principle, in practice consultation rates will remain low without enforcement by bureaucratic
structures. Examples from the heritage literature demonstrate that adequate consultation and
assessment of intangible heritage will only be successful if unambiguous requirements to do so
are embedded in the legislation (Byrne et al 2003: 116; Ellis 2011: 159).
Neither the Heritage Act nor the Aboriginal Heritage Act explicitly mentions intangible heritage and, as a result, investigations focus primarily or exclusively on tangible heritage as minimum requirements are met. Intangible heritage is typically only investigated further when it is already known that it exists or if the community is vocal about protecting it. Stakeholders argue for more explicit recognition of intangible heritage in legislation.
49
4.1.3 Lack of Standards and Guidelines
Submissions to the review of the Aboriginal Heritage Act by archaeological
consultancies and various interview subjects also identified the lack of clear guidelines for
assessing Aboriginal intangible heritage as an issue (Biosis 2012: 4-5; Interview 2; Interview 7;
Interview 8; Interview 9). One consultant stated that standards and guidelines tend to relate
almost exclusively to archaeological management and the parameters of what is required in the
archaeological assessment work; there is much less emphasis on ensuring best practice for
consultation and investigation of intangible elements (Interview 8). In contrast, while there is no
requirement to consult for historical archaeology (Gibbs et al 2008: 29), and therefore no set of
guidelines providing standards for consultation, the Guidelines for Conducting Historical
Archaeological Surveys (Heritage Victoria 2012) and the Burra Charter (Australia ICOMOS
2013) provide guidance on how to conduct significance assessment.
For Aboriginal archaeology, the lack of guidelines impairs practitioners’ ability to
effectively identify, manage and protect intangible heritage. An opinion expressed within the
literature and interviews was that without an accepted methodology and strong legislative
enforcement many consultants avoid assessment of social significance and resort to only
addressing tangible culture (Ellis 2011: 159; Interview 7). One interview subject stated the belief
that though in some cases consultants may mention the Burra Charter in their reports in order to
show that they are attempting to conform to best practice in regard to significance assessment, it
is often only used as an interpretive tool late in the process after datasets have already been
created rather than being used throughout the process as it is intended (Interview 2). This makes
it difficult to successfully identify and assess existing values.
50
Interviews revealed that consultation and research are currently undertaken in different
ways with varying degrees of quality by consulting archaeologists, as there are no official
guidelines or minimum standards for research (Interview 8; Interview 9). Individual consultants
and companies use a range of systems and frameworks to evaluate significance and as a result
the terminology and management outcomes are highly variable from one project to the next
(Biosis 2012: 4-5; Interview 7). As a result, a number of archaeological consultants and
consultancies agree that it is imperative that the heritage agencies establish and enforce a set of
standards and guidelines for assessing significance for both tangible and intangible heritage
(Biosis 2012: 4-5; Interview 7; Interview 8). In particular, they have stated the need for more
explicit and specific instruction on the manner in which intangible heritage should be
investigated, recorded and registered (Andrew Long and Associates 2012: 14). They explain that
in order to ensure best practice, significance assessments must be carried out with rigorous and
systematic application of established criteria and thresholds with management recommendations
based on the comparative significance of various places (Biosis 2012: 2, 4-5; Dr Vincent Clark
and Associates 2012: 4).
While guidance on best practice for assessing significance already exists in the form of the
Burra Charter, which is intended for application to both Indigenous and non-Indigenous heritage
(Biosis 2012: 2; DPCD 2012a: 5; Dr Vincent Clark and Associates 2012: 4), some of the
consultants have suggested that it might be more appropriate for AAV to develop an agreed upon
set of guidelines, criteria and thresholds particularly suited to Victorian Aboriginal heritage
(Biosis 2012: 9; Interview 8).
51
The lack of clear guidelines and minimum standards for undertaking consultation and assessing Aboriginal intangible heritage has resulted in varying degrees of quality in different research. While there are is requirement to consult for historical archaeology, practitioners are more likely to conform to guidelines provided by the Burra Charter and the Guidelines for Conducting Historical
Archaeological Surveys when conducting significance assessments. Stakeholders argue for the establishment and enforcement of a set of standards and guidelines for undertaking consultation and assessing significance for both tangible and intangible heritage.
4.1.4 Definitions
Another issue identified as hindering the identification of intangible cultural heritage
relates to the wording of definitions within the legislation, particularly in the Aboriginal Heritage
Act 2006. Several submissions to the Review of the Aboriginal Heritage Act took the position
that the Act’s emphasis on Aboriginal places, objects and human remains permits a privileging of
scientific interpretation that is not in accordance with Aboriginal understanding of culture (City
of Casey 2011: 12; VAHC 2011: 22). Though the Aboriginal Heritage Act defines cultural
heritage significance broadly to include “archaeological, anthropological, contemporary,
historical, scientific, social or spiritual significance; and significance in accordance with
Aboriginal tradition” (AHA 2006 section 4[1]), various stakeholders argue that the definition
fails to adequately recognise the wide range of intangible elements that hold significance for
Aboriginal people (NSWALC 2012: 21; VAHC 2011: 22; Wathaurung Aboriginal Corporation
2012: 22; Xiberras 2011: 1, 4;).
Another issue mentioned in the submissions to the Review of the Act was the Aboriginal
Heritage Act Regulations’ definition of cultural heritage sensitivity. The Regulations assert that a
place that has been subject to significant ground disturbance is no longer considered a place of
cultural heritage sensitivity, and there is therefore no need to carry out a cultural heritage
52
management plan (AAV 2007: Regs 16, 22-34, 36-38, 41). Native Title Services Victoria
(NTSV) explains that this is a problem because while high impact activities and significant
ground disturbance may affect and diminish the cultural value where it depends upon the
tangible heritage located in the ground, it will not necessarily follow that the intangible values
associated with the area have disappeared (NTSV 2011: 21).
In contrast, there seems to be less debate regarding the definitions within the Heritage
Act, though the wording is not far different. The Heritage Act defines cultural heritage
significance as “aesthetic, archaeological, architectural, cultural, historical, scientific or social
significance” (Heritage Victoria 1995 s.3). Just as with the Aboriginal Heritage Act, the Heritage
Act never uses the word ‘intangible,’ though as one of the practitioners noted, it is common to
utilise the Burra Charter assessment criteria for social and spiritual value to examine intangible
elements (Interview 2). Additionally, several of the criteria that must be considered for inclusion
on the Victorian Heritage Register potentially allow for the recognition of the importance of
intangible cultural heritage. The criteria to be considered include:
• Importance to the course, or pattern, of Victoria’s cultural history; • Possession of uncommon, rare or endangered aspects of Victoria’s cultural history; • Potential to yield information that will contribute to an understanding of Victoria’s cultural
history; • Importance in demonstrating the principal characteristics of a class of cultural places and
objects; • Importance in exhibiting particular aesthetic characteristics; • Importance in demonstrating a high degree of creative or technical achievement at a
particular period; • Strong or special association with a particular community or cultural group for social,
cultural or spiritual reasons. This includes the significance of a place to Indigenous
53
peoples as part of their continuing and developing cultural traditions;2 • Special association with the life or works of a person, or group of persons, of importance in
Victoria’s history (Heritage Council 2012).
In attempts to address the perceived issues with regard to the definitions in the Aboriginal
Heritage Act, there has been pressure from a number of sources to amend the definitions within
the Aboriginal Heritage Act to more appropriately reflect Aboriginal culture and worldviews
(Biosis 2012: 11; DPCD 2011: 43; DPCD 2012a: 30; Kiriama 2012: 73; Merri Creek
Management Authority 2012: 6; NSWALC 2012: 60; NTSV 2011: 16; VAHC 2011: 22, 35;
Wathaurung Aboriginal Corporation 2012: 22). Groups advocating changes to the legislation
want the definition of Aboriginal cultural heritage to be expanded to include recognition of
intangible heritage (DPCD 2011: 43; DPCD 2012a: 30; Kiriama 2012: 72-73; NSWALC 2012:
10-12; NTSV 2011: 16; Urban Colours 2012: 5, 6). Various stakeholders have suggested that the
definition should encompass practices, oral tradition, observances, customs, traditions, beliefs,
history, cultural heritage landscapes, and social and economic activities, storylines, resource
areas, travel routes and other items significant to communities in both the past and present
(Biosis 2012: 11; Kiriama 2012: 73; NSWALC 2012: 60; NTSV 2011: 16; Urban Colours 2012:
5, 6; VAHC 2011: 22, 35; Wathaurung Aboriginal Corporation 2012: 22). The Victorian
Aboriginal Heritage Council (VAHC) also notes that it is important that the definition recognises
the living and dynamic nature of heritage and acknowledges the significance of both traditional
and contemporary values (VAHC 2011: 22). Submissions also reflected the belief that the
definitions and guidelines for their application should be developed in consultation with
2 Note: the Heritage Act 1995 does not apply to a place or object that is of cultural heritage significance only on the ground of its association with Aboriginal tradition or Aboriginal traditional use (Heritage Council 2012).
54
Traditional Owners in order to ensure recognition of their views (Merri Creek Management
Authority 2012: 6; VAHC 2011: 35).
Stakeholders have criticised the wording of definitions within the Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006, charging that the emphasis of Act permits privileging of scientific interpretation over Aboriginal understanding of culture and that the definitions fail to recognise the range of intangible elements that hold value for Aboriginal people. Consequently, they argue for the amendment of the definitions to more appropriately reflect Aboriginal culture and be expanded to include the range of intangible elements that hold value for Aboriginal people. In contrast, though the Heritage Act 1995 does not mention ‘intangible’ heritage, there is more acceptance of the definitions and the wording is considered broad enough to capture different values.
4.1.5 Difficulty of Registering Intangible Heritage
Another issue archaeological consultants have identified confronting the protection of
Aboriginal intangible heritage is the difficulty involved in placing it on a register. A consultant
explained that unique issues apply to intangible heritage that create issues for placing it on
registers; there are sensitivity issues regarding who can access and control the information as
well as confusion as to how to list and maintain unquantifiable and non-physical aspects of
culture (Interview 9). The consultant added that the current guidelines make it very difficult to
nominate and register non-archaeological or intangible heritage (Interview 9). One of the
submissions to the Review of the Aboriginal Heritage Act by a cultural heritage consultancy firm
criticized the lack of clear and agreed upon processes for the protection of intangible heritage
that are understood and accepted by AAV, CHAs or Traditional Owners (Andrew Long and
Associates 2012: 14). The submission goes on to explain that this has resulted in a number of
instances in which practitioners have attempted to “register intangible heritage with AAV based
on CHA and Aboriginal community interpretations in the Act, only to have AAV reject the
55
proposals” (Andrew Long and Associates 2012: 14). As a result, the registers are perceived as
having a tangible and scientific bias (NSWALC 2012: 60; Wathaurung Aboriginal Corporation
2012: 22), while areas associated with intangible values, such as areas linked with myths,
songlines, and special resource gather areas, are poorly represented (Interview 1).
The Heritage Act, in contrast, provides different methods of registering and protecting
different types of heritage, such as the Victorian Heritage Register (VHR), the Victorian
Heritage Inventory (VHI) and Heritage Overlays (Heritage Council 2012: 3). Notably, Heritage
Victoria recognises the significant contribution that intangible cultural heritage makes to places
and objects on the VHR (DPCD 2010a). However, though the range of statutory mechanisms is
capable of offering differing levels of protection to heritage that meets different significance
thresholds and the listings recognise the contribution of intangible heritage to significance,
intangible heritage at historical archaeological sites is not necessarily well protected. As one of
the interviewed consultants with experience working in historical archaeology noted, statutory
mechanisms for protecting non-Indigenous heritage tend to favour built heritage rather than
archaeological sites, which would affect the likelihood of a site with intangible components
being granted protection (Interview 4).
Consultants suggest that there should be effort made to protect the intangible heritage of
both Indigenous and non-Indigenous groups (Interview 4; Interview 7). In terms of Aboriginal
intangible heritage, submissions to the Review the Aboriginal Heritage Act encourage the
inclusion of a wider range of information on the Register, allowing the incorporation of
intangible cultural heritage, historical records and oral histories (AACAI 2012: 14; DPCD 2012:
31; Merri Creek Management Committee 2012: 5).
56
Under the Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006, it is difficult to register Aboriginal intangible heritage. In contrast, under the Heritage Act 1995, criteria for registering heritage recognise the contribution of intangible elements, though in practice built heritage is favoured over archaeological sites. Stakeholders argue for the inclusion of a wider range of information and different types of heritage places on registers.
4.1.6 Legislation not Integrated
Another criticism of the Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006 raised in the heritage literature and
submissions is that it is not well integrated with other legislation, such as the Heritage Act 1995
(Kiriama 2012: 72; TerraCulture 2011: 3). One of the submissions noted that though the
Heritage Act 1995 requires practitioners to consider Indigenous cultural heritage while
undertaking historical investigations, the opposite is not true of the Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006
(Dr Vincent Clark and Associates 2012: 16). This omission combines with the perceived
dichotomy between the fields of Historical and Aboriginal archaeology to result in distinct pieces
of legislation with a lack of communication between the respective heritage authorities, making
it difficult to ensure compliance (Kiriama 2012: 72; TerraCulture 2011: 3).
A few of the interview subjects suggested that CHAs and sponsors are more concerned
with complying with the Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006 than with the Heritage Act 1995
(Interview 4; Interview 7). There is the perception among some practitioners that they are both
permitted and encouraged to focus on Aboriginal heritage when they have been engaged to do an
assessment triggered by Aboriginal cultural heritage sensitivity (Interview 7). There have also
been recognised cases in which CHAs have accidentally violated the Heritage Act 1995 (AACAI
2012: 11). One of the interviewed arcaheologists related that in some instances, if a consultant
57
has been engaged to undertake a CHMP, historical archaeology is ignored, as clients may feel
that is not their responsibility to have it assessed under the requirements for a CHMP (Interview
4). Furthermore, the limited resources available are strictly allocated for the completion of the
CHMP (Interview 7). Though historical archaeology is protected under the Heritage Act, there is
the perception that local government is more concerned with seeing a CHMP for compliance
reasons and that consultants do not have to be concerned about other heritage that may be present
(Interview 4). At most, some consultants will feel that obligations can be satisfied by reporting
that non-Indigenous heritage is present without assessing the significance that it may contribute
to the site (Interview 7).
Similarly, the Australian Association of Consulting Archaeologists (AACAI) has noted
that while the Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006 has proved strong enough to convince developers to
engage consultants and ensure the widespread undertaking of CHMPs in order to avoid violating
the legislation, there is concern that this level of archaeological assessment and the recording of
sites does not seem to extend to historical sites (AACAI 2012: 11). One of the interviewed
consultants stated that there has been less investigation of historical archaeology since the
introduction of the Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006 than there was before the legislation was
implemented (Interview 4). The consultant explained that prior to the introduction of the
Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006, most consultants who are now doing only Aboriginal heritage
assessments would do heritage assessments for both historical and Aboriginal archaeology
(Interview 4).
58
Within submissions and interviews, consultants have promoted the integration of the
different legislation in order to make sure that practitioners neither deliberately nor inadvertently
violate the Heritage Act 1995 and the Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006 (Dr Vincent Clark and
Associates 2012: 16; Interview 4; Interview 7). This would necessitate the amendment of the
different pieces of legislation to reference one another and ensure and that heritage is
appropriately dealt with and reported to the appropriate authorities (Dr Vincent Clark and
Associates 2012: 16).
The different pieces of legislations’ lack of integration can result in accidental or deliberate violations of regulations. Informants suggest that without explicit reference to the various pieces of legislation with which practitioners and development proponents must comply, they may resort to complying with only the requirements of the CHMP or CMP that was initially triggered by the development. Stakeholders argue that the legislation must be integrated so that heritage can be protected.
4.2 Significance Assessment
Consultants have noted that the divergent methods of determining cultural heritage
significance for Aboriginal and Historical archaeology have impacted the ability to protect
identified heritage. They explain that current heritage practice applies a similar level of cultural
significance to all Aboriginal sites; there are no thresholds for significance to differentiate
between differing levels of significance (Biosis 2012: 4-5, 8; Interview 2; Interview 7). The
Aboriginal Heritage Act and Regulations classify all Aboriginal heritage the same way, with the
result that a single isolated flake is allotted the same level of assessment as more complex and
significant sites (Biosis 2012: 2, 8). Rather than conducting significance assessments to gauge
differing level of significance and ensure the protection of more significant elements, all
59
Aboriginal objects and places are offered blanket protection under the Act without regard for
their differing levels of significance (Byrne et al 2003: 5; Interview 7; Melbourne Water 2011: 6;
South East Water 2012: 3). Some of the submissions to the review of the Act suggest that instead
of providing stronger safeguards, this blanket protection serves to “diminish the protection and
importance of significant sites” (Melbourne Water 2011: 6; South East Water 2012: 3). As a
result of the blanket protection, formal significance assessment does not typically occur and
criteria used for assessing significance are not applied (Byrne et al 2003: 5; Byrne et al 2003:
141; Interview 7). The lack of formal significance assessment has had negative consequences for
Aboriginal heritage as there is no weighting assigned to determine what is most in need of
protection and no agreed threshold for conservation or destruction (Biosis 2012: 2; Byrne et al
2003: 5; Interview 7). This has meant that the typical response is for salvage rather than
conservation of heritage, which can be particularly problematic for intangible heritage in
situations when it cannot be divorced from its context (Biosis 2012: 2; Byrne et al 2003: 141).
In contrast, non-Indigenous heritage must undergo significance assessment to determine its
level of relative significance and the resultant level of protection it will receive through the
application of formal criteria and consideration of different related values (Biosis 2012: 8; Byrne
et al 2003: 141; Heritage Council 2012: 3; Interview 2). Legislation distinguishes between places
of significance and other less important evidence of human activity and occupation, providing
differing levels of protection, conservation, interpretation and management dependent upon the
threshold their significance meets (Biosis 2012: 8; Byrne et al 2003: 141).
For historical archaeology, the Guidelines for Conducting Historical Archaeological
Surveys is a technical guide that offers practitioners instruction on how to conduct significance
60
assessments and draft a Statement of Significance (Heritage Victoria 2012: 3). The Statement of
Significance must utilise the Criteria for Assessing Cultural Heritage Significance adopted by
the Heritage Council to ascertain the importance a place possesses in relation to Victoria’s
cultural history (Heritage Victoria 2012: 3, 53). The Guidelines for Conducting Historical
Archeological Surveys instructs practitioners to assess cultural heritage significance in
accordance with the model offered by the Burra Charter (Heritage Victoria 2012). The Burra
Charter “provides guidance for the conservation and management of places of cultural
significance … setting a standard of practice for those who provide advice, make decisions
about, or undertake works to places of cultural significance” (Australia ICOMOS Burra Charter
2013). The Burra Charter directs heritage practitioners on how to assess cultural heritage
significance to explain why a place is important and develop appropriate policies and practices to
prevent diminution of its significance (Australia ICOMOS 2013c: 1).
Practitioners are to indicate the degree of significance that a place possesses by
evaluating its aesthetic, historic, scientific/archaeological, social or spiritual significance and
providing supporting evidence (Heritage Victoria 2008: 17, 23). The significance assessment
will be used for the statement of significance, to determine the level of statutory protection
recommended for the place, and is crucial in devising conservation and management strategies
for the heritage place (Heritage Victoria 2008: 17, 23, 28, 30; Heritage Victoria 2012: 3).
The Guidelines for Conducting Historical Archaeological Surveys note that while the
cultural heritage significance of archaeological sites is often associated with scientific
significance, social, historical, aesthetic or spiritual values might also be present (Heritage
Victoria 2008: 30). The Guidelines stress that practitioners must identify the range of values at a
61
heritage place and take them into account when creating an appropriate conservation and
management plan (Heritage Victoria 2008: 30). In conducting significance assessments,
practitioners must investigate the social value that may exist for both minority and majority
groups and consider factors such as the significance that a place holds for communities in the
past and present, how the place has been used, and whether the place possesses symbolic value
that people identify with (Heritage Victoria 2008: 30, 32).
However, consultants noted that while ‘social’ value is often assessed for non-Indigenous
heritage under the Burra Charter process, particularly for built heritage, ‘intangible’ heritage is
typically not considered for historical archaeology (Interview 2; Interview 6). The Burra Charter
Practice Notes explain that criteria considered as part of the Burra Charter process, including
aesthetic, historic, scientific, social and spiritual values, may all have tangible and intangible
aspects (Australia ICOMOS 2013c: 2). Informants suggest that social value, referring to “the
associations that a place has for a particular community or cultural group and the social or
cultural meaning that it holds for them” (Australia ICOMOS 2013c: 4), is considered more
narrowly without consideration of the range of intangible elements that might exist (Interview 2;
Interview 6). A consultant noted that at “Aboriginal sites, there’s at least an awareness in a lot of
archaeologists that there may be some other meaning to the site,” but “that in 99% of cases it
doesn’t even occur to [archaeologists] that there could be intangible heritage at a non-Aboriginal
site. It’s just not something that archaeologists are schooled in Australia by and large” (Interview
6). Additionally, with an emphasis on fabric and a lack of comprehension of what intangible
values encompass, historical archaeologists do not necessarily understand the import of
investigating the range of potential intangible values and are more likely to recognize and rely
62
upon other values for significance assessment. In discussing how significance at a historical site
would be investigated, another consultant noted that while
“there are certainly aesthetic values to a … historical archaeological site that would be important to the public … [and there might be] some intangible and broader values beyond just the archaeological, mostly I would have thought the historical stuff, aesthetic, public and educative and scientific information provides us with what people did” (Interview 8).
This was a view echoed by other consultants who had difficulty trying to determine what
intangible non-Indigenous heritage might exist in Melbourne (Interview 9).
As a result of the perception that intangible heritage is not associated with non-
Indigenous culture, one of the consultants explained that it is generally accepted that
anthropologists, in the instances where they are employed to do assessments of intangible values,
deal solely with Indigenous cultural heritage (Interview 7). For non-Indigenous heritage, a
historian or built heritage specialist would be employed to assess non-scientific or archaeological
cultural values (Interview 2; Interview 7). The relative lack of interest in the assessment of non-
Indigenous intangible heritage has meant that little research has addressed the relationships and
interactions between local non-Indigenous communities and historical archaeologists in Australia
compared to works on Indigenous heritage (Gibbs et al 2008: 29).
In response to the lack of assessment of differing levels of significance for Aboriginal
heritage, submissions to the review of the Aboriginal Heritage Act expressed the necessity for
developing criteria, significance thresholds and minimum standards for assessment for
Aboriginal heritage to ensure that places’ varying levels of significance are determined. The
submissions expressed the view that rather than designating all Aboriginal heritage as highly
63
significant and affording it ‘blanket protection,’ there should be recognition of the relative
significance of different heritage and places (Melbourne Water 2011: 6; South East Water 2012:
3). The opinion was expressed that while heritage of varying levels of significance will be
recorded, effort and resources should be concentrated on protecting and conserving places of
higher significance (Biosis 2012: 4-5, 8-9). The submission asserted the belief that instituting
guidelines for significance assessment will assist in moving the heritage industry towards a
policy promoting conservation and value-based management rather than salvage and managed
destruction (Biosis 2012: 9).
Interviews and heritage literature have also noted the necessity of moving beyond the
dichotomy between anthropology and history to recognize the range of intangible values existing
for all communities (Ellis 2011; Haig 2010; Interview 7). The current disciplinary divide
assumes that archaeology and anthropology are distinct fields, which has resulted in
archaeologists who ignore the less tangible elements of culture and anthropologists who do not
concentrate on material manifestations of human behavior (Godwin & Weiner 2006: 137).
Practitioners note that collaborative cross-disciplinary approach incorporating both
archaeological and anthropological techniques and perspectives has the potential to benefit
projects and improve understanding of the past and present (Interview 7; Greer & Fuary 2008).
Furthermore, Ellis (2011: 158) and Haig (2010: 369) stress that there should be recognition that
intangible heritage is not restricted to traditional, less developed, minority cultures typically
studied by ethnologists and anthropologists. This manner of thinking has been criticized for
perpetuating the notion of ‘otherness’ and ignoring intangible values possessed by different parts
of the population (Ellis 2011: 158; Haig 2010: 369).
64
For Aboriginal archaeology, thresholds are not applied to establish differing levels of significance and offer higher degree of protection to heritage possessing higher levels of significance. Without an agreed upon threshold to determine what is protected and what can be destroyed, salvage is more common than conservation and important heritage is often not protected. For historical archaeology, formal significance assessment occurs with application of criteria and thresholds to ensure that heritage with higher levels of significance are offered a higher degree of protection. Assessments occur in line with the guidelines provided by the Guidelines for Conducting Historical
Archaeological Surveys and the Burra Charter. However, while they might consider social value, some archaeologists do not associate ‘intangible’ heritage with non-Indigenous cultures or may be unaware of the range of intangible heritage that might exist. Additionally, the consideration of those types of values is not considered the work of archaeologists. Stakeholders support the institution of significance criteria and thresholds for the assessment of Aboriginal heritage in order to promote the protection and management of heritage in relation to its relative degree of significance. Sources also support a more holistic approach to the assessment of heritage, in which the wide range of tangible and intangible values for both Indigenous and non-Indigenous groups are considered.
4.3 Consultation
Lack of community consultation or conducting consultation in an inappropriate manner
can be detrimental to the identification of intangible heritage. One of the cited improvements of
recent Aboriginal heritage legislation and practice has been the increased involvement of the
Aboriginal community within the heritage process (DPCD 2010; Kiriama 2012). A system of
‘Aboriginal consultation’ was incorporated into heritage practice as early as the 1980s
developing within the framework of Indigenous rights (Byrne et al 2003: 5, 6; NNTT 2009).
Involvement of Indigenous people in the management of their heritage became a standard of best
practice in heritage with the publication of Ask First: A guide to respecting Indigenous heritage
places and values intended for land developers, land users and managers, cultural heritage
professionals and others who may have an impact on Indigenous heritage (Australian Heritage
65
Commission 2002; NNTT 2009: 6-7). Ask First is based upon the principles that Indigenous
people:
• Are the primary source of information on the value of their heritage and how it is best conserved;
• Must have an active role in any Indigenous heritage planning process; • Must have input into primary decision-making in relation to Indigenous heritage so they
can continue to fulfil their obligations towards heritage; and • Must control intellectual property and other information relating specifically to their
heritage, as this may be an integral aspect of its heritage value (Australian Heritage Commission 2002: 6).
Consultation is also in accordance with the principle of free, prior and informed consent
(FPIC) outlined in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples
(UNDRIP). Among other things, the declaration states that:
States shall consult and cooperate in good faith with the indigenous peoples concerned through their own representative institutions in order to obtain their free and informed consent prior to the approval of any project affecting their lands or territories and other resources, particularly in connection with the development, utilization or exploitation of mineral, water or other resources (UN 2008 Art. 32).
However, ‘consultation’ has largely been interpreted to mean that Aboriginal people
should have the opportunity to be present when archaeologists conduct fieldwork (Byrne et al
2003: 6). While this system has succeeded in greater involvement of Aboriginal people in the
archaeological process, participation has largely been relegated to compliance-related functions
for obtaining consent and physical participation in archaeological fieldwork rather than
participation in the design and development of projects and assessments or consideration of
Aboriginal values and the social significance of places (Byrne et al 2003: 5, 16; Greer at al 2002:
282). This view of ‘consultation,’ while an improvement over past practice, has meant that there
66
has not yet been an adequate methodology developed to assess values held by the community
(Byrne et al 2003: 6, 9). Community engagement should present an active role for the
community rather than a passive assimilation into the archaeological process (English and
Goulding 2008: 26).
Though policy has increasingly required consultation with Traditional Owners,
interviews and submissions reveal some of the issues caused by the lack of guidelines
expounding the minimum requirements or standards for consultation (Biosis 2012: 3; Interview
2; Interview 9). In their submission to the review of the Act, Nindi-Ngujarn Ngarigo Monero
Aboriginal Corporation (NNNMAC) stated the belief that in their experience, the “consultative
process… is a tokenistic process and [their] input on the values and knowledge of place or site is
seen as secondary to other processes” (NNNMAC 2011: 3). Additionally, several of the
interviews revealed the belief that many consultants will only do the minimum amount of work
required by the law and will not attempt ‘best practice’ or exert extra effort to investigate
information that is difficult to uncover (Interview 2; Interview 4). One of the interviewed
archaeologists stated the opinion that the legislation permits CHAs to fulfill their obligations by
simply mentioning intangible heritage and doing a perfunctory collection of information that
may be readily offered (Interview 2). Some of the interviewed consultants mentioned that in
many cases, the research done on intangible values comes down to a single sentence in the
CHMP saying that the community representative had no information to offer (Interview 9;
Interview 10). One of the consultants explained that further consultation is typically not
perceived to be warranted because it is not enforced by legislation (Interview 9).
67
Consultants noted that it is occasionally difficult to locate the proper person for
consultation and who may possess the sought after knowledge. Sometimes it is only with probing
that it is possible to identify Elders who may actually have a connection and be able to identify
areas of significance (Interview 1). Various interviews noted the occurrence of practitioners who
do only the minimum consultation required to fulfill legislative obligations and might only
question field representatives to ask if they have any knowledge of intangible values (Interview
1; Interview 2; Interview 7; Interview 8; Interview 10). The consultants stated that this is an
inappropriate method of addressing intangible cultural heritage values for a number of reasons.
They explained that the individuals engaged as field representatives might not possess
information regarding intangible values (Interview 1; Interview 7). Additionally, the Traditional
Owners participating in fieldwork is there for a survey and will not have been briefed on the
nature of the project and will not have had the opportunity to consult with Elders as to whether or
not there is any known intangible cultural heritage values associated with the place (Interview 2).
Furthermore, consultants explained that field representatives tend to be younger people who are
physically fit and have the time to go out in the field and dig; they are typically not Elders and
are more likely to possess archaeological knowledge than traditional knowledge (Interview 5;
Interview 7; Interview 8; Interview 10). Additionally, consultants questioning Elders at meetings
may also pose problems if they are not prepared to answer the question that the consultant is
asking (Interview 7). Taken to an extreme, one archaeologist stated that the situation created by
the minimum requirements for consultation “descends into farce when unscrupulous consultants
go down the path of going-‘Well, instead of addressing intangible cultural in any logical,
professional, international, best practice kind of way, we’ll just let people talk about their
feelings of a place that they are visiting for the first time’” (Interview 2). The archaeologists
further noted that once a representative of a group has been asked about their knowledge of
68
intangible cultural heritage, the consultant is freed of the obligation of pursuing it further
whether or not the person was prepared to answer the question (Interview 1; Interview 2).
The Aboriginal heritage sector developed in the context of Indigenous rights and
recognition of the importance of obtaining consent (Greer et al 2002: 266), which benefited
Aboriginal communities by ensuring them a more direct role in the heritage management and
conservation process (Byrne et al 2003: 5). In contrast, the involvement of non-Indigenous local
communities is rarely recognized by legislation (Byrne et al 2003: 115). Unlike Aboriginal
heritage, the Heritage Act 1995 issues no requirements to consult or involve the community for
non-Indigenous heritage assessments and, as a result, the community’s views are often not
investigated (Byrne et al 2003: 96; Gibbs et al 2008: 29; Greer et al 2002: 277-278; Interview 1;
Interview 6). There are few motivating factors to ensure consultation or development of a
community-based approach for historical archaeology (Interview 5; Greer at al 2002: 267, 282).
Greer et al (2002: 267, 282) posit that in historical archaeology, non-Indigenous communities are
more likely to accept the expertise of archaeologists in imposing their interpretations on
intangible heritage without controversy. Ethical concerns regarding the interpretation of another
culture’s heritage are believed to be absent because it is assumed that most archaeologists are
from the culture that is being assessed (Greer at al 2002: 267, 282). One of the interviewed
archaeologists echoed this view, explaining that the lack of moral imperatives or government
regulation means that consultants have no qualms about determining social value themselves
without community input (Interview 5). As a result, heritage consultants are even more likely to
offer their own views of intangible values at non-Indigenous sites than at Aboriginal sites
(Interview 5).
69
Greer et al (2002: 267, 282) note that for historical archaeology, community involvement is
typically informal with participation confined to volunteer work on excavations and limited
opportunities to comment on archaeological drafts. If consultation occurs, their input is usually
confined to comments on the work of the ‘experts’ as part of the final review of reports (Greer et
al 2002: 277-278; Interview 1). In many cases, however, the community is not involved at all
(Byrne et al 2003: 6; Interview 5). Heritage Victoria might require development proponents to
put an ad in a newspaper or the local council might urge consultants to consult the community if
it is considered likely that an area being developed might be of particular interest to the public
(Byrne et al 2003: 96; Interview 6). Assessment and recognition of social significance and
intangible values is only successful when communities identify the places that have meaning for
them and empower themselves to enforce their protection and conservation (Byrne et al 2003:
11; Interview 4). Consultants explain that in instances where a community is not vocal in
expressing the importance of the intangible values, no effort is typically made to investigate
whether those values might exist (Interview 5; Interview 6). The onus is on the community to
bring it to the attention of policy makers who will pressure heritage practitioners to investigate. It
is therefore often at the urging of someone else, rather than due to the concern of the
archaeologist, that they will carry out consultation (Interview 6).
The literature explains that rather than considering consultation as merely a preliminary
step in the compliance process or as an ‘extra’ contributing to archaeological research, it can
better be utilized as an integral component integrated into the research that facilitates expression
of community-based values (English and Goulding 2008: 26; Greer & Fuary 2008: 13). The
interviews reflect the belief that consultation with communities to elicit information about what
is important to them and collect oral histories is of critical importance for establishing what
70
values exist and assessing significance for both Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal communities
(Interview 1; Interview 3; Interview 4; Interview 7). Heritage practitioners, as outsiders, might
lack the knowledge, memories or the experience necessary to recognise the subtle practices,
ideas, connections to landscapes, sites, or objects without engaging the local community (Byrne
et al 2003: 3; Ellis 2011: 162; English and Goulding 2008: 26). For archaeologists, this is
particularly true when intangible elements lack a physical component and might be difficult to
detect without the assistance of those for whom it has value (English and Goulding 2008: 26).
Rather than merely meeting the minimum requirements of the legislation, practitioners
should make an effort to conform to best practice for both Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal
heritage. This necessitates locating the appropriate people for consultation (Australia ICOMOS
2013b: 3), ensuring that the method of community engagement is culturally appropriate, and
employing the methods that are best capable of eliciting information regarding the heritage
values. The Burra Charter recognizes that places can hold a variety of meanings for a range of
people (Burra Charter Art.12, Art.26.3). All those individuals and communities with knowledge
and significant associations and meanings should be involved in the heritage process and
participate in assessment and management of the place’s values (Australia ICOMOS 2013a: 5;
Australia ICOMOS 2013c: 8). Heritage practitioners should involve and consult with a wide
range of knowledge-holders with relevant information, considering ‘ancestral’, ‘traditional’ and
‘historical’ connections (Australia ICOMOS 2013b: 3). Rather than limiting consultation to one
or two site officers, there can be benefits to engaging a larger number of people in situations
when it is appropriate, as the wider range of connections can provide a deeper and more
meaningful understanding of the place’s significance (English and Goulding 2008: 26). In some
instances, the desired knowledge may only be possessed by a limited number of people and in
71
some cultures only designated people will have the authority to speak for country and share
information (Australia ICOMOS 2013c: 8). Engagement with the appropriate knowledge-holders
is particularly important in regard to cultural significance assessments involving social and
spiritual values (Australia ICOMOS 2013c: 8).
While consultation typically occurs for Aboriginal heritage in Victoria, the literature
notes that it is also inappropriate for practitioners to assess social significance and intangible
values for non-Indigenous heritage without engaging with the community (Byrne et al 2003:
143). It is erroneous to assume that non-Aboriginal communities have less attachment to their
heritage and that they do not merit the right to consultation (Byrne et al 2003: 143). Heritage
practitioners, irrespective of their ethnicity, should be facilitators and expert advisors helping
communities to identify and articulate values; they are not stakeholders themselves and their
views cannot replace community consultation (Byrne et al 2003: 143).
4.3.1 Methods of Consultation
Different possibilities for engaging the community as part of the consultation process were
given by heritage practitioners within the literature and interviews. These methods included
discussions with individuals and groups to identify places that may have special meanings,
holding meetings both at the beginning and throughout research and planning process, oral
history interviews and storytelling, historical and archival research, in-field and post-field
consultation, cultural mapping, community meetings and workshops, photo elicitation, surveys,
consultation with historical societies and engaging specialist input (Australia ICOMOS 2013c: 9;
Byrne et al 2003: 159; English and Goulding 2008: 26; Interview 1; Interview 2; Interview 3;
Interview 4; Interview 6; Interview 7; Johnston 1992: 21). After consultation and community
72
engagement occurs, it is advisable for consultants to review their initial conclusions with the
relevant community members to ensure that their values have been understood and articulated to
accurately reflect their views (Australia ICOMOS 2013c: 8; Interview 1; Johnston 1992: 21).
In several instances, practitioners noted the benefits of a mapping process involving the
community to identify and help with the management of non-archaeological values (English and
Goulding 2008: 25-26; Interview 8; Interview 9; Johnston 1992: 21). Practitioners map the
places associated with important aspects of peoples’ lives and memories, with locations
associated with “work, protest, living areas, resource collection areas, spiritual and story places,
births, deaths and government control” (English and Goulding 2008: 25-26). Community
members may first discuss areas of sensitivity or importance using maps and aerial photographs
of the area before going into the field with the heritage practitioners to identify the sites and
create spatial mapping (Interview 8; Interview 9). While these places will not necessarily be
registered, they can assist in establishing the alignments of significant areas where particularly
high values and connections to the community exist; this can assist in management
recommendations and decisions such as eliminating high value places from development
proposals (Interview 9). Cultural mapping can provide a composite of different values;
sensitivity mapping can incorporate information on both archaeological and cultural sensitivity
to create an amalgam of the two in which neither value is privileged (Interview 8; Interview 9).
Though consultation is important for the assessment of both Indigenous and non-
Indigenous intangible heritage, methods for conducting investigation and locating informants
differ in many respects. Investigation of non-Indigenous values is typically very public and may
involve consultation with large numbers of people, allowing the participation of any individuals
73
who possess relevant information (Interview 7). In order to locate potential informants for non-
Indigenous heritage, practitioners might advertise in a local newspaper, use referrals, surveys,
and focus groups, or canvassing the community (Byrne et al 2003: 159; Interview 4; Interview
7). In contrast, there is typically a greater degree of privacy accorded to Aboriginal cultural
heritage (Interview 7). Only a limited number of people are typically consulted due to privacy
issues and the desire to respect the wishes of Traditional Owners (Interview 7). Practitioners note
that in undertaking consultation regarding Indigenous heritage, the Traditional Owners
themselves are best suited to identify who is authorized to speak for the group and how they
would prefer to have the consultation conducted (Interview 8).
Due to the need to conduct Aboriginal consultation more privately (Interview 7), the
methods of community engagement may differ from those employed with other community
groups. Ask First (AHC 2002) offers guidance on the appropriate manner in which to conduct
Aboriginal consultation. For initial consultation, a consultant will identify Traditional Owners
and other Indigenous people with rights and interests in the area; identify non-Indigenous people
with rights and interests in the area; meet with relevant Indigenous people to describe the project
or activity; agree on a process for addressing Indigenous heritage matters; arrange a meeting of
all stakeholders to discuss the project or activity and agree who will undertake work; and deal
with disputes (AHC 2002: 8-11). Identification of Indigenous heritage places and values involves
undertaking background research and ensuring that the relevant Indigenous people are actively
involved and identify their heritage places and values (AHC 2002: 12-13)
Additionally, the interview subjects for this paper shared their methods for conducting
Aboriginal consultation. They explained that basic consultation with Traditional Owners will
74
typically consist of discussions with field representatives about cultural values associated with
the area and will ideally include interviews and site visits with Elders as well (Interview 1;
Interview 3; Interview 5; Interview 7). In the best-case scenario, input is sought at every stage of
the heritage management process in order to give community members the opportunity to
identify intangible heritage so that it can be incorporated into the assessment methodology and
management plan (Interview 3). Another method of acquiring information about Aboriginal
intangible values is to conduct cultural values recording, where elders and representatives from
family groups go out into the field with anthropologists and archaeologists and create a report
about the country (Interview 6; Interview 7). Assessment might also entail a background review
of other archaeological research and regional studies conducted in the area and identification and
investigation of geological formations and natural heritage values in the area that may be linked
to intangible values (Interview 1; Interview 4).
Consultation is required for Aboriginal archaeology due to the recognition of the rights of Indigenous peoples in line with international conventions. However, the lack of minimum standards for consultation means that some practitioners satisfy the minimum obligations without regard for best practice. In addition, in many cases Aboriginal people are involved in the archaeological process, but have less input regarding the social significance of a place. In contrast, there is no obligation to consult communities regarding non-Indigenous heritage. Often, no effort will be made to investigate intangible non-Indigenous heritage unless the community is vocal about their attachment to a place and brings it to the attention of policy makers. Sources agree that consultation with communities should occur, with effort to identify the appropriate people to consult within the relevant communities and with consultation undertaken in a manner than it is culturally appropriate.
4.4 Skill Set and Qualifications
One of the key issues identified as inhibiting the proper assessment of cultural heritage
significance at both Aboriginal and historical archaeological sites was the perceived lack of all of
75
the necessary skills among assessors (Australia ICOMOS 2013c: 9). Submissions to the Review
of the Aboriginal Heritage Act suggested that archaeologists possess negligible knowledge of
intangible values and lack the skill set to address them (VTOLJG 2011: 21; Xiberras 2011: 4).
The sentiment that many archaeologists lack the ability to grasp intangible values was echoed by
many of the heritage consultants interviewed for this paper (Interview 1; Interview 2; Interview
4; Interview 6; Interview 10).
Some heritage consultants find it difficult to assess intangible heritage at historical sites
because they are unsure of how to conduct a proper consultation and have never been required to
undertake one (Interview 5). Consultants noted that the university archaeology courses do not
adequately prepare students to work with intangible values and that they typically graduate with
little experience with cultural heritage management in general (Interview 1; Interview 4;
Interview 6). The courses typically focus on material culture, with less emphasis on intangible
elements of culture (Interview 6). The lack of anthropological training by the majority of
heritage practitioners and regulatory authorities has also been cited as one of the reasons for
inadequate consideration of intangible heritage (NSWALC 2012: 21). Consultants explain that
this results in a gap in many archaeologists’ skill sets since anthropological skills are important
for addressing intangible heritage (Interview 2).
There were also a number of specific issues identified relating the skill set of Cultural
Heritage Advisors (CHAs). With archaeologists without experience working with intangible
heritage employed as CHAs, traditional knowledge and social values are often ignored or missed
because they are unaware of the proper methods for investigation (Interview 10). Another issue
raised by the Victorian Aboriginal Heritage Council (VAHC) in regard to CHA qualifications, is
76
that some archaeologists do not have sufficient knowledge of Aboriginal cultural heritage and
have degrees in another sub-field such as historical or Classical archaeology (VAHC 2011: 31).
The Burra Charter Practice Notes (Australia ICOMOS 2013a: 4-5) acknowledge that specialists
in one sub-field of archaeology may not have the appropriate skills for addressing other sub-
fields of archaeology.
Yet another issue raised in the submissions is that the Minister’s Guidelines (AAV 2006),
referred to in Section 189[2] of the Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006, focuses on the university
qualifications required for qualification as a CHA rather than on the necessary skills and
experience (VAHC 2012: 30-31). University qualifications alone are not necessarily a good
indication that an individual possesses the range of skills to successfully work as a CHA (VAHC
2012: 30). The skills necessary to work successfully as a CHA are acquired through a
combination of both education and vocational experience (VAHC 2012: 30). This is particularly
problematic in the case of new graduates, who possess the required degree qualifications but are
typically inexperienced (PwC 2012: 36).
There have been various approaches suggested on how to best address the perceived lack
of necessary skills among heritage practitioners. The lack of skills is particularly problematic for
some archaeologists working as CHAs. Though historical archaeologists also have difficulty
assessing intangible values (Interview 5), there are various other specialists such as historians,
anthropologists or other social scientists who might be engaged to address the different aspects
of heritage (Heritage Victoria 2011b). In contrast, archaeologists working with Indigenous
heritage are expected to provide the ‘total package,’ which they might not be capable of
providing (Byrne et al 2003: 16).
77
An evaluation undertaken by the Victorian Aboriginal Heritage Council indicated that the
range of skills necessary for undertaking Aboriginal cultural heritage assessments include
practical archaeological field skills, project management skills and experience working in
Aboriginal communities (VAHC 2012: 30). Project management skills are noted as being
particularly important as a CHA must successfully interact with and mediate between multiple
interest groups including Traditional Owners, developers, state bodies and other various
interested parties (VAHC 2012: 30-31).
While a collaborative approach incorporating anthropological techniques can be
beneficial for identifying and assessing cultural values (Greer & Fuary 2008), many practitioners
argue that it is unnecessary to be a trained anthropologist to successfully assess intangible values.
Some archaeologists note that they have addressed the issue of their lack of anthropological
training by developing the skills independently (Interview 2). They have acquired the skills to
investigate and manage intangible heritage, engage communities and undertake consultation with
years of practical experience (Interview 4; Interview 8). One opinion is that particularly for the
investigation of contemporary and historical Aboriginal values in Victoria, extensive experience
working with Aboriginal communities can often be more useful for archaeologists than
traditional anthropological skills (Interview 8).
Submissions to the Review of the Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006 proposed amending the
criteria for CHAs in order to reduce the number of unskilled and unqualified people working
78
without supervision (AACAI 2011: 3). Among the suggested changes to ensure that CHAs are
qualified to assess Aboriginal cultural heritage are the establishment of an accreditation system
(AACAI 2011: 3; Mornington Peninsula Shire 2012: 1), cultural heritage awareness training
(Wurundjeri Tribe land Council 2011: 10), and improving the education and preparation of
CHAs entering the industry to help them understand the importance of the non-archaeological
aspects of cultural heritage management (Interview 6). Additionally, amending the Minister’s
Guidelines to include a skills-based requirement obliging CHAs to demonstrate evidence of
experience and familiarity with Aboriginal cultural heritage management and community
engagement in Victoria would ensure that CHAs are better qualified (Biosis 2012: 3; DPCD
2012a: 8).
Submissions note that there is also a need to clarify the criteria for qualification as a
CHA; terms such as “appropriately qualified” and “extensive knowledge or experience” must be
elucidated (TerraCulture 2011: 2). In particular, there has been interest in establishing guidelines
for qualification based on “extensive experience or knowledge in relation to the management of
Aboriginal cultural heritage,” the second qualification for CHAs under section 189[1](b) of the
Aboriginal Heritage Act (VTOLJG 2011a: 7). The submissions propose that this would ensure
the recognition of traditional knowledge as form of expertise and accord status to Traditional
Owners as CHAs (Joint Submission from Victorian Registered Aboriginal Parties 2011: 5;
VTOLJG 2011a: 7).
Some have argued that as part of reforming the qualifications for CHAs, it is necessary to
distinguish between the roles of archaeologists and CHAs (Interview 7). In Victoria, an
79
archaeologist has come to mean someone who is capable of dealing with material culture and
typically places value on scientific research value (Interview 7). In contrast, the role that the
CHA plays within the cultural heritage management process implies the capacity to deal with
both tangible and intangible culture (Interview 7). While the legislation is archaeologically
oriented and the majority of CHAs are archaeologists, not all archaeologists possess the skill set
or desire to assess non-tangible aspects of culture. Some argue for separate accreditation to
ensure proper qualification for both CHAs and archaeologists (Dr Vincent Clark and Associates
2012: 9).
While amending the criteria for qualification as a CHA might resolve some of the issues,
it still assumes that individuals would possess the entire range of skills necessary for the cultural
heritage management process. A different tactic, more in line with the system currently used for
non-Indigenous heritage, would involve a more multidisciplinary approach. The Burra Charter
Practice Notes state the necessity of recognizing that a wide range of specialist skills are
necessary for archaeological investigation and cultural significance assessment and that it is
unlikely that a single person will possess all of them (Australia ICOMOS 2013a: 4-5; Australia
ICOMOS 2013c: 9). An assessment of cultural significance will typically involve a range of
tasks including “historical research, physical examination of the place, engagement with people
with associations to and knowledge about the place,” which may necessitate the engagement of a
variety of specialists to address the various aspects of the site (Australia ICOMOS 2013c: 9). The
Practice Notes advises heritage practitioners to be honest about the limitations of their skills and
experience and supplement their abilities with those of others when necessary (Australia
ICOMOS 2013a: 4-5; Australia ICOMOS 2013c: 9).
80
With a multidisciplinary approach, consulting archaeologists stress that archaeological
fieldwork conducted under the Act and Regulations would continue to require the supervision of
qualified archaeologists with experience working with Aboriginal archaeology (AACAI 2011: 3;
AACAI 2012: 3; Dr Vincent Clark and Associates 2012: 9). However, appropriately qualified
professionals, such as anthropologists or historians, would investigate and assess other cultural
heritage values (AACAI 2012: 3). This would be similar to the model used in other states where
archaeologists focus on the tangible aspects of heritage assessment while anthropologists are
considered to be better equipped to assess intangible values (Interview 1). This position
conforms to the beliefs of a number of the archaeologically trained CHAs interviewed for this
paper who do not feel comfortable assessing intangible values and feel that investigation of
intangible values should be carried out by trained anthropologists (Interview 3; Interview 5).
However, the emphasis on specialization with the goal of a multidisciplinary approach
may have negative consequences if the various assessments are not well integrated (Byrne et al
2003: 155). Compartmentalization of the various sectors within the Victorian cultural heritage
industry has become standard, particularly for non-Indigenous archaeology. Certain professions
dominate specific parts of the heritage industry; architects and landscape architects do work
assessing aesthetic significance, historians assess historical significance, and archaeologists
assess scientific significance (Byrne et al 2003: 7). This approach is in keeping with the ideas of
the New Archaeology, which privileges specialization over general mastery in order to maximize
efficient output following the factory model, tasks are broken down into component activities
(Shanks & McGuire 1996: 85). However, specialization without multidisciplinary cooperation
has impeded holistic assessment and resulted in “archaeological values considered in isolation
from historic, anthropological and community knowledge” (English and Goulding 2008: 27).
81
Some stakeholders have suggested that another possible method of reconciling the issues
associated with CHA qualifications would be to assign differing grades to consultants according
to their qualifications and levels of experience in order to let sponsors know which types of work
they are capable of undertaking (DPCD 2012a: 8). Another suggested approach for dividing the
work entailed in creating a CHMP is a complementary collaborative approach between RAP
groups and cultural heritage practitioners in which archaeologists are responsible for the
archaeological and scientific aspects of the investigation while RAP groups and other relevant
Aboriginal stakeholders provide information on cultural heritage significance (Dr Vincent Clark
and Associates 2012: 4-5).
Both Aboriginal and historical archaeologists are perceived to lack the skill set to address intangible heritage due to an emphasis on material culture, lack of experience with intangible heritage, and lack of anthropological training. Additionally, for Aboriginal heritage, CHAs might not have sufficient knowledge of Aboriginal culture or might possess university qualifications but lack experience. CHAs are expected to provide expertise on all aspects of the heritage process for Aboriginal heritage. In contrast, non-Indigenous heritage employs a range of specialists to provide expertise on different aspects of the heritage process and historical archaeologists are not necessarily expected to undertake assessment of intangible heritage. Some suggestions to ensure that consultants possess the skill set to address intangible heritage include:
• establishment of an accreditation system, cultural heritage awareness training, and improved education;
• amendment of legislative requirements for qualification to include a skill-based requirement;
• establishment of guidelines for qualification based on extensive knowledge or experience in the management of Aboriginal cultural heritage;
• differentiation between the qualifications for archaeologists and CHAs;
82
• adoption of a multidisciplinary approach in which qualified archaeologists undertake archaeological excavations, but other specialists investigate other aspects of cultural heritage;
• assigning different grades to consultants according on their qualifications; • and adoption of an approach in which archaeologists remain responsible for archaeological
components of CHMPs, while RAPs and other relevant Aboriginal stakeholders provide information on cultural heritage significance.
4.5 Bias
Another issue to consider is that a consultant’s conscious or unconscious preconceptions
and biases can adversely affect their ability to identify and objectively assess intangible values
(Australia ICOMOS 2013b: 3; Ellis 2011: 162). Interviews stressed the notion that regardless of
the skill set practitioners possess, if they are not receptive to the idea of intangible heritage, they
will be unwilling to investigate it and will not recognize it even if it is shared with them
(Interview 4; Interview 6). Consequently, they explained, such unidentified heritage cannot be
protected (Interview 7).
One bias in heritage practice affecting the identification intangible heritage has been the
tendency within both Aboriginal and historical archaeology to place more emphasis on heritage
from earlier historical periods. Typical of legislation developed with physical resources in mind
is that it tends to place age restrictions on what is old enough to be considered as heritage and
deserving of related processes for management, planning and protection (Ellis 2011: 164). This
has resulted in less protection afforded to more recent intangible heritage for both Indigenous
and non-Indigenous communities. Social values, which are often an important component of
intangible heritage, denote the attachments to place for contemporary communities (Truscott
83
2003: 3). This is problematic in situations in which social value is attached to places with a more
recent history.
One example demonstrating the potential effect that bias can have on identification of
intangible elements in commercial archaeology is presented within Byrne et al’s (2003)
examination of heritage assessment and management. The study demonstrated that the use of
scientifically derived predictive models by consultant archaeologists favours the recording of
pre-contact sites, with the under or non-recording of post-contact Aboriginal sites (Byrne et al
2003: 15). As in many instances post-contact sites possess the most social significance to
Aboriginal people, this methodology resulted in neglect of Aboriginal intangible heritage (Byrne
et al 2003: 15, 19).
Additionally, a number of the interviewed archaeological consultants identified the
skepticism directed at claims regarding intangible values as problematic (Interview 4; Interview
5; Interview 7). Some consultants are wary of considering contemporary values within a
commercial context due to the fear that there may be ulterior financial motives (Interview 5).
One archaeologist suggested that skepticism is particularly notable in instances where it relates
to Aboriginal contemporary values and rediscovered heritage (Interview 4). In Victoria, concern
over the cultural disconnect and loss of traditional knowledge among Traditional Owners has
prompted a process of cultural reclamation through which traditional practices and intangible
heritage are being rediscovered (Interview 4; Parmington 2012: 58). This information, however,
is “often treated with a degree of contempt and skepticism … particularly when it becomes an
impediment to development” (Interview 4). As a result, this type of information is often
discounted without an attempt to investigate it further. As Aboriginal communities’ voices are
84
often overpowered by the expert opinions of heritage practitioners, these values may be ignored
(Interview 4).
Alternatively, another fear held by some consultants is that placing too much emphasis on
the investigation of intangible values could leave the system open to abuse and result in a
pressure to identify values where they do not necessarily exist. Concern was voiced in a number
of interviews that Traditional Owners might feel obliged to provide information in situations
where they do not possess traditional knowledge, which might cause discomfort or result in the
invention of values (Interview 2; Interview 5; Interview 7). Particularly in situations where
archaeologists are perceived as not possessing the skills to critically identify, assess or manage
intangible values, there is a fear that interviewees will fill the vacuum by defining intangible
values as their first impression of a place. The generation of “immediate, on-site, ad hoc
intangible values” (Interview 2) without demonstrable social or spiritual connection would not
stand up to scrutiny and would be impossible to manage. This would have the additional
consequence of hindering the progress of proper investigation of intangible values (Interview 2).
A number of the consultants interviewed stated the necessity for considering
contemporary heritage and intangible values in a commercial context for both Indigenous and
non-Indigenous heritage (Interview 7; Interview 8; Interview 10). The bias against contemporary
and intangible heritage can result in the failure to identify and protect significant heritage. The
Burra Charter Practice Notes recognise that places do not need to be old in order to be
historically, scientifically or culturally significant (Australia ICOMOS 2013a: 3). Heritage values
and cultural significance are inherently fluid as they are the products of cultures continually
85
adapting and evolving (Australia ICOMOS 2013b: 4; Ellis 2011: 164). Safeguarding intangible
heritage should not be an attempt to preserve aspects of culture in a static form perceived to be
‘pure’, but rather to identify and transfer knowledge, skills and meaning (Haig 2010: 369-370).
This is particularly relevant to consider in Victoria where Indigenous communities are
rediscovering traditions and reconnecting to places they were removed from in the past
(Australia ICOMOS 2013b: 4).
One consultant (Interview 8) stressed that consideration of contemporary values is
important from a management perspective even if the sites do not qualify for registration. What
is important for the developer to know, and what must be reflected in the management plan, is
how to manage development at the site. Whatever significant values are attached to the site,
whether they are contemporary or historical traditional values, must be identified so that a
development proponent can understand what the community thinks is most important (Interview
8).
In many instances, it is almost impossible to separate contemporary cultural values from
other values, particularly in more urbanized Aboriginal communities. A consultant explained that
particularly in “urbanised environments, where there is diminished level of traditional cultural
knowledge, people tend to have very strong contemporary social values and connection to places
and objects, which are almost impossible to separate from the archaeological” (Interview 10).
However, even in more remote areas where there has been less cultural disruption, contemporary
values are still incredibly important to communities though they might have more of a traditional
basis (Interview 10).
86
In response to skepticism of claims and fears that community members might create false
intangible values, heritage practitioners must address them as any other information relating to
heritage at a site. With consultation, as with any information pertinent to heritage analysis, it is
necessary for practitioners to assess the veracity of the evidence to ensure its accuracy (Australia
ICOMOS 2013b: 3; Interview 3). For consultation with both Indigenous and non-Indigenous
groups, heritage practitioners should “check the vigour of their statements by looking at evidence
for connection” (Interview 3). Investigation will require the involvement of experts with the skill
set to adequately ascertain the authenticity of the information.
Bias of practitioners and within the legislation can affect the identification and protection of intangible cultural heritage. There is a tendency within both Aboriginal and historical archaeology to place more emphasis on heritage from earlier historical periods and afford less protection to more recent heritage, particularly when the heritage is intangible. Skepticism of intangible heritage claims is particularly notable in instances where it relates to Aboriginal contemporary values and rediscovered heritage and there is some fear that Traditional Owners might invent intangible values where they do not exist. Sources suggest that practitioners should not allow bias to influence their investigation of intangible heritage and should identify the various elements that hold significance for a community, while also being sure to assess the veracity of claims.
4.6 Privileging of Values
One of the major issues identified in heritage practice is that tangible heritage is given
precedence over intangible heritage (Australia ICOMOS 2013b: 4). One informant stated that
neither the Heritage Act 1995 nor the Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006 expressly “mentions
intangible heritage anywhere or … provides adequate recognition to the value of intangible
heritage” (Interview 4). In particular, a large number of the submissions for the Review of the
Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006 as well as a number of the consultants interviewed for this paper,
criticized the Act’s privileging of archaeological or scientific significance and tangible heritage
87
over Aboriginal tradition and intangible heritage (DPCD 2012: 32; NSWALC 2012: 21; Xiberras
2011: 1, 4; Urban Colours 2012: 5, 6; VAHC 2011: 32; VTOLJG 2011: 21; Wathaurung
Aboriginal Corporation 2012: 1; Interview 1; Interview 2; Interview 4; Interview 7). This
privileging of tangible heritage is attributed to a number factors including the administration of
the Act by AAV, which is staffed by more individuals with archaeological than anthropological
training (NSWALC 2012: 21); to the understanding that almost all of the CHAs in Victoria are
archaeologists (Australia ICOMOS 2013a: 1; Interview 7; Wurundjeri Tribe Land Council 2011:
4); and to the historical context in which Victorian heritage legislation was originally developed,
the legacy of which is a bias towards material culture which has persisted in subsequent heritage
legislation (Interview 7).
As a result of this bias, in situations in which multiple values are embodied in a place, the
scientific or archaeological elements are often inappropriately privileged over the other less
tangible components (Australia ICOMOS 2013a: 5). Though heritage agencies and practitioners
might acknowledge the importance of intangible heritage in principle, practice is almost
exclusively concerned with the conservation and assessment of the material remains of sites and
built structures, instead of their historical, social, or spiritual dimensions (Byrne et al 2003: 3;
Byrne 2009: 243). While the Aboriginal Heritage Act demonstrates significant improvements
over previous legislation in its recognition of non-material cultural heritage, however
archaeological practice and the discipline in general continue to emphasize sites and material
culture (Porter 2006: 364-5). Though the legislation’s goals and definitions of significance
indicate the necessity of safeguarding both tangible and intangible heritage, the tangible tends to
be privileged at the expense of the intangible (Kiriama 2012: 72-73). Due to assessments that are
based on scientific or archaeological value rather than on Aboriginal tradition or intangible
88
value, places with significance derived primarily from intangible values are not adequately
protected (Australia ICOMOS 2011: 1; Kiriama 2012: 72-73).
Interviews and submissions suggested that another issue relating to the privileging of
archaeological information and the emphasis on the tangible is that Aboriginal communities
themselves are using archaeological terminology and focus on the tangible to describe what they
believe is significant during consultation (Interview 7; Urban Colours 2012: 6). This is partially a
reaction to what they think is wanted and expected due to the expectation that archaeologists and
CHAs are looking for artefact scatters and other tangible evidence of the past. There is also the
understanding that use of archaeological terminology helps to give authority to information and
that the way to protect items under the Act is to frame them in ways that are understood under
the Act, which privileges the tangible (Interview 7; Xiberras 2011: 4; Urban Colours 2012: 6).
Historical archaeology has also been dominated by a focus on the physical fabric of
heritage places (Byrne et al 2003: 140). Though in principle practitioners are meant to consider
social values as part of the significance assessment process, in reality the other categories are
given priority and social values are sometimes disregarded altogether (Brown 2008: 19; Byrne et
al 2003: 7, 77). While the Guidelines for Conducting Historical Archaeological Surveys, like the
Burra Charter, acknowledge and stress the importance of examining social and spiritual
significance (Heritage Victoria 2008), the literature suggests “the tendency has been for
professionals either to ignore local social values or make ad hoc judgments as to what these
values are” (Byrne et al 2003: 11). As a result, the social history and meaning that places hold for
communities tends to be poorly documented and understood (Byrne et al 2003: 140).
89
Heritage literature and submissions to the Review of the Aboriginal Heritage Act indicate
that another issue confronting consultation is the privileging of archaeological expertise and
scientific values at the expense of community knowledge and tradition for both Aboriginal and
non-Indigenous communities (Clarke & Johnston 2003: 2; Greer et al 2002; VTOLJG 2011: 21).
For non-Indigenous communities, even in situations when a community wields enough influence
to voice its concerns, it may often be disregarded in favor of the expert opinion of the
archaeologist (Greer et al 2002: 267, 277-278, 282). Similarly, the authority given to
archaeological interpretation is evident in the unquestioned acceptance of their interpretations
when they diverge from those of Traditional Owners (Barker 2006). Australian heritage practice
privileges scientific and ethnographic interpretations and is strongly influenced by the historical
record, which has resulted in the prevalence and acceptance of European models of the
Aboriginal past (Barker 2006; Parmington et al 2012: 57). The primacy that Western practice
assigns to the historical record has often meant that alternative perspectives offered by
contemporary Aboriginal people and indigenous oral traditions are excluded or ignored (Barker
2006: 72-73, 78-79). Some view the dominance of ethnographic interpretations over those of
contemporary Traditional Owners as a demonstration of the continuing legacy of colonialism in
Australia (Barker 2006: 73).
Due to the authority of European texts, heritage practitioners may be less critical in their
assessment of the accuracy of the ethnographic material that they incorporate into their
interpretations (Barker 2006: 84). This can be particularly problematic as much of the material
that is used to provide additional information on the Aboriginal past is taken from nineteenth
century ethnographic accounts (Barker 2006: 78-79; Parmington et al 2012: 57). These accounts
are notoriously biased and represent a very specific and not necessarily representative period in
90
time, but as text they are imbued with the authority to provide authentic information on
supposedly uncontaminated cultural practice that is used for direct historical analogy (Barker
2006: 73-4, 78-9). Without the authority bestowed by science or academic scholarship, the
accounts of the past and tradition provided by Aboriginal people are treated with skepticism and
intense scrutiny or are often ignored (Barker 2006: 78-79).
Various sources argue against the privileging of certain values and forms of knowledge
over others (Australia ICOMOS 2002; Australia ICOMOS 2013c: 7; Interview 8). The Australia
ICOMOS Code on the Ethics of Co-existence in Conserving Significant Places (2002) notes that
the co-existence of diverse cultures requires acknowledgment of the values of each group (Art.
2) and that where appropriate, practitioners should seek co-existence of differing perceptions of
cultural significance rather than resolution (Art. 14). The Burra Charter echoes this sentiment,
stating that sometimes different or competing values will be embodied in the same place and that
it is important to recognise, respect, and encourage the co-existence of multiple cultural values,
particularly when they conflict (Australia ICOMOS 2013: Art. 5 and Art.13). The Burra Charter
Practice Notes explain that balancing the needs of the various parties will require consultation,
negotiation and comprehensive assessment of all the associated values (Australia ICOMOS
2013a: 5). Though scientific or historic perspectives and interpretations may conflict with those
of communities, the various viewpoints should all be considered (Australia ICOMOS 2013c: 7;
Interview 8). Consequently, archaeologists should not assume that the scientific value of a site is
necessarily more important than associated intangible values (Australia ICOMOS 2013a: 4).
The opposite extreme, however, in which communities privilege social and spiritual values
over scientific and archaeological values, also inhibits an assessment of the multiple values
91
attributed to a site. Though acceptance of multiple values and avoidance of dogmatic privileging
of archaeological expertise over community knowledge is important for determining the
significance of intangible heritage and identifying values important to the community, there can
be issues when the community is the sole determiner of what is important3 (Ellis 2011: 164). One
of the archaeologists noted that there might be instances where material culture holds no value
for a community, but does hold scientific significance (Interview 8). While there should be more
recognition given to the importance of social and intangible values, it should not preempt the
need to undertake archaeological assessments (AACAI 2012: 3; DPCD 2012: 9; Interview 8).
Instead, the acceptance of multiple and potentially conflicting interpretations of heritage should
entail that balanced consideration and weighting be given to assessment and protection of the
different values (AACAI 2012: 3; Byrne et al 2003: 9; DPCD 2012a: 5; Interview 8).
There is a perception that both the Heritage Act 1995 and the Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006 privilege tangible heritage over intangible heritage. Additionally, in consultation, archaeological expertise is seen as being given more authority than community knowledge with the result that community knowledge and values are disregarded. Particularly with Aboriginal archaeology, archaeological interpretation and ethnographic material are given more weight than the accounts offered by Traditional Owners. Guidelines for best practice, such as the Burra Charter, state that the range of different values at a place should be considered, with neither tangible nor intangible heritage being privileged over the other. Multiple and conflicting values should be accepted without privileging the values ascribed by one group over those of another.
4.7 Sensitivity of Information
Another issue that can impede the identification of intangible values is that the group or
community may not feel comfortable or may not be able to share information due to its
3 However, it is important to respect the rights of Indigenous peoples and their authority in regard to sensitive items such as sacred objects and human remains regardless of scientific value
that it might possess in accordance with the principles of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (2002).
92
sensitivity (Ellis 2011: 162-163; Interview 1; Interview 4). Reasons for keeping information
private can include a desire to restrict access to certain individuals or groups, the fear that
sharing the information will result in damage to heritage, the wish to avoid discussing personal
information with outsiders, and cultural sensitivity (Australia ICOMOS 2013b: 5; Ellis 2011:
162; Interview 7). Particularly among Indigenous communities there may be situations in which
tradition does not permit information to be shared outside of specific groups (Australia ICOMOS
2013b: 4; Ellis 2011: 162; Interview 7). It might require more effort on the behalf of the
consultant to gain the trust of communities and elicit information pertaining to traditional or
cultural values (Interview 10). Rules governing the ownership of knowledge may limit the
sharing of certain information to individuals of a certain gender, age, initiation level or cultural
background (Australia ICOMOS 2013b: 4; Interview 7).
Best practice dictates that practitioners respect the desires of communities in terms of how
they would like to manage the disclosure of culturally sensitive information (AHC 2002: 13;
Australia ICOMOS 2013b: 5). Ask First directs practitioners to “ensure that sensitive
information disclosed in the course of the identifying Indigenous heritage places and values is
protected from unnecessary further disclosure” (AHC 2002: 13). The Burra Charter Practice
Notes explain that this can be accomplished in a number of ways, such as undertaking classified
assessments or by solely permitting the use and dissemination of general information that is not
culturally sensitive (Australia ICOMOS 2013b: 5). One of the archaeologists added that
procedures to ensure that the community approves and authorises the information shared during
consultation should entail “oral history transcript forms and … formal agreements with the
community that the oral history can be used in a particular way; you have to make the
community feel ownership and also ensure that they have control over their history” (Interview
93
4). Additionally, significance assessments should acknowledge any limitations resulting from the
withholding of culturally sensitive information (Australia ICOMOS 2013b: 5).
Sensitivity of information and unwillingness to share it with practitioners can also impede the identification and protection of intangible heritage. This is particularly important to consider for Aboriginal communities, where certain culturally defined rules might govern the possession and sharing of information. Consequently, it is important to respect the wishes of the community as to how they would like to manage the disclosure of culturally sensitive information.
4.8 Community’s Inability to Provide Information
Another potential issue affecting the identification of intangible heritage is the various
factors that might affect the ability of the community to provide the information sought by the
heritage practitioners. It may be difficult for a community, whether Aboriginal or non-
Aboriginal, to articulate what is important to them due to translation issues or a lack of
professional language (Ellis 2011: 162-163; Interview 4). It is also possible that the community
might be unable to recognise that they possess information that the investigator is seeking (Ellis
2011: 162-163). Consultants note that due to the preoccupation with archaeological significance
and tangible heritage, the communities themselves might not be aware that they possess valuable
information regarding intangible heritage unless a practitioner is capable of extracting that
information and actively seeks it (Interview 7; Interview 8).
Another significant issue that can affect the inclusion of intangible values is when
information is not known by the community or if it has been lost. This is particularly relevant in
the case of traditional Aboriginal knowledge in Victoria, where views of Aboriginal cultural
heritage management are strongly influenced by the colonial history of displacement and
dispossession (Porter 2006: 365). Following European contact, many Aboriginal people were
94
removed from their traditional areas and suffered serious disruptions to their culture and
traditional practices with the result that a substantial amount of knowledge regarding traditional
intangible values was lost, particularly in more urbanized areas like the Melbourne metropolitan
region (Interview 5; Interview 6; Parmington 2012: 58). This has produced a discourse
identifying Aboriginal culture within the region as corrupted or lost (Porter 2006: 365).
As a result, some consultants state that one of the major factors hindering the
identification of intangible values is the “lack of genuine intangible heritage values known by the
relevant Aboriginal groups” (Interview 3) and that “there is virtually no specific cultural
significance that can be attributed by RAPs to 99% of sites” (AACAI 2012: 3). One consultant
stated that that in situations with cultural disruption, expecting Traditional Owners to provide
information on traditional values is “unfair… It’s putting pressure on people to have this
knowledge that they’re just not going to have, that they can’t have” (Interview 5). This strongly
held belief in the inability to identify Indigenous intangible heritage values can partly be
attributed to definitions outlining significance which specify that heritage must be traditional,
and implicitly pre-contact (Brown 2008; English & Goulding 2008). The interviews reveal that
the loss of much traditional knowledge can make intangible values difficult for archaeologists to
address under these criteria (Interview 2; Interview 3; Interview 4; Interview 5). As a result,
tangible aspects of culture are more visible, which has contributed to the primacy given to
scientific and archaeological values in Victorian cultural heritage management (AACAI 2012: 3;
Interview 6; Porter 2006: 365).
Though in some instances it might be difficult for heritage practitioners to obtain the
information they need from a community, consultants note the importance of exerting effort and
95
being vigilant in their investigations to ensure that they identify any information that the
community might possess (Interview 4; Interview 7). If, for example, community members have
difficulty communicating what is important to them, the heritage practitioner must help them
articulate the values (Interview 4). Consultants stress that effort must be made by heritage
practitioners to investigate intangible heritage that might not be readily apparent as well as to
ensure that community members are made aware of what might constitute significant intangible
values (Interview 4; Interview 7; Interview 8). The minimum effort required to satisfy
compliance requirements will not necessarily uncover all of the significant values attached to a
place without further investigation (Interview 4). Furthermore, some important associations and
meanings may not be readily apparent and may require additional research (Australia ICOMOS
Burra Charter 2013 Art 24.1).
While in certain situations the community might lack knowledge of significant intangible
elements, it should not be assumed that it is always the case. Thorough investigation should be
undertaken to identify any knowledge of significant values that the community might possess.
For example, the discourse espousing the non-existence of intangible values and the total loss of
traditional knowledge by Victorian Traditional Owners is disputed by a number of consultants
(Interview 4; Interview 6). While it is assumed that historical displacement has resulted in a
disconnect between contemporary Aboriginal communities and things that were traditionally
important to them, there is in fact intangible heritage that continues to be as important to
contemporary communities as it was to their ancestors (Interview 4). Different groups have been
able to preserve traditional knowledge to varying degrees (Interview 4), and in some cases
practitioners note that obtaining existing information is a matter of managing to locate the people
who possess the knowledge and finding ways to elicit it (Interview 6). While information might
96
be more difficult to identify with traditional knowledge obscured after many years of living in
urbanized society, fragments of cultural knowledge remain, though they may require additional
effort to uncover (Interview 10).
A community might be unable to provide the information sought by the consultants for a number of possible reasons. It might be difficult for a community to articulate the values which they consider significant, they might not recognise that they possess information that a practitioner is seeking, or information might be unknown or lost. Some consultants consider the loss of traditional knowledge resulting from the historical displacement of Victorian Aboriginal communities to be one of the foremost obstacles to the identification of intangible heritage. Other consultants, however, argue that information may still be located. It is therefore necessary for consultants to exert more than a minimum effort to identify heritage that is not readily apparent by undertaking thorough investigation and helping communities to articulate the values they hold significant. 4.9 Commercial Context
Specific issues can affect the quality of heritage investigation in a commercial context.
These issues relate to practical concerns such as restrictions imposed by limited time and money
as well as ensuring that statutory compliance is achieved so that development can commence. In
commercial archaeology, one of the main factors delimiting the amount and quality of research
done are the resources and time available to the heritage practitioners and whether or not
developers are amenable to investigation of intangible values. Pragmatic concerns dictated by the
development project may outweigh the desire to institute best practice for protection of
intangible heritage at a site (Australia ICOMOS Burra Charter 2013 Art 6.3; Stockton &
Stevenson 1984: 73). For small projects in particular, there is typically not sufficient money,
time, or capacity for instituting best practice at a site and undertaking elaborate measures to
protect and present intangible heritage (Interview 8).
97
Additionally, the lack of explicit requirement for investigation of intangible values
(Kiriama 2012: 72-73) can make it difficult to convince developers of the necessity of pursuing it
without overwhelming evidence. With development governed by time and money, developers
are primarily concerned with doing the minimum to comply with legislative requirements and
only wish to pay for the services necessary to satisfy them (Interview 7; Interview 8; VTOLJG
2011: 22). Developers will only agree to cover the cost of additional work or investigation if
consultants can convince them that it is necessary (Interview 4; Interview 6). Additionally, the
difficulty of quantifying intangible heritage can also make it difficult to explain the need for its
inclusion to developers (Interview 6). As a result, practices that go beyond the minimum
requirements of the legislation, such as cultural values recording, are not common practice;
developers will not feel the need to support best practice unless services are competitive and
required (Interview 7).
In addition, consultants identified the difficulty of addressing intangible heritage in a
commercial context, in which statutory requirements necessitate clear identification of
significant heritage to provide certainty for developers (Interview 1; Interview 2; Interview 3).
They explained that the heritage management system operates under the assumption that values
must be mapped so that boundaries can be established to protect them (Interview 7). It employs a
‘dots on a map’ approach, focusing on isolated sites and buildings instead of the landscapes in
which they are situated (Interview 1). Though this approach is necessary for listing and planning
purposes, it makes it difficult to incorporate intangible heritage elements into the planning
process (Byrne et al 2003: 3). While tangible elements can be quantified, registered and have
boundaries drawn around them (Interview 1; Interview 2; Interview 7; Interview 8), intangible
heritage is difficult to define and quantify and is almost impossible to delineate with any exact
98
spatial extents (Interview 10; King 2013: 294). It is perceived as possessing unlimited variables,
without a standard set of categories or definitions, which makes it difficult to identify and
manage (Ellis 2011: 156; Haig 2010: 369). As such, consultants explain that there can be issues
when communities attribute intangible values to an entire landscape rather than falling within the
defined survey area under assessment (Interview 3). Within the heritage management system,
consultants are restricted to making recommendations regarding the activity area where impacts
will occur (Interview 1; Interview 9). As a result, sites are assessed in isolation from their
surroundings and important cultural sites can be divided up preventing a cultural landscape
perspective (Kiriama 2012: 72; VTOLJG 2011: 23).
Additionally, the prescriptive nature of the statutory documents and mechanisms
associated with compliance-driven archaeology can impede the identification, assessment and
protection of intangible heritage (Interview 2; Interview 4; Interview 7). Consultants explain that
with compliance-driven archaeology, it is not possible for practitioners to go beyond what the
laws stipulate (Interview 2; Interview 4; Interview 7). For Aboriginal archaeology, CHMPs are
statutory documents mandating a ‘tick box’ approach; they must be prepared in a prescribed
format with the formulaic application of criteria that limits innovation and flexibility in practice
(Brown 2008: 19; DPCD 2012: 9; Interview 4; Interview 7). Interviews indicated the perception
that if a consultant submits a CHMP for a place that possesses primarily intangible values, it will
not necessarily meet the requirements for approval by AAV due to the emphasis on fabric
(Interview 7; Interview 8). As a result of these difficulties, one consultant explained that
intangible values are “typically not investigated in a CHMP [and] they seem to be more of an
afterthought… They are now viewed even by proponents as something that can be dealt with on
major projects and Environmental Effects Statements rather than in a CHMP” (Interview 9).
99
Some of the interviewed consultants have suggested that in working within the strictures
of compliance-driven archaeology, some practitioners are no longer capable of demonstrating the
flexibility and innovation necessary for undertaking quality research and addressing intangible
values (Interview 4; Interview 7). After becoming accustomed to working within the regimented
and prescribed format of state-enforced guidelines, some consultants are either unwilling or
unable to operate outside of the framework (Interview 4; Interview 7). The standardised and
mechanised routine of archaeological work in a commercial context is often seen as corroding
the creativity and innovation of heritage practitioners (Shanks & McGuire 1996: 85). Informants
noted that this issue has manifested in instances where consultants wished to acknowledge the
importance intangible values, but were incapable of finding a way to address them in the report
(Interview 4; Interview 7).
An opinion voiced by one of the interviewed archaeological consultants suggested that
there is, however, a greater degree of flexibility permitted for Conservation Management Plans
(CMPs) than for CHMPs (Interview 2). The informant explained that:
“with the Aboriginal [archaeology], you are just, you’re stuck with Aboriginal Heritage Regulations 2007 and that’s all you have to go off. Because you have to do the minimum and you cannot be too intellectual because it has to be plain English documents that can be understood by non-archaeologists. Whereas historical [archaeology] is generally geared towards specialists, the Aboriginal [archaeology] is plain English documents geared towards non-specialists. So there will always be a reluctance to ever more increasing detail with Cultural Heritage Management Plans, whereas you are kind of free to waft off in any given direction with the historical [archaeology]” (Interview 2).
100
Due to the factors involved in conducting archaeological assessments within a
commercial context, one of the primary challenges for commercial heritage work is to find ways
to compromise and meet the needs of development without sacrificing the quality of research. As
the Burra Charter recognizes, factors such as the owner’s needs, resources, and external
constraints must be taken into consideration when developing policies and plans to conserve and
manage a heritage site (Australia ICOMOS Burra Charter 2013 Art 6.3). A consultant explains
that while effort should be made to investigate intangible values that may exist at a place,
elaborate plans for the protection and presentation of intangible heritage are more likely to
succeed for bigger projects with more resources and capacity available (Interview 8).
In response to claims that developers will only support the minimum amount of research
required, one solution suggested by the literature and the interviews is to encourage support of
intangible heritage investigation through education. Education of planners in state and local
government, clients and the general public will help to increase understanding of what intangible
values are and why they are important (Byrne et al 2003: 160). Consultants support this, stating
that if developers are not well informed on the importance of intangible values, they are much
less likely to consider their investigation and it is more difficult to argue for their protection
(Interview 1; Interview 4).
Due to the additional difficulties inherent in managing values that are difficult to
delineate, practitioners note that is essential to be creative and think outside the box for
managing intangible aspects of culture (Interview 8). In the case of mapping values, compromise
must be sought in order to allay the fears of developers that an entire landscape will be deemed
significant without potential for development, while still protecting important intangible
101
elements (HIA 2012: 3; Interview 7). One consultant explained that since it is it is possible that
intangible values will extend beyond the limits of imposed boundaries, all of the identified
values should first be assessed and recorded, and then compromise between community
members and heritage practitioners can ensure that places possessing significance are
encompassed and protected while still establishing realistic parameters for statutory purposes
(Interview 7).
Practitioners note that various methods have been successfully implemented to
appropriately recognize landscape values within a commercial context in situations in which the
projects have been extensive enough to warrant additional effort; acceptable solutions and
compromises have included a detailed photo record of the landscape before it is disturbed and
damaged, interpretive trails, re-use of Aboriginal place names within a development, protection
of particular parts of the landscape, such as lines of sight (Interview 8). One of the ideas explored
within the Issues and Options Paper for the Review of the Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006 is the
potential implementation of more strategic, state-wide assessment of cultural heritage values
through country mapping (DPCD 2012: 9). Such a program would reduce the burden of
assessment for individual cultural heritage management plans and circumvent the issue of
evaluating values for blocks of land isolated from the overall cultural landscape (DPCD 2012: 9;
Interview 9). Consultants offered the opinion that country mapping would assist with the
identification of intangible heritage, make information more easily available to those who were
authorized to access it, and provide additional certainty for compliance (Interview 5; Interview 7;
Interview 8).
For consulting archaeology, issues such as limited time and money, complying with statutory requirements, and the satisfying the desires of the developers sponsoring the project may limit the
102
ability of heritage practitioners to investigate intangible heritage in a commercial context. Intangible heritage is particularly difficult address due to the inherent difficulty of quantifying and mapping it for listing and planning purposes. Additionally, the prescriptive nature of the statutory documents and mechanisms associated with compliance-driven archaeology can impede the identification, assessment and protection of intangible heritage. Within the strictures imposed by compliance, lack of flexibility can limit the innovation of practitioners, including their ability to investigate intangible heritage beyond the basic requirements within the statutory documents. One practitioner, however, suggested that there is a greater degree of flexibility and ability to address intangible heritage in historical archaeology as CMPs are geared towards specialists, while CHMPs are more likely to be kept more basic so that non-specialists can understand them. Sources suggest that best practice necessitates compromise within a commercial context. Consultants suggest that creativity and compromise are necessary to more successfully incorporate intangible heritage into listing and planning processes, such as with country mapping. Additionally, they argue for the education of the public, local government and developers regarding the importance of intangible heritage to encourage support of research.
CHAPTER 5 - CONCLUSION
103
The distinction between tangible and intangible heritage in archaeology has meant that
intangible elements are often neglected at archaeological sites. Heritage is not limited to the
material components of a site, but also includes the associations and meanings that imbue the
past with significance for contemporary communities. Recognition of the various values that
contribute to a place’s cultural heritage significance therefore requires a holistic approach.
Analysis of the heritage literature, submissions to the Review of the Aboriginal Heritage
Act, and interviews with consulting archaeologists has identified some of the key issues that
inhibit the successful identification, assessment, and protection of intangible heritage as well as
suggestions for confronting these issues. The differing trajectories taken by Aboriginal and
historical archaeology has meant that each possesses some key advantages over the other in
certain aspects of identifying and protecting intangible heritage. Informants identify some
common issues for the different branches of consulting archaeology including the primacy of
development, lack of adequate enforcement, privileging of tangible over intangible heritage and
acceptance of scientific/archaeological expertise over the views of the community. Some of the
main issues that apply specifically to Aboriginal archaeology, however, are the lack of thresholds
applied to establish differing levels of significance, the assumption that CHAs are capable of
providing expertise on all aspects of the heritage process and a greater degree of skepticism
towards Aboriginal claims of intangible heritage. Required consultation, however, is one of
advantages of Aboriginal archaeology. In contrast, there is no requirement to consult for non-
Indigenous heritage and often intangible heritage is not considered. However, historical
archaeology is perceived to offer a greater degree of flexibility, practitioners take a more
multidisciplinary approach, and formal significance assessments are undertaken.
104
The contention of this paper is that best practice and commercial archaeological work are
not mutually exclusive. While additional challenges may exist for conducting best practice
within a commercial context, this does not mean that standards should be low. The seemingly
opposed interests of development and heritage can be reconciled with open-minded thinking,
appropriate methodology, properly qualified practitioners and adequate enforcement. Some of
the proposed amendments are for explicit recognition of intangible values in the legislation,
mandatory consultation, enforced protection of heritage, modification of the qualifications for
practitioners, and ensuring that significance assessments are undertaken.
The suggested amendments to the legislation reveal a tension between the desire for
stricter regulations as well as more flexibility within the heritage management process.
Stakeholders argue for stricter enforcement of regulations, more explicit mention of intangible
heritage in the legislation, establishment of clear guidelines and minimum standards for
consultation and significance assessment, and stricter requirements for practitioner
qualifications. However, informants also argue for greater flexibility in order to allow for the
recognition of a wider range of heritage in the listing and planning processes.
It is a challenge for practitioners to develop new strategies for investigating and
interpreting heritage, engaging communities in ways which acknowledge multiple values and
different forms of knowledge without privileging archaeological expertise and scientific
authority (Barker 2006; Smith 1995: 30). Rather than simply amending the current framework
with its underlying assumptions, this will necessitate the development of a new framework for
interpretation that does not simply incorporate competing knowledge claims into interpretations
105
of the archaeological record while continuing to privilege the authority of archaeological
expertise (Smith 1995: 30).
106
APPENDIX 1: INTERVIEW QUESTIONS
• How long have you worked as a consulting archaeologist? How long have you been a Cultural Heritage Advisor?
• Do you work in Aboriginal Archaeology, Historical Archaeology or both?
• What do you think are the reasons for doing a Cultural Heritage Management Plan (CHMP) and/or Conservation Management Plan (CMP)? What do you believe is the most important reason
for doing a Cultural Heritage Management Plan (CHMP) and/or Conservation Management Plan
(CMP)?
• Do you believe that it is the job of commercial archaeologists to investigate intangible heritage values when undertaking a CHMP and/or CMP?
• Do you believe that it is the role of archaeologists working with the Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006/Heritage Act 1995 to primarily protect tangible culture, intangible, or both?
• Are intangible heritage values investigated during a CHMP and/or CMP? If so, how?
• Do you believe that undertaking CHMPs/CMPS and following the regulations set forth in the Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006/Heritage Act 1995 successfully protects heritage? Do you believe
that the Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006/Heritage Act 1995 enforces the protection of intangible
heritage? Why or why not? What do you believe could be done to improve the process?
• Which factors do you believe hinder the identification and protection of intangible heritage values when undertaking CHMPS and/or CMPs?
• What are ways that you personally, or others that you are acquainted with, have taken intangible heritage values into account when undertaking work as a consulting archaeologist? If this was
done, was it done as a result of legislative requirements or at your own discretion? Could the
legislative requirements have been fulfilled without an investigation of the intangible values?
• Do you believe that there is a difference between the way archaeologists examine intangible heritage at Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal sites? If so, what is the difference and how do you
believe it affects protection of those values?
107
APPENDIX 2: PLAIN LANGUAGE STATEMENT
PLAIN LANGUAGE STATEMENT AND CONSENT FORM TO: Participant
Plain Language Statement
Date:
Full Project Title: Identifying the Intangible: Best Practice in Victorian Commercial Archaeology
Principal Researcher: Kristal Buckley Student Researcher: Rochelle Bloom
You are invited to take part in this research project. Participation in any research project is voluntary. Your contact information was obtained from the list of Cultural Heritage Advisors on the Aboriginal Affairs Victoria website and/or the Heritage Victoria Consultant and Contractor Directory. If you do not wish to take part you are not obliged to. Deciding not to participate will not affect your relationship to the researchers or to Deakin University. Once you have read this form and agree to participate, please sign the attached consent form. You may keep this copy of the Plain Language Statement. The purpose of this research is to examine the perception of intangible heritage and its role in heritage management, with a focus on the views and experiences of consulting commercial archaeologists in Victoria. The project will assess the opportunities and constraints affecting best practice in the field. The research will be presented in a Masters Honours thesis. No individual or organisation will be able to be identified, as all personal identifiers will be removed from the information provided. The possible benefits include a clearer understanding of the role of intangible heritage in commercial archaeology.
108
With your consent, your participation in the project will involve an interview of approximately one hour. You may decide to stop the interview at any point. You may also ask up to the time of publication that any information collected at your interview be destroyed and not be used for the research. We wish to record the interview. If you do not wish this to occur, we will take handwritten notes of the interview. If the interview is recorded, it will later be transcribed and a copy of the transcript will be provided to you later for approval. To comply with government requirements, all data will be stored securely for a period of a minimum of 5 years after final publication. It will then be destroyed. The progress of the research will be monitored by the Masters Honours thesis supervisor. Any unexpected developments of problems will be reported immediately to the relevant institution or ethics review body. Participants have the right to withdraw from further participation at any stage and, at their request, may withdraw their data without implications. Approval to undertake this research project has been given by the Human Research Ethics Committee of Deakin University. If you have any complaints about any aspect of the project, the way it is being conducted or any questions about your rights as a research participant, then you may contact: The Manager, Research Integrity, Deakin University, 221 Burwood Highway, Burwood Victoria 3125, Telephone: 9251 7129, research-‐[email protected]. Please quote project number [HAE-‐13-‐054] If you would like to participate, if you require further information or if you have any problems concerning this project, you can contact Rochelle Bloom at 0452178977 or [email protected]. Thank you for your time.
109
BIBLIOGRAPHY Aboriginal Affairs Victoria (AAV) 2006, Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006, AAV, Melbourne, Victoria, retrieved 10 May 2013, <http://www.legislation.vic.gov.au/Domino/Web_Notes/LDMS/PubStatbook.nsf/f932b66241ecf1b7ca256e92000e23be/481F4F0770858034CA257169001D1F4A/$FILE/06-016a.pdf>. Aboriginal Affairs Victoria (AAV) 2006a, Guidelines on Appropriate Qualifications for Cultural Heritage Advisors, retrieved 15 May 2013, http://www.dpc.vic.gov.au/images/documents/Aboriginal_Affairs/Guidelines-on-Appropriate-Qualifications-for-Cultural-Heritage-Advisors.pdf Aboriginal Affairs Victoria (AAV) 2007, Aboriginal Heritage Regulations 2007, AAV, Melbourne, Victoria, retrieved 10 May 2013, http://www.legislation.vic.gov.au/Domino/Web_Notes/LDMS/PubStatbook.nsf/93eb987ebadd283dca256e92000e4069/6F0A1A3F154E1400CA2572E6001ACB1D/$FILE/07-041sr.doc Aboriginal Affairs Victoria (AAV) 2011, Review Submissions (Review of the Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006), AAV, Melbourne, Victoria, retrieved 15 May 2013, <http://www.dpcd.vic.gov.au/aboriginal-affairs/aboriginal-cultural-heritage/review-of-the-aboriginal-heritage-act-2006/reveiw-submissions>. Aboriginal Affairs Victoria (AAV) 2012, Summary of Submissions and Consultation: Review of the Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006, AAV, Melbourne, Victoria, retrieved 15 May 2013, <http://www.dpcd.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0009/98172/AHA-Summary-of-Submissions-and-Consultation-web-.pdf>. Aboriginal Affairs Victoria (AAV) 2013, Public List of Cultural Heritage Advisors – July 2013, AAV, Melbourne, Victoria, retrieved 1 August 2013, <http://www.dpcd.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0006/198573/Cultural-Heritage-Advisor-List-July-2013v2.pdf>. Andrew Long and Associates Pty Ltd 2012, Review of the Aboriginal Heritage Act: Submission on the Issues and Option Paper April 2012, Submissions on the Issues and Options Paper 2012, retrieved 1 September 2013,
110
<http://www.dpc.vic.gov.au/images/documents/Aboriginal_Affairs/Andrew-Long-and-Associates.pdf>. Australia ICOMOS 1998, Code on the Ethics of Co-existence in Conserving Significant Places, Australia ICOMOS Inc, retrieved 7 March 2014, <http://australia.icomos.org/wp-content/uploads/Code-on-the-Ethics-of-Co-existence.pdf>. Australia ICOMOS 2000, The Burra Charter: The Australia ICOMOS Charter for Places of Cultural Significance 1999 with associated Guidelines and Code on the Ethics of Co-existence, Australia ICOMOS Inc, retrieved 15 May 2013, <http://australia.icomos.org/wp-content/uploads/BURRA_CHARTER.pdf>. Australia ICOMOS 2011, ‘Review of the Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006’, Review Submissions, retrieved 1 September 2013, <http://www.dpc.vic.gov.au/images/documents/Aboriginal_Affairs/International-Council-on-Monuments-and-Sites-Submission.pdf>. Australia ICOMOS 2013, The Burra Charter: The Australia ICOMOS Charter for Places of Cultural Significance 2013, Australia ICOMOS Inc, retrieved 5 November 2013, <http://australia.icomos.org/wp-content/uploads/The-Burra-Charter-2013-Adopted-31.10.2013.pdf>. Australia ICOMOS 2013a, Practice Note: The Burra Charter and Archaeological Practice, retrieved 5 November 2013, <http://australia.icomos.org/wp-content/uploads/Practice-Note_The-Burra-Charter-and-Archaeological-Practice.pdf>. Australia ICOMOS 2013b, Practice Note: The Burra Charter and Indigenous Cultural Heritage Management, retrieved 5 November 2013, <http://australia.icomos.org/wp-content/uploads/Practice-Note_The-Burra-Charter-and-Indigenous-Cultural-Heritage-Management.pdf>. Australia ICOMOS 2013c, Practice Note: Understanding and Assessing Cultural Significance, retrieved 5 November 2013, <http://australia.icomos.org/wp-content/uploads/Practice-Note_Understanding-and-assessing-cultural-significance.pdf>.
111
Australian Association of Consulting Archaeologists Incorporated (AACAI) 2011, Re: Review of the Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006, Review Submissions, retrieved 1 September 2013, <http://www.dpc.vic.gov.au/images/documents/Aboriginal_Affairs/Australian-Association-of-Consulting-Archaeologists-Inc-Submission.pdf>. Australian Association of Consulting Archaeologists Incorporated (AACAI) 2012, Re: Issues and Options Paper – review of the Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006, Submissions on the Issues and Options Paper 2012, retrieved 1 September 2013, <http://www.dpc.vic.gov.au/images/documents/Aboriginal_Affairs/Australian-Association-of-Consulting-Archaeologists.pdf>. Australian Association of Consulting Archaeologists Inc (AACAI) 2013, AACAI Website, retrieved 5 November 2013, <http://www.aacai.com.au/>. Australian Heritage Commission (AHC) 2002, Ask First: A guide to respecting Indigenous heritage places and values, Australian Heritage Commission, Canberra, retrieved 6 March 2014, <http://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/resources/4afff65c-00dd-4001-878b-a28d8831293a/files/ask-first.pdf>. Barker, B 2006, ‘Hierarchies of Knowledge and the Tyrannies of Text: Archaeology, Ethnohistory and Oral Traditions in Australian Archaeological Interpretation’, in B David, B Barker & IJ McNiven (eds), The Social Archaeology of Australian Indigenous Societies, Aboriginal Studies Press, Canberra, pp. 72-84. Bergman, CA & Doershuk, JF 2003, ‘Cultural Resource Management and the Business of Archaeology’ in LJ Zimmerman et al (eds), Ethical Issues in Archaeology, Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Oxford, pp. 85-97. Biosis Research Pty Ltd 2012, Review of the Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006, Submissions on the Issues and Options Paper 2012, retrieved 1 September 2013, <http://www.dpc.vic.gov.au/images/documents/Aboriginal_Affairs/Biosis-Research.pdf>. Brown, S 2008, ‘Mute or Mutable? Archaeological Significance, Research and Cultural Heritage Management in Australia’, Australian Archaeology, no. 67, pp. 19-30, retrieved 11 May 2013, <http://www.jstor.org/stable/40288020>.
112
Brumfiel, EM 2003, ‘It’s A Material World: History, Artifacts, and Anthropology’, Annual Review of Anthropology, Vol. 32, pp. 205-223, retrieved 13 June 2013, <http://www.jstor.org/stable/25064827>. Byrne, D, Brayshaw, H & T Ireland 2003 Social Significance: a discussion paper, 2nd edition Research Unit, Cultural Heritage Division, NSW National Parks & Wildlife Service, Hurstville, NSW, retrieved 10 June 2013, <http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/resources/cultureheritage/SocialSignificance.pdf>. Byrne, D 2009, ‘A Critique of Unfeeling Heritage’, in L Smith & N Akagawa (eds), Intangible Heritage, Routledge, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon, pp. 229-252. Clarke, A & Johnston, C 2003, ‘Time, Memory, Place and Land: Social Meaning and Heritage Conservation in Australia’, Scientific Symposium, ICOMOS 14th General Assembly, Victoria Falls, Zimbabwe, retrieved 16 August 2013, <http://www.icomos.org/victoriafalls2003/papers/B3-7%20-%20Johnston.pdf>. Clarke, A & Smith, L 1996, ‘Issues in Management Archaeology’, in L Smith & A Clarke (eds), Issues in Management Archaeology, Vol.5 (1996), pp. 3-5. City of Casey 2011, Review of the Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006: Submission by Casey City Council’, Review Submissions, retrieved 1 September 2013, <http://www.dpc.vic.gov.au/images/documents/Aboriginal_Affairs/City-of-Casey-Submission.pdf>. Collis, J & Hussey, R 2003, Business research: a practical guide for undergraduate and postgraduate students, 2nd edn, Palgrave Macmillan, Hampshire. Department of Planning and Community Development (DPCD) 2010, ‘Heritage Policy and Legislation’, State Government of Victoria, retrieved 1 November 2013, <http://www.dpcd.vic.gov.au/heritage/about/heritage-policy-and-legislation>. Department of Planning and Community Development (DPCD) 2010a, ‘Intangible Heritage’, State Government of Victoria, retrieved 1 November 2013, <http://www.dpcd.vic.gov.au/heritage/heritage-places-and-objects/intangible-heritage>.
113
Department of Planning and Community Development (DPCD) 2011, Summary of Submissions and Consultation: Review of the Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006, retrieved 1 September 2013, <http://www.dpc.vic.gov.au/images/documents/Aboriginal_Affairs/Summary-Of-Submissions-and-Consultation.pdf>. Department of Planning and Community Development (DPCD) 2012, Issues and Options Paper: Review of the Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006, Aboriginal Affairs Victoria, retrieved 1 September 2013, <http://www.dpc.vic.gov.au/images/documents/Aboriginal_Affairs/Options-Paper-Aboriginal-Heritage-Act.pdf>. Department of Planning and Community Development (DPCD) 2012a, Summary Report: Review of the Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006, retrieved 1 September 2013, <http://www.dpc.vic.gov.au/images/documents/Aboriginal_Affairs/Review_of_the_Aboriginal_Heritage_Act_2006.pdf>. Department of Planning and Community Development (DPCD) 2013, Victorian Aboriginal Heritage Register, retrieved 6 March 2014, <http://www.dpc.vic.gov.au/index.php/aboriginal-affairs/aboriginal-cultural-heritage/victorian-aboriginal-heritage-register>. Dr Vincent Clark & Associates 2012, Review of the Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006, Submissions on the Issues and Options Paper 2012, retrieved 1 September 2013, <http://www.dpc.vic.gov.au/images/documents/Aboriginal_Affairs/Dr-Vincent-Clark-and-Associates.pdf>. Ellis, SM 2011, ‘”Intangible” Cultural Resources: Values are in the Mind’, TF King (ed), A Companion to Cultural Resource Management, Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 156-171, retrieved 10 June 2013, <http://reader.eblib.com.au.ezproxy-m.deakin.edu.au/(S(5hacio2nfmzwzj1xxwccnb33))/Reader.aspx?p=700648&o=154&u=lDsIKWyu3pDYeC5yNOScAw%3d%3d&t=1373888855&h=00ED874F5CF791CF1FB37FFA0FCC31E1909EF8AF&s=9204125&ut=484&pg=1&r=img&c=-1&pat=n#>. English, A & Goulding, M 2008, ‘From headland to mountain range: collaborative approaches to assessing Aboriginal heritage values in the Coffs Harbour region, New South Wales’, in S McIntyre-Tamwoy (ed), Archaeological Heritage: Working with Communities: the archaeology
114
of contemporary heritage, Australian Association of Consulting Archaeologists, Vol. 1, no. 1 (Nov 2008), pp 24-28. Federation of Australian Historical Societies n.d., Heritage identification and protection – Victoria, retrieved 6 March 2014, <http://www.history.org.au/Heritage%20identification%20and%20protection%20-%20Victoria.html>. Gibbs, M, Harrison, R, Burke, S, Przywolnik, K & Sellers, A 2008, ‘Engagements in the field: teaching field archaeology in the context of a community-driven research project’, in S McIntyre-Tamwoy (ed), Archaeological Heritage: Working with Communities: the archaeology of contemporary heritage, Australian Association of Consulting Archaeologists, Vol. 1, no. 1 (Nov 2008), pp. 29-36. Godwin, L & Weiner, J 2006, ‘Footprints of the Ancestors: The Convergence of Anthropological and Archaeological Perspectives in Contemporary Aboriginal Heritage Studies’, in B David, B Barker & IJ McNiven (eds), The Social Archaeology of Australian Indigenous Societies, Aboriginal Studies Press, Canberra, pp. 124-138. Greer, S, Harrison, R & McIntyre-Tamwoy, S 2002, ‘Community-Based Archaeology in Australia’, World Archaeology, Vol. 34, No. 2, pp. 265-287, Taylor & Francis Ltd, retrieved 12 June 2013, <http://www.jstor.org/stable/827912>. Greer, S & Fuary, M 2008, ‘Community Consultation and Collaborative Research in Northern Cape York Peninsula – a retrospective’, in S McIntyre-Tamwoy (ed), Archaeological Heritage: Working with Communities: the archaeology of contemporary heritage, Australian Association of Consulting Archaeologists, Vol. 1, no. 1 (Nov 2008), pp. 5-15. Haig, D 2010, ‘Reclaiming Intangible Cultural Heritage’, Art, Antiquity & Law, Vol. XV, Issue 4, pp. 365-374, retrieved 10 June 2013, <http://ehis.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=dba544ac-71b8-4f64-9c50-ac9bf1fa22a0%40sessionmgr114&vid=2&hid=106>. Heritage Council of Victoria 2010, Conservation Management Plans: Managing Heritage Places, Heritage Council of Victoria, Melbourne, Victoria, retrieved 1 August 2013,
115
<http://www.dpcd.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0016/50911/CMP_Guide_1278369664770.pdf>. Heritage Council 2012, Assessing the cultural heritage significance of places and objects for possible state listing: The Victorian Heritage Register Criteria and Threshold Guidelines, retrieved 6 March 2014, <http://www.dpcd.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0009/127485/HV-VHR_Criteria_and_Thresholds_Guidelines-2012.pdf>. Heritage Victoria 1995, Heritage Act 1995 (version incorporating amendments as at 17 May 2012), Version No. 051, no. 93 of 1995, Heritage Victoria, Melbourne, Victoria, retrieved 1 August 2013, < http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_act/ha199586/>. Heritage Victoria 2008, Guidelines for Conducting Historical Archaeological Surveys, Victorian Government Department of Planning and Community Development, Melbourne, Victoria, retrieved 1 August 2013, <http://www.dpcd.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0010/44785/SurveyGuide.pdf>. Heritage Victoria 2011, Consultant and Contractor Directory, Heritage Victoria, Melbourne, Victoria, retrieved 1 August 2013, <http://www.dpcd.vic.gov.au/heritage/heritage-places-and-objects/Consultants-and-contractors>. Heritage Victoria 2011a, ‘Archaeologist-Historic’, Consultant and Contractor Directory, Heritage Victoria, Melbourne, Victoria, retrieved 1 August 2013, <http://www.dpcd.vic.gov.au/heritage/heritage-places-and-objects/Consultants-and-contractors/find-a-consultant-and-contractor?queries_consultantcategory_query_posted=1&queries_consultantcategory_query=Archaeologist+-+Historic&queries_keyword_query=&queries_consultantname_query=&search_page_63650_submit_button=Submit¤t_result_page=1&results_per_page=0&submitted_search_category=&mode=>. Heritage Victoria 2011b, ‘Heritage Consultant’, Consultant and Contractor Directory, Heritage Victoria, Melbourne, Victoria, retrieved 1 August 2013, <http://www.dpcd.vic.gov.au/heritage/heritage-places-and-objects/Consultants-and-contractors/find-a-consultant-and-contractor?queries_consultantcategory_query_posted=1&queries_consultantcategory_query=His
116
torian&queries_consultantcategory_query_posted=1&queries_consultantcategory_query=Heritage+Consultant&queries_keyword_query=&queries_consultantname_query=&search_page_63650_submit_button=Submit¤t_result_page=1&results_per_page=0&submitted_search_category=&mode=results>. Heritage Victoria 2012, Guidelines for Investigating Historical Archaeological Artefacts and Sites, State of Victoria, retrieved 1 August 2013, <http://www.dpcd.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0008/127799/Guidelines-for-Investigating-Historical-Archaeological-Artefacts-and-SitesDec2012.pdf>. Housing Industry Association (HIA) 2012, Review of the Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006: Issues and Options Paper, Submissions on the Issues and Options Paper 2012, retrieved 1 September 2013, <http://www.dpc.vic.gov.au/images/documents/Aboriginal_Affairs/Housing-Industry-Association.pdf>. International Labour Organization (ILO) 1989, Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention (Convention No. 169), International Labour Organization, retrieved 12 March 2014, <http://www.ilo.org/indigenous/Resources/Publications/WCMS_100897/lang--en/index.htm>. Ireland, T 2002 ‘Giving Value to the Australian historic past: Historical archaeology, heritage and nationalism’, Australasian Historical Archaeology, pp. 16-25, retrieved 15 May 2013, <http://www.ashadocs.org/aha/20/20_04_Ireland.pdf>. Johnston, C 1992 What is Social Value?: A Discussion Paper, Australian Government Publishing Service, Canberra. Joint Submission from Victorian Registered Aboriginal Parties 2011, Review of the Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006, Review Submissions, retrieved 1 September 2013, <http://www.dpc.vic.gov.au/images/documents/Aboriginal_Affairs/Joint-Submission-from-Registered-Aboriginal-parties.pdf>. Joint Submission from Victorian Registered Aboriginal Parties 2012, Review of the Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006: Response to the Issues and Options Paper, Submissions on the Issues and Options Paper 2012, retrieved 1 September 2013, <http://www.dpc.vic.gov.au/images/documents/Aboriginal_Affairs/Joint-RAPs.pdf>.
117
King, TF 2013, ‘”Intangible” and Portable Cultural Resources’, Cultural Resource Laws and Practice, 4th edition, AltaMira Press, Lanham, Maryland, pp. 293-328, retrieved 15 June 2013, <http://reader.eblib.com.au.ezproxy-m.deakin.edu.au/(S(ch4jzg5pbhrsqfjdky4eduvt))/Reader.aspx?p=1119111&o=154&u=lDsIKWyu3pDYeC5yNOScAw%3d%3d&t=1373708217&h=8F186E7D8D636DC444B21747029FE9C2A7607523&s=9193322&ut=484&pg=1&r=img&c=-1&pat=n#>. Kiriama, H 2012, ‘The Victorian Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006: Five years on’, in I Berelov, M Eccleston & David Frankel (eds), Excavations, Surveys and Heritage Management in Victoria, Vol. 1, Archaeology Program, La Trobe University, Melbourne, Victoria, pp. 67-74. Kurin, R 2004, ‘Safeguarding Intangible Cultural Heritage in the 2003 UNESCO Convention: a critical appraisal’, Museum International, Volume 56, no.1-2, pp. 66–77, Blackwell Publishing, Oxford, retrieved 15 June 2013, <http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/store/10.1111/j.1350-0775.2004.00459.x/asset/j.1350-0775.2004.00459.x.pdf?v=1&t=hj4mwqj0&s=064bf28d7e6a08087e79bc4cfdb8315475bf5064>. Leader-Elliott, L & Trimboli, D 2012, ‘Government and Intangible Heritage in Australia’ in ML Stefano et al (eds), Safeguarding Intangible Cultural Heritage, The Boydell Press, Woodbridge, pp. 111- 124. Logan, WS 2007, ‘Reshaping the ‘Sunburnt Country’: Heritage and Cultural Politics in Contemporary Australia’, in R Jones & BJ Shaw (eds), Geographies of Australian Heritage: Loving a Sunburnt Country?, Ashgate, Hampshire, England, pp. 207-223. Mallee Catchment Management Authority (CMA) 2012, Issues and Options Paper: Review of the Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006, Submissions on the Issues and Options Paper 2012, retrieved 1 September 2013, <http://www.dpc.vic.gov.au/images/documents/Aboriginal_Affairs/Mallee-Catchment-Management-Authority.pdf>. Melbourne Water 2011, Review of the Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006 (Vic), Review Submissions, retrieved 1 September 2013, <http://www.dpc.vic.gov.au/images/documents/Aboriginal_Affairs/Melbourne-Water-Submission.pdf>.
118
Merri Creek Management Committee 2012, Re: Review of the Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006 – Issues and Options Paper, Submissions on the Issues and Options Paper 2012, retrieved 1 September 2013, <http://www.dpc.vic.gov.au/images/documents/Aboriginal_Affairs/Merri-Creek-Management-Committee.pdf>. Mornington Peninsula Shire 2012, Review of the Aboriginal heritage Act 2006 – Issues and Options, Submissions on the Issues and Options Paper 2012, retrieved 1 September 2013, <http://www.dpc.vic.gov.au/images/documents/Aboriginal_Affairs/Mornington-Peninsula-Shire.pdf>. National Native Title Tribunal (NNTT) 2009, Indigenous Cultural Heritage Schemes in Victoria, Queensland and the Northern Territory: an overview, Commonwealth of Australia, retrieved 1 November 2013, <http://www.nntt.gov.au/Mediation-and-agreement-making-services/Documents/research%20documents/Vic-Qld-and-NT-heritage-overview.pdf>. Native Title Services Victoria (NTSV) 2011, Submission to the Review of the Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006, Review Submissions, retrieved 1 September 2013, <http://www.dpc.vic.gov.au/images/documents/Aboriginal_Affairs/Native-Title-Services-Victoria-Submission.pdf>. New South Wales Aboriginal Land Council (NSWALC) 2010, Caring for Culture: Perspectives on the effectiveness of the Aboriginal cultural heritage legislation in Victoria, Queensland and South Australia, Policy and Research Unit of the NSW Aboriginal Land Council, Paramatta, retrieved 10 June 2013, <http://www.alc.org.au/media/69363/caring%20for%20culture%20final.pdf>. Nindi Ngujarn Ngarigo Monero Aboriginal Corporation (NNNMAC) 2011, Submission to Minister Aboriginal Affairs on the Review The Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006, Review Submissions, retrieved 1 September 2013, <http://www.dpc.vic.gov.au/images/documents/Aboriginal_Affairs/Nindi-Ngujarn-Ngarigo-Monero-Aboriginal-Corporation-Submission.pdf>. Parmington, A, Griffin, D, Mc Conachie, F & Rakoczy, S 2012, ‘Partnerships and Indignous Cultural Values recording within Victoria: the Merri Creek Cultural Values Project,’ in I
119
Berelov, M Eccleston & David Frankel (eds), Excavations, Surveys and Heritage Management in Victoria, Vol. 1, Archaeology Program, La Trobe University, Melbourne, Victoria, pp. 57-66. Porter, L 2006 ‘Rights or Containment? The politics of Aboriginal cultural heritage in Victoria’, Australian Geographer, 37(3): 355-374, retrieved 10 June 2013, <http://eprints.gla.ac.uk/25330/1/25330.pdf>. PricewaterhouseCoopers Australia (PwC) 2012, Socioeconomic impacts of the Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006, retrieved 1 September 2013, <http://www.dpc.vic.gov.au/images/documents/Aboriginal_Affairs/Socioeconomic-impacts-of-the-aboriginal-heritage-act-2006.pdf>. Sculthorpe, G 2005, ‘Recognising Difference: Contested Issues in Native Title and Cultural Heritage’, Anthropological Forum, Vol. 15, No. 2, pp. 171-193, retrieved 12 May 2013, <http://ehis.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=e34cd96b-744e-404b-9335-f18575a2a0fd%40sessionmgr113&vid=2&hid=101>. Shanks, M & McGuire, RH 1996, ‘The Craft of Archaeology,’ American Antiquity, Vol. 61, No. 1 (Jan. 1996), pp. 75-88, Society for American Archaeology, retrieved 24 August 2013, <http://www.jstor.org/stable/282303>. Shearing, S 2006 ‘One Step Forward? Recent Developments in Australian State and Territory Indigenous Cultural Heritage Laws’, Macquarie Journal of International And Comparative Environmental Law, Vol 3 Issue 1, pp. 35-66, retrieved 12 May 2013, <http://worldlii.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/MqJICEL/2006/2.html>. South East Water 2012, Submission to the Issues and Options paper: Review of the Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006, Submissions on the Issues and Options Paper 2012, retrieved 1 September 2013, <http://www.dpc.vic.gov.au/images/documents/Aboriginal_Affairs/South-East-Water-submission.pdf>. Smith, L 1995 ‘What is this thing called postprocessual archaeology … and is it relevant for Australian archaeology?’, Australian Archaeology, No. 40, 1995, pp. 28-32, retrieved 12 May 2013, <http://www.jstor.org.ezproxy-
120
m.deakin.edu.au/stable/pdfplus/40287209.pdf?acceptTC=true&acceptTC=true&jpdConfirm=true>. Smith, L 1996,’Significance Concepts in Australian Management Archaeology’, in L Smith & A Clarke (eds), Issues in Management Archaeology, Vol.5 (1996), pp. 67-78. Smith, L & Campbell, G 1998 ‘Governing Material Culture’, in M Dean & B Hindess (eds), Governing Australia: Studies in Contemporary Rationalities of Government, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 173-193. Smith, L & Campbell, G 1998 ‘Governing Material Culture’, in M Dean & B Hindess (eds), Governing Australia: Studies in Contemporary Rationalities of Government, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 173-193. Smith, L 2000 ‘A History of Aboriginal Heritage Legislation in South-Eastern Australia’, Australian Archaeology, no. 50, pp. 109-118, retrieved 12 May 2013, <http://www.jstor.org/stable/40287459>. Smith L 2012,’Discourses of heritage: implications for archaeological community practice’, Nuevos Mundos/Mundos Nuevos, (5 Oct 2012), retrieved 15 June 2013, <http://nuevomundo.revues.org/64148?lang=en>. Stockton, J & Stevenson, P 1984, ‘Surveys and Cultural Resource Management in Australia’, Australian Archaeology No. 18 (Jun 1984), pp. 72-77, Australian Archaeological Association, retrieved 13 June 2013, <http://www.jstor.org/stable/40286877>. Sullivan, S 2008, ‘More Unconsidered Trifles? Aboriginal and Archaeological Heritage Values: Integration and Disjunctive in Cultural Heritage Management Practice’, Australian Archaeology, No. 67, More Unconsidered Trifles: Papers to Celebrate the Career of Sandra Bowdler (Dec., 2008), pp. 107-116, Australian Archaeological Association, retrieved 11 May 2013, <http://www.jstor.org/stable/40288028>. TerraCulture Pty Ltd 2011, Review of the Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006 Submission, Review Submissions, retrieved 1 September 2013, <http://www.dpc.vic.gov.au/images/documents/Aboriginal_Affairs/Terra-Culture-Submission.pdf>.
121
Trigger, B 1989 A History of Archaeological Thought, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Truscott, M 2003, ‘Intangible Values as Heritage in Australia,’ ICOMOS 14th General Assembly and Scientific Symposium, retrieved 7 July 2013, <http://www.icomos.org/victoriafalls2003/truscott_eng.htm>. Ulm, S, Nichols, S & Dalley, C 2005, ‘Mapping the Shape of Contemporary Australian Archaeology: Implications for Archaeology Teaching and Learning’, Australian Archaeology, No.61 (Dec. 2005), pp. 11-23, Australian Archaeological Association, retrieved 5 June 2013, <http://www.jstor.org/stable/40287808>. Ulm, S, Mate, G, Dalley, C & Nichols, S 2013, ‘A working profile: the changing face of professional archaeology in Australia’, Australian Archaeology, 76, pp. 34-43, retrieved 10 June 2013, <http://eprints.jcu.edu.au/23289/1/ulm_etal_2013b.pdf>. United Nations (UN) 2008, United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, retrieved 6 March 2014, <http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/unpfii/documents/DRIPS_en.pdf>. Urban Colours 2012, Response to the Aboriginal Heritage Act Review, Submissions on the Issues and Options Paper 2012, retrieved 1 September 2013, <http://www.dpc.vic.gov.au/images/documents/Aboriginal_Affairs/Urban-Colours.pdf>. UNESCO 2003, Convention for the Safeguarding of Intangible Cultural Heritage, UNESCO, <http://www.unesco.org/culture/ich/index.php?lg=en&pg=00006>. Victorian Aboriginal Heritage Council (VAHC) 2011, Submission to the Review of the Aboriginal Heritage Act, Review Submissions, retrieved 1 September 2013, <http://www.dpc.vic.gov.au/images/documents/Aboriginal_Affairs/Victorian-Aboriginal-Heritage-Council-Submission.pdf>. Victorian Aboriginal Heritage Council (VAHC) 2012, Second Submission to the Review of the Aboriginal Heritage Act, Submissions on the Issues and Options Paper 2012, retrieved 1 September 2013, <http://www.dpc.vic.gov.au/images/documents/Aboriginal_Affairs/Victorian-Aboriginal-Heritage-Council.pdf>.
122
Victorian Traditional Owner Land Justice Group (VTOLJG) 2011, Submission on the review of the Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006 (Vic), Review Submissions, retrieved 1 September 2013, <http://www.dpc.vic.gov.au/images/documents/Aboriginal_Affairs/Victorian-Traditional-Owner-Land-Justice-Group-Submission.pdf>. Victorian Traditional Owner Land Justice Group (VTOLJG) 2011a, Submission on the review of the Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006 (Vic): Summary of Recommendations, Review Submissions, retrieved 1 September 2013, <http://www.dpc.vic.gov.au/images/documents/Aboriginal_Affairs/Victorian-Traditional-Owner-Land-Justice-Group-Summary-Submission.pdf>. Wathaurung Aboriginal Corporation 2012, Issues and Options Paper: Review of the Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006, Submissions on the Issues and Options Paper 2012, retrieved 1 September 2013, <http://www.dpc.vic.gov.au/images/documents/Aboriginal_Affairs/Wathaurung-Aboriginal-Corporation.pdf>. Webber, H 2013 ‘Aboriginal heritage management in Victoria – an overview’ [IN PRESS] Wurundjeri Tribe Land Council 2011, Re: Wurundjeri Tribe Land Council’s Submission to the Review of the AHA 2006, Review Submissions, retrieved 1 September 2013, <http://www.dpc.vic.gov.au/images/documents/Aboriginal_Affairs/Wurundjeri-Tribe-and-Compensation-Cultural-Heritage-Council-Submission.pdf>. Xiberras, A 2011, Response to the Aboriginal Heritage Act Review, Review Submissions, retrieved 1 September 2013, <http://www.dpc.vic.gov.au/images/documents/Aboriginal_Affairs/Annette-Xiberras-Submission.pdf>. Zorzin, N 2012 ‘The political-economy of Victoria archaeology: an introductory and critical analysis’, in I Berelov, M Eccleston & D Frankel (eds), Excavations, Surveys and Heritage Management in Victoria, Volume 1, Archaeology Program, La Trobe University: Melbourne, pp. 71-79.