Looking after our cultural heritage, some thoughts on mining and heritage.

Earlier this week I read and Australian Geographic article titled "Is mining trampling on Aboriginal culture?". The article raised a number of points and outlined by Indigenous academic Dr Jillian Marsh comments that laws aimed at protecting Indigenous sacred sites where generally toothless.

She goes on further to say that the people who benefit from it are the ones with the knowledge and the information and there rest are left out and disempowered. (Martin 2011).

There is not much with this statement that i don't disagree with. However there are aspects of these statements that i think don't show an understanding of the full picture. I have seen these issues from different sides of the equation, as someone who worked in the mining industry, as someone who worked in government and assessed cultural heritage in terms of development, as an academic studying these points of views, and as a traditional owner.  I'm not writing this to make a judgement call or saying that my views on these issues are more right then wrong but to point out the different aspects.

So starting with the statement that laws aimed at protecting Indigenous heritage are "toothless".

Certainly while there has been some improvement in Queensland by the enacting of the Aboriginal Heritage act 2003. This act replaced the old Cultural Records 1987 Act. My first job in government as an Aboriginal Cultural heritage trainee in the old Department of Environment and Heritage, was to enforce this piece legislation and to manage the listing of Aboriginal sites on the cultural heritage register. At this time much of the identification, assessment, management and final say on the value of heritage was left up to mostly non-Aboriginal Cultural heritage managers. Most of these archaeologist by training.

That was over 20 years ago. Things have changed, Aboriginal people have more of a say in regards to identification, assessment and management of their cultural heritage. For a start the very toothless Cultural records act had been replaced in 2003 by the Aboriginal heritage act. This act is somewhat of an improvement it gives a more inclusive say to Aboriginal people in Qld on the assessment and management of their heritage. And certainly Aboriginal peoples rights and understanding of rights in regards to native title, land and cultural heritage have changed in that time. Within this Aboriginal people questioned their custodianship and owners of their own cultural heritage. Smith (1995) argues that stewardship of the Aboriginal past became and important issue in Aboriginal criticisms about the relevance of archaeological research to Aboriginal people. And the apparent lack of respect afforded to Aboriginal people. She goes on further to outline that "The processual scientific discourse in Australia was both influenced by and influential in the development of cultural heritage as a social and political problem in Australia during the 1960s and 1970s. Archaeological discourse during this period also began to emphasise archaeologist as spokespersons and stewards for 'vanishing' Aboriginal populations and their 'lost' ties to material culture"(Smith:95).

The mining boom had brought these issues out in the public in a major way. While researching for this post i found about forty headlines from different sources that ran along the theme of Aboriginal culture threatened by big miners.

In regards to mining, the debate around cultural heritage has become entwined with the debate around native title an rights to benefits. I have seen in my experience in the mining industry heritage used as a tool of leverage more perceived benefits. What this means is that rights issue is used in the same emotive way over heritage. This does complicate the way heritage is valued. For instance I have seen objectivity of cultural material. Let me provide an example, stone artefact's become so valuable that according to traditional owners that stone reflects everything about their culture even their very existence. Stone artefact's are tangible things that provide evidence of people connection to country. But yet sometimes they are emotively used to as a means of connecting people to country. The importance of the rock is not the rock itself it is the information, the technology used, the fact that it provides evidence of how that country was used. Where the rock is found in the landscape and how it may have got there. All of those pieces of information are valuable. Yet I have seen how that rock has become a symbol of culture. For me it is not the rock that the importance should be placed on. It is the information it provides and how this fits in with the stories of the country, it reinforces the knowledge and it is that knowledge that is the connection to country. Not some rock, but again this is my own personal view.

But there are deeper intrinsic matters that are prevalent in my argument that i will not get into here. Particularly that I have not read enough or understand enough to comment deeper and offer more then my personal opinion. Those intrinsic matters are the fabric of identity and how heritage have ingrained into the politics of Aboriginal affairs.

However back to mining and Aboriginal heritage, yes we are aware of the negatives, heritage being destroyed. Process that some traditional owners maybe feel they have been left out of. Site have been destroyed without consent or even knowledge of traditional owners. But there are mining companies that take cultural heritage serious and are aware of the consequences and impacts upon business. This is one thing that i was not aware of before entering the mining industry. Seeing it from the companies point of view. Mining business take an adverse risk approach to management. If heritage process are not followed then this could potentially mean stop work orders. Stop orders hurt production. Many companies in the industry see it from this point of view. Those that don't soon learn the hard way how this can affect the bottom line. this is not to say that there are still cowboys out there. Or in turn that some company employees may not take it as seriously as their management.

One of the key point I want to outline that has not been mentioned is the fact that mining and exploration activities have increased the archaeological picture in Australia. The benefits to the understanding has been greatly enhanced because of the level of activities that have occurred in remote areas that may not have had any previous or proposed future cultural heritage assessment. Where a farmer who is not required to undertake any cultural heritage study has been replaced by mining companies that are required to consider cultural heritage.

I guess the greatest benefits to Aboriginal people has been the tangible levels of employment that have come out of their activities. In this case I'm talking of the direct employment of Aboriginal traditional owners to identify, record and manage their cultural heritage. I know from experience that these kinds of activities where greatly welcomed by field officers when employed to be out walking on country. They also enjoyed their work and it provided them with access to country. Many that i worked with commented that they felt good working and walking on country. The skills and qualification allowed a number of cultural heritage field officers to pick up jobs on the mine sites in various roles. Professor Langton (2012) outlined in the Australian  this need not be the case and later referred to benefits for indigenous people in the Pilbara where she said some 3000 Aborigines were employed as a direct result of the mining industry.

"Mining companies and indigenous parties have found cause to develop trust arrangements to serve the purpose of local wealth funds," she said.

So while there are negatives it is clearly shown that there had also been employment of Aboriginal people, skills and qualifications gained. 

So these blogs are just about covering some areas of interest in the area of Aboriginal land management and cultural heritage. I'm a consultant that works with Aboriginal groups in land and cultural heritage management planning. For more info on me please feel free to visit my webpage www.djarnda.com.au . My aim with blogs will be about covering areas of interest and expressing my views around this.

There will be more blogs and opinions offered and more in-depth look at specific issues, trends and developments.

Thanks for taking the time to read and hope my opinions are valuable.

References

Is mining trampling on Aboriginal culture? BY LISA MARTIN/AAP WITH AG STAFF |

• APRIL 20, 2011 found at http://www.australiangeographic.com.au/news/2011/04/is-mining-trampling-on-aboriginal-culture/

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/indigenous/marcia-langton-says-3000-aborigines-are-employed-as-a-direct-result-of-the-mining-industry/story-fn9hm1pm-1226529265338

Mikinnon-Dodd Colin 2011 "Indigneous Sacrifice for Miners Gain"

found at http://www.abc.net.au/indigenous/stories/s3274867.htm

Smith, Laura Jane, 1995 Archaeological Theory and The Politics of Cultural Heritage. 

Where is Looking after country at? A quick snapshot of Aboriginal approach to land management today.

On a professional basis I have been involved in looking after country activities for long time. Some 24 years, if i have to offer a time frame. But way before that, my aspirations as a child where always to be employed as some kind of Ranger or land manager, playing a role in looking after my country.

The Barron River which flows through a little town called Kuranda, located in the Cairns hinterland in far north Queensland, was where i spent my formative years. Growing up fishing, swimming camping, on that river gave me a healthy respect for country and the amazing adventures to be had and incredible things to be found. Importantly it also spiked a curiosity for knowledge. Knowledge about my country, the special places, the ecosystems, the flora and fauna and how my people used that country.

This has not changed i still hold these aspiration and still want to be employed in someway that allows me to play a role in looking after country. Whether playing a role in planning or managing natural resource or recoding cultural heritage or the variety of other roles in NRM or natural resource management.

On my father side I'm a descendant of the Djabugay people, I have had the privilege of learning many things about my peoples culture and connection to land. And it is this a value or connection that i know many Aboriginal people all around Australia speak of. They hold that value they same as i do. The connection to country, the aspirations to look after country, the drive to play some role in looking after their country and culture.

Over my twenty something.. years involved in land, natural and cultural resource management i have seen a evolution of what looking after country is about. Many people involved with Aboriginal communities in "looking after country" activities would know that those aspirations i spoke of are near the top of the priority list. However its the evolution i have witness is the involvement of Aboriginal people in a wide range of NRM activities, that i like to cover within this blog.

Particularly i mean that in the early days of my involvement i saw that the priority amongst Aboriginal people was about looking after cultural heritage sites and places of significances. While these are important i think the focus has now shifted to include things such as flora and fauna and special ecosystems.

Like many things, this change has happened gradually and not over night.

There are different reasons for this evolving. I guess Aboriginal people realising themselves that all parts of country and culture are important. The influence from western science and its focus on particular and specific areas of NRM. And indeed the science community engaging more with Aboriginal people and seeing the benefits of Aboriginal knowledge systems, and more importantly the benefits of working with Aboriginal people who are located on country and want to be involved.

This is good this means that the there is a wider range of NRM focus and implementation and as a result of this knowledge and skills grow. In the past we would have had Aboriginal rangers looking after an artefact scatters, now days we have Aboriginal rangers looking after specific species of fauna or involved in research such as turtle nesting and tagging. Conducting surveys of ecosystems, busing country in management of carbon.

This variety in Aboriginal is good and the way of the future. Looking after country should be about this inclusive and broad range approach to NRM. It also needs to be about develop and recognising the broader skill and experiences that are developing amongst Aboriginal Land managers.

So this as the first of my blogs, was just about covering some areas of interest in the area of Aboriginal land management. I'm a consultant that works with Aboriginal groups in land and cultural heritage management planning. For more info on me please feel free to visit my webpage www.djarnda.com.au . My aim with blogs will be about covering areas of interest and expressing my views around this.
There will be more blogs and opinions offered and more in-depth look at specific issues, trends and developments.

Thanks for taking the time to read and hope my opinions are valuable.