The greatest threat to Aboriginal heritage sites is access. The National Parks and Wildlife Service draft report on the Arthur Pieman conservation area explains “Although Aboriginal heritage values are constantly influenced by natural environmental change, many sites are significantly impacted by recreational vehicle use. Countless areas have not been fully surveyed or researched. The majority of Aboriginal sites are located in sandy areas already impacted or vulnerable to vandalism, vehicle use and consequent erosion and crushing. Some middens are used as hardened areas to traverse dunes or as vehicle jumps.

Shacks have also been constructed on midden sites.”

Peter Sims, in his report Rock Art Vandalism in Tasmania lists drowning rock art (under hydro dams), destroying signage, taking rock art from its site and mounting it in museums, adding fake petroglyphs to sites, misuse of sites by cattle grazers and vehicle use as examples of vandalism. He attributes the vandalism to unsettled hostilities remaining since colonial conflict over land. He calls this “an expression of anti-Aboriginal sentiment and resentment” a view reinforced by Aaron Everett’s comment “They say racism is supposed to be decreasing, but I don’t see that. It’s just as bad now as it’s always been, maybe just more covered up.”

Community Attitudes

During the Brighton Bypass protest, several newspaper articles had the capacity for public comment. People who submit comments tend to be those who feel most strongly about the issue. However the comments were insightful regarding the more extreme views held in the community. Some were supportive, others were asking genuine questions.

Two themes were very specific to Aboriginal heritage. They were claims that the Aboriginal identity of the modern Aboriginal community is not legitimate, and that the artefacts and site are of no value (reader warning, the next section re-posts some offensive comments as examples).

Tim MacLeavy of Riverside asked on March 6 “Why does everyone refer to these people as Aboriginal when clearly they are not. They may have a small amount of DNA from the original Aboriginal tribes of Tasmania But to call these people by that name degrades the true Aboriginal race. They are no different than any other Tasmanians from mixed backgrounds and ethnicity and should be treated accordingly.”

Or Vaughn Heath of Hobart on March 6, “Not only are these aborigines white they should be thankful to the whites because if it wasn’t for the whites they wouldn’t be here they have white ancestors.”

These comments are typical of common misunderstandings born of ignorance, or perhaps as Peter Sims says, the unsettled hostilities remaining since colonial conflict over land. What non-Aboriginal people often don’t realise, is that just because someone outside the Aboriginal community has difficulty telling who is Aboriginal just by looking at people, the same is not true within the Aboriginal community, where Aboriginal identity is very strong.

The final response to the public consultation regarding the Brighton Bypass heritage site, noted that although peer reviews had indicated that the site may not be 40,000 years old (although it also may be), it is at least 24,000 years old. This somehow got translated to “The disturbing thing about the whole saga is the absolute rubbish being spouted about this site being 40 000 years old. The TAC is spreading misinformation based on a now discredited archaeological report that was so flawed it is worthless. The report carries absolutely no weight and the government knows it, which is why it approved the works” as posted by “Lonnie Geoff” on April 15.

Or “There is some question that perhaps there’s some ‘artifacts’ on this site, which appears like it was a communal rubbish dump, and which this hunter gatherer nomad society may well have left a fairly even blanket of their trash on,” posted by “dear Shane” on April 16.

“Idiocy” says on April 12“This malcontent white people are not fighting to protect a rubbish dump, they are fighting to protect 4% of a rubbish dump.”

This kind of response is not new to Aaron Everett, who said “When we try to educate the community about sites, well, you know, we cop a lot of racist rubbish. Those people who they just call a midden a tip or a rubbish dump. They can’t see why it’s important. They not educated.”

Protecting sites

Keeping sites out of public knowledge then becomes the most effective strategy for protecting them. This is why information on Aboriginal heritage is so sensitive to the Aboriginal community. Data on all known sites is kept on a database called the Tasmanian Aboriginal Site Index (TASI). Access to and use of data from the TASI is subject to strict protocols that are managed by Aboriginal Heritage Tasmania and TALSC.

Aaron Everett wants management of the TASI database by the Aboriginal community. “All that information about Aboriginal sites – a lot of that information we actually gave to them.” He is concerned that the information is not used for the purpose for which it was intended. “Some of our elders, they don’t want us to hand over any information about our culture, because it gets used against us. An example is kutalayna. We brought that to people’s attention, we allowed the archeological excavations. We thought that by letting people know how significant it is that it’d be protected. But that’s not how it went, is it?”

Clyde Mansell explains, “When you consider the fact that the biggest destruction of Aboriginal Heritage is caused by road construction and the State Government is usually the proponent for these types of activities, it is not hard to speculate why the Government doesn’t want to change the current legislation. This would interfere with their ability to issue permits to destroy.”

The Brighton bypass road was already built up to either side of the site before the final assessment process that resulted in the inevitable approval to “interfere” with Aboriginal heritage was granted. The consultations with the Aboriginal community are too late and do not give Aboriginal people a real voice. Our approach to Aboriginal heritage needs to be more systematic, and include ongoing, respectful dialogue with the Aboriginal community.

To value Aboriginal culture you don’t have to BE Aboriginal. There is a role for non-Aboriginal people to value Aboriginal culture by working with the Aboriginal community, by learning to be comfortable with our own cultural identity, and living alongside the Aboriginal community.

Sorting out the Heritage Legislation, and the next stage of land hand backs, is an opportunity to take another step in healing some of the “unsettled hostilities”. It’s an idea whose time has come.

Linda Seaborn is a non-Aboriginal woman who supports Aboriginal rights. She was a participant in the Oyster Cove land claim in 1987, the Rocky Cape land claim in 1991 and the campaign to protect kutalayna in 2010-2011.