Talk:Gweagal

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Gweagal. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071010104946/http://www.nsw.nationaltrust.org.au/luggweagal.htm to http://www.nsw.nationaltrust.org.au/lugGWEAGAL.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080829144205/http://www.mcguinnessonline.com/australia/aussie_people_aboriginals7.htm to http://www.mcguinnessonline.com/australia/aussie_people_aboriginals7.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070901080759/http://www.rbgsyd.nsw.gov.au/science/hot_science_topics/Botany_of_Botany_Bay/people/indigenous_people to http://www.rbgsyd.nsw.gov.au/science/hot_science_topics/Botany_of_Botany_Bay/people/indigenous_people

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:44, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gweagal. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080828125042/http://www.mcguinnessonline.com/australia/aussie_people_aboriginals3.htm to http://www.mcguinnessonline.com/australia/aussie_people_aboriginals3.htm
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.environment.gov.au/heritage/publications/pubs/short-history.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:18, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Gweagal Shield

Hello all

I have added further information on the latest scholarly research which shows that the shield in the British Museum is not the so-called Gweagal Shield taken from Botany Bay in April 1770. Please see Thomas, Nicholas (2018). "A Case of Identity: The Artefacts of the 1770 Kamay (Botany Bay) Encounter". Australian Historical Studies. 49:1: 4–27 – via Taylor and Francis Online. Thomas concludes: "In particular, a closer assessment of the relevant evidence establishes that the shield exhibited in Canberra [ie the one on loan from the British Museum] is not the one taken from Gweagal in April 1770." p 10.

Happy to discuss--Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 01:48, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Further reading

Hello all

I have removed two articles from the further reading section for the following reasons: 1) They repeat the now-discredited information that the shield held by the British Museum is the so-called Gweagal Shield 2) They both cover ground already well covered in the main article. 3) They are behind paywalls 4) They take a particular position on a controversial issue and can be considered advocacy.

The main article and the linked article in the Further reading section provide adequate coverage of the controversy over the Indigenous Australian shield held by the British Museum.

Happy to discuss. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 00:36, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

The provenance is not firmly established yet, so it is incorrect to cite one article as proof that it is not genuine. I am about to add a bit more to this bit. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 07:58, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

@Laterthanyouthink: The provenance of the shield in the British Museum has not been firmly established, but it has been firmly established that it is not the shield taken by Banks at Botany Bay. Nevertheless, the article has been considerably improved by your additional sources. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 23:49, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes, thanks Aemilius Adolphin, after a bit of digging I see that this appears to be the case. It also led me onto a few massive sidetracks, but I'll re-check the wording here with fresh eyes shortly. The case is quite significant, kind of Australia's version of the Elgin Marbles, and will probably continue to be mentioned as similar ones come up in the future. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 03:58, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

@Laterthanyouthink: Please have a look at the changes I made to your last entry. Most significantly, I have removed the sentence "The effect of the study undermines Kelly's claim for repatriation of the shield, strengthening the Museum's argument for retention by them, despite the authors of the study being in favour of the cultural repatriation of objects stolen during colonisation". I don't think Nugent and Sculthorpe's findings strengthen the British Museum's case for retaining the shield and, as you note, the authors specifically argue otherwise. The paper argues that even if the shield has no connection to Cook and Banks, it is still of immense cultural importance to Indigenous Australians. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 02:38, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Aemilius Adolphin, in your last edit, you have just repeated a citation which is already there (as {{sfn|Nugent|Sculthorpe|2018|pp=28–43}}), so all you need to do is put the citation in the right place at the end of that sentence. Previous to that, my sentence about strengthening the museum's claim is representing Keenan's view, which is a legal one, and cited (and which you have left there, no longer supporting any content). She is saying that from the museum's point of view, Kelly's claim is weakened because it was based largely on Cooman being his ancestor, and hence claiming ownership. The whole issue of reclaiming artefacts of Indigenous history (cultural repatriation) is a broader one and somewhat of a battleground in many museums. I don't mind some of your tinkering with the wording - that's fine, apart from a couple of things. Firstly, there doesn't seem to be any doubt that it is a shield of the Gweagal people, and the museum has called it the Gweagal shield, so I would suggest that we carry on calling it that, perhaps lower-casing the word "shield" if you like. I deliberately put it in inverted commas because that is what it has been referred to throughout. Secondly, I don't know why you have removed the description of the Cook & Banks story, noted in their journals (and again, you have left the citation with no content). This is important background which explains the importance of the shield, as first claimed by the BM on its provenance labelling, and your changes have misrepresented the sources. I don't want to keep labouring the point on this article. I suspect that over time it will either have its own article or be written up in more detail in an article relating to cultural repatriation or decolonisation of musuems, and will be picked over again. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 03:20, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

@Laterthanyouthink: Thanks for your comments. 1) Yes, my Nugent and Sculthorpe reference was a mistake. I meant to cite the specific page number of their conclusion: ie p 43. I will make the correction. 2) It was not clear from your sentence that the opinion about Kelly's claim was Keenan's view. I removed it because it doesn't follow that if Kelly's claim is weakened then the Museum's case for keeping the shield is strengthened. The case for repatriating the shield is its Indigenous cultural significance, not that Kelly has any personal connection to the shield. I am happy to remove the citation to Keenan's article and to the ABC radio piece. 3) In fact, it is almost certain that the shield in the British Museum is NOT a shield of the Gweagal people. The two articles in AHS show that the shield is of the wrong construction type and type of wood to be from Botany Bay. The British Museum does not call the shield the Gweagal shield: this was a name popularised by Kelly and the Australian media. If we are to maintain a neutral tone we should consistently refer to it as an Aboriginal shield in the British Museum. 4) I removed the description of Cook's and Banks story because it contained factual errors and repeated information already in the article. The article already states that Cook and Banks took some Gweagal artefacts, and that Cook's landing party shot a warrior who dropped his shield. In fact neither Cook's nor Banks's journal says that they took the shield. It is Banks (not Cook) who is thought to have taken the shield because it later appears in an auction catalogue of artefacts in Banks's possession. But this shield is demonstrably different from the one in the British Museum. We have no idea what happened to the "real" Gweagal shield. All this is discussed in detail in the two AHS articles and I agree we should stick to these for the facts. I am happy to remove the reference to the Daly article which I think is advocacy in any case.

I agree that much of this belongs in a separate article on cultural repatriation. I would be happy to condense the treatment in this article. I would also be happy to continue the discussion on my talk page, so we don't clutter up this one with too much detailed discussion. Thanks again, for all the improvements you have made to this article. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 05:40, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Sure, I don't have more time to spend on this and go through all of the sources again (and isn't one of them behind a paywall?). I will just mention though that in one of the sources there is a photo or transcription or link to the original BM description, which called it "Gweagal shield". (If I do ever get back to it, I'll cite here.) Laterthanyouthink (talk) 05:57, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

p.s. Sorry, my mistake - it said "Bark Shield: This shield represents the moment of first contact between the British and Aboriginal Australians at Botany Bay in 1770. When James Cook and his men tried to land, two men of the Gweagal people came forward with spears...". Laterthanyouthink (talk) 06:10, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Gweagal's relationship with Eora & Tharawal groups

At the moment, there appears to be some overlap, confusion or muddied waters around how the Gweagal people fit into the Eora and Tharawal peoples. I don't have the time to dig deeper at the moment, but all three articles need some kind of clarification around the issue. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 07:58, 14 September 2020 (UTC)