Strange bedfellows: Green Hill Fort, archaeology and tourism

Green Hill Fort, Thursday Islalld was constructed between 1891-1893 to defend the Australian colonies against a feared Russian invasion. It retained an operational role until the 1920.'1 and played a minor role in World /t'ar 2. From 1954 to 1993 the site, but not the facilities, was used as a weather station. More recently it has been home ofthe Ton-es Strait Historical Society and Museum Association museum. It is a major attraction during the tourist season and an important local icon. For archaeologists it has sign~ficance as a relatively intact nineteenth-century military installation. Two 'Centenary of Federation' grants have proVided the impetus to undertake conservation and presentation works involving various task -spec~fic, archaeological activities. At the management level archaeologists play the lead role in the project. The project has demonstrated the value oJarchaeology and tourism joining forces. The danger ofa 'theme park 'presentation has been avoided. Technical accuracy and careful site planning has ensured a high degree ofaccuracy is retained. Provided these qualities can be assured then, it is argued, there is an opportunity for archaeology to be a majOl; long-term beneficiary. But to achieve that, the discipline must move from being entrenched in its academic mould and become Jar more receptive to the broader needs ofthe twentyfirst century.

The voice of a child: Archaeological limitations in interpretive stories

In the archaeological record, it seems children are rarely seen. If they are, children are referred to, to explain symbolism, rituals, past lifeways, and behavior of a society or culture rather than the past lifeways of children and their relationship to family and society. This lack of investigation suffers in all forms of archaeological research. However, this bias appears to be unconscious rather than intentionally applied. Archaeology, generally, involves the nameless and faceless rather than the individual. The archaeological signature of children appears minimal. It is adults, or more succinctly, society that generates material remains. This paper discusses interpretation of sites within the context of different archaeologies, thereby providing researchers with information that may not usually be considered when approaching interpretation of sites to visitors.

Tempus: Barriers, Borders, Boundaries: Proceedings of the 2001 Australian Archaeological Association Annual Conference

The conference aimed to provide a forum for the exploration of barriers, borders and boundaries in Australian archaeological methods and practice, frameworks of interpretation and epistemological structures. Sessions were designed to have broad appeal to a range of archaeological stakeholders including academics, consultants, Indigenous peoples, students, cultural heritage managers and policy formulators.