Changing Names and Cultural Values in Australia
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Signs of the Times: Changing Names and Cultural Values in Australia Laura KOSTANSKI ‘Someone was telling me that they kept on using chainsaws to chop down the signs in the Northern Grampians and the bloke in the forestry division [of the state government department] said that they fixed them by putting a steel bolt up the middle of the posts and the fellow ruined his chainsaw. So they got back on that one. That solved that problem’ – Barry, local resident reflecting on events following an Indigenous name restoration program in 1989/1990 It’s good to have recognition of the traditional owners and this acknowledgement assists with reconciliation within our contemporary community. I feel a sense of pride every time I drive past them.’ – Annie Young, Co-Chair of City of Ballarat’s Unfinished Busi- ness Advisory Committee, discussing new ‘welcome to country’ signs erected at the entrances to Ballarat in 2009. 1. Introduction It is widely recognised that ‘naming is claiming’ (Day 2005, Birch 1996, Carter 1987). Similarly, I assert that to sign is to reinforce the party line. For, if a painted picture can say 1000 words, then so too the constructed and written toponym invites discussion about its land- scape. As testified by Barry and Annie above, far from being abstract representations of the landscape, toponyms summon emotional and physical responses from people and their communities- with reactions ranging from community pride to fury (occasionally unleashed with the assistance of chainsaws and only ‘remedied’ or counteracted by steel bolts). Toponyms play multiple roles in the cerebral world: they represent histories; connect communities; identify cultural heritage; locate areas; Onoma 46 (2011), 251-274. doi: 10.2143/ONO.46.0.2975537. © Onoma. All rights reserved. 996190_ONOMA_46_10.indd6190_ONOMA_46_10.indd 251251 224/04/134/04/13 114:434:43 252 LAURA KOSTANSKI and, define places in the landscape (Kostanski 2009). Within the nat- ural and constructed landscape they also have a role in written form: they appear as words on signposts, names on banners and markings on walls. Their physical appearance and existence (in some cases also non-existence) speaks volumes for the cultural, political and social fabric surrounding the area of their location (Berg and Kearns 2009, Puzey 2008, Rautio Helander 2009). Consideration of the emotional and functional aspects of toponymy brings dynamic understandings of the linguistic landscape (Kostanski 2011). Therefore, the framework for this investigation is informed by recent research developments in the area of toponymic attachment, identity and dependence. Two case studies are examined from the State of Victoria: that of a name restoration program in the early 1990s which received wide-spread public commentary (mostly negative in nature). This discussion is counterpointed with the second minor case study on ‘welcome to country’ signage developed since the late 1990s. The key research question is ‘what is the nature of personal interactions with, and community dependence on, locational signage?’ This paper focuses itself on investigating elements at opposing ends of a twenty-year period of the linguistic landscape in Victoria, and on seeking to explain their import through the framework of recently developed theories on toponymy. 2. Landscape & Toponymic Theory ‘What is in a name?’ Shakespeare’s Juliet once opined that a rose by any other name would still smell as sweet (Shakespeare 1982). However, as Juliet was keenly aware, the character of an object can be perceived quite differently to that of its label. This is certainly true when considering the effect of toponyms in the physical, cultural and linguistic landscape. Toponyms are created by humans for multiple purposes and as such there exist a multitude of toponymic effects and causalities which are being researched with increasing frequency (Berg and Vuolteenaho 2009, Jordan 2011, Koch and Hercus 2009). While the research direc- tions and interests are diverse, the basic tenet of toponymic theorists holds that the landscape is a space until imbued with meaning (Tuan 1977, Relph 1976). The act of transferring meaning to space results in the creation of places (Heidegger 1958, de Certeau 1984). Out of this 996190_ONOMA_46_10.indd6190_ONOMA_46_10.indd 252252 224/04/134/04/13 114:434:43 CHANGING NAMES AND CULTURAL VA LU ES IN AUSTRALIA 253 process toponyms are born, to assist in distinguishing places from each other (Levi-Strauss 1962, Carter, Donald, and Squires 1993, Sopher 1978). In similar ways to which humans form attachments with places, they can also be found to form attachments with toponyms (Kostanski 2009). Hidalgo and Hernandez (2001, 274) assert that a general description of place attachment defines it as ‘an affective bond or link between people and specific places’. Williams and Vaske (2002, 5) assert that there are two different forms of attachment to place. The first they label ‘place dependence’ and describe it as a functional attachment to place which ‘reflects the importance of a place in pro- viding features and conditions that support specific goals or desired activities’ and also ‘suggests an ongoing relationship with a particular setting’. The second form of attachment to place Williams and Vaske label ‘place identity’, which they assert is an emotional attachment to place. They posited that place identity ‘generally involves a psycho- logical investment with the place that tends to develop over time’ and that it ‘enhances self-esteem … increases feelings of belonging to one’s community … and is an important component of communica- tions about environmental values and policies’. As previous research has shown, the attachments formed with places are similar to, yet distinguishable from, the attachments formed with toponyms (Kostanski 2009, 2011). The theory of toponymic attach ment describes the processes and underlying rationale for both how community and historical identity are formed through and with linguistic-toponymy, and how promotional and locational dependen- cies are mitigated by written-toponymy (Kostanski 2009, 2011, Kostanski and Clark 2005). It is possible for people to hold simul- taneously a positive attachment to a place and a negative attachment to its referent toponym (and vice versa). Complete positive or negative toponymic attachment relies on the two elements of identity and dependence being present within a population. Toponyms can create and affect community ties and they are able to be utilised as political tools in restoring and recognising pre-colo- nial or minority cultures (Hilterman and Koopman 2003, Rautio Helander 2009, Berg and Vuolteenaho 2009). Concomitantly, the physical existence of the written toponym on signage and maps both represents and mediates social and cultural mores and relationships (Puzey 2008). Dependencies are formed with toponyms, to locate, 996190_ONOMA_46_10.indd6190_ONOMA_46_10.indd 253253 224/04/134/04/13 114:434:43 254 LAURA KOSTANSKI identify and distinguish places for various elements of the population. Dependencies are developed and reinforced through the linguistic landscape by the erection of signage, the printing of maps and the use of names to provide a means of way-finding. Essentially, because of their linkage to the written-toponym the theories related to toponymic dependency are highly relevant to this current study. 3. Case Study One: Grampians/Gariwerd National Park 3.1. Background The Grampians (Gariwerd) National Park is located near the town of Stawell, approximately 250 km west of Melbourne. The National Park covers 170,000 ha containing ancient mountains, rocky escarpments and Indigenous rock art. The traditional custodians of this landscape are the Jardwadjali and Djabwurrung peoples, whose boundaries dis- sect the area. The Djabwurrung and Jardwadjali peoples have names for sites and areas within the contemporary National Park area, with one of the mountain ranges known as Gariwerd (Clark and Harradine 1990). In 1836, Thomas Mitchell, then Surveyor-General of New South Wales, named the area after a place in his home country of Scotland, where the name Grampians is used to refer to a range of mountains in the north-eastern regions of the country. The mountains were originally referred to as Mons Graupius, the meaning of which is unknown, except for the fact that mons refers to ‘mountain’ (Fraser 2005). In March 1989, the Honourable Steve Crabb, Minister for Tour- ism with the Victorian Labour Government, introduced the process of Indigenous toponym restoration in the National Park. When asked why he had started this process, he stated that there were two pre- dominant reasons. The first related to recognising Indigenous heritage in the area. The second he explained as an effort to create controversy and develop ‘a tourism message that when you came here, you could […] have an experience that was an Indigenous experience’. Crabb noted that names derived from Indigenous languages were the most appropriate toponyms to convey the cultural heritage of rock art sites or for creating a link to the attributes of the places. In total, by 1990, 10 Indigenous names were proposed in the park for use for ‘new features’, 8 Indigenous names were recognised to 996190_ONOMA_46_10.indd6190_ONOMA_46_10.indd 254254 224/04/134/04/13 114:434:43 CHANGING NAMES AND CULTURAL VA LU ES IN AUSTRALIA 255 replace non-Indigenous names and 32 features were dual-named. At the time of the original proposal in 1989, State Government naming regulations stipulated that the only option was to have ‘one place and one name’. This regulation implicitly dictated that the restoration of Indigenous toponyms required the removal of existing, predominantly Anglo-Celtic, toponyms and was the catalyst for overwhelming polit- ical and community reaction to the proposals which took two forms. There were those who wholeheartedly supported it as they perceived the program to be an important step in acknowledging traditional cus- todianship. Meanwhile, there were others who opposed the proposal for many reasons. Figuring highly in their list of grievances was the perception it was a non-locally developed initiative which was thought to ‘threaten’ local community identity.