Description:
Since the time of European exploration of Australia, the topography of the continent has been mapped from a colonial cartographic perspective. Colonial government guidelines have ‘controlled’ the knowledge base of understanding of the landscape for non-indigenous Australians. This perspective has lead to a colonial-tainted sense of place for non-Indigenous (and some Indigenous) Australians. Such euro-centric focused governance and management of the development of our understanding of the landscape was strongly exemplified during a recent six-month review of State forest names in Victoria. By the beginning of 2004 over 90 percent of State forests in Victoria did not have officially registered names in the Australian Gazetteer. Thus, the Victorian Department of Sustainability and Environment employed the researchers to undertake a pilot study program, investigating different methods for officially naming the State forests in the Midlands Region of Victoria. This pilot study program focussed on producing a best practice model for naming State forest areas, which would then be utilised for all State forests across Victoria. It was understood by the researchers that placenames were markers of national, regional, local and personal identity, and as such, part of the State forest review concentrated on recognising all the various historical and contemporary identities apparent in the Midlands region. This attempt to recognise historical and contemporary associations with the State forest areas proved to be a challenge to the researchers. Difficulties arose in multiple areas of the review process. In the first instance, there was difficulty in applying the vague government guidelines on dual-naming, to a practical and tangible situation. In addition, an interesting challenge faced the researchers in trying to recognise Indigenous heritage, within a colonial geographical framework. Indigenous landscape boundaries did not align with the State forest areas designated on official government maps, and in some instances State forest areas contained three Indigenous language borders. Similarly, there were difficulties in engaging the Indigenous communities into the review process. Fluency in some local Indigenous languages had been lost. Some Indigenous groups were involved in inter-factional disagreements. One Indigenous group did not want to have their heritage ‘controlled’ by government naming guidelines. In addition, the local non-indigenous community also proved difficult on occasion, especially in relation to the proposal of dual-naming State forest areas. The notion of native-title claims, and a deficiency of general community understanding in relation to indigenous sense of place was all pervasive, and caused a great deal of resistance to be built against the recognition of Indigenous heritage in the State forest areas. The paper will explore the issues that arise in conducting research that requires an incorporation of more than one dominant cultural ideology. Moreover, strategies utilised in working through these issues, to ensure inclusivity of all identified parties, will be discussed.
Description:
This paper discusses the value of clan name research as a means of uncovering Aboriginal place names. It argues that clan names are able to provide a layer of place names that in some instances is the only source of information available to researchers of indigenous toponymy. They are an important data set that is useful in the mapping of Aboriginal spatial organization.
Description:
This paper discusses the value of clan name research as a means of uncovering Aboriginal place names. It argues that clan names are able to provide a layer of place names that in some instances is the only source of information available to researchers of indigenous toponymy. They are an important data set that is useful in the mapping of Aboriginal spatial organization.
Description:
This book showcases current research into Indigenous and minority placenames in Australia and internationally. Many of the chapters in this volume originated as papers at a Trends in Toponymy conference hosted by the University of Ballarat in 2007 that featured Australian and international speakers. The chapters in this volume provide insight into the quality of toponymic research that is being undertaken in Australia and in countries such as Canada, Finland, South Africa, New Zealand, and Norway. The research presented here draws on the disciplines of linguistics, geography, history, and anthropology. This book includes meticulous studies of placenames in central NSW and the Upper Hunter region; Gundungurra cave names; western Arnhem Land; Northern Cape York Peninsula and Mount Wheeler in Queensland; saltwater placenames around Mer in the Torres Strait; and the Kaurna in South Australia.
Description:
Of central import to this study is the rarely cited notion that 'it is not spaces which ground identifications, but places. How then does space become place? By being named' (Carter, Donald and Squires 1993: xii). Carter and others are among the few who have overtly linked the process of naming to the creation of places from space and their theoretical cohort include Claude Levi-Strauss (1962) who noted that place is named space, and Tim Cresswell (2004: 10) who asserted that 'when humans invest meaning in a portion of space and then become attached to it in some way (naming is one such way) it becomes place'. This concept of place positioning human landscape interactions is of integral importance to this research in that it is thought to be toponyms which symbolise this interaction and identification. This paper contributes to the developing field of cultural toponymy by examining whether the social and cultural role of toponyms can be partly defined through a theory on toponymic identity. Essentially, this paper asks 'can toponyms contribute to a social, cultural and historical identity formation or recognition in similar, yet distinguishable, ways to places?'.
Description:
In a recent paper on transparency versus opacity in Australian Aboriginal placenames, Michael Walsh (2002: 47) noted that in 'Aboriginal Australia it is relatively common for a given place to have multiple names'. In providing an overview of multiple naming practices Walsh (2002: 47) stated the 'simplest case is one place having two names. Such doublets can be intralectal or crosslectal. For intralectal doublets where there are two names for the one place in the same lect, both placenames may be opaque, both transparent, or one opaque and one transparent. ... The same applies to crosslectal doublets where two names for the one place come from different lects'. Walsh (2002) observed that he was unclear on how multiple naming works and what its function is. Other than some case studies (Schebeck 2002 re Flinders Ranges, Sutton 2002 re the Wik region, Cape York, and Tamisari 2002) we are yet to gain a comprehensive pricture for Aboriginal Australia. This paper adds to this discussion through a consideration of multiple naming in western and central Victoria using the results of research conducted by Clark and Heydon (2002) into Victorian Aboriginal placenames. The paper refers to examples from three languages in central and western Victoria Kulin, Wathawurrung, and Maar.
Description:
This book is the third volume in a series dedicated to Australian placenames. The earlier volumes are Koch and Hercus (eds) 2009, 'Aboriginal Placenames : Naming and re-naming the Australian landscape' (The Australian National University EPress and Aboriginal History), and Hercus, Hodges and Simpson (eds) 2002, 'The land is a map : Placenames of Indigenous Origin in Australia' (Pandanus Books and Pacific Linguistics, Canberra). As in the earlier volumes, many of the papers in this volume originated as papers at a placenames conference, in this cas one hosted by the University of Ballarat in 2007 that featured Australian and international speakers who spoke on aspects of Indigenous and minority toponyms. Added to these papers are three papers that are recipients of the Murray Chapman Award: Nash (Chapter 2) and Wafer (Chapter 4) won the award in 2011, and Nash (Chapter 3) in 2012. This award is sponsored by the Geographical Names Board of NSW. The papers have been arranged geographically, starting with New South Wales and ending with four international papers presented at the Ballarat conference.
Description:
When studying the history of some 3,400 Aboriginal toponyms in Victoria, Australia, the majority of placenames were found to have no equivocalness or ambiguity about them (Clark and Heydon 2002). Although it was not possible to find meanings fro every one of these Aboriginal placenames, in terms of historical accounts and folk etymology there was no ambiguity - the vast majority of the placenames are accepted in the source material as being of Aboriginal origin. This paper concerns some 26 placenames for which there is dissonance or a lack of agreement about whether or not they are Aboriginal in origin. These names are considered in some detail in an effort to resolve their lexical ambiguity and an attempt is made to explain the reasons for the ambiguity and to find any patterns and causal factors. The merits of the claims and counter claims in each case will be examined and an attempt made to categorise the assertion of Aboriginal etymology as either grounded in the historical evidence, or likely to be explained by folk etymology - that is, a false meaning based on its structure or sound that may lack historical basis but has been accepted through common practice, or explained as a false etymology that neither accords with historical evidence nor equates with folk etymologies.
Description:
The archival records of many squatters in 19th century Victoria (formerly known as the Port Phillip District) often contain brief references to the processes involved in and decisions that led to the naming of their pastoral leases. This documentation is hardly surprising given that a squatter wishing to obtain a pastoral license would have to register a legal document with the colonial government, stating among other things the name of the run. What is perplexing is why a large number of pastoralists chose an Indigenous name - given that squatters were not under any instructions to bestow 'native names' whenever possible - unlike the surveyors who came after them.