Dynamic heritage and static maps: A comment on the critical distinction between identifying and assessing ‘re-inscribed’ indigenous heritage places in Australian heritage practice

Abstract

Developers, the courts and consent agencies are struggling to come to terms with Indigenous heritage places that embody evolving heritage values – places that some anthropologists describe by reference to a process of ‘re-inscription’. In an attempt to predict how the heritage profession will respond to these developments, this article looks back at a comparable case study that involved a ‘re-inscribed’ Indigenous landscape in NSW. It concludes that, in spite of criticisms of commercial heritage consultants made by some theoreticians embedded in academia, the tools for managing such sites have been developed by heritage practitioners over many years, but are commonly inconsistently or poorly applied, if they are applied at all.