This paper identifies the emergence of the pursuit of social justice as a core focus of collaborative archaeologies in Aboriginal Australia. A wide range of case studies are examined, especially in relation to efforts to redress a 'deep colonisation' that silences Indigenous histories and fails to engage with Indigenous voices or experiences. This research is part of a wider global movement of community-based, activist and engaged archaeology that encompasses two principle approaches to social justice: the redistribution of resources and goods and the politics of recognition. It is informed by a more general concern with human rights, structural violence and ethical globalisation. In Australia, social justice archaeologies are both confronting, in terms of frontier violence, intentional structural violence and racism, but also inspirational/aspirational, in terms of Aboriginal nation building and the cultural facilitation of Aboriginal research ethics. The development of collaborative projects between Indigenous peoples and (Indigenous and non-Indigenous) archaeologists can be challenging. Indigenous archaeologists face particular challenges, including balancing sometimes conflicting expectations from communities with the demands of the profession. For non-Indigenous archaeologists, the challenge lies in the shift from working with Indigenous peoples to working for Indigenous peoples as part of a process in which social justice outcomes are a product, rather than a by-product, of archaeological research.

This paper identifies the emergence of the pursuit of social justice as a core focus of collaborative archaeologies in Aboriginal Australia. A wide range of case studies are examined, especially in relation to efforts to redress a ‘deep colonisation’ that silences Indigenous histories and fails to engage with Indigenous voices or experiences. This research is part of a wider global movement of community-based, activist and engaged archaeology that encompasses two principle approaches to social justice: the redistribution of resources and goods and the politics of recognition. It is informed by a more general concern with human rights, structural violence and ethical globalisation. In Australia, social justice archaeologies are both confronting, in terms of frontier violence, intentional structural violence and racism, but also inspirational/aspirational, in terms of Aboriginal nation building and the cultural facilitation of Aboriginal research ethics. The development of collaborative projects between Indigenous peoples and (Indigenous and non-Indigenous) archaeologists can be challenging. Indigenous archaeologists face particular challenges, including balancing sometimes conflicting expectations from communities with the demands of the profession. For non-Indigenous archaeologists, the challenge lies in the shift from working with Indigenous peoples to working for Indigenous peoples as part of a process in which social justice outcomes are a product, rather than a by-product, of archaeological research.

This paper was written in response to a request by the editors of the AP: Online Journal of Public Archaeology, Jaime Almansa Sánchez and Elena Papagiannopoulou, for Claire Smith to write on the future of public archaeology in Australia. In Australia, public archaeology focusses on high profile colonial sites such as The Rocks in Sydney (Karskens 1999) and Port Arthur in Tasmania (Steele et al. 2007; Frew 2012), tourism (e.g. Cole and Wallis 2019) or enhancing school curricula (Nichols et al. 2005; Owens and Steele 2005). However, given her decades-long relationships with Jawoyn and Ngadjuri people (Smith 1999; Smith et al. 2016; Smith et al. 2020), Claire Smith decided that a useful way of approaching this topic would be to obtain Indigenous views on the subject. Accordingly, she contacted the Aboriginal co-authors of this article and invited them to co-author the paper. The possibility to write in free form was a boon. The ‘conversation’ format we settled on was designed to facilitate the voices of individuals, to present a range of Indigenous views, to allow people to express their views frankly, and to deal with the constraints of people being located in different parts of Australia as well as occasional lock-downs due to COVID-19. We decided on five topics/questions that would be the basis of the conversation. Each Aboriginal author gave their views either by email or by phone. These views were interwoven into a ‘conversation’. The language has been edited lightly for clarity and to simulate a real-life conversation. The final text was approved by all authors.

No abstract