Australian Archaeology - CORE

Australian Archaeology

Archived at Flinders University: dspace.flinders.edu.au

Full Citation Details:

Sullivan, S 1975. The State, People and Archaeologists. 'Australian

Archaeology', no.2, 23-31.

ment through which we communicate t h e ideas and aims of t h e r e s e a r c h . Put another way, t h e r e i s more t o a successful h e a l i n g t h a n removing t h e s t o n e from t h e p a t i e n t ' s body, a s any

nguloongurra o r ' c l e v e r 1 man w i l l t e l l you. The s e c r e t is t o g e t t h e timing r i g h t and t r u s t i n God t o do t h e r e s t . The time i s c e r t a i n l y r i g h t

-

i t ' s up t o us t o do t h e r e s t .

Howard Creamer

N.S.W. National Parks G W i l d l i f e Service

THE STATE, PEOPLE AND ARCHAEOLOGISTS

Though I was asked f o r t h i s c o n t r i b u t i o n because I am a ' l s t a t e l l o r llpublicqv a r c h a e o l o g i s t , I have no mandate t o speak f o r any o t h e r such a r c h a e o l o g i s t s i n A u s t r a l i a , nor do I intend t o d i s c u s s t h e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o r administration of t h e various a c t s which throughout most of A u s t r a l i a l i m i t and c o n t r o l t h e a c t i v i t i e s o f p r o f e s s i o n a l a r c h a e o l o g i s t s . I suspect t h a t i t i s n o t t h e a c t u a l d e t a i l s o f l e g i s l a t i o n , b u t t h e p r i n c i p l e s of i t s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n which i s of most i n t e r e s t and relevance t o t h e f i r s t symposium of t h e AAA.

I t h e r e f o r e want t o t a l k about some of t h e p o t e n t i a l

problems which could a r i s e o r have a r i s e n between s t a t e a r c h a e o l o g i s t s , o t h e r a r c h a e o l o g i s t s , and Aborigines, using a s a b a s i s t h e experience of New South Wales over t h e p a s t f i v e y e a r s .

These can be summed up as:-

1. The p o t e n t i a l l y c o n f l i c t i n g demands of conservation and r e s e a r c h ;

2. The a p p a r e n t l y c o n f l i c t i n g i n t e r e s t s of a r c h a e o l o g i s t s and t h e Aboriginal community, which t h e s t a t e i s p e r f o r c e involved i n a r b i t r a t i n g .

A s t h i s paper i s focussed on t h e r o l e and s i t u a t i o n of s t a t e a r c h a e o l o g i s t s ( i . e . persons employed by government a u t h o r i t i e s t o a d m i n i s t e r l e g i s l a t i o n regarding archaeological s i t e s and m a t e r i a l )

I s h a l l simply r e f e r throughout i t t o o t h e r p r o f e s s i o n a l a r c h a e o l o g i s t s a s ''non-state a r c h a e o l o g i s t s ~ i n o r d e r t o avoid t h e o v e r - s u b t l e

d i s t i n c t i o n s between people working i n U n i v e r s i t i e s , Museums, on

Research and Conservation

Legislation f o r t h e p r o t e c t i o n of s i t e s i n New South Wales i s t h e r e s u l t of long term a g i t a t i o n by a r c h a e o l o g i s t s and conservation groups, coupled with a growing demand from t h e wider p u b l i c f o r such protection. The demands of r e p u t a b l e archaeologists were an important f a c t o r , b u t it was e v e n t u a l l y an awareness of growing public i n t e r e s t and support which prompted t h e then Minister f o r Lands, Tom Lewis, t o s e t up a committee t o frame t h e present l e g i s l a t i o n (1967). By 1970, when t h e l e g i s l a t i o n was gazetted, such l e g i s l a t i o n had become an acceptable s o c i a l g o a l , which it had n o t been i n the 1940' S, when t h e m a t t e r was f i r s t s t r o n g l y canvassed by concerned a r c h a e o l o g i s t s .

The form of t h e l e g i s l a t i o n and i t s a d m i n i s t r a t i o n by t h e National Parks and Wildlife Service, r e f l e c t s t h e f a c t t h a t it was primarily designed t o p r o t e c t r e l i c s f o r t h e u s e and enjoyment of t h e people of N e w South Wales; t h e r e f o r e p r e s e r v i n g s i t e s f o r research by archaeologists is only one of a number o f s t a t e aims.

On t h e o t h e r hand, t h e Aboriginal s i t e s of New South Wales cannot be f u l l y used and enjoyed without e x t e n s i v e r e s e a r c h i n t o t h e i r o r i g i n and s i g n i f i c a n c e . Research by n o n - s t a t e a r c h a e o l o g i s t s therefore complements p r o t e c t i v e l e g i s l a t i o n .

The s t a t e ' s long term aim i s t o permanently r e s e r v e and p r o t e c t a r e p r e s e n t a t i v e sample o f p r e h i s t o r i c s i t e s , and a s many s i t e s a s p o s s i b l e of s i g n i f i c a n c e t o Aborigines. Some of t h e s e s i t e s w i l l be of g r e a t s c i e n t i f i c importance t o a r c h a e o l o g i s t s . Others w i l l be s i t e s whose p o t e n t i a l s c i e n t i f i c importance can only be guessed (hence t h e attempt t o a c q u i r e a r e p r e s e n t a t i v e sample). S t i l l o t h e r s w i l l be reserved because a s e c t i o n of s o c i e t y c l e a r l y wishes it, though t h e i r s c i e n t i f i c importance i s doubtful. For instance, Mootwingee H i s t o r i c S i t e was c r e a t e d because t h e general p u b l i c c l e a r l y a p p r e c i a t e s Mootwingee; t o it t h e s i t e i s not s o much s c i e n t i f i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t , a s a e s t h e t i c a l l y appealing and romantic, because o f t h e p a r t i c u l a r combination of a r t s i t e s and t e r r a i n . Another example i s t h e carved t r e e s of t h e c e n t r a l west, which a r e of small i n t e r e s t t o non-state a r c h a e o l o g i s t s , but a source of growing p r i d e and i n t e r e s t t o l o c a l comntunities, and consequently protected by t h e Service. F i n a l l y t h e r e a r e s i t e s of s i g n i f i c a n c e t o l o c a l Aboriginal communities, which have a high p r i o r i t y with t h e Service, r e g a r d l e s s o f t h e i r r e s e a r c h p o t e n t i a l .

The Service i s n o t , of course, only guided by p u b l i c t a s t e , and research (often c a r r i e d out by n o n - s t a t e a r c h a e o l o g i s t s ) i s the b a s i s f o r i t s p r i o r i t y system. However, t h e s e examples i n d i c a t e t h a t non-state and s t a t e a r c h a e o l o g i s t s have s l i g h t l y d i f f e r e n t aims:

t h e former t o gain knowledge from archaeological s i t e s ; t h e l a t t e r t o conserve Aboriginal s i t e s f o r s o c i e t y .

Co-operation between t h e two groups i s e s s e n t i a l f o r t h e e f f i c i e n c y o f both. To d a t e such co-operation has been l e s s t h a n maximum. S t a t e archaeologists have complained o f lack of sympathy,

support and a s s i s t a n c e ; non-state archaeologists f e e l r e s t r i c t e d and unnecessarily confined by t h e l e g i s l a t i o n which they themselves helped t o c r e a t e . The crux of t h i s l a t t e r complaint i s t h e permit system f o r excavation of s i t e s .

Permits

I t i s i l l e g a l f o r t h e general p u b l i c t o destroy o r i n t e r f e r e with s i t e s . Archaeologists have been given a s p e c i a l exemption from t h i s r u l e , s o t h a t research can be c a r r i e d out. In t h i s sense, a permit i s n o t a r e s t r i c t i o n , but a s p e c i a l p r i v i l e g e given t o a p a r t i c u l a r c l a s s of people, not f o r t h e i r own b e n e f i t (though they do b e n e f i t from i t ) b u t f o r t h e good of society.

This admitted, it s t i l l seems t o some t h a t accredited

a r c h a e o l o g i s t s should be given c a r t e btanche, i . e . a general permit.

S t a t e a u t h o r i t i e s a r e r e l u c t a n t t o do t h i s , and with good reason.

The b a s i c concern of t h e s t a t e is t o p r o t e c t s i t e s . P e r f e c t l y competent a r c h a e o l o g i s t s do make mistakes and miscalculations.

Therefore i n any p a r t i c u l a r case, t h e s t a t e must consider not simply whether an a r c h a e o l o g i s t is competent i n h i s / h e r d i s c i p l i n e , but whether t h e p a r t i c u l a r p r o j e c t proposed i s necessary and not unduly harmful t o t h e s i t e . By v i r t u e of t h e i r state-wide f i e l d of

r e s p o n s i b i l i t y , and because they a r e positioned within government i n s t i t u t i o n s which have access t o a v a r i e t y of environmental e x p e r t i s e , s t a t e a r c h a e o l o g i s t s a r e i n a p o s i t i o n t o take a broad view of Aboriginal s i t e s and t h e i r problems, and hopefully they do so. They a r e i n a p o s i t i o n t o see p o s s i b l e consequences of an a c t i o n , which may not be immediately apparent t o non-state

a r c h a e o l o g i s t s . For i n s t a n c e , a s i t e may be s u b j e c t t o erosion and r e q u i r e s p e c i a l r e s t o r a t i v e measures; o r i t may be i n an area where any excavation would r e s u l t i n an undue and dangerous public i n t e r e s t . The s t a t e may even have t h e temerity t o suggest a l t e r n a t e s i t e s which may b e e q u a l l y acceptable, o r e x t r a work o r e x p e r t i s e which would broaden t h e p r o j e c t t o everyone's advantage. I t w i l l a l s o hold r e c o r d s about p a s t and c u r r e n t work o f archaeologists i n t h e same f i e l d o r a r e a , t h e co-ordination of which w i l l prevent such things a s t h e excavation o f one s i t e by s e v e r a l researchers.

Archaeologists c o n t r i b u t e t o t h e good name of archaeology by jumping through t h e hoop of a permit application. The Service r e c e i v e s a f a i r l y steady stream of formal and informal complaints about i t s p e r m i t t e e s l archaeological a c t i v i t i e s , from t h e excavators*

s t u d e n t s , from amateurs, c o n s e r v a t i o n i s t s , Aborigines and i t s own and o t h e r government departments. More than 99% of t h e s e complaints a r e groundless. Because o f i t s p r e s e n t permit system, t h e Service i s a b l e t o demonstrate t h i s f a c t .

The g i v i n g of c a r e f u l l y considered permits, and t h e laying down o f minimal conditions enables t h e Service t o i n d i c a t e t o a l l t h e standards required of a s c i e n t i f i c d i s c i p l i n e . Most amateurs now r e a l i s e t h a t n o t everyone can dig; t h e i r exploration of t h e permit system h a s convinced them t h a t t h e r e i s more t o proper excavation than a pick and shovel.

Another i r r i t a n t t o non-state archaeologists i s t h a t t h e s t a t e appears t o be p o l i c i n g only law abiding p r o f e s s i o n a l s , who f i l l i n t h e i r forms. Yes, a t present they a r e ; but t h e s t a t e systems a r e i n t h e i r infancy. As e x p e r t i s e and personnel increase, so w i l l t h e s t a t e ' s a b i l i t y t o prevent unauthorised excavations.

Archaeologists then, should g r i n and bear t h e permit system.

B u t t h e r e a r e a few things which t h e s t a t e can do t o make the process more bearable.

1.

2.

3 .

4.

The

S t a t e a u t h o r i t i e s and s t a t e a r c h a e o l o g i s t s should adopt a p o s i t i v e and h e l p f u l a t t i t u d e , and make every e f f o r t t o deal with permit a p p l i c a t i o n s with dispatch and efficiency.

Except i n special circumstances, s t a t e a u t h o r i t i e s should not attempt t o l a y down d e t a i l e d r u l e s and methodology f o r the conduct of excavations.

S t a t e archaeologists would be unwise t o a c t a s t h e s o l e adviser on the granting o f permits by t h e s t a t e .

Recommendations should be made by an i m p a r t i a l committee o r group with professional e x p e r t i s e and representation of several p o i n t s of view.

I t i s a l s o unwise f o r t h e s t a t e archaeologists t o

excavate extensively f o r p r i v a t e research within h i s / h e r own s t a t e . Such a c t i v i t y need not be u n e t h i c a l ; but i t may be unwise, e s p e c i a l l y i f t h e s t a t e archaeologist does not r e q u i r e a permit t o excavate ( t h i s i s s o i n New South Wales) and i s a t t h e same time obliged t o r e f u s e other permit applications. J u s t i f i e d o r n o t , invidious comparisons w i l l be made, e s p e c i a l l y a s

archaeologist has access t o information r e p o r t s , s i t e records, e t c ) not r e a d i l y others.

National Parks and W i l d l i f e Service has

the s t a t e (excavation a v a i l a b l e t o

given more permits than any other s t a t e . I t has granted about s i x t y permits, has refused one t o a professional (on the grounds t h a t s u f f i c i e n t work o f t h e same type had been done on t h e s i t e ) . I t has added s p e c i a l conditions t o some permits, aimed mainly a t p r o t e c t i o n o f t h e s i t e .

CO- o ~ e r a t ion

In Australia i n recent years t h e Australian I n s t i t u t e of Aboriginal Studies has been a major source of funding f o r

archaeological research p r o j e c t s , and it has been generous. I n Amer'ica, archaeologists often have t o combine t h e i r research i n t e r e s t s with survey/salvage work i n threatened a r e a s , because funding i s available only f o r work i n t h e s e areas.

Co-operation by coercion i n t h i s way i s not d e s i r a b l e . However, t h e r e l a t i v e independence o f A u s t r a l i a n non-state

a r c h a e o l o g i s t s h a s meant a general lack o f co-operation between them and t h e s t a t e . The s t a t e has been concerned with conservation of s i t e s , which means i n p r a c t i c a l terms, survey, assessment, and if n e c e s s a r y , salvage. The n o n - s t a t e archaeologist has l a r g e l y been concerned with independent r e s e a r c h , r e g a r d l e s s of t h e needs of t h e s t a t e . There have been i s o l a t e d examples of exemplary co-operation; but more f r e q u e n t l y , n o n - s t a t e a r c h a e o l o g i s t s do not even n o t i f y t h e S e r v i c e about s i t e s they have located (which they a r e bound by law t o do) l e t alone provide more a c t i v e co-operation.

T h i s has meant t h a t s t a t e a r c h a e o l o g i s t s do almost nothing b u t survey work, and l i t t l e of t h e in-depth research often necessary t o e n a b l e t h e r i g h t d e c i s i o n s t o be made; moreover, survey/salvage work, t e n d s t o become b o r i n g and p r o f e s s i o n a l l y d e b i l i t a t i n g . A t t h e same t i m e , n o n - s t a t e a r c h a e o l o g i s t s a r e o f t e n doing research work which i f s l i g h t l y r e s t r u c t u r e d would be of considerable value t o t h e s t a t e a r c h a e o l o g i s t .

A s J i m O'Connell pointed out a t t h e r e c e n t symposium, survey/

s a l v a g e work must be problem o r i e n t a t e d t o provide challenge and s c i e n t i f i c i n t e r e s t f o r s e r i o u s research workers. I d e a l l y , r e s e a r c h e r s should be a b l e t o use many c r i s i s s i t u a t i o n s t o gain some new i n s i g h t o r s o l v e a problem i n t h e general f i e l d . Therefore, i f t h e s t a t e wants co-operation from n o n - s t a t e workers, it must p r e s e n t academically worthwhile p r o j e c t s and must be prepared f o r t h e work t o extend beyond t h e boundaries o f t h e immediate c r i s i s s i t u a t i o n . Conversely, n o n - s t a t e a r c h a e o l o g i s t s must be prepared t o concede t h a t c r i s i s s i t u a t i o n s can be used i n t h i s way even i f it r e q u i r e s a broader approach than they might u s u a l l y adopt.

Non-state a r c h a e o l o g i s t s could t r y harder t o f i n d , within t h e i r own r e s e a r c h aims, o p p o r t u n i t i e s of a s s i s t i n g i n what a r e more o r less c r i s i s a r c h a e o l o g i c a l s i t u a t i o n s . Here a r e a few ideas f o r c o n s i d e r a t i o n . P r e h i s t o r y s t u d e n t s , i n t h e p a s t , have not been well t r a i n e d i n t h e p r a c t i c a l i t i e s of "bread and b u t t e r " archaeology.

I f t h e y have been d i g g i n g a t say, Kow Swamp, t h e y know a l o t about a p a r t i c u l a r s i t e . They r a r e l y know much about many o t h e r types of sites, o r about t h e u s e o f a i r photos, o r map reading, photography, rock a r t r e c o r d i n g , e t c . Hopefully t h i s i s changing. The Service can a s s i s t i n t h i s p r a c t i c a l t r a i n i n g , by using s t u d e n t s extensively f o r i t s survey/salvage work, and providing finance f o r t h e i r employment, o r a t l e a s t upkeep, d u r i n g t h i s period. By making such p r a c t i c a l work a n e c e s s a r y requirement f o r undergraduates, U n i v e r s i t i e s w i l l a s s i s t both t h e S e r v i c e and t h e s t u d e n t s , many o f whom w i l l be e n t e r i n g a r e a s o f work where such t r a i n i n g i s e s s e n t i a l .

Taking t h i s i d e a f u r t h e r , r e g i o n a l non-state a r c h a e o l o g i s t s can v e r y r e a d i l y combine t h e i r research i n t e r e s t s i n a p a r t i c u l a r a r e a w i t h a g e n e r a l survey, and overview o f c r i s i s s i t u a t i o n s . This i s a l r e a d y happening, and could be encouraged, i n p r a c t i c a l terms,

whereby t h e s t a t e pays p a r t of t h e s a l a r y o f such an a r c h a e o l o g i s t , on condition t h a t p a r t of h i s / h e r t i m e i s spent i n l o c a l survey/

salvage work.

Obviously t h e r e i s no b e t t e r person t o conduct survey/salvage work than an archaeologist deeply involved i n research i n a

p a r t i c u l a r region; such a person should be very capable o f t h e e f f i c i e n t survey and accurate assessment o f i n d i v i d u a l o r groups of local s i t e s . For t h i s reason, a r c h a e o l o g i s t s should a l s o be ready t o o f f e r themselves a s consultants t o companies and s t a t e a u t h o r i t i e s who r e q u i r e regional archaeological Environmental Impact Statements.

Such archaeologists may not n e c e s s a r i l y do a l l t h e work themselves;

but t h e i r advice, and, i f necessary, t h e i r support f o r t h e

necessity of such a survey, would considerably a s s i s t t h e s t a t e i n encouraging such surveys.

The S t a t e , Archaeologists and Aborigines

The New South Wales l e g i s l a t i o n , gazetted i n A p r i l 1970, made no mention of t h e Aboriginal people i n New South Wales. The s t a t e seemed t o be oblivious t o any connection between Aborigines and Aboriginal s i t e s . This was d e s p i t e t h e involvement of

archaeologists and anthropologists i n t h e forming of t h e Act, which f a c t i n d i c a t e s , not negligence, but a genuine lack of awareness.

Everyone i s now very much aware o f t h e connection. Growing Aboriginal s e l f awareness and involvement has been l a r g e l y

responsible f o r t h i s . In response t o t h i s change, almost a l l s t a t e s have modified t h e i r outlook on Aboriginal r e l i c s , The new a c t i n New South Wales now acknowledges t h e l e g i t i m a t e i n t e r e s t o f

Aborigines i n some s i t e s . I t must be s a i d however, t h a t t h e l e g i s l a t i v e changes a r e not fundamental and t h a t t h e government has, f o r instance, r e j e c t e d t h e idea o f s t a t u t o r y Aboriginal representation on t h e Aboriginal R e l i c s Advisory Committee.

A more s i g n i f i c a n t f a c t o r i n New South Wales has been t h e change i n a t t i t u d e t o Aboriginal p a r t i c i p a t i o n . This i s shown i n such things a s t h e newly designed excavation permit forms, which require consultat ion with Aborigines, an agreement t h a t Aborigines should be employed i n c e r t a i n cases t o p r o t e c t t h e i r own s i t e s , and t h e commencement of a survey t o l o c a t e and record s i t e s of s i g n i f i c a n c e t o Aborigines i n New South Wales. This survey has shown f i r s t l y t h a t there a r e a large number of s i t e s of t r a d i t i o n a l s i g n i f i c a n c e t o Aborigines i n New South Wales, and secondly, t h a t a l l Aboriginal s i t e s have an increasing s i g n i f i c a n c e t o t h e general Aboriginal community. Aborigines a r e now vigorously demanding t h a t t h e S e r v i c e protect, and i n some cases give Aborigines custody o f , i n d i v i d u a l s i t e s which a r e t r u l y p r e h i s t o r i c i n t h e sense o f having no known t r a d i t i o n a l connection with a p a r t i c u l a r group. I n o t h e r words, i t often seems t h a t i n New South Wales t h e d i s t i n c t i o n between s i t e s which were indubitably s i g n i f i c a n t according t o t r a d i t i o n a l c u l t u r a l values and s i t e s which archaeologists would regard a s t e c h n i c a l l y p r e h i s t o r i c , is becoming a purely white (European) d i s t i n c t i o n .

Anyone who wishes to understand and rectify the present tensions between archaeologists and Aborigines, must accept the present Aboriginal outlook as a real and legitimate view.

The state is responding to this increasing Aboriginal consciousness by reserving sites of importance to Aborigines, and by training Aborigines to protect their sites, in a European way, which is intended to complement traditional protection. Aborigines who wish to preserve their own cultural heritage require expertise in two cultures. Archaeologists, however, have shown little interest in reciprocating this, presumably because they have been genuinely unaware of Aboriginal interest and emotional involvement in prehistoric sites until recently. It is not surprising that this ignorance was virtually universal, considering that visible

Aboriginal involvement and activism is a recent phenomenon. There is no point apportioning blame on this score. But as a result, the archaeological community has not developed any unified stance or policy which might enable it to cormmmicate effectively with Aborigines.

In brief, there are two groups - professional archaeologists and Aborigines, who have basically different views about the

excavation of Aboriginal sites, especially Aboriginal skeletal material. The immediate problem is that each group seems generally

ignorant of the other's position. Both have relied largely on the media for their information and for the dissemination of their objections and rebuttals. The conflict, in this sense, has been truly a p,aper war. There has been some communication through solicitors, but this has not been very enlightening either. At present, neither side has clear view of the real picture.

For instance, Aborigines seem to believe that the main aim of archaeological work at Lake Mungo is the excavation of skeletal material in large quantities. In fact very few skeletons have been located at Mmgo and none were discovered by excavation. The archaeologists involved are more interested in exploring a total way of life which goes back 40,000 years - work of considerable benefit to the Aboriginal movement. But because the media has stressed the spectacular aspects of excavation, at Lake Mungo and elsewhere, many Aborigines now genuinely believe that excavation usually means digging up skeletons (as do many uninformed Europeans).

Archaeologist

S

probably have similar misconceptions about Aboriginal views. It is difficult for me to say what these

misconceptions are, since I myself do not know the real Aboriginal position. A clear example, however, is the common assertion that urban Aborigines are the only ob

j

ectors to archaeological programmes, and that rural Aborigines are totally uninterested. I know this to be untrue, but it is an understandable belief if based on media informat ion.

Mungo is of course the most lurid example of this communication problem. The site is significant both to archaeologists and to

Aborigines. Neither can see valid reasons why the other should be

concerned with i t . (At t h i s stage, any a r c h a e o l o g i s t who claims t o 19understand" t h e Aboriginal point o f view i s probably deluding him o r herself.) I t i s hardly an exaggeration t o s a y t h e Lake Mmgo has become a sacred s i t e i n two c u l t u r e s : sacred t o archaeologists who have a c u l t u r a l b e l i e f i n t h e importance o f knowledge; sacred t o Aborigines who b e l i e v e t h a t t h e s t r a n g e r i t u a l s which archaeologists perform a t t h e s i t e c o n s t i t u t e desecration.

Aborigines a r e a l l t h e more b i t t e r and outraged because they a r e t r u l y powerless, within t h e law, t o prevent t h i s

s i t u a t i o n , regardless of t h e r i g h t s and wrongs o f any p a r t i c u l a r case (and I am well aware t h a t t h e s e can be argued e n d l e s s l y ) . Dialogue, such a s a t t h i s symposium, is then t h e immediate and e s s e n t i a l s t a r t i n g p o i n t , but it i s n o t a question of one very well intentioned Friday afternoon. I t must be keal and continuous.

The Service i s the meat i n t h e sandwich i n New South Wales, since it a c t u a l l y gives and refuses t h e permits. For t h i s reason considerable discussion within and without t h e Aboriginal R e l i c s Advisory Committee has r e s u l t e d i n t h e emergence of some b a s i c points and some possible solutions.

These random thoughts a r e submitted a s a b a s i s f o r f u r t h e r discussions.

1. Real dialogue can only t a k e place over considerable time and space. I t i s p l e a s i n g t o n o t e t h e i n c r e a s i n g contributions by archaeologists t o such p u b l i c a t i o n s a s NW Dawn, Identity, AboriginaZ News, e t c . Such a r t i c l e s should a c t u a l l y s o l i c i t opinion and comment from Aborigines, although even t h i s i s a very European method of contact. Real g r a s s r o o t s contact i s necessary t o discover Aboriginal f e e l i n g s and f e a r s regarding p a r t i c u l a r s i t u a t i o n s . The Service's new permit form w i l l r e q u i r e t h a t local Aborigines be consulted p r i o r t o excavation i n t h e i r a r e a ; f u r t h e r it w i l l suggest t h a t local Aborigines should be involved i n excavations, a t l e a s t a t t h e extent o f being taken t o t h e s i t e , i f they wish it. After a l l , Aborigines a r e t h e prezdous landowners, if not t h e present.

2. Most complaints a r i s e about t h e excavation o f s k e l e t a l material. The Service now has an ad hoe p o l i c y o f discouraging excavation of skeletons per s e , and encouraging t h e r e t u r n of a c c i d e n t a l l y discovered r e c e n t s k e l e t a l m a t e r i a l t o l o c a l Aborigines when they request i t . However, we have no i d e a whether t h i s i s a "good thingu, nor what t h e i n t e r e s t s of n o n - s t a t e

archaeologists a r e i n t h i s s i t u a t i o n . For example

-

Which types of b u r i a l s a r e s c i e n t i f i c a l l y important? Do archaeologists wish t o study every b u r i a l discovered? Is i t p o s s i b l e t o make c a s t s o f bones and r e t u r n them? How much m a t e r i a l i s t h e r e already i n museums and how much more i s r e q u i r e d ? P r e s e n t l y t h e material disappears i n t o t h e capacious (?) maw o f t h e A u s t r a l i a n Museum and i s never looked a t again. Recently, a south c o a s t

Aborigine asked i f t h e s c i e n t i s t s had f i n i s h e d with some b u r i a l m a t e r i a l from t h e south c o a s t which was c o l l e c t e d s i x years ago.

He thought t h e y had had enough time t o look a t it and wished i t t o be r e b u r i e d . A t p r e s e n t t h e museum s t a f f lacks f a c i l i t i e s and time f o r t h i s type o f work.

A l l t h i s i m p l i e s t h a t more r e s e a r c h r a t h e r than l e s s i s r e q u i r e d , e s p e c i a l l y i n t o c u r r e n t c o l l e c t i o n s , t o determine some o f t h e s c i e n t i f i c requirements f o r t h e f u t u r e . This i s an important r e s e a r c h aim and r e q u i r e s funding on a l a r g e s c a l e . I t has t h e f u r t h e r advantage o f n o t involving d i s t u r b a n c e o f i n

situ

b u r i a l s (which i s causing most of t h e t r o u b l e ) and may o b v i a t e some of t h e need f o r such d i s t u r b a n c e i n t h e f u t u r e . Archaeologists w i l l then be a b l e t o c l e a r l y t e l l t h e Aborigines (and t h e s t a t e ) which s k e l e t a l m a t e r i a l t h e y want and why. S c i e n t i f i c needs a r e not t h e only ones t o be considered i n t h e p r e s e n t s i t u a t i o n , but a c l e a r statement o f them would c e r t a i n l y provide a b e t t e r b a s i s f o r d i s c u s s i o n .

3. I t i s n o t inconceivable t h a t Aborigines would agree t o a scheme whereby they were c l o s e l y involved with museums i n t h e guardianship o f Aboriginal m a t e r i a l , and were given r e a l power with r e f e r e n c e t o access t o such m a t e r i a l . A t p r e s e n t , and w i t h good reason, t h e y f e e l powerless and a l i e n a t e d .

4. F i n a l l y , s e r i o u s consideration should be given (by the S e r v i c e a t l e a s t ) t o a moratorium on c e r t a i n types of excavation while t h i s d i a l o g u e is going on. In f a c t t h e Service h a s very few s p e c i f i c a p p l i c a t i o n s f o r t h e excavation of s k e l e t a l m a t e r i a l , and a l l such a p p l i c a t i o n s a r e f o r emergency s i t u a t i o n s . An a c t u a l moratorium (imposed by t h e AAA f o r example) t h e r e f o r e seems u n l i k e l y t o be t r a u m a t i c f o r a r c h a e o l o g i s t s ; but it may a s s i s t i n convincing Aborigines o f t h e r e a l i t y o f a r c h a e o l o g i s t s ' a t t e m p t s t o communicate, e s p e c i a l l y i f p u b l i c i s e d

-

using t h e media again, b u t i n t h i s c a s e , u s e f u l l y .

A l l t h e above a r e s t r a t e g i e s f o r avoiding c o n f l i c t ; none o f them precludes o c c a s i o n a l f a i l u r e , n o r t h e r e a l p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t a r c h a e o l o g i s t s w i l l themselves have t o compromise. Archaeologists must a c c e p t t h a t t h i s i s n o t j u s t a question of reasoning Aborigines o u t o f i r r a t i o n a l f e a r s and b e l i e f s

-

t h e y must r e a l l y r e a l i s e t h a t t h e r e may be occasions and circumstances when t h e Aboriginal view w i l l p r e v a i l .

Sharon S u l l i v a n ,

National Parks and Wildlife Service o f New South Wales