Page 1 of 1

Destroying Aboriginal heritage

Posted: April 7th, 2021, 9:02 am
by marymary
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-n ... age-listed


A farmer who recently inherited land wanted to get a large machine into a field to clear weeds. He moved rocks to make way for the boom. Unfortunately for him, the rocks were in an eel shape and part of Aboriginal heritage. His point that no one ever told him or put a sign up may save him the huge fine.

Re: Destroying Aboriginal heritage

Posted: April 7th, 2021, 10:19 am
by Little John
We made a mistake, we shifted a few rocks, and I am very apologetic and I am very sorry it happened
Doesn't sound that apologetic to me.

Re: Destroying Aboriginal heritage

Posted: April 7th, 2021, 10:45 am
by Leigh
The point being, the current owner was not aware of the heritage of those rocks. It's all very well protecting these areas, HOWEVER, the onus should be upon those for whom it is significant to ensure that ALL potential land uses and owners are aware of the significance of said sites. If I own a selection of land, I'd have a reasonable expectation that I can do with that land what I like. Of course, that must comply with local by-laws, I wonder how many councils have rules that say you can't move any rocks on your property without first getting approval. Given the risk of fire from unkept bushland, I can understand that he wanted to spray the weeds. I'm not sure how big that particular paddock was, but I can tell you the ONLY WAY to give it a good coverage is via heavy machinery that would require free access to the site. When I was mowing rural blocks, there was certainly no indication that I should not move items to gain access to areas, nor did I ever get called out for moving such stuff. If these were so significant, surely they could have purchased the block and had it set aside rather than run the risk of this sort of thing happening. Strangely, none of the "Aboriginals" that I saw interviewed on this topic were far paler than I, and I have NO Aboriginal blood in me at all. (that I know of). If there were "traditional" owners, then "traditionally" you would expect them to be present on that particular site. Whilst I am all for preservation of our history, I am also bloody minded enough to realise that what happened in the past should remain there. None of us (blackfellas included) were alive when Australia was "invaded" (contentious point to me) by captain Cook. If we are to start going on about that, then You Brits will also need to return to your "homeland" somewhere in Europe even though the "invasion" of the British Isles occurred a thousand or so years ago.

Re: Destroying Aboriginal heritage

Posted: April 8th, 2021, 10:45 am
by salem
An overly simplistic version here is that you have to check before cutting down trees in your property as they may have a conservation order , not quite the same but means that you just can't do what you want , owner of the land or not .
The less said about wanting to built on "Bannockburn" the better . :o

Re: Destroying Aboriginal heritage

Posted: April 9th, 2021, 1:14 am
by Leigh
You are correct, Salem, even here, trees above a certain size are protected, but that is common knowledge like looking both ways before crossing the street. A few rocks on a property, however, is not expected to be an issue, and I could easily also have been found guilty or moving some rocks in my time.

Re: Destroying Aboriginal heritage

Posted: April 12th, 2021, 8:25 am
by marymary
First check if the rocks form the shape of an animal...

Re: Destroying Aboriginal heritage

Posted: April 12th, 2021, 9:00 am
by Leigh
Sometimes these things are not evident until an aerial survey or, they are buried and get turned up during land clearing.

Re: Destroying Aboriginal heritage

Posted: April 12th, 2021, 10:15 am
by Little John
I see your point Leigh but I still think the offending farmers "apology" was unconvincing.

Re: Destroying Aboriginal heritage

Posted: April 13th, 2021, 2:06 am
by Leigh
My "apology" would be unconvincing, too. It's not as though it was a well known, or well "respected" landmark. If it looked like something that was easily recognisable, or had been the subject of a well reported study with people clambering to see it. I'd probably be a little more sympathetic to the Aboriginal's plight, but, in this case, I'm on the farmer's side.