A puzzle with 1,000 pieces

As a discipline, Australian archaeology is relatively young, and this opportunity to reflect on the past 50 years covers almost the entire history of the discipline as an academic profession. There have been many important developments in the techniques we apply, the questions we ask of the record, how we approach our investigations, and the ways in which we work together with the communities whose heritage we study. Here, I have chosen to focus this reflection on a specific issue that I think the Australian archaeological community can—and should—tackle during the next 50 years.

With respect to development-driven archaeology, which I will refer to as cultural heritage management archaeology, most of us are familiar with the phrase ‘death by 1,000 cuts’. If you’ve not heard this phrase previously, it’s not difficult to infer the relevance. Over time, many small development projects impact the landscape and damage the tangible cultural heritage contained within it, and this irreversible loss accumulates until little or no tangible heritage remains. I, and others, have written about this cumulative impact in the context of heritage management investigations because it is something that has not yet been addressed adequately, by heritage legislation or archaeological practice (e.g. Smith et al. 2019). The focus of this reflection is the flip side of the coin: the numerous cultural heritage management investigations that generate vast quantities of archaeological data. There is a significant challenge in bringing together the results of these many individual cultural heritage management investigations to create broader narratives. This issue has been raised previously but remains unresolved, particularly with respect to Aboriginal archaeology.

To be clear, protecting heritage is the preferred outcome for cultural heritage management archaeology, but in circumstances where development impacts are approved and archaeological investigations and/or salvage programs are carried out, we need to implement approaches that result in meaningful contributions to broad narratives. Currently, this potential is unrealised. Each individual cultural heritage management investigation can be thought about as a piece of the puzzle but, currently, the pieces don’t fit together well because they’ve been shaped by different people with different modes of practice, priorities and specialisations, and often under time constraints which don’t allow consideration of how the data from one investigation link to the data generated from others.

The scale of the opportunity

With few exceptions, archaeological investigations undertaken in research/academic contexts do better at considering a big picture. In particular, long-term regional studies usually identify and address research questions that reveal insights into the activities undertaken in that region at different times, as well as how these relate to the continental story. In terms of compiling broad-scale datasets, dating results have been a major focus, with researchers undertaking this important work at State and continental levels (e.g. Kurpiel et al. 2021; Saktura et al. 2023). However, these types of studies comprise only a small proportion of the work undertaken by Australian archaeologists.

When students come to our university open days, we are pleased to reassure them—and their parents—that employment opportunities for qualified archaeologists are abundant. In fact, there are archaeological excavations happening every day! When we explain that this work is closely linked to development activities, quizzical looks are replaced by nods of understanding—most people are aware that development impacts are perpetual but haven’t considered the impact that this has on heritage.

The amount of cultural heritage management archaeology in Australia is difficult to quantify, and my own perspective on this is heavily influenced by the Victorian state context, but it’s clear that the investment in cultural heritage management archaeology is enormous. From the time the current heritage legislation commenced in Victoria in 2007 until now, an average of >500 Cultural Heritage Management Plans have been commenced per year. If these averaged a cost of $50,000 (a conservative estimate) the total investment would be $425 m. In addition, some of these lead to salvage programs which tend to be much more expensive, with some individual project costs exceeding $1 m. If other States and Territories complete even half this amount of heritage work, we would be looking at a minimum annual investment of $1.9b without even considering salvage programs. Historical archaeological projects from this period, probably numbering over 1,000, would also need to be added to these very basic estimates, and $1 m projects also take place in this realm. By way of comparison, during the same period, the Australian Research Council funded $160 m of research under the primary field of research code for Archaeology (not necessarily Aboriginal archaeology, or even Australian archaeology).

Admittedly, cultural heritage management projects have constraints that research projects do not. For example, the study area is determined by the proposed location of development, rather than considerations relating to research questions. Nevertheless, the sheer volume of archaeological work being undertaken in this context presents a clear opportunity for expanding our knowledge of the past, if the data generated can be put to good use.

Synthesising results

As we develop more and more exciting new scientific techniques, we collect more and more data; our areas of specialisation narrow, and research publications address increasingly narrow questions. I’ve written previously about issues with data quality, compatibility, and access, and don’t have space to revisit these ideas here (Kurpiel 2021). However, another critical obstacle to synthesis lies in the absence of a research agenda, which is needed to shape the focus of our investigations and determine which data we collect and the methods we use to collect them. One compromise is to set a standard list of attributes for everyone to record, which has been attempted in many contexts, but if this approach is not informed by a research agenda and/or not applied as intended, it will not be effective in contributing to broader narratives.

So, how do we know what research questions to ask? Clearly, we need to consider how we, as archaeologists, can work with First Nations communities to leverage the investment being made in cultural heritage management archaeology to address questions in which they are interested. We can work together with communities to consider and make use of the explanatory potential of the data we generate in the context of cultural heritage management archaeology. The presentation of results needs to move beyond description and/or the presentation of narrow or site-specific interpretations. Even if we can’t address big picture questions in each individual cultural heritage management report, nor anticipate the ways in which research priorities may change over time, basic questions that feed into different theoretical and analytical frameworks can contribute substantially to the discipline’s meta-narratives. Essentially, if cultural heritage management investigations are undertaken with thorough, high-quality, consistent approaches to data collection and reporting, and if they present interpretations that are guided by well-thought-out, overarching research questions, the next 50 years will see development-driven archaeology contribute enormously to what First Nations communities and others want to know about the past.

With respect to Aboriginal archaeology, it is not up to archaeologists to determine what the research priorities are, or what stories need to be told, although we can contribute ideas and experience when invited. As First Nations communities become increasingly well positioned to set this agenda, we can design our projects to address topics that are of most interest to them, and we can ensure full datasets are provided to communities for them to archive and manage access appropriately; a task that will require appropriate resourcing. Most of this is already happening in the context of dedicated research projects, but in the next 50 years, there is potential for archaeologists working in the private sector to make an enormous and meaningful contribution. We can also use industry funding to undertake research projects that produce outcomes beyond compliance requirements. If we don’t take on this challenge, we will witness the devastating cumulative loss of tangible cultural heritage, and leave First Nations communities without even the stories that are so frequently promised in return.

Acknowledgements

In writing this reflection, I wish to acknowledge the many First Nations friends and colleagues I have worked with over the years, as well as my Australian archaeology mentors, David Frankel, Susan Lawrence and especially Nicola Stern, who have always had an eye on what they can contribute to the big picture.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.