ABORIGINAL SKELETAL REMAINS
B e t t y Meehan
P r e s i d e n t , AAA
The argument about t h e u s e of A b o r i g i n a l s k e l e t a l remains a s o b j e c t s
of r e s e a r c h e s c a l a t e d d u r i n g 1984 f o l l o w i n g amendments made t o t h e Archaeol o g i c a l and A b o r i g i n a l R e l i c s P r e s e r v a t i o n Act 1972 by t h e V i c t o r i a n Government i n May. A t one s t a g e i t seemed l i k e l y t h a t once a l l A b o r i g i n a l s k e l e t a l
remains had been t r a n s f e r r e d t o t h e Museum of V i c t o r i a , which was deemed t o
be t h e only i n s t i t u t i o n l e g a l l y e n t i t l e d t o house them, t h e y would b e handed
over t o t h e V i c t o r i a n A b o r i g i n a l community f o r r e - b u r i a l t h u s b r i n g i n g t o a
h a l t a l l r e s e a r c h i n t o t h e human b i o l o g i c a l h i s t o r y of t h e A u s t r a l i a n
Aboriginal p o p u l a t i o n based on V i c t o r i a n m a t e r i a l .
I t a l s o seemed l i k e l y
t h a t t h i s t r a n s f e r and subsequent r e - b u r i a l c o u l d happen v e r y q u i c k l y . A
few months a f t e r t h e V i c t o r i a n Government had p a s s e d t h e amendments t o t h e i r
1972 Act t h e Tasmanian Government announced t h a t i t t o o was p r e p a r i n g t o
t r a n s f e r a l l A b o r i g i n a l remains h e l d i n t h e Tasmanian Museum and A r t G a l l e r y
and t h e Queen V i c t o r i a Museum a t Launceston t o t h e Tasmanian A b o r i g i n a l
community t o d i s p o s e of a s they saw f i t . I t was u n d e r s t o o d t h a t t h e Tasman i a n remains would probably b e cremated.
The A u s t r a l i a n Archaeological A s s o c i a t i o n responded t o t h i s s i t u a t i o n
by forming a small committee drawn from i t s membership and c o n s i s t i n g of
D r Alan Thorne (Chairperson), P r o f e s s o r J a c k Golson, D r N e v i l l e White and
myself whose t a s k i t was t o p r e p a r e , a s q u i c k l y a s p o s s i b l e , a working
document o u t l i n i n g t h e s c i e n t i f i c importance of A b o r i g i n a l s k e l e t a l remains
i n g e n e r a l and of t h o s e i n V i c t o r i a i n p a r t i c u l a r . T h i s document was s e n t
t o t h e M i n i s t e r f o r Planning and Environment, M r Evan Walker, on 9 August
1984 w i t h a covering l e t t e r i n d i c a t i n g t h e p o l i t i c a l s t a n c e t a k e n by t h e
AAA on t h i s i s s u e . Both documents were a l s o s e n t t o v a r i o u s i n d i v i d u a l s
and i n s t i t u t i o n s i n c l u d i n g t h e V i c t o r i a n A b o r i g i n a l L e g a l S e r v i c e and t h e
Tasmanian Government.
Subsequently, a l l members of t h e AAA committee were i n v i t e d t o a t t e n d
t h e Aboriginal S k e l e t a l Remains Conference i n Melbourne which was o r g a n i s e d
by M r J i m Berg of t h e V i c t o r i a n A b o r i g i n a l L e g a l S e r v i c e . There, I d e l i v e r e d
a s h o r t paper summarising t h e views s e t o u t i n our documents. A t t h e end
of t h a t conference M r John Lawson from t h e V i c t o r i a n M i n i s t r y f o r P l a n n i n g
and Environment agreed t o e s t a b l i s h a working p a r t y drawn from t h e p e o p l e
a t t e n d i n g t h e conference i n o r d e r t o f o l l o w up t h e i m p o r t a n t i s s u e s r a i s e d
there.
At the time of writing, a moratorium of 12 months has been placed on
any action concerning the Victorian Aboriginal skeletal remains. In the
meantime, several physical anthropologists including Dr Alan Thorne and
Mr Steve Webb have been asked by the Museum of Victoria to examine the
Aboriginal skeletal collections housed there in an attempt to assess the
relative scientific importance of each specimen.
Reproduced here for your information and comment are the AAA documents,
same letters, motions, resolutions and a selected bibliography of articles,
including some from overseas, all of which are pertinent to the skeletal
remains issue.
SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY
AborigCnaZ Heritage Act
time of writing
-
Victoria
1984 Draft Two being circulated at the
Buikstra, J.E. and C.C. Gordon 1981 The study and restudy of human skeletal
series: the importance of long term curation. Annals o f the flew York
Academy o f Sciences 376:449-466
Duncan, T. 1984 Aborigines: now it is bone rights.
21, pp.26-28
The B u l l e t i n , August
Duncan, T. 1984 'Bone rights' now an issue in Tasmania too.
September 4, p.28
Dunn, J.
The B u l l e t i n ,
1984 Burying bones of contention. Time, September 10, p.49
Frankel, D. 1984 Who owns the past? Australian archaeologists have to
face up to questions of ideology and ownership. Australian S o c i e t y ,
September, pp.14-15
Koorie Heritage Charter
1984 Koorie Information Centre, Fitzroy
Lewin, R. 1984 Extinction threatens Australian anthropology.
225(9660):393-394
Science
Melbye, T. 1982 Advances in the contribution of physical anthropology to
archaeology in Canada: the past decade. Canadian JournaZ of
Archaeo Zogy 6:55-64
The following cbnunents are those referred t o i n Dr Meehanfs accompanying
l e t t e r . To avoid r e p e t i t i o n and t o save space some of these have been
e d i t e d and i n some cases only exerpts are included. These are duly marked.
124
Slightly edited
Mr Evan Walker
Minister for Planning and Environment
Ministry for Planning and Environment
PO Box 2240T
MELBOURNE VIC 3001
Dear Mr Walker,
Aboriginal skeletal remains in Victoria
The Australian Archaeological Association (AAA) congratulates your
Government on the initiatives it has taken to accommodate Aboriginal
requests to exercise significant control over Aboriginal human skeletal
remains in the State of Victoria. Over the past few months the AAA has
been monitoring media reports concerning the ownership, care and future
fate of Aboriginal skeletal remains housed in various Victorian institutions. We have been dismayed at times by the negative and socially
divisive nature of some of these comments and consequently have decided
that our Association, consisting now of about 500 members representing
most professional archaeologists in Australia, should prepare a statement
in which our views would be clearly expressed. In order to do this a
small committee of AAA members was established.
The Chairperson, Dr Thorne, a senior scholar in the field of human
skeletal biology was asked to canvas the opinion of as many scholars as
possible who possessed expertise in human biology while compiling data for
the statement, a copy of which is enclosed. This document represents the
AAAs assessment of the scientific importance of Aboriginal prehistoric
skeletal remains especially those held in Victoria. It has been put
together under time pressure due to the unexpected developments in the
formulation of legislation and the fears of its precipitate implementation
without consultation with all relevant interests.
While AAA believes that all Aboriginal remains are of scientific
importance and hopes that none of them will be destroyed by re-burial its
members understand and sympathise with some Aboriginal views that have
been expressed in the media and to them personally. The AAA is, of course,
especially sympathetic when the remains are those of known individuals and
in these instances have pressed the authorities to have such remains dealt
with according to the wishes of the deceased where known and if not by
being transferred to the appropriate Aboriginal community to dispose of in
the way they see fit. For example, at the 1982 annual general meeting
held in Hobart, the following motion received unanimous support from the
members in attendance:
The Australian Archaeological Association strongly
urges the Tasmanian Government to hand over unconditionally to the Aboriginal people the collection of human
remains known as the Crowther Collection, to be disposed
of as they see fit. The Association is of the opinion
that ethical considerations of the manner in which the
collection was obtained far outweigh any potential
scientific value.
This view was conveyed by letters to relevant ministers of the
Tasmanian Government and to the Director and Trustees of the Tasmanian
Museum and Art Gallery by the then President of AAA, Dr Ronald Lampert.
The motion was followed up by the AAA Executive late in 1983 when it
appeared that negotiations between the Tasmanian Aboriginal community and
the Tasmanian Government had broken down. We were pleased to hear
recently that the Tasmanian Government had finally agreed to transfer the
Crowther Collection to the Tasmanian Aboriginal community to dispose of in
the way they see fit.
When faced with a similar situation regarding the re-burial of human
skeletal remains in the United States of America, our colleagues from the
Society for American Archaeology formulated a position by forming a
committee to investigate the issue. That position has since been adopted
as policy by the Society, their resolution being published in an issue of
In part this resolution
American Antiquity (1984, Vo1.49,No.l:215-216).
says :
Therefore be it resolved that the Society for American
Archaeology deplores the indiscriminant reburial of human
skeletal remains and opposes reburial of any human skeletal remains except in situations where specific lineal
descendants can be traced and it is the explicit wish of
these living descendants that remains be reburied rather
than being retained for research purposes: and that no
remains should be reburied without appropriate study by
physical anthropologists with special training in skeletal
biology unless lineal descendants explicitly oppose such
study.
Similarly, the Canadian Association for Physical Anthropology has
published a statement entitled "Motion to support research on human skeletal remains" (Canadian Revue of Physical Anthropology 1982, Vo1.3, No.l:l)
which says in part:
As professional archaeologists we should explicitly
recognise the significance of all materials in an archaeological site for the purpose of reconstructing past
population history, and understand the significance of
retaining all materials for future research as new methods
and techniques of study are developed. Certain archaeological materials cannot be studied and retained to the
exclusion, or at the expense of others in what is truly a
holistic scientific discipline.
These U working documents will be tabled at the next annual general
meeting to be held at the end of 1984. Hopefully a formal statement of
Policy about the re-burial of skeletal remains can be formulated at that
meeting after the views of the entire membership have been fully
canvassed.
For many years, various members of the AAA have been reacting
positively to the feelings of Aboriginal people about prehistoric human
skeletal remains. They have attempted to explain why archaeologists are
interested in Aboriginal (and other) remains and have searched for compromise suggestions which would satisfy both the Aboriginal desire to treat
remains with dignity and that of the researchers who are interested in
examining them in order to discover facts about human biology in past
times.
The AAA welcomes the interest that Aboriginal people are showing in
prehistoric sites and material in Australia. It is the first time since
Europeans arrived in this continent that this has occurred at a local
level. This interest can only lead to the improved protection and preservation of prehistoric sites and materials of significance. The AAA feels
that it is to the advantage of Aborigines and archaeologists that they cooperate in order to bring this about.
Several instances can be cited where this co-operation has already
begun. At the Australian Museum and at the Museum of Victoria several
Aboriginal people have been employed for some time in order that they can
acquire the skills necessary to curate Aboriginal collections of skeletal
remains and items of material culture and gain experience in the running
of large museums.
The proposed Keeping Place at Lake Mungo in western New South Wales
is an excellent example of the way in which the interests of Aborigines
and archaeologists have come together. Here extended consultations
between local Aborigines and officers of the NSW Parks and Wildlife
Service and the Australian Museum has resulted in the formulation of a
proposal which is a compromise between the re-burial of all remains and
the placement of them in city-based museums. At Lake Mungo a simple
underground structure is to be built. One lockable chamber will house
skeletal remains which have been collected from the surrounding dune
system. Another will provide working space where scholars can examine the
material if they have received permission to do so from the Aboriginal
custodians of the Keeping Place.
When a prehistoric cemetery was exposed by erosion at Robinvale in
Victoria in 1983, archaeologists, including one possessing expertise in
human biology, were invited by the local Aboriginal community to carry out
rescue excavations. The skeletal remains were examined on the site and
then re-buried. A report of the results of this work was prepared for the
Victoria Archaeological Survey and another report, less scientific in
style, was prepared for the Murray Valley Aboriginal Co-operative at their
request
It is clear that consultation with Aboriginal communities about the
fate of human skeletal remains must continue at all levels. The construction of Aboriginal Keeping Places staffed by trained Aboriginal people is
one solution to the dilemma. However, ongoing consultation, the erection
of Keeping Places and the training of Aboriginal people in the skills
required to care for human skeletal material will be an expensive undertaking. The AAA encourages the Victorian Government to instigate
developments along these lines. Perhaps in this way it may be possible to
treat Aboriginal skeletal remains in a way that is acceptable to the
Aboriginal community and at the same time make them available for
responsible research purposes.
The AAA is confident that the Aboriginal community in Victoria and
elsewhere in Australia will act in a responsible way regarding the fate of
.
Aboriginal human skeletal remains. After all, the preservation of this
material is important not only for researchers and other Australians but
also for generations of Aborigines to come who may wish to know more about
their biological past than we do now.
Summary
1.
The AAA congratulates the Victorian Government on the initiatives it
has taken to accommodate Aboriginal requests to exercise significant
control over Aboriginal skeletal material in the State of Victoria.
2.
The AAA supports the disposal of Aboriginal skeletal remains of known
individuals according to the wishes of the deceased, where known, and
if not, by being transferred to the appropriate Aboriginal community
to dispose of as they see fit.
3.
The AAA believes that all other Aboriginal skeletal remains are of
scientific importance and should not be destroyed by being reburied
or cremated.
4.
The AAA believes that the Aboriginal community and the archaeological
profession share a common concern to protect and preserve prehistoric
sites and material of significance.
5.
The M believes that it is possible for Aborigines and archaeologists to reach a compromise about what should happen to Aboriginal
skeletal remains. The employment and training of Aborigines as
museum curators, the construction of Aboriginal Keeping Places and
joint projects carried out by Aborigines and archaeologists are
examples of such compromises.
6.
The AAA urges the Victorian Government to instigate a programme
enabling the construction of Aboriginal Keeping Places and the
training of Aboriginal people in the skills necessary for employment
in these Keeping Places as well as in the State's museums.
I trust that you find these remarks and the information contained in
the accompanying document of value. If our committee can be of any assistance please contact me at the above address.
Yours faithfully,
Dr Betty Meehan
President AAA for the
AAA Committee on Aboriginal
Skeletal Remains
c-c. Victorian Aboriginal Legal Service
The AAA position paper prepared by the s u b c m i t t e e of Thorne, Meehurz,
Gohon and m i t e . Reproduced i n f i l l .
AUSTRALIAN ABORIGINAL SKELETAL REMAINS - THEIR HERITAGE AND
SCIENTIFIC IMPORTANCE
'
Summary
Changes to Archaeological Relics legislation in Victoria and moves
for the reburial of skeletal remains has forced Aboriginal people,
archaeologists and palaeoanthropologists to reconsider the value and
importahce of skeletal materials gathered in Victorian collections. In
the U.S.A., Canada and elsewhere there has been strong professional reaction to attempts to rebury prehistoric skeletal material. The AAA
believes that similar problems exist in Australia and that the association
should make a statement of its position. As the following document indicates there are numerous reasons for maintaining existing collections:
l.
Heritage - for local Victorian Aboriginal communities, for Aboriginal
Victorians, for all Aboriginal Australians, for Australian people
generally and as part of the world human heritage.
2.
Scientific - the remains provide the key to understanding Aboriginal
origins, for clues to past diet, demography, social life, disease and
Australian cultural and biological evolution over more than 40,000 years.
3. Medico-legal - the existing collections are important in maintaining
a high standard of forensic research and training.
Prehistory - the prehistory of Victoria is a complex research question and a microcosm of Australian prehistory in general. As skeletal
evidence is an integral part of the evidence on which prehistoric reconstructions are based Australia will need all of the existing skeletal
collections to decipher as many aspects of the past as possible, both now
and in the future.
4.
There are many reasons, historical and scientific, why human skeletal
remains have been collected, excavated and preserved in museums, not just
in Australia but in virtually every country where prehistoric skeletons
have been found. Modern scientific studies of human remains, as well as
the archaeology and palaeoanthropology that produces them, began in
Europe, but these studies and techniques are now universal because they
are the best ways of gathering information about the human past - its
diversity and complexity, its changes and stabilities. Put together the
human and the behavioural remains from archaeological sites form the
evidence for understanding the biological and cultural life of our prehistoric ancestors. That past can be a 50,000 year time span covering all of
Australia. It can be the last 10,000 years of Tasmania. Or it can be a
small campsite or a burial that took place on a single day 250 years ago
in western Victoria.
The following is a brief summary of the major scientific and other
reasons why Australian archaeologists believe that prehistoric skeletal
remains from Australia should be preserved, not merely for present day
study but as the heritage of present and future generations.
An important exception to these remarks concerns the remains of known
historical individuals and skeletal remains where specific descendants can
be traced. The Australian Archaeological Association believes strongly
that such materials should be placed in the charge of appropriate
Aboriginal people for disposal.
PART OF THE WORLD HERITAGE
Together with Africans, Asians and Europeans, Aboriginal Australians
represent one of the major divisions of humanity. Their biological
uniqueness and diversity, past and present, is as fundamental and important as any other aspect of their heritage. Aboriginal remains are found
everywhere on the continent and major offshore islands, demonstrating
their presence in all areas.
The discovery of 25,000 year old cremated human remains at Lake Mungo
in western New South Wales in 1968 was a dramatic demonstration of the
length of time over which this land use has occurred and the Lake Mungo
cremation was a major psychological element in Aboriginal land and other
claims in the 1970s. For Australians generally Aboriginal skeletal
remains illustrate Aboriginal presence in the past in a way that no other
evidence can. The remains symbolise the lengthy Australian prehistory now
being discovered. The fact that they show early migrations from south and
east Asia underpins the cultural, economic and political changes that now
focus on our past, present and future links with Asia.
The cultural and biological importance of early prehistoric remains
such as those from Keilor, Lake Mungo and Kow Swamp has produced an
international awareness that the Aboriginal past is as complex and
puzzling as that of human societies anywhere in the world. One sign of
this awareness is the inclusion of the Willandra Lakes region on the World
Heritage List. The single crucial reason for that heritage listing was
the discovery of a human cremation.
Five levels of Significance
The Victorian skeletal remains represent five important areas of
heritage value. Firstly they are of immediate significance to those
Aboriginal people in whose traditional areas the remains are found. They
may be of importance through the cultural information they provide in
terms of the methods used to dispose of the dead in the past and the grave
goods placed with them. They may also be significant to specific
Aboriginal communities if they are of great antiquity, such as the remains
from Keilor. Secondly Victorian skeletal remains are of significance to
all Victorian Aboriginal people, indicating occupation at different times
across the state and through physical and cultural information, a unity of
all the people. Australia-wide, the human remains are an important part
of the heritage of a11 Australian Aboriginal people. Not only are such
remains as those from Kow Swamp in northern Victoria important in indicating a physical and cultural heritage spanning 15,000 years in southeastern Australia but Victorian southern coastal remains from sites such
as Keilor represent what is now one edge of Bass Strait and the human
links broken 10,000 years ago with populations that stretched south into
Tasmania.
Fourthly and more broadly the Aboriginal heritage is the foundation
of the general Australian heritage and it is to be hoped that as
Aboriginal Australians take increased responsibility for the maintenance
and management of their heritage, as in Victoria, other Australians will
better appreciate the first 40,000 years and more of the continent's human
heritage. Finally these remains are part of the heritage of all humanity,
part of the intricate, baffling and unbelievably complex story of the
development of all of us. As the story of the first Australians unfolds
it is becoming clearer that Australia's links with southeast Asia, with
New Guinea and with the Philippines, are very ancient indeed and that the
settlement of Australia represents the earliest evidence for human maritime skills and the maintenance of human activity through the last ice age
in the southern hemisphere.
SCIENTIFIC IMPORTANCE
There are several anthropological and other scientific reasons that
make Aboriginal skeletal remains important, regardless of their age. The
most recent prehistoric material, from the time period immediately preceeding white conquest, represents a detailed record of the physical
variation of people in many local areas as well as across the continent as
a whole. For many areas skeletal remains are the only evidence that
exists of the physical characteristics and communities destroyed at the
time of white conquest. In some areas where great changes have occurred
an important basis for reconstructing past populations and their characteristics lies in the human remains that are discovered.
Origin of the Australians
Given the cultural gulf between prehistoric Tasmania, New Guinea and
the Australian mainland, skeletal remains are the best single basis for
assessing the effects of 10,000 years of separation and different environments on these three populations. The recent skeletal remains are
important also in demonstrating the major physical changes that have
occurred within Australia in more than 40,000 years. It has been argued
that old remains are more important than recent remains yet representatives of both are necessary if we are to be able to perceive the major
changes that took place. The oldest remains from Australia are crucial to
any exploration of the origin of the Australians and the emergence of
modern Aboriginal populations. At the present time the Pleistocene human
skeletal evidence is the only way we have to deduce the area from where
the first and many later arrivals came. More widely the Australian skeletal material forms an important part of our general understanding of human
evolution - its regional variation, rates of change, migration of specific
groups and the genetic makeup of varying human populations over time.
Because of our detailed knowledge of the body, especially the skeleton,
dated human fossil remains have been important to the development of
evolutionary theory generally and the evidence on which this development
is based should be maintained for future scholars.
Clues to prehistoric diet
The recent discovery of new techniques has permitted the use of
skeletal remains in the elucidation of palaeonutrition, the understanding
of the diet of people in the past. It is now possible to determine the
contributing proportions of marine and land animals to the diet of coastal
people; to estimate the importance of animal and plant protein in the
food; to calculate seasonal variation in food sources and even to isolate
the presence of a specific food item to show when it was first consumed by
a community.
Basic biological anthropological techniques of metric and non-metric
analysis of human remains have been used for almost 100 years, in
Australia and elsewhere. Examination of scientific journals indicates
that over this time the reuse of older collections is frequent and that it
produces refinements and new techniques, modifying previous findings. A
number of statistical procedures used in science and industry were
initially developed as solutions to the problems of the relationship of
the skeletal remains of various populations around the world, including
Aboriginal Australians.
Human bone materials, especially those from prehistoric periods, have
been of major importance in the development of scientific methodologies
embracing biochemistry, physics, histology and dating techniques including
radiocarbon, fission track and electron spin resonance. With improvements
to existing techniques it is important that original reference materials
be maintained. It can also be assumed that new techniques will be discovered in the future that will expand the usefulness of the remains in
this area.
Demography in the past
A question of importance to both human biologists and archaeologists
is how to determine the size and density of past populations. A number of
studies have shown that, with suitable skeletal materials, we can now
predict the average size of particular prehistoric populations, the size
and mortality of any age group within a past population, as the fertility
rates of the women and the presence of such factors as infant mortality.
Bone remains can be used to estimate age at death of specific individuals
for various past populations.
Human remains, especially as burials, can and do provide a whole
range of cultural facts for archaeologists. Mortuary practices are an
important aspect of any culture and, because they tend to be a conservative aspect of society, disposal procedures are a good measure of rates of
cultural change in specific societies. Art, belief systems and trade are
often reflected in funerary systems. Human remains reflect behaviour, of
individuals and groups, in terms of the sorts of tooth wear, the presence
of clues to posture and movement patterns, specific economic activities
such as diving and differences due to conflict, expressed in wound
patterns.
Medical and Dental value
Research into the origin, course and spread of disease is carried out
worldwide and Australia is no exception. Numerous studies have explored
the range and incidence of particular pathologies and congenital defects
that apply to all human populations, in a continuing effort to understand
and control disease in livlng people. Variation in disease and the relationship of specific forms to particular areas aids in the search for
solutions to medical problems. Environmental conditions in certain areas
that produce specific abnormal conditions, parasite loads and vitamin
deficiencies are studied using skeletal collections. Specific Aboriginal
diseases such as particular vitamin problems and one form of treponemal
disease have been studied only because the reference collections exist in
Australia, of Aboriginal remains. Dental research into such questions as
the timing of tooth eruption, which varies in Aboriginal and other people,
the frequency of congenital tooth absence, the spread and sites of dental
disease and the source of dietary deficiencies leading to abnormal disease
patterns have been based on various Australian Aboriginal skeletal
remains.
Studies of traditional medical practice and its prehistory involve
skeletal remains and some so-called 'modern' medical practices can be
shown to have applied in the distant past. A prehistoric skeleton, for
example, with full restoration of badly compound fractured thighs, tells
somethings about society, in the past that cannot be demonstrated in any
other way. Similarly the presence in skeletons of stress markers such as
dietary deficiencies and childhood diseases can tell us something about
the size and density of populations and can even indicate how sedentary
the people were.
The presence of specific diseases in past Aboriginal populations can
assist in the definition of susceptibility in modern Aboriginal groups.
Thus modern hygiene, medical and dental practice, as it relates to
Aboriginal people, can and has been aided by the study of existing skeletal samples. Such studies are likely to be more detailed and extensive in
the future, especially by Aboriginal health workers.
Lenal and Forensic im~ortance
In every society unexplained deaths occur. Forensic expertise is
necessary to establish ethnic group, sex, age, personal characteristics,
absolute age of the remains, postmortem changes or conditions and the
cause of death if it can be determined. For such studies the necessary
expertise must be acquired and reference collections maintained to
continue a high standard of forensic science. A recent case in the
Northern Territory, involving a dispute as to the identity of a series of
burials, was resolved with the definition of the burials as those of
Aboriginal people, because there was a pool of expertise and reference
material available. Several pieces of research have stemmed in Australia
from forensic problems and have led to the development of techniques for
the ethnic identification, sexing and ageing of Aboriginal remains.
Considerable work remains to be done in this area, with the expansion of
the biological variability in Australian skeletal remains that is ongoing.
Without the presence of trained staff in forensic laboratories, anthropology departments and medical schools, if not in Aboriginal organisations
directly, the identification of Aboriginal remains in a variety of circumstances will be difficult and limited.
Im~ortancenow and for the future
The study of human remains has been an aspect of science and scientific inquiry for much of the last 200 years and as such forms part of the
history of science. The discovery and study of the Neanderthal and
Cromagnon remains in Europe was important to our expanding knowledge of
ourselves. Similarly the discovery of the Talgai cranium in Queensland,
the Kow Swamp burials in Victoria or the Lake Mungo finds in New South
Wales after self-perceptions by Australians and all humanity. All the
discoveries influence scientific inquiry. Future generations must be able
to learn and compare in the same way as the present generation.
Collections of skeletal remains preserve these materials and permit
the training of new biological scholars, the development of new ideas and
techniques, as well as the continued comparison of Australian and other
human groups. Aboriginal skeletal remains are the most frequently studied
of all anthropological collections in Australian museums and it would be
ironic if the destruction of them meant that overseas collections were the
future basis of Aboriginal skeletal studies.
GENERAL REFERENCES
Bowler, J.Y., Thorne, A.G. and Polach, H. 1972 Pleistocene man in
Australia: age and significance of the Mungo skeleton. Nature
240: 48-50
Brown, P.
1981
Artificial cranial deformation: a component in the
variation in Pleistocene Australian Aboriginal crania.
Archaeology in Oceania 16:156-167
Freedman, L. and Lofgren, M.
1979 The Cossack skull and a dihybrid
origin of the Australian Aborigines. Nature 282:298-300
Howells, W.W.
1973
London
The Pacific Islanders. Weidenfeld and Nicolson,
Kirk, R.L.
1981
Oxford
Aboriginal Man Adapting.
Oxford University Press,
Kirk, R.L.
and Thorne, A.G. (eds)
1976 The Origin of the Australians.
Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies, Canberra
Thorne, A.G.
1980
The arrival of man in Australia, in A. Sherratt
(ed.)
The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Archaeology pp.96-100.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Thorne, A.G.
1983
pp.185-186
Wolpoff, M.H.
1980
Human Origins
Australian Encyclopaedia Vol.1,
The Grolier Society of Australia, Sydney
Palaeoanthropology Knopf, New York
The Honourable John Besvick
M i n i s t e r f o r Education and H i n i s t e r
Reeponeible f o r A r t s
Parlielrrent House
HOBART Tasmania
Dear M i n i s t e r ,
Aboriginal s k e l e t a l remains
On 10 August 1984, on b e h a l f of t h e A u s t r a l i a n A r c h a e o l o g i c a l
A s s o c i a t i o n (AAA), I w r o t e c o n g r a t u l a t i n g y o u r Government on t h e i r d e c i s i o n
t o t r a n s f e r t h e Crowther s k e l e t a l c o l l e c t i o n of known i n d i v i d u a l s t o t h e
Tasmanian A b o r i g i n a l community t o d i s p o s e o f i n t h e way t h e y s e e f i t .
I i n c l u d e d w i t h t h a t l e t t e r , a copy of a working s t a t e m e n t e n t i t l e d
A u s t r a l i a n A b o r i g i n a l S k e l e t a l ~ e G i n s t h e i r H e r i t a g e and S c i e n t i f i c
Importance p r e p a r e d by a small committee of AAA members i n which a r e s e t
o u t o u r views a b o u t t h e s c i e n t i f i c i m p o r t a n c e of anonymous p r e h i s t o r i c
A b o r i g i n a l s k e l e t a l remains. The AAA b e l i e v e s t h a t s u c h anonymous remains.
a s opposed t o t h o s e of known i n d i v i d u a l s , s h o u l d n o t be d e s t r o y e d by b e i n g
r e b u r i e d o r cremated b e c a u s e t h e y a r e o f c o n s i d e r a b l e i m p o r t a n c e t o t h e
s c i e n t i f i c world.
Also i n c l u d e d w i t h your l e t t e r was a copy of o n e t h e AAA h a d s e n t t o
M r Evan Walker, H i n i s t e r f o r P l a n n i n g and Environment i n t h e V i c t o r i a n
Government t o g e t h e r w i t h o u r s c i e n t i f i c s t a t e m e n t a b o u t p r e h i s t o r i c A b o r i g i n a l
s k e l e t a l remains. I n M r W a l k e r ' s l e t t e r t h e AAA p u t f o r w a r d some s u g g e s t i o n s
a b o u t t h e way i n which a compromise might be r e a c h e d between A b o r i g i n a l p e o p l e
who d e s i r e t h a t s k e l e t a l remains b e t r e a t e d w i t h d i g n i t y and t h e s c i e n t i f i c
comnunity who wish t o c a r r y o u t r e s p o n s i b l e r e s e a r c h i n t o t h e b i o l o g i c a l
e v o l u t i o n of humankind. The t r a i n i n g o f A b o r i g i n a l p e o p l e f o r p o s i t i o n s i n
museums, t h e e r e c t i o n of A b o r i g i n a l Keeping P l a c e s and j o i n t r e s e a r c h p r o j e c t s
c a r r i e d o u t by A b o r i g i n e s and r e s e a r c h e r s a r e compromise s u g g e s t i o n s p u t
forward by u s i n t h a t l e t t e r .
S i n c e w r i t i n g t o you l a s t week, I u n d e r s t a n d t h a t y o u r Government h a s
d e c i d e d t o t r a n s f e r a l l p r e h i s t o r i c Tasmanian A b ~ r i g i n a l ~ s k e l e t ar le m a i n s t o
t h e Tasmanian A b o r i g i n a l community t o d i s p o s e of a s t h e y s e e f i t . We
s i n c e r e l y hope t h a t t h i s Government d e c i s i o n d o e s n o t mean t h a t a l l p r e h i s t o r i c Tasmanian A b o r i g i n a l s k e l e t a l r e m a i n s housed i n Tasmanian i n s t i t u t i o n s w i l l u l t i m a t e l y b e d e s t r o y e d by b e i n g r e b u r i e d o r c r e m a t e d . Such
d e s t r u c t i o n would b e a g r e a t l o s s t o t h e i n t e r n a t i o n a l s c i e n t i f i c community
a s w e l l a s t o g e n e r a t i o n s of A u s t r a l i a n s , b o t h b l a c k and w h i t e , t o come who
may wish t o know more a b o u t o u r b i o l o g i c a l p a s t t h a n we do a t t h e moment.
The AAA hopes t h a t t h e Tasmanian Government, t h e Tasmanian A b o r i g i n a l
community, t h e s c i e n t i f i c community and a l l o t h e r i n t e r e s t e d g r o u p s a r e a b l e
t o work t o g e t h e r i n o r d e r t o produce a l a s t i n g compromise r e g a r d i n g t h e
f u t u r e of p r e h i s t o r i c Tasmanian A b o r i g i n a l s k e l e t a l r e m a i n s .
The AAA u r g e s t h e Tasmanian Government t o a l l o w ample t i m e f o r comprom i s e s c o n c e r n i n g t h e f a t e of A b o r i g i n a l s k e l e t a l r e m a i n s t o b e f o r m u l a t e d
and d i s c u s s e d a d e q u a t e l y by a l l i n t e r e s t e d p a r t i e s .
I f t h e AAA can b e of
any a s s i s t a n c e d u r i n g t h i s p e r i o d of d i s c u s s i o n , p l e a s e c o n t a c t u s .
-
Yours s i n c e r e l y ,
D r Bet t y Heehan
P r e s i d e n t of A M
The resolution of the Society for American Archaeology, extmcted from
American Antiquity 1984, 49(l) :Zl5-216. Readers should note that a
v i r t u a l l y identical resolution was unanimmsZy passed a t the 51st Meeting
of the American Association o f Physical AnthropoZogists (see American
J o u m Z of PhysicaZ ~nthropoZogy1982, 59:230).
The r e b u r i a l i s s u e h a s been open f o r t h e p a s t two y e a r s . We now have
a s t a t e m e n t of p o l i c y on t h i s m a t t e r , developed a f t e r c o n s i d e r a b l e h a r d work
by a committee c h a i r e d by Linda C o r d e l l . C o n s u l t a t i o n was done w i t h many
a r c h a e o l o g i c a l g r o u p s , and w i t h N a t i v e Americans. C o n s i d e r a b l e d i s c u s s i o n s
and c o r r e s p o n d e n c e were c a r r i e d o u t w i t h t h e Commissioner f o r N a t i v e
Americans i n C a l i f o r n i a , William P i n k , and w i t h r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s of t h e
American I n d i a n Movement (AIM). The N a t i o n a l A s s o c i a t i o n of T r i b a l Chairmen
was a l s o c o n t a c t e d . The e x e c u t i v e committee h a s d i s c u s s e d t h e m a t t e r c o n s i d e r a b l y and approved t h e s t a t e m e n t of P o l i c y :
RESOLUTION
Whereas human remains c o n s t i t u t e p a r t of t h e a r c h a e o l o g i c a l r e c o r d
and p r o v i d e u n i q u e i n f o r m a t i o n a b o u t demography, g e n e t i c r e l a t i o n s h i p ,
d i e t , and d i s e a s e which i s of s p e c i a l s i g n i f i c a n c e i n i n t e r p r e t i n g
d e s c e n t , h e a l t h , and n u t r i t i o n a l s t a t u s i n l i v i n g and i n a n c i e n t human
g r o u p s ; and
Whereas e d u c a t i o n and r e s e a r c h i n t h e a n t h r o p o l o g i c a l , b i o l o g i c a l ,
s o c i a l , and f o r e n s i c s c i e n c e s r e q u i r e t h a t c o l l e c t i o n s of human s k e l e t a l
r e m a i n s be a v a i l a b l e t o r e s p o n s i b l e s c h o l a r s ; and
Whereas t h e s t u d y of humankind's p a s t should n o t d i s c r i m i n a t e
a g a i n s t any b i o l o g i c a l o r c u l t u r a l group;
T h e r e f o r e b e i t r e s o l v e d t h a t t h e S o c i e t y f o r American Archaeology
d e p l o r e s t h e i n d i s c r i m i n a n t r e b u r i a l of human s k e l e t a l remains and
opposes r e b u r i a l of any human s k e l e t a l remains e x c e p t i n s i t u a t i o n s
where s p e c i f i c l i n e a l d e s c e n d a n t s can be t r a c e d and i t i s t h e e x p l i c i t
wish of t h e s e l i v i n g d e s c e n d a n t s t h a t remains b e r e b u r i e d r a t h e r than
b e i n g r e t a i n e d f o r r e s e a r c h p u r p o s e s ; and t h a t no remains should be
r e b u r i e d w i t h o u t a p p r o p r i a t e s t u d y by p h y s i c a l a n t h r o p o l o g i s t s w i t h
s p e c i a l t r a i n i n g i n s k e l e t a l biology u n l e s s l i n e a l descendants
e x p l i c i t l y oppose such s t u d y .
And b e i t f u r t h e r r e s o l v e d t h a t t h e S o c i e t y f o r American Archaeol o g y e n c o u r a g e s c l o s e and e f f e c t i v e communication w i t h a p p r o p r i a t e
g r o u p s and w i t h i n d i v i d u a l s c h o l a r s who s t u d y human remains t h a t may
have b i o l o g i c a l o r c u l t u r a l a f f i n i t y t o those groups.
And b e i t f i n a l l y r e s o l v e d t h a t t h e S o c i e t y f o r American Archaeol o g y communicate t h e s u b s t a n c e of t h i s r e s o l u t i o n t o n a t i o n a l a n t h r o p o l o g i c a l o r g a n i z a t i o n s a s w e l l a s t o any agency whose t r e a t m e n t of
human s k e l e t a l r e m a i n s d e p a r t s from t h a t s p e c i f i e d i n t h i s r e s o l u t i o n .
The reso Zution of the Canadian ArchaeoZogicaZ Association (see Canadian
Revue of Physical Anthropozogy 1982, 3 ( 1 :1). Readers nright also &sh t o
refer t o the Canadian Association of Physical AnthropoZogy ' S 'Statement on
the excavation, treaftnent, analysis and disposition of hwnan skeletal remains
from archeological s i t e s i n Canada ', i n Can. Rev. Phys. Anthrop. 1 :32-36.
As p r o f e s s i o n a l a r c h a e o l o g i s t s we s h o u l d e x p l i c i t l y r e c o g n i z e
t h e s i g n i f i c a n c e of a l l m a t e r i a l s i n a n a r c h a e o l o g i c a l s i t e f o r t h e
purpose of r e c o n s t r u c t i n g p a s t p o p u l a t i o n h i s t o r y , and u n d e r s t a n d
t h e s i g n i f i c a n c e of r e t a i n i n g a l l m a t e r i a l s f o r f u t u r e r e s e a r c h a s
new methods and t e c h n i q u e s of study a r e developed. C e r t a i n archaeol o g i c a l m a t e r i a l s cannot b e s t u d i e d and r e t a i n e d t o t h e e x c l u s i o n , o r
a t t h e expense of o t h e r s i n what i s t r u l y a h o l i s t i c s c i e n t i f i c
discipline.
The motion proposed h e r e i s t h a t t h e Canadian A r c h a e o l o g i c a l
A s s o c i a t i o n r e s o l v e t o wholeheartedly and w i t h o u t q u a l i f i c a t i o n
support t h e r e c e n t s t a n d s taken by t h e Canadian A s s o c i a t i o n f o r
P h y s i c a l Anthropology and i t s s i s t e r o r g a n i z a t i o n s w i t h r e s p e c t
t o human s k e l e t a l remains i n a r c h a e o l o g i c a l r e s e a r c h . B e i t f u r t h e r
r e s o l v e d t h a t t h e Canadian A r c h a e o l o g i c a l A s s o c i a t i o n e n d o r e s e s t h e
preamble t o t h i s motion and d i s c o u r a g e s t h e a c t i o n s of any archaeol o g i s t s who would h i n d e r o r prevent s c i e n t i f i c i n q u i r y on human
s k e l e t a l remains.
The Council of Austxdian Museum Directors, i n discussing t h i s issue
resolved
t h a t w i t h r e s p e c t t o a c q u i s i t i o n and maintenance of c o l l e c t i o n s
of human s k e l e t a l and o t h e r remains, CAMD members a g r e e t o t h e
following p r i n c i p l e s :
(i)
That t h e only j u s t i f i c a t i o n f o r a c q u i r i n g o r m a i n t a i n i n g
human remains i n museum c o l l e c t i o n s i s demonstrable
s c i e n t i f i c and/or educational value.
(ii)
That human remains which a r e of r e l a t i v e l y r e c e n t o r i g i n
and a r e of a s e n s i t i v e n a t u r e should n o t b e a c q u i r e d ,
h e l d o r used f o r p u b l i c d i s p l a y purposes.
(iii)
That each museum h o l d i n g c o l l e c t i o n s of human remains h a s
a r e s p o n s i b i l i t y t o a s s e s s t h e s c i e n t i f i c v a l u e , provenance
and h i s t o r y of each i t e m and t o g i v e c o n s i d e r a t i o n t o t h e
d i s p o s a l of t h o s e of l i m i t e d s c i e n t i f i c v a l u e .
(iv)
That human remains i n museums e x i s t i n g c o l l e c t i o n s which
can b e shown t o be t h e remains of any known p e r s o n s o r of
persons whose d i r e c t descendants a r e known, should b e
b u r i e d i n an a p p r o p r i a t e p l a c e o r o t h e r w i s e d e a l t w i t h ,
according t o t h e wishes of d e s c e n d a n t s i f any.
Eztracted from t h e ANU Reporter ( 1 2 . 1 0 . 8 4 ) :
Concern over skeletons
The Australian Vice-Chancellors' Committee
has voiced 'deep concern' that under amendments to the Victorian Archaeological and
Aboriginal Relics Reservation Act. Melbourne University has been forced to surrender
its Murray Black collection of skeletons.
This has caused the cessation of several
important research programs and may lead to
the destruction of the collection. the committee says in a statement.
'The Mumy Black collection consists of
more than 800 skeletons, many of which are
complete or almost complete. None is modem
and their ages probably range from several
hundred years to at least 14.000 years.
'The collection has been used extensively
by Australian and overseas medical scientists
and anthropologistsand it is considered to be a
collection of very great importance. No other
collection of Australian material is either as
wide-ranging in time. or as complete.
'The AVCC considers that the legislation.
and the crude way in which it has been used.
has resulted in a direct intrusion into the
University of Melbourne's right to conduct
scientific research. It is believed that if a
similar action was taken elsewhere in Australia. anthropology would virtually cease as an
Australian discipline.'
The following two l e t t e r s were sent t o the Federal Minister for Science
and Technology, the R t Hon. Barry Jones MYR, i n June and July t h i s year:
Mr B. J o n e s
M i n i s t e r f o r S c i e n c e and Technology
P a r l i a m e n t House
Canberra
ACT 2601
Dear Mr Jones.
On t h e 1 6 t h Hay 1984. t h e Archaeological and Aboriginal R e l i c s
(Amendment) Act 1984 came i n t o o p e r a t i o n i n V i c t o r i a . Under t h i s Act i t
is now a n o f f e n c e t o p o s s e s s , d i s p l a y o r have under your c o n t r o l any
A b o r i g i n a l s k e l e t a l m a t e r i a l u n l e s s t h e consent in w r i t i n g of t h e S e c r e t a r y
f o r Planning and Environment h a s been obtained. As a r e s u l t of t h i s l e g i s l a t i o n i n s p e c t o r s under t h e Act a r e a b l e t o c l a i m A u s t r a l i a n Aboriginal
s k e l e t a l m a t e r i a l i n V i c t o r i a n p r i v a t e and p u b l i c c o l l e c t i o n s and rebury i t
i f t h e y choose.
S h o r t l y a f t e r t h i s l e g i s l a t i o n was d e c l a r e d a w r i t was served on t h e
U n i v e r s i t y of Melbourne by t h e V i c t o r i a n Aboriginal Legal S e r v i c e . T h i s
vrit was concerned w i t h a c l a i m f o r t h e Aboriginal m a t e r i a l , both s k e l e t a l
and c u l t u r a l , c o n t a i n e d w i t h i n U n i v e r s i t y c o l l e c t i o n s . I n p a r t i c u l a r t h e
A b o r i g i n a l Legal S e r v i c e was concerned with t h e s e r i e s of A u s t r a l i a n
A b o r i g i n a l s k e l e t o n s (approximately 800 i n a l l ) housed w i t h i n t h e Anatomy
Department. T h i s c o l l e c t i o n was e s t a b l i s h e d by t h e l a t e George Hurray Black
(hence t h e name 'Murray Black' c o l l e c t i o n ) , between 1942 and 1950, by t h e
e x c a v a t i o n of s k e l e t o n s from t h e *rray River a r e a . I should p o i n t out t h a t
In October 1984, the Council of the Australian Institute of Aboriginal
Studies agreed to find the following research proposal put f o m r d by
its Prehistory Cornittee :
Research Proposal
- Aboriginal
Skeletal Material
-
Issues
(1) Production of I n s t i t u t e p o l i c y document on A b o r i g i n a l s k e l e t a l
material
It was decided t h a t a small committee, nominated by t h e P r e h i s t o r y
Committee c o n s i s t i n g of Sharon S u l l i v a n , Alan Thorne, Ros Langford,
Ron Lampert and c h a i r e d by t h e Chairman of t h e P r e h i s t o r y Committee
should meet t o produce a document which o u t l i n e d
( a ) General I n s t i t u t e p o l i c i e s w i t h r e s p e c t t o A b o r i g i n a l s k e l e t a l
material (Heritage value, Aboriginal custodianship, acceptable
r e s e a r c h p r a c t i c e s , keeping p l a c e s , c o n d i t i o n s f o r r e t u r n of
material, etc)
.
(b) C r i t e r i a f o r t h e assessment of s c i e n t i f i c s i g n i f i c a n c e of
Aboriginal s k e l e t a l m a t e r i a l , and consequent p o l i c i e s and
procedures.
The sub-committee members should c o n s u l t w i t h o t h e r r e l e v a n t
I n s t i t u t e members, and produce r e l e v a n t m a t e r i a l f o r i n c o r p o r a t i o n
i n a g e n e r a l I n s t i t u t e document on t h i s m a t t e r .
( 2 ) Analysis of one c o l l e c t i o n of A b o r i g i n a l s k e l e t a l m a t e r i a l
The sub committee w i l l produce a set of c r i t e r i a f o r t h e assessment
of t h e s c i e n t i f i c s i g n i f i c a n c e of A b o r i g i n a l s k e l e t a l m a t e r i a l
It
i s proposed t o f i e l d t e s t t h i s c r i t e r i a on one c o l l e c t i o n i n a n
A u s t r a l i a n museum, t o e s t a b l i s h i t s r e l e v a n c e and e f f e c t i v e n e s s .
.
(3) Grant - i n a i d t o A u s t r a l i a n Museums t o c a r r y o u t b a s i c document a t i o n and Aboriginal c o n s u l t a t i o n w i t h r e s p e c t t o t h e i r A b o r i g i n a l
skeletal material collections
Aboriginal s k e l e t a l m a t e r i a l i s h e l d i n most A u s t r a l i a n museums,
and i n some c a s e s documentation i s i n a d e q u a t e and l i t t l e consult a t i o n with t h e Aboriginal community h a s t a k e n p l a c e .
Increasingly,
Aboriginal people and r e s e a r c h e r s wish t o know t h e e x t e n t and v a l u e
of t h e s e c o l l e c t i o n s , and s i m i l a r demands t o t h o s e r e c e n t l y made
i n V i c t o r i a and Tasmania by t h e A b o r i g i n a l community can b e
expected. The proposal i s t o o f f e r d o l l a r - f o r - d o l l a r funding t o
It i s proposed
A u s t r a l i a n museums, t o c a r r y o u t t h i s b a s i c work.
t o seek proposals f o r two such p r o j e c t s .
- a s f a r a s I am aware A b o r i g i n a l p e o p l e were n o t c o n s u l t e d a b o u t t h i s a t t h e
t i m e and I do n o t t h i n k t h a t t h e e x c a v a t i o n s of human s k e l e t o n s i n t h i s
manner c o u l d b e s u p p o r t e d on moral o r l e g a l grounds today. However, w i t h i n
t h e 'Murray B l a c k ' c o l l e c t i o n a r e 126 s k e l e t o n s from t h e a r e a known a s
Coobool Creek. These s k e l e t o n s a p p e a r t o d a t e t o t h e p e r i o d between 9,000
and 13,000 y e a r s b e f o r e p r e s e n t . They form t h e l a r g e s t s e r i e s of l a t e
P l e i s t o c e n e s k e l e t o n s i n A u s t r a l i a and one of t h e most i m p o r t a n t c o l l e c t i o n s
of t h i s t y p e i n t h e w o r l d .
I n f a c t l doubt i f t h e r e is a c o l l e c t i o n from any
p a r t of t h e w o r l d , of t h i s a g e , which i s comparable i n terms of good p r e s e r v a t i o n and numbers.
I r e c o n s t r u c t e d , c l e a n e d and a n a l y s e d t h e Coobool Creek s k e l e t a l s e r i e s
f o r my Ph.D t h e s i s which was completed i n 1982. T h i s t h e s i s documented t h e
e v o l u t i o n a r y change t h a t had o c c u r r e d i n human p o p u l a t i o n s from s o u t h e a s t e r n
A u s t r a l i a o v e r t h e l a s t 10,000 y e a r s . P a r a l l e l s were drawn w i t h s i m i l a r
c h a n g e s i n Europe and A s i a d u r i n g t h i s p e r i o d .
I t i s o b v i o u s from my p a s t
involvement w i t h t h e Coobool Creek s e r i e s t h a t I w i l l b e n e f i t from i t s
However, I t h i n k t h a t t h e r e i s a l s o sometfiing i n t h e p r e s e r preservation.
v a t i o n of t h i s c o l l e c t i o n f o r a l l p e o p l e and t h a t t h i s c o l l e c t i o n forms a
v a l u a b l e p a r t of t h e h e r i t a g e of a l l mankind.
I am employed i n a r u r a l U n i v e r s i t y a s a l e c t u r e r w i t h i n a Department
of P r e h i s t o r y and Archaeology. a department whose major r e s e a r c h t h r u s t and
i n t e r e s t is i n A u s t r a l i a n A b o r i g i n a l s t u d i e s . A s a t e a c h e r w i t h i n t h e
U n i v e r s i t y s y s t e m p a r t of my r o l e i s t o f i g h t t h e b i g o t r y and r a c i s m t h a t
i s endemic i n A u s t r a l i a n s o c i e t y . A l l t o o f r e q u e n t l y t h e governments answer
t o t h i s i s l e g i s l a t i o n where a more l a s t i n g s o l u t i o n would b e provided by
e d u c a t i o n . You do t h i s by d e m o n s t r a t i n g t h a t A u s t r a l i a n A b o r i g i n e s a r e
human b e i n g s w i t h a h e r i t a g e and c u l t u r e of e q u a l value t o t h a t of nonAboriginal Australians.
T h i s i s a d i f f i c u l t job i n r u r a l A u s t r a l i a and t h e
a c t i o n s of S t a t e and F e d e r a l governments a r e n o t making i t any e a s i e r . I f
you h a v e any d o u b t s I s u g g e s t t h a t a few members of t h e l a b o u r p a r t y spend
some t i m e t a l k i n g t o p e o p l e about r a c i a l i s s u e s i n r u r a l o r urban A u s t r a l i a .
C e r t a i n l y p e o p l e a r e r e t i c e n t t o be condemned a s r a c i s t b u t s c r a t c h t h e
s u r f a c e of many a l i b e r a l t r e n d y and t h a t s what you f i n d .
The end p r o d u c t of t h e amendment t o t h e V i c t o r i a n l e g i s l a t i o n i s t h a t
a u n i q u e c o l l e c t i o n of human f o s s i l s w i l l b e d e s t r o y e d and t h a t i n o r d e r t o
s t u d y a s p e c t s of A b o r i g i n a l h i s t o r y and c u l t u r e i n V i c t o r i a you have t o be
of A b o r i g i n a l d e s c e n t . T h i s s o r t of r a c i s t l e g i s l a t i o n i s a b h o r r e n t t o t h e
w o r l d academic community and an i n i t i a l r e s p o n s e w i l l b e made i n t h e
e d i t o r i a l of . t h e American j o u r n a l S c i e n c e i n t h e n e x t c o u p l e of weeks.
The U n i v e r s i t y of Melbourne c h a l l e n g e d t h e V i c t o r i a n Government l e g i s l a t i o n and t h e w r i t imposed by t h e V i c t o r i a n A b o r i g i n a l L e g a l S e r v i c e i n
t h e Supreme C o u r t , and l o s t . On t h e 2 5 t h of August A b o r i g i n a l s k e l e t a l
m a t e r i a l i n t h e Department o f Anatomy w i l l be removed f o r r e b u r i a l . On t h a t
same day t h e Museum of V i c t o r i a l o s e s i t s a u t h o r i t y a s a r e p o s i t o r y of
A b o r i g i n a l m a t e r i a l s . Both of t h e s e c o l l e c t i o n s c o n t a i n f o s s i l s k e l e t a l
m a t e r i a l of i n t e r n a t i o n a l s i g n i f i c a n c e ( N a t i o n a l Museum of V i c t o r i a c o n t a i n s
t h e Kow Swamp s e r i e s 9,000-13.000 y e a r s o l d and t h e K e i l o r cranium 12,000
y e a r s o l d ; t h e Anatomy Department c o n t a i n s t h e Coobool Creek c o l l e c t i o n
9,000-13,000 y e a r s o l d ) t h e s e s h o u l d b e p r e s e r v e d f o r f u t u r e g e n e r a t i o n s of
Australians.
S a c r i f i c e of t h i s m a t e r i a l i n t h e s e a r c h f o r s h o r t term power
o r p o l i t i c a l e x p e d i e n c y i s c r i m i n a l and s h o u l d be c o n s i d e r e d a n o f f e n s e
a g a i n s t a l l mankind.
C e r t a i n l y t h e r e i s a c a s e , which I s u p p o r t , f o r t h e
r e b u r i a l of t h e b u l k of t h e human s k e l e t a l m a t e r i a l i n V i c t o r i a n c o l l e c t i o n s .
T h e r e a r e o v e r 1200 of t h e s e and most a r e t h e r e s u l t of European induced
smallpox and m e a s e l s p l a g u e s of t h e 1 8 0 0 ' s . They a r e t h e r e s u l t of a
t e r r i b l e c a t a s t r o p h e and s h o u l d be p u t t o r e s t .
I a s k f o r y o u r i n t e r v e n t i o n on b e h a l f of t h e s e f o s s i l s k e l e t a l m a t e r i a l s .
E n s u r e t h e i r p r e s e r v a t i o n s o t h a t f u t u r e g e n e r a t i o n s may have some i d e a of
t h e p r o c e s s e s which h a v e shaped modern human p o p u l a t i o n s . Ensure t h a t t h e s e
m a t e r i a l s a r e e q u a l l y a c c e s s a b l e t o a l l p e o p l e , i r r e s p e c t i v e of t h e i r r a c i a l
background. To t h i s end I have e n c l o s e d c o p i e s o f some r e c e n t a r t i c l e s which
d e m o n s t r a t e t h e s i g n i f i c a n c e of t h e human f o s s i l s from Coobool Creek, Kov
Swamp and K e i l o r .
Yours s i n c e r e l y ,
D r . P.J. Brovn
[ U n i v e r s i t y of New England]
20 J u l y 1984
R t . Hon. B. J o n e s HHR
n i n i s t e r f o r Science
P a r l i a m e n t House
Canberra
ACT 2600
Dear M i n i s t e r ,
I am w r i t i n g t o you i n your c a p a c i t y a s M i n i s t e r f o r S c i e n c e a b o u t
t h e s e r i o u s t h r e a t t o s c i e n t i f i c knowledge of a l l p e o p l e , c r e a t e d by t h e
c u r r e n t l e g i s l a t i o n i n V i c t o r i a about A b o r i g i n a l remains.
I a p p r e c i a t e t h a t t h e d i s p o s a l of human s k e l e t a l m a t e r i a l (and we h a v e
t o r e f e r t o i t i n t h i s way b e c a u s e i t i s r a r e l y a m a t t e r o f c o m p l e t e s k e l e t o n s ) i s a n emotive a n d , t h e r e f o r e , s e n s i t i v e i s s u e . I t i s one which h a s
been f a c e d many t i m e s by a r c h a e o l o g i s t s t h r o u g h o u t t h e w o r l d . Xy own work
ie n o t p r i m a r i l y concerned w i t h t h i s m a t e r i a l , b u t t h e p r i c i p l e which I
a p p l y t o a l l p r e h i s t o r i c m a t e r i a l , whether i n A u s t r a l i a o r i n my r e s e a r c h
i n S p a i n , i s t h e same. I w i l l e l a b o r a t e t h i s l a t e r i n t h i s l e t t e r , b u t
f i r s t I b e l i e v e it would b e u s e f u l t o d i s t i g u i s h two c a t e g o r i e s o f m a t e r i a l .
d e f i n e d by l e g i s l a t i o n , and a t h i r d which d e r i v e s from a n u n d e r s t a n d i n g of
t h e evidence f o r p r e h i s t o r y .
I u n d e r s t a n d t h a t t h e V i c t o r i a n l e g i s l a t i o n d i s t i g u i s h e s between
m a t e r i a l which d a t e s from b e f o r e 1834 and t h e more r e c e n t m a t e r i a l . L e t
u s c a l l t h e s e two c l a s s e s of m a t e r i a l pre-European and modern. I would
f u r t h e r s u b d i v i d e t h e pre-European m a t e r i a l i n t o t h e r e c e n t and t h e
prehistoric.
I was s u r p r i s e d t o f i n d t h a t i t was t h e pre-European m a t e r i a l , which
i s deemed t o b e t h e p r o p e r t y of A b o r i g i n a l p e o p l e a l o n e . T h i s m a t e r i a l
i n c l u d e s both t h e r e c e n t and t h e p r e h i s t o r i c , b u t is a l l t r u l y p r e h i s t o r i c .
b e c a u s e i t d a t e s from b e f o r e t h e advent o f non-Aboriginal p e o p l e . Although
I am s u r e t h a t t h e law would n o t b e a p p l i e d i n t h i s way, i t a l l o w s t h e p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t t h e p r o p e r t y , i n c l u d i n g s k e l e t o n s , of known and named i n d i v i d u a l s
would n o t b e covered by t h e Act! I am s u r e we a l l a p p l a u d t h e p r o p e r d i s p o s a l
of t h e Crowther c o l l e c t i o n i n Tasmania b e c a u s e of t h e r e p u g n a n t c o n d i t i o n s of
i t s c o l l e c t i o n . S i m i l a r f e e l i n g s might b e a p p r o p r i a t e f o r some of t h e
V i c t o r i a n s k e l e t a l m a t e r i a l - b u t ' n o t e t h a t i t is t h e modern m a t e r i a l a b o u t
which most people would have such f e e l i n g s . Some would b e p r e p a r e d t o concede
even t h e r e c e n t pre-European m a t e r i a l , b u t I c o u l d d e f i n e a n a r c h a e o l o g i c a l
cut-off t o d i s t i n g u i s h p r e h i s t o r i c m a t e r i a l which s h o u l d b e p r e s e r v e d w i t h o u t
any q u e s t i o n . I would i n c l u d e i n t h i s p r e h i s t o r i c m a t e r i a l b o t h human
remains, and t h e remains of human c u l t u r e .
I a c c e p t t h e l o g i c t h a t t h e pre-European m a t e r i a l must b e t h e p r o p e r t y
of some p e o p l e o t h e r t h a n t h e Europeans, i n s o f a r a s i t i s t h e ' p r o p e r t y ' of
any group of p e o p l e , and i n s o f a r a s I a c c e p t t h e argument t h a t i n A u s t r a l i a n
s o c i e t y we ( t h o s e of non-Aboriginal d e s c e n t ) do t o l e r a t e t h e s e p a r a t e d e v e l opment of A b o r i g i n a l p e o p l e . But t h a t l o g i c d o e s n o t n e c e s s a r i l y a p p l y t o
a l l prehistoric material i n Australia.
P r e h i s t o r i a n s a r e c o m i t t e d t o t h e s t u d y of t h e p r e h i s t o r i c p a s t through
a r c h a e o l o g i c a l r e s e a r c h , a n d , by and l a r g e , w i t h o u t p o l i t i c a l connnitment t o
It is, of c o u r s e , a s a v a g e i r o n y t h a t many
t h e c a u s e of any c u l t u r a l group.
p r e h i s t o r i a n s have, n e v e r t h e l e s s , been committed more o r l e s s e x p l i c i t l y t o
A b o r i g i n a l p o l i t i c a l c a u s e s , and some h a v e even a l l o w e d t h e i r s y m p a t h i e s t o
I b e l i e v e t h a t i t i s from a m i x t u r e o f
colour t h e i r interpretations.
A b o r i g i n a l p o l i t i c s , and t h e commitment of some i n v o l v e d i n t h e i n v e s t i g a t i o n
o r a d m i n i s t r a t i o n of t h e p r e h i s t o r i c p a s t i n A u s t r a l i a t h a t a d a n g e r o u s
d o c t r i n e h a s emerged t h a t t h e A b o r i g i n a l p e o p l e of A u s t r a l i a h a v e t h e ' w o r l d ' s
o l d e s t continuous c u l t u r e ' .
I do n o t t h i n k t h a t t h e e v i d e n c e c a n s u p p o r t
such a view, q u i t e a p a r t from t h e i m p l i e d i n s u l t t o t h e C h i n e s e , o r o t h e r s
who might wish t o c l a i m such a n empty v i r t u e . I n d e e d , I do n o t t h i n k i t
b e a r s examination e i t h e r a s a v i r t u e , o r a s s c i e n c e . T h i s i s a s u b j e c t on
which I p u b l i s h e d b e f o r e t h e V i c t o r i a n l e g i s l a t i o n became a n i s s u e which
might a f f e c t t h e p r a c t i c e of a r c h a e o l o g i c a l r e s e a r c h , a n d , t h e r e f o r e , i t i s
n o t a n o v e l concern of mine o u t of narrow s e l f - i n t e r e s t .
When we examine t h e a r c h a e o l o g i c a l r e c o r d , of e i t h e r human s k e l e t a l
m a t e r i a l o r o f o t h e r m a t e r i a l a s p e c t s of c u l t u r e , i t i s e v i d e n t t h a t o v e r
t h e 40 000 y e a r s a n d more of human o c c u p a t i o n of t h e c o p t i n e n t t h e r e have
b e e n c h a n g e s of human c u l t u r e . I do n o t , p e r s o n a l l y , t h i n k t h a t t h e s e
c h a n g e s w e r e a s g r e a t a s i n Europe o v e r t h e same time s p a n , b u t t h a t i s
p r i m a r i l y b e c a u s e I s t a r t e d w i t h a E u r o c e n t r i c p o i n t of view. O t h e r s c o u l d
a r g u e d i f f e r e n t l y . At v e r y l e a s t , t h e p r o c e s s of o c c u p a t i o n of t h e whole
c o n t i n e n t , and a d a p t a t i o n t o d i f f e r e n t e n v i r o n m e n t s r e q u i r e d c u l t u r a l
c h a n g e s ; a t t h e t i m e of f i r s t c o l o n i z a t i o n , New Guinea and Tasmania were
a n i n t e g r a l p a r t o f t h e c o n t i n e n t and c l e a r l y t h e r e were c u l t u r a l changes
which ended up i n t h e v e r y d i f f e r e n t s o c i e t i e s which e x i s t e d i n t h o s e two
i s l a n d s i n t h e 1 8 t h c e n t u r y ; t h e i n t r o d u c t i o n of t h e d i n g o c a n n o t have been
i n d e p e n d e n t of c o n t a c t w i t h t h e world o u t s i d e A u s t r a l i a ; and t h e c o n t a c t s
w i t h Macassans c l e a r l y i n f l u e n c e d t h e c u l t u r e of Arnhem Land i n t h e r e c e n t
My p o i n t i s s i m p l y t h i s : w h i l s t we must b e l i e v e t h a t modern A b o r i g i n e s
past.
a l l d e s c e n d e d from p r e h i s t o r i c A b o r i g i n e s , i n t h e same way a s some would
a r g u e t h a t E u r o p e a n s h a v e g e n e s from N e a n d e t h a l s , we do n o t t h e r e f o r e need
t o r e g a r d a l l p r e h i s t o r i c m a t e r i a l a s t h e p r o p e r t y of t h o s e d e s c e n d a n t s .
T h e r e i s a v e r y r e a l s e n s e i n which i t i s t h e p r o p e r t y of a l l humans, j u s t
a s t h e a r c h a e o l o g y o f t h e N e a n d e r t h a l s i s . L e t me e x p l a i n t h a t b e l i e f .
As a p r e h i s t o r i a n I am committed t o t h e b e l i e f t h a t we a r e a l l r i c h e r
f o r u n d e r s t a n d i n g t h e v a r i e t y o f human b e h a v i o u r , t h e o r i g i n s of o u r own
c u l t u r e , a n d t h e p r o c e s s e s by which human s o c i e t i e s e v o l v e , and human
b e h a v i o u r c h a n g e s . With r a r e e x c e p t i o n s t h e r e a r e few a p p l i e d b e n e f i t s
( a l t h o u g h I s r a e l i s and Vanuatuans have a t t e m p t e d t o r e c o n s t r u c t i r r i g a t i o n
schemes known from a r c h a e o l o g i c a l r e s e a r c h o f p r e h i s t o r y ) , b u t we do
c o n t r i b u t e t o t h e u n d e r s t a n d i n g of t h e u n i t y and d i v e r s i t y of a l l p e o p l e .
Some would r e g a r d t h i s a s i m p o r t a n t i n t h e development of i d e o l o g y i n a
p l u r a l i s t i c s o c i e t y . My i n t e r e s t i n A u s t r a l i a n p r e h i s t o r y , and my r e a s o n
f o r coming t o work i n A u s t r a l i a e l e v e n y e a r s a g o , was t h a t t h e r e a r e unique
f e a t u r e s of t h e s i t u a t i o n i n A u s t r a l i a which e n a b l e u s t o u n d e r s t a n d t h e
p r o c e s s e s by which human s o c i e t i e s a d a p t and e v o l v e . T h i s i s b e c a u s e ,
r e l a t i v e t o o t h e r c o n t i n e n t s , t h e system h a s been r a t h e r c l o s e d . What I am
s a y i n g i s t h a t a l t h o u g h I b e l i e v e t h a t i t i s i m p o r t a n t t o s t u d y how t h i n g s
change t h r o u g h p r e h i s t o r y , we can u n d e r s t a n d b e t t e r how a s o c i e t y changes i n
a s i t u a t i o n i n which we c a n r e c o g n i z e t h e moments i n which i s o l a t i o n was
b r o k e n . What i s of i n t e r e s t i s n o t t h a t t h e r e were few changes, o r t h a t t h i s
was a c o n t i n e n t of h u n t e r s a n d g a t h e r e r s , b u t t h a t i t was i s o l a t e d . Our
knowledge of t h e s e p r o c e s s e s i s of i m p o r t a n c e t o o u r u n d e r s t a n d i n g of
o f human e v o l u t i o n , w h e t h e r we a r e A f r i c a n , A s i a n , European, A b o r i g i n a l o r
(We a r e a l l A f r i c a n i n o r i g i n i n one s e n s e . ) We can
American i n o r i g i n .
u n d e r s t a n d t h o s e p r o c e s s e s b e t t e r h e r e , b e c a u s e t h e i s o l a t i o n of A u s t r a l i a
means t h a t we c a n t r y t o i d e n t i f y t h e moments when t h e p r o c e s s was d i s t u r b e d
by o u t s i d e influence.
The problem, t h e n , c a n b e reduced t o a q u e s t i o n of i n t e r e s t s . Do we
a s humans h a v e a n i n t e r e s t i n t h e p r e h i s t o r i c p a s t which o v e r r i d e s t h e
i n t e r e s t of t h e i n d i g e n o u s i n h a b i t a n t s of t h e p l a c e where t h e e v i d e n c e of
t h a t p a s t i s found? I h a v e some e x p e r i e n c e of t h i s i n my r e s e a r c h i n Spain.
T h e r e , a l l p e o p l e a r e proud o f t h e i r h e r i t a g e of p a i n t e d c a v e s such a s
A l t a m i r a ; of t h e i r g r e a t Bronze Age which some have sought t o c l a s s i f y a s
n e a r l y a c i v i l i z a t i o n ; of t h e I b e r i a n s , whose s c r i p t h a s been t r a n s c r i b e d ,
b u t n o t t r a n s l a t e d , a n d which some c l a i m t o b e most c l o s e l y r e l a t e d t o
Basque. A l l s c h o o l k i d s know a b o u t p r e h i s t o r y , u n l i k e A u s t r a l i a n k i d s . But
t h e r e i s n o t a p a r t i c u l a r c h a u v i n i s m a b o u t i t . I was a b l e t o work t h e r e ,
and w i l l b e t h e r e a g a i n i n O c t o b e r , working i n c o l l a b o r a t i o n and by r e q u e s t
w i t h i n d i g e n o u s r e s e a r c h e r s i n V a l e n c i a , C a t a l u n y a and t h e Basque Country
( n o t e t h a t t h e s e a r e a l l Autonomous R e g i o n s ) . Even i n t h e s e t h r e e h i g h l y
p o l i t i c i s e d a r e a s t h e r e i s l i t t l e a t t e m p t t o u s e t h e p a s t a s a t o o l of
p o l i t i c a l p a r o c h i a l i s m . What i s t h e s i t u a t i o n i n V i c t o r i a , and p e r h a p s
ultimately i n Austalia generally?
H e r e , we a r e i n v e s t i g a t i n g t h e p a s t of t h e i n d i g e n o u s i n h a b i t a n t s , who
a r e , on t h e w h o l e , s t i l l g r o s s l y d i s a d v a n t a g e d e c o n o m i c a l l y , c u l t u r a l l y and
politically.
Some i n t e r e s t g r o u p s w i t h i n t h e A b o r i g i n a l c o m u n i t y s e e t h a t
p r e h i s t o r i c r e m a i n s a r e of i n t e r e s t t o non-Aboriginal p e o p l e , and, t h e r e f o r e ,
t h a t t h e y may r e l i e v e some of t h e i r p o l i t i c a l p o w e r l e s s ? e s s by a c h i e v i n g
c o n t r o l o v e r t h e remains o f t h e p a s t of t h e i r a n c e s t o r s ; It seems no more
t h a n p o l i t i c a l expediency by t h e non-Aboriginal Government of V i c t o r i a t o
p r o v i d e t h i s sop of power, w h i l e doing l i t t l e o r n o t h i n g a b o u t t h e r e a l
powerlessness and d i s a d v a n t a g e of t h e m a j o r i t y of A b o r i g i n e s . Moreover,
t h i s power i s g r a n t e d n o t j u s t t o have c o n t r o l o v e r a c c e s s t o m a t e r i a l ( I
have t o g e t p e r m i t s t o work i n S p a i n ) , b u t t o deny a c c e s s t o a l l p e o p l e f o r
e v e r t o c e r t a i n c l a s s e s of i n f o r m a t i o n a b o u t t h e p a s t of a l l people. T h i s
i s a World H e r i t a g e i s s u e of g r e a t e r s i g n i f i c a n c e t h a n t h e t h r e a t t o t h e
o t h e r Huon p i n e s , w h i l e t h e a r c h a e o l o g i c a l
F r a n k l i n , because t h e r e
m a t e r i a l s a r e unique, and w i l l n o t grow e i t h e r e l s e w h e r e o r a g a i n . Moreover,
we met r e c o g n i z e t h a t A b o r i g i n a l t r a d i t i o n a l c u l t u r e , t o which t h e V i c t o r i a n
Aborigines a p p e a l , does n o t have a n o t i o n of t h e p a s t which i s i n any way
n o t i o n of t h e p a s t , and t h a t t h a t c u l t u r e d i d n o t have a
congruent w i t h
n o t i o n of r e s p e c t f o r t h e o b j e c t s of t h e p a s t s u c h a s some V i c t o r i a n
Aborigines c l a i m now. The v e r y ideology by which t h e s e p e o p l e c l a i n c o n t r o l
w e r t h e p a s t is d e r i v e d from a p r o c e s s of a c c u l t u r a t i o n which d i v o r c e s them
ere
our
-
our
from t h e r i g h t t o e x e r c i s e power over t h a t p a s t
t h a t ideology is from
science although i t appeals f o r i t s a u t h o r i t y t o an a b o r i g i n a l t r a d i t i o n .
T h i s i s a c l e a r s i t u a t i o n i n which t h e goose w i l l be k i l l e d by t h e d e s t r u c t i o n
of i t s golden eggs. The i s s u e f o r t h e m ' i s power, and n o t t h e A b o r i g i n a l
heritage.
I n ending I would l i k e t o r e t u r n t o t h e p r i n c i p l e which g u i d e s my
r e s e a r c h e s both h e r e and i n Spain. It i s n o t a s i m p l e m a t t e r t o i d e n t i f y
t h e c u l t u r a l s t a t u s of t h e remains of t h e p a s t . The c o n t r o v e r y o v e r t h e
f i l m The L a s t Tasmanian d e r i v e d from a c o n f u s i o n of d i f f e r e n t c r i t e r i a f o r
i d e n t i f y i n g c u l t u r a l i d e n t i t y : g e n e t i c , d e s c e n t , language, m a t e r i a l c u l t u r e
or self-identification.
I n p r e h i s t o r y , s i n c e we have no genes, n o d e s c e n t
r u l e s , no language and no s e l f - i d e n t i f i c a t i o n we a r e a t an even g r e a t e r
disadvantage. We have t o recognize t h a t i n s t u d y i n g t h e changes i n p r e h i s t o r i c c u l t u r e we cannot r e g a r d c u l t u r e as i n d i v i s i b l e , and must r e c o g n i z e t h e
d i f f e r e n t i a l c o n t i n u i t y w i t h t h e p r e s e n t o f d i f f e r e n t a s p e c t s of c u l t u r e .
I n i n t e r p r e t i n g t h e p a s t we have t o d i v o r c e our i n t e r p r e t i v e models a s much
a s p o s s i b l e from s p e c i f i c c u l t u r a l c o n t e x t s . By o u r u n d e r s t a n d i n g of t h e
d i f f e r e n t s e p a r a t e e l e m e n t s of p r e h i s t o r i c c u l t u r e s we c a n r e c o n s t r u c t what
d i f f e r e n t p r e h i s t o r i c c u l t u r e s were l i k e . We r e c o g n i z e p r e h i s t o r i c c u l t u r e s
a s t h e y may b e d i f f e r e n t from modern ones. We may, t h e r e f o r e , b e p r e p a r e d t o
recognize some c o n t i n u i t y between t h e p r e h i s t o r i c p a s t and modern people.
I t does n o t imply t h a t t h o s e modern people have r i g h t s w i t h r e s p e c t t o t h e
p a s t . No r e c o n s t r u c t i o n of p r e h i s t o r i c c u l t u r e s c a n s a y a n y t h i n g a b o u t t h e
r i g h t s of people i n t h e p a s t o r about t h e r i g h t s o f p e o p l e which may be
a c q u i r e d by d e s c e n t from t h o s e p r e h i s t o r i c p e o p l e . The conceding of r i g h t s
i n t h e p r e s e n t is a p u r e l y p o l i t i c a l a c t by t h o s e who chose t o concede t h e
r i g h t s , and h a s n o t h i n g whatsoever t o do w i t h r i g h t s w i t h i n A b o r i g i n a l
culture.
The i s s u e then is a r a t h e r simple one. Do we v a l u e t h i n g s of v a l u e t o
a l l people, namely t h e s c i e n t i f i c evidence f o r t h e p r e h i s t o r i c p a s t , o r do
we concede a very s m a l l power t o a disadvantaged group w h i l s t f a i l i n g t o
s o l v e t h e i r g r e a t e r problems? I hope t h a t you a s M i n i s t e r f o r S c i e n c e can
a r g u e with t h e r e l e v a n t a u t h o r i t i e s t o defend S c i e n c e . I would welcome a n
o p p o r t u n i t y t o d i s c u s s t h e s e m a t t e r s w i t h you on your forthcoming v i s i t t o
Armidale.
Yours f a i t h f u l l y ,
Dr. I a i n Davidson
[ U n i v e r s i t y of New England]