Nukun and Kungun Ngarrindjeri Ruwe (look and listen to Ngarrindjeri country): an investigation of Ngarrindjeri perspectives of archaeology in relation to native title and heritage matters.

Roberts, Amy ; Hemming, Steve ; Trevorrow, Tom 等

Abstract: Australian archaeology has in past decades been subject to criticisms from Indigenous Australians for its treatment of and lack of consultation with their communities. Since these critiques the situation has changed and archaeologists are now required to consult with Indigenous communities, leading to improved relationships between many archaeologists and Indigenous peoples. However, there are still a number of factors that inhibit meaningful collaborative research. The utilisation of archaeology in native title and heritage research, particularly in relation to 'future acts' and 'site clearances', provides an added tension to this arena where different cultural values, politics and worldviews collide. Thus, it is now more important than ever that archaeologists have a greater understanding of Indigenous peoples' 'lived experiences' as well as their responsibilities to the communities with whom they work. Part of this involves an appreciation of Indigenous research agendas. It is also crucial that archaeology understand its power as an important player in the politics of knowledge surrounding native title and heritage regimes in contemporary Australia.

This paper explores these issues through the 'lived experiences' of six Ngarrindjeri people who have extensive experience in native title and heritage matters, and was written in collaboration with two researchers. It is hoped that the 'lived experiences' of the Ngarrindjeri authors may be used to educate archaeologists as well as other researchers, particularly those who may be new to an Indigenous community, so that future relations between Indigenous peoples and archaeologists will undergo profound changes. Such changes will mean that archaeologists can work ethically, sensitively and professionally with, and more importantly for, Indigenous communities and thereby contribute to the improvement of native title and heritage processes.

Introduction

The impetus for this paper began with Roberts' study (2003) which investigated Indigenous South Australian perspectives of archaeology. This interdisciplinary research, which involved 16 Indigenous South Australians through a series of in-depth interviews, revealed that there are currently a number of factors that contribute to meaningful collaborative research between archaeologists and Indigenous South Australians. While the 'lived experiences' of the participants were viewed as evidence that some or many of the relationships are improving, and indeed in some cases even producing real partnerships and sites for reconciliation, it was argued that these experiences were tempered by or held in tension with the participants' inhibitive feelings, opinions and 'lived experiences'. Within this wide-ranging study a number of issues arose that may be considered to be directly related to native title and heritage processes, particularly 'site clearances'. (1) Thus, it seemed appropriate to compose a separate paper based solely on these issues.

Rather than investigate these issues on a state level (as took place in the Roberts 2003 study), and more importantly subsequent to discussions between Amy Roberts, Steve Hemming (2) and Tom Trevorrow, it was thought that recent events in the Ngarrindjeri Nation's history (3) would provide a unique case study as well as some challenging considerations for archaeologists and other interest groups involved in native title and heritage issues. Thus, Tom Trevorrow along with two other original participants in the Roberts study, Matthew Rigney and George Trevorrow, agreed to write a collaborative paper on issues relating to archaeology, native title and heritage as they affect Ngarrindjeri people. During the initial discussion about the content of this paper, three other Ngarrindjeri people, Grant Rigney, Lawrie Agius and Rhonda Agius, joined the authors to produce this final document.

Privileging Indigenous voices in archaeological research

Before we begin an exploration of the above issues we feel that the importance of privileging Indigenous voices in archaeological research needs a brief examination as this was the primary impetus for the aforementioned study. Indeed, throughout this paper a number of questions will inform the work. These questions were initially posed by Te Hennepe (1993:205):

 Who is in control of the stories told now? If the stories
 are told by anthropologists, to what extent will they
 always be imaginary? If first nations people were to be
 in control of the stories, how would the stories be
 different ...

Indeed, the importance of privileging or prioritising Indigenous knowledges and voices in archaeological research cannot be underestimated, as is outlined by Matthew Rigney below. The authors of this paper understand that this process often involves an act of 'translation' on the side of the Indigenous and non-Indigenous researchers (often through extra commentary or interpretation). Indeed, while these translations of Indigenous voices may be considered progressive, the mere act of translation still often sees the researcher making himself/herself central to the discourse (Derrida 1981:20; Uhlmann 1999:161). These translations, by implication, often insinuate that the Indigenous reality cannot be told without the translator. Thus, 'researcher as interpreter' is often central to the power and control over representation. This situation is problematic and is unfortunately often very difficult to avoid. It parallels the Aboriginalist tendencies of Australian archaeology as a discipline seeking to colonise the Indigenous 'past' and remake it through Western knowledges (see Attwood & Arnold 1992). Heritage practice in southern Australia has privileged archaeological readings of cultural landscapes since the emergence of Australian Aboriginal heritage legislation (see Byrne 1996, 2002; Hemming 1995; Smith 2004).

Despite the above concerns it is important that archaeologists continue to attempt to privilege Indigenous voices in research, as is revealed in the following 'lived experience' of Matthew Rigney:

 I think I already expressed earlier about my first
 experience with an archaeologist and it was someone
 who was almost telling me what my people did and
 didn't do in old traditional ways. Out of politeness I
 allowed myself to listen to somebody telling me all
 about my own culture. (Rigney in Roberts 2003:184)

Mathew Rigney's 'lived experience' here relates to what a prominent First Nations academic, Jo-Anne Archibald (1993), has termed the 'assumption of authority'. Indeed, she notes that when researchers, like archaeologists, assume that they can articulate a more coherent, more 'legitimate' account of Indigenous issues, perspectives or culture they are disregarding and silencing Indigenous authority. In her landmark study of 'whiteness' in feminism, Aileen Moreton-Robinson (2000) provides a valuable theorisation of the necessarily racial operation of assumed authority. When Indigenous voices are not respected, prioritised or privileged the effects can be profoundly and personally negative, as was the case in Matthew Rigney's research encounter. Steve Hemming has argued that it was precisely the lack of privileging Indigenous voices, along with the initial lack of an anthropological survey, which led to problems in the Hindmarsh Island Bridge Royal Commission in 1995 (see Hemming 1996, 2000, 2002). The dominance of Aboriginalist archaeological research in heritage assessment in southern South Australia made it difficult for Ngarrindjeri people to argue that their traditions associated with Kumarangk (Hindmarsh Island) were authentic. It is important, however, to recognise that the disciplines of history, anthropology and archaeology had all contributed to a public belief that Indigenous cultures south of Port Augusta were extinct or no longer 'traditional' (e.g. Berndt et al. 1993; Jenkin 1976; Mulvaney & Golson 1971; and for commentary on this effect, see Beckett 1994; Langton 1981). (4) The authors of this paper hope to provide a positive example of the usefulness of Indigenous and non-Indigenous peoples working in collaboration, as well as the need for archaeologists to consider the ethical, political and professional issues involved in working with Indigenous communities, particularly in relation to native title and heritage issues.

As already stated, the use of archaeology in native title and heritage research, particularly in relation to 'site clearances' and 'future acts', (5) provides an added tension to the 'heritage' arena where different cultural values, politics and worldviews collide. As was pointed out by George Trevorrow, Matthew Rigney and Tom Trevorrow, the current processes involved in 'site clearances' in many cases do not allow for Indigenous peoples to be involved in all stages of the archaeological process (Trevorrow, Trevorrow and Rigney in Roberts 2003:194-7). George Trevorrow made the point that Indigenous peoples are often excluded from aspects of archaeological investigations, such as museum and archival research during such clearances. Indeed, he feels that Indigenous peoples are generally only included in archaeological consultancies in relation to the fieldwork component. Furthermore, he explained the dangers of this process for native title. He has seen reports returned to his community that include stories that have not resulted from the archaeologist's consultations with the community, but have instead been gleaned from other documents. These need to be checked with contemporary Ngarrindjeri people. They may, for example, reveal cultural knowledge that Ngarrindjeri people believe should be restricted. Or they may be inaccurate and potentially damaging.

It must be remembered that written reports, often developed by academics and others with possibly little research experience with Indigenous people, can become authoritative documents, with considerable power in courtroom settings. Ngarrindjeri people have had considerable, painful experience with the power of written records, reports and publications in ongoing legal cases involving the Kumarangk (Hindmarsh Island) Bridge (e.g. Bell 1998; Hemming 1996, 1999; Saunders 2003). The Hindmarsh Island Bridge Royal Commission found that senior Ngarrindjeri women and men had fabricated cultural traditions to stop a bridge being built from Goolwa to Kumarangk.

Later, a Federal Court judgement (6) by Justice Von Doussa effectively overturned the Royal Commission's findings and vindicated the Ngarrindjeri people who had tried to protect their vital cultural traditions. It took an enormous amount of effort and money to correct the 'record' and provide the Ngarrindjeri people with powerful, legal recognition of their tradition. The Von Doussa judgement will inevitably be important in any Ngarrindjeri native title claim that goes to court. In addition, it provides an example of a Federal Court case that has recognised the continuity of Indigenous traditions in south-eastern Australia (although not specifically in a native title context). Archaeologists need to be cognisant of the legal history of the Indigenous groups with which they are working. The research carried out and the written materials that emerge will very likely have a direct impact on Indigenous rights to country through native title and heritage legislative regimes. (7)

With these thoughts in mind, Matthew Rigney believes that there is still a need for Indigenous peoples to be considered as equal partners in archaeological research, from stage one until completion. As George Trevorrow points out, if these processes are to change, heritage committees, native title management committees and heritage monitors must receive adequate funding so that they can truly become equal partners. This is a crucial point and relates more to the unequal power relations in contemporary Australia. In areas such as archaeological research and heritage and native title surveys, Indigenous peoples are often in a very unequal power relationship with developers, researchers and the state. This is a continuing example of colonial power relations and this situation needs to be clearly understood by archaeologists if they are to avoid perpetuating the colonisation and dispossession of the Indigenous peoples with whom they work. This is a fundamental part of the process of decolonising archaeology in Australia (see Hemming et al. 2000; Hemming & Trevorrow 2005; Smith 1999).

While archaeologists must continue to attempt to decolonise their discipline in order to protect Indigenous peoples' native title and heritage rights and interests, it is important to recognise that many communities are taking these issues into their own hands. For example, the Ngarrindjeri Nation recently transformed a negative event which took place at Goolwa into an agreement (Kungun Ngarrindjeri Yunnan Agreement: Listening to Ngarrindjeri People Talking Agreement) between themselves and the Alexandrina Council which was signed on 9 October 2002 (Hemming & Trevorrow 2005).

The 'discovery' at Goolwa and the Kungun Ngarrindjeri Yunnan Agreement

In September 2002 the Alexandrina Council unearthed the remains of two 'old people' (8) in the area of the contested land near Hindmarsh Island (Kumarangk), in the Goolwa Wharf precinct. This 'discovery', as Grant Rigney and Lawrie Agius point out, served to reinforce their belief that archaeologists and governments should cease to think in terms of 'archaeological sites' and instead should recognise the interconnectedness of sites and therefore view 'country' as an interconnected cultural landscape that cannot be segmented.

The 'discovery' at Goolwa also reignited painful emotions about the Hindmarsh Island Bridge Royal Commission, as well as the Federal Court case, and posed some real problems for the Alexandrina Council due to the unfortunate way in which the 'old people' were unearthed. These problems revealed the need for formal agreed processes to deal with, and respect, Ngarrindjeri people, culture, knowledge and heritage (Hemming & Trevorrow 2005; Liddle 2002).

The Kungun Ngarrindjeri Yunnan Agreement is an historic and powerfully symbolic document that recognises Ngarrindjeri people as the traditional owners of the Goolwa area, and acknowledges and respects their right to care and speak for their traditional country in accordance with laws, customs, beliefs and traditions (Liddle 2002). The agreement also expresses sorrow and regret for the injustices that Ngarrindjeri people have experienced since colonisation. The agreement states (in part):

 We accept your frustrations at our past ways of misunderstanding
 you ... We are shamed to acknowledge that
 there is still racism within our communities. We accept
 that our words must match our actions and we pledge
 to you that we will work to remove racism and
 ignorance ... We ask to walk beside you, and to stand
 with you to remedy the legacy of 166 years of European
 occupation of your land and waters and control of your
 lives ...

Importantly in relation to archaeological processes, the agreement commits the parties to consulting and working together to protect Ngarrindjeri sites, objects and the 'old people'. Equally importantly, it also inserts a new history into the public space: a history that recognises the traumas experienced by Ngarrindjeri people as a result of European invasion; the continuing problems of racism and ignorance; and the continuing Ngarrindjeri 'traditional ownership' of the lands and waters of the Lower Murray region. This new history is very different from the more conventional history built around important archaeological 'sites' and an implicit story of cultural extinction. A recent natural resource management plan for the Lower Murray region identifies 'Blanchetown, Fromm's Landing, Devon Downs and Nildottie' as key 'sites of Indigenous cultural and historical significance'. In making this selection of 'sites', the authors of the report justify themselves by arguing that 'they [the sites] are known to have aboriginal artefacts more than 6,000 years old' (SA Murray-Darling Basin Integrated Natural Resource Management Group 2002:24). This common act of privileging archaeological significance, and in particular what has been described in archaeological discourse as 'prehistoric' significance, may have damaging consequences for contemporary Indigenous rights and interests to country.

As Rhonda Agius points out, the events surrounding the Kungun Ngarrindjeri Yunnan Agreement reveal that there is a way past the sensationalism that has dominated recent media reports and led to a negative perception of Ngarrindjeri people by many non-Indigenous people. Furthermore, Tom Trevorrow believes that through negotiation local-level agreements can be reached between Indigenous peoples and other parties. Indeed, as was shown in the Kungun Ngarrindjeri Yunnan Agreement, these documents can be powerful expressions of Indigenous peoples' rights to 'country'.

Discussion

While recognition of native title continues to be an important goal for many Indigenous communities, the recent Ward, De Rose Hill and Yorta Yorta decisions (9) highlight the unpredictable nature of litigation as well as the importance of negotiations at the local level. Indeed, because of the success of the Kungun Ngarrindjeri Yunnan Agreement the Ngarrindjeri Nation has begun negotiations with other local councils.

The agreement has meant that Ngarrindjeri people can begin to be in charge of archaeological research. Tom Trevorrow believes now that they will be able to use archaeology as a tool towards their own self-determination, rather than it being used as a weapon in their continuing colonisation (Hemming & Trevorrow 2005).

In order for archaeology to be used as a tool by Indigenous communities, it is crucial that archaeological research, in this era of native title and heritage management regimes, attempt to ensure that Indigenous places be understood through their Indigenous epistemologies. Indeed, the discipline of archaeology has been long been guilty of imposing its own systems of categorisation around concepts such as time, space and culture (e.g. Attwood & Arnold 1992; Colley & Bickford 1997; Gosden 1994). This is particularly contentious in native title research and litigation. It is important to be aware of the ways in which archaeological knowledges can be useful to those opposing (vexatiously?--as opposed to 'testing') Indigenous native title claims.

Anthropologist Deborah Bird Rose has written about a process she describes as 'deep colonising'. She refers (2001:115) to:

 [a] cluster of practices which, under the guise of
 self-determination or self-management, probe ever more
 deeply into the conditions of Aboriginal people's lives
 and bodies, severing people from the sociality of
 connections within which they are embedded and
 reconstituting them as defenceless individuals. Current
 practice for land claims, including native title claims,
 and for the protection of Aboriginal heritage have the
 potential to further deep colonising; they are curtailing
 the social reproduction of Aboriginal culture by
 confining it in a prison of tradition, external documentation,
 consistency and consensus.

Archaeologist Denis Byrne (1996) has argued that, since the 1960s, archaeology has used the language of heritage to appropriate the Indigenous 'past' in an attempt to provide a deep history for the young settler nation. This invented, pre-colonial, archaeological past combines with what many Indigenous leaders and scholars have long recognised as colonialism's dependence on the construction of an 'Aboriginalist', colonial past to secure it legitimacy (e.g. Anderson 1995; Deloria 1995, 2000; Langford 1983; Langton 1981). Indeed, as English (2002a:219) notes, the perception that cultural values were steadily erased after settlement has obscured Indigenous peoples' post-invasion experience and the complex processes of cultural change and adaptation.

Archaeology has also become a useful tool for governments attempting to limit Indigenous interests in land and waters. Archaeological 'site clearances' have a finite character. They are limited to the physical and historical characteristics of a particular space. In considering heritage from an Indigenous perspective, social, economic, political and cultural interests are crucial. Use and enjoyment are other crucial factors and become even more important in native title cases. However, Indigenous peoples are often expected to relate to their country in what can be described as an archaeological way. This creates a restricted subject position for them in the Aboriginal heritage regimes of southern Australia (Hemming 2002). Such a form of symbolic violence has real effects on the Indigenous people engaged with the system (see Bourdieu 1984).

State and federal governments conceive of Indigenous rights to country in much of southern South Australia as fundamentally different from those in the north of the state--it is in these southern spaces that Indigenous traditions and political interests are translated into something called 'Aboriginal heritage'. This conception masks the ongoing political, economic, social, spiritual and cultural relationship that Indigenous people have with their land and waters. Ngarrindjeri people carry out a range of 'conservation' practices, such as sharing resources, caring for land and revegetation. Burning-off is still also practised on occasions and has been a fundamental part of the 'land management' regime. People hold social and cultural activities on their country and teach their children about their culture, history and the history of race relations in Australia. Camp Coorong, Race Relations and Cultural Education Centre, provides a focus for many of these activities (see Hemming 1993). Identities are formed through cultural practice and are often tied to particular places, experiences and knowledges. This opportunity has often been somewhat restricted on land alienated by farming or other purposes. Working on clearance teams, however, provides Ngarrindjeri people with the opportunity to engage with places, their stories, and the spirits of the ancestors. This activity is culturally productive and to some extent undermines the restrictive nature of the archaeol-ogical survey and its report outcomes. The culturally specific ways in which Ngarrindjeri people relate to their country are not generally considered important in the heritage clearance but are crucial for native title claims.

It is also important for archaeologists to be aware that governments and other parties may be using them as tools in the continuing colonisation of Indigenous Australians. In southern South Australia there appears to be a clear preference for archaeologists to work on heritage and native title clearances. (10) This type of research often focuses on tangible objects, thereby avoiding the complex values associated with people's connections to place and their interaction with the landscape around them (English 2002a:219). As a result, such research outcomes can be restricted and finite. The cultural, economic, social and political interests of Indigenous people, which are all part of their heritage and native title, will not emerge in this process. They have no space in the archaeological survey--the contemporary Indigenous person does not exist here. This is an invented space, framed by archaeological discourse and valuable to the interests of non-Indigenous peoples and their state apparatus. The experience of the 'survey' or 'site clearance' can be overtly disempowering for Indigenous people, and symbolically violent, and the powerful messages of extinction and assimilation can permeate the subject positions provided to Indigenous people engaged in these processes.

Paradoxically, the experience, as already mentioned, can also be culturally productive for Indigenous people, as they engage with country that may have previously been out of bounds to them. This process can be largely invisible to the archaeologists, or if visible may not be counted as important to the survey process and the understanding of Indigenous connections with country. Unfortunately, the survey or clearance process also imposes a short timeframe for decision making about country. This can be very difficult for Indigenous native title/heritage committees as they often suffer from a lack of funding.

Thus, in order to avoid these pitfalls archaeological approaches must be designed with Indigenous peoples to recognise the links between heritage, identity and community wellbeing (English 2002b: xiii). Indigenous interpretations of places must be given a central role in 'site clearances'. There is a need to negotiate the introduction of Indigenous values into archaeological research, particularly those values that may be intangible (English 2002b:xi). It is imperative that there is development of research, planning and assessment processes that span the artificial divides between numerous disciplines that work in the cultural as well as natural heritage arenas.

Indigenous scholars are bringing Indigenous perspectives and theories to disciplines such as archaeology, sociology, anthropology and history and are often at the forefront of the engagement with new international theory (e.g. Moreton-Robinson 2000; Smith 1999; Te Hennepe 1993). Hard questions also need to be asked in archaeological research about the relationship between Indigenous research and political agendas, aimed at building self-governance and the recognition of sovereignty and state-sponsored heritage research that can be interpreted as continuing the 'mapping' and colonisation of Indigenous space (see Hemming 2002; Hemming & Trevorrow 2005).

In conclusion, it must also be recognised that the new types of approaches that are needed to introduce Indigenous values into archaeological research require a deep commitment by all participants. It is acknowledged that these approaches are certainly more time-consuming and expensive. They also introduce new issues such as intellectual and cultural property rights (see Battiste & Henderson 2000; English 2002a:226). Such approaches, however, will undoubtedly provide a richer record and will improve the ways in which archaeologists understand and value landscapes. They will also serve to ensure that Indigenous peoples' native title rights and interests are respected and protected.

REFERENCES

Anderson, I 1995, 'Re-claiming TRU_GAN_NAN_NER: decolonising the symbol', in Speaking positions, Aboriginality, gender and ethnicity in Australian cultural studies, Victoria University of Technology, Melbourne, pp. 31-42.

Archibald, J 1993, 'Researching with respect', Canadian Journal of Native Education 20(2):191.

Attwood, B & Arnold, J (eds) 1992, Power, knowledge and Aborigines, La Trobe University Press in association with National Centre for Australian Studies, Monash University, Melbourne.

Bartlett, RH 2000, Native title in Australia, Butterworths, Brisbane.

Battiste, M & Youngblood Henderson, J 2000, Protecting Indigenous knowledge and heritage: a global challenge, Purich, Saskatoon.

Beckett, J (ed.) 1994, Past and present: the construction of Aboriginality, Aboriginal Studies Press, Canberra.

Bell, D 1998, Ngarrindjeri Wurruwarrin: a world that is, was and will be, Spinifex Press, Melbourne.

Berndt, RM, Berndt, CH & Stanton, J 1993, A world that was: the Yaraldi of the Murray River and lakes, South Australia, Melbourne University Press.

Bourdieu, P 1984, 'Delegation and political fetishism', Thesis Eleven 10(11):56-69.

Byrne, D 1996, 'Deep nation: Australia's acquisition of an Indigenous past', Aboriginal History 20:82-107.

-- 2002, 'An archaeology of attachment: cultural heritage and the post-contact', in R Harrison & C Williamson (eds), After Captain Cook: the archaeology of the recent Indigenous past in Australia, Archaeology Methods Series 8, Archaeological Computing Laboratory, University of Sydney, pp. 136-46.

Colley, S & Bickford, A 1997, "Real" Aborigines and "real" archaeology: Aboriginal places and Australian historical archaeology', World Archaeological Bulletin 7:5-21.

Deloria, V 1995, Red earth, white lies: Native Americans and the myth of scientific fact, Scribner, New York.

-- 2000, 'Foreword', in D Hurst (ed.), Skull wars: Kennewick Man, archaeology, and the battle for Native American identity, BasicBooks, New York, pp. xv-xviii.

Derrida, J 1981, Positions a bass, University of Chicago Press.

English, A 2002a, 'More than archaeology: developing comprehensive approaches to Aboriginal heritage management in NSW', Australian Journal of Environmental Management 9(4):218-27.

-- 2002b, The sea and the rock gives us a feed, NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service, Hurstville.

\\\ Gosden, C 1994, Social being and time, Oxford University Press.

Hemming, SJ 1993, 'Camp Coorong: combining race relations and cultural education', Social Alternatives 12(1):37-40.

-- 1995, 'River Murray histories: archaeology, oral history and museum collections', in E Greenwood, K Neumann & A Sartori (eds), Work in flux, University History Conference Series 1, Melbourne, pp. 102-10.

-- 1996, 'Inventing Ngarrindjeri ethnography', Journal of Australian Studies 48:25-39.

-- 1999, 'Hindmarsh Island (Kumarangk), "women's business" and the misreading of A World That Was', Journal of the Anthropological Society of South Australia 32(2):84-109.

-- 2000, 'Ngarrindjeri burials', World Archaeological Bulletin 11:58-66.

-- 2002, 'The problem with Aboriginal heritage', paper delivered at Sharing the Space conference hosted by Flinders University Australian Studies Program and Yunggorendi First Nations Centre in association with InASA (International Australian Studies Association), Flinders University, Adelaide.

-- (in press), 'Managing cultures into the past', in DW Riggs (ed.), Taking up the challenge: critical whiteness studies and Indigenous sovereignties, Crawford House, South Australia.

Hemming, S, Jones, P & Clarke, P 1989, Ngurunderi: an Aboriginal Dreaming--the culture of the Ngarrindjeri people, South Australian Museum, Adelaide.

Hemming, S & Trevorrow, T 2005, 'Kungun Ngarrindjeri Yunnan: archaeology, colonialism and reclaiming the future', in C Smith & M Wobst (eds), Indigenous archaeologies: decolonising theory and practice, Routledge, London, pp. 243-61.

Hemming, S, Trevorrow, T & Rigney, M 2002, 'Ngarrindjeri culture', in M Goodwin & S Bennett (eds), The Murray mouth: exploring the implications of closure or restricted flow, Department of Water, Land and Biodiversity Conservation, Adelaide, pp. 13-19.

Hemming, SJ, Wood, V & Hunter, R 2000, 'Researching the past: oral history and archaeology at Swan Reach', in R Torrence & A Clarke (eds), The archaeology of difference: negotiating cross-cultural engagements in Oceania, Routledge, London, pp. 331-59.

Jenkin, G 1976, The conquest of the Ngarrindjeri, Rigby, Adelaide.

Langford, RF 1983, 'Our heritage--your playground', Australian Archaeology 16:1-6.

Langton, M 1981, 'Urbanizing Aborigines: the social scientists great deception', Social Alternatives 2(2):16-22.

Liddle, K 2002, 'Alexandrina Council and Ngarrindjeri people sign historic agreement', Aboriginal Way 16:1.

Macdonald, G 1997, '"Recognition and justice": the traditional/ historical contradiction in New South Wales', in DE Smith & J Finlayson (eds), Fighting over country: anthropological perspectives, Research Monograph 12, Centre for Aboriginal Economic Policy Research, Australian National University, Canberra, pp. 65-82.

--1998, 'Master narratives and the dispossession of the Wiradjuri', Aboriginal History 22:162-79.

Merlan, F 1998, Caging the rainbow, University of Hawai'i Press, Honolulu.

Moreton-Robinson, E 2000, Talkin' up to the white woman: Aboriginal women and feminism, University of Queensland Press, St Lucia.

Mulvaney, DJ & Golson, J (eds) 1971, Aboriginal man and environment in Australia, Australian National University Press, Canberra.

Murray, T 2000, 'Conjectural histories: some archaeological and historical consequences of Indigenous dispossession in Australia', in I Lilley (ed.), Native title and the transformation of archaeology in the postcolonial world, Oceania Monograph 50, University of Sydney, pp. 65-77.

National Native Title Tribunal 2000a, List of terms, National Native Title Tribunal, viewed September 2002, <http://www.nntt.gov.au/ ntf_html/ntf_1e.html>.

--2000b, Native title facts: developments and negotiations, National Native Title Tribunal, viewed September 2002, <http://www.nntt. gov.au/ntf_/ntf_3a.html>.

Roberts, AL 2003, 'Knowledge, power and voice: an investigation of Indigenous South Australian perspectives of archaeology', PhD thesis, Flinders University.

Rose, DB 2001, 'The silence and power of women', in P Brock (ed.), Words and silences: Aboriginal women, politics and land, Allen & Unwin, Sydney, pp. 92-116.

SA (South Australian) Murray-Darling Basin Integrated Natural Resource Management Group 2002, Integrated natural resource management plan for the Lower Murray region, South Australia, Adelaide.

Saunders, S 2003, 'Are they going to pull it down?', Overland 171:60-2.

Smith, L 2004, Archaeological theory and the politics of cultural heritage, Routledge, New York.

Smith, LT 1999, Decolonizing methodologies: research and Indigenous peoples, Zed Books & University of Otago Press, Dunedin.

Te Hennepe, S 1993, 'Issues of respect: reflections of First Nations students' experiences in postsecondary anthropology classrooms', Canadian Journal of Native Education (Researching with Mutual Respect) 20(2):193-259.

Uhlmann, A 1999, 'Cultural translation and the work of Albert Namatjira', Communal Plural 7(2):159-75.

WA Department of Indigenous Affairs 2002, Ethnographic research and Aboriginal community consultation, Western Australian Department of Indigenous Affairs, viewed January 2003, <http://www.aad.wa.gov.au/>.

NOTES

(1.) 'Site clearances' are also often referred to as 'work area clearances'. Typically, they are designed to provide non-Indigenous proponents with statements regarding the acceptability (in terms of impact on Aboriginal sites) of particular work areas or programs (see WA Department of Indigenous Affairs 2002).

(2.) Steve Hemming worked on the development and re-registration of the Ngarrindjeri & Others native title claim. He has also recently collaborated with Ngarrindjeri leaders on a research report to the Murray-Darling Basin Commission about the implications of the closure of the Murray mouth for Ngarrindjeri people (see Hemming et al. 2002; Hemming & Trevorrow 2005).

(3.) Ngarrindjeri lands include the Murray River and Coorong areas of South Australia. For a brief outline about Ngarrindjeri, see Hemming et al. (1989). For a contemporary ethnography of Ngarrindjeri culture, see Bell (1998).

(4.) See also Merlan (1998) for a discussion on aspects of change and continuity with respect to places in the recent period and Macdonald (1997, 1998) for a discussion about the impact of historical and anthropological discourse on the representation and 'lived experiences' of Indigenous people in New South Wales communities.

(5.) 'Future acts' have been defined by the National Native Title Tribunal (2000a) as:

 ...a proposed activity or development on land and/or
 waters that may affect native title, by extinguishing
 (removing) it or creating interests that are inconsistent
 with the existence or exercise of native title. Examples of
 future acts include the grant of mining or exploration
 rights and the compulsory acquisition of native title.

In relation to 'future acts', the preamble to the Native Title Act 1993 further explains that:

 In future, acts that affect native title should only be able to
 be validly done if, typically, they can also be done to
 freehold land and if, wherever appropriate, every
 reasonable effort has been made to secure the agreement
 of the native title holders through a special right to
 negotiate.

For more information concerning 'future acts', see Bartlett (2000:325-445) and also the National Native Title Tribunal (2000b).

(6.) See Chapman v Luminis Pty Ltd [2002] FCAFC 343.

(7.) Hemming (in press) discusses Tim Murray's (2000) paper, 'Conjectural histories', as a case in point. He argues that Murray gives power to the white mythology that the Australian south-east lacks 'authentic' Indigenous tradition. Furthermore, Hemming contends that Murray (2000:76) effectively writes Ngarrindjeri traditions out of existence in the following quotation:

 it should be self-evident that the temptation to create a
 seamless link between past and present where none is
 there, or to produce convenient pasts to support Native
 Title claims, will serve to do little more than to bring both
 history and archaeology into disrepute. The consequences
 of the Hindmarsh Island Royal Commission for the
 heritage of South Australia are a pretty dramatic case in
 point.

Hemming argues that Murray provides no evidence in his article that he is familiar with the Kumarangk (Hindmarsh Island) case, no references to support his argument and no 'empirical' evidence to bolster such an authoritative statement. He also believes that Murray fails to seriously reflect on the political positioning of archaeology as a cultural policing discipline in Australia's southeast. It clearly highlights the critical role that archaeology plays in the Indigenous struggle for land rights and self-determination in south-eastern Australia, through its occupation of the scientific 'high ground', and in the last few decades through its dominance of Aboriginal heritage 'management' (see Smith 2004). Importantly, Tom Trevorrow notes that Murray's statement about the Ngarrindjeri made him 'feel sick'. It denies the 'lived experiences', beliefs and traditions of Tom Trevorrow, his family, his ancestors and his community and it does so in a seemingly disconnected act of scientific power.

(8.) Grant Rigney and Lawrie Agius prefer this usage to terms such as human remains and skeletal remains. Indeed, they feel that the language of archaeology is often offensive and that, if more respectful terms were used, relationships between archaeologists and Indigenous peoples would improve and allow for a more collaborative working environment.

(9.) See Western Australia v Ward [2002] HCA 28; De Rose v State of South Australia [2002] FCA 1342; and Members of the Yorta Yorta Aboriginal Community v State of Victoria [2002] HCA 58.

(10.) Similarly, English (2002b:1) has noted that in New South Wales there is increasingly an awareness that heritage management has been dominated by the technical recording of material remains. English notes further that while recording may be important, this focus has resulted in scant attention to other heritage values, including those that derive from people's historic and contemporary association with places and landscapes.

Amy Roberts

Independent researcher

Steve Hemming

Flinders University

Tom Trevorrow, George Trevorrow, Matthew Rigney, Grant Rigney, Lawrie Agius and Rhonda Agius

Ngarrindjeri Nation

Amy Roberts is currently the book review editor for the Alternative Law Journal and assistant editor for the journal Australian Archaeology. Steve Hemming is a lecturer in cultural studies at Flinders University, South Australia. Tom Trevorrow is chairperson of the Ngarrindjeri Land and Progress Association, chair of the Ngarrindjeri Heritage Committee and committee member for the Native Title Management Committee. He is also a cultural teacher at Camp Coorong. George Trevorrow is Rupelle (chairperson) of the Ngarrindjeri Tendi. Matthew Rigney is chairperson of the Ngarrindjeri Native Title Management Committee, chairperson of MIDRIN and coordinator of Camp Coorong. Grant Rigney is a member of the Ngarrindjeri Land and Progress Association. Lawrie Agius is a cultural ranger. Rhonda Agius is co-chair of the Native Title Management Committee and is a senior Ngarrindjeri woman and cultural educator.