To view the breadth of our services, please search our projects via the map below. You can search by type of project or location (LGA).
Location marks on the map are approximate. Projects involving Aboriginal archaeology and Aboriginal cultural heritage are not included in this map for cultural sensitivity reasons, but we have listed some of the Local Aboriginal Land Councils we have worked in.
Our interactive map allows you to search the type of project or locations where Artefact have worked.
Follow us on Facebook, LinkedIn and Instagram to see what our team here at Artefact Heritage and Environment are up to. We also like to share news from the fields of archaeology, history and heritage to promote the latest exciting developments in these areas.
Keep up to date with upcoming events, seminars and talks hosted by ourselves or our colleagues in the world of heritage.
There's always plenty happening with the team at Artefact so stay in the loop for all our latest news.
When you partner with Artefact, you’ll receive timely and accurate advice on how to integrate archaeology, heritage and environmental considerations into your project plans.
Artefact includes specialists across key fields of archaeology, heritage, environment, interpretation, architecture and history. More importantly, with 50 staff we can assemble a skilled in-house team targeted to your specific requirements.
HISTORICAL HERITAGE
As highly experienced project leaders, Artefact has been lead consultant on many major projects. Our planning and management systems ensure that projects are completed in a timely, professional manner, working in partnership with our clients.
Since 2010 Artefact is proud to have worked on a diverse range of large and small-scale infrastructure and development projects.
During this time we have built-up extensive experience in a variety of sectors including rail, roads, power and renewables, health, greenfields development and urban renewal.
Some of the more well-known projects we've been involved with include: Central Station Metro; Parramatta Light Rail; Sydney Metro City & Southwest; Wickham Transport Interchange; Northern Beaches Hospital; St Vincent’s Private Hospital; Concord Forensic Mental Health Unit; Sydney Harbour Bridge; The Northern Road Stages 1 & 2; Berry to Bomaderry Upgrade (Princes Highway); West Wyalong Solar Farm; and Wind Farm and Transmission Line projects in the Pilbara and Western NSW.
With almost 50 staff, and offices in Sydney and Newcastle, we can assemble a skilled in-house team targeted to your specific requirements.
For a personal response to your heritage and environment needs, please ask how we can tailor an integrated solution to suit your plans, your timeline and your budget.
Artefact have worked on almost all major rail infrastructure developments in NSW over the past decade.
Our proudest achievement is our team. We value their skills and talents, and we trust that you will too.
At Artefact we recruit staff who are passionate about the past, skilled in their disciplines and professional in their approach. We all understand the need to balance our rich local heritage with plans that shape the State’s future. These attributes contribute to a great team culture internally – and to exceptional advice and service for you. We support each other to make sure that our clients come first, which is why we have an industry-wide reputation for being responsive, innovative and authoritative.
SANDRA WALLACE, MANAGING DIRECTOR
Artefact was established in 2010 by Dr Sandra Wallace, who remains the company’s Managing Director.
What ever your heritage project we are here to assist.
Country or city, desktop or fieldwork, we’ve covered most of New South Wales and ACT.
Our advice and services are customised to offer the best guidance on how you can proceed, whatever your project type.
We consult right across the scale from neighbourhood architectural practices to multinational developers. But don't take our word for it! Check out our testimonials from our clients.
Spotlight on the treatment of Indigenous people
During Australia’s colonial period in the 19th century, the office of the Protector of Aborigines was established in an effort to hear to the “wants, wishes and grievances” of Aboriginal people, as the secretary for the colonies, Lord Glenelg, put it in 1838.
However, this office not only failed to genuinely listen to First Nations peoples, it led to policies that actually underpinned the erasure of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people from the Australian Constitution of 1901.
In the early 1800s a growing humanitarian movement in the UK had pushed the government to abolish slavery. By the 1830s, slave rebellions in Britain’s colonies turned a spotlight on the treatment of Indigenous peoples, both within and on the edges of the rapidly expanding British Empire.
In 1836, the British government established a Select Committee of the House of Commons on Aborigines to hear testimony from church leaders, missionaries and colonial officials about the situation of Aboriginal people in the Australian colonies.
The hearings focused particular attention on the conduct of militia forces in the so-called Black War in Tasmania, where roving parties of white men hunted down and killed Palawa people and massacres were seen as part and parcel of occupying Aboriginal lands.
In January 1838, Glenelg wrote to the governor of New South Wales, Sir George Gipps, that the British government [had] directed their anxious attention to the adoption of some plan for the better protection and civilisation of the native tribes.
Cover Image: Benjamin Duterrau, The Conciliation 1840, oil on canvas. Purchased by the Friends of TMAG and the Board of Trustees, 1945. Collection: Tasmanian Museum and Art Gallery, AG79.
"...in the 19th century, the office of the Protector of Aborigines was established in an effort to hear to the 'wants, wishes and grievances' of Aboriginal people..."
Glenelg told Gipps that as part of the scheme, the British government had decided to “appoint a small number of persons qualified to fill the office of Protector of Aborigines”. The chief protector, a non-Indigenous person, was to be aided by four assistant protectors and to “fix his principal station at Port Phillip” (later to become Melbourne), only recently occupied by the British.
According to Glenelg, George Augustus Robinson was bestowed with the office of chief protector as he had shewn [sic] himself to be eminently qualified by his charge of the Aboriginal Establishment at Flinders Island.
"Historians now consider this mission to be nothing more than ethnic cleansing."
Robinson’s so-called “Friendly Mission” - a series of journeys around Tasmania in the early 1830s to convince Palawa of Governor George Arthur’s humane intentions - was lauded by Gipps as a success, as it had peacefully convinced some people to move to a reserve at Flinders Island. Historians now consider this mission to be nothing more than ethnic cleansing.
For Glenelg, appointing Robinson to the new position of chief protector appeared to be the only plan available that did not involve military or police, or armed settlers dispensing their own “justice”.
Image: Photographic reproduction of a 1837 portrait of Charles Grant, the first Baron Glenelg. Wikimedia Commons.
An aim to convey ‘wants, wishes or grievances’
The plan for establishing Aboriginal protectorates followed Robinson’s Friendly Mission model in Tasmania.
Protectors were to “watch over the rights and interests of the natives” and protect them from “acts of cruelty, of oppression or injustice”. The protector was also to be a kind of conduit to express the “wants, wishes or grievances” of Aboriginal peoples to the colonial governments. For this purpose, each protector was commissioned as a magistrate.
Protectors were encouraged to learn the “language of the natives” and “obtain accurate information” on the “number of the natives within his district”.
On paper at least, the “plan for the better protection and civilisation of the native tribes” seemed a remarkable step forward from previous years. Indeed, there was no plan prior to this that attempted to deal with the situation in Aboriginal lands beyond the official boundaries of the colonies – boundaries that were being increasingly crossed by hundreds of squatters and stockmen, and tens of thousands of cattle and sheep.
The establishment of the role of protectors, who would live among Aboriginal people and learn their languages, was arguably an early attempt at a conduit for an Aboriginal voice to government.
Image: Photographic reproduction of a 1837 portrait of Charles Grant, the first Baron Glenelg.
Portrait of George Augustus Robinson, 1853, by Bernardino Giani. Wikimedia Commons.
A failure from the beginning
But the scheme did not stop the conflicts and massacres. Shortly after the commission’s report appeared in print in Australia, dozens of Gamilaraay people were killed at Waterloo Creek and Myall Creek in northern inland New South Wales in January and June 1838.
The scheme also did little to stop the resistance warfare that broke out across the entire length of the frontier in the late 1830s and early 1840s – a counteroffensive that has been described by some contemporary observers as a “general uprising”.
The protectorates scheme was also bound up in the supposed superiority of the colonisers’ race and Christian religion. The ultimate goal was for Aboriginal people to become “civilised” and Christian – just like white people apparently were. It was a paternalistic concept that ultimately turned humanitarian ideals into an even more violent and coercive colonial system.
The protectors, as they had been directed to, could report to the government the “grievances” of Aboriginal people. These were often found to be, as one observer at the time wrote, [an] explosion of long-pent feelings of revenge and hatred towards the whites, resulting from a long course of violence and injustice.
"The establishment of the role of protectors, who would live among Aboriginal people and learn their languages, was arguably an early attempt at a conduit for an Aboriginal voice to government."
The attempt by the colonial authorities to understand the “wants, wishes and grievances” of Aboriginal people, however, failed in its mission to actually protect people. The system was abandoned in 1849.
From the 1860s, the various colonial governments developed even more coercive policies of “protection”, which controlled peoples’ lives and corralled them into missions and reserves, so their lands and children could be taken from them.
Image: A tinted lithograph depicting the Waterloo Creek massacre by the New South Wales Military Mounted Police. Wikimedia Commons
How this history feeds into failed policies today
The Protector of Aborigines office was an important historical moment that embedded this idea of government control over First Nations’ people’s lives into the social and political fabric of this nation. These supposedly moral standards around “protection” and “civilisation” ultimately forced Indigenous people to become less Indigenous.
These beliefs continue to permeate government and society today. The long struggle for rights and recognition by Aboriginal people has been punctuated by (all too few) moments of support by non-Aboriginal people. As the referendum for the Voice approaches, a moment beckons where this support could be shown in meaningful and powerful ways.
This article is based on a piece originally published in The Conversation and is republished here with permission.
You may also like
CONTACT
NEWSLETTER
© ARTEFACT 2024 PRIVACY