If the feedback from the participants is anything to go by, then AIPA Forum 2001 was an unmitigated success. Over 60 participants, from near, far and all walks of archaeological life, gathered at La Trobe University's Martin Theatre to reflect upon the role of archaeology in the community. Proceedings kicked off with Ian Hunter using elements from the Kulin Tanderrum ceremony (the same ceremony enacted at the infamous signing of Batman's treaty in the winter of 1835) to welcome us into Wurundjeri territory.

The keynote speech charted the rapid evolution of archaeology in Australia, as experienced by someone who was there from the beginning, Professor John Mulvaney. He exposed how the interplay between community and archaeologist directed the other's progress, confirming the notion that our discipline is as much a product of social context as our data.

The colourful parade of speakers that followed unveiled the many ways archaeology serves the communities of the world. There was something for everyone as we sped from the Randwick Destitute Children's Asylum in Sydney to the sandy shores of Torres Strait, from Victoria's shipwreck-strewn coast to the Palaeolithic badlands of Kenya. I swear I heard a pin drop during Professor Richard Wright's fascinating, albeit somewhat confronting, presentation on the use of archaeology to solve Bosnian war crimes, whilst Dr Ian McNiven's talk, 'Decolonising Indigenous Archaeology' prompted the most hotly debated issue of the day: community censorship versus independent archaeological voice.

Participants did not hold back during the discussion time allotted after each session, yet the mood within the Martin Theatre was intimate and supportive. All doubts about the relevance of our peculiar calling were blown sky high. The forum exposed how our work enables communities to escape the prison of the present ~ healing, enriching, stimulating and redefining. Likewise, community input enriches our practice and provides us with alternative views on the meaning and value of the past. Pats on the back to forum organisers, Roger Luebbers, Jane Lydon, Anna Light, Leah Mckenzie, John Hyett, Taryn Debney, Joanna Freslov and Oona Nicolson for staging such a smooth, stimulating occasion.

On a warm day in early March, over 30 AIPA members, family and other interested people gathered at Tom and Phillippa's Eltham hideaway for the annual AIPA BBQ. The organisers had thoughtfully provided parking well away and downhill from the BBQ site so that everybody arrived thirsty and with a healthy appetite. After some discussion on the CFA regulations regarding solid wood BBQ use during the fire restriction period (some brigade secretaries just can't help themselves, and here I intend to remain nameless) and a little judicious pruning, the cooking got under way. After way too much eating, drinking and hobnobbing, it was time for the workshops to commence.

A comprehensive demonstration in the art of stone knapping (coastal flint through to everyone's favourite, quartz) was conducted by guest expert knapper, Dr Dan Witter. This was followed by dodgy attempts to emulate his performance by onlookers. My convict ancestors would have turned in their graves at the sight of people voluntarily pounding rocks, and producing enough débitage to ensure that Nillumbik Shire won't have to buy road fill for another year.

In the waning afternoon light, a crowd gathered to enjoy an enlightening talk by Dr Roger Luebbers on his collection of historic nails recovered Templestowe's Pontville homestead (circa 1840s). After the excitement of passing rusty nails from hand to hand, and with the neighbour's dog objecting vocally to our presence, the discussion around the esky turned to the use of dog as a source of food. Few claimed to have knowingly eaten it and few wanted to, but it was a fitting note on which to end a most enjoyable day. Those of you who missed this year's BBQ should start making plans to attend next year, a time to sit around an esky and chat with people about the broad range of interests that comprise our profession.

AIPA recently hosted an evening lecture by Dr Chris Evans, a visitor to the Department of Archaeology at La Trobe University, addressing the practice of recent contract archaeology in England and specifically, the role of university-based units. Evans is the director of the Cambridge Archaeological Unit, founded in 1991 as the consulting arm of Cambridge University's Department of Archaeology. He reviewed the Unit's methodological strategies for sampling and research prioritization within the development environment in light of 'an explosion of fieldwork' since 1990. Following the Thatcher government's introduction of a 'polluter pays' system, a dramatic rise in the number and scope of projects has occurred in England, supporting a national population of around 4000 archaeologists. For example, where one or two major excavations per year were formerly carried out in Cambridge County, currently around 20-30 are undertaken, as well as 100-200 interventions. He estimated that the national annual turnover for non-academic archaeological investigations is now 40 million pounds. This explosion of the knowledge base has in some ways outstripped the ability of academic projects to develop appropriate research frameworks.

The Cambridge Archaeological Unit
The unit is self-funded and non-profit-making, employing 40 full-time staff, and more when needed. There are about three larger units operating in England, employing around 100 staff each. Units tend to be region-based, but this is starting to change, and the CAU has recently worked in London and overseas, in countries such as Beirut, Nepal, and South Africa. English Heritage funds some larger projects, such as a GIS urban database for the town of Cambridge. About a quarter of their work derives from competitive tenders, while the rest stems from its network of former clients. The CAU has carried out a lot of work for Cambridge University and its colleges: for example, preceding construction of the new £200,000,000 Microsoft Centre. It has also undertaken several large-scale quarry projects, involving the removal of three metres of peat over a large area and requiring analysis at the level of landscape in contrast to smaller English Heritage managed projects which aim to conserve sites. Such projects have allowed greater financial stability and prompted new research priorities.

The Process
Generally County development archaeologists set briefs, awarded to consultants (a term which in England refers to the often large environmental assessment firms who advise the developer), who then engage archaeologists. A typical archaeological management project would comprise the following stages: Desktop study > Evaluation (specification/framework) > Excavation > Assessment (grey literature reportage) > Publication.

Dr Evans offered a fascinating account of a range of problems and issues arising from this dynamic professional environment, many of which are pertinent to the Australian context. First, the increase in fieldwork has slowed the rate of publication. Currently only around a third of results are published, another third are given synthetic treatment, while around a third of work carried out remains unpublished. This represents a marked decline by English standards. Commercial problems range from under-cutting, managing out-sourced post-excavation analysis, and even the recent bankruptcy of one supposedly profit-making organisation, with a consequent loss of data from their backlog of twenty sites.

Evans identified a major problem also confronting Australian practitioners: much of this development-driven work is not carried out in a full research environment. Excavation and analysis is discovery-led, rather than addressing identified gaps in knowledge, lacking a research framework. By contrast, Danish archaeology is museum-based, so very little fieldwork is done, and the maintenance of a research framework is primary. In England, for example, unenclosed Late Bronze Age and Saxon settlements have been a major recent area of discovery, disrupting the research agenda. There is therefore a need for the development of systematic methodology to investigate poorly understood classes of sites. Evans later returned to this theme, noting competition for research topics and the time it takes for topics to emerge relative to local excavation. Local archaeologists will recognise some of these difficulties. In acknowledgment that this stimulating phase of archaeology needs critical analysis, English Heritage has commissioned Professor Richard Bradley to write a prehistory of the last 100 years which will draw upon the databases compiled by units.

Evans also outlined a number of benefits of the university-based consulting unit, chiefly in fostering connections between consulting and academic spheres, and ensuring that university research is grounded in local archaeology. The unit also provides opportunities for training students and raises the department's research profile, while CAU staff can be drawn upon in casual teaching. Dr Evans also described the unit as a useful 'halfway house' for students 'waiting for a teaching position in a university to come up'. This comment evoked some amusement from his Australian audience, long accustomed to regarding the consulting world as the chief source of employment and challenge for graduates.

Several case studies were presented to demonstrate how the fieldwork 'explosion' has rekindled an interest in sampling in Britain, which has no tradition in this area. He discussed the urban investigation carried out in the town of Cambridge, including medieval colleges (eg. Jesus College, established in 1499 on the site of a twelfth century nunnery) built over the earlier Roman town. Architectural fabric is not as well protected as the archaeological resource - another interesting contrast with the Australian situation! Altogether, Evans portrayed English archaeology at the turn of the millennium as an exciting but challenging enterprise. His account offered a useful comparative perspective, regarding problems and how to tackle them, for Australian archaeologists. One of these, discussed before his talk, highlighted a growing issue all landscape archaeology is facing ~ that of the sample fraction. His unit is currently moving from a 2% sample to a 5% sample ideal. What standard should be adopted in the Australian context one might ask?

Making Tracks - a national conference on the heritage of routes, tracks and journeys - was a great experience for many of those lucky enough to journey to Alice Springs, and had much to interest the membership of AIPA.

The theme united a wide range of papers about many different places, geographic areas and cultures to be presented. Examination of the heritage of routes and journeys enables the layering of cultural experiences to be understood, and requires the recognition of tangible and intangible values. The layering of Aboriginal and European routes and meanings was common in many of the Australian examples. Archaeological research is one of the ways that an understanding of these routes and tracks has been investigated.

At the international level, ICOMOS has established an International Scientific Committee (ISC) on Cultural Itineraries. Australia ICOMOS is represented on the Committee by Dr Sandy Blair. The Committee is responsible for promoting: the identification, study and enhancement of cultural routes and their significance. In deciding to hold the 'Making Tracks' conference, Australia ICOMOS was motivated by a sense that Australian experiences can make a strong and distinctive contribution to the international work in this area. The next meeting of the ISC will be held in Spain later this month.

There were a number of conference resolutions which will be considered by the Australia ICOMOS Executive Committee, which next meets in August. The most interesting resolution was possibly the proposal that Australia ICOMOS consider how its members could be involved in volunteer programs to assist communities in need. This was a response to a request to Australia ICOMOS from the Arabunna community for conservation assistance with several important historic places used to explain the community's history and traditions to visitors who travel with community members along the Oodnadatta track. For more information or an email copy of the plenary session notes, contact me at kristal@context-pl.com.au.

Australia ICOMOS Statement on Indigenous Cultural Heritage
Australia ICOMOS is concerned to promote excellence in cultural heritage practice across a wide spectrum of places, cultures and disciplines within Australia. Australia ICOMOS has been working toward strengthening its links with Indigenous people. As one part of this effort, the Executive Committee has prepared a statement on Indigenous Cultural Heritage, and is seeking feedback and discussion with members, Australian heritage practitioners and indigenous communities. All comments are welcome! If you would like a copy of the statement, please contact me at kristal@context-pl.com.au..