Photo-excess : two paradigms of archaeological photography

Discovering ‘photo-excess’: what difference does digital photography bring to the archaeological process, and does this difference constitute a paradigm shift from the traditional film model? Using reflexive practice, the contribution that digital photography has made to the archaeological process is explored. The themes presented in the photographs and exegesis combine visual exploration and original research to examine the role and place of archaeological photography in both a contemporary and an historical context. In contrasting the development of film-based photography of archaeology undertaken in the Eastern Mediterranean during the early 1900s with contemporary digital photography, this exegesis and creative work explores both the synergies and differences of the two photographic methods in archaeology. I introduce the term ‘photo-excess’ to describe the new role that digital photography plays in archaeological practice as compared to film, and demonstrate this difference through my creative work. At the turn of the 20th century, photography was affirmed as the major instrument for visual recording of an archaeological excavation. The combination of archaeological methods and photographic techniques from that era formed an approach to archaeological documentation and recording that was formalised by William Matthews Flinders Petrie in 1904. In this thesis I propose that Petrie became the father of modern archaeological photography through his work, and in recognition of his contribution I refer to his method as the ‘Petrie Paradigm’. Digital photography has made possible a quantum leap in the volume, quality and immediacy of visual data available to the user. Further, through the creative process, digital archaeological photography may provide visual information that exceeds the archaeologist’s original research questions, so that the digital image may sometimes exceed its primary role as a recording device. In such cases it may become the starting point for new research due to its potential photo-excess. I propose this as an emerging paradigm for archaeological photography.

People and their past : is 'community archaeology’ the future?

This thesis looks at how ‘community archaeology’ ideals may influence an inclusive approach to Indigenous heritage management, ensuring Indigenous community power over processes to identify both past and present values of Country. Community archaeology was acclaimed by research archaeologists over a decade ago as a distinctive approach with its own set of practices to incorporate the local community’s perspectives of its past and current associations with place. A core feature of this approach in Australia is the major role the Indigenous community has in decisions about its heritage. Concurrently, considerable concern was being expressed that Indigenous heritage was not sufficiently addressed in environmental impact assessment processes ahead of development. Seen as absent from the process was the inclusion of Indigenous knowledge about both the pre- and post-contact story as well as any scientific advance in understanding an area’s Indigenous history. This research examines these contrasting perspectives seeking to understand the ideals of community archaeology and its potential to value all aspects of Indigenous heritage and so benefit the relevant community. The ideals of community archaeology build on past community collaborations in Australia and also respond to more recent societal recognition of Indigenous rights, reflected in more ethically inclusive planning and heritage statutes. Indigenous communities expressed the view that current systems are still not meeting these policy commitments to give them control over their heritage. This research has examined the on-the-ground reality of heritage work on the outskirts of Canberra and Melbourne. The case studies compare Victorian and ACT heritage management processes across community partnerships with public land managers, and examine how pre-development surveys operate. I conclude that considerable potential for achieving community archaeology ideals exists, and that they are occasionally partially realised, however barriers continue. In essence, the archaeological model persists despite a community archaeology approach requiring a wider set of skills to ensure a comprehensive engagement with an Indigenous community. Other obstacles in the current Indigenous heritage management system include a lack of knowledge and communication about national standards for heritage processes in government agencies and heritage consultants; the administrative framework that can result in inertia or silos between relevant agencies; and funding timeframes that limit possibilities for long-term strategic programs for early identification and management planning for Indigenous heritage. Also, Indigenous communities have varying levels of authority to speak for how their heritage should be managed, yet may not have the resources to do so. This thesis suggests ways to breach these barriers to achieve more inclusive Indigenous heritage management based on community archaeology principles. Policies for a greater acknowledgement of the Indigenous community’s authority to speak for Country; processes that enable and early and comprehensive ‘mapping’ of Country, and long-term resourcing of communities, may have been promised before. In this research I suggest ways to realise such goals.