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 14:4314:43 252 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 14:4314:43 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 attachment 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 14:4314:43 254 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 14:4314:43 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. Reactions in support or dissent of the proposal reached far and wide, and in some instances the debate was carried out through the linguistic landscape itself. Participants in the debate not only signed petitions (over 60,000 people opposed the proposal in this way) and wrote letters to the editors of rural and metropolitan newspapers, they erected or destroyed signs which promoted Indigenous names. The methods of expressing support or opposition to the proposal pro- vide important insight into the toponymic attachment of the local and extended communities of the Grampians/Gariwerd area. In total, 141 letters to the editor and 94 newspaper reports or editorials written during the time of the debate in 1989/1990 were collated and analysed to pinpoint the factors influencing aspects of toponymic attachment. Further to this, 58 questionnaires were com- pleted by people who originally wrote letters or reports in 1989/1990 (details of this questionnaire can be found in Kostanski (2009)). In addition, interviews were convened with 45 people who had been key stakeholders in the original debate, such as politicians and com- munity group lobbyists.
It should be noted that in the following section of this paper informa- tion gathered from questionnaire and interview participants is dis- cussed and analysed. Where a first name appears by itself, such as ‘Doug’ or ‘Anita’, this is a pseudonym used to identify oral history and/ or interview participants. Where a first name appears with a surname, and is not followed by a reference indicating that it is a quote taken from a media source, this is the real name of an oral history and/or
996190_ONOMA_46_10.indd6190_ONOMA_46_10.indd 255255 224/04/134/04/13 14:4314:43 256 LAURA KOSTANSKI
interview participant who explicitly gave permission for their real name to be used because of their political or key stakeholder role in the initial name restoration debate.
3.2. Linguistic Landscape of the Grampians (Gariwerd) National Park The United Nations Group of Experts on Geographic Names (2001, 1) assert that consistent use of toponyms is important for, amongst other things, the purposes of tourism, map and atlas production, auto- matic navigation and, crucially, communications for postal services and search and rescue operations. Similarly, the Guidelines for Geo- graphic Names Victoria (Government of Victoria 2004), produced by the Registrar of Geographic Names Victoria, stipulate the processes and procedures which must be adhered to when naming features in Victoria and acknowledge that, for postal and emergency service delivery to be effective, the consistent application and use of top- onyms is important. Withers (2000, 535) notes that historically, in places such as Ireland ‘the mapping process was reliant upon accurate naming: arguably, indeed, mapping depended upon such naming since, however accurate in location and geometric terms maps might be, they were valueless as records of property ownership and guides to taxation without agreed names’. It could be argued that in similar ways in modern times, for the purposes of way-finding and tourism activities, the use of accurate names on maps is important to allow for people to find their way from point A to point B. Hand in hand with the use of maps is the use of signage to indi- cate the location of a place. People who are unfamiliar with a place will often use a combination of a map to indicate where they should be navigating to, and signage to indicate where they are in relation to their travelling route. In Australia the use of road signage conforms to international standards, and is utilised extensively to indicate not only the names of roads but the location of features such as towns, points of interest and distances from one datum point to another. Tim Cress- well (2004, 10) posits that ‘… in most definitions of landscape the viewer is outside of it. Places are very much things to be inside of’. Hence, if people can travel through a landscape, be outside of it, and at once stop and attach a meaning to an area of it, that area of the landscape becomes a place and the broader landscape can be theorised as a space. Maps and signage therefore act as a force by which notions
996190_ONOMA_46_10.indd6190_ONOMA_46_10.indd 256256 224/04/134/04/13 14:4314:43 CHANGING NAMES AND CULTURAL VA LU ES IN AUSTRALIA 257
of space and definitions of what constitutes a ‘culturally important or worthwhile’ place are reinforced. All of those interviewed during the research program indicated a strong affiliation with the histories and meanings of both the places and toponyms of the study area. In addition to the affiliations with the connotative meanings of the toponyms, many participants also noted that they were dependent on the toponyms for the purposes of locating themselves within the landscape. For example, James asserted that ‘names just identify things, help to explain, help in the communication process’. Similarly, Jason posited that toponyms can simultaneously ‘give it [a place] an identity, they give it a location’. In a letter, Seaton Ashton (1990, 2) argued that: if I was to tell you that I was off to Budja Budja for the weekend and also planned to have a look a Migunang Wirab you would look more than nonplussed. But if Tourism, Conservation and Environ- ment Minister Steve Crabb gets his way, Budja Budja will be the new name for Halls Gap and Migunang Wirab for McKenzie Falls. Karen, in her oral history interview, indicated that the use of the existing non-Indigenous names was important for locational purposes, similarly to Seaton, asserting ‘that’s what I’ve always known it [the places] as and refer to it [the places] as’. For James, Jason, Seaton Ashton and Karen toponyms are important for locating places within a landscape, and it is especially important for Seaton Ashton that the names utilised are in common usage and understood by the majority of the population. Thus, for people to be able to communicate an idea of a place’s location in relation to all other places, the participants in this research program indicated that the use of a toponym was of primary impor- tance and they therefore depended on them for locational purposes. In addition to toponymic dependence instilling a reliance on a name for communication purposes, common usage or currency is also a critical aspect of the progression with which people and communities form dependencies on toponyms. Toponyms act as cultural anchors which simultaneously reaffirm the cultural mores of a community and also guide visitors in their perceptions of, or interactions with, places in landscapes they are not familiar with. In this way, whether a place is signposted or ignored is an important indication of the cultural heritage of an area. Which top- onyms are selected to identify and locate a place, indeed which places
996190_ONOMA_46_10.indd6190_ONOMA_46_10.indd 257257 224/04/134/04/13 14:4314:43 258 LAURA KOSTANSKI
are selected to be identified through maps and signs, allows insight into the dominant cultural forces at play in the landscape. Hegemonic discourses can be promoted in tourism, marketing and promotion cam- paigns and through media such as the signs that Landry and Bourhis (1997, 25) describe as constituent elements of the linguistic landscape. These discourses can work to “popularise” Indigenous or minority cultures and at once subject them to “othering” discourses, relegate them as non-existent (i.e. through ignoring/denying/simplifying their history) or designate them with an outdated “pre-history” status. For the Victorian Government to raise the prospect of restoring Indig- enous names in the National Park landscape was a strong suggestion to the community that names previously ignored in an official capac- ity were about to be vying for attention alongside existing signposted toponyms.
3.3. What happened in the 1990s? During the time of the name restoration proposal in the early 1990s there was much debate and anger focused on the linguistic landscape. One letter writer, ‘Grampians Born and Bred’ (1990), who was opposed to the proposal asserted ‘at any rate, with all the hullaballoo about it all, there will be no name change, at the most it’s only about sign- posts’. While the signposts might have seemed like benign objects to Grampians Born and Bred, they were symbols of change for other people involved in both sides of the campaign. A strong indicator of the dependence placed upon signage as a means for asserting cultural attitudes were actions such as those under- taken by local Indigenous representative Geoff Clark. Mr Clark was chairman of Brambuk (the representative organisation for the five Indigenous communities associated with the National Park area) at the time of the name restoration proposal, and in March 1990 he decided to erect signs at the entrances to the park and in the main park town of Halls Gap. The signs used ‘the traditional Aboriginal names Gari- werd (Grampians) and Budja Budja (Halls Gap) with the “old” names in brackets’ (Hordan 1990). When queried on why he had taken this action, Clark replied that ‘the five Aboriginal groups involved in Brambuk were the rightful custodians of the Grampians and had the authority to erect the signs’. Unfortunately no photographs or sketches of these signs can be located today.
996190_ONOMA_46_10.indd6190_ONOMA_46_10.indd 258258 224/04/134/04/13 14:4314:43 CHANGING NAMES AND CULTURAL VA LU ES IN AUSTRALIA 259
The unofficial signage itself caused considerable stirring of reac- tions from the wider community. Bob Stone noted that as the final name restoration proposal had not at that stage been ratified by the Place Names Committee, the ‘residents were outraged to discover that Halls Gap and the Grampians had already been named’ (Hordan 1990). As the names had not yet been endorsed for restoration by the Com- mittee, the power of signage in asserting a political viewpoint is exceptionally clear here. The signage that Clark developed was not questioned for its authenticity, the signage itself was taken by both supporters and opponents to be a legitimate symbolic statement of the ongoing name restoration debate. For Clark a dependence was formed with the signage to assert his cultural and political claims to legitimate Indigenous custodianship of the region. For those in support of the proposal, the signage was required to assert this viewpoint vigorously within the linguistic landscape. By contrast, for those who opposed the name restoration program, attachments were also formed with the signage having been erected ‘unofficially’ and therefore representing what some perceived as ‘illegitimate’ cultural assertions from the Indigenous and pro-Indigenous communities. The name restoration proposal was approved in May 1990 (after legislation was changed to allow for dual naming, and therefore in most instances the Indigenous names were restored alongside the existing officially recognised names) and in some areas indicative official signage was erected by the government. As noted in the open- ing to this paper, Barry, who worked with the State Government department responsible for erecting signage at the time of the debate, was aware of people regularly shooting at signs or ripping them out of the ground. Barry openly acknowledged that he was aware of one area where ‘as soon as they put the signs up the locals knocked them down’. He explained in detail the processes whereby the signs were built more sturdily, with concrete foundations reaching deep into the ground, but the opponents developed stronger resolve for removing the signs and eventually started to attach chains to the back of their trucks and pull the signs out of the ground completely or use chain- saws to reduce the signs to mere stumps in the ground. He noted though that eventually ‘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.’
996190_ONOMA_46_10.indd6190_ONOMA_46_10.indd 259259 224/04/134/04/13 14:4314:43 260 LAURA KOSTANSKI
While Barry’s statement indicates a sense of satisfaction with ‘solving’ the problem of the signage being vandalised, it belies the ongoing relationship of certain members of the community with the redefined linguistic landscape. Whereas previously opponents to the name restoration had formed attachments to non-Indigenous names and had been reminded on a daily basis, through the medium of sig- nage, of the legitimacy of these attachments, now a new conundrum faced them: signage asserting the official nature of traditional Indig- enous toponyms. The signage reflected that these names were restored as dual-names. For some of the opponents in the community the Indig- enous names represented a threat to their associations with the area, perceivably attacking their attachments to the non-Indigenous names. The acts of vandalism against the signage are explicit evidence of this sentiment being experienced by some members of the community. The reactions to the unofficial (Mr Clark) and official (govern- ment) signage by some who opposed the name restoration was indic- ative of the strength and weight that the written word has in enforcing legitimacy to a toponym. Indeed, for Bob Stone to assert that Clark’s act of unofficial signage was perceived with outrage, indicates that there is a certain authority assigned to toponyms on signs.
3.4. What is the perception today? During travels in the study area it was noted that even today there is a lack of consistent signage to indicate places of Indigenous cultural heritage. For example, the entrances to the National Park areas contained signs developed by Parks Victoria (the managing govern- ment body) which stated ‘Grampians National Park’ (see Figure 1). No mention was made on these signs of the name Gariwerd, and it was only on Park Notes (maps and information sheets provided to visitors), or on interpretive signage at places of specific Indigenous cultural her- itage, that reference to the toponym Gariwerd was made. To all intents and purposes the Indigenous toponyms were only utilised in instances where the places being identified had exclusive Indigenous cultural characteristics and in all other cases the non-Indigenous names were utilised on maps and signs to provide tourists (and perhaps locals) with information on how to navigate through the landscape. During her oral history interview, Gwenda Allgood, Mayor of Ararat at the time of the name restoration debate, argued that in 1989
996190_ONOMA_46_10.indd6190_ONOMA_46_10.indd 260260 224/04/134/04/13 14:4314:43 CHANGING NAMES AND CULTURAL VA LU ES IN AUSTRALIA 261
Figure 1. Welcome sign to National Park (Photographer: Laura Kostanski).
people had been willing to accept the Indigenous names for places such as rock-art sites and that these days non-Indigenous names could not be used frequently because the signposts aren’t there anymore so people are not looking, it’s silly to keep using them. You can’t find Cave of Ghosts, people come here and say “Oh where’s the Cave of Ghosts?” and I go, “Well it’s there, it’s just not called Cave of Ghosts anymore, here it is on the map, it’s on the same place”. “Oh no it’s not, they’ve done something”. And I go, “Noooo”. So people need to stop. People in departments, government departments need to stop using the old terminology and to start using the new, just use it because people will go with that. Gwenda raises two important points, the first being that the removal and replacement of old signage is an important process in re-identify- ing an area, for it would seem that without the ability to utilise this tool to communicate the details of a place’s location, people will defer to utilising the toponyms which are signposted. Interestingly, for the place formerly known as Cave of Ghosts, now Njamadidj Shelter, the road signage indicates mainly ‘Aboriginal Rock Art Site’ (refer to Figure 2), almost a concession to indicating the place’s characteristics while simultaneous not utilising the Indigenous nor non-Indigenous
996190_ONOMA_46_10.indd6190_ONOMA_46_10.indd 261261 224/04/134/04/13 14:4314:43 262 LAURA KOSTANSKI
Figure 2. Generic sign to ‘Aboriginal Art Sites’.
Figure 3. Specific signage to Gulgurn Manja Shelter.
names. It is only when you travel closer to the site that the signage begins to utilise the Indigenous name (see Figure 3). The second interesting point Gwenda raises is about the need for consistency with toponymic practices. She notes that for identification purposes tourists are using maps to locate a place and signage to navi- gate there. When the toponyms utilised in both formats are not identi- cal it is not possible to navigate effectively from one place to another. For this reason, people are dependent on accurate toponymy for place identification purposes. When further investigation into the signage was undertaken, Brian Goodwell asserted that putting up signs with Indigenous names
996190_ONOMA_46_10.indd6190_ONOMA_46_10.indd 262262 224/04/134/04/13 14:4314:43 CHANGING NAMES AND CULTURAL VA LU ES IN AUSTRALIA 263
would ‘mean nothing’, ‘but you really need to have information at those sites about what the names mean’. This was a similar theme across the research data; that while populations are dependent upon the linguistic landscape to locate places, associations with the topo- nyms are critical for obtaining meaningful information. The symbiotic relationship of toponymic dependence and identity is made evident in statements such as those by Mary Newcombe, who noted that: I think that’s appropriate [signage of traditional Indigenous names] because that’s what they are and although a lot of people would have trouble getting their tongues around it and all the rest, it’s got rele- vance so I don’t find an issue with that at all. I think as I say, once people are here then [it’s important] to put information in their hands so that they can understand where they’re going, what they’re seeing and then it’s a different issue. Finally, in recognition of the changes which have occurred in the community since the 1990s, Gwenda Allgood provided the following summary of the current situation regarding the linguistic landscape in the area: I don’t have a real problem with it now, I think that we’ve […] come a long way as far as our recognising you know the previous owners of the land, and I think that it’s a part of our history, it doesn’t mat- ter what happens you really shouldn’t be trying to change or bury history, if it happened it happened, and we should recognise that and there’s room in this world for all of us. This sentiment of sharing the land through shared toponymy and inclusive signage is common in Victoria today. While there will always be outliers from the mainstream view, it does in general sup- port recognition of Indigenous cultural heritage. There are a multitude of reasons for this, not least the significant land-rights court cases and legislation being enacted across Australia, and an increase in Indige- nous cultural heritage scholarship and recognition. In the toponymic domain too there have been advances made in other jurisdictions of Australia, most notably concerning Uluru / Ayers Rock (Place Names Committee for the Northern Territory 2011) and Sydney Harbour (Windsor 2010, Troy and Walsh 2010, Attenbrow 2010). Since the Grampians (Gariwerd) debate in the 1990s, Victoria has subtly changed focus from asserting the restored Indigenous names for
996190_ONOMA_46_10.indd6190_ONOMA_46_10.indd 263263 224/04/134/04/13 14:4314:43 264 LAURA KOSTANSKI
places in the linguistic landscape to identifying and acknowledging tra- ditional custodians of areas. In almost a recognition of the difficulties which arose from the Grampians (Gariwerd) debate, and the divisive- ness it highlighted within the community, today a different form of recognising Indigenous cultural heritage has come to the fore and is increasing in popularity: the ‘Welcome to Country’ signpost.
4. Case Study Two: Welcome to Country Signposts 4.1. Background ‘Welcome to Country’ is recognised by the Victorian Government as a demonstration of ‘respect for Koorie people and acknowledges the spiritual, physical and cultural connection their ancestors have with their ‘country’ as the first people of the land now known as Victoria’ (Victorian Department of Education and Early Childhood Development 2010). The Welcome to Country is typically undertaken by a recognised Indigenous elder of the local community at the commencement of a meeting. It involves the elder speaking either in their local Indigenous language or English and can include reference to traditional law and lores, an explanation of the importance of the place on where the meet- ing is being held, some background on the heritage of the speaker and their kinship ties, and a general welcome to all meeting attendees on behalf of the traditional Indigenous custodians of the land. Where the speech is not made by a recognised Indigenous elder an ‘Acknowledge- ment of Country’ is generally made by the convenor of the meeting, and in Victoria the Government preferred wording is as follows: I would like to acknowledge the Traditional Owners of the land on which we are gathered and pay my respects to their Elders both past and present. Where the name of the local traditional clan or language group is known, then the preference is to include reference to their specific name directly prior to the words ‘Traditional Owners’. The State Government asserts that ‘Welcome to Country and Acknowledgment of Country ceremonies provide an opportunity for formal recognition and can lead to stronger local relationships and communication avenues being forged’ (Victorian Department of Edu- cation and Early Childhood Development 2010). The degree to which
996190_ONOMA_46_10.indd6190_ONOMA_46_10.indd 264264 224/04/134/04/13 14:4314:43 CHANGING NAMES AND CULTURAL VA LU ES IN AUSTRALIA 265
this occurs is sometimes contested, with disputes occasionally arising due to misunderstandings from meeting convenors. As acknowledged by Kowal (2010): an ingenuous welcome organiser can find themselves in the middle of a serious community dispute. Unsuspecting welcome organisers at La Trobe University in Wodonga experienced just this scenario in October last year. A welcome performed by a Melbourne-based Dhudhuroa man was interrupted by members of the local indigenous community who claimed he was not a traditional owner. Although the program was resumed after heated debate, few in the audience would have felt welcomed. Yet, for the minor issues that arise irregularly, Kowal clearly asserts that it is important to ensure that welcomes to country are a tradition continued, because they ensure to some degree that meeting organisers take some time to get to know their local Indigenous communities. Importantly Kowal also notes that ‘at the heart of these debates about tokenism are questions about our entitlement to occupy this continent and the plight of the descendants of those who witnessed the first wave of European “visitors”. For many Australians, we need to be welcomed because we have made ourselves welcome’. While Welcome to Country and Acknowledgement of Country have traditionally been in the sphere of spoken linguistics, there have been moves recently to redevelop and insert them into the physical linguistic landscape.
4.2. Welcome to Country Signage In the town of Ballarat, located 100 km west of Melbourne, ‘Welcome to Country’ signs were erected in January 2009. The signs were devel- oped as a joint project between the Unfinished Business Advisory Committee (UBAC) of the City of Ballarat Council and the Ballarat and District Aboriginal Cooperative (BADAC). The signs have been placed at the major entrances and exits to the city and contain words of greeting or farewell (depending on the direction of the highway traveller) in the local Wathawurrung language (see Figure 4). At the time of the sign development, Karen Heap, CEO of BADAC acknowledged that ‘I think it’s a great initiative and it’s a great look at reconciliation for the Aboriginal community and enabling
996190_ONOMA_46_10.indd6190_ONOMA_46_10.indd 265265 224/04/134/04/13 14:4314:43 266 LAURA KOSTANSKI
Figure 4. Welcome to Country signage at Ballarat (photo: Regional Arts Victoria 2009).
the broader community to understand that there were Aboriginal peo- ple living here and there still are’ (Peake 2009). For Heap the impor- tance of the signage is clear, it assists in identifying the traditional custodians of the land, and acts as an official recognition of Indige- nous cultural heritage. In this way there is an intrinsic attachment formed by Heap, and others who share similar sentiments, with the signs and their role in the linguistic landscape for officially asserting traditional Wathawurrung culture. A toponymic-like dependency is formed with the signage concomitantly with the development and placement of the signs in the landscape. This dependence is founded by a reliance on the signage prominently identifying and acknowledg- ing traditional Indigenous cultural heritage. As indicated at the commencement of this paper, Annie Young, co-chair of UBAC stated at the opening ceremony for the signage that ‘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’ (Regional Arts Victoria 2009). In a manner similar to that which was found in the Grampians research data, Young is acknowledging an emotional attachment to the signage. While previous examples in this
996190_ONOMA_46_10.indd6190_ONOMA_46_10.indd 266266 224/04/134/04/13 14:4314:43 CHANGING NAMES AND CULTURAL VA LU ES IN AUSTRALIA 267
paper have focused on the attachments formed with toponyms, to some degree attachments are in these instances to the signs themselves. Welcome to Country signs have been inserted into the landscape across many sections of Australia since the late 1990s and are growing in popularity. The signage is usually erected for similar reasons: in 2005 signage for Wurundjeri Baluk (in Melbourne) was developed ‘to promote better understanding of native title issues in the community’ (Hytten 2005) and in 2009 signage for Wiradjuri in Parkes (New South Wales) was created to acknowledge ‘the cultural importance of the Wiradjuri Community within Parkes Shire’ (New South Wales Department of Education and Training 2009). As far as the author can ascertain from available materials, reports and online resources, there are no ongoing concerns about the signs being defaced, vandalised, or completely removed by unhappy members of the community. In fact, in 2008 the Local Government Association of New South Wales granted the council of Deniliquin a ‘Cultural Award’ for recognition of their work in developing Welcome to Country signage for the Wamba Wamba Perrepa Perrepa country (Local Government Asso- ciation of New South Wales 2008). Indigenous names restoration programs can be imbued with issues related to identifying appropriate names (particularly where the language is no longer spoken fluently) and negotiating with the local community as to the preferences for name restoration. In this context the generalised nature of Welcome to Country signage has an obvious appeal to a wide cross-section of the Victorian community. As the signs are placed at the entrances and exits to major towns and cities, they are not able to be directly correlated to official language bound- aries of different clans and groups; and existing community negotia- tions and discussions on the topic can not be enflamed by the signage. Similarly, the signs require only research into appropriate phrases for the welcome and farewell, rather than research into toponyms which could can either be difficult to identify, be unable to matched between the traditional concept of the local Indigenous places and the modern concept of the Westernised places1 or eventually not widely accepted
1 Questions have arisen in the past as to the appropriate approach for ‘restoring’ a traditional Indigenous name to a mountain which currently has one officially recog- nised non-Indigenous name but up to five traditional Indigenous names. See Clark and Kostanski 2010 for further discussion.
996190_ONOMA_46_10.indd6190_ONOMA_46_10.indd 267267 224/04/134/04/13 14:4314:43 268 LAURA KOSTANSKI
by the local non-Indigenous community. As described by Williams and Vaske (2003, 5), place dependence may increase according to a person’s ability to access a site frequently, and it was found in Kostan- ski (2009) that the same was true for toponymic dependence. This can be extrapolated here to assert that a preference for asserting cultural heritage through Welcome to Country signage is predicated on the relatively non-confrontational manner in which is it executed and received. Importantly, toponymic changes affect not only signage, but also maps and addresses, which people rely upon for way-finding, promo- tion and locational purposes. Thus, a toponymic restoration program will inevitably, to varying degrees, have an effect on the daily spatial routines of a population and cause changes to the patterns of user toponymic attachment, identity and dependence. However, as the Wel- come to Country signage does not make reference to the toponymic aspect of the linguistic landscape, it can be viewed as a more benign process of identifying Indigenous cultural heritage and promoting it in the linguistic landscape. In this sense, where name restoration pro- grams are not viewed as a priority by the local community (in the case of Ballarat many of the existing officially-named features have names derived from traditional Indigenous names or words), the Welcome to Country signage acts as a linguistic landscaping tool for acknowledg- ing cultural heritage, and becomes an object to which people can form toponymic-like attachments, identities and dependencies without inter- fering with their existing toponymic attachments.
5. Conclusions & Further Research As has been discussed in this paper toponymic research is expanding from the core focus on etymologies to considering the impact of top- onymic practices upon and within the community. Key research devel- opments have seen theories emerge related to the political import of naming and the attachments which can be formed with toponyms. This paper has explored the linguistic landscape through two case studies: one a highly contentious name restoration program, the other a signage program to assert Indigenous cultural heritage. In the first case study of the Grampians (Gariwerd) National Park it was found that the identities and dependencies people and the com- munity formed with Indigenous and non-Indigenous toponyms were
996190_ONOMA_46_10.indd6190_ONOMA_46_10.indd 268268 224/04/134/04/13 14:4314:43 CHANGING NAMES AND CULTURAL VA LU ES IN AUSTRALIA 269
represented and asserted through signage. Signs promoting either form of toponym (non-Indigenous, Indigenous or dual) acted as mediating forces and were depended upon either to promote unofficial cultural heritage or reinforce official stances on identity. Twenty years on from the original name restoration debate the signage in the National Park is mottled and varied, symbolic in itself of the varied attachments and understandings the local and visiting populations have with the toponyms for and within the park. The second case study of the Welcome to Country signage asserted that Indigenous members of the community viewed the signs as valid and relevant assertions of traditional cultural custodianship of the landscape. The research also found that the signs themselves caused no perceivable negative reactions from the wider community. As such, it is concluded that Welcome to Country signage is a more benign linguistic landscape tool than that of a toponymic restoration program which asserts cultural heritage through official acts of nam- ing and name-signage. In this sense, Welcome to Country signage acts as a linguistic landscaping tool for acknowledging cultural heritage. The signage can act as an object to which people can form toponymic- like attachments, identities and dependencies without interfering with their existing toponymic attachments.
References Ashton, Seaton. 1990. A rose by any other name still on nose. Ballarat Courier. 08/06/2006, p. 2. Attenbrow, Val. 2010. Aboriginal placenames around Port Jackson and Botany Bay, New South Wales, Australia. In: Harold Koch and Louise A. Hercus (eds), Aboriginal place names old and new, 9-54. Canberra: ANU E Press. Berg, Lawrence, Kearns, Robin. 2009. Naming as norming: “race,” gender and identity politics of naming places in Aotearoa/New Zealand. In: Lawrence D. Berg and Jani Vuolteenaho (eds), Critical toponymies: the contested politics of place naming, 19-52. Farnham: Ashgate. Berg, Lawrence, Vuolteenaho, Jani. 2009. Towards Critical Toponymies. In: Lawrence Berg and Jani Vuolteenaho (eds.) Critical Topony- mies: the contested politics of place, 1-18. Farnham: Ashgate. Birch, Tony. 1996. Gariwerd: a colonial ghost story. Beyond the Divide 1, 66-72.
996190_ONOMA_46_10.indd6190_ONOMA_46_10.indd 269269 224/04/134/04/13 14:4314:43 270 LAURA KOSTANSKI
Carter, Erica, Donald, James, Squires, Judith (eds). 1993. Space and place: theories of identity and location. London: Lawrence & Wishart. Clark, Ian, Harradine, Lionel. 1990. The restoration of Jardwadjali and Djab Wurrung names for rock art sites and landscape fea- tures in and around the Grampians National Park. A submission to the Victorian Place Names Committee. Melbourne: Koorie Tourism Unit. Cresswell, Tim. 2004. Place: a short introduction. Melbourne: Black- well. Day, David. 2005. Conquest: a new history of the modern world. Sydney: Harper Collins. De Certeau, Michel. 1984. The practice of everyday life. Berkeley: University of California Press. Fraser, James E. 2005. The Roman conquest of Scotland: the Battle of Mons Graupius AD 84. Stroud: Tempus. Government of Victoria. 2004. Guidelines for Geographic Names Vic- toria. Melbourne: Department of Sustainability and Environment. Grampians Born and Bred. 1990. Only about signposts. Hamilton Spectator. 27/10/1990, p. 7. Hidalgo, Carmen, Hernandez, Bernardo. 2001. Place attachment: conceptual and empirical questions. Journal of Environmental Psychology 21, 273-281. Hilterman, Tracy, Koopman, Adrian. 2003. “A High Degree of Way- ward Folly…”: an analysis of public response to a proposal to rename streets in central Pietermaritzburg. Nomina Africana 17, 1-36. Hordan, Rosie. 1990. Black switch ranges signs. Sun-Herald. 11/02/ 1990. Hytten, Frank. 2005. Wurundjeri welcome to country acknowledge- ment sign. In: Parks Victoria (ed.),
996190_ONOMA_46_10.indd6190_ONOMA_46_10.indd 270270 224/04/134/04/13 14:4314:43 CHANGING NAMES AND CULTURAL VA LU ES IN AUSTRALIA 271
Kostanski, Laura. 2009. “What’s in a name?”: place and toponymic attachment, identity and dependence. A case study of the Gram- pians (Gariwerd) National Park name restoration process. PhD thesis, University of Ballarat. Available online:
996190_ONOMA_46_10.indd6190_ONOMA_46_10.indd 271271 224/04/134/04/13 14:4314:43 272 LAURA KOSTANSKI
Regional Arts Victoria. 2009. Welcome to country. Available online:
Laura Kostanski University of Ballarat PO Box 663 Ballarat VIC 3350 Australia [email protected]
996190_ONOMA_46_10.indd6190_ONOMA_46_10.indd 272272 224/04/134/04/13 14:4314:43 CHANGING NAMES AND CULTURAL VA LU ES IN AUSTRALIA 273
Summary: Signs of the Times: Changing Names and Cultural Values in Australia Naming is claiming. Ipso Facto- to sign is to reinforce the party line. Toponyms play multiple roles in the cerebral world: they represent histories; connect communities; identify cultural heritage; locate areas; and, define places in the landscape. Within the natural 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. If a painted picture can say 1000 words, then so too the constructed and written toponym can evoke discussions about its landscape. This paper explores various aspects of the linguistic landscape in Australia. Examples are provided from naming and signage programs in the State of Victoria. A particular emphasis is given to exploring the changing dynamics of the linguistic landscape whereby contemporary communities develop ‘wel- come to country’ signage as contrasted against the actions of communities in the 1990s who removed dual-name signs. Thought will be given to the serious nature of politically-motivated toponymic practices, and time will be spent exploring the nature of community-defined ‘acknowledgement’ linguistic landscapes.
Résumé: Signes des temps: changements de noms et valeurs culturelles en Australie Nommer c’est réclamer. De fait, la signalisation renforce la ligne de la communauté. Les toponymes jouent de multiples rôles dans l’univers cérébral: ils repré- sentent des histoires, connectent des communautés, identifient un héritage culturel, localisent des zones et définissent des lieux dans le paysage. Dans le paysage naturel et construit, ils jouent aussi un rôle dans leur forme écrite: ils apparaissent comme des mots sur des poteaux indicateurs, des noms sur les drapeaux et les inscriptions murales. Leur apparence physique et leur existence (voire dans certains cas leur inexistence) en dit long sur la structure culturelle, politique et sociale qui englobe la zone de leur emplacement. Si une image peinte peut dire mille mots, alors le toponyme construit et écrit peut amener des discussions sur le paysage qui l’entoure. L’article explore divers aspects du paysage linguistique en Australie. Des exemples sont fournis issus de programmes de nomination et de signalisation dans l’État de Victoria. Une attention particulière est portée à l’étude de la dynamique évolutive du paysage linguistique par lequel les communautés déve- loppent une signalisation de type « Bienvenue au pays » qui contraste avec les actions communautaires des années 1990 qui supprimaient les signes bi-nomi- naux. Nous évoquerons la gravité des pratiques toponymiques politiquement
996190_ONOMA_46_10.indd6190_ONOMA_46_10.indd 273273 224/04/134/04/13 14:4314:43 274 LAURA KOSTANSKI
motivées, et consacrerons du temps à explorer la nature des paysages linguis- tiques dans la « reconnaissance » définie par les communautés elles-mêmes.
Zusammenfassung: Zeichen der Zeit: Namenwechsel und kulturelle Werte in Australien Benennen heißt beanspruchen. Ipso facto – Beschildern heißt: die Parteilinie zu stärken. Toponyme spielen mehrfache Rollen in der Gedächtniswelt: sie repräsentieren Geschichte, verbinden Gemeinschaften, indentifizieren das Kulturerbe, lokali- sieren Regionen und definieren Orte in der Landschaft. Innerhalb der natürlichen und künstlichen Landschaft haben sie darüber hinaus eine schriftliche Funktion: sie erscheinen als Wörter auf Verkehrszeichen, als Namenszüge auf Fahnen und als Markierungen an Wänden. Ihre äußerliche Erscheinung und Existenz (in einigen Fällen auch Nichtexistenz) spricht Bände über das kulturelle, politische und soziale Gefüge ihres jeweiligen Standorts. Wenn ein Gemälde 1000 Worte sagen könnte, dann könnte so auch das künstliche und geschriebene Toponym unzählige Diskussionen über seine Umgebung wachrufen. Dieser Beitrag untersucht verschiedene Aspekte der Sprachlandschaft in Australien. Beispiele dafür sind Namen- und Beschilderungsprogrammen aus dem Staat Victoria entnommen. Besondere Aufmerksamkeit wird der Erfor- schung der Dynamik in der Veränderung der Sprachlandschaft gewidmet, durch die Gemeinschaften heute ‘welcome to country’-Leitsysteme entwi- ckeln, die in deutlichem Kontrast zu den Aktionen der Genmeinschaften in den 1990er Jahren stehen, als zweisprachige Namenschilder entfernt wurden. Es wird über die Ernsthaftigkeit politisch motivierter Namengebungspraktiken nachgedacht, und einige Zeit für die Analyse des Charakters der gemeinschafts- motivierten „Anerkennung“ von Sprachlandschaften verwendet.
996190_ONOMA_46_10.indd6190_ONOMA_46_10.indd 274274 224/04/134/04/13 14:4314:43