‘Reclaiming their stories’: A study of the spiritual content of historical cultural objects through an Indigenous creative inquiry

Abstract

Developing methods for communicating, analysing, and interpreting the spiritual context of cultural objects is essential to gaining a deep understanding of the past. In archaeology, Indigenous methodologies in the field of creativity as an embodied exploration can enable archaeologists to understand how we perceive and interpret cultural information. This article examines how art making, within Indigenous cultures, serves as a powerful lens through which archaeological inquiries can be spiritually interpreted. This intricate relationship between art making and archaeological exploration provides a nuanced understanding of the spiritual significance inherent in historical relics. Its objective is to highlight Indigenous creative embodied methodologies, embracing a decolonised perspective that honours Indigenous worldviews. Serving as a bridge, it narrows the divide between creative craftsmanship and the field of archaeology.

Keywords:

• Indigenous archaeology
• creative research
• culture
• spiritual
• ritual
• decolonisation
• lived experience

Terminology and definitions

Indigenous: the term Indigenous is used, with a capital 'I', to recognise Indigenous sovereignty and refers to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples around Australia.

Cultural object: a social praxis of historical and spiritual significance, characterised as human or nonhuman made, that encompasses shared meaning through ritualised connectivity—each object having its imprints of memories and journeys.

Country: the term relates to all aspects of the living and non-living residing in an Indigenous Nations’ geographical and tribal lands. Country is an acceptable term with multiple meanings to various groups but is an inclusive term that references one’s ancestral ties. Country is the foundation of Indigenous ways of knowing, where everything centres on relationships in the physical and spiritual worlds.

Creative making: Visual forms of knowledge that express cultural intellect, either human-made or made by creational ancestral beings. Making is an embodied process facilitated by our sensory connection to Country and self to communicate the past.

Knowledge also resides in artefacts themselves, in the forms and materials. Some of this knowledge is also inherent in the process of manufacturing the artefacts, and it can be gained through making and reflecting upon the making of those artefacts. (Cross 2001:54–55)

Introduction

Indigenous research is rooted in the values and interconnections of the natural environment in any field or discipline. ‘Indigenous archaeology’ combines archaeological theory and practice by incorporating Indigenous principles, knowledge, techniques, and ethics. Indigenous archaeologists prioritise the incorporation of spiritual dimensions into the study of cultural objects, employing ceremonial acts to illustrate the relational nature of knowledge (Sheehan 2004). These objects, far more than relics of the past, are perceived as living entities with stories to share. To unearth the spiritual essence of these objects, creative ritual thinking serves as a conduit that allows us to tap into ancestral knowledge, gaining insights that go beyond the physical aspects of the artefacts. This method not only enhances our comprehension of cultural heritage but also nurtures a profound reverence for the spiritual importance each object holds. Consequently, it offers an invaluable perspective, shedding light on the spiritual dimensions of culture through creative interpretations that unveil the historical biographies of these cultural objects.

This study was made possible by Macquarie University and the Research Centre for Ancient Cultural Heritage and Environment (CACHE) through an Early Career Indigenous Australian Research Fellowship in 2021. The title of this research, ‘Reclaiming their stories’, reflects the nature of research that focuses on investigating Australian Indigenous cultural objects from ‘The Pacific Island Collection’ donated to the Macquarie University Museum by Sheila Macdonald. Through the application of Indigenous epistemologies, the research has involved exploring and interpreting cultural objects to reveal their spiritual dimensions and historical biographies. An emphasis is placed on Indigenous creative making as an ontology conveyed through narratives and visual representations (Waters 2004). The main objective of this study is to bridge the gap between creative making and archaeology.

Why is it essential to decolonise archaeology?

Decolonisation is about changing how people think, talk, and act through a radical engagement with a plurality of voices and perspectives that have remained marginalised and silenced. The process of decolonisation should not simply be viewed as a diversity exercise but rather as a challenge for the field of study. Decolonisation aims to construct an inclusive space that challenges other ideas. It is not about ‘finding space at the table: it is about changing the room’ (Nye 2019:5).

In the past, Western viewpoints have dominated archaeology, focusing on the material, scientific, and observable components rather than the spiritual, experiential, and unquantifiable elements (Atalay 2006). These Western frameworks place a greater emphasis on written histories embedded in imperial discourses than oral histories, with scientific observation taking precedence over other interpretations of historical events. Western frameworks often prioritise written histories rooted in imperial discourses, sidelining oral traditions that are fundamental to many Indigenous cultures. This preference reflects a bias towards scientific observation, where objective data and empirical evidence take precedence over alternative interpretations of historical events. Disregarding these oral narratives in favour of written records limits the holistic comprehension of historical events and artefacts, hindering a more comprehensive and inclusive understanding of the past. This disparity in the recognition of diverse knowledge systems underscores the pressing need for a more equitable and culturally sensitive approach in archaeological research and interpretation.

The historical trajectory of archaeological scholarship has often revolved around the exploration of ethnicity, sparking a multitude of debates, and raising critical questions about power dynamics, gatekeeping, and knowledge production in the discipline. This emphasis has led to the systematic exclusion of Indigenous voices and the marginalisation of their cultural authority, resulting in a limited and skewed perspective on the past. The ramifications of this exclusion are especially evident in how Indigenous knowledge is recorded and shared.

Frequently, non-Indigenous authors assume the role of representing or speaking for Indigenous communities, despite lacking the deep cultural insights and connections necessary to do so accurately. This pattern, as elucidated by Heiss (2002), can be seen as part of an imperial tradition that places the responsibility of overseeing an Indigenous voice by non-Indigenous experts, radiating an epistemic and monolithic colonialism that has led to many Indigenous authors having to face additional hurdles in contributing to knowledge discourse. For example, dominant Western methodologies in archaeology often set a rigid framework that may not fully accommodate Indigenous approaches, leading to the rejection of their contributions by international journals. This has left many Indigenous scholars feeling disillusioned, as their unique perspectives and insights remain inadequately represented in the field. To address these issues, there is an urgent need for greater inclusivity, decolonisation of archaeological practices, and recognition of the role that Indigenous voices and cultural authorities play in enriching our understanding of the past. Thus, decolonising archaeology represents a profound commitment to rectifying historical injustices by actively disrupting the colonial imbalances deeply ingrained in the discipline. It is a multifaceted process that involves both deconstruction and reconstruction—dismantling the existing Eurocentric narratives and power structures while simultaneously rebuilding a framework that respects Indigenous knowledge and perspectives.

Decolonising involves facing the uncomfortable realities associated with acknowledging and dismantling white privilege. As DiAngelo (2018) asserts, addressing white privilege reveals the systemic inequalities deeply ingrained in society, highlighting the advantages certain individuals enjoy at the expense of others. Simultaneously, this process compels individuals to confront the historical and ongoing harm inflicted upon Indigenous communities by colonialism, prompting a recognition of the power, resource, and opportunity disparities perpetuated through colonial practices. Engaging in this decolonisation process requires a candid examination of the impact of colonial history, fostering a collective responsibility to rectify injustices and pave the way for genuine reconciliation. These uncomfortable conversations are crucial, as they expose the deeply rooted issues that have sustained colonial attitudes and behaviours, creating space for transformative change and progress. As such, decolonisation requires individuals, institutions, and societies to actively work towards dismantling the structures that uphold these inequities. By embracing these uncomfortable actions, archaeology can take significant strides towards restoring Indigenous sovereignty, fostering genuine understanding, and promoting a more inclusive and equitable representation of history.

The impact of language in the white-dominated sphere of archaeology is notably evident in terms such as ‘prehistory’ and ‘wilderness,' which can be offensive to Indigenous communities. The term ‘prehistory,’ used to signify the period before written records, dismisses, and undervalues the sophistication of Indigenous cultures and our visual knowledge systems. Moreover, it implies that the history of Indigenous peoples began only with the arrival of Europeans, negating the fact that each Indigenous culture has its own pre-European creation story. The term ‘wilderness’ reinforces colonial notions of emptiness by portraying land as uncultivated or uninhabited, thereby neglecting the profound cultural and spiritual significance these areas hold for Indigenous communities. This discourse perpetuates a colonial mindset, diminishing the deep connections Indigenous peoples have with nature and undermining the social and spiritual importance of cultural places. As described by Braun (2002), this linguistic framing contributes to ‘territorialisation,' a process that redefines uninhabited lands while disregarding their Indigenous past and cultural significance. Wilderness therefore proves beneficial only in the vocabulary of those who fail to recognise the inextricable interconnection of human life and the natural world—an act reinforcing the notion of ‘terra nullius’ that erases Indigenous presence from historical narratives and suppresses legitimate Indigenous claims to land and resources.

Indigenous archaeology

Australia’s Indigenous archaeology has undergone significant changes and transformations, but its potential remains untapped. Several Indigenous-specific roles exist in heritage consultancies including supporting field staff and community Elders or Knowledge Holders since a large part of this work is community-based. Communities and Indigenous groups worldwide have benefitted from community archaeology by having a voice in archaeology and heritage management (Damm 2005). Indigenous communities are involved in archaeology so that records are enhanced, sites are protected, and artefacts and ancestral remains remain in the hands of Indigenous communities. Recent cooperative initiatives have resulted in Indigenous communities becoming more involved in archaeology, leading to alternative heritage management strategies and greater cross-cultural understanding. However, despite the well-documented nature of community-based archaeology, more work is needed concerning Indigenous perspectives on cultural objects and their spiritual significance. This includes using Indigenous epistemologies in creative work that engages the spiritual realm.

Archaeology in Australia has yet to consider the involvement of Indigenous designers and creative researchers. However, creativity through Indigenous perspectives (epistemologies) is critical to advancing scholarship and the representation of worldviews (Mithlo 2012). As part of Indigenous creative practice, Indigenous epistemologies are both transcendental (descriptive) and hermeneutic (interpretive), thoughtfully interwoven within the notion that we are all connected to the spiritual realm (Sheehan 2011). Creative research is also crucial in cultural knowledge and acts as an active intersection between materials, social interactions, and environments. Creativity research extends to dialogic systems, as designing is synonymous with human beings.

Understanding Indigenous creativity requires understanding the profound sense of Country that connects the spiritual and natural worlds. This ontology presents an opportunity to visualise dialogue to investigate cultural, social, and environmental practices through interactive processes embedded in Indigenous communities. Applying creative research is a profoundly productive and relational interaction that connects us to all things in a way that conveys significance (Ries 2011:29); they draw us in and hold us together because images culturally tie social and cognitive systems together. In addition, creativity is making the ‘new’, a process that highlights human-environment interaction in the studio and everyday life. This—the making process—is deeply tied to life experiences. Creativity is a critical component to be considered in archaeology as it can elicit and confirm connections between people, places, objects, knowledge, ancestries, and worldviews. These concepts allow us to develop more authentic relationships with cultural objects and build a coexistence with Western understandings of archaeology and the application of archaeology.

Applying Indigenous creative knowledge systems in archaeology

Even though Indigenous creative research is virtually undocumented in archaeology, it shares an ontological status based on traces, residues, and the mixing of methodologies and techniques (Russell 2013:298–291). Nevertheless, creativity is challenged in archaeology by the disjunction between what it is and what it means to understand the past (Corbey et al. 2006:371). Indigenous research offers a tool for guiding interpretations and transforming archaeological material (Witmore 2006:268), yet these reproductions need careful consideration to avoid violating Indigenous copyright, protocols, and laws. In this investigation, cultural and intellectual property refers to traditional knowledge (ritual knowledge), cultural expression (creativity), performances (ceremony), and sacred material (spiritual).

Engaging in the act of creative making transforms investigation into an authentic research experience when approached as a form of inquiry, as emphasised by Hernández-Hernández and Fendler. This process represents a synthesis between intuition and logic, as articulated by Vallack (2005). The creative engagement as a way of knowing becomes a method for collecting and preserving information, serving as a crucial task to give voice to an object. For instance, the creation of visual objects and the unfolding production associated with them, offer a robust and compelling rationale for research, practice, and pedagogy, especially when utilised to articulate and present collective stories of experience. This approach is particularly powerful in the context of Indigenous creative knowledge systems, designed to foster interconnectedness. In this context, making does not necessarily adhere to evidence-based rationality but is rooted in transformative thinking that yields a deeper understanding, rather than focusing solely on quantifiable results. Developing creative knowledge processes is thus essential to nurturing Indigenous knowledge and bridging that knowledge with other ways of knowing. It also offers alternative approaches to conducting and presenting knowledge.

Creative knowing is firmly rooted in local practices, tethered to the concept of Country, and involves the seamless integration of place, people, and understanding—rejecting the notion of wilderness altogether. The importance of cultivating a relationship with Country cannot be overstated, as it stands as the ultimate teacher, the source of stories, knowledge, and the means to disseminate them. As Country encapsulates both tangible and intangible realities, preserved in memory, it is a social framework of recollections intertwined with objects, places, and people. Engaging with the past through creative knowing involves triggering memory through emotional arousal or retrieval cues where the process rather than the resulting product is considered as vital as the knowledge it embodies. Through creative knowing, the artist’s role is to reveal the knowledge it embodies. This characteristic is distinctive to research conducted in a practice-led context, where the artist’s interpretation adds a subjective viewpoint to the knowledge accumulation process. (Figure 1).

Figure 1. Connecting spiritually to Dharug Country. Practical exercise to symbolically attach me to my Country through ritual action. Medium: Acrylic and inks on canvas. Creative Response: Preparation for creative research is initially gained by becoming knowledgeable about cultural protocols and the epistemologies in the subject area. The next step involves creating a research design based on free-flow movements that connect with Country. I consider an object’s symbolic enactments as a process of symbolic communication. Using simple line techniques helps bring space 'in’ and 'together’ to respond to spatial thinking. Through the subtleties and complexities associated with a topographic perspective, my body becomes a conduit between the physical and spiritual worlds where I can hear my ancestors’ voices. Curved moving lines illustrate topographic layers of movement by pushing the boundaries of space, contrasting with the straight empty lines on a western map. As Country is not an empty construct, curved lines create harmony, and spacing represents the rhythmical qualities of filled energies.

Indigenous research methodologies applied in the study of cultural objects

This study uses Indigenous protocols to promote Indigenous voices in archaeology. The study explores alternative frameworks, methods, and paradigms to understand how objects are perceived as cultural representations of living heritage. As Indigenous creative researchers, we are responsible for considering these bodies of knowledge as part of our cultural obligations and customs. They often involve aspects of the ‘secret and sacred’, gender-based, and only accessible to initiated individuals. Indigenous customary laws are observed by not reproducing exact copies of original objects from the Sheila Macdonald collection. Under Indigenous protocols, I avoided touching objects to avoid spiritual harm.

The research for this article uses ceremonial methodologies. A ceremony begins and ends Indigenous research projects, according to Wilson (2020). Creative researchers believe knowledge is relational, and participation and holism are contrary to Western approaches. The purpose of ceremonial research is to connect the researcher, their ideas, and their viewers through visual imagery and metaphors. Ceremonies demonstrate respect for Indigenous knowledge by combining the proper research methods. Indigenous ceremonies must be increasingly incorporated into archaeological research agendas to understand the spiritual dimensions of culture.

Three core Indigenous methodologies are used in analysing and interpreting this collection: (1) Country-guided; (2) Sensory embodied knowing; and (3) Ritual thinking

1. Country-guided place-based knowing

A Country-guided approach is one involving the researcher’s being directed and steered by the spiritual world. The concept encompasses the interaction with cultural sites in the recognition that the earth, the oceans, and the skies were created first, and humans followed. By listening to the Country’s needs and assessing our actions, we are developing a sustainable practice of living and a spiritual relationship. As a result, the concept of Country encompasses physical and non-physical elements within people’s memories, activities, and knowledge. To understand Country, one must first know that it is full of ancestral movements, where space and energy intertwine, and all places are marked, known, and commemorated (Langton 2002:255).

Country-guided approaches within creative making involve engaging, interacting, and aligning the human body with a specific cultural and spiritual context. By connecting more meaningfully with Country, this methodology creates a multi-layered and multidimensional space that illustrates dynamic relationships. It is imperative to remember that our conscious and non-conscious states of being are informed by place-based interactions that involve both the visible and the invisible.

From an archaeological perspective, using Country-guided approaches will assist in fostering a sense of knowing and understanding our landscapes in a new way. We can use this to navigate the spiritual world when we know each nation’s creational periods (Dreaming). Knowing that each Country contains a criss-crossing of Songlines (ancestral pathways or mythological tracks) offers information of cosmological knowledge. Understanding Indigenous cosmology does not occur through mental reasoning but through an immersion of shared stories of origin and destination. These storylines represent energy lines that bind people, places, and entities within a space (Larsen and Johnson 2012:10). They connect the living with the spirit world through cultural practices, shared histories, and ancient knowledge that, together, connect people, landscapes, and ecosystems.

2. Sensory embodied knowing

Indigenous sensory embodied knowing is grounded in cyclic analogies and ritual actions. Such experiential knowledge entails non-linear interpretations that play an integral role in the relationship between art, archaeology, and heritage in converting spiritual messages from concrete forms to abstract thinking and knowledge production.

As an embodied experience, sensory creativity knowing involves techniques that conceptually bring individuals into the research, which allows a broader sense of expression than traditional methods. To conduct research in an embodied manner, we must reposition the body, moving away from the traditional mind-body divide, to consider that the entire body is responsible for making sense of the world and producing knowledge. The main instrument of knowing for a researcher is their body. Therefore, when conducting creative research, it is essential to consider how people learn through their bodies. In embodied encounters, bodily practices, actions and gestures are influenced by physical factors such as proximity and distance.

Sensory knowing in archaeological terms involves studying how our human senses influence cultural objects. Similarly, the Centre for Archaeological Investigations (C.A.I) contends that sensory investigations have played an important role in archaeology and contributed to some fascinating discoveries (C.A.I. 2012). This definition, however, is limited to the Western Aristotelian view of the five senses: sight (vision), hearing (audition), tasting (gustation), smelling (olfaction), and touching (haptics). In contrast, Dharug Indigenous sensory knowledge consists of five interconnected external senses and two internal senses. The two inner senses include the intuitive knowing: ‘oolgna’—and the imaginative being: ‘ngara’ (Cameron 2022). Oolgna is a gut sensation—a natural bodily alertness that generates knowledge through emotional insight. Intuitive thinking allows us to respond, connect, and adapt to our environment more effectively by using our bodies as a tool for information exchange. Spiritual worldviews can be understood through intuitive knowing as it gives us insight into the inner life of a being and therefore allows us to appreciate what makes it unique and irreplaceable (Cassen et al. 2015). Ngara refers to the imaginary, an ability to observe through a sense of curiosity as it is deeply rooted in memory and dreams. Experiences of dreams or visions flow into a stream of consciousness from one’s immersion in life. Through dreaming, everyday consciousness is unbound from its immediate sensory and empirical conditioning and flows into an altered awareness in which past, present, and future merge into meaningful atemporal continuities. Thus, archaeologists can use their intuitive and imaginative knowledge to forge a bigger picture in understanding, reanimating the past, shaping history and identifying where we are heading (González-Ruibal et al. 2018).

3. Ritual thinking

Traditionally, ritual thinking is derived from community knowledge processes (Sheehan 2004), which involve collective activities of meaningful experiences that reflect Indigenous ways of valuing, being, knowing, and doing (Martin 2008). Through rituals, one develops a body-conscious ability (Foley 2009) to see, move, and act under pattern synchronisation. Rituals are, therefore, forms of embodied knowledge. Jones et al. (2014) describe ritual thinking as a process that involves interactivity, adaptation, and relatedness between Indigenous oral cultures and practical activities, objects, relationships, and stories. Ritual involves how we relate to Country and the social world. Such rituals involve knowledge of social rules and roles; for example, rituals of deference embody an understanding of authority in a given society. This is why rituals have such a crucial role in the maintenance and reproduction of society.

Ritual thinking is a method for analysing data that is a hybridisation of Indigenous oral culture practices based on Indigenous protocols of collective knowledge and production (Sheehan 2004). As a framework of pattern-thinking, it is necessary to engage in practical activities such as image production, relationship interaction, and sensory stories (Jones et al. 2014). As an analytical process, the emphasis on practical activities allows for a more holistic and experiential understanding of data. Image production, for example, involves visually representing data patterns, enabling a visual narrative that goes beyond traditional textual analysis. This method resonates with Indigenous ways of conveying information, which often involve visual symbols and storytelling. Ritual thinking is built around relational interaction. It involves exploring how different elements relate to one another, by introducing an embodied dimension to the analytical process. By incorporating sensory experiences, such as sound, touch, or smell, researchers can tap into a more visceral understanding of the data. This aligns with Indigenous traditions, where stories are often conveyed through multiple senses, creating a richer and more nuanced narrative.

Overall, ritual thinking challenges traditional modes of data analysis by infusing Indigenous methodologies and prioritising collective knowledge and experiential learning. By incorporating practical activities such as image production, relational interaction, and sensory stories, this hybridised method underscores the importance of cultural sensitivity and Indigenous protocols in research practices. As such, creativity begins with rituals, in which the making process involves movement and a sensory connection to Country. From an Indigenous perspective, ritual in creative action-based practice helps us connect spiritually to reflect on our lives. It is characterised by pattern thinking behaviours that begin with the synchronisation of place, through feeling its natural rhythms and responding to its energies. As a repetitive action, symbolic meaning becomes an immersive experience by connecting the human body to Country.

From an archaeological perspective, ritual practice should be considered as a form of behaviour in which objects are imbued with meaning. By recognising this, archaeologists not only unravel the physical attributes of these artefacts but also decipher the deeper layers of meaning embedded in their symbolic context. This nuanced approach allows for a more profound understanding of the cultural and social dimensions surrounding ritual practices, enriching our insights into the past. In this light, researchers can actively pursue knowledge and contribute to cultural transmission by delving into the exploration of ritual creativity as a rhythmic patterning process enacted by the human body. Each rhythmic moment, in this context, serves as a confirmation of a pattern that extends back into the annals of the past. By recognising and interpreting these rhythmic patterns, archaeologists can gain a deeper understanding of the continuity and evolution of cultural practices, shedding light on the ways in which rituals have shaped human societies throughout history.

Studying an object does not require an analysis of its material characteristics or function but rather a careful observation of how its maker(s) views it and developing an understanding of how ritual behaviour occurs during its production. As a result, the making of an object is of critical importance in the examination process. This is because it provides a unique set of information about the people and place associated with it. Archaeologists must recognise that objects from different nations and places have different histories (Boivin et al. 2007) and they should not assume that all objects from other nations have similar styles or making processes.

Interpretative creativity research of the non-human realm

Australian archaeologists have largely ignored the use of creative arts in archaeology in other countries (Frederick and Ireland 2019). In Indigenous cultures, human-centred theoretical pursuits are deemed to suppress and marginalise relational ontologies and non-human entities. Conversely, interpretative work and Indigenous relational ontologies—that human-centred academic pursuits have suppressed—emphasise the value of non-human and spiritual entities. An essential aspect of interpretive research in archaeology centres around the notion that human meanings are not overtly communicated through language or explicit expression. Instead, these meanings are intricately interwoven and embodied within the objects crafted by humans. This perspective underscores the idea that material culture serves as a tangible and symbolic repository of human meanings and cultural practices. Illustrative examples of this concept include ritualistic or ceremonial objects, which are often embedded with meanings tied to spiritual beliefs and cultural practices.

Research conducted by Indigenous peoples is based on the belief that non-living objects possess souls (life) and that spiritual beings and forces inhabit natural phenomena. These interpretative creative research approaches align with many theories and practices in animism, disrupting the view that conscious communication among ‘persons’ is restricted to humans. Animist epistemology also challenges the privileged position of the human (Fudge 2004). For instance, there has been a tendency to downplay, ridicule, or explain away the possibility that plants, trees, and other non-human entities can communicate with humans in meaningful and relational ways (Porr and Bell 2012).

Body knowing

Body-knowing focuses on the body rather than technology and requires a repositioning of research and a move away from the traditional Western mind-body divide. Embracing the role of the body in research allows researchers to explore non-verbal, sensory, kinaesthetic, material, and imaginary modes of knowing (Pitts-Taylor 2015) that are consistent with Indigenous knowledge systems. Body knowing is experimental and based on sensory information that is situated, subjective, and often implicit.

One way to explore how we can use our body as knowledge is through ‘Deep Listening’—an Indigenous concept known as ‘Dadirri’ which is a word in the Ngan’gikurungkurr language of the Northern Territory. According to Judy Atkinson (2002), Deep Listening is a slow and systematic approach to research employed by many Indigenous researchers to wait for knowledge to be shared at the appropriate time and with the relevant participants. It is a valuable tool for connecting with others and gaining insight into new ideas (Figure 2).

Figure 2. Listening to spiritual space by creating a repetitious form. Practical exercise in deep listening in object transformation. Medium: Acrylic on canvas. Creative Response: The tensions between rhythmic and repetitive forms are examined to understand how an object situates itself in the spiritual realm. I immediately notice its straight lines and hollow spiritual spaces as I focus on the object. The looking glass in Alice in Wonderland (1865) by Lewis Carroll reminds me of the looking glass in the story. I also use Alice’s imaginative interpretations of what happens when she magically steps through the mirror into the Looking-glass house. I link repetitive form to imaginative form by combining imaginative and repetitive elements. Moreover, I use the imaginative to give the object I am studying a new life form and sense of existence.

In the floating space where the object is positioned, the repetitive vertical and horizontal markings give it a voice. The spaces flow in and out—they are not empty but alive with movement and composition. A floating object reflects both the outside and the inside of its qualities. This is because spiritual objects do not remain static in one place or position but continuously drift and change directions throughout Country. The connection between spirituality and creativity allows me to form deep relationships with the invisible forces that shape and guide my relationship with Country. In addition, my relationship with my creative pursuits grows.

Deconstruction and reconstruction of cultural objects to analyse spiritual form

Observing an object makes us aware of its visual shape and composition, but finding a spiritual representation is more complicated. To investigate an object’s spiritual presence, the researcher must establish a relationship based on mutual respect and harmony and relate it to a living organism. By engaging in this process, one can gain a deeper understanding of an object’s external and internal manifestations. I refer to this process as creatively deconstructing and reconstructing an object so its original form can be revealed.

In deconstruction, an object is broken down into parts and elements to find new possibilities. The deconstruction of an object allows us to examine its ontology—its nature and spiritual presence. A relationship with an object will enable us to observe its tensions in space as we become familiar with it. Attention is drawn to the cracks that delaminate it and the invisible network of correlations and cleavages between its nodes. Through Indigenous methodology (Country-guided, sensory embodied knowing, and ritual thinking), we can gain a deeper understanding of how objects tell stories through visual literacy rather than words, lines rather than sentences, and space rather than silence and emptiness. Hence, when deconstructing an object, some of the apparent bindings are removed to be reconstructed differently, creating a new perspective (Figure 3).

Figure 3. Woven axe handle—deconstructing an object. Practical exercise in deconstructing cultural objects. Medium: Pencil, acrylic, digitally enhanced. Creative Response: The physical constraints that bind an object are removed by deconstructing the object. I read between the lines to understand an object’s inner voice and discover its essence. To begin the process of deconstruction, I examine a cultural object through the lens of a sensory being that travels through space and timelessness to seek out the narratives and its cultural biographies. From this positioning, I begin to uncover the authentic life story of the object.

Once the object has been deconstructed, it is reconstructed and reassembled to create something new. This process allows me to explore and push boundaries through an exchange of ideas that facilitate the development of new knowledge. During the process of making, I discover that novel ideas can stimulate the biography of an object, resulting in the object speaking in multiple ways. This process is an emotional journey in which my consciousness begins to fade, and I begin to become aware of other realities. In reconstructing an object, I can sense its spiritual presence while dreaming, contemplating, and abstractly navigating new terrain. Through guided ceremony, the lines become sequences that form rhythmical patterning and shapes that resemble layers of reality (Figure 4).

Figure 4. Woven axe handle—reconstructing an object. Medium: Acrylic on Canvas. Practical exercise in reconstructing cultural objects. Creative Response: Analysing the interactions between constructs and narrated experiences is the first step in reconstructing the life history of an object; only then can I engage with the object on a new relationship level. As part of my preparation, I performed rhythmical actions that increased my awareness of other modes of seeing, being and acting. I then apply these thoughts and actions through a ritual engagement. I continue increasing, then decreasing, my pace using rhythmical movements where the painted brush skips and glides along its surface. In contemplating the object, I listen to its voice and ask for its permission to see its hidden dimensions. I am not seeking to reconstruct an object so that it becomes an exact copy but wish to duplicate its resonance in other ways. I aim to capture its internal voice and its narratives in a way that honours them. I apply empathy and hold back, not so much to overinterpret but to allow the free flow of data so that the object remains in control.

Symbolic line-making

Re-creating the object’s natural movement and rhythmical function can be accomplished by studying the object’s lines and patterns. According to Butler and De Zegher (2011), a line represents the kinaesthetic process of traction, attraction, extraction, and protraction. The line application process in creative research forms part of the deconstruction and reconstruction process as it captures the deep essence of Indigenous worldviews. Line work represents Songlines that relate to Country and convey valuable cultural information. Through an entwined space with waterways, Songlines connect the nations of Australia. The Songlines are the spiritual markers of the Country, which remind us of the historic trade routes that have existed since the beginning of time. Songlines are navigational tools that cross the Australian continent; they appear as a series of lines or strings (Clarke 2003:19) and play an instrumental role in constructing, navigating, and understanding our spiritual and physical worlds. This can also assist researchers in becoming a source for truth-telling about unceded lands and places of profound spiritual significance.

Indigenous and non-Indigenous people have used lines to transmit spatial dimensions and assert sovereignty. The similarities, however, end there.

A map has long been regarded as a colonisation tool, in which Indigenous naturally curving territories that reflect the rhythmical movements of Country have been replaced by straight, controlled lines. In the reconstruction of regions, straight lines have interfered with the natural spiritual flow of our landscapes. As a result of colonisation, the maps constructed today do not reflect the natural land as it once was or even as it currently is. Instead, they reflect how it was perceived and imagined by colonisers. These notions reflect archaeological topographical survey maps, where Indigenous people have difficulty understanding as they present fixed, lifeless boundaries in a static and unchanging landscape (Figure 5).

Figure 5. Boomerang—line mapping an object. Experimental exercise in how cultural objects project lines in space. Medium: Acrylic on canvas, digitally enhanced. Creative Response: I can better understand where an object is in time and space by drawing lines. By disseminating research findings in this way, lines can serve as mud maps. A line’s location, for example, has a profound effect on how we perceive an object. White (negative) space is the most robust line—it envelops and illuminates the dark form. Passive areas communicate location and direction by producing a sense of spiritual space. Additionally, I consider movement as an interaction between spaces that are vibrating with energy and other areas that are still and passive. Line movement allows me to re-engage with an object from a new perspective—as the object no longer appears as a stagnant being, the results show it now has become alive, as if it is flying through a shifting space.

Translucent and luminosity in line-making

Translucent lines can create a sense of depth and reveal the energy of an object. This is true when light is applied to a study. In the presence of light, an object becomes translucent. Translucent objects exhibit optical properties that resemble sharp geometric features such as edges and interactive lines. Xiao et al. (2020) demonstrates that translucent lines have a characteristic appearance as light penetrates their surfaces, scatters internally, and eventually re-surfaces from different surface locations. By interpreting these images, the human visual system can infer the spiritual properties of the objects contained therein.

Translucent lines are an intricate part of Indigenous culture, as they symbolise the special and the sacred. Therefore, we should consider such knowledge to understand its significance better. Shininess, translucence, and luminosity are also attributes associated with spiritual connections. According to Morphy (2009), brilliance has an emotional effect accompanied by a belief in the spiritual power of the object. Brightness and transience are depicted in body painting, ground art, sand story narratives, and ceremonial, cultural objects (Figure 6).

Figure 6. Boomerang—seeking out the special. Practical exercise in translucent line, floating in spiritual space. Medium: Acrylic on canvas, digitally enhanced. Creative Response: The process of creating a spiritual encounter with an object cannot always be described in words. By examining the form of an object, I can determine its essence. However, the process is challenging to describe. As a result, the remaining concept of the image is deconstructed, reconstructed, and then manipulated so that lines have become squiggles that reflect the residue of an object. The simplistic object floats in infinite space.

Rhythmical line-making

The concept of rhythm can be defined as the repetition of something occurring over and over again. To create the illusion of motion, repeating lines flow and move together to form a rhythm. In response to a rhythm, the viewer’s eyes follow a visual beat. Figure 7 shows no sudden breaks in natural rhythms but continuous lines that generate spatial-temporal awareness. In Indigenous creativity, parallel lines are arranged in a regular pattern reflecting spatial relationships that reflect the natural world. Archaeologists can identify the object’s source by studying rhythmical inscriptions on an object rather than relying solely on material technical information and placing too much emphasis on the universality of their ideas and measuring devices. While archaeologists predominantly depend on tangible evidence and contextual information to explore the material culture, deciphering the spiritual essence of an object through its ‘rhythmical patterns’ involves a more subjective approach, rooted in cultural interpretation. Various nations exhibit distinct sets of repetitive markings that serve as identifiers for specific geographical regions. For instance, rhythmic zigzags to half concentric circles and the spaces between them convey unique tribal characteristics, extensively conveying the spiritual dimensions of a particular community. The intervals between elements also contribute to a form of flowing rhythm. Even when the attributes of elements remain consistent, adjustments in the spacing between them can generate a rhythmic flow. The notion of rhythmic flow is closely tied to the significance embedded in the spaces between the celestial elements, such as the ‘Emu in the sky’, which emphasise the importance of the unseen or the gaps between visible elements. Beyond the visible constellation, the spaces between the stars carry their own meaning, representing a deeper, unseen dimension that holds cultural narratives and ancestral connections. These spaces are not merely voids but rather they convey a profound rhythmic flow of spiritual energy that mirrors the broader cultural understanding that autonomy and identity are not solely defined by the visible aspects but also by the intangible, the unspoken, and the connections that exist in the spaces between cultural symbols.

Figure 7. Title of examination: Coolamon—rhythmical line-making in space, flow, and movement. Practical exercise: Exploring spatiotemporal awareness of rhythm. Medium: acrylic on canvas. Creative Response: To explore rhythm, I analyse the factors that contribute to rhythm, the types of rhythms created by human repetition, their localised position with Country, and why repetition is considered a part of human bodily cognition. This immersive experience enables me to examine the patterns contained within the object, including its visual information. I explore how rhythms shape our lived experience and how the repetitive movement of non-linear and cyclical rhythms leads to spatial and temporal nuances that are distinctive to gaining a spiritual understanding of an object. As I listen to the object, I can appreciate its external and internal rhythms as they synchronise with its beats. Using ritual thinking processes, the rhythm expands into a concentric shape—a sequenced pattern as the lines become more explicit. Each line has a reference point that enhances its overall curvature/shape. Based on my observations, subtle thin curves slow down the speed of a line and differ in intent and energy from thick lines, which increase the speed of movement. Lines would appear monotonous, static, and lifeless without the recognition of such rhythms.

Emergent rhythmical practices involve bodily itineration along different gestures, intensities, pauses, disruptions, and spatial orientations emphasise emerging rhythms and lines (Vergara 2019), where the emphasis is on highlighting the development or unfolding of rhythms and lines that arise during a bodily exploration. In short, it concerns moving the body through space through varying levels of force and energy, through an emphasis of movement. Through this notion, creative researchers work with materials to gradually incorporate the temporal rhythms of life into their structural properties (Ingold 2021:61). From a rhythmical perspective, the practitioner acts over matter rather than with it since matter is also a bundle of rhythms (Bachelard 2000[1950]) and thus an embodied experience (Naji 2009). In other words, the creative individual doesn’t merely work with materials but rather acts upon them. This distinction is drawn from the understanding that matter, according to Bachelard (2000[1950]), is not static but rather a complex interplay of rhythms.

To delve deeper, this approach suggests that the creative practitioner does not impose a rigid structure onto materials but instead collaborates with the inherent rhythms present within them. It is an acknowledgment that materials possess their own unique tempo, an idea that aligns with Bachelard’s view of matter as a bundle of rhythms. Consequently, the act of working becomes a dynamic interplay, with the practitioner responding to and shaping the inherent rhythms within the materials. Moreover, this concept extends to viewing matter as an embodied experience, as expressed by Naji (2009). In other words, the material world is not just a collection of inert substances; it carries an experiential quality. The practitioner, by engaging with materials in a rhythmic manner, is immersed in an embodied experience that goes beyond a simple manipulation of physical elements. It is a nuanced understanding that sees creativity as a dynamic dialogue between the practitioner and the rhythmic essence inherent in the materials, reflecting a profound interconnection between the creative process and the pulsating rhythms of life.

Discussion

Indigenous creativity possesses a unique capacity to delve into the spiritual dimensions of objects, adding profound layers of meaning and interpretation that complement Western archaeological perspectives. In contrast to the more empirical and material-focused methods of Western archaeology, Indigenous approaches often emphasise a holistic understanding of objects, recognising them not merely as artefacts but as carriers of spiritual significance. While Western archaeology tends to rely heavily on tangible evidence and scientific methodologies, often overlooking or struggling to interpret the intricate spiritual dimensions of artefacts, creativity provides a complementary lens that considers the metaphysical qualities of objects. This approach recognises that each artefact is not just a remnant of the past but a vessel of cultural memory and spiritual essence.

The collaboration between Indigenous creativity and Western archaeology holds the potential to foster a more holistic and inclusive understanding of historical narratives. By acknowledging and integrating Indigenous perspectives, archaeology can move beyond a purely empirical exploration to embrace the rich spiritual dimensions that have shaped Indigenous cultures throughout time. This collaborative approach encourages a more respectful and comprehensive engagement with the material culture of Indigenous communities, honouring their unique ways of interpreting and expressing the profound spiritual aspects embedded in objects.

This article aims to provide a practical approach to analysing and interpreting Indigenous spiritual objects using creativity as a research method. This approach bridges the gap between creative making and archaeology. Applying Indigenous place-based and embodied methodologies opens new possibilities and is crucial to understanding a cultural object’s spiritual element(s). Using a decolonised approach, creative archaeological research integrates Indigenous knowledge and interdisciplinary approaches to address Indigenous worldviews. This approach is important when working with Indigenous communities.

This study reveals that Country-guided, sensory embodied knowledge and ritual practice intersect with Indigenous values, knowledge, and cultural protocols and are imperative for understanding the non-human world. These symbolic processes enable us to ethically, empathically, and relationally acknowledge other-than-human realities. This research highlights how archaeologists can engage in new arenas to promote the value of the spiritual context in cultural objects where public audiences can interact and engage with the past.

Disclosure statement

The author declares no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Additional information

Funding

The author disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research of this article: This work was supported by the Macquarie University and the Research Centre for Ancient Cultural Heritage and Environment (CACHE) through an Early Career Indigenous Australian Research Fellowship in 2021.