In Part 1 we explained how we have been retrieving our Aboriginal language known today as palawa kani. We explained that for language revival purposes we give primacy to the north-eastern language group because there are more extensive records of those languages. In this Part 2 we explain how we do things differently when retrieving the Aboriginal names for geographical features (places) and how the mistaken or wilful misrepresentation of our language work has been used politically to undermine a proper approach to Aboriginal and dual naming throughout the State.
After years of work, an Aboriginal and Dual Naming Policy was adopted by the Labor Greens Accord under Premier Lara Giddings and Green’s Cassy O’Connor in 2012. This allowed for the official state naming of places proposed by the Tasmanian Aboriginal Centre’s Language Program and agreed by the Aboriginal community. Despite the delays there were finally 14 agreed dual names that became part of the island’s official naming system. These included Kunanyi/Mt Wellington, and Larapuna/Eddystone Point. A further 8 names, mostly for areas in the north west, were proposed in March 2015, were repeatedly delayed by the Nomenclature Board and eventually became part of the Hodgman government’s undermining of the TAC’s language work after the Liberal government came to office in 2014.
It seems no coincidence that the Tasmanian Regional Aboriginal Communities Alliance (TRACA) was formed the following year, ignoring the fact that the Tasmanian Aboriginal Centre also has a presence in all regional areas. It must also be no coincidence that the Nomenclature Board in 2015 introduced a new requirement outside the agreed policy that we consult with specific organisations about the names we were proposing at that time. Then in May 2017 the co-chair of TRACA, Patsy Cameron, told the ABC they wanted a review of the Aboriginal naming process as their member organisations wanted ownership of naming country in the regions. In the same press article, the government announced a review of the Aboriginal and dual naming process to ensure ‘greater consultation and engagement’. We had previously received widespread support for the Aboriginal names we proposed including from several local councils and some government departments.
The focus of our work on Aboriginal and dual naming is finding the names given to early recorders by the Aboriginal people of the area in which the place is situated, and preferably given when near to that place. Where we have the option, we would choose a word given, say, to George Augustus Robinson by a speaker of a north western language when travelling with Robinson through the north west rather than several years later when they met up again at Wybalena on Flinders Island.
On the three or four occasions on which the Aboriginal community has given new names to places we make it very clear that is how the name is derived. For example, the Aboriginal community decided an Aboriginal name was needed for Aboriginal land at Risdon Cove.
There are no recordings of original names for that area so the community met and decided on ‘little native hens’ which are abundant on the land. Hence we now say Piyura kitina/Risdon Cove.
The same process was followed for naming small waterfalls in the north and south of the State. In all other cases the Aboriginal names have been found through thorough research and using a known and accepted sound and spelling system.
We use the place name given by an Aboriginal speaker of the area rather than a speaker from a different region, given that there were at least seven different language regions in the state. This was relevant when we came to consider the proposal to use the place name paranaple for the Devonport Convention Centre.
There are 4 words recorded for the Mersey River with no linguistic or historical evidence that any of them refer to different parts of the river. Paranaple appears in a word list as one of the 4 words recorded for the Mersey River. Paranaple was recorded by the Danish adventurer Jorgen Jorgenson and its variants pirinapel by McGeary and ponrabbel by Milligan. None of the recordings of this word give any information about the language region of origin or the circumstances of the recording.
By contrast, the name tulaminakali is a word from the language region through which the river flows – the northern language region. We know this because the recorder Robinson tells us so in his record of the name and we can corroborate this from his journals which enable us to identify the two northern people who travelled with him to the Mersey River site at the time he recorded the name. It is also the only word that is unambiguously recorded more than once for ‘Mersey River’.
We see evidence of the politicisation of the Aboriginal naming process in media stories that followed our reconstruction of this word. The co-chair of TRACA, Patsy Cameron, conjectured that paranaple might have been the original name of a different part of the river. We are aware that is a naming convention of some other Australian Aboriginal languages but there is no historical or linguistic evidence whatsoever that tulaminakali had different names for its various parts. It is possible that different language groups had different names for the river, but again there is no evidence for that.
This same politicisation is evident in the then Hodgman government decision to review the Aboriginal and dual naming policy. The Review of the Aboriginal and Dual Naming Policy Issues Paper of November 2017 refers to the perceived need for the policy to be more inclusive and to ‘the suggestions that have been made’ to enable organisations, groups and individuals other than the Tasmanian Aboriginal Centre’s palawa kani program to nominate names for consideration by the Nomenclature Board. Such a suggestion could be sensible in areas where different Aboriginal languages continue to be spoken but make no sense in Tasmania where only the palawa kani program has been involved in language retrieval since the early 1990s and where no local languages have been spoken for 150 years or so. The Issues Paper contemplated different Aboriginal views on proposed Aboriginal or dual names and consultation with ‘various experts’ to ensure ‘the validity and authenticity’ of proposed Aboriginal names. It was clear therefore that the government neither understood nor respected the language research undertaken by the TAC over a generation.
The capture of the Hodgman government by small local organisations is apparent from the Issues Paper reference to ‘local’ organisations seeking ownership of the naming process in their area even though they have no local language and no language research background. The failure of the government Issues Paper to understand our language work is apparent from their drawing a distinction between palawa kani and ‘original Tasmanian Aboriginal language/s’. The original language word from the area where a place is located is always the preferred name where it exists and there is no evidence for the suggestion that “different traditional groups each have a different name for the same location, or several names for different parts of the same location.” Where different tribes had their own names for places in the areas of other tribes, there is no reason to revive for general use any name other than that of the language group of the area where the feature occurs, in a situation like ours where those names have not continued in use.
The Policy Review’s Feedback Report of June 2018 stated that: “There was unanimous support for the expansion of languages used to inform dual naming to include other Tasmanian Aboriginal languages, local knowledge and for proposals to be based on sound history and research.” This fundamental misconception about there being multiple Tasmanian Aboriginal languages and local knowledge that was not discovered in the comprehensive community consultations of the 1990s is what confirms for us that this ‘review’ was indeed political posturing designed to appease the ‘local groups’ supported and funded by the Hodgman government to oppose the work of the Tasmanian Aboriginal Centre.
Image courtesy TAC.
The submissions made to the Policy Review further illustrate the determination of some to undermine the language work we do. This is made explicit in the TRACA submission which describes the Aboriginal naming review as part of then Premier Hodgman’s policy of resetting the relationship with the Aboriginal community by requiring only a statutory declaration of belief in Aboriginal ancestry to make a person eligible for Aboriginal services from the state.
The Feedback Report made much of a perceived need for greater community consultation about the Aboriginal names being proposed. For reasons known only to themselves, those Aboriginal groups who espoused greater consultation have never taken up the opportunities to attend Aboriginal community meetings, advertised via social media, where language naming has been discussed. Local councils were always consulted about names proposed for their areas including the Circular Head Council which approved the first set of names we provided in the north-west. No state government funds have ever been given for consultation purposes.
Some of the worst misrepresentations promoted in the submissions to the Policy Review included:
The TAC’s Aboriginal naming is a “creole or reconstructed version of recorded Aboriginal placenames” whereas the names have been thoroughly researched and the individual recorders’ interpretation of the sounds they heard have been subjected to detailed linguistic analysis.
“Names should reflect the original, authentic language of the clan of that area, not the reconstructed palawa kani.” Palawa kani naming is indeed the original, authentic language of the clan of the area. The allegation confuses the naming of places and the retrieval of the vocabulary of a full language.
Reconciliation Tasmania recommended that all Tasmanians be able to recommend Aboriginal names and that a new statutory body be set up to regulate the process (submission of 11 December 2018). There has seldom been a clearer case of ‘to the victor belong the spoils’ with non-Aboriginal Tasmania becoming the arbiter of which names would be used for Aboriginal places: not at all a good foundation for reconciliation.
TRACA opposed palawa kani being the default language for naming on the grounds that would “cause the extinction of all other languages our ancestors spoke” (submission 10 January 2019) thereby confirming indirectly that no other languages are spoken today and consist only of word lists compiled by the occupiers.
The self-styled rock art expert Peter C Sims OAM also advocated Aboriginal naming recommendations should be open to non-Aboriginal people and be done with historical accuracy, integrity, and transparency (submission of 27 November 2017). Sims also promoted himself as a language expert saying he had found 60 Aboriginal place names from the Joseph Milligan lists linked to towns in Tasmania that we had ignored. On the contrary, the Milligan list is just one of the many we use but we know he is not a reliable recorder of Aboriginal words as his work was compiled years after our people were removed from their own lands and he seldom gives any information about who gave him the words. It may be observed that Sims is an honorary research associate at the Queen Victoria Museum and Art Gallery where Mrs Cameron is also an advisor.
The author Dr Ian McFarlane displayed ignorance of both Aboriginal history and our language work in a presentation to the Circular Head Council reported in The Advocate on 15 June 2020. McFarlane contended the point of dual naming is to acknowledge a people’s history who can no longer represent themselves and so there is no point in using ‘someone else’s language’. The mistake McFarlane made is to make the assumption that the names we proposed for places in Circular Head were not the original names given by the original owners of those areas.
We have had an orthography (conventions for writing a language, including spelling) of Aboriginal language in Lutruwita/Tasmania since 1998. It was developed by the Aboriginal community in consultation with linguists experienced in Aboriginal languages. It has much more intellectual rigour than the transcriptions of the bricklayer cum missionary George Augustus Robinson and any of the other 20 or so recorders of our languages. It provides for consistency and ease of use as well as for authenticity and acceptability to the thousands of Aboriginal people who have accepted the TAC as the Aboriginal language body for Lutruwita/Tasmania for generations. It is entirely consistent with the Australian Principles for the Consistent Use of Place Names.
The most extensive and readily available source for Aboriginal naming is Brian Plomley’s ‘Tasmanian Aboriginal Place Names’ published by the Queen Victoria Museum locatable at www.qvmag.tas.gov.au. It is easy to see how some groups have come up with place names simply by looking up the alphabetical entries in Plomley’s list. For the North Esk River, for example, it shows ‘Lakekeller’ which is the same name as that thoroughly researched and transcribed in palawa kani to Laykila. The merits of having a sounds and spelling system consistent with previous official Aboriginal names is obvious.
In her You Tube clip talking about Aboriginal naming Mrs Cameron names the North Esk River as Lukekeller and gives Ponrabbel and Karnernarlukeker for the Tamar River. Lukekeller is an incorrect spelling of Robinson’s Lakekeller which is spelt Laykila in palawa kani to better reflect its pronunciation. It is the only word recorded for the North Esk River. For the Tamar River, Robinson records Kunermurlukeker. In palawa kani the name is spelt Kanamaluka which more accurately represents how the original word sounded. Hence in these two instances there is no real disagreement about the original name of the rivers and it’s only the spellings that are different, one being from an old word list and the other being from a fully authenticated orthography.
If anyone doubts our warnings about the dangers of simply adopting names from early word lists, our own research is amply corroborated by Brian Plomely in chapter 2 of his 1976 book, A Word-List of the Tasmanian Aboriginal Languages. It is indeed a great shame that our detractors do not appear to have even read the many cautions he offers.
It is quite astonishing that the new Aboriginal and Dual Naming Policy of 2019 allows for Aboriginal names to adopt “different spelling systems, pronunciations and syntaxes sitting alongside each other.”
This puts the Tasmanian policy in conflict with the national guidelines for place naming.
It seems designed to promote the fiction of different local languages being currently in use whereas in reality it enables names to be plucked from the word lists of Robinson/Plomely, Milligan, Jorgensen and others.
We are yet to see how these complexities will be interpreted by the Place Names Advisory Panel established under the Place Names Act 2020 to advise the Minister who makes the final decision on the naming of places. The Advisory Panel is chaired by the Surveyor-General with three other government appointees and up to two people with knowledge and experience in heritage or history, orthography, or linguistics and others as decided by the Minister. The names of those people are not yet available. The DPIPWE web site shows that the Panel has appointed an Aboriginal Reference Group whose names are now known but with no description of the credentials of any of the 5 people named. Of the two white members on the Panel we know one is the in-law of an Aboriginal person and has credentials published online as an artist in residence who has been able to “develop a deep and listening relationship with the Baludarri (Sydney Rock Oyster)” and sings with oysters so others may connect to Sea Country. Hmmm – let’s give that some thought as a qualifying criterion for an Aboriginal naming advisory group. The other white member of the Reference Group had advice from a senior member of our community when writing his book. None of the three Aboriginal members (all from the same small organisation) have any training or experience in linguistics.
The Aboriginal Reference Group will have clear conflicts of interest as it includes Mrs Cameron who has very publicly opposed our naming work and has offered her own interpretations unsupported by any historical or linguistic evidence. All three Aboriginal members of the Reference Group are prominent members of Mrs Cameron’s Melaythina organisation which has already nominated Aboriginal names for places that presumably will be referred for their advice. Although not currently a Board member of the organisation it is clear from the organisation’s financial statements (freely available on the web site of the Office of the Registrar of Aboriginal Corporations) that she remains a ‘related party’ with very significant influence on the organisation.
How then do the principles of transparency and avoidance of conflicts of interest sit with the Reference Group Aboriginal members being part of the organisation that has proposed 8 of the 17 suggested ‘Aboriginal’ place names currently before the Place Names Advisory Panel? It is to be noted also that the other names suggested have been proposed by other members of TRACA. Ten of those 17 names are proposed as ‘alternatives’ to the palawa kani names already found for those places. A mere disclosure of a conflict of interest is hardly adequate in such circumstances and abstaining from participation would leave two white people with no relevant qualifications to make the recommendation to the Advisory Panel. The Aboriginal Reference Group would thus serve no purpose.
It is past time that the Liberal government under Premier Gutwein put behind them the assaults on the integrity of the Aboriginal community that have seen false claims of local communities with local languages, of imaginings rather than evidence, and politicisation rather than valuing of the Aboriginal heritage of Lutruwita/Tasmania.
Heather Sculthorpe B.A; Ll.B (Hons); GradDip. Envt Mgt; GAICD is Chief Executive Officer of the Tasmanian Aboriginal Centre.
