I'm unsure from context if the Tasmanian Aboriginal Centre's call for a ban on archaeology surveys is in response to disputes with archaeologists, a tactic for delaying development projects, or a philosophical protest supporting heritage and indigenous determinism as more important than scientific findings. Excerpts from the article:
Over 100 Aborigines held a meeting on the 22nd December 2010 to give their response to the Tasmanian Government’s decision on the Brighton Bypass site. Michael Mansell, the legal director of the Tasmanian Aboriginal Centre reported that the Aboriginal community had made four important decisions:
* A complete ban on any survey studies of Aboriginal heritage on all projects, meaning projects requiring a study to determine if Aboriginal heritage exists will be halted. The ban would remain in place until laws are enacted to protect, instead of destroy, Aboriginal heritage.
* The Federal Government should take over Aboriginal heritage protection from the State using its overriding powers under s51 (26) of the Constitution. It is felt that the State government has failed to protect Aboriginal heritage and has become it’s single greatest destroyer.
* The leaders of the Tasmanian political parties should agree to a public Commission of Inquiry to investigate the causes of the current situation.
* The camp established on the Brighton site is permanent and will remain until the situation of the bypass is resolved.
The group go on to congratulate Australian Green Party leader Bob Brown for his efforts in getting the Federal Government involved through its commitment to an independent report on funding and design options. Bob Brown believes legal advice he received allows for the emergency heritage listing of the Jordan River levee which should stop the proposed Brighton bypass going ahead.
While the listing is not permanent, the site is protected until an assessment is completed and the Minister decides if the site should have permanent protection (within 12 months).
“Federal Environment Minister Tony Burke has noted that the heritage values of the levee are under significant threat,” Senator Brown said in Hobart late last year. However, Tasmania’s Environment Minister Brian Wightman, said he understood the listing had no effect on his decision and the building would go ahead as planned. Wightman went on to say, “the State Government recognised the cultural significance of the site, which was why it would spend an extra $12 million for a bridge with reduced impact.”
However, Mr. Mansell feels that the importance of the site has not been presented in order to show how precious it is to everyone, and that all Tasmanians stand to gain from insights into the lifestyle of people who dealt with and adapted to environmental changes over the past 40,000 years. Mansell concluded that, “The artefacts merely signal something happened by the Jordan River, but it is not the artefacts that are important: the importance is in the story of the people who left the artefacts there”.
Rob Paton, says the findings show that “this is not just a site of things but also a site which has great spiritual values for Aboriginal people” .
Mr Paton is hopeful that a resolution will be reached that pleases the Tasmanian Aboriginal community, the archaeologists and the road builders, and is quoted on ABC news as saying “If we can take a step back and sit down and discuss things I think we can work our way through it.”
However, Prof Jim Allen from La Trobe University in Melbourne was reported as saying he found some of the data “confusing“, “misleading“, and “unprepossessing” and that the site could be less than 30,000 years old. Professor Allen said Mr Paton’s claim that the site was among the oldest in Australia should be put “into a more precise context” with twenty Aboriginal sites in Australia dated older.
For more, see ">http://www.pasthorizons.com.
Something is not right. This message is just to keep things from messing up down the road