one of the important things I have learnt as an archaeologist in Australia, as a country that has a history of colonisation, is the importance of the concept of “that doesn’t need to be found yet”
Obviously, this is a part of archaeology in general. We recognise that our actions are inherently destructive, and so we should leave archaeology, sites, and areas for future archaeologists, with future technologies, and future research questions.
im not sure if it is a universal thing, or if it is something Australia specific. But it also has an important connection to working with Indigenous peoples, and their archaeology.
I work as a consulting archaeologist (CRM for American people I think). and we are often surveying, excavating, or researching a site because someone wants to do something, or damage a site, or a site is in danger (whether through development or through nature and erosion).
In consulting archaeology, finding no archaeology is the best result. There is nothing that needs to be destroyed – be it through archaeological research, or through development. That is a given. Sure, it makes for some boring days sometimes, but it’s the best outcome for pretty much everyone.
Often times, we’re required to dig in a certain area. And we look at the landscape and think,
well if I could dig anywhere…
with enough practice, and cultural knowledge (or a predictive modelling map) you can predict where sites are likely to sit. Where you are likely to find the most archaeology.
But sometimes, you shouldn’t.
sometimes it doesn’t need to be found yet.
bc sites and their locations might be known by Indigenous peoples, but archaeologists, or heritage departments, or whoever, will not be informed of them because they are not in any danger.
And in some cases his is both a reflection on the public, on the way heritage registers and site registration interacts with Indigenous cultures, and on an archaeological approach to the history of a living culture. Theres heaps of reasonings behind this that really belong in a completely different post so were not going there.
Sometimes the field of archaeology gets so excited about the research of something. Which isnt a problem (weve all done it)
but we can get sucked into chasing the oldest possible date, the earliest possible version of an artefact type, the biggest site, the intricacies of a burial, that we can forget the people behind the archaeology.
In Australia, we can chase the early dates of our own ancestors. But i think need to question why we are churning up sacred sites chasing the earliest date of a sacred site that belong to a living culture. That we (often) dont belong to.
We need to recognise that sites can wait for their time. For communities to identify which knowledge and research they would like out of a site, for their input into both the planning, the excavation, the analysis, and the publications.
And we need to recognise that our research into a site, and the knowledge it produces, is for the Indigenous communities, not just for research and academia’s sake.
and we need to stop talking like working within and around cultural practices, and having research goals are two mutually exclusive situations.
