Hi Denis,

Thanks for your thoughtful (as always) comments.  I'm aware of the
literature relating to this form of pragmatism in the disposal of pauper
remains in Australia (and elsewhere), but the (admittedly scant) evidence we
have of the practice as used at Port Arthur seems to go against that trend,
which may be one reason to use archaeological methods (at some point) to
resolve the issue.  I agree totally with your analysis of the dichotomy
between evidence-based management and something 'other', but in Tasmania
that 'other' suspiciously resembles uninformed guesswork.  PAHSMA, at least
to the best of my knowledge, supports the evidence-based approach;  the
issue is that the local consent authorities apparently do not.  PAHSMA has
an evident interest in conserving (and interpreting) convict lives (and of
course a statutory mandate), and does have concerns about future
conservation of cultural resources - including convict burials.  There is an
entrenched view within the local heritage bureaucracy that burials do not
require conservation; the existing policy focuses almost totally on surface
landscaping issues (headstones and plantings); that burials themselves don't
constitute part of the cultural story of the nation.  According to present
attitudes, buried bodies are designed to break down, and if there is
anything that managers are doing (inadvertently or otherwise) that might
accelerate that process, then so what!

If that were a dominant attitude in society then OK, I'll go hang up my
trowel, but a) there is no evidence that that is the case - the vast
majority of feedback I have received has been positive, and b) why bother
doing salvage archaeology when a cemetery is under imminent threat, hey
they'll all end up as atoms anyway.

Getting back to the project for a second, the intent isn't to actually do
the detailed forensic research for anything other than benchmarking for the
purposes assessing the taphonomic (and conservation) status of the remains
for management purposes.  Any detailed research of individuals or groups
would be the subject of someone else's research design, and I agree would
have to pass some pretty tough tests to be approved - but this could be some
way down the track - hence the need to appropriately manage (curate?) the
potential resource.

The broader issue, of course, is whether colonial burials are of
archaeological significance at all - across the board.  It's not sufficient
to base a position on the idea of things being scientifically significant
only in a rescue context, but if people feel sorry for them then they have
no scientific value.  Social values will of course vary, and may be the
pre-dominate consideration in certain situations, but I don't see any reason
for one to extinguish the other.  Achieving the right balance and conserving
total cultural significance in order to pass the baton on to future
generations is what heritage management is about (surely?).  Just trying to
help.

Thanks again for the sage counsel.  I might drop you a line.






.

-----Original Message-----
From: Denis Gojak [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Saturday, January 31, 2004 5:58 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: archaeology in historic burial grounds

Alasdair and Greg

Wow!  Two emails from me in one day - I feel like I've caught something from
Ron May.

Ultimately, and sadly, Greg's issue is about the conflict between
evidence-based resource management and management by cautious change, which
is an ideological and organisational battle, rather than one that is going
to be won by Greg marshalling a good case for the Isle of the Dead.  Unless
the change in PAHSMA is towards evidence-based management then this battle
will need to be fought every time on every single issue.

PAHSMA's roots in the Tasmanian Parks Service would be expected to give it
some basis in arguing a case on the basis of whether you have enough
information to make an informed decision about management or conservation.
Unfortunately, staff seem to be born into one of these management modes so
culture change is only likely with the turn-over of staff.  In a big agency
like a park service it is possible to get lucky but a lot harder with site
specific authorities who tend to recruit clones of themsleves.

What needs to happen, as well as continuing to collate information about
cemetery studies and their potential, is to make it an issue about
evidence-based management in a wider setting.  The natural scientists in
Australian park agencies have been reasonably successful in pushing this
agenda, so that they argue grant applications now on the basis of
quantifiable change indicators, benchmarking the resource so they can
measure change.  It may mean, in this case, paring down the research design
from showing the potential for forensics to one of making a case for getting
samples that can tell us useful things about the site and the condition of
the remains and repeating that at yearly intervals to determine whether the
rate of decay is acceptable.  If the resource is not under threat then that
makes the case for digging up and investigating less compelling or urgent,
but it does focus on PAHSMA's role of long-term conservation of the
resource.

I'm not sure whether its a particularly Port Arthur thing but there is a
general feeling among many Australians about letting convicts who had a
pretty tough life, after being sent to Australia for allegedly stealing
three buttons or a loaf of bread, to rest in piece.  That is probably what
is behind the news reporting.  they don't seem to have a problem of diging
them up when cemeteries are buing disturbed for new hospitals or blocks of
apartments or even parks where dogs can shit everywhere, but letting
scientists dig them up so they can measure their heads is all a bit too
Truganini in 2004.

Denis

- - - - - - - - - - - - -
Denis Gojak
Banksia Heritage + Archaeology
PO Box 457
Newtown NSW 2042
Australia

W    02 9558 0220
F     02 9558 4120
M    0413 030 293
E    [log in to unmask]