Advertisement

Reclaiming Rock Art: Descendant Community Investment in Australian and New Zealand Patrimony

  • Kristin M. BarryEmail author
Chapter
Part of the One World Archaeology book series (WORLDARCH)

Abstract

Abstract visual culture, such as pictographs and petroglyphs can be difficult to interpret and contextualize for the general public, particularly as they hold significant religious or cultural value associated with the peoples who created them. Descendant communities, therefore, can play a prominent and important role in the interpretation, by reinforcing the meaning and significance behind the imagery as part of broader cultural movements or traditions. In New Zealand and Australia, two projects designed and managed by indigenous communities are helping to engage the public not only in an understanding of local and national rock art, but in its continuing conservation. The Te Ana Māori Rock Art Center in Timaru, New Zealand, and the Brambuk Aboriginal Cultural Center in Halls Gap, Australia both rely on the active investment of their respective indigenous communities to promote the wellbeing of heritage material and the continued conversation surrounding its creation. Also addressing issues of racism, colonization, and the forced removal of indigenous populations from their heritage landscapes, the projects interpret the historical material alongside modern ideas and perspectives, helping to initiate connections between the past and present.

Keywords

Rock art Heritage interpretation Community engagement Descendant communities 

References

  1. Ali, S. (2009). Indigenous cultural tourism at the Grampians: Benchmarking visitor satisfaction at Brambuk—The National Parks and Cultural Center. Queensland: CRC for Sustainable Tourism Pty Ltd.Google Scholar
  2. Altman, J. C. (1991). Reply to Parsons. Annals of Tourism Research, 18(2), 317–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Altman, J. C., & Finlayson, J. (1993). Aborigines, tourism and sustainable development. The Journal of Tourism Studies, 26, 1–20.Google Scholar
  4. Amoamo, M., & Thompson, A. (2011). (Re)imagining Maori tourism: Representation and cultural hybridity in postcolonial New Zealand. Tourist Studies, 10(1), 35–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Barry, K. (2014). Framing the Ancients: A Global Study of Archaeological and Historic Site Interpretation. Doctoral Dissertation, The Pennsylvania State University.Google Scholar
  6. Bunten, A., & Graburn, N. (2009). Guest editorial: Current issues in indigenous tourism. London Journal of Tourism, Sport, and Creative Industries, 2, 102–111.Google Scholar
  7. Carr, A., Ruhanen, L., & Whitford, M. (2016). Indigenous tourism: The challenges and opportunities for sustainable tourism. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 24(8–9), 1067–1079.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Clark, I. (2001). Rock art sites in Victoria, Australia: A management history framework. Unpublished paper, University of Ballarat.Google Scholar
  9. Clark, I. (2009). Naming sites: Names as management tools in indigenous tourism sites—An Australian case study. Tourism Management, 30, 109–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Clark, I., Hercus, L., & Kostanski, L. (2014). Indigenous and minority placenames: Australian and international perspectives. Canberra: Australian National University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Davidson, J. (1991, December). Brambuk, Capital of Gariwerd. Australia Society, 32–35.Google Scholar
  12. Deacon, J. (1995). Promotion of a neglected heritage at Stone Age sites in the Western Caps, South Africa. Conservation and Management of Archaeological Sites, 1, 75–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Deacon, J. (2006). Rock Art Conservation and Tourism. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, 13(4), 376–396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Ferguson, S. (1990). Brambuk Cultural Center. Architectural Resource Package, 4, 1–3.Google Scholar
  15. Fomison, A. (2013). Maori Rock Art in North Otago and South Caterbury: A guide to the interpretation of its styles and subject matter. In D. Flood (Ed.), Records, Canterbury Museum (Vol. 27, pp. 47–96). Christchurch: Canterbury Museum.Google Scholar
  16. Gale, F., & Gillen, J. (1987, April). Visitor survey of Aboriginal art sites within and adjacent to Grampians National Park (Preliminary Report).Google Scholar
  17. Gibbs, M. (2009). Using restorative justice to resolve historical injustices of Indigenous peoples. Contemporary Justice Review, 12(1), 45–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Grampians National Park. (n.d.). About Brambuk. Brambuk: The National Park & Cultural Center.Google Scholar
  19. Johnston, A. (2006). Is the sacred for sale: Tourism and Indigenous peoples. Sterling: Earthscan.Google Scholar
  20. Loubser, J. (2001). Management planning for conservation. In D. Whitley (Ed.), Handbook of rock art research (pp. 80–115). Walnut Creek: Altamira.Google Scholar
  21. Neich, R. (1994). Painted histories: Early Maori figurative painting. Auckland: Auckland University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Parsons, M. (1991). Altman’s tourism dilemmas. Annals of Tourism Research, 18(2), 315–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Sciascia, A. (2012). Iwi exhibition at Te Papa: A Ngāi Tahu perspective. Unpublished dissertation, Victorian University of Wellington.Google Scholar
  24. Scrimgeous, F., & Iremonger, C. (2004). Maori sustainable economic development in New Zealand: Indigenous practices for the quadruple bottom line. Hamilton: Univeristy of Waikato.Google Scholar
  25. Spark, C. (2002). Brambuk Living Cultural Center. Tourist Studies, 2(1), 23–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Trotter, M., & McCullouch, B. (1971). Prehistoric rock art of New Zealand. Sydney: A. H. & A. W. Reed.Google Scholar
  27. Wilkie, B. (2015). This continent of smoke. Meanjin Quarterly, p. 1.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of ArchitectureBall State UniversityMuncieUSA

Personalised recommendations