Implementing Cultural Heritage Management Plans (CHMPs)

Duty of Care is a phrase often bandied about in many industries but what it means in terms of Cultural Heritage and mining or exploration is still a bit grey and fuzzy, particularly in Queensland, where unlike NSW, where there are no clear protocols regarding finds of significance. Ignoring, burying or bulldozing isnt the answer either several mining and energy companies have already been successfully fined under the Acts and this has cost a fortune not necessarily in terms of money, but certainly in terms of time and community stakes. The key priority is to consult and communicate with Traditional Owners as well as all other involved stakeholders. This may include pastoral holders and other lease holders, e.g. if a fence needs to be erected it must not interfere with farming activities or block access routes. The basic principles to be considered are: do no harm and to preserve items leaving things in situ where possible. It all boils down to either moving the mining activity around the site or moving the objects from the area, bearing in mind that the mitigating action should not draw attention object or site of significance in accordance with Cultural concepts. CHMPs should establish what agreed actions are to be taken, if these actions will be monitored, and what will happen once mining activities cease. The following are some case studies which further demonstrate these principles: CASE STUDY 1 Situation: A road being constructed through granite country came close to some rock art which was found under a rock ledge. Risk Management Assessment: Blasting could potentially damage the rock surface; the rock ledge could collapse; dust from vehicles and blasting could damage the artwork. Solution: The road would still proceed as the rock art was not facing or visible from the proposed road. During blasting and construction in the area, the site was shored up with sandbags as a protective measure. Once the road had been established the sandbags were removed CASE STUDY 2 Situation: With the reopening of a mine, the manager wanted to construct a Turkey Nest or pond alongside the pit. However, this area was already known as a site of significance

and had been previously fenced off. The area was an occupational site containing an artefact scatter and some hearth places. Risk Management Assessment: Artefacts could be damaged during construction and the integrity of the hearth places lost. Solution: There were two possible solutions for this project. The first was to remove the artefacts, carefully logging, photographing, and recording each item. These artefacts could then be repatriated or kept in a Keeping Place and used for training purposes. The simple solution for the hearthstones would be to place a dam liner in the Turkey Nest on top of these stones. The benefit being that the hearths would remain in situ, protected by the liner and once mining ceased, the CHMP would include restorative instructions to dismantle the Turkey Nest and return all artefacts back to site. The second solution would be to again remove the artefact scatter but with the hearthstones - record, map and remove them individually and rebuild them stone by stone to another agreed site. CASE STUDY 3 Situation: During a Cultural Clearance for a proposed power water corridor to a mine, a battle site was discovered with 18 graves. In accordance with the Criminal Code Act 1899, any human remains found are automatically deemed a crime site. The police and the Department for Environmental Resource Management (DERM) were called in as well as Traditional Owners and an archaeologist. After examining the exposed graves, all parties agreed that they were Indigenous remains. The extraordinarily heavy floods of 2008 were most likely responsible for exposing these gravesites. Risk Management Assessment: Putting through the water pipes, pylons and road would certainly damage this sacred site. Solution: The graves were initially restored by the Traditional Owners and the archaeologist. The pipeline, pylons and access road were diverted by 200 metres from the site. Following consultations with the Traditional Owners and field staff, it was decided to place a bund in an arc shape around the top of the grave sites to prevent further water damage. The site was then fenced off to prevent damage from fauna and also constructed to blend in with the look of local pastoral fencing. By Fay Agee
B. Soc. Sc. (Hons Archaeology) Dip. Business Cert IV TAA)

For further information call 040 212 6542 or (07) 4057 4042