The forum will have a focus on community and country, with a key aim to bring community aspirations regarding archaeological research to the fore. It will provide an opportunity to share knowledge; showcase current projects and achievements; and discuss aspirations for the future of archaeological conservation, research and heritage management.

In-person and streamed online.

The conference begins at 9am for the in-person attendees at the Fragrance Garden, William St, opposite the Australian Museum, and 10:15am for online attendees.

Contact: nswarchaeologyforum@gmail.com

NSW ABORIGINAL ARCHAEOLOGY FUTURE FORUM

26 March 2021 at the Australian Museum + streamed online

DRAFT PROGRAM

NOTE: In-person start time is 9am, Online start time is 10:15

Welcome to Country and Registration

9am Meeting place and hellos

Fragrance Garden, Cook & Phillip Park

9.30am Welcome to Country: Metropolitan Local Aboriginal Land Council

10am Registration

10.15am - 12.15pm Session 1

• Chair: Tessa

10.15am Amy Way (Australian Museum) & Tessa Boer-Mah (AACAI, Heritage Now): Welcome and introduction to the day, overview & code of conduct

Presentations

1. Wayne Brennan (Burramoko Archaeological Services & Australian Museum Visiting Research Fellow): Two ways walking together: Science and Culture. A holistic approach to rock art conservation

2. Zac Roberts (Macquarie University): “The Interpretation is the Personal Opinion of the Author”: Frederick McCarthy and Rock Art on the Cobar Pediplain

3. Dave Johnston (ANU, AIAA): Title TBC

4. [zoom] Caroline Spry (La Trobe University) & Greg Ingram (Central Tablelands Local Land Services): A new method for dating Aboriginal culturally modified trees in Australia

Collections & consulting

5. Susan McIntyre-Tamwoy (Navin Officer Heritage Consultants): Consultant Archaeologists- establishing the profession and finding our voice: the birth of AACAI

6. Bec Parkes (AACAI NSW/ACT Chapter, Lantern Heritage): AACAI – who are we and who could we be?

7. Allison Dejanovic (Australian Museum): Introduction to the Australian Museum collections

12.15 - 1pm Lunch Recorded papers:

Jillian Comber (Comber Consultants): Looking from the Past to the Future

Michael Lever (Artefact Heritage): The Holocaust Industry and the Aboriginal Heritage Industry - too many parallels for comfort?

1-2.30pm Session 2

• Chair: Fenella

Legislation and regulation

8. David Gordon (Heritage NSW): TBC

9. Lowanna Gibson (Butucarbin Aboriginal Corporation): Aboriginal cultural heritage legislation reform: An opportunity to address issues of intellectual property and benefit sharing

Archaeology, community and heritage

10. James Flexner (University of Sydney): Building authentic community partnerships in fieldwork

11. Paul Irish (Coast History and Heritage): From violence to voice: a history of narrative control at Kurnell, Sydney

12. John Dixon, Ellen Mundy & Kathleen Jones (Djirringanj Elders Federation) - Traditional Descendants involvement in the protection and maintaining of our culture and heritage under birth rights within tribal language boundaries

13. Vicky Slater (Wurrumay Pty Limited) – site conditions for RAP site officers (paper to be read on Vicky’s behalf)

2.30 - 3pm Session 3

• Chair: Lee

Topic: Reflections on Archaeology and Culture

• Tracey Howie (Guringai Tribal Link AC)

• Sharon Hodgetts (Forestry Corporation of NSW)

Questions for the panel and the guests:

• What has your experience been of the archaeological practice in NSW?

• What do you think could be improved?

3 - 3.30pm Afternoon tea Recorded paper:

Tom Sapienza: Bennelong’s gravesite

3.30 - 4.45pm Session 4

• Chair: Tessa

Australian Skills Passport

14. [zoom] Georgia Roberts & Melissa Marshall (ANCATL) - Australian Archaeology Skills Passport

15. Colin Ahoy (UNE & Nunawanna Aboriginal Corporation) – Australian Archaeology Skills Passport

16. Laura Dafter (University of Sydney), Jamie Tarrant (NSW NPWS) & David Feeney (Karuah Local Aboriginal Land Council): Broughton Island: A community centred approach to cultural heritage research

17. Tim Owen (GML Heritage) & Dharug Custodial Knowledge Holders: The Deep Time Aboriginal Cultural Landscape of Parramatta

18. Beth White: An overview of Phase 1 lithic assemblages (> 7,000 cal BP) from the Cumberland Plain, western Sydney

19. [zoom] Norma Richardson (ANU): ‘Waste not Want not’ - a whole of assemblage approach to open site analysis

4.45pm End

ABSTRACTS

Using the Australian Archaeology Skills Passport

Colin Ahoy (UNE & Nunawanna Aboriginal Corporation)

The recent ‘Protecting our Places’ project provided an opportunity to use the Australian Archaeology Skills Passport. The project was an initiative of Colin Ahoy, of the Nunawanna Aboriginal Corporation, Wendy Beck, University of New England, and former consultant John Appleton, and included archaeological investigation of a rock outcrop on private property in the Armidale region on Anaiwan Country. The fieldwork was undertaken by people with a wide range of backgrounds, and the Passport provided a framework to identify and assess the skills required. The benefits of the Passport are highlighted by the project and feedback from students.

Looking from the Past to the Future

Jillian Comber (Comber Consultants)

This paper will provide a brief history of the legislation in NSW which purports to protect Aboriginal archaeology and heritage, why it doesn’t and how and why current legislation and practices do not meet the needs of either archaeologists or Aboriginal people. It will demonstrate how the history of archaeological legislation in NSW has resulted in archaeological heritage management embodying a process of cultural domination and imperialism in which archaeological knowledge is privileged and institutionalised within the State, which continues to dispossess Aboriginal people and compromise archaeological practitioners.

Broughton Island: A community centred approach to cultural heritage research

Laura Dafter (The University of Sydney), Jamie Tarrant (NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service) & David Feeney (Karuah Local Aboriginal Land Council)

Researchers from the University of Sydney are investigating the past human occupation of Broughton Island, one of the largest offshore islands on the NSW coast. Working in collaboration with Local Aboriginal Land Councils, Worimi traditional owners, and the NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service, this project comprises the first systematic cultural heritage research ever undertaken on the island. By adopting a ‘community centred’ approach, the project is informed by Aboriginal community priorities and aspirations for cultural heritage research, seeking to deliver tangible conservation outcomes. In this presentation we will describe the approach to Aboriginal community engagement, highlight Aboriginal community aspirations for the research, and discuss the benefits of applied research to the management of the island’s rich cultural heritage.

Traditional Descendants’ involvement in the protection and maintaining of our culture and heritage

John Dixon, Ellen Mundy & Kathleen Jones (Djirringanj Elders Federation)

This paper provides the perspective of Djirringanj / Ngarigo descendants from the Bega Valley and the Monaro, Limestone Plains and Snowy Mountains in NSW. Current guidelines and practices for engagement with Registered Aboriginal Parties in Aboriginal cultural heritage management risk further dispossession of Traditional Owners and Aboriginal knowledge holders. The paper provides recommendations for better practice, based on Djirringanj / Ngarigo cultural protocols, which may also be considered for other Tribal Language Areas.

Building authentic community partnerships in fieldwork

James L. Flexner (The University of Sydney)

The term ‘community archaeology’ has become widespread within recent decades. A quick google scholar search for the term “community archaeology” returns over 4,800 results, while a google Ngram shows a massive spike in use of the term since the publication of a landmark World Archaeology volume in 2002. Corresponding with this trend, the Journal of Community Archaeology and Heritage was established in 2014. On the one hand, this should be seen as encouraging as it shows that archaeologists are increasingly aware of the wider social relevance and impact of our work, and the need to include community involvement in some form. On the other hand, the ubiquity of the term risks community being relegated to yet another ‘tick-box’ in the heritage management process that doesn’t represent real engagement or partnership. So how to build authentic partnerships, and how do we as practitioners know when the ‘community’ side of our work is real? Elements of community partnerships include some relinquishing of our subject positions as ‘experts’, investment of time outside of professional settings to build trusting relationships, and sharing authority throughout the research and management process. Drawing on my experiences working in Vanuatu and with Australian South Sea Islanders in tropical Queensland, I also suggest that one key element of authentic community archaeology is in fact tension and conflict. In part, conflicts will remain unresolved because of inherent contradictions in contemporary capitalism, particularly as it relates to the heritage industry as well as academia, and the ongoing influence of colonialism in cross-cultural relationships. Capitalism and colonialism are of course problems that are not solved totally, immediately, or finally by archaeologists and our community collaborators. However, the kinds of praxis that allow for the emergence of community cooperation and even leadership in research and heritage management provide spaces in which the existing order can be at least partially suspended, allowing for new kinds of social relationships to emerge. I argue this is a critical element of authentic community partnerships.

Aboriginal cultural heritage legislation reform: An opportunity to address issues of intellectual property and benefit sharing

Lowanna Gibson (Butucarbin Aboriginal Corporation)

Currently, Aboriginal Cultural Heritage (ACH) legislation is undergoing reform due to its inadequacies relative to, inter alia, self-determination and free, prior and informed consent (FPIC). So far, the draft Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Bill 2018 has been introduced however, no further steps towards implementation of such legislation has been taken. This stand-alone legislation has been put forward in order to remedy the inadequacies of the current National Parks and Wildlife Act, 1974 (NPW Act). However, it is still uncertain if the proposed ACH legislation will go far enough in ensuring self-determination and protection of traditional knowledge (TK) or Indigenous Cultural and Intellectual Property (ICIP), relative to Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessments (ACHA) in NSW. There also happens to be issues concerning ethics, in that the new legislation has been drafted in such a way that it appears lawmakers have ignored or are ignorant to the fact that ACH is an industry; one which provides employment opportunities to the economically disadvantaged Indigenous communities. In this paper, I suggest that a better approach would be to implement a fair and equitable Benefit Sharing Approach subject to an Empowerment Framework.

From violence to voice: a history of narrative control at Kurnell, Sydney

Paul Irish (Coast History and Heritage)

When archaeologists talk about the current and potential future roles of Aboriginal people in the investigation and management of their own heritage, the reference point is often a very contemporary field of view based around current policy. Without a deeper historical perspective it can be hard to appreciate just how recent any form of Aboriginal voice in heritage is, and how that voice is still largely heard within a narrow ‘archaeological’ view of the past. Without a broader contemporary perspective, it is also hard to see how Aboriginal views of the past are increasingly being heard in related areas such as museums and online, and how strongly that contrasts with current heritage practice. This paper uses the archaeology and history of Aboriginal Kurnell over the past 250 years to illustrate these broader themes, and the need for archaeologists to look outside the Code of Practice bunker and support Aboriginal people to tell their own stories.

The Holocaust Industry and the Aboriginal Heritage Industry - too many parallels for comfort?

Michael Lever (Artefact Heritage)

A brief comparison of the Holocaust Industry and the Aboriginal Heritage Industry reveals stark differences in the degree to which the inheritors of identity hold rights over how their pasts are depicted, controlled and capitalised. In the Holocaust Industry, Jewish ownership and definition of their past is unassailable. In contrast, in the Aboriginal Heritage Industry in NSW, Aboriginal Heritage is defined, legislated and overwhelmingly controlled by non-Aboriginal people. Colonisation and decolonisation theory offers insight to the mechanisms that underly this inequity and which are required to redress it.

Consultant archaeologists - establishing the profession and finding our voices: the birth of AACAI

Susan McIntyre-Tamwoy (Navin Officer Heritage Consultants)

This paper provides an insight into the early days of the Australian Association of Consulting Archaeologists Inc, including its establishment and the impetus behind it.

The Deep Time Aboriginal Cultural Landscape of Parramatta

Tim Owen (GML Heritage) & Dharug Custodial Knowledge Holders

This paper will present an overview of recent research that synthesizes past archaeological work across Parramatta, to provide a holistic deep time cultural landscape understanding of 40,000 years of Parramatta’s occupation by Aboriginal people. The research has been driven through the outcomes of Aboriginal archaeological excavations at Arthur Phillip High School, and the school’s request for detailed analysis of Aboriginal technology through time.

‘Waste not Want not’ - a whole of assemblage approach to open site analysis

Norma Richardson (PhD Candidate, CHL, ANU)

Low-resolution bulk recovery strategies and/or failure to retain all cultural material and relevant natural components salvaged from open sites constrain the range of future analysis. Selective artefact analysis that focusses on cores, retouched flakes, and implements without considering material categorised as waste or debitage are incomplete records of an assemblage. Waste can also refer to items such as heat-shatter derived from flaked artefacts and heat-fractured imported cobbles. Archaeologists discarding heat-shattered pieces at the excavation create a biased sample of the original site contents. Statistical analysis of only unbroken artefacts may be rendered invalid if the degree of this occupational and post-depositional transformation is not calculated. Research using unretouched flakes of all sizes, broken artefacts, heat-shatter and manuports has shown that these aid in the identification of individual behaviour events, assessments of site formation processes and dating. Refitted sequences using both macro and micro-artefacts and conjoined broken artefacts, heat-shatter and manuports provide evidence of raw material import, artefact production, use and recycling of artefacts. Refits and conjoins facilitate assessments of stratigraphic integrity. Microdebitage such as backing flakes, distal ends of backed artefacts, platform preparation flakes and eraillure flakes can provide critical evidence of artefact production and use. Size classes and characteristics of heat-shatter can indicate the nature and number of heating events. Dating artefacts in open sites is problematic due to poor preservation of charcoal and site formation processes; however, burnt artefacts and manuports dated using luminescence techniques can provide a chronology of heating activities and site use. Assemblages should be recovered and documented to facilitate high-resolution analysis irrespective of disturbance or breakage.

“The Interpretation is the Personal Opinion of the Author”: Frederick McCarthy and Rock Art on the Cobar Pediplain

Zac Roberts (Macquarie University)

Indigenous peoples across the globe have a deeply contentious relationship with the discipline of archaeology due to colonial notions of perceived European supremacy that position Indigenous people at the periphery of research regarding their own cultures. In the early days of Australian archaeology, Frederick McCarthy was a pioneer of the discipline. His dedication to preserving and recording Australian Indigenous cultural heritage at a time when Australia’s Indigenous people were excluded from society makes him simultaneously a man of his time and a man ahead of it. In re-examining McCarthy’s rock art research at Mount Grenfell, this article explores the relationship between archaeology and colonialism in an Australian context. Following an Indigenist research methodology, I interrogate the Cultural Interface and the characteristic intersections of Western and Indigenous ontologies and epistemologies that drive Indigenous archaeologies. I consider methods and approaches that can be applied to archaeology to, not just decolonise the discipline, but to enact sovereignty through self-determination in the field.

A new method for dating Aboriginal culturally modified trees in Australia

Caroline Spry (La Trobe University), Greg Ingram (Central Tablelands Local Land Services), Kathryn Allen (ARC Centre of Excellence for Biodiversity and Heritage; University of Melbourne), Quan Hua (ANSTO), Brian Armstrong (La Trobe University; University of Johannesburg), Elspeth Hayes (University of Wollongong); Richard Fullagar (University of Wollongong); Andrew Long (Andrew Long + Associates), John Webb (La Trobe University), Paul Penzo-Kajewski (La Trobe University), Luc Bordes (University of Wollongong), Lisa Paton and Orange Local Aboriginal Land Council

Aboriginal culturally modified trees (including scarred trees) are a distinctive feature of the Australian archaeological record. They contain scars from the removal of bark or wood for practical and symbolic purposes, or limbs manipulated for cultural reasons. These modifications generate insights into Aboriginal people’s interactions with wood and bark, which rarely survive in archaeological contexts, and treed landscapes more broadly. However, there is limited understanding of the age of these trees, and change and continuity in tree-modification practices over time. This paper presents a new method for investigating the age of Aboriginal culturally modified trees. It details a case study from the Lachlan Tablelands in NSW, on Wiradjuri Country, where this method was applied to a tree with a stone tool embedded in scar overgrowth, as part of a collaborative research project with the Orange Local Aboriginal Land Council. This method offers Traditional Owners and archaeologists the opportunity to investigate the timing of cultural tree modification, and how these modification practices have changed over time.

An overview of Phase 1 lithic assemblages (> 7,000 cal BP) from the Cumberland Plain, western Sydney

Beth White

The archaeology of western Sydney is dominated by Phase 2 assemblages of silcrete which include backed artefacts. Older Phase 1 assemblages, more than c. 7,000 years and potentially 30,000 or more years old, are comparatively rare in this region. Excavations conducted during multiple consulting projects within the last 20 years have recovered sufficient numbers of artefacts to broadly characterise the Phase 1 assemblages. The assemblages have survived only in particular geomorphic contexts. A few stratified sites provide evidence for variation through time and some assemblages show variation across space. The results point to variation in technological organisation and potentially peoples’ mobility strategies during this very long span of time.