Artefact and bone collectors apologise for past wrongs
A historic apology has been delivered to Tasmania’s Aboriginal community as specimen collectors acknowledge their practices were racist and morally wrong, saying it “will never happen again”. ... FEB 15 2021
TASMANIA’S Aboriginal community has received a historic apology for the racist desecration and disrespect shown to human remains and other artefacts by two local organisations as they collected natural history specimens..
The Royal Society of Tasmania and the Tasmanian Museum and Art Gallery made the apology in an emotional ceremony in Hobart on Monday.
It was accepted by the Tasmanian Aboriginal Centre’s Michael Mansell who did so on behalf of “those sent to Wybalenna, those pushed into slum housing at Invermay and those discriminated against in pubs and places of employment” and current generations.
“This unreserved apology is long overdue. We acknowledge the Royal Society exhumed and purchased remains of Aboriginal people for scientific study – some of which were sent out of the country,” society president Mary Koolhof said.
“There was a lack of regard for the deep cultural and spiritual significance of remains.”
She promised seek full accounts of the past actions of the society and its members and support repatriation of artefacts when asked.
TMAG Chair Brett Torossi said the organisation had now “owned” past practices which were morally wrong, racist and profoundly disrespectful.
“The Board wants to permanently record and apologise for the institution’s actions and declare such behaviour will never happen again,” Ms Torossi said.
“It is heartbreaking to consider the trauma inflicted. We commit to a future to defend and illuminate Tasmanian Aboriginal culture”
Tasmanian Governor Kate Warner – patron of both organisations – said the acts of desecration and disrespect were accompanied by the assertion of extinction.
.
The apologies come as plans to return rock carvings taken from Tasmania’s far north west progress.
Sixty years ago, ancient Tasmanian Aboriginal petroglyphs were cut out of rock near Marrawah, thrown on the back of a flatbed truck and roughly transported from the far North-West to be displayed at museums in Hobart and Launceston.
Pieces of the rock, which was a record of thousands of years of Aboriginal history, broke off as the truck rumbled along.
The petroglyphs show major events such as the sighting of Halley’s comet, the death of great Aboriginal warriors, where village communities were, and the tracks that carried people between them.
Now, after an almost 40-year fight by Aboriginal leaders, the petroglyphs are going home.
TODAY is a very significant day in Tasmania. It is a day when the depth and dimension of the island's histories has reached a new point with the Tasmanian Museum and Art Gallery(TMAG) in concert with the Royal Society of Tasmania publicly apologising to Aboriginal people.
The hope that underlines the apology is that it will be followed with attitudinal change and continued consultation with Aboriginal Tasmanians is, hopefully, a very significant turning point in Tasmania.
Aboriginal leader Michael Mansell, has said there was a "real trade in the Aboriginal dead being sent to the mainland of Australia and to good old Mother England".(ABC News: Laura Beavis).
Elsewhere, Michael Mansel has said "It was only after that – [receiving some federal funding in the 1970s under Gough Whitlam ] –we could bring the simmering of Aboriginal resentment against white people and what white people had done against us into a political movement."
So, today's apology will no doubt go down the State's historic record as a day of reconciliation that has, up to now, seemed somewhat out of reach. Moreover, it goes beyond the contentious 'theft and appropriation' of the Preminghana petroglyphs.
The City of Launceston's Mayor apologised to the Tasmanian Aboriginal community during NAIDOC Week 2020 and somewhat sadly Council has thus chosen not to endorse the TMAG's and the Royal Society's apology today.
Notably, Launceston's Queen Victoria Museum and Art Gallery (QVMAG) – Australia's largest regional art gallery and museum – has been front and centre in the appropriation and 'theft' of the Preminghana petroglyphs and quite possibly well before the TMAG became involved.
Michael Mansell has not been alone in his advocation for the return of the petroglyphs. Peter C. Sims, an independent Launceston based researcher, now living away from the city, has been a tireless advocate. His recent monograph, "Tasmanian Aboriginal Rock Art PREMINGHANA (Mount Cameron West) 2020" catalogues his research and advocacy.
The University of Tasmania's Prof. Greg Lehman, on the ABC today, has eloquently and poignantly contextualised today's apology.
Launceston in the past prided itself in leading on issues such as this, albeit that like elsewhere in the colonial aftermath, its institutions have erred. In the light of the city's emerging, and ever evolving, 'Cultural Strategy' the city sadly seems to be distancing itself from today's apology and disinclined to endorse to it.
Nonetheless, The Launceston Concerned Citizens Network wholeheartedly endorses today's apology and looks forward to an attitudinal change and continued consultation going forward.
CLICK HERE TO GO TO SOURCE AND WATCH VIDEOTwo of Tasmania's oldest institutions will today apologise to the state's Aboriginal communities for stealing and mistreating cultural heritage for more than a century.The apology by the Royal Society of Tasmania and the Tasmanian Museum and Art Gallery (TMAG) was partly brought about because of the decades-long battle by traditional owners to get 14,000-year-old ancient rock art out of museum collections and back to it's sacred home at Preminghana in the state's far north-westThat will go ahead next month with a major logistical exercise to transport the damaged art from one end of the state to the other.The hard-fought battle for the return of the petroglyphs, however, is only part of the long, dark history of misusing Aboriginal remains and artefactsKey points:The Tasmanian Museum and Art Gallery and the Royal Society of Tasmania will publicly apologise to Aboriginal peopleThe institutions played pivotal roles in exhuming Aboriginal bodies and stealing artefacts in the name of scienceIt's hoped the apology will be followed with attitudinal change and continued consultation with Aboriginal TasmaniansThe apology by the Royal Society of Tasmania and the Tasmanian Museum and Art Gallery (TMAG) was partly brought about because of the decades-long battle by traditional owners to get 14,000-year-old ancient rock art out of museum collections and back to it's sacred home at Preminghana in the state's far north-west.WARNING: Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people are advised that this article contains images of people who have died.What did they do that was so bad?The Tasmanian Royal Society was founded in 1843, making it the oldest one in the country, and set about creating collections for the advancement of knowledge, as is it's motto.
Even for Aboriginal Tasmanians, the Preminghana carvings are mysterious.(ABC News: Manika Dadson)
Those collections were shown at what became the Tasmanian Museum and Art Gallery (TMAG).
In the 19th century, as debate raged among colonial settlers and their colleagues in Europe about the Darwinian theory of evolution, the bodies of Tasmanian Aboriginal people became highly prized.
"If you look at it like a ladder of world cultures, Aboriginal people in Australia were seen as being at the bottom of this ladder, and the very bottom of all was Tasmanian Aborigines, they were seen as the simplest, most primitive people in the world, for various misguided reasons," Senior Research Fellow at the University of Tasmania, Rebe Taylor, said.
TMAG has two permanent exhibitions curated by Aboriginal Tasmanians.(ABC Hobart: Damien Peck)
The demand for Aboriginal remains only grew as the population dwindled as the Government tried to rid the island of it's native people, falling from somewhere between five thousand and eight thousand in 1803, to a couple of hundred in the 1830s.
Circular carvings at preminghana on Tasmania's north-west coast.(ABC News: Manika Dadson)
One of the most egregious examples of this was the case of William Lanne — an Aboriginal man who died of a gastrointestinal infection in 1869 and became the centre of a fight over his body.
Politician William Crowther decapitated Lanne's corpse for the Royal Society and switched the head for one of a non-Aboriginal man in an attempt to cover it up.
According to Paul Turnbull's book on the subject, resident surgeon George Stokell then sawed off Lanne's hands and feet, which were taken to the museum.
Both Stokell and Crowther were sanctioned, but the latter went on to become Tasmania's 14th premier in 1878.
While welcoming the apology, Michael Mansell said "they're still white institutions in a white Tasmanian society".(Imogen Johnston)
Pro-Vice Chancellor of Aboriginal Leadership at the University of Tasmania and Aboriginal man, Greg Lehman said these two institutions "probably have more to apologise for than most institutions in Tasmania."
Famous Aboriginal woman Truganini heard of what happened to Lanne and expressed her wish to be cremated at sea upon her death, but that didn't happen.
Instead, the Royal Society exhumed her body and put her skeleton on display in TMAG until 1947, when it was taken down.
It wasn't until 1976 that her wish was fulfilled — a century after she died.
Michael Mansell, said there was a "real trade in the Aboriginal dead being sent to the mainland of Australia and to good old Mother England".(ABC News: Laura Beavis)
'Simmering resentment' becomes action
Chair of the Aboriginal Land Council of Tasmania, Michael Mansell, started working on getting Aboriginal property back when he was in his twenties.
"We were continually humiliated, we were offended by the way white people did things to us," he said.
He said they were "powerless" until they received some federal funding in the 1970s under Gough Whitlam, after which Aboriginal people organised themselves to create a public push for the return of remains and artefacts.
"We'd become aware in the 1980s that Aboriginal remains had been sent overseas by a range of doctors and surgeons in Hobart, who were paying money to people to dig up Aboriginal bodies.
"There was this real trade in the Aboriginal dead being sent over to the mainland of Australia and to good old Mother England… and so in 1985 I went around the world and got some of them back," Mr Mansell said.
Tasmanian Aboriginal woman Truganini's remains were put on display against her wishes.(Supplied: The British Museum)
Ms Taylor said Aboriginal communities in Tasmania led "one of the earliest, most effective" repatriation movements from the 1970s onwards, creating slow but dramatic progress.
"It was only when the Aboriginal community became vocal and were listened to, even unwillingly by scientists, that things changed."
Mr Lehman said progress has been made at TMAG, which has two permanent exhibitions curated by Aboriginal Tasmanians, and has pakana woman Zoe Rimmer as Senior Curator of Indigenous Cultures.
"They symbolise something quite significant in even the institutions that have done the most appalling things can demonstrate the moral leadership and substance that's involved in saying 'look, we did the wrong thing and we want to commit ourselves to making sure these things don't happen again'," Mr Lehman said.
Mr Mansell described as "significant" that the handing over of the petroglyphs came with "an admission that they never should have had them in the first place".
It was, he said, an "acknowledgment that it is a destruction of Aboriginal society's cultural connections with our past and the people today".
Aboriginal advocates say it will "take some time" to shift attitudes.(AAP/Tasmanian Aboriginal Land Council)
Apology 'just the start'
While Mr Mansell sees the apology as a step forward, he said it's just the start of a long process.
He emphasised saying sorry would have to be backed up by continuous action, both in engaging Aboriginal people in the museum curatorship process and returning materials when asked.
Archaeologists took the petroglyphs from Preminghana before there were laws to prevent it.(ABC News: Manika Dadson)
Ms Taylor said she hoped the apology would acknowledge the full extent of the harm done, including the lengthy portrayal of Aboriginal Tasmanians as the least advanced species in the world.
"The tendency of the apology may be to look to those horrors of the 19th century because they're horrific and the most well-known, but I think what is often overlooked is the mistreatment and misrepresentation that continued well into the 20th century."
Mr Lehman said he'd personally like to see an apology from the State Government "for it's part in the attempted removal, or extermination, of Tasmanian Aboriginal people".
"It was an insidious final solution, and I don't use that term lightly, and many people internationally saw it as an attempted genocide."
Key points:
The Tasmanian Museum and Art Gallery and the Royal Society of Tasmania will publicly apologise to Aboriginal people
The institutions played pivotal roles in exhuming Aboriginal bodies and stealing artefacts in the name of science
It's hoped the apology will be followed with attitudinal change and continued consultation with Aboriginal TasmaniansThe apology by the Royal Society of Tasmania and the Tasmanian Museum and Art Gallery (TMAG) was partly brought about because of the decades-long battle by traditional owners to get 14,000-year-old ancient rock art out of museum collections and back to it's sacred home at Preminghana in the state's far north-west.
CONTEXT NOTE: The mayor and his deputy were made aware of the TMAG's and the Royal Society's declared intentions and 'Town Hall' did not, and has not responded. It would seem that John Howard'sBLACK ARMBAND VIEW OF HISTORY is adhered to in Launceston. Neither has the QVMAG responded thus far.
Launceston's Intransigent Cultural Recalcitrance Exposed
TMAG, Royal Society to apologise to Tasmanian Aboriginal community as part of petroglyphs return
‘Workers remove the 14,000-year-old Preminghana petroglyphs from their original location on the far-North-West Coast in the 1960s. They are part of a network of Aboriginal rock carvings.
Two of Tasmania's longest-running institutions will formally apologise to the Aboriginal community as part of the process in repatriating the Preminghana petroglyphs to their home on the far-North- West Coast.
The Royal Society of Tasmania and the Tasmanian Museum and Art Gallery will offer paired apologies on February 15 "in recognition of the shared history of the organisations".
The text of the apology will be made available on the day. A TMAG spokesperson said it was part of the reconciliation process.
MORE ON THE PREMINGHANA PETROGLYPHS:
Aboriginal leader slams wait for rock carvings return
City of Launceston agrees to repatriate Preminghana petroglyphs
NAIDOC Week 2020: urgent call for petroglyphs' return
TMAG agrees to pass on final permit to Aboriginal leaders
"Whilst the apology event and the physical return of the petroglyphs are not happening on the same day, they are both a demonstration of TMAG's commitment to strengthening its relationship with the Tasmanian Aboriginal community," she said.
The Royal Society was involved in the practice of exhuming the bodies of Aboriginal Tasmanians before they would be dismembered and often displayed to the public.
The practice continued throughout the 19th century and included the mutilation of the bodies of the last "full-blooded" Aboriginal Tasmanians, Truganini and William Lanne.
TMAG included the remains of Aboriginal people in its collections.
Along with the Queen Victoria Museum and Art Gallery, TMAG stored the Preminghana petroglyphs after their removal in the 1960s.
The 14,000-year-old petroglyphs will be returned to their original location on the far-North West Coast in early March, involving transportation by truck and the possible use of a helicopter to lift the several-tonne rock carvings into place.
Aboriginal Land Council of Tasmania chairman Michael Mansell said the apologies from the two institutions were an important step.
"It signifies a change of attitude in Tasmanian society, reflected by two fairly conservative institutions who are now taking responsibility for their past actions, rather than just saying 'here's the petroglyphs, take them, we're not going to talk about what we did'," he said.
"They're saying 'let's open the books, and let's be honest and truthful about how we got them, how we disregarded the feelings of Aboriginal people, and did what we wanted to do because we were part of white society'."
END
OPINION
As Michael Mansell has said, this is an important step. Nonetheless, why isn’t the city of Launceston and the Queen Victoria Museum and Art Gallery (QMAG) apologising as well?
Somewhat ironically Minister Jaensch, Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, left it to Remembrance Day, Nov 11, 2020 to remember to ‘approve’ the petroglyphs’ handback.
Both Council and the QVMAG have much to do in regard to reconciliation and yet again they have been found wanting.
Michael Stretton’s assertion, or was he deeming it, and in open council, that the city’s councillors were not QVMAG Trustees was and is a flawed understanding of the councillors’ governance role in regard to the QVMAG’s collections.
Likewise, Mr Stretton’s assertion that the QVMAG’s petroglyphs were being “deaccessioned” which, on the evidence, couldn’t be so or even verified as there is no evidence of them ever being ‘accessioned’ – formally taken into the QVMAG’s ‘ownership’.
By extension, this implies that the petroglyphs were stolen, or on loan or on the very best construction ‘taken into the institution’s care’ given that that at the time it was imagined and assumed that Tasmania’s Aboriginal people became ‘extinct’ with Truganini’s death.
The Councillors were not required to approve the petroglyph’s “deaccession”. What they had the opportunity to do was to just hand them back to the pakana people given that there was no ‘demonstrable ownership’ in any context to relinquish – except perhaps by bureaucratic deeming.
It turns out that her death was all so convenient in the context of the colonial aftermath given that she had a sister living on Kangaroo Island and Fanny Cochrane Smith lived on in southern Tasmania until she died in 1905.
So, the QVMAG is deeply embedded in all this as an institution’s and by extension Council too. Clearly, both the City of Launceston and the QVMAG have obligations here and no amount of ‘history smoothing’ will absolve either.
Moreover, there are reports that the QVMAG has in its collection still a plaster cast of a petroglyph taken from Preminghana quite likely circa 1930.
Why is this not being discussed or has it – they?– been destroyed in some history sanitising process?
In the vernacular, it’s ‘FESS UP TIME’ and ‘fence mending time’ down at Launceston’s Town Hall!
Launcestonians are diminished by the city’s governance’s and ‘cultural custodians’ recalcitrance and it is time that they ought not be.
To: Mayor , Councillor Danny Gibson , Michael Stretton
Cc: Premier Gutwein , Minister Jaensch for Planning , Minister for Local Govt , Contact Us , Peter Sims , Contact Us
Subject: RE: The priminghana petroglyphs and NAIDOC.
Dear Albert and Councillors,
................................
Thank you for your email it is much appreciated albeit that despite you telling me on multiple occasions that the QVMAG had ‘accessioned’ the ppetroglyphs, neither you, nor Council, or indeed the QVMAG, have ever provided any evidence whatsoever of that being the case – except by assertion.
................................
It is something of a relief that a handback is finally in process, such as it is, blighted by bureaucratic humbug as it is, marked by cultural insensitivity as it is, retarded by serial administrative ineptitude as it is, and coming way, way too late as it does. If only the lessons to be learnt have been, there may well be a way forward emerging even yet.
................................
I can accept that ‘accessioning’ may have happened ‘contemporaneously’ in an effort to bureaucratically smooth over the embedded histories. However, any evidence of ‘accessioning’ happening in either the 1960s/70s/80s/90s has not been made available – arguably it does not exist. In the absence of evidence for the petroglyph’s ‘accessioning’ happening except by recent Machiavellian convenience, this renders your claim an exemplar of ‘truth by assertion’. Thus, your assertion is an unsubstantiated statement of ‘edited bureaucratic history’ – and in the end unavoidably diminishing.
................................
As you are no doubt aware, I’ve requested a copy of the ‘original accessioning document’ on a number of occasions and consistently that has been denied me on the grounds that when “edited documents/data” – paraphrased – is available they can be made available ‘to the public’. Such bureaucratic humbug fails the ‘pub test’ and any other class of evidence provision in any context – least of all in law.
................................
As I have said before, it is well past time to acknowledge that the QVMAG had never ‘formally accessioned’ this cultural material in a timely or formal way, as it clearly hasn’t been prior to this current process. ‘Ownership’ may even have been assumed on the grounds of ‘adverse possession’ and on the prevailing assumption that Truganini was the last of the First Tasmanians. This would not be unusual however, given the circumstances of the times and there will be many more instances of such ‘history smoothing’ if the truth be told – at the QVMAG and elsewhere.
................................
Council might only ‘deaccession’ – renounce formal ownership – the petroglyphs if they had ever been accessioned. If they were accessioned, how were they, when were they and by whom?
................................
The lack of evidence provided by the institution’s General Manager and Council’s General Manager’s (AKA CEO’s) inability and/or unwillingness to supply any unedited original documentation to establish ‘accessioned ownership’ is significant. Clearly the evidence does not appear to exist and this is more than troubling in regard to Council’s truthfulness, the QVMAG’s trustworthiness and by extension Council’s accountability and transparency right across the board!
................................
Peter Sims’ dedicated scholarship is, and should be, the ‘gold standard’ in regard to informing cultural decision making at hand here. It does you no credit at all to be attempting to garner unearned credibility on the strength and diligence of his work and his launching of his monograph at the QVMAG as you seem to be doing.
................................
Yesterday, November 19, we learnt a great deal about the lack of truth-telling and trustworthiness on behalf of government in regard to the potential criminal activity on the part of some Australian defence force personnel. This news is shocking. Also, it was revealed yesterday that Tasmania’s government is Australia’s most secretive. By extension this reflects poorly on the City of Launceston given the city’s propensity to rely upon SECTION 62/2 of the Local Govt. Act and the secrecy plus bureaucratic distortion it can facilitate and arguably does all too often.
................................
That famous quote of Saint Augustine’s, “The truth is like a lion; you don’t have to defend it. Let it loose; it will defend itself” rings somewhat loudly in all this. Why not let the lion loose?
................................
Somewhat poignantly, John 8:32 also comes to mind ... “And you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.” The Quran also has something to say to its adherents ... “Confound not the Truth with falsehood nor conceal it knowingly”. Also, Buddha tells us that there are three things that cannot hide for long: the Moon, the Sun and the Truth. In any case, the observance of such wisdom found in the scriptures would be a good thing indeed.
................................
Personally, I have direct and personal evidence, and experience, of ‘bureaucratic bungling’ in regard to a gift to the QVMAG’s collections. Then came a rather clumsy attempt of a ‘cover up’. This being the case when it came to accessioning, it does no credit to the QVMAG’s institutional trustworthiness at all, when a ‘fess up’ would be much more helpful – and as in John 8:32, liberating.
................................
As in South Australia right now, when the truth is outed, advances can be, will be, and are being made. Substantiated and truthful expert advice exceeds political opportunism and ideology at every turn and it always will.
................................
As a regional city, Launceston is no longer the leader it once could lay claim to being, in the main because of faltering leadership and deluded self-assessment. The evidence is that the city is stagnating, and is incrementally losing its heritage status. Concerningly, the city has the highest rates of any regional city in Australia and along with its default position of secrecy, all this is an enormous burden for Launcestonians to bear on top of the COVID-19 crisis and climate change.
................................
It seems that ‘accessioning’ at the QVMAG may well have been a discretionary activity up until the present – and less than a diligent activity as is increasingly in evidence. Concerningly, it remains unendorsed by Council, the institution’s default ‘trustees’.
................................
In a ‘cultural institution’ in the colonial aftermath, as it is with the QVMAG and Tasmania’s dark, shameful and somewhat gothic histories, all this must be recognised. As an institution owned by the City of Launceston, and by extension its citizenry, the QVMAG must be trustworthy and accountable. I submit that this is far from being so.
................................
Your attempts at ‘truth by assertion’, contrary to any evidence as it is, does not serve either the institution or the QVMAG’s Community of Ownership and Interest, or indeed yourself, at all well. Likewise, Council’s non-delivery on appropriate, accountable and trustworthy governance for the QVMAG and Council’s largely “Machiavellian godless, scheming self-service" is bewildering to say the very least. ................................
History will be your judge and thus far Tasmania’s somewhat dark and distorted ‘histories’ diminish all who cling to them for whatever reason. As Nelson Mandela has alerted us, “history will judge us by the difference we make in the everyday lives of children.”
................................
In closing, somewhat interestingly the literature talks about “plaster casts being taken of the petroglyphs at Mt Cameron West” and implying that the QVMAG was somehow involved has gone unnoticed, unreported and overlooked. Indeed, there has been a deathly silence albeit that there are reports of one such cast being in the QVMAG collection, possibly currently, but not recognised as such apparently by current staff. This is an important historic artefact and if it has been destroyed, as has been suggested that it could have been, that would be a shameful act indeed. That it’s very existence is unacknowledged, that speaks volumes about the QVMAG, it’s management, its institutional credibility and its governance.
................................
All that said, I look forward to your, and Council’s, carefully considered advice and positioning in the light of the information available.
................................
Yours sincerely,
Ray Norman
NB:Somewhat interestingly this news has only been reported on Tasmanian ABC News, radio & TV, despite the considerable number of items posted leading up the Minister's decision. It seems that the 'political class' wish to privilege Eurocentric cum 'settler' bureaucratic processes in order to maintain whatever authority they might wish to hold. It seems ‘cultural acknowledgement’ comes with meaning much of which need not be celebrated.
From: Ray Norman
Date: Tuesday, 10 November 2020 at 12:58 pm
To: Mayor , Councillor Danny Gibson , Premier Gutwein
Cc: Minister Jaensch for Planning , Minister for Local Govt , Contact Us , Peter Sims
Subject: The priminghana petroglyphs and NAIDOC
Dear Albert and Councillors,
Firstly, I acknowledge and appreciate your apology today on behalf of Council, it must be said that it is a significant step forward albeit a long time coming. We are all diminished by events of the colonial aftermath and the consequent ‘placemaking’ and ‘cultural landscaping’ that brings us to the point where the past can no longer go unacknowledged. Thank you for your public apology today!
Where to now? I respectfully suggest, given all that is now known, that at Council’s very next meeting you invite Michael Mansell and a group of First Tasmanian Elders along and formally hand the priminghana petroglyphs back to the Aboriginal community in order that they can return these ‘cultural treasures’, their treasures, to their rightful places – no ifs, no buts, no bureaucratic humbug.
It is time to acknowledge that these cultural treasures were removed from where they belong on the erroneous and self-serving assumption that the First Tasmanians were not there, underscored as that assumption was by the assertion of and presumption of, Terra Nullius.
It is also time to acknowledge that the QVMAG has never ‘accessioned’ this cultural material in order that it, as an institution, might ‘deaccession’ it. This is evidenced by the institution’s and the GM/AKA CEO’s inability and unwillingness to supply any original unedited documentation to establish ‘accessioned ownership’. Clearly it does not exist and this is more than troubling!
It is also time to acknowledge Peter Sims’ decades of tireless and dedicated scholarship now published in his very recently published monograph dedicated to this topic. Peter Sims needs to be acknowledged as the premier authority par excellence in regard to the histories attached to this internationally important cultural material. Handing it, and entrusting it, to today’s First Tasmanians is an obvious way of doing so and I submit now is the time to do so.
To reiterate, the petroglyphs, on the evidence, were never ever in any way whatsoever ‘owned’ by the QVMAG. Therefore, it is nothing short of insensitive, history smoothing, bureaucrat humbug to insist that the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs needs to approve their hand back.
To insist upon it diminishes us all and the opportunity is in your hands to right a monumental wrong albeit one perpetrated in ignorance. You lead the default ‘trustees’, and in law, as you would know, the ignorance of a law is not a defence!
Yours sincerely,
Ray
Ray Norman
The lifestyle design enterprise and research network eMAIL 1. 7250
WEBsites: http://www.raynorman7250.blogspot.com
“A body of men holding themselves accountable to nobody ought not to be trusted by anybody.” Thomas Paine
“The standard you walk past is the standard you accept” David Morrison
https://raynormanadvocate.blogspot.com/
