Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:12, 5 July 2006

Massacres and the Dog on the Tuckerbox

Moved the following from history, where I will copy edit there. Additions from IPs 203.54.186.125 and 203.54.186.125 on 5, 6 and 17 June 2006.

Gundagai is known for an image of a dog on a box. This symbolism is more recently based on a poem about a bullock waggon stuck in the mud near Gundagai pre gazettal of Gundagai as a town in 1838. This bullock waggon carried a load of flour for the European settlers. The flour had to come from the mill at Goulburn. There was a severe drought happening. The flour on the bogged bullock wagon was rifled while the bullock driver was in the nearby hotel and subsequently, the remaining flour was laced with arsenic. More flour was taken from the waggon by Aboriginal people with the end result being there were many deaths. The massacre was heard about in Sydney and was investigated, but no one was able to be held to account. For many years the event was told and retold and a dog figure, representing an aspect of Australian Aboriginal lore, was placed on a stick at the Nine Mile near where the massacre happened. A photo exists of this earlier Dog monument. The story was passed down among long-time Gundagai residents and is still spoken about in Gundagai today but for many years when it was mentioned, people were told not to speak about it. The story was also retold in a popular Australian poem by Jack Moses but from a different, perhaps less challenging, perspective which explained the lingering tale that just would not go away. The known disparity between, and debate about, whether the event happened at the Five Mile or Nine Mile is to do with this. There are archival records documentating this iconic and significant Australian cultural heritage. The Gundagai incident is independent of the Benalla one. The Benalla massacre (if it is the 'Faithfull Massacre)was the one that led to Gundagai being gazetted. I have copies of the original documents of the line of communication being put through to Melbourne after the Faithfull Massacre. The Coolac Massacre story is still well known in Gundagai but not spoken about publically. There is no original research required for the Coolac Massacre as that it happened has never been forgotten in this town. The first poems about the massacre appeared in the 1850s. The monument to the massacre was built in 1932 and that monument is identical to a major Indigenous Ancestral feature. The Gundagai Independent in about October 2005 has some content. The Coolac massacre is currently part of not yet completed archaeological surveying in that area as reported online on ABC News. NSW National Parks have been notified of where the massacre remains were put. This burial area from the 1830s was previously known to National Parks. NSWNP do not release all information they hold. The massacre is spoken of in Gundagai's verse and song, the 'Dog' being 'first man' in Aboriginal culture. There are other supporting documents such as Tindale's letters and others. ({{fact}}<!--very interesting but need some sources please; note this reads very much like an incident near present day Benalla on 11 April 1838 - were there two or is there confusion?-->(citation requested and comment inserted by AYArktos) There were many many massacres of Indigenous people in Australia. I am not Indigenous. My family have lived at Gundagai since the 1840s which is not long after the massacre happened.

--A Y Arktos\ 20:50, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Note citations have been requested. Doesn't mean I don't believe it. It is Misplaced Pages policy though that things are Verifiable.--A Y Arktos\ 20:58, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I have done a search of verifiable sources through the ACT Public Library Service. The only reference I could find was an ABC news item on 15 September 2005 about claims of a massacre to defer the building of a bypass. The item reads in part:

"Gundagai resident Johneen Jones says there was a massacre in the area and the latest survey is needed under new heritage rules.

Councillor Tozer says he hopes work on the bypass can start.

"Hopefully there'll be no further sites discovered," he said.

"Certainly I haven't heard of the massacre before this particular time ... except from Johneen Jones on a previous occasion. So hopefully this matter can be put to rest and we can go on with the job and maybe save a few lives," he said."

Capitalistroadster 02:40, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Verifiability of massacre

• So far I am not finding anything on the web about this massacre

• • http://www.cat.org.au/forgottenwar/narrandera.html mentions the Wiradjuri wars but not this incident.
  • http://www.rta.nsw.gov.au/constructionmaintenance/downloads/coolac_environreview.pdf discusses a massacre near coolac but in the following terms: "A local resident provided information about the possibility of an Aboriginal massacre site occurring in the general area between Mingay and Pettit. The reliability and exact location of the massacre site has yet to be determined, however, one unconfirmed suggestion is that it is close to Muttama Creek, or in general proximity of the current highway alignment. As the reliability of the information and definite location of the site could not verified,..."

Given the recent RTA environmental review at Coolac has failed to turn anything up, I am inclined to remove the reference as not meeting WP:V.--A Y Arktos\ 21:32, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Response has been moved here to make sense The RTA content you note is 2004 content so out of date. This is 2006. There have been two new lots of archs since then.

Given the site of the massacre wasnt known till this year yet you put up stuff that talks about what was known in 2004.

THIS IS 2006, NOT 2004. What is an ongoing investigative process has progressed to 2006. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.54.9.128 (talk • contribs) 11:12, 18 June 2006 (UTC+10 hours)

The RTA review has not failed to find anything to do with this massacre. You are quoting an out of date RTA publication.

remove the Coolac Massacre from here. Wik does not have the skills to have it. I have several citations but am not prteapred to put them here at this stage... or ever now. People can do their own research and I will relese the citations to those who I choose to have them, not you silly lot at it strikes me, here is too silly to deserve to have them. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.54.9.128 (talk • contribs) 11:12, 18 June 2006 (UTC+10 hours)

• If you wish to contribute to the wikipedia then you need to read our policies on Verifiability. You need to cite sources. I may have cited a 2004 source - at least I cited something! If there is a more recent RTA review or any other review - please feel free to reference it. No reliable source, no entry in the wikipedia - nothing to do with skills, all to do with No original research, which is policy.--A Y Arktos\ 01:42, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Response has been moved here to attempt to make sense of it and the dialogue

There are numerous poems that cite this massacre. Some will be online.

You should have seen that 2004 date on the RTA material you noted and have realised it was way out of date.

Use the poems about the massacre as citations but then .... that requires skill in textual analysis to recognise those poems are citations. If you have those skills you will cite them.

There is a lot of material but it mostly requires particular skills to be able to use so it may be wasted here.

Whatever, its best the Coolac Massacre is not noted here I now think. I didnt realise wik was so silly as its not a source researchers use. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.54.9.128 (talk • contribs) 15:39, 18 June 2006 (UTC+10hours)

Coolac bypass hold-up

From that i have head about this 'massacre' is that a Neville Williams who is a Wiradjuri Aboriginal clams that there was a 'massacre' there (I think he did the same type of thing at West Wyalong trying to stop the Lake Cowal gold mine) so far nothing has been found at the site to prove this. All i know is at the moment a museum is holding up the Coolac bypass.

RobertM 01:54, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Who is Robert Myers. You do not know much if you think a Museum is holding up the Coolac Bypass. The Coolac Bypass is not held up. It just is not ready to start yet. It will start when the funding is released by the Federal Government, (on 1 July) then after that the preferred tenderer needs to get its complex operations into place so they can start. This preferred tenderer hasnt even be awarded the contract yet so who in your mind is to build the bypass? Noddy? Contractors cant be hired and huge construction jobs cant start if the money to pay them has not been paid in by the governemnt. Those who claim all these other things re a fanciful holdup are having delusions.

Neville Williams is a highly respected Aboriginal Elder who lobbies to have Aboriginal heritage saved or at least recorded. Yes he did lobby re Lake Cowal. Many Australians lobbied re the Snowy Sale because of its heritage aspects. Is there something wrong with saving haritage or is it just wrong if you do it to save Aboriginal heritage??? Please answer that here given you have had a go here re Neville Williams.

Its not going to cost anyone in Australia if a small plaque is erected somewhere near the Coolac Bypass is it, to note that massacre. After all we mark massacres such as Port Arthur etc so of course we can also note the Coolac one though there has already been a large monument built to it bragging about it going on its inscription.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.54.9.128 (talk • contribs) 15:39, 18 June 2006 (UTC+10hours)

I don't know much? (ABC News 17/4/2006) No end to Coolac bypass delays. I never had a go at Neville Williams i just stated on what i know!

RobertM 05:50, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, if u are quoting ABC News, cite it. You wrote it as if it was your own info rather than ABC content.

"(I think he did the same type of thing at West Wyalong trying to stop the Lake Cowal gold mine) so far nothing has been found at the site to prove this. All i know is at the moment a museum is holding up the Coolac bypass."

If you think that re Neville Williams, what makes you think 'that'?

How do you know "nothing has been found at the site to prove this"? What is your authority there? I do have authority re that and again, you are talking twaddle.

How do you know "a museum is holding up the Coolac bypass"? What Museum and how do you know that???

I know you do not have a registered interest in the Coolac Bypass so know what you very obviusly do NOT know.

Its very sad that when Aboriginal massacres in Australia begin to be talked of, that some jump to disprove them and try to discredit anyone associated with bringing them out into public knowledge.

Robert you are not going to be hung because of the Coolac Massacre as you were not involved in it, (unless you are Rip Van Winkle perhaps), so why are you carrying on like this???

Why do we have to hide these massacres of Aboriginal people in Australia any more????? I know of 4 others around Gundagai but there are probably more. I have documentation for 3 of those and am very confident I will find documentation re the 4th.

Whatever, putting stuff here is very silly isnt it as I understand what happens here now. All the dont knows from all over dispute content and come out with silly unsubstantiated statements such as you have, and what could be a good site to record stuff, turns into a three ring circus full of ignoramus nonsense. As well, whoever checks stuff here references old, out of date info and announces his/her intention to disallow entries on the strength of Internet information that is way out of date. That more or less means here isnt worth the bother.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.54.186.212 (talk • contribs) 17:39, 18 June 2006 (UTC+10 hours) (Note this edit also innapropriately blanked part of the conversation) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.54.186.83 (talk • contribs) 17:53, 18 June 2006 (UTC+10 hours)

More on Coolac bypass heritage investigations

The anon editor has suggested that 2004 references are "old, out of date info". There appears to be no later environmental review than 2004. http://www.rta.nsw.gov.au/constructionmaintenance/downloads/coolac_environreview_dl1.html There seems no reason to believe that the review was not thorough at the time and that any new information has come to light. This ABC news item from August 2005 suggests that the heritage study was over 10 years old. However, it is not clear if the RTA or the NSW Department of Environment and Conservation agreed and were prepared to act on the suggestion to redo the heritage study. This article does indicate that Neville Williams was involved in the discussions. A Google search does not turn up any later news items than August/September 2005 and no evidence that any more recent surveys have been done.--A Y Arktos\ 10:24, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Refactored response from anon - restored my own comment above--A Y Arktos\ 00:12, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

'There appears' I imagine who checked this did some really wide ranging investigation. If you just looked on the Internet that isnt looking far is it.

http://www.rta.nsw.gov.au/constructionmaintenance/downloads/coolac_environreview_dl1.html There seems no reason to believe that the review was not thorough at the time and that any new information has come to light.

"There seems to be no reason to believe that the review was not thorough at the time ..."

Time is the operative word here.

This ABC news item from August 2005 suggests that the heritage study was over 10 years old. However, it is not clear if the RTA or the NSW Department of Environment and Conservation agreed and were prepared to act on the suggestion to redo the heritage study. This article does indicate that Neville Williams was involved in the discussions.

"A Google search does not turn up any later news items than August/September 2005 and no evidence that any more recent surveys have been done."

Arkos has used the Internet to do his research. The Internet is not regarded as a reliable research tool so Arktos is using an unreliable source.

This discussion is too ridiculous. I am sure I can find better to do. Cheerio.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.54.9.162 (talk • contribs) 08:19, 19 June 2006 (UTC+10 hours)

Reminder of what wikipedia is not: translate "no original research"

Although the anon contributer has been referred to Misplaced Pages:No original research he or she has still suggested that "poems about the massacre as citations but then .... that requires skill in textual analysis to recognise those poems are citations". It is not a matter of skill. Analysing citations to draw conclusions is original research. Please refer to Misplaced Pages:What Misplaced Pages is not#Misplaced Pages is not a publisher of original thought. Textual analysis published in a peer reviewed journal would be accepted. Unpublished textual analysis would not be acceptable as a source.

Misplaced Pages is not responsible or otherwise for the presence or absence of plaques on the Hume highway. Nor is it hiding massacres. Misplaced Pages will not include information that cannot be verified from Reliable sources. Misplaced Pages is not meant as a source for researchers; researchers need original material and they will not, or at least should not, find it here.--A Y Arktos\ 10:24, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Please do not insert comments in the middle of somebody else's comments and please "sign" using four tildes ~~~~. Order of converation restored.A Y Arktos\ 00:01, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Textual analysis is not original research. Its a skill. Textual analysis is learned in media and literature courses. You cannot do it effectively though if you do not have some knowledge (SKILL) in it that you learn. When poems are read, the interpretation the reader takes from such poems is skill based. No doubt there are some poems listed somewhere on the wikipedia site. I think the 'Illiad' is. A study guide is cited on the Illad site. Guide means guide.

Please refer to Misplaced Pages:What Misplaced Pages is not#Misplaced Pages is not a publisher of original thought. Textual analysis published in a peer reviewed journal would be accepted. Unpublished textual analysis would not be acceptable as a source.

Misplaced Pages is not responsible or otherwise for the presence or absence of plaques on the Hume highway.

WHO SAID WIK WAS RESPONSIBLE????? This is gross misrepresentation.

Nor is it hiding massacres.

WHO SAID WIK WAS HIDING MASSACRES???? There seems to be a serious problem of comprehension here. That comment was directed at 'Robert' who was inclined to put the worst possible interpretation on what is happening at Coolac in his uninformed carrying on about a museum holding works up, and no results found etc.

Wik is not the entire topic of conversation on the Internet. Sometimes other subjects and entities other than wik are being referred to in discussions.

As a result of this sort of nonsense, I cannot take wik seriously. I thought it was an OK resource (but I didnt know much about it) till I got involved in this discussion.

Wik has been told already the information re the Coolac Massacre isnt suitable for posting on wik so what is 'Arktos' on about? Wik can't handle the Coolac Massacre information because wik has a limited capacity, so it misses out. Thats easy. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.54.9.162 (talk • contribs) 08:05, 19 June 2006 (UTC+10 hours)

Quote WHO SAID WIK WAS HIDING MASSACRES???? There seems to be a serious problem of comprehension here. That comment was directed at 'Robert' who was inclined to put the worst possible interpretation on what is happening at Coolac in his uninformed carrying on about a museum holding works up, and no results found etc. Well it's been in the media (IE: Local media) which i thought that should be in the talk. Well the Australian Museum specialist is looking into the Coolac bypass area (It's in the ABC story which i linked to). I'm not stopping you from posting about the Massacre and i'm not hiding it. I would like to see more Aboriginal history posted with verifiable sources on Wiki as it's something most Australians and the World don't know or know little about. RobertM 01:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Coolac bypass discussion revisited

I just read on the wik notice board a discussion re here. In particular a 'grahamc' post. This person claims he is involved with Coolac and with NSWNP but was retiring. I have no idea how a State government employee would be talking about stuff to do with work in this manner. I also have no idea how he would be claiming knowledge re Coolac as if he had any he'd not be saying he had, or be commenting on any of it here.

Is GrahamC of Indigenous heritage and/or initiated? If he isnt, he isnt qualified to comment on the symbolism. I'd say he isnt Indigneous and/or initiated as there is no one with that name on my radar. Is he a qualified archaeologist. No, I know he isnt. Is he an informed local. I would say he very certainly isnt so would have no useful local knowledge re any of it. He claims knowledge re this issue. He very obviously has no 'expert' knowledge of it so has put some scoffing remarks here re it all just to be negative about the whole topic claiming at the same time, some inner knowledge that gives him the right to make some sort of pseudo qualified statement.

Its annoying when people put rubbish here. The surveys arent completed so no report can be done till they are. Perhaps if you go put misinformation elsewhere, but not on this Aboriginal Massacre discussion site. If you don't know stuff, dont claim you do as the topic doesnt deserve that.

I know you have totally no registered interest in Coolac either as an RTA person or as a community member. The information you put on the Wik Notice board re here is mostly on the public record but with errors so you repeated it out of context and though you put some vaguely correct stuff here that has been in the papers and maybe was general talk at the RTA, you dont know the finer points and the restricted stuff you would never ever be privy to so wont ever know so cant comment on it. Yes, the massacre isnt in the way of the new road. You know how the RTA know that? I told them. I'd only be able to tell them (RodS) that if I knew other stuff and if they then checked I'd notifed new stuff to cover themselves. As a State gov employee you would not have put stuff here that wasnt on the general public record anyway, especially with this stuff.

If you are Aboriginal and/or initiated I will accept you are qualifed to make comment re the symbolism though you didnt learn your cultural story well and are wrong with your assertions. If you are not, you very certainly are not qualified to comment on that aspect re Coolac - so dont presume to as it just messes here up. Claiming you are qualified to comment on the symbolism of another culture by commenting, is similar to claiming you are a pilot then crashing the plane after it takes off. I am qualified to comment on the symbolism.

Likewise with other aspects re Coolac, you do not know for specific cultural but also professional reasons.

"Statutory authorities put cultural heritage values above scientific values."

Navin Officer, Coolac ICHRD Report for the RTA 2005.

Translated that means that in Australian archaeology (VIA which EIS Reports are made), what you 'think' re the symbolism has totally no weight as it is so out of touch its ridiculous. Statutory Authorities such as the RTA know that the symbolic stuff carries immense weight and go forward, paying respect to that so that heritage can be saved and construction jobs can be effectively completed with all interests being addressed. You need to have a chat to the RTA arch and get educated about how the RTA now handle this Indignenous Heritage stuff starting with the Sheahan Bridge after they learned re Coolac. Its scoffing attitudes about cultural heritage that holds stuff up and that doesnt assist anything.

THE TWO AMIGOS URBAN MYTHING

Imported From Wik Help Arktos page

Gundagai Hi - would somebody like to look at Talk:Gundagai, New South Wales. Deep breath on my part. I wil attempt to reorganise the anon's contributions to the dialogue again despite the talk header - but I think I really need somebody else to review whether I and another editor are missing the point.--A Y Arktos\talk 23:54, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Looks like the anon has lost interest, but I think you were entirely reasonable in standing on 'cite sources' there. If it can be documented that there are widespread rumours of a massacre, that might be worth noting, but as it stands all we have is an anon editor's say-so that it's even alleged to have happened. --Calair 00:35, 19 June 2006 (UTC) I have done a search of verifiable evidence through the ACT Public Library Service. I have found one reference an ABC News story from September 2005 about claims of a massacre used as a possible reason to defer a bypass. I have left further information on the talk page. Capitalistroadster 02:47, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

The ACT Public Library Serice are nil to do with Coolac. You guys do research in some places I never would. This is prehistory/contact anthropology stuff.

I am involved with the Coolac project (but I am retiring on Friday). Guardedly I can confirm that there is nothing verifiable on the public record about the alleged massacre.

What authority does this poster have to confirm that? Is he the boss of the RTA for the Southern Region or the head archaeologist?

The RTA is preparing a heritage report (under s87 and s90 of the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974) to allow the Coolac bypass to go ahead, which no doubt will comment on this issue and which presumably it will put on the record (possibly at ) when it is finalised, but this is some time off. You will be able to judge then whether any new and verifiable evidence has come to light. Tenders for the Coolac Bypass closed on 11/5/05 and the contract has not been awarded; you might note Hansard 24/5/06 pp50-51.--Grahamec 13:11, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for researching the Gundagai/Coolac issue. It is so hard when one finds nothing to cite the absence of sources. The Coolac bypass is relevant as I assume that is the area 9 miles from Gundagai. However, beyond the bypass issues, what does anyone think of the notion of symbolism and the Dog on the Tuckerbox? I couldn't find a picture of any earlier monument through Picture Australia or any reference to it via Google. Does anyone have the book 1932: A Hell Of A Year by Gerald Stone? It may mention if there was a previous monument to the present one opened in 1932. --A Y Arktos\talk 00:12, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

This image is in the book 'Gundagai: A Track Winding Back by Cliff Butcher published in 2002 page 213. Available to buy in Gundagai but libaries in the area have a copy. I think the NLA have a copy also. The previous 'monument' photo was taken in 1926. The current monument built in 1932. The local wags kept putting the earlier 'monument' up, creating huge embarrassment and angst, so it was decided to build an actual monument to get rid of this sky larking in the area by those with no connection to the massacre, but directed at those who may have had. Though that photo shows a 1926 'monument' there had been other ones at that spot since 1840 that people would take down, then another would appear.

I can confrim that 9 miles north of Gundagai would be on the banks of Muttama creek, the alleged site of the massacre. There is nothing in the wrtitten record to substantiate the claim (but then you could argue that this proves nothing). The trouble is that any archaeological escavation is unlikley to find anything, because (assuming there was a massacre) it did not occur in the proposed road corridor; bodies were buried elsewhere; or bodies were not buried and therefore decomposed quickly.

The story about the symbolism of the dog sounds like an urban myth to me. --Grahamec 00:56, 20 June 2006 (UTC)"

• blink*

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.54.9.98 (talk • contribs) 20:40, 5 July 2006 (UTC+ 10 hours)

plus some editing from 203.54.9.141 (talk • contribs).Instructing me to go fishing was just a tad cryptic.

Was it? In what way? You are paranoid.

However, I can now see it relates to User:Grahamec. I have an attitude about personal attacks.

So do I - especially ones re males attacking defenceless others such as re Indigenous Massacres. You know, they got the kids, buried them in sand, and played polo with them. You know the poem the Geebung Polo Club by Banjo? Lawson wrote another called 'The Three Greybeards' Read it. Its online. Specifically set at Coolac.

I also have an attitude about original research. Cite your sources we will get on well - I corrected the Gundagai pop figure for example, with a reference I found myself -

So you should have as it was very very wrong

... and the Tom Wills' birth date and place with the ref you provided. You just happen to be touching on areas that I have contributed to over time. I watch those pages and can see if anything new turns up. Watching is one of the advantages of having an account (see Help:Watching pages). My guess is it would outweight the disadvantages of signing in. Your prerogative but could you please sign!!!!! (Might have mentioned it once or twice). I hate adding unsigned tags, but it is even more annoying not to see who contributed when to a conversation much later.

Tom Wills is now accepted. His Dad and others were associated with the coolac massacre. That is why that they were here has been obscured. I suspect too, they were recognised when they got to Qld in 1860. (Most of the native police associated with the cullingaroo massacre were from Gundagai). Small world.

I dont need a wik account. I am on holidays right now but head back down in a week or so so no time to watch different articles here.

I wont give them as they are not really content to be posted here as that info belongs to the Land Councils and the Tent Embassey, rather than to wik. Its cultural stuff and culture owns it.

As for symbolism - the issue is that you have not cited a source - give us something to use and that would be great - otherwise we can't include it. I don't think Grahamec is attacking anything. The comment "symbolism of the dog sounds like an urban myth to me" doesn't read like an attack.

I do not have to cite a source for that. That is up to others to interpet. That is how its done. Its actually archaeology on one level (for those not initiated), not history research. Archaeology makes informed decisions based on evidence, then on educated conjecture, forms hypothesis then reaches a conclusion. I cannot make wik Indigneous, or turn wik into an archaeologist.

Navigation on talk pages is normally by linking using signatures by the way. If somebody wanted to follow the conversation, and you had signed - they would come here very easily - they can't when you don't sign - have I mentioned signing before? Maybe you might if you could see the benefits.