The Law, Politics, and “Historical Wounds”: The Dja Dja Warrung Bark Etchings Case in Australia
Last year, in volume 13 of this journal, Lyndel Prott published a Case Note entitled, “The Dja Dja Warrung Bark Etchings Case.”Prott, “The Dja Dja Warrung Bark Etchings Case.” In it she set out the background to a court case in Melbourne in 2004 to 2005 under the federal Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977. The case related to three nineteenth-century bark items made by Aboriginal people in northern Victoria, items now held in the collections of two London museums. The items had been borrowed by Museum Victoria and brought to Australia for an exhibition in the Melbourne Museum. During the exhibition, an inspector under the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act 1984 had imposed a series of successive emergency declarations. The effect of these declarations had been to prevent Museum Victoria from fulfilling its contracts to return the three items to the overseas museums who had lent them for exhibition. The case went to court after several months of unsuccessful negotiations when Museum Victoria successfully challenged the legality of continuous emergency declarations. The inspector then failed in a request to the Victorian Minister for Aboriginal Affairs to make a permanent declaration to keep the objects in Australia, or to acquire the items compulsorily under the Heritage Protection Act. The objects were then returned to Britain. I was the curator of the exhibition, Etched on Bark 1854: Kulin barks from Northern Victoria, which was held within the Aboriginal Gallery of Melbourne Museum between March and June 2004. This paper is a discussion of some of the issues raised by the exhibition and its aftermath, and it is written from the perspective of a curator and a historian. The first part of the paper sets out the historical provenance of the three items, and discusses how the items came to be collected and sent overseas in the 1850s. I then describe how the debates at the time of the emergency declarations largely ignored this historical background, suggest some reasons why this occurred, and draw out some implications for the future. Last, I consider issues arising from the claims of ‘ownership’ that were made before and during the court case.This paper builds on two conference papers, one presented to the Museums Australia Conference in Brisbane in May 2006 and the second given to the Conference of the Australian Registrar's Committee in Hobart in November 2006. An expanded version of the first paper, “History, Strong Stories and New Traditions” appears in History Australia, June 2007.
Repatriation and Multilevel Heritage Legislation in Canada and Australia: A Comparative Analysis of the Challenges in Repatriating Religious Artefacts to Indigenous Communities
In recent years the debate over indigenous rights on the international law level has significantly gained in strength. While progress has been made, especially with the adoption of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People, many issues remain unresolved. One of these issues is the question of whether, and if so how, to repatriate objects to indigenous communities from which they were taken, often centuries ago. The interests and problems are manifold, ranging from property interests, to cultural conservation, to human rights concerns. Likewise, the nature of objects which can be claimed ranges from household items, to religious artefacts, to ancestral remains. This paper analyses the repatriation debate in relation to sacred ceremonial/secret objects on the national level, focussing on the experiences of Australia and Canada. Both of these federal states are members of the Commonwealth with common law systems, and are the home of indigenous groups who have lost objects during colonialism. These commonalities enable a comparison which is especially useful given the different positions that First Nations hold in the Canadian society vis-a-vis Aborigines in the Australian context, and the different repatriation experiences and legislations in the respective systems. By contrasting the two countries with each other and by highlighting problems against the background of current international law developments, a threefold goal is realised. First, the description of the mechanisms relevant to repatriation claims in Canada and Australia can stimulate a discussion on how far recent experiences in both systems could prove mutually beneficial. It will be highlighted that neither system has sufficient federal legislation needed to encourage repatriation. The attitudes of their respective museums also differ and could gain from an exchange of experiences. Second, it is submitted that an analysis of the hurdles to the repatriation of sacred objects highlights certain prejudices which continue to permeate the legal systems. Third, the chapter maps the ground for further study in the wider repatriation debate.
Experimental study of water fluxes in a residential area: 2. Road infiltration, runoff and evaporation
Lack of accurate data has led some hydrologists and city planners to assume that urban infiltration is zero and runoff is 100% of the rainfall. These assumptions lead to an over estimation of road runoff volume and an underestimation of direct recharge to groundwater, which is already rising under some UK cities. This study investigates infiltration and runoff processes and quantifies the percentage of rainfall that contributes to storm drainage, and that which infiltrates through different types of road surface. Access tubes were installed for measuring soil water content using a neutron probe in three car parks, a road and a grass site at the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, Crowmarsh Gifford, Wallingford. Storm drainage was recorded at the exit of the Thamesmead Estate in Crowmarsh Gifford, just before the drain joins the River Thames at Wallingford. Rainfall and water table depth were also recorded. Weekly measurements of soil moisture content indicated that the top 40 cm layer is not influenced by water‐table fluctuations and, therefore, positive changes in soil moisture could be attributed to infiltration of rainfall through the surface. Depending on the nature of the surface, subsurface layers, level of traffic, etc., between 6 and 9% of rainfall was found to infiltrate through the road surfaces studied. The storm drainage generated by road runoff revealed a flow pattern similar to that of the receiving watercourse (River Thames) and increased with the increase of infiltration and soil water content below the road surface. The ratio of runoff to rainfall was 0·7, 0·9 and 0·5 for annual, winter (October–March) and summer (April–September) respectively. As the results of the infiltration indicated that 6 to 9% of annual rainfall infiltrates through the road surface, this means that evaporation represents, 21–24% of annual rainfall, with more evaporation taking place during summer than winter. Copyright © 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.