Smith_et_al_Waanyi.pdf

8/14/2019 Smith_et_al_Waanyi.pdf

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/smithetalwaanyipdf 1/17

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

This article was downloaded by: [University of York] On: 15 April 2009 Access details: Access Details: [subscription number 903268926] Publisher Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

International Journal of Heritage StudiesPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713685629

Community-driven Research in Cultural Heritage Management: the WaanyiWomen s History ProjectLaurajane Smith; Anna Morgan; Anita van der Meer

Online Publication Date: 01 March 2003

To cite this Article Smith, Laurajane, Morgan, Anna and van der Meer, Anita(2003)'Community-driven Research in Cultural HeritageManagement: the Waanyi Women's History Project',International Journal of Heritage Studies,9:1,65 — 80

To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1080/1352725022000056631

URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1352725022000056631

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf

This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial orsystematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply ordistribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contentswill be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug dosesshould be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss,actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directlyor indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713685629

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1352725022000056631

http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf

http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1352725022000056631

http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713685629



ISSN 1352-7258 print; ISSN 1470-3610 online/03/010065-16 © 2003 Taylor & Francis Ltd

DOI: 10.1080/1352725022000056631

International Journal of Heritage Studies,

Vol. 9, No. 1, 2003, pp. 65–80

Community-driven Research in Cultural

Heritage Management: the Waanyi

Women’s History Project

Laurajane Smith, Anna Morgan and

Anita van der Meer Abstract

Community involvement in heritage management is an issue that is increasingly being

debated within heritage studies and management agencies. This paper examines a case

study from Queensland, Australia, of a community-initiated and controlled heritage

project. The paper outlines and discusses the implications that this project has to anunderstanding of the nature of heritage, the processes of its management and the role of

expertise within management. It argues that the development of a management process that

is meaningfully inclusive at a community level must overthrow the ways in which heritage

is defined and understood. Not only must concepts of intangible heritage be developed, but

also concepts of heritage must usefully incorporate an understanding of the nature of

intangible experiences and values that are associated with the physical aspects of heritage.

Moreover, it is important to understand that these experiences and values are themselves

open to management and regulation. Subsequently, an inclusive management process

requires a self-conscious evaluation of the role of heritage managers in the process and a

conscious decision to support, or otherwise, local community aspirations.

Key Words: Community; Heritage Management; Australia; Women’s Heritage;

Indigenous Heritage; Intangible Heritage

The issue of community participation in the processes of heritage management has

become an increasingly significant international issue in heritage studies. In heritage

systems dealing with Indigenous cultural heritage, active participation has

developed organically from the consultation process.1 International debate,

1. I. Davidson, C. Lovell-Jones & R. Bancroft (eds) Archaeologists and Aborigines working together ,

Armidale: University of New England Press, 1995; J. Field et al., ‘ “Coming back”: Aborigines and

archaeologists at Cuddie Springs’, Public Archaeology, Vol. 1, No. 1, 2000, pp. 35–48; G.P. Nicholas

& T.D. Andrews (eds) At a crossroads: archaeology and first peoples in Canada, Burnaby: Archaeology

Press, Simon Fraser University, 1997; V. Salazar, A. Roberts & A. Bohnert, ‘Cultural sensitivity and

tribal authority in research projects and museum collection management’, Cultural Resource

Management , Vol. 23, No. 7, 2001, pp. 29–32; D.C. Stapp, ‘Tribes working with agencies to protect

resources’, Cultural Resource Management , Vol. 23, No. 7, 2000, pp. 41–44.



66 Laurajane Smith et al.

however, is now beginning to focus on the development of a generally more

inclusive approach to heritage management dealing with the full range of cultural

places. This paper contributes to that debate while outlining the history and process

of a community heritage project developed between heritage archaeologists and

Waanyi women from north-west Queensland, Australia. As with Powell,2 we also

argue that lessons learned from working with Indigenous Australians may have

currency and applicability with regard to community involvement in other regions

of the world.

For instance, in Great Britain, current Labour government policy aims for greater

‘social inclusion’ in cultural life, while grants are available under the Local Heritage

Initiative (LHI) to fund community-based heritage programmes.3 In both North

America and Australia, debate has commenced on the needs of non-Indigenous

community participation in the management of non-Indigenous heritage.4 How-

ever, as Newman & McLean argue, it is not as yet clear what a more inclusive system

of heritage management may actually look like.5 Nor is it clear what consequences

meaningful, as opposed to token, community participation may have for bothcommunities and traditional heritage-management aims and practices. The aim of

this paper is not only to document the community project, but also to draw out the

implications the programme has, both for the community involved and for the way

in which cultural heritage management (CHM)6 may be understood and practised.

We contend that both the way in which heritage is traditionally defined and

understood by heritage experts, and the current role of experts and expertise in

CHM, constrains the ability of local communities to participate meaningfully within

the management cycle. We draw attention to the need to theorise and critically to

examine the nature and role of expertise in CHM, and suggest that it is important

2. J. Powell, ‘Expanding horizons: environmental and cultural values within natural boundaries’,

International Journal of Heritage Studies, Vol. 6, No. 1, 2000, pp. 49 – 65.

3. A. Hodges & S. Watson, ‘Community-based heritage management: a case study and agenda for

research’, International Journal of Heritage Studies, Vol. 6, No. 3, 2000, pp. 231 – 243; A. Newman & F.

McLean, ‘Heritage builds communities: the application of heritage resources to the problems of social

exclusion’, International Journal of Heritage Studies, Vol. 4, Nos 3/4, 1998, pp. 143 – 153; Department

for Culture, Media and Sport, People and places: social inclusion policy for the built and historic

environment , London: DCMS, 2002.

4. B. Boyd, M. Cotter, W. O’Connor & D. Sattler, ‘Cognitive ownership of heritage places: socialconstruction and cultural heritage management’, in S. Ulm, I. Lilley & A. Ross (eds) Australian

archaeology ’95: Proceedings of the 1995 Australian Archaeological Association Annual Conference, St

Lucia: Tempus, 1996, pp. 123 – 140; A.L. Brown, ‘Amplifying the voices of all Americans:

ethnography, interpretation and inclusiveness’, Cultural Resource Management , Vol. 23, No. 7, 2001,

pp. 15 – 16; G.C. Rothrock, ‘A tale of two communities: community involvement in preservation

planning’, Cultural Resource Management , Vol. 23, No. 7, 2000, pp. 23 – 26.

5. Newman & McLean, op. cit. (note 3).

6. We use the term cultural heritage management in preference to cultural resource management,

public archaeology/public history, or archaeological heritage management and other related terms.



Community-driven Research in CHM 67

for heritage practitioners to set transparent political agendas to guide the way in

which expertise and authority is implemented within CHM.

What is Cultural Heritage Management?

To draw out the implications of the project for CHM, the term needs to be defined,

and the management process conceptualised and put into context. CHM is often

defined as a technical process in which experts such as archaeologists, anthro-

pologists, historians and/or conservation architects assess the meaning and value of

heritage places and develop and implement management policies and strategies.7 In

archaeological terms, CHM is the point at which archaeologists and their

knowledge intersect with a range of institutions, other areas of expertise, values and

interests. In a sense it is the public face of archaeology, but it is also the process that

acts publicly to ensure that a range of archaeological interests is given primacy in

public policy. That is, CHM is more than a technical process of management in that

it has consequences beyond the simple management of significant places.8 CHM is

the process that, amongst other things, formalises conflicts over the use anddisposition of heritage places that are valued by archaeologists and other interests.

Above all, CHM is about managing conflict. At one level it is about managing

conflict over heritage places and how they should be used. At another level it is

about managing conflict over the meanings given to heritage and the past and how

these meanings are used in the present. It is at this level that archaeologists and

other experts involved in CHM become participants in wider social, cultural and

political conflicts and debates.

As Smith has argued elsewhere, archaeology, through its claims to expertise, often

occupies a privileged position within the CHM process.9 This position means that

it is archaeological knowledge, values and understandings about the meaning of thepast that are often given primacy in any conflict. This in turn means that

archaeological knowledge is often used, albeit sometimes without the consent of

archaeologists, to regulate and arbitrate over conflicts over the meaning and

disposition of heritage items or places.10 As a consequence, those interests or groups

7. T. Darvill, Ancient monuments in the countryside: an archaeological management review, London:

English Heritage, 1987; J. Hunter & I. Ralston (eds) Archaeological resource management in the UK: an

introduction, Phoenix Mill: Allen Sutton, 1993; M. Pearson & S. Sullivan, Looking after heritage places,

Melbourne: Melbourne University Press, 1995; T.F. King, Cultural resource laws and practice: an

introductory guide, Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira, 1998.

8. L. Smith, ‘Heritage management as postprocessual archaeology?’, Antiquity, Vol. 68, 1994, pp.

300 – 309.

9. Ibid.; see also L. Smith, ‘Towards a theoretical overview for heritage management’, Archaeological

Review from Cambridge, Vol. 12, 1993, pp. 55 – 75; L. Smith, ‘Archaeology and the governance of

material culture: a case study from south-eastern Australia’, Norwegian Archaeological Review, Vol. 34,

No. 2, 2001, pp. 97 – 105.

10. Ibid., 2001, p. 102.




who draw on the past to reaffirm a sense of community and belonging may

themselves become indirectly regulated by archaeological knowledge through

CHM. Through this process, many communities, and Indigenous communities in

particular, come into conflict with the archaeological discipline.11

This conflict has been well played out in both the general archaeological and

heritage literature. In Australia this has resulted in widespread acceptance of the

practice of informed consultation with Indigenous communities as part of both

academic research programmes and within heritage-management processes and

projects.12 As the consultation process has become cemented in archaeological

research and heritage practices, community-initiated and community-run projects

have begun to develop. This process has begun to modify, if not challenge, the role

of experts and expertise in CHM processes and, as it does so, a range of issues about

the nature and practice of CHM begin to emerge.

11. L. Smith, ‘The last archaeologist? Material culture and contested identities’, Australian Aboriginal

Studies, No. 2, 1999, pp. 25 – 34.

12. Davidson et al., op. cit.; Field et al., op. cit. (note 1).

Figure 1. Waanyi Women’ s History Committee and the authors at Boodjamulla National Park.

Shown in the photo are left to right, front row: Ir is Hogan, Irene Kelly, Noelene Hills, unnamed (now

deceased), Nancy George, Sally O’ Keefe, Nancy Gregory, Mavis Rockland, Mary Lorraine, Diane

O’ Keefe, Eunice O’ Keefe, Muriel Timothy, Junie Ryan, Shirley Chong (back turned), back row:

Laurajane Smith, Anna Morgan and Nancy Carlton. [Photo: A. van der Meer.]




The Waanyi Women’s History Project

The Waanyi Women’s History Project is ongoing and commenced in early 2000. The

aims of the project are to record sites and places of significance to Waanyi women.

The Waanyi Women’s History Committee (see figure 1) and the authors, all of

whom have trained as archaeologists, jointly conducted the project. The project

gained state government funding through the Queensland Community Cultural

Heritage Incentive Program, and ‘in kind’ support was generously granted by the

Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service (QPWS) and Boodjamulla National Park

staff.13

The aims of the project were, in archaeological terms, relatively modest, that is,

simply to identify and record sites that the Waanyi women consider valuable. We

were not undertaking systematic field surveys and the data that we recorded during

the project are not available for archaeological research. At the time of publication,

two field seasons had occurred, in which a handful of sites had been recorded. Taped

oral histories from some of the senior women and genealogies of some of the women

involved in the project have also been recorded. The data recorded, as requested byWaanyi women, will be made available only to Waanyi women — indeed, the data

cannot and will not be made available for research, nor will anything other than site

locations and management protocols be made available to land and heritage

managers. Detailed information about the sites, their meanings and values held

about them cannot be published. It was of considerable concern to Waanyi women

that cultural information about the sites not be published or otherwise dis-

seminated; the authors understood that the reasons for this were that it would be

culturally inappropriate to disseminate the information publicly. Involvement in this

project was based on the authors’ word, and Waanyi trust in that word, that detailed

knowledge about the sites would not be communicated to people not involved in theproject.

As a community-driven project, its aims, methodology and any dissemination of

results have all been determined and controlled by the local community — in this

case senior Waanyi women. The major result of this project is that local heritage

values have been given primacy in the land-management process and that control

over the determination of the meaning and value of heritage has been firmly located

in the local community. The role of archaeologists as ‘experts’ in the management

process has been largely subsumed by the new role of ‘facilitator’. The authors as

archaeologists, and the land managers in the Environmental Planning Authority

(EPA) and QPWS who fund and support this project, have all surrendered the ‘need

to know’ ethos that underpins much archaeological and heritage research. All

involved in the project have made a political decision to support and facilitate the

aspirations of local Waanyi women.

The project area is situated in Boodjamulla (formally Lawn Hill) National Park

(see figure 2), which includes the Riversleigh Palaeontological World Heritage

13. Project Web page,

< http://www.york.ac.uk/depts/arch/staff/projects/waanwomen/pages_ww/index.htm > .




Area.14 The Park consists of limestone plateaux and black soil basalt plains

vegetated by sparse Eucalypt woodland and Spinifex grasslands (see figure 3). This

is an arid, isolated and eroded landscape through which flow the Gregory and

O’Shannasy Rivers and Lawn Hill Creek (see figure 4). The riparian forests, which

extend for only about 20m either side of these watercourses, provide significant

relief from the aridity of the landscape.

Cultural and Historical Background

Boodjamulla National Park is part of the custodial territory of the Waanyi people.

Cultural sites belonging to Waanyi occur throughout the Park and the surrounding

country. Occupation of the area has been dated back to about 15,000 BP, although

14. M. Archer, S.J. Hand & H. Godthelp, Riversleigh: the story of animals in ancient rainforests of inland

Australia, Sydney: Reed Books, 1991.

Figure 2. The research area: Boodjamulla National Park, including Riversleigh World HeritagePalaeontological Area. [Drawn by Sven Schroeder.]




an earlier date for initial occupation is probable.15 Sites that have been recorded in

and around the Park include open artefact scatters, burials, middens, art sites, stone

arrangements, cave deposits and places of sacred significance to Waanyi.

In Waanyi culture, as with many other Aboriginal cultures, responsibility for

country, and sites and places within country, are very carefully delineated.

‘Country’ refers to the land with which Aboriginal people are associated and it is the

area of land from which they draw their identity and a sense of place and

community.16 In a very real sense, Aboriginal people talk about ‘caring for country’,

and who has responsibility to care for country or sites or places within that country

is carefully defined along clan, kin, age and gender lines. Gender and age can play

a significant role not only in defining who has custodial responsibility for certain

sites or places, but also who has the rights to talk about the events and histories

associated with particular places. Moreover, it also determines who has the right to

possess and hold knowledge and to whom it may be passed. If certain cultural and

religious knowledge is inappropriately communicated to people of an incorrect kin,

gender category or other cultural affiliation then that act can have disastrousconsequences for both the custodian of that information and the recipient of it.17

The cultural knowledge recorded during this project was of this nature, and

subsequently cannot be published or otherwise disseminated by the authors. This is

a restriction on research that is by no means unusual when undertaking

archaeological or other research of this kind in Australia.18

Europeans arrived in the northern parts of Australia relatively late, and it was not

until the 1860s that the first wave of settlement reached the Boodjamulla region.

Initial settlement stalled when the sheep that the Europeans brought with them did

15. A. van der Meer, ‘Widtheringyapa: a predictive model for the archaeology of the Riversleigh

Management Unit, Lawn Hill National Park’, unpublished Honours thesis, Sydney: Department of

Biological Science, University of New South Wales, 1997.

16. For an extended discussion of this issue, see J. Birckhead, T. DeLacy & L. Smith (eds) Aboriginal

involvement in parks and protected areas, Canberra: Aboriginal Studies Press, 1992; L. Head, Second

nature: the history and implications of Australia as Aboriginal landscape, New York: Syracuse University

Press, 2000; D.B. Rose, Nourishing terrains: Australian Aboriginal views of landscape and wilderness,

Canberra: Australian Heritage Commission, 1996; D.B. Rose & A. Clarke (eds) Tracking knowledge in

north Australian landscapes, Darwin: North Australia Research Unit, 1997.

17. See, for instance, K. Deveraux, ‘Looking at country from the heart’, in Rose & Clarke, op. cit.

(note 16), pp. 68 – 81; D. Mowaljarlai, ‘Wayrrull — Aboriginal traditional responsibility in the

northwest Kimberleys of Western Australia’, in Birckhead, DeLacy & Smith, op. cit. (note 16), pp.

179 – 189; M. Tarran, ‘People, country and protection of culture and cultural properties’, in Rose &

Clarke, op. cit., pp. 82 – 86.

18. See the Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies Guidelines for Ethical

Research in Indigenous Studies (http://www.aiatsis.gov.au/rsrch/index.htm) for an example of research

practices based on an acceptance of custodial rights of Indigenous knowledge and the consequences

of this for research practices and publication. It is generally uncontroversial in Australian Indigenous

studies that Indigenous peoples may well restrict access to, or dissemination of, certain types of

knowledge.




not thrive in the arid gulf region of Queensland. The second wave of invasion

occurred in the 1870s with the establishment of cattle stations at Riversleigh and

Lawn Hill.19 With the stations came missionaries and the Mounted Native Police,

both in their various ways charged with controlling the Indigenous population. To

this end Waanyi and surrounding cultures were forcibly removed from their country

and placed on missions and reserves. Following governmental assimilation policies

adopted in the early 20th century, children were routinely removed from their

families to be educated away from the influence of kin and culture.20This history of

invasion and abuse has had significant implications for the dissemination of cultural

knowledge. Further, many Waanyi now live away from their country, a situation that

impacts on cultural identity and their sense of responsibility for their country and

cultural sites.

Management Background

QPWS and Waanyi, in recognition of Waanyi custodial rights, are working to

establish joint management of Boodjamulla National Park. Negotiations over thedate for the official establishment for joint management have, at time of publication,

stalled. The Waanyi Ministerial Advisory Committee, established after a Waanyi

blockade of the Park during the 1990s in protest over the lack of Waanyi involvement

in management, works with the QPWS to decide issues of policy for the Park.

Traditionally, land managers in both QPWS and the EPA have been men.

Aboriginal women can often find it difficult to talk to men, particularly about

women’s cultural issues. Further, there has been a tendency on the part of managers

to assume that men are community leaders and that it is to men that they should talk.

No doubt, too, Aboriginal men have taken the opportunity to place their cultural

issues firmly on management agendas, although Aboriginal men are also not in aposition to talk about women’s cultural business. What the history of management

means, however, is that women’s cultural issues and concerns have tended to be

sidelined or ignored.

History of the Project

Establishing a relationship of trust is an important element in any archaeological or

heritage project involving Indigenous culture.21 The authors had all established a

history of trust with local community members, Anna Morgan through her previous

19. M. Slack, ‘Aborigines, settlers and the Native Police: a reassessment of the frontier in far north

west Queensland’, unpublished Honours thesis, Sydney: Department of History, University of New

South Wales, 1998.

20. H. Reynolds & D. May, ‘Queensland’, in A. McGrath (ed.) Contested ground: Australian Aborigines

under the British Crown, Sydney: Allen & Unwin, 1995, pp. 168 – 207; for wider discussion of these

issues see R. Wilson, Bringing them home: report of the National Inquiry into the Separation of Aboriginal

and Torres Strait Islander Children from their Families, Sydney: Human Rights and Equal Opportunities

Commission, 1997.

21. Field et al., op. cit. (note 1), p. 2.




work as heritage archaeologist for the EPA, and van der Meer and Smith through

previous research work in the region.22 At a meeting of Waanyi and land managers,

a group of senior Waanyi women expressed to Anna a sense of frustration at not

having their cultural issues firmly on land-management agendas and requested help

in establishing a project to identify and protect sites. As archaeologists, and as

women working in the region, the authors then successfully applied with senior

Waanyi women for funding for what was to become the Waanyi Women’s History

Project.

Methodology

The aims of the project were carefully discussed with all the Waanyi participants. In

summary, the aims are:

identification of sites, places and landscapes of significance to Waanyi women;

development of protocols for consultation, and the management and conserva-

tion of Waanyi women’s sites, landscapes and places; identification of management and conservation issues at specific sites and places

of significance to Waanyi women;

documentation of, and research into, Waanyi women’s oral histories and

significant sites and places with the view to developing management policies and

practices sensitive to the needs and concerns of Indigenous women.

As the project progressed, the women tended to redefine these aims, as is discussed

below. Over two field seasons in 2000 we recorded oral histories and a small number

of sites within the Riversleigh section of Boodjamulla National Park, which had

been identified as one of the particularly sensitive areas of the Park. To our surprise,the women also asked whether we would record their genealogies. In between

recording we spent most of our time fishing (see figure 5). As archaeologists imbued

with a particular ‘archaeological work ethic’ we initially found the time spent fishing

frustrating — as we felt we were not working. To some extent the women used this

time to give themselves a break from what for them was the exhausting work of

providing information. However, it was also a time that was used simply to enjoy

being back in their country and for these women that was as, if not more, important

than recording their information.

Discussion

Sitting around talking and fishing in stunning oasis-like rivers in the middle of the

Australian outback sounds more like a holiday than archaeological or heritage

22. van der Meer, op. cit. (note 15); L. Smith & A. van der Meer, ‘Landscape and the negotiation of

identity: a case study from Riversleigh, north-west Queensland’, in M. Cotter, B. Boyd & J. Gardiner

(eds) Heritage landscapes: understanding place and communities, Lismore: Southern Cross University

Press, 2001, pp. 51 – 63.




management research. What is the significance of this work and what implications

does it have for community participation in other contexts?

The project challenges the standard notions of what constitutes ‘heritage’. In

Australia, as with most other countries, the heritage that we identify as significant,as the object of management and legal protection has tended to be material

culture — physical resources that can be seen, mapped and placed on site registers.

For Waanyi women their heritage was not only sites and places in a landscape, but

just as importantly their oral histories. Not only was family history seen as heritage,

but also the act of passing on that information was an important aspect of heritage

and of the management of heritage. We were asked to record genealogies, and thus

records of kinship and family links were identified as heritage. Not only is ‘heritage’

not all material and tangible, but the point made by Grimwade & Carter23 may be

stressed here too. Simply, that the traditional emphasis on the material nature of

heritage may obscure the cultural and social processes that give context and

meaning to heritage objects. The significance of heritage does not lie in its

materiality or its fabric, but in the cultural and historical processes that give it

meaning.

Within this project, heritage may also be identified as an experience, not just a

physical place or object. For Waanyi women, simply being in their country and

23. G. Grimwade & B. Carter, ‘Managing small heritage sites with interpretation and community

involvement’, International Journal of Heritage Studies, Vol. 6, No. 1, 2000, pp. 33 – 48.

Figure 5. Sally O’ Keefe fishing during fieldwork for the Waanyi Women’ s History Project. [Photo: A.

Morgan.]




doing mundane, if enjoyable, things like fishing and being with kinswomen was a

reaffirmation of country and identity. Heritage in this case was not only an

experience, but was the experience. That is, simply being in their country and in

their cultural landscape, women were reaffirming their sense of cultural, family and

personal histories. And that, for the women, was the important point of the

project — not so much the formal aims outlined above. That does not mean that the

project was simply an excuse to go fishing, but rather that experiencing and being

in their country was an act of heritage management. So that ‘heritage management’

became not so much about recording sites and putting them on maps and defining

their significance and value, but rather heritage was being ‘managed’ by visiting and

simply being in country. The intangible aspects of heritage — the emotional

responses to place, the histories and knowledge that are held about a landscape,

place or site — were identified not only as being as important as the physical site, but

also in need of being ‘managed’ through reaffirmation.

A related point is that by allowing community control over this project both the

process of the project, and its results, have become more meaningful at acommunity level. From an archaeological and traditional heritage-management

point of view we tend to see tangible results as the single most important aspect of

any project. In this case, the process of the project appears to be as important, if not

more important, than the results themselves. That does not mean, however, that the

women were unconcerned with achieving our formal aims of recording and

mapping site locations and developing protocols for management. However,

because this project was community driven, and because women had control over

how the project progressed and what was done with the data that were collected, the

actual act of the project became a statement that women’s heritage is important and

that women are in control of it. This is not an insignificant statement, as itrepositions women as significant players in the land management of Boodjamulla

and Riversleigh. Boodjamulla National Park is in the process of moving over to joint

management and it is possible that in this context that it had become important for

women to assert, both with land managers and the men of their community, their

rights as players in management negotiations and processes. Historically, women

had been marginalised in the management of their sites; this project, in some

respects, was a useful event to assert their authority as stakeholders in the

management of Boodjamulla. Here, the heritage-management process itself became

a resource in wider negotiations and power sharing both within the Waanyi

community and between Waanyi and land managers.

A related issue is that of ownership of knowledge. In this project it was not

culturally appropriate to communicate the results of the fieldwork; to do so would

be to undermine the cultural value and meaning of that knowledge and thus

irredeemably to alter the value, meaning and significance of the sites associated with

that knowledge. Control over knowledge by Waanyi women was culturally important

although, as discussed above, control was also important in positioning themselves

as active and powerful players in the management of the Park. While there were

specific cultural issues in this case, a nonetheless relevant observation for other




community projects is that sometimes the act of control and possession of

knowledge about the past, whether it is sacred or other forms of knowledge, is itself

entwined with cultural value and meaning. Once knowledge is publicly dis-

seminated it becomes harder to control and, in effect, becomes depersonalised.

Subsequently, dissemination of certain types of knowledge can diminish or alter

local values, meanings and personal associations. The control and possession of

knowledge can become woven into local community structures and networks

concerned with power brokering and negotiation, or more simply with a local or

personalised sense of self and identity. In these situations it becomes pertinent for

heritage managers to be aware of these issues and the consequences that

dissemination of knowledge about the past may have on local community values and

cohesion. In short, it may not always be in local community interests publicly to

disseminate knowledge and information about the past.

Another issue that emerges from this project revolves around that of local value

versus national value, or even international value. In the heritage literature there has

been some ongoing debate about which level of value should be given primacy in themanagement processes.24 Indeed, as Emerick observes, as World Heritage issues

become increasingly and publicly debated and aired, issues concerning local value

and significance gain a sense of urgency.25This increasing concern with local values

may relate to attempts to control a sense of ‘self ’ and community identity.26 What

this project illustrates is the importance of local value because it is at the local level

that a person’s sense of self and identity seem to be felt most acutely. The Riversleigh

section of Boodjamulla National Park, where the first phase of this project was

conducted, has clear international values following its listing as a World Heritage

area, and it is these values that dominate the management of this landscape.27

Although it is listed for its natural values only, a separate study by Smith & van derMeer has argued that this ‘natural’ landscape is embedded with cultural values.28

The area has clear values to a number of stakeholder groups: tourist groups, local

pastoralists, palaeontologists, and so on. Those who value the region for its national

24. K. Emerick, ‘Use, value and significance in heritage management’, in R. Layton, P.G. Stone & J.

Thomas (eds) Destruction and conservation of cultural property, London: Routledge, 2001, pp.

276 – 285; D. Lee Long, ‘Cultural heritage management in post-colonial polities: not the heritage of

the other’, International Journal of Heritage Studies, Vol. 6, No. 2, 2000, pp. 317 – 330.

25. Emerick, ibid., p. 282.

26. D. Lowenthal, The past is a foreign country, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990.

27. Manidis Roberts (consultants), ‘Riversleigh management strategy’, Exhibition Draft, unpublished

report to the Queensland Department of Environment, 1998.

28. Smith & van der Meer, op. cit. (note 21); see also L. Head, Cultural landscapes and environmental

change, London: Arnold, 2000, pp. 89 – 90; and S. Tichen ‘Changing perceptions and recognition of

the environment — from cultural and natural heritage to cultural landscapes’, in J. Finlayson and A.

Jackson-Nakano (eds) Heritage and native title: anthropological and legal perspectives, Canberra:

AIATSIS, 1996, for background debate.




and/or international values can be equally as passionate as those whose values may

be defined as local. However, it seems that it is local value that is the more fragile,

the more easily overlooked or dismissed. Locals, particularly in the case of Waanyi

women, may also have the most to lose if their heritage values are subsumed or

disregarded. Clearly for the women, heritage in this case was not simply about

history and identity, it was also about asserting a political voice in negotiations over

the management of Boodjamulla and Riversleigh.

One of the most significant lessons of this project is the implication it has for the

role of ‘expertise’ within heritage management. As Russell has noted, the move

towards community consultation in Australia has suggested that heritage manage-

ment has shifted towards a more egalitarian and democratic approach.29 However,

he argues, this has been a top-down approach that has seen the co-option of

community bodies into the wider process with little or no meaningful public debate

on their involvement. In this project the archaeologists relinquished control of

agendas and processes. We did not, however, entirely let go of our position as

experts. Our expertise was utilised by Waanyi women, and to some extent ourpresence as professional experts lent credibility to the project in the eyes of land

managers. However, the Waanyi women, in achieving their own aims and setting

their own agendas, to some extent used our expertise as a commodity. In Australia

there has been sustained criticism levelled at archaeologists for their position as

stewards of and guardians over the Aboriginal past, a position established and

maintained by archaeological claims to expertise and scientific objectivity.30 A

difficulty identified in this debate is, if we abandon our stewardship role what role

should we then take?31

Bauman identified two roles that intellectuals in Western societies play — that of

legislator and interpreter.32

The legislative role incorporates the traditionalEnlightenment view of intellectuals and knowledge; authoritative pronouncements

of intellectuals become binding statements that ensure the attainment of truth and

social order. Meanwhile, the interpreter seeks to translate discourses constructed in

one knowledge system into other knowledge systems to facilitate communication

between autonomous participants in the social order. However, this latter role does

not abandon authoritative claims to expertise. As Smith has argued elsewhere,

29. J. Russell, ‘Towards more inclusive, vital models of heritage: an Australian perspective’,

International Journal of Heritage Studies, Vol. 3, No. 2, 1997, pp. 71 – 80.

30. Smith, 1994, op. cit. (note 8); B. Ellis, ‘Rethinking the paradigm: cultural heritage management

in Queensland’, in Ngulaig 10 , Monograph Series, Brisbane: Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander

Studies Unit, University of Queensland, 1994; S. Greer and R. Henry, ‘The politics of heritage: the

case study of the Kuranda Skyrail’, in Finlayson & Jackson-Nakano, op. cit. (note 28).

31. I.J. McNiven & L. Russel, ‘Archaeology and Indigenous people’, in C.R. Chippindale & H.D.G.

Maschner (eds) Handbook of archaeology theories, Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press, in press.

32. Z. Bauman, Legislators and interpreters, Cambridge: Polity, 1987; Z. Bauman, Intimations of

Postmodernity, London: Routledge, 1992.




archaeologists occupy both roles within the heritage-management process.33

Archaeologists will make binding statements and decisions about the nature of

heritage, its value and meanings. Moreover, archaeologists will also interpret, from

the position of heritage expert, the meanings and values attributed to heritage by a

range of interest groups and their interpretations will become binding and

authoritative pronouncements about the value and meaning of heritage. These roles

have been criticised by a range of local community groups for denying the

legitimacy of local community values and knowledge unless they are expressed in

terms of the scientific archaeological discourse.

In the Waanyi Women’s History Project the authors, as archaeologists, have been

placed in a position where their roles as ‘legislator’ and ‘interpreter’ have been

constrained; they have no role in interpreting or regulating the knowledge that was

obtained as part of the project. To some extent they have taken on the role of

‘facilitator’, as they have abandoned any claims to the knowledge produced by the

project. Indeed, they have no ability to comment on that knowledge at all. Although

the fact that they have been party to it has given it some form of legitimacy, theyhave simply legitimised its existence rather than its nature.

33. Smith, 1994, op. cit. (note 8).

34. J. Ling Wong, ‘Multicultural interpretation and access to heritage’, unpublished paper, Black

Environment Network, 1999; J. Ling Wong, ‘Visualising heritage participation by ethnic groups’,

unpublished paper, Black Environment Network, 2000; see also Morri, ‘Attitudes towards heritage:

research study conducted for English Heritage’, unpublished report to English Heritage, London,

within which it may be observed that a range of minority ethnic groups within Britain made fewer

associations with heritage than ethnic groups positioned within the dominant white culture.

In relinquishing their control over their positions as experts in this heritage

project they enabled the community to define its own role and thus the significance

of the project to the community. They also, however, enabled the community to

define itself. A problem often raised in debates over community involvement in

CHM is: how is the relevant community to be defined or identified? It is sometimes

suggested that in dealing with Indigenous communities the answer to this problem

is obvious. However, ‘Waanyi women’ are not a traditionally recognised group by

heritage managers or management agencies. This group identified itself and did so

for the purposes of protecting a heritage resource of importance to the collective.The point here is that space needs to be made in the CHM process so that local

community groups may identify themselves when the need arises and may also

disband when a collective need or set of aspirations has been met. An increasing

heritage literature outside of the Indigenous debate has stressed that the way

heritage is managed and interpreted in many Western countries excludes or alienates

a range of interests and social and ethnic groups.34 If we are to deal with these

claims then space must be made in the CHM process for communities to self-

identify. This does not mean, however, that all self-identifying groups should be

given legitimacy in this process. Rather, it means that heritage managers and their

employing agencies must be self-conscious in the agenda that they set for themselves




and be clear about whom they support and why. As feminists, the authors’ agenda

in supporting a women’s group was clear. What this means in day-to-day practice,

however, is that managers might, as we did, exercise their expertise and the power

this conveys proactively to encourage community inclusion. However, at the same

time, managers need to surrender enough authority and claims to expertise to

ensure any inclusion is conducted in a way that is meaningful to the community.

Further still, managers must also acknowledge that they as experts exercise

authority in the choices they make in supporting and/or legitimising certain

communities. This is by no means easy, but in doing so we make the CHM process

and the process of community participation within CHM transparent. And it is

through transparency that room may be made for meaningful community debate.

Conclusion

The Waanyi Women’s History Project is continuing. Eunice O’Keefe, one of the

women involved in the project, has recently been appointed to the position of

women’s cultural ranger and is continuing to record sites and oral histories as partof her job with the QPWS. Other women involved in the project have been asked to

talk to other women’s groups about the project and what it has achieved. There is

a palpable sense of achievement amongst the participants in the project. For the

archaeologists and heritage professionals, the project may have produced little in the

way of tangible data about heritage places in Boodjamulla National Park. It did,

however, offer an opportunity to explore and reflect upon the meaning and nature

of heritage, its management and the role of experts in that process.

Acknowledgements

We wish to thank all members of the Waanyi Women’s History Committee for theirtrust in asking us to be involved in this project, and to the Environmental Planning

Authority and Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service for funding and supporting

the project.

Smith_et_al_Waanyi.pdf

Documents

Transcript of Smith_et_al_Waanyi.pdf