Ways of Belonging: Reconciliation and Adelaide's Public Space Indigenous Cultural Markers

158

Geographical Research

•

June 2007

•

45(2):158–166

doi: 10.1111/j.1745-5871.2007.00445.x

Blackwell Publishing Asia

Original Acticle

G. Malone: Ways of Belonging

Ways of Belonging: Reconciliation and Adelaide’s Public Space Indigenous Cultural Markers

GAVIN MALONE

School of Geography, Population and Environmental Management, Flinders University, GPO Box 2100, Adelaide, South Australia, 5001, Australia. Email: [email protected]

Received 3 October 2006: Revised 30 January 2007; Accepted 31 January 2007

Abstract

As an arguably ‘post colonial’ society, Australia is evolving its particular identityand sense of self, but reconciliation with its Indigenous peoples remains asignificant political and cultural issue. Social inclusion or marginalisation isreflected in the construct of the civic landscape and this paper traces and con-textualises public space Indigenous representation or ‘cultural markers’, sincethe 1960s in Adelaide, South Australia, the Kaurna people’s land. This paperidentifies social phases and time periods in the evolution of the ways in whichIndigenous people and their culture have been included in the city’s publicspace. Inclusion of Indigenous peoples in civic landscapes contributes not onlyto their spiritual and cultural renewal and contemporary identity, but also to thewhole community’s sense of self and to the process of reconciliation. This hasthe potential to provide a gateway to a different way of understanding placewhich includes an Indigenous perspective and could, symbolically, contribute tothe decolonisation of Indigenous people. An inter-related issue for the colonisingculture is reconciliation with the Indigenous nature of the land, in the sense ofan intimate sense of belonging and connectedness of spirit through an under-standing of Indigenous cultural landscapes, an issue which this paper explores.The paper also sets out suggestions for the facilitation of further Indigenousinclusion and of re-imagining ways of representation.

KEY WORDS

Indigenous issues; Kaurna; reconciliation; public space art;civic art; Indigenous cultural markers

Introduction

Over the last decade the process of reconcilia-tion has not been high on the present AustralianGovernment’s political agenda. Despite this lackof political leadership, much reconciliationactivity continues at an institutional and grassroots level. Public space, as a space of bothcontestation and reconciliation, can be seen toreflect not only the more recent reconciliationprocess but also the evolution of the recognitionand social inclusion of Indigenous people inAustralia. A number of cultural geographers(Hansford, 1996; Jacobs, 1996; Dunn, 1997;

Osborne, 2001; Hay

et al.

, 2004) have drawnattention to the ways in which public space rep-resentations of cultural history help shape per-sonal and civic identity and a sense of belongingor, conversely, of not belonging. They also sug-gest that a change in public representations canpotentially help to reshape social understandingsand cultural identities. As Cameron has said (1997,vii) ‘every monument tells a tale, not only of itssubject but of the society that erects it.’

Adelaide, the capital city of South Australia,has a full complement of traditional monuments,memorials and statuary which has helped to

G. Malone:

Ways of Belonging

159

© 2007 The AuthorJournal compilation © 2007 Institute of Australian Geographers

define its public space identity for over a cen-tury. However, public art over the last twentyfive years or so has provided a more diverserange of public space representations and artisticexpressions, including broader opportunities forIndigenous representation and inclusion. Adelaideart critic Margot Osborne (2004) suggests that‘civic art’ is a more appropriate term for suchworks because it establishes the connectionbetween the civic authority and the function ofthe artworks in embodying broad civic values.Public artworks respond to commissioning briefswhich define social agendas or engage in placemaking. These are rarely unfettered artisticexpressions. The term civic art implies a granderscale of work which may exclude other forms suchas community art, low key works, commemorativeplaques and the use of Indigenous language aspart of other public artworks. Taken together,these large and small works provide a broadersocial narrative, extending the more ‘official’style of commemoration, and also providing asense of the vernacular which contributes tolocal character. Indigenous representations canoccur in all of these forms and this researchdefines them inclusively as ‘Indigenous culturalmarkers’.

Many recent civic artworks have responded tothe broad themes of reconciliation and, as Jacobs(1996, 154) points out, artwork can contribute to‘the re-Aboriginalisation of place’ and ‘althoughnot land rights in itself, (it) can be a meaningfulre-territorialisation’. Furthermore, by not beingsubject to complex land rights and lineage asso-ciations, civic artwork ‘offers a most democraticpossibility for those groups wishing to remaketheir mark over land.’ Consequently this adds toIndigenous cultural renewal and public identity.It also contributes to the whole community’s senseof self by acknowledging the prior occupation ofthe Australian continent by Indigenous cultures.

Using Adelaide as an exemplar, this papertraces the evolution of Indigenous inclusion incivic space as reflective of prevailing social atti-tudes. Founded in 1836, Adelaide is on the landsof the Kaurna people who suffered the fullimpact of colonisation. Within thirty years theKaurna population and culture had been decim-ated and survivors were largely relocated tomission living some distance away from the city.It is only in the last four decades or so thattheir descendants have returned to Adelaide insignificant numbers and begun to rebuild theirtraditional cultural ties to country within theconstraints and challenges of an urbanised region.

It should be understood that part of that rebuild-ing is the process of Aboriginal people deter-mining their cultural lineage through identifyingapical ancestors since this enables them to deter-mine their contemporary cultural affiliations to aspecific language group or groups.

This paper also proposes that the inclusion ofIndigenous narratives can provide a gateway toan alternative way of understanding place forboth Indigenous and non-Indigenous peoples inthe urban area. Symbolically, it can provide anenhanced sense of mutual belonging for bothcultural traditions. For Indigenous people, itenables them to see their cultural heritage reflectedin public space, and therefore to see that theyare not invisible. For non-Indigenous people itcan assist in creating a more intimate under-standing of the Indigenous nature of place througha better understanding of Indigenous culturaltraditions. It can also symbolically representfurther steps in the ‘decolonisation’ of Indigenouspeople.

Evolution of public space representations of Indigenous peoples

Prior to the 1960s there was an almost completeabsence of Indigenous public representations inAdelaide (and elsewhere in Australia) reflectingwhat anthropologist W.E.H. Stanner (1979, 216)described as ‘the great Australian silence’ in termsof Indigenous social issues. A change commencedin the 1960s, coinciding with and reflectingchanging social and political attitudes towardsIndigenous people. This was demonstrated by

Figure 1 Study area.

160


•

June 2007

•

45(2):158–166


the 1962 Australian government’s enfranchise-ment of Indigenous people and the 1967 federalreferendum which resulted in a constitutionalchange which granted Indigenous people fullcitizenship rights and expanded the role ofthe federal government in Indigenous affairs, anarea which had previously been under the juris-diction of the States.

Reflecting nearly five decades of social change,there are now numerous Indigenous public spacecultural markers throughout greater metropoli-tan Adelaide. The more recent ones are mainlyin the suburbs but several are in the city’s centralcultural precincts. For this research the publicspace is also taken to include the facades andmain foyers of public buildings. As of November,2006, over fifty markers have been located ingreater metropolitan Adelaide but, since there hasbeen no specific record keeping by local or stategovernment, more may come to light. By decadeof installation the numbers are: 1960s, three; 1970s,three; 1980s, five; 1990s, 12; 2000s to date, 29 (withtwo more in progress). The numbers indicate anupwards trend which can be divided into foursocial phases and corresponding time periods.Works that are considered significant or repre-sentative of those periods are illustrated here.

Phase 1. Initial public representation by non-Indigenous people

(1960s–early 1980s; seven works)This early phase saw the representation ofIndigenous culture by non-Indigenous peoplewith little or no Indigenous involvement in itscreation. The earliest work dates from 1960 andis the

Piccanniny

drinking fountain in RymillPark on the eastern edge of the city. Commis-sioned by the Adelaide City Council, it depictsa kneeling Aboriginal girl with a coolamon-likebowl on her head acting as the water container.Although an important first step, to depict anAboriginal girl in such a subservient positionwould now be culturally unacceptable.

The first major work with Aboriginal contentin greater metropolitan Adelaide is

The Rain-makers

(Figure 2) by sculptor Geoffrey Shedleyat O’Sullivan Beach which was in 1965, whenthe sculpture was completed, a newly develop-ing outer suburb of mainly public housing. Itwas a gift from Eugen Lohmann, ManagingDirector of a West German company which sup-plied imported housing to the Housing Trust andwas commissioned ‘to commemorate his goodfeelings for the Trust and South Australia.’ (Cityof Onkaparinga, 2005, 8).

The first prominent civic artwork in the Cityof Adelaide to represent Aboriginal people is the1968 Victoria Square Fountain, also called TheThree Rivers, (Figure 3) and designed by sculp-tor John Dowie. It is a major artwork both interms of its location in the main civic squareand geographic heart of Adelaide, and in its

Figure 2 The Rainmakers, O’Sullivan Beach.

Figure 3 The Murray River: Aboriginal man with Ibis,Victoria Square Fountain.

G. Malone:

Ways of Belonging

161


commemorative function, the visit of QueenElizabeth in 1963. The fountain uses three figures,one of which is an Aboriginal man, to symbolic-ally represent the three main rivers which supplyAdelaide’s water, the Murray, the Onkaparingaand the Torrens. It also incorporates associatedwater fowl.

In 1972

The Sunday Mail

, a local newspaper,commissioned

The Tjilbruke Monument

(Figure 4)also by sculptor John Dowie at Kingston Park, acoastal suburb, to commemorate the memory ofthe Kaurna, at that time popularly thought to bean extinct people and culture:

They went without a trace, and are todayforgotten and unmourned. We at the SundayMail believe that was a travesty: an injusticeto the memory of these proud people. That iswhy we launched the Tjilbruke appeal.(Sunday Mail, 1971)

Tjilbruke (also spelt Tjirbruki) is a KaurnaAncestor Being who amongst many other deedscreated a series of fresh water springs along thecoast south of Adelaide (Tindale, 1997), one ofwhich is overlooked by the monument. JournalistWilliam Reschke had written a series of articlesabout Kaurna and the Dreaming and an appealfor public subscriptions was launched ‘... to

place cairns or memorials along the route torecall the Kaurna people who did not survive theimpact of white settlement.’ (Reschke, 1972, 7).

Georgina Williams, Nganke Burka

SeniorWoman

, Kaurna, (this refers to her knowledgeand position of cultural authority) has said that,the Tjilbruke Monument is a significant markeron her journey home to country, and of herdeveloping cultural and spiritual ties with theland of her ancestors. Like many Kaurnadescendants of her generation she grew up onPoint Pearce Mission, Yorke Peninsula, awayfrom her country. The monument was a publicrecognition of her cultural heritage which couldthen be used to work towards recognition thatKaurna still existed and to bring attention totheir contemporary social challenges (GeorginaWilliams, personal communication, 2006).

Phase 2. Initial Indigenous inclusion

(mid 1980s–mid 1990s; five works)Although there was limited creative activity, thisphase saw the initial inclusion of Indigenouspeople as design contributors or collaboratorswithin a period of pan or generic Aboriginalrepresentation. Two significant artworks werecommissioned by state cultural institutions. Thesewere the 1989

Rainbow Serpent

, a large scalepavement work at Tandanya, the new NationalAboriginal Cultural Institute in Adelaide, designedby Indigenous artist Bluey Roberts, and a 1992untitled mural (Figure 5) at the Adelaide FestivalCentre, designed by Indigenous artist TrevorNickolls and painted by several Indigenous andnon-Indigenous artists.

However, other types of markers also appearedin the form of two commemorative projects whichwere part of South Australia’s sesquicentenary

Figure 4 Tjilbruke Monument, Kingston Park. Figure 5 Untitled Mural, Adelaide Festival Centre.

162


•

June 2007

•

45(2):158–166


in 1986. One was the

Jubilee 150 Commemora-tive Walk

series of plaques along North Terrace,Adelaide’s premier cultural boulevard. Com-prising 150 bronze pavement plaques com-memorating prominent South Australians, onlythree of whom were Indigenous people. Never-theless, the

Jubilee 150

prompted a concentratedre-examination and re-writing of aspects ofSouth Australian social and political history.The 1980s were also a period of nascent culturalrecognition and renewal for Kaurna descendants.Concurrent research, publications, and Indigen-ous activism further elaborated Kaurna andother Aboriginal history providing a basis forspecific cultural identification and activities.The Tjilbruke Track Committee, comprisedpredominantly of Indigenous people, includingGeorgina Williams who, at that time, had alreadyascribed herself as a Kaurna descendant(Georgina Williams, personal communication,2006), initiated the erection of marker plaques atseveral significant sites along the coastal sectionof the Tjilbruke Dreaming as part of the

Jubilee150

. The Dreaming is a creation story settingout the Aboriginal understandings of the worldand of the laws of existence. The intent of theDreaming plaques was not only to provide recog-nition of their ancestors and to reveal anotherspirit of place but also to provide a contempo-rary Kaurna presence within the public space oftheir own lands and in the public imagination. Thismarks a turning point in the political and culturalunderstanding of Kaurna as a still extant andliving people and culture. Just three years later,in a report outlining the significance of otherAboriginal coastal sites, Lucas (1989, 5) states that:

For a number of Aboriginal people the SellicksBeach sites (together with the other markedlocations on the Tjirbruke (sic) Track) are asymbol of the past as a place of origin. Thispast, which can be re-created by history andarchaeology, has become the means by whichpeople orient themselves towards the future.

He goes on to assert that:

The Washpool and Tjirbruke Spring sites atSellicks Beach are a focus for the re-creationof symbols and the re-formation of valueswhich derive from a specifically Aboriginalpast. For their adherents, such symbols andvalues are thought to have a transformativepower over the present and a beneficial effecton the future. They signal the revitalisation ofAboriginal culture. (1989, 8)

Phase 3. Cross cultural collaborations and individual Indigenous expression

(mid 1990s onwards; 24 works)In December, 1991 the Council for AboriginalReconciliation was appointed by the Hawkefederal government to pursue a formal processof reconciliation between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people over the decade leading to thecentenary of Australian Federation in 2001. Thismood of reconciliation was reflected in publicspace by greater Indigenous acknowledgmentand artistic input through cross cultural collabo-rations and individual expression by Indigenousartists. The works associated with this phase rangefrom major civic artworks to small scale localand community projects with several having aspecific reconciliation focus.

Grieving Mother

, 1999, (Figure 6) is at thesite of the former (1943–1972) Colebrook Homefor stolen generation Indigenous children. Thestolen generation refers to Indigenous childrenwho were removed from their families by Stateand Territory governments in Australia fromthe early twentieth century until about 1970. In1995, the Australian government commissionedan inquiry by the Human Rights and Equal

Figure 6 Grieving Mother, Colebrook Reconciliation Park.

G. Malone:

Ways of Belonging

163


Opportunity Commission into the impact of thispolicy, resulting in the report

Bringing them Home

(Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commis-sion, 1997).

Grieving Mother

was created by non-Indigenous sculptor Silvio Apponyi, assisted byIndigenous artists Sherry Rankine, Tjula Jane Poleand Kunyi June-Anne McInerney. This and anotherwork at the site

The Fountain of Tears

, 1998, by thesame artists are a poignant reminder of the humanand cultural tragedy of the stolen generation.

Phase 4. Specific acknowledgment and inclusion of Kaurna

(mid 1990s onwards; 16 works)Overlapping with Phase 3, which was a broad orgeneric recognition of Aboriginal culture, wasthe specific recognition of Kaurna as a distinctpeople and language group on whose traditionalland Adelaide is located. This involved a spe-cific collaborative input by Kaurna descendantsas artists or cultural advisers. This is significantin assisting community awareness of the dis-tinctiveness of the various Aboriginal peoplesthroughout Australia, their specific attachmentto country and of Indigenous cultural issuespertaining to a particular place.

The works from this phase range throughmajor civic artworks, small scale local projects,community projects, acknowledgments of sig-nificant Kaurna sites and traditional country,and the use of Kaurna language in bilingualtexts. Dating from 1997

Tjilbruke narna arra,Tjilbruke Gateway

(Figure 7) at Warriparinga, islocated on one of the most significant TjilbrukeDreaming sites available to Kaurna on theAdelaide Plains. The collaboration comprisedKaurna artist Sherry Rankine and non Indigen-ous artists Margaret Worth and the author. Oneintent of the artwork was to create a space for

the Dreaming narratives to be told by their cul-tural custodians. It is an active space for culturalrenewal and education with seasonal SpiritFires, which burn for several days and nights.This ritual was initiated by Georgina Williams,and was held there for several years. Warriparinga,a local government reserve, is also the locationof the Living Kaurna Cultural Centre, whichopened on September 20th, 2002.

In 2002, the first major public artwork toacknowledge Kaurna people

Kaurna meyunna,Kaurna yerta tampendi,

Recognising Kaurnapeople and Kaurna land

in the city itself wasunveiled at the Adelaide Festival Centre. It is bynon-Indigenous artist Tony Rosella and Indigen-ous artists Darren Siwes and Eileen Karpany.

These partially concurrent phases have pro-duced about 40 artworks. Fourteen are in thecity itself (i.e. the central area of Adelaide,which is surrounded by the city’s parklands) andthe remainder are unevenly spread throughoutthe metropolitan area as a result of numeroussocial, political, historical and geographic factors.Of the 17 local government areas, several appearto have none whilst one, with a high Indigenouspopulation, has nine.

The evolution of other forms of Indigenous expression and commemoration

The form of most of the aforementioned worksemanates from the Western tradition of con-structed monuments and public artworks. Incontrast, a strong part of a traditional Indigenoussense of self exists in the very land itself. ForKaurna, the ‘monuments’ were in the landalready; they were not physically constructed asis the custom in the colonising cultural tradition.Rather there were, and are, multi layered mean-ings, or narratives, inscribed in the land itself.As Carter (1996, 63) notes, the culture’s ‘originarystories’ are embedded in country. In contrast,the colonising culture’s ‘originary stories’ are tobe found in the constructed landscape; the monu-ments, the memorials and the churches. NorthTerrace, Adelaide’s premier cultural boulevardwith its numerous cultural institutions, statues andmemorials (Hay

et al.

, 2004) is a case in point.Langton (2002, 253) elaborates on this issue

when discussing a land claim by the Cape YorkLand Council (in northern Queensland) to theAboriginal Land Tribunal:

Under Australian law, physical modificationsto the land, such as expressed in monuments,roads, fences, and the like (referred to inFigure 7 Tjilbruke narna arra Tjilbruke Gateway, Warriparinga.

164


•

June 2007

•

45(2):158–166


legislation as ‘improvements’) are treated astangible proof of relationships with land. Butwhat of peoples whose presence in the land-scape leaves no such traces, no such marks, orwhere meaningful associations are not throughsuch marks?

She further explains (2002, 254) that ‘people’sancestral links with places can be read not throughmaterial inscriptions such as monuments, but anengagement and inscription of the senses.’ Intraditional structures, places are memorialisedthrough meanings that are culturally inscribedin the land itself, through Story or Dreaming,through kin relationships, and through thecollective cultural memory, rather than throughphysical inscriptions placed in that landscape.Such places of cultural memory become ‘sitemarkers of the remembering process and ofidentity itself.’ (Taylor, 2000, 27, cited inLangton, 2002, 255) This presents a very differentand more complex challenge than that providedby the Western tradition when determiningappropriate forms of contemporary commemo-ration and it suggests that a cross cultural synthesiswhich draws more strongly upon Indigenouscultural tradition is required.

Despite the contribution of the Indigenouscultural markers located in urban public space,and despite more than a decade of reconciliationinitiatives, most aspects of Indigenous culturaltradition remain ‘invisible’ in the public spaceof Adelaide, not only to the coloniser but also tocontemporary urban Indigenous peoples. Whilstartworks provide tokens or signs here andthere, the totality of the constructed landscapeoverwhelms the underlying Indigenous culturalmeaning inscribed in the land itself. As such,there is not an overtly strong Indigenous ‘publicself’ or self representation provided in Adelaide’sconstructed civic space or through its urban design.This raises the question of whether Westernbased forms of public commemoration are thebest means for Indigenous expression. Someother forms of public representation may needto be imagined to bring attention to the inscribedlandscape meanings rather than just utilising theform of the ‘constructed monument’. This requiresa cultural framework or what I call a ‘culturalframing’ that facilitates an appreciation of theIndigenous landscape beneath the ‘skin’ of theWestern constructed landscape.

This cultural framing should ideally be moreculturally relevant and accessible to Indigenouspeople, in order to assist with their re-identification

with country and to act as a mnemonic for anoral tradition. For instance it could incorporate‘places’ in the urban area with supportingartefacts where the stories can be told by thecultural custodians. These places could also act asperformative spaces to reinforce meaning as dothe ceremonies often associated with colonisingmonument, such as war memorials. There couldalso be a mechanism whereby non-Indigenouspeople could be helped to recognise the valuesand ways of understanding the relationship tocountry embedded in the hunter/gatherer culturallandscapes, of custodianship and an inter-dependent relationship rather than just possession.This is not as Jacobs (1996, 149) cautions, toconflate Aboriginality and Nature in a romanti-cised or deep eco-spiritual sense, or to maintainthe ‘enduring colonial construct which placesAboriginality in Nature.’ Rather it is to enablelearning at a physical and metaphysical levelfrom another knowledge tradition, a traditionwhich has hitherto been classified as inferiorwithin the colonising construct, and to assist inthe process of reconciliation with both Indige-nous people and the Indigenous nature of place,since the two are inextricably interwoven.

An example can be provided by the culturaland physical landscape of the Mount LoftyRanges, the backdrop to the city of Adelaide.Does one see only a European colonising land-scape or does one also see the Kaurna meaning,the body of Yurebilla, the giant kangaroo formedin creation, whose ears form the two peaks(Figure 8) now named Mt Bonython and MtLofty (Ross, 1984, 7). To understand the storyof Yurebilla, the Kaurna landscape narrative or

Figure 8 Mt Bonython and Mt Lofty, the ears of Yurebilla.

G. Malone:

Ways of Belonging

165


‘originary story’ is to have a window into othersocial and landscape values. The physicallandscape acts as a powerful mnemonic for oralcultures and it is an integral component ofnarratives that dictate social and ecologicalbehaviour. In that sense, Indigenous creationnarratives can be understood as ecosystem think-ing, and not just as anthropocentric thinking. Inparticular, they provide a way to understandlandscape not just as economic resource but alsoas a life force.

Civic art: some suggestions as to where to from here

Whilst Indigenous inclusion in the ‘high ground’of cultural precincts is to be commended, to pro-vide some balance, commemoration could alsooccur in other forms which may be of greaterrelevance to Indigenous people. This requires acomprehensive dialogue with Indigenous peoplesas to what are the appropriate forms of publicspace inclusion, an issue which has yet to befully explored. Part of this will consist of asking,and listening, to the answers to questions suchas: what are Indigenous concepts of place mak-ing? Could commemoration be an action or aprocess rather than an artefact, or could it be acombination of both? This further raises issuesabout commissioning and the creative process,and about the location, conceptual base andmaterial form of Indigenous ‘civic art’ or publiccommemoration. Possible ways forward include:

1. Giving Indigenous people greater controlover public space outcomes by implementingcommissioning processes that are determinedby Indigenous people. One way is to considercommissioning processes that are inclusive,collaborative and consultative, rather thancompetitive as at present, since the latter havethe potential to divide Indigenous communitiesand artists.

2. Debating whether utilising Western basedforms of representation and commemorationare the most appropriate or whether locationsand forms stipulated by Indigenous groupsshould be utilised. For instance, the protectionand custodianship of culturally significant sitesas part of commemoration may be a moreappropriate approach. The Tjilbruke Dream-ing sites provide a relevant example.

3. Establishing more spaces for interaction andconsidering a broader range of projects thatmay be of smaller scale but may have capacitybuilding potential. Large scale iconic projects

can involve significant investment of financialand social capital which can cause expecta-tions to be set too high, thus increasing thelikelihood that the outcomes may disappoint.

4. Enabling projects where non-Indigenousskills are used in facilitation rather than incollaboration, with creative ownership retainedby Indigenous individuals or communities. Inan arts project all collaborators have ‘equal’input and ownership. That is, non-Indigenouscollaborators influence ideas and outcomesand also have creative ‘ownership’ over theIndigenous forms of expression that are uti-lised. Facilitation would assist and supportIndigenous artists where public space artskills are needed but would not contribute tothe project’s creative ideas and expression.

Whilst there have been many successful col-laborative projects in Adelaide there has not yetbeen full Indigenous control over both the com-missioning and the creative processes. There isyet to be a civic artwork or a public commemo-ration fully determined by Kaurna people. Thisis one of the next steps required in movingtowards full Indigenous self determination andself representation, another step in the ongoingreconciliation process.

Conclusion

There is an irony in that Indigenous people aregenerally excluded from the colonising culturallandscape whilst the colonisers are generallyexcluded from the ‘Indigenous cultural land-scape’, and in particular from their inscribedlandscape meanings and spirit of place. A mutu-ally inclusive sense of belonging is required forboth cultural traditions. This can be progressedby developing an enhanced ability to read andspeak each other’s symbolic languages to createa common language of belonging. Perhapstranslating symbolic language into one’s ownidiom from either cultural heritage, as has beenhappening through the development of theIndigenous cultural markers discussed above, isa precursory step to an openness and an under-standing which can lead to a lasting sense ofmutual belonging. This would be assisted if thenon-Indigenous cultural mythos can also evolveto include the land or country and not just theconstructed environment. This would also assistin the development of a synthesis of meaningand expression within a cultural landscape thatis convergent rather than, as at present, a binaryof the Indigenous and the non-Indigenous.

166


•

June 2007

•

45(2):158–166


A more intimate cross-cultural sharing andsense of belonging does however require a moregenerous level of reciprocity than that shown todate by the coloniser and a redressing of un-equal power relationships. For instance, a senseof belonging is often equated to land ownership,something which has been denied to Kaurnacollectively at a political level and has beenmade difficult individually by socio-economicstructures. Land is the core capital of culture; itprovides for the inter-generational transfer ofboth material and cultural wealth; it is part ofidentity and belonging and, as such, it is a con-tinuing underlying issue.

The use of Indigenous cultural markers isjust one of many strategies in a range of socio-economic and sociopolitical initiatives requiredin order to progress reconciliation. Publicrepresentation facilitates Indigenous peoples’incorporation into a more intrinsic part of thecollective memory and contributes to the wholecommunity’s sense of self. But my concludingpoint is that Indigenous cultural markers and thechallenge of evolving new ways of expressionare not just a means of recognising Indigenouspeoples. They are also an education about waysof seeing, and of understanding other codesand conventions inherent in the Indigenouscultural landscapes. They are part of overcom-ing a culturally mediated blindness and ofincorporating Indigenous concepts into placemaking and commemorative processes for thebenefit of all.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTI wish to thank Georgina Yambo Williams and KarlWinda Telfer for the knowledge and understandings thatI have received from them and for our ongoing sharingof ideas over nearly a decade. I also wish to thank thereviewers of this paper for their constructive and valuablecontributions.

REFERENCESCameron, S., 1997:

Silent Witnesses: Adelaide’s Statues andMonuments

. Wakefield Press, Adelaide.Carter, P., 1996:

Lie of the Land

. Faber and Faber, London.City of Onkaparinga, 2005: Horizons: The Community

Newspaper of the City of Onkaparinga, No. 45.Dunn, K.M., 1997: Cultural geography and cultural policy.

Australian Geographical Studies

35, 1–11.Hay, I., Hughes, A. and Tutton, M., 2004: Monuments,

memory and marginalisation in Adelaide’s Prince HenryGardens.

Geografiska Annaler

86B, 201–216.Hansford, P., 1996: Space and memory – the nature of cultural

memory.

Object

2, 39–41.Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, 1997:

Bringing them Home – Report of the National Inquiry intothe Separation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait IslanderChildren from their Families

. Retrieved 24 January, 2007from <http://www. humanrights.gov.au/social_justice/stolen_children/index.html>.

Jacobs, J.M., 1996:

Edge of Empire: Postcolonialism andthe City

. Routledge, London and New York.Langton, M., 2002: The edge of the sacred, the edge of

death – sensual inscriptions. In David, B. and Wilson, M.(eds)

Inscribed Landscapes: Marking and Making Place

.University of Hawai’i Press, Honolulu, 253–269.

Lucas, R., 1989:

The Anthropological Significance of Abo-riginal Sites at Sellicks Beach

. A Report to AboriginalHeritage Branch, South Australian Department of Environ-ment and Planning, Adelaide.

Osborne, B.S., 2001: Landscapes, memory, monuments, andcommemoration: putting identity in its place.

CanadianEthnic Studies Journal

33, 39–77.Osborne, M., 2004: Sculpture commission in skilled hands.

The Adelaide Review

(May). Retrieved 9 May, 2006 from<http://www.adelaidereview.com.au/archives/2004_05/design_index.shtml>.

Reschke, W., 1972: 20 ton tribute to Dream giant.

TheSunday Mail

(Adelaide) (16 September), 7.Ross, B. (ed.), 1984:

Aboriginal and Historic Places aroundMetropolitan Adelaide and the South Coast

. Moana Sub-Committee, Anthropological Society of South Australia Inc.

Stanner, W.E.H., 1979:

Whiteman Got no Dreaming. Essays1938–1973

. ANU Press, Canberra.Sunday Mail, 1971: Memorial to a Dream giant.

SundayMail Magazine

(Adelaide) (6 March), 87.Taylor, A., 2000: ‘The sun always shines in Perth’: a

post-colonial geography of identity, memory and place.

Australian Geographical Studies

38, 27–35.Tindale, N., 1987: The wanderings of Tjirbruki: a tale of the

Kaurna people of Adelaide.

Record of the South AustralianMuseum

No. 20, 5–13.

http://www

http://www.adelaidereview.com.au/archives/2004_05/

Documents

Ways of Belonging: Reconciliation and Adelaide's Public Space Indigenous Cultural Markers