First Nations Cultural Heritage: Country, Places and Landscapes

This Acumen Note on First Nations Country, Places and Landscapes, is intended to assist readers in understanding the cultural, spiritual, social and legislative dimensions of First Nations Cultural Heritage. Understanding these matters is important for recognising the enduring relationships that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples have with Country, Cultural Landscapes and places of significance, and the responsibilities associated with their care, protection and management.

The note provides definitions of 'Country' and 'Cultural Landscape' in the context of First Nations Peoples in Australia; and the intangible spiritual beliefs and personal relationality with such places that First Nations Peoples have had and may continue to have.

It also examines how, under traditional principles of social organisation, such places and landscapes are under the care or custodianship of particular First Nations individuals or groups. The various legislative acts about Cultural Heritage, of the local, state and federal governments are outlined, together with the cultural place and landscape recording processes used to identify and protect places of significance.

This note includes cultural place and landscape recording using accurate mapping techniques, carried out by relevant First Nations owner or custodial groups and their professional agents (anthropologists, archaeologists, historians), which is discussed as a necessary technical process in registering such places for protection under the particular government acts. 

The discussion extends beyond traditional Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander geography, and to places established in the colonial and post-colonial (post 1901) eras, for which Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples have significant cultural and/or historical connections and attachments. These too, can be registered as places of heritage value and significance.

The note also considers the removal of tangible cultural objects from their original heritage places, and the role of Traditional Owners in resuming the management, retrieval, storage and control of such items from the various colonial and post-colonial institutions and collectors that have previously played a role in detaching such items from their relevant Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people-place connections.

Page contents:

• Definitions of Country and Cultural Heritage
• Traditional Owners and Custodians of First Nations Sites and Places
• Cultural Heritage Acts
• Cultural Heritage Recording
• Colonial and Post Colonial Sites in Landscapes
• Cultural Heritage that has been Removed
• Indigenous Cultural Heritage Legislation in Australia
• Additional References

Definitions of country and cultural heritage

Defining Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander cultural heritage must be prefaced by an understanding of Country. Country is broadly understood as a holistic worldview that incorporates human, non-human and all the complex systems that connect them. Country relates to First Nations Peoples’ cultural groups and the places to which they belong. It is understood in cultural, spiritual and tangible ways. An understanding of Country includes intangible ideas about place, Law, lore, language, customs, spirit, cultural practice, identity and kin. It is very important to recognise that First Nations Peoples’ ‘understanding of Country’ differs between groups, individuals and contexts. Other key definitions are included for site, place, cultural site, cultural place, cultural landscape, and linear cultural landscape (travel route).[1]

From a First Nations perspective at an elementary level, Country involves a range of types of sites. These types of sites include, among others, campsites, resource places, freshwater sources, material processing sites, dance grounds, ceremonial grounds, initiation grounds, dispute resolution sites, and body disposal sites. Many of these sites, even though they may no longer be used, contain traces of the physical activities that once occurred in them, which can be termed tangible cultural heritage sites. 

Another category of sites comprises intangible heritage, where the properties of place are not visible. These properties include place names, associated knowledge about their origin or use, creation stories, specific songs and designs, ritual procedures, totemic affiliations, memories of stories of past usage and events. There are even further intangible properties in accordance with First Nations belief systems which include beliefs about the presence of unseen spiritual entities and energies left behind at certain places, by Ancestral Beings and their events.

When an aggregate of these sites occurs in the landscape, it is referred to as a cultural landscape. When such an aggregate occurs in a linear configuration, it can be referred to as a cultural landscape corridor. Such corridors typically follow water courses, ridgelines, human travel paths and Ancestral travel paths.

International law, specifically Article 31 of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), recognises the right of Indigenous Peoples to ‘maintain, control, protect and develop their cultural heritage, traditional knowledge and traditional cultural expressions...’[2] 

traditional owners and custodians of first nations sites and places

First Nations Peoples have responsibilities to care for their Country. These are often called Traditional Owners or Traditional Custodians. A Traditional Owner is a First Nations person who is a member of a local descent group who have certain rights and responsibilities in relation to a tract of land or area of sea. Groups of Traditional Owners can bring a native title claim in court to have their interests and rights recognised. They are also sometimes referred to as Native Title Holders if they have been part of a Native Title Claim (under the Native Title Act 1993), which has been granted or determined, even if they have modest knowledge of their Country.

Native Title is the name Australian law gives to traditional ownership of land and waters that have always belonged to First Nations Peoples according to their traditions, laws and customs. Native title has been described as a "bundle of rights" in relation to land. It may include such rights as camping, performing ceremony, etc. If native title is granted or determined, the associated rights are decided on a case-by-case basis. They only sometimes include freehold title. The Commonwealth Native Title Act 1993 sets out how native title rights are to be recognised and protected. 

The National Native Title Tribunal is an online register of all Native Title Claims which are in process or have been granted/determined. You can search for Native Title Holders on this link https://www.nntt.gov.au/Pages/Home-Page.aspx The Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act was passed by the federal parliament in 1976. It was the first legislation that enabled First Nations Peoples to claim land rights for Country where traditional ownership could be proven. Land rights schemes now exist in the Northern Territory, New South Wales, Queensland including the Torres Strait Islands, Victoria, South Australia and Tasmania. The contents of these legislations vary across different states and territories.

Cultural heritage acts

Cultural heritage acts have been established by Commonwealth, State and Local authorities. It is the responsibility of architects to ascertain which acts are relevant to their location of interest and familiarise themselves with their requirements. The contents of these acts will vary across different states and regions. They will contain legal requirements about the recording and registration of cultural heritage places and landscapes. They may also contain penalties for the damage of such places and landscapes including the upper limits of fines. There may also be some sort of government management regimes for sites and landscapes. For example, in the Northern Territory there is the Aboriginal Areas Protection Authority (AAPA), a government agency, which maintain records about sacred sites, manages any protections of those sites, assesses applications for works on or near the sites and investigates and prosecutes offences against sacred sites. Any development application in the Northern Territory should include a review with the AAPA to ensure that it is not impacting on sacred sites and other important areas.

Groups of First Nations Traditional Owners and Custodians who assert rights in their cultural heritage may or may not agree with the different contents of these acts. Architects will need to understand such views to implement any of their proposals and form strategies of reconciliation or resolution. A useful overview of different cultural heritage acts in Australia can be found in this article on Protecting Indigenous Cultural Heritage https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_departments/Parliamentary_Library/Research/Briefing_Book/47th_Parliament/ProtectingIndigenousCulturalHeritage

Cultural heritage recording

First Nations authorities, when carrying out cultural heritage surveys, require professional recording processes to be undertaken. Cultural heritage surveys may be required as part of the due diligence associated with a project or development. Typically, the tangible heritage is recorded by an archaeologist and the intangible heritage is recorded by an anthropologist. Their reports must outline precise locations for places or landscapes to be protected and provide a sense of the significance of the heritage sites and their connection back to Traditional Owners and Custodians. Such a report may be divided into unrestricted and restricted access components. It may also be divided into gender in place specific male and female knowledge. Where there is a gender division of cultural heritage properties, there may be a need for both male and female anthropologists and/or archaeologists to carry out this work. These consultants need to have appropriate professional qualifications, carry professional insurances (indemnity, public liability, workplace safety), and be prepared to go to court as an expert witness if any of the matters are challenged legally.

The recording of site and landscapes must also be done using maps or mapping techniques. The various cultural heritage maps usually require the boundary to be fixed around a site or landscape using polygonal boundaries with apexes defined by GPS readings. In addition, the recording of intangible heritage is usually done using interviews, videography and film, and photography, and accompanies the mapping data.

Various cultural heritage acts often prescribe that their respective government authorities maintain some sort of register of cultural heritage sites. These are typically required to be submitted by recording agents in accordance with prescribed templates. For example, in Queensland there is the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Cultural Heritage Database and Register, which First Nations Peoples can make submissions to, and which has a search function that reflects the requirements of the Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Act 2003 (Qld) and the Torres Strait Islander Cultural Heritage Act 2003 (Qld). Before undertaking any project development, it is good practice to request a search of the register and understand any conditions associated with a particular area of land. It is important to note that local First Nations organisations also maintain their own registers so they can control the information that may be contained in site reports including sensitive and non-sensitive material. If local First Nations group do not have such a register, it is the duty of the recording agent to assist them to set one up.

All cultural heritage assessments and recording should be carried out with authorised representatives from local First Nations groups who are Traditional Owners or Custodians of the places concerned.

Colonial and Post Colonial Sites in Landscapes

In addition to the sites and landscapes in the pre-colonial geography of First Nations Peoples, there are further places of cultural heritage significance generated from the post-colonial and colonial periods. These are a product of processes of cultural change and imposed legislations over the lives of First Nations Peoples, as well as places of cultural adaptation in the new societies.

Such sites can include massacre sites, colonial battle sites, execution sites, routes of protest marches, hiding places, institutional environments such as missions, government removal centres, boys’ and girls’ homes, and incarceration sites. In more contemporary times, places of cultural adaptation may include new residential centres, cultural centres, museums, new ceremonial sites, galleries, archives, keeping places, community meeting centres, other meeting places, social clubs, hotels and town halls, and places of employment.

When engaging with First Nations Peoples on a project it is essential to understand their history and connection to place in the colonial and post colonial eras. This understanding will inform First Nations Peoples view of and attachment to a place.

Cultural Heritage that has been Removed

Cultural heritage items that may have been removed from Country can include items such as photographs, objects and human remains. These items may be held in museums, keeping places, private collections or by local Traditional Owners. Across the world there are thousands of First Nations objects that have been removed from Country and now reside in institutional settings. Depending on where the items are, affects how they can be managed. Objects held in museum collections may have a range of access restrictions and access to items will need to involve any First Nations advisory groups attached to the museum and consultation with Traditional Owners and museum curators. 

Depending on the value and origin, objects need to be treated on a one-by-one basis, Traditional Owners may need certain objects to be returned to Country. Skeletal material is an example of this and is extremely sensitive. Most Traditional Owners will want skeletal material to return to Country or designated storage spaces they have chosen. This includes skeletal material in overseas collections. It may take years of discussion and negotiation for skeletal material to be returned to Country and it can be a very emotional process for Traditional Owners and descendants.

In the case of photos, videos and audio recordings, depending on their ownership, copies may be made and shared between different institutions and Traditional Owners. However, there may be a requirement to gain permission from both the photographer and/or the people/places in the photos if they contain people or places of significance. Always check before sharing photos.

Indigenous Cultural Heritage Legislation in Australia

Additional References

Architects Accreditation Council of Australia 2021.     National Standard of Competency for Architects: Explanatory Notes and Definitions. Canberra: AACA.

Greenop, K. & Memmott, P. 2007  “Urban Aboriginal Place Values in Australian Metropolitan Cities: The Case Study of Brisbane”, in Miller, C. & Roche, M. (eds) Past Matters: Heritage and Planning History – Case Studies from the Pacific Rim, Cambridge Scholars Publishing, Newcastle, U.K., pp.213-245.

Greenop, K. and Memmott, P. 2013 “Aboriginal Identity and Place in the Intercultural Settings of Metropolitan Australia” in Peters, E.J. and Andersen, C. (eds.). Indigenous in the City: Contemporary Identities and Cultural Innovation. UBC Press, Vancouver, pp.256-281

Memmott, P. and Long, S.  1998  “The Significance of Indigenous Place Knowledge to Australian Cultural Heritage” in Indigenous Law Bulletin, Issue 16, Vol 4, November, pp. 9-13.

Memmott, P. and Long, S. 2002 “Place Theory and Place Maintenance in Indigenous Australia” in Urban Policy and Research, No. 1, Vol. 20, March, pp. 39-56

Memmott, P. 2022. Gunyah, Goondie + Wurley: Aboriginal Architecture of Australia. Brisbane: University of Queensland Press.

United Nations 2007. United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. New York: United Nations.

This note was kindly authored by Dr Paul Memmott and Dr Shaneen Fantin