[ascorbic]

In England there is a "Schedule of Monuments" to protect nationally important archeological sites. This is in addition to a much larger number of listed buildings, which are protected separately. Scheduled sites can be bought and sold, but any work that could damage them needs permission from Historic England. There are 20,000 monuments on the list, from Stonehenge to the former US nuclear missile bunkers at RAF Greenham Common, alongside thousands of hillforts, burial mounts etc. Doesn't Australia have anything similar?

https://historicengland.org.uk/listing/what-is-designation/s...

[Mandatum]

They do at a state level, but given aboriginal sites aren't buildings protected by codes and standards - they're gigantic bits of land with scattered artfacts like stone tools, or trees with markings, or remnants of old sites.. There's nothing really left.

Think about it like this, if you were in Ireland, there might be a small hill and that was remnants of a hut. If you excavated it, you might find some stone from the walls.

But these sites are on a land mass where time doesn't bury sediment over the top of them very much, so what happens is whatever is left usually just wears away by the harsh environment.

People want to protect these sites, but none of these sites will have any visitors for years, decades in some cases. This includes people who live in the state.

To be fair, there's plenty of work that could be done preserving what's there and excavating underneath - or land moving the top few meters.. And we could make companies do that. But that will just drive organisations and land owners to hide these sites exist in the first place.

Or just move to another remote area to do the same for less profit. But good luck hurting profit in Australia. That's not a political game you've got a chance of winning during our life time in this country.

Always was, always will be..

[andrewksl]

> And we could make companies do that. But that will just drive organisations and land owners to hide these sites exist in the first place.

That really hit home. Sometimes there really are no-win scenarios. Absolutely tragic that these sites are lost, but there's no practical solution to preserve them.

[reubenmorais]

To say so fatalistically this is a no-win scenario and there's no practical solution to preserve them is a bit much, I'd say. Countries and states preserve gigantic bits of land all the time.

In Brazil for example there is a mixed model at the federal level with national parks and environment protection areas (APAs). National parks are geared for maximum preservation, the entire area is government property. APAs are delimited areas with special biologic/historic/cultural value where people can still own property, live there, and even farm, but activities in the area are supervised with preservation in mind. It's not a perfect system, but it's better than nothing, and it can always be worked on.

[hhw]

Correct me if I'm mistaken, but isn't Brazil currently losing huge tracts of protected rainforest in those areas, just because of Bolsonaro's politics? How is he managing to undermine these protections so totally?

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/28/world/americas/brazil-def...

[reubenmorais]

We're all learning in the past few years how quickly institutions can fail when you have bad faith actors at the highest levels. In this case he can do a great deal of damage simply by openly being against environmental causes, because it sends a message that the laws will not be enforced, even before he started actually dismantling the laws.

[roenxi]

These are caves in the Pilbara. There are a loooot of caves in the Pilbara. Pretty much all of them are as old as time itself; and most (all?) of them will have had some sort of Aboriginal contact in the ~65,000 years Australia has been settled. 'Aboriginal site' is a broad term.

Designating them as 'important archaeological sites' would render Australia un-minable. There is nowhere in Australia that hasn't been important to the Aboriginals at some point in the last 65,000 years. Look at how Europe is dotted with cultural sites and that really only track back a few thousand years. You mention Stonehenge, a modern construction dating back to only ~3,000BC. Australian Aboriginals claim a much older heritage.

To cover that many nooks, hollows and small sites with the umbrella of heritage protection is basically equivalent to debating destroying the mining industry as we know it in Australia. It is a very big debate.

[koheripbal]

Think about what this is would mean.

It would mean taking the rights to the land away from the Natives and putting it under the purview of the central government.

This is exactly the injustice that was done to the natives so many generations ago.

If it truly belongs to them - then they have the right to sell it.

Moreover, the historical/landmark significance of these sites is often exaggerated for hyperbolic effect. The sites in question here have no monuments on them - no structures - no special designations - they are just chunks of land.

[gwd]

> It would mean taking the rights to the land away from the Natives and putting it under the purview of the central government.

Not arguing one way or the other here, nor do I know much of the context. But going only from the original comment in this thread, it sounds like this would mean taking the rights to the land away from the current set of tribal elders.

There's an argument to be made that this sort of cultural heritage belongs to the whole tribe; and not only those currently alive, but those who will be part of it in the future; and possibly not only of these particular tribes, but of all Aboriginals in Australia. It may be that those elders have considered that large group in their decision, but it's also quite possible that they have not; or even that they're corrupt and lining their own pockets.

It's also possible that this move is seen as the lesser of two evils to those elders: that they want to keep the sites, but feel they need the money to help support the tribe in other ways. If that's the case, then it's still a case of injustice.

(As an interesting aside: Recognition that "selling your land" might not really be voluntary was recognized so early that in ancient Israel, it was legally impossible to sell your land permanently: Every 50 years, all land went back to the original owners or their heirs, and you could only lease land until the next 50-year "reset".)

While I'm certainly in favor of letting groups decide for themselves what kinds of protection they need or don't need, there are lots of ways in which "tribal elders signed an agreement" could happen while still being "injustice to natives".

[dmos62]

Right. It's normal to be able to buy and sell land, but having land rights shouldn't mean that you suddenly own heritage sites that it might hold. Heritage sites should by definition not be buyable by individuals since they inherently belong to the collective.

[TheSpiceIsLife]

Probably, but in typical Aussie style we’re all to drunk or stoned or off guts on meth to notice.

[ascorbic]

You're talking to a Brit here, mate. We're hardly better

[TheSpiceIsLife]

Yeah, I thought you’d empathise ;)