What is the Difference Between Cultural Mapping and Heritage Surveys?
For over 65,000 years, Indigenous Australian knowledge and practices have been tied to place. Aboriginal people have a deep connection with Country and with that, a responsibility of custodianship. This connection exists in both tangible and intangible forms. Tangible expressions of culture, like rock art, can be easily identified and understood through a Western lens. But there is also an entire world of intangible cultural expressions—meanings and connections to Country that don’t always leave physical traces. What might seem like an empty landscape to the average observer is, in reality, rich with history. And it is our Elders who are the custodians of this data. Today, cultural mapping and heritage surveys are essential tools for capturing and conveying these connections. While they are closely related, there are distinct differences.
What is Cultural Mapping?
Cultural mapping is a holistic means of identifying, documenting and recording cultural resources, assets and knowledge of a particular person, community and their connection to Country. It is a topic we have explored in great detail in previous blogs, so for a more robust understanding of cultural mapping, we encourage you to give them a read:
What is a Heritage Survey?
Heritage surveys, like cultural mapping, are also a means of identifying, documenting, and assessing places of cultural and historical significance. In Australia, ‘heritage’ can fall under four levels of administration (UNESCO, commonwealth, state and territory, or local), listed under corresponding heritage categories (world, national, state and territory, or local).
Heritage surveys typically fall into two categories, which Yamatji Marlpa Aboriginal Corporation defines clearly.
1. Archaeological heritage survey
Archaeological surveys focus on tangible evidence of human culture, such as tools used for hunting or artworks. This work is done by an archaeologist, who will do desktop and fieldwork research to examine a defined area.
2. Ethnographic heritage survey
Ethnographic surveys are another form of heritage survey. They share similarities to cultural mapping as they assess the cultural, environmental, spiritual, historical, and geophysical views of a landscape. This form of survey is led by an anthropologist, who engages with Traditional Owners and Knowledge Holders to gather ethnographic evidence. It also involves desktop and fieldwork research. Like an archaeological survey, an ethnographic survey is conducted within a clearly defined area.
On the surface, it is true that heritage surveys and cultural mapping appear to capture similar data. However, the reality is that the purpose and methodology between the two are inherently different.
Cultural Mapping is Always Authored by Indigenous Peoples, for Indigenous Purposes
Cultural mapping can be done for many reasons and be used to reach a variety of organisational or individual objectives. These can include: cultural heritage preservation, resource and environmental management, community engagement, and decision-making. This differs from heritage surveys, which are generally a procedural requirement for development approvals, focussing on impact mitigation. Each state and territory will have slightly different regulations, in Western Australia, we abide by the Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972.
Click here to review Indigenous heritage legislation in your state.
Because heritage surveys are confined to the boundaries of a development area, their results, though often highly detailed, can miss big-picture connections, such as storylines, patterns of travel, and the overall interconnectedness of landscape. Additionally, the focus on impact mitigation can shape the direction of the research. Cultural mapping, on the other hand, is guided by our Elders and Knowledge Holders, which means that the results aren’t limited to the boundaries of a proposed development but instead are driven by their knowledge and experiences with the landscape.
The cultural mapping process that Winyama follows ensures that Elders and Knowledge Holders author and share their stories directly, meaning there is always context from the original data source available, for anyone they choose to share that data with. Historically, heritage surveys have not done this. Instead, data collected has been open to the interpretation of the expert (e.g. the archaeologist or anthropologist) conducting the research. These interpretations and attitudes have been culturally unsafe and offensive, distorting the accuracy and truth of the recordings.
We see this when we look at South Australia’s heritage surveys which include a disclaimer acknowledging this issue: “Please note, the language and terminology used in heritage surveys reflects the context and culture of the time in which they were written and may include words, phrases, and attitudes that would be deemed insensitive, inappropriate or factually inaccurate today.” This isn’t an isolated case - similar examples exist across other heritage records.
The Methodologies of Data Capture are Inherently Different
Accessibility and Availability
Heritage surveys will typically involve desktop and fieldwork research. Fieldwork can present logistical challenges, as it requires the coordination of multiple participants to be available at the same time. Additionally, involving Elders in on-Country work may not always be feasible, especially if the terrain is difficult to navigate, the distance is substantial, or the weather is severe. In contrast, cultural mapping can be done remotely, with cultural mapping data collected through interview-style interactions that leverage the use of geospatial and digital technology. This provides more flexibility and can result in the inclusion of more Elders and Knowledge Holders and, therefore, more rich data sets.
Governance Over Data
Indigenous organisations like Prescribed Bodies Corporates (PBCs) benefit greatly from doing cultural mapping work. When cultural mapping is done on behalf of an Indigenous organisation, they retain full ownership of that data. This ownership allows them to establish their own governance principles that define how the data is accessed, by whom, for how long, and for what purposes. Ultimately, it gives the organisation freedom to choose.
In contrast, data collected for a heritage survey will always serve the heritage survey purpose of impact mitigation. This isn’t to say that goals can’t and won’t align. Government and PBCs do share goals of protecting and preserving areas of significance. But it is to say that, often, PBCs have additional aspirations. It is this disconnect that makes heritage surveys less of an asset to Indigenous communities, with data provided to multiple stakeholders, in formats that aren’t always compatible with the organisation’s skillset.
Cultural mapping can address these challenges, offering Indigenous organisations flexibility and autonomy to achieve what they want to achieve. In following the principles of Indigenous data sovereignty, cultural mapping becomes a powerful community asset that ensures decisions can be made in the best interest of Country and Mob.
Empower your community by completing your own cultural mapping project. Start the yarn. Get in touch with our team today.