Talk:Gundagai

Massacres and the Dog on the Tuckerbox

Moved the following from history, where I will copy edit there. Additions from IPs 203.54.186.125 and 203.54.186.125 on 5, 6 and 17 June 2006.

Gundagai is known for an image of a dog on a box. This symbolism is more recently based on a poem about a bullock waggon stuck in the mud near Gundagai pre gazettal of Gundagai as a town in 1838. This bullock waggon carried a load of flour for the European settlers. The flour had to come from the mill at Goulburn. There was a severe drought happening. The flour on the bogged bullock wagon was rifled while the bullock driver was in the nearby hotel and subsequently, the remaining flour was laced with arsenic. More flour was taken from the waggon by Aboriginal people with the end result being there were many deaths. The massacre was heard about in Sydney and was investigated, but no one was able to be held to account. For many years the event was told and retold and a dog figure, representing an aspect of Australian Aboriginal lore, was placed on a stick at the Nine Mile near where the massacre happened. A photo exists of this earlier Dog monument. The story was passed down among long-time Gundagai residents and is still spoken about in Gundagai today but for many years when it was mentioned, people were told not to speak about it. The story was also retold in a popular Australian poem by Jack Moses but from a different, perhaps less challenging, perspective which explained the lingering tale that just would not go away. The known disparity between, and debate about, whether the event happened at the Five Mile or Nine Mile is to do with this. There are archival records documentating this iconic and significant Australian cultural heritage. The Gundagai incident is independent of the Benalla one. The Benalla massacre (if it is the 'Faithfull Massacre)was the one that led to Gundagai being gazetted. I have copies of the original documents of the line of communication being put through to Melbourne after the Faithfull Massacre. The Coolac Massacre story is still well known in Gundagai but not spoken about publically. There is no original research required for the Coolac Massacre as that it happened has never been forgotten in this town. The first poems about the massacre appeared in the 1850s. The monument to the massacre was built in 1932 and that monument is identical to a major Indigenous Ancestral feature. The Gundagai Independent in about October 2005 has some content. The Coolac massacre is currently part of not yet completed archaeological surveying in that area as reported online on ABC News. NSW National Parks have been notified of where the massacre remains were put. This burial area from the 1830s was previously known to National Parks. NSWNP do not release all information they hold. The massacre is spoken of in Gundagai's verse and song, the 'Dog' being 'first man' in Aboriginal culture. There are other supporting documents such as Tindale's letters and others. ({{fact}}<!--very interesting but need some sources please; note this reads very much like an incident near present day Benalla on 11 April 1838 - were there two or is there confusion?-->(citation requested and comment inserted by AYArktos) There were many many massacres of Indigenous people in Australia. I am not Indigenous. My family have lived at Gundagai since the 1840s which is not long after the massacre happened.

--A Y Arktos\^talk 20:50, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Note citations have been requested. Doesn't mean I don't believe it. It is Wikipedia policy though that things are Verifiable.--A Y Arktos\^talk 20:58, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I have done a search of verifiable sources through the ACT Public Library Service. The only reference I could find was an ABC news item on 15 September 2005 about claims of a massacre to defer the building of a bypass. The item reads in part:

"Gundagai resident Johneen Jones says there was a massacre in the area and the latest survey is needed under new heritage rules.

Councillor Tozer says he hopes work on the bypass can start.

"Hopefully there'll be no further sites discovered," he said.

"Certainly I haven't heard of the massacre before this particular time ... except from Johneen Jones on a previous occasion. So hopefully this matter can be put to rest and we can go on with the job and maybe save a few lives," he said."

Capitalistroadster 02:40, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Verifiability of massacre

• So far I am not finding anything on the web about this massacre

I think the massacre happened before the web was invented.

• • http://www.cat.org.au/forgottenwar/narrandera.html mentions the Wiradjuri wars but not this incident.
  • http://www.rta.nsw.gov.au/constructionmaintenance/downloads/coolac_environreview.pdf discusses a massacre near coolac but in the following terms: "A local resident provided information about the possibility of an Aboriginal massacre site occurring in the general area between Mingay and Pettit. The reliability and exact location of the massacre site has yet to be determined, however, one unconfirmed suggestion is that it is close to Muttama Creek, or in general proximity of the current highway alignment. As the reliability of the information and definite location of the site could not verified,..."

Given the recent RTA environmental review at Coolac has failed to turn anything up, I am inclined to remove the reference as not meeting WP:V.--A Y Arktos\^talk 21:32, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Response has been moved here to make sense The RTA content you note is 2004 content so out of date. This is 2006. There have been two new lots of archs since then.

Given the site of the massacre wasnt known till this year yet you put up stuff that talks about what was known in 2004.

THIS IS 2006, NOT 2004. What is an ongoing investigative process has progressed to 2006. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.54.9.128 (talk • contribs) 11:12, 18 June 2006 (UTC+10 hours)

The RTA review has not failed to find anything to do with this massacre. You are quoting an out of date RTA publication.

remove the Coolac Massacre from here. Wik does not have the skills to have it. I have several citations but am not prteapred to put them here at this stage... or ever now. People can do their own research and I will relese the citations to those who I choose to have them, not you silly lot at it strikes me, here is too silly to deserve to have them. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.54.9.128 (talk • contribs) 11:12, 18 June 2006 (UTC+10 hours)

• If you wish to contribute to the wikipedia then you need to read our policies on Verifiability. You need to cite sources. I may have cited a 2004 source - at least I cited something! If there is a more recent RTA review or any other review - please feel free to reference it. No reliable source, no entry in the wikipedia - nothing to do with skills, all to do with No original research, which is policy.--A Y Arktos\^talk 01:42, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Response has been moved here to attempt to make sense of it and the dialogue

There are numerous poems that cite this massacre. Some will be online.

You should have seen that 2004 date on the RTA material you noted and have realised it was way out of date.

Use the poems about the massacre as citations but then .... that requires skill in textual analysis to recognise those poems are citations. If you have those skills you will cite them.

There is a lot of material but it mostly requires particular skills to be able to use so it may be wasted here.

Whatever, its best the Coolac Massacre is not noted here I now think. I didnt realise wik was so silly as its not a source researchers use. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.54.9.128 (talk • contribs) 15:39, 18 June 2006 (UTC+10hours)

Coolac bypass hold-up

From that i have head about this 'massacre' is that a Neville Williams who is a Wiradjuri Aboriginal clams that there was a 'massacre' there (I think he did the same type of thing at West Wyalong trying to stop the Lake Cowal gold mine) so far nothing has been found at the site to prove this. All i know is at the moment a museum is holding up the Coolac bypass.

RobertM 01:54, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Who is Robert Myers. You do not know much if you think a Museum is holding up the Coolac Bypass. The Coolac Bypass is not held up. It just is not ready to start yet. It will start when the funding is released by the Federal Government, (on 1 July) then after that the preferred tenderer needs to get its complex operations into place so they can start. This preferred tenderer hasnt even be awarded the contract yet so who in your mind is to build the bypass? Noddy? Contractors cant be hired and huge construction jobs cant start if the money to pay them has not been paid in by the governemnt. Those who claim all these other things re a fanciful holdup are having delusions.

Neville Williams is a highly respected Aboriginal Elder who lobbies to have Aboriginal heritage saved or at least recorded. Yes he did lobby re Lake Cowal. Many Australians lobbied re the Snowy Sale because of its heritage aspects. Is there something wrong with saving haritage or is it just wrong if you do it to save Aboriginal heritage??? Please answer that here given you have had a go here re Neville Williams.

Its not going to cost anyone in Australia if a small plaque is erected somewhere near the Coolac Bypass is it, to note that massacre. After all we mark massacres such as Port Arthur etc so of course we can also note the Coolac one though there has already been a large monument built to it bragging about it going on its inscription.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.54.9.128 (talk • contribs) 15:39, 18 June 2006 (UTC+10hours)

I don't know much? (ABC News 17/4/2006) No end to Coolac bypass delays. I never had a go at Neville Williams i just stated on what i know!

RobertM 05:50, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, if u are quoting ABC News, cite it. You wrote it as if it was your own info rather than ABC content.

"(I think he did the same type of thing at West Wyalong trying to stop the Lake Cowal gold mine) so far nothing has been found at the site to prove this. All i know is at the moment a museum is holding up the Coolac bypass."

If you think that re Neville Williams, what makes you think 'that'?

How do you know "nothing has been found at the site to prove this"? What is your authority there? I do have authority re that and again, you are talking twaddle.

How do you know "a museum is holding up the Coolac bypass"? What Museum and how do you know that???

I know you do not have a registered interest in the Coolac Bypass so know what you very obviusly do NOT know.

Its very sad that when Aboriginal massacres in Australia begin to be talked of, that some jump to disprove them and try to discredit anyone associated with bringing them out into public knowledge.

Robert you are not going to be hung because of the Coolac Massacre as you were not involved in it, (unless you are Rip Van Winkle perhaps), so why are you carrying on like this???

Why do we have to hide these massacres of Aboriginal people in Australia any more????? I know of 4 others around Gundagai but there are probably more. I have documentation for 3 of those and am very confident I will find documentation re the 4th.

Whatever, putting stuff here is very silly isnt it as I understand what happens here now. All the dont knows from all over dispute content and come out with silly unsubstantiated statements such as you have, and what could be a good site to record stuff, turns into a three ring circus full of ignoramus nonsense. As well, whoever checks stuff here references old, out of date info and announces his/her intention to disallow entries on the strength of Internet information that is way out of date. That more or less means here isnt worth the bother.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.54.186.212 (talk • contribs) 17:39, 18 June 2006 (UTC+10 hours) (Note this edit also innapropriately blanked part of the conversation) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.54.186.83 (talk • contribs) 17:53, 18 June 2006 (UTC+10 hours)

More on Coolac bypass heritage investigations

The anon editor has suggested that 2004 references are "old, out of date info". There appears to be no later environmental review than 2004. http://www.rta.nsw.gov.au/constructionmaintenance/downloads/coolac_environreview_dl1.html There seems no reason to believe that the review was not thorough at the time and that any new information has come to light. This ABC news item from August 2005 suggests that the heritage study was over 10 years old. However, it is not clear if the RTA or the NSW Department of Environment and Conservation agreed and were prepared to act on the suggestion to redo the heritage study. This article does indicate that Neville Williams was involved in the discussions. A Google search does not turn up any later news items than August/September 2005 and no evidence that any more recent surveys have been done.--A Y Arktos\^talk 10:24, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Refactored response from anon - restored my own comment above--A Y Arktos\^talk 00:12, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

'There appears' I imagine who checked this did some really wide ranging investigation. If you just looked on the Internet that isnt looking far is it.

http://www.rta.nsw.gov.au/constructionmaintenance/downloads/coolac_environreview_dl1.html There seems no reason to believe that the review was not thorough at the time and that any new information has come to light.

"There seems to be no reason to believe that the review was not thorough at the time ..."

Time is the operative word here.

This ABC news item from August 2005 suggests that the heritage study was over 10 years old. However, it is not clear if the RTA or the NSW Department of Environment and Conservation agreed and were prepared to act on the suggestion to redo the heritage study. This article does indicate that Neville Williams was involved in the discussions.

"A Google search does not turn up any later news items than August/September 2005 and no evidence that any more recent surveys have been done."

Arkos has used the Internet to do his research. The Internet is not regarded as a reliable research tool so Arktos is using an unreliable source.

This discussion is too ridiculous. I am sure I can find better to do. Cheerio.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.54.9.162 (talk • contribs) 08:19, 19 June 2006 (UTC+10 hours)

Reminder of what wikipedia is not: translate "no original research"

Although the anon contributer has been referred to Wikipedia:No original research he or she has still suggested that "poems about the massacre as citations but then .... that requires skill in textual analysis to recognise those poems are citations". It is not a matter of skill. Analysing citations to draw conclusions is original research. Please refer to Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. Textual analysis published in a peer reviewed journal would be accepted. Unpublished textual analysis would not be acceptable as a source.

Wikipedia is not responsible or otherwise for the presence or absence of plaques on the Hume highway. Nor is it hiding massacres. Wikipedia will not include information that cannot be verified from Reliable sources. Wikipedia is not meant as a source for researchers; researchers need original material and they will not, or at least should not, find it here.--A Y Arktos\^talk 10:24, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Please do not insert comments in the middle of somebody else's comments and please "sign" using four tildes ~~~~. Order of converation restored.A Y Arktos\^talk 00:01, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Textual analysis is not original research. Its a skill. Textual analysis is learned in media and literature courses. You cannot do it effectively though if you do not have some knowledge (SKILL) in it that you learn. When poems are read, the interpretation the reader takes from such poems is skill based. No doubt there are some poems listed somewhere on the wikipedia site. I think the 'Illiad' is. A study guide is cited on the Illad site. Guide means guide.

Please refer to Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. Textual analysis published in a peer reviewed journal would be accepted. Unpublished textual analysis would not be acceptable as a source.

Wikipedia is not responsible or otherwise for the presence or absence of plaques on the Hume highway.

WHO SAID WIK WAS RESPONSIBLE????? This is gross misrepresentation.

Nor is it hiding massacres.

WHO SAID WIK WAS HIDING MASSACRES???? There seems to be a serious problem of comprehension here. That comment was directed at 'Robert' who was inclined to put the worst possible interpretation on what is happening at Coolac in his uninformed carrying on about a museum holding works up, and no results found etc.

Wik is not the entire topic of conversation on the Internet. Sometimes other subjects and entities other than wik are being referred to in discussions.

As a result of this sort of nonsense, I cannot take wik seriously. I thought it was an OK resource (but I didnt know much about it) till I got involved in this discussion.

Wik has been told already the information re the Coolac Massacre isnt suitable for posting on wik so what is 'Arktos' on about? Wik can't handle the Coolac Massacre information because wik has a limited capacity, so it misses out. Thats easy. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.54.9.162 (talk • contribs) 08:05, 19 June 2006 (UTC+10 hours)

Quote WHO SAID WIK WAS HIDING MASSACRES???? There seems to be a serious problem of comprehension here. That comment was directed at 'Robert' who was inclined to put the worst possible interpretation on what is happening at Coolac in his uninformed carrying on about a museum holding works up, and no results found etc. Well it's been in the media (IE: Local media) which i thought that should be in the talk. Well the Australian Museum specialist is looking into the Coolac bypass area (It's in the ABC story which i linked to). I'm not stopping you from posting about the Massacre and i'm not hiding it. I would like to see more Aboriginal history posted with verifiable sources on Wiki as it's something most Australians and the World don't know or know little about. RobertM 01:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Coolac bypass discussion revisited

I just read on the wik notice board a discussion re here. In particular a 'grahamc' post. This person claims he is involved with Coolac and with NSWNP but was retiring. I have no idea how a State government employee would be talking about stuff to do with work in this manner. I also have no idea how he would be claiming knowledge re Coolac as if he had any he'd not be saying he had, or be commenting on any of it here.

Is GrahamC of Indigenous heritage and/or initiated? If he isnt, he isnt qualified to comment on the symbolism. I'd say he isnt Indigneous and/or initiated as there is no one with that name on my radar. Is he a qualified archaeologist. No, I know he isnt. Is he an informed local. I would say he very certainly isnt so would have no useful local knowledge re any of it. He claims knowledge re this issue. He very obviously has no 'expert' knowledge of it so has put some scoffing remarks here re it all just to be negative about the whole topic claiming at the same time, some inner knowledge that gives him the right to make some sort of pseudo qualified statement.

Its annoying when people put rubbish here. The surveys arent completed so no report can be done till they are. Perhaps if you go put misinformation elsewhere, but not on this Aboriginal Massacre discussion site. If you don't know stuff, dont claim you do as the topic doesnt deserve that.

I know you have totally no registered interest in Coolac either as an RTA person or as a community member. The information you put on the Wik Notice board re here is mostly on the public record but with errors so you repeated it out of context and though you put some vaguely correct stuff here that has been in the papers and maybe was general talk at the RTA, you dont know the finer points and the restricted stuff you would never ever be privy to so wont ever know so cant comment on it. Yes, the massacre isnt in the way of the new road. You know how the RTA know that? I told them. I'd only be able to tell them (RodS) that if I knew other stuff and if they then checked I'd notifed new stuff to cover themselves. As a State gov employee you would not have put stuff here that wasnt on the general public record anyway, especially with this stuff.

If you are Aboriginal and/or initiated I will accept you are qualifed to make comment re the symbolism though you didnt learn your cultural story well and are wrong with your assertions. If you are not, you very certainly are not qualified to comment on that aspect re Coolac - so dont presume to as it just messes here up. Claiming you are qualified to comment on the symbolism of another culture by commenting, is similar to claiming you are a pilot then crashing the plane after it takes off. I am qualified to comment on the symbolism.

Likewise with other aspects re Coolac, you do not know for specific cultural but also professional reasons.

"Statutory authorities put cultural heritage values above scientific values."

Navin Officer, Coolac ICHRD Report for the RTA 2005.

Translated that means that in Australian archaeology (VIA which EIS Reports are made), what you 'think' re the symbolism has totally no weight as it is so out of touch its ridiculous. Statutory Authorities such as the RTA know that the symbolic stuff carries immense weight and go forward, paying respect to that so that heritage can be saved and construction jobs can be effectively completed with all interests being addressed. You need to have a chat to the RTA arch and get educated about how the RTA now handle this Indignenous Heritage stuff starting with the Sheahan Bridge after they learned re Coolac. Its scoffing attitudes about cultural heritage that holds stuff up and that doesnt assist anything.

THE TWO AMIGOS URBAN MYTHING

Imported From Wik Help Arktos page

Gundagai Hi - would somebody like to look at Talk:Gundagai, New South Wales. Deep breath on my part. I wil attempt to reorganise the anon's contributions to the dialogue again despite the talk header - but I think I really need somebody else to review whether I and another editor are missing the point.--A Y Arktos\talk 23:54, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Looks like the anon has lost interest, but I think you were entirely reasonable in standing on 'cite sources' there. If it can be documented that there are widespread rumours of a massacre, that might be worth noting, but as it stands all we have is an anon editor's say-so that it's even alleged to have happened. --Calair 00:35, 19 June 2006 (UTC) I have done a search of verifiable evidence through the ACT Public Library Service. I have found one reference an ABC News story from September 2005 about claims of a massacre used as a possible reason to defer a bypass. I have left further information on the talk page. Capitalistroadster 02:47, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

The ACT Public Library Serice are nil to do with Coolac. You guys do research in some places I never would. This is prehistory/contact anthropology stuff.

I am involved with the Coolac project (but I am retiring on Friday). Guardedly I can confirm that there is nothing verifiable on the public record about the alleged massacre.

What authority does this poster have to confirm that? Is he the boss of the RTA for the Southern Region or the head archaeologist? Of course there is nil on public record at this point as the Coolac surveys arent complete. Some content probably wont go on public record after they are complete either as some stuff isnt handed over to the RTA as firstly they dont need to know it, and also who wants retiring RTA people putting it on here when its restricted stuff.

The RTA is preparing a heritage report (under s87 and s90 of the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974) to allow the Coolac bypass to go ahead, which no doubt will comment on this issue and which presumably it will put on the record (possibly at [7]) when it is finalised, but this is some time off.

The above is information on the public record and in the media.

You will be able to judge then whether any new and verifiable evidence has come to light. Tenders for the Coolac Bypass closed on 11/5/05 and the contract has not been awarded; you might note Hansard 24/5/06 pp50-51.--Grahamec 13:11, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

No, here wont be able to judge that as some of the information will be on restricted access and some not made available to the RTA as that is how it happens.

Thanks for researching the Gundagai/Coolac issue. It is so hard when one finds nothing to cite the absence of sources. The Coolac bypass is relevant as I assume that is the area 9 miles from Gundagai. However, beyond the bypass issues, what does anyone think of the notion of symbolism and the Dog on the Tuckerbox? I couldn't find a picture of any earlier monument through Picture Australia or any reference to it via Google. Does anyone have the book 1932: A Hell Of A Year by Gerald Stone? It may mention if there was a previous monument to the present one opened in 1932. --A Y Arktos\talk 00:12, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Gerald Stone would have totally no idea if there was a previous monument. Why would he? He isnt from Gundagai. Why be wanting to use Gerald Stone as a possible source re this stuff? If he came to Gundagai to research any entry he had in his book, (which he probably didnt) and if he asked re this stuff here (which he wouldnt have as why would he) he would be met with blank stares. Arktos, what you need to do re the symbolism is to go to the primary source. What is that primary source? You are a qualifed historian arent you? OK, the primary source is culture. Being a historian wont necessarily gain you cultural knowledge though or Keith Windshuttle would have different research outcomes. No one finds out how to cook a cake by looking up how to knit socks. Symbolism is a cognitive thing. You have to know culture (not know it from whats on wik either but genuinely know it), then from that you recognise the symbols of that culture.

This image Arktos seeks is in the book 'Gundagai: A Track Winding Back by Cliff Butcher published in 2002 page 213. Available to buy in Gundagai but libaries in the area have a copy. I think the NLA have a copy also. The previous 'monument' photo was taken in 1926. The current monument built in 1932. The local wags kept putting the earlier 'monument' up, creating huge embarrassment and angst, so it was decided to build an actual monument to get rid of this sky larking in the area by those with no connection to the massacre, but directed at those who may have had. Though that photo shows a 1926 'monument' there had been other ones at that spot since 1840 that people would take down, then another would appear.

I can confrim that 9 miles north of Gundagai would be on the banks of Muttama creek, the alleged site of the massacre.

That isnt the alleged site of the massacre.

There is nothing in the wrtitten record to substantiate the claim (but then you could argue that this proves nothing). The trouble is that any archaeological escavation is unlikley to find anything, because (assuming there was a massacre) it did not occur in the proposed road corridor; bodies were buried elsewhere; or bodies were not buried and therefore decomposed quickly.

The story about the symbolism of the dog sounds like an urban myth to me. --Grahamec 00:56, 20 June 2006 (UTC)"

• blink*

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.54.9.98 (talk • contribs) 20:40, 5 July 2006 (UTC+ 10 hours)

plus some editing from 203.54.9.141 (talk • contribs).Instructing me to go fishing was just a tad cryptic.

Was it? In what way?

However, I can now see it relates to User:Grahamec. I have an attitude about personal attacks.

So do I - especially ones re males attacking defenceless others such as re Indigenous Massacres. You know, they got the kids, buried them in sand, and played polo with them. You know the poem the Geebung Polo Club by Banjo? Lawson wrote another called 'The Three Greybeards' Read it. Its online. Specifically set at Coolac.

I also have an attitude about original research. Cite your sources we will get on well - I corrected the Gundagai pop figure for example, with a reference I found myself -

So you should have as it was very very wrong

... and the Tom Wills' birth date and place with the ref you provided. You just happen to be touching on areas that I have contributed to over time. I watch those pages and can see if anything new turns up. Watching is one of the advantages of having an account (see Help:Watching pages). My guess is it would outweight the disadvantages of signing in. Your prerogative but could you please sign!!!!! (Might have mentioned it once or twice). I hate adding unsigned tags, but it is even more annoying not to see who contributed when to a conversation much later.

Tom Wills is now accepted. His Dad and others were associated with the coolac massacre. That is why that they were here has been obscured. I suspect too, they were recognised when they got to Qld in 1860. (Most of the native police associated with the cullingaroo massacre were from Gundagai). Small world.

I dont need a wik account. I am on holidays right now but head back down in a week or so so no time to watch different articles here.

As for symbolism - the issue is that you have not cited a source - give us something to use and that would be great - otherwise we can't include it. I don't think Grahamec is attacking anything. The comment "symbolism of the dog sounds like an urban myth to me" doesn't read like an attack.

I do not have to cite a source for that. That is up to others to interpet. That is how its done. Its actually archaeology not history research. Archaeology makes informed decisions based on evidence, then on educated conjecture, forms hypothesis then reaches a conclusion. I cannot make wik Indigneous, or turn wik into an archaeologist.

Navigation on talk pages is normally by linking using signatures by the way. If somebody wanted to follow the conversation, and you had signed - they would come here very easily - they can't when you don't sign - have I mentioned signing before? Maybe you might if you could see the benefits. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.54.186.152 (talk • contribs) . - the editor refuses to sign or use any conventions to make discussion easier to follow. Some comments above are those of others, he has copied from Wikipedia:Australian_Wikipedians'_notice_board/Archive_21#Gundagai. Others are comments from User talk:203.54.9.141. I am not going to refactor or tidy--A Y Arktos\^talk 20:02, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

'Gundagai: A Track Winding Back by Cliff Butcher published in 2002 page 213

Thanks for the ref. As I live in Canberra, I use the ACT Library Service. They don't have a copy but I have ordered it through them - it will take a while. If I pass through Gundagai, I will look out for the book if I have a chance.--A Y Arktos\^talk 20:02, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

http://www.nla.gov.au/library/gettinghere.html —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.54.186.152 (talk • contribs) 06:46, 6 July 2006 (UTC+ 10 hours)

• I have to like citations on Wikipedia - that is the policy; Original research belongs elsewhere. I wouldn't mind getting to the NLA but I have real life responsibilities that may prevent me. I have frequently been there in the past and am well aware that they would have the very great majority of Australian books as they are a deposit library.--A Y Arktos\^talk 21:05, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, OK. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.54.9.197 (talk • contribs) .

Lynn Scarff's book

1926 Dog monument from Scarff L, The Dog on the Tuckerbox: it's story

Lyn Scarff's book The Dog on the Tuckerbox: it's story has this unsourced photo, apparently taken in 1926.

The book quotes an article from the Wagga Daily Advertiser of 10 October 1938 'Nine Miles from Gundagai, Bullock Driver’s Romance' by Henry Lawson and Jack Moses:

Strolling along the moonlit banks of the Murrumbidgee River near Gundagai, 40 years ago, two visitors to the show carnival of that town came upon a bullock-driver’s outfit on the trek back from the railhead at Cootamundra. There they were entertained with singing and whip-cracking by the bullockies, and there these two famous men of Australian verse — Henry Lawson and Jack Moses — heard for the first time a detailed account by an Aborigine of the story of Gundagai’s dog on the tucker-box.

Ten years previously Jack Moses had penned the nationwide known poem centring around a wisp of a story about the dog sitting on the box, which had without authentication become a by-word in the district of Gundagai.

The black boy’s story was that years before he had come across a bullock driver’s team standing near the river nine miles from Gundagai, and his dog sitting on the tucker-box.

The driver was missing. So the black ran to the Gundagai trooper to gain assistance to move the outfit from a rising flood.

When a party arrived at the scene everything had been swept away by the flooding river. ‘Byemby a long time my countrymen find just bones of dog much down along river sitting up on tucker-box. Many feller my countrymen takem dog on box up and carry away along nine miles Gundagai that night. Big feller corroboree round dog on tucker-box. Never findem boss no time. Sweetheart makem very sad. She run away another white feller. White feller bullock team boss jump along river.’

It's a third-hand story quoted a long time after the event and, as the book says, Lawson had been dead for 16 years by 1938, but there are some similarities with the massacre story. - Gimboid13 02:44, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Its a good tale, written to cover up what actually happened and though there are parallels that sort of jell, its not correct. The first poems that are still available about the Dog on the Tuckerbox appeared in 1858 (Butcher, C. 2002 Gundagai: A Track Winding Back, p.23). Its convenient having an unnamed Indigneous person saying what happened, isnt it as that sort of legitimizes it to all and sundry. Henry Lawson knew Coolac well as he went there to dry out in 1920.

There would have been no bones left up on a tuckerbox (the bogged dray) as that suggests the corpse decomposed in situ. As there were Europeans living in the immediate proximity of where those were allegedly found, they'd not have left a decomposing body there because of the smell that resulted after some time, in bones. The river (that is really a small creek) that flooded isnt in that large an area and it winds back on itself and floods out over its previously boggy floodplain when full. When I was a kid that area was wetland but these days because of cattle its packed down so no bog. The area in question isnt in the middle of some vast uninhabited plain but a very small area hemmed in by nearby hills that held a European settlement comprising a store, a pub and some houses. The creek is never up for that long when it floods so its not like when huge deep real rivers flood in really remote areas and its months before they go back down. If there was any truth in the dray being swept away by a flood it didnt get swept far as its a small area. These days that area is called 'Pettits' as they even moved the location of Coolac to try and disguise where was where. (Plan of the Village of Coolac, County of Harden, 1862, c.1819a, The Archives Authority of NSW)

The photo from Lynn Scarff's book is the same one as that in Cliff Butcher's book on p.213. On p.212 in Butcher's book is also a very early cartoon of the dog on a tuckerbox at the Nine Mile, howling his head off. Up on the Nine Mile sign sits what seems to be a laughing jackass. Looking at this scene is a swaggie.

Its handy to read (in context of when it is referring to and when it was inscribed) the inscription on the DonT Monument, viz:

"Earths self upholds this monument to conquerors who won her when the wooing was dangerous, and are now gathered unto her again."

http://www.gundagaishire.nsw.gov.au/dog%20on%20the%20tuckerbox.htm

You know, the bullock team boss is always nobby as he is the lead bullock. What are these bullocks all about? Just what is being referred to in this account of the "Aborigine"? Is it the Indigenous version of the story of this location? Not what one lot of humans did to another lot, but the story of the location which in that area is 600,000,000 years old geologically, (Its Jindalee volcanics so almost pre cambrian). Why a "moonlit night"? Missing boss, so the woman (what woman???) found another. Shows how easily replaced all is no matter how profound it may appear to be. This is a very classical tale about the Great Flood and how one lover (who became just bones the same as we all end up) was soon replaced by another. This story exists across all continents so Moses and Lawson just composed another version. Moses and Lawson were specialists. Any story they tell isnt going to be about the mundane. Byembye is B-----or B-----, the Indigneous high god of much of Australia. The first boss jumped the river (or crossed over) as per the fisher king which is what the being carried away is about. Charles Sturt also referred to this crossing over (to the wastelands or lands behind the limits of 'civilisation', entering into a world where other traditions are lore/law), in his account of that same area. (Two Expeditions Journal, Book 2. Pondebadgery, 1829-30.) Gundagai in Moses' and Lawson story is a place that runs on its own rules. Its those pioneers and bullockies noted in the above story that the Dog on Tuckerbox is about- check the entry on that monument re 'Gundagai Independent'. The 'sweetheart' is Minerva. Read 'The Road to Gudnagai' poem. That poem is about something that exists for far longer than any human woman. The 'white ladies' are the warragongs or Aussie Alps that in earlir times extended further north west. There is still snow settles to the west of Gundagai though. These white ladies are also the very old Cambrian hills before what came out of the sea collided with the plate margin at Gundagai (back arc volcanism). There is also an ophiolite sequence just to the north of Coolac. (The sea bed turned over 180 degrees.)These Aussie stories and poems arent about non Indigenous people a lot of the time (unless they are Celtic or similar epics) as our lot die after not many years, so we are of little importance in the long run so why would Lawson write all his poems and stories about us. However, because Indigenous culture is linked to these Ancestors, any mention of the Ancestors, (the hills etc) in poems are about Indigenous people too.

I have put two interpretations of the story posted earlier from Lyn Scarfs book. Is one more correct than the other. Will wik accept the first interpretation but not the second, claiming the second is original research?? Both interpretations come from the cognitive process of the reader. Any interpretation of any media text can be different to the next interpretation. Which interpretation did Moses and Lawson want any future reader to take from their work? Will wik decide only the mundane interpretation is the correct one? if so, wik will probably pay two of Australia's renowned poets a huge diservice. Can one interpretation be posted in the main article without accompanying notes as its thought all readers will read it at a level that doesnt require notes, or will it be posted with a note to say the story by Moses and Lawson can be read at various levels - or does it just sit there till someone comes along who is aware of the literary skills of Moses and Lawson and read it as it deserves to be read. Maybe a link from that story from the Lyn Scarf book to a page each on Moses and Lawson that notes their works contained various layers of meaning and should not be read at a banal level or most of the message in their works is missed. Have to put this. I'm qualified in Oz Lit and its interpretation for the express purpose of being able to interpret Australian history media (meaning poetry, novels, historical accounts, art, etc) texts. Am very interested to see what wik does with this. The cultural cringe where Homer's skills get recognised but not our Australian Bards, is sad. Those who dont believe in flying saucers are those who have never been for a ride in one. (I havent yet.)

When Major Mitchell came through the (now named) Gundagai area on his returning north leg of his Australian Felix expedition, he recorded William Buckley being just south of Gundagai adjacent to the Wantabadgery area. William Buckley was making bread and Mitchell noted his huge size. This Wantabadgery/Hills Creek area is where Major Mitchell got 'lost'. I am not sure who conjured up this 'got lost' tale as Mitchell went up Nacki Nacki Creek and must have called on Hannibal Hawkins McCarthur the slaver who lived up there at 'Ellerslie'. Perhaps Mitchell was trying to get Hannibal Mcarthur lost rather than being lost himself. Mitchell then went back to the Murrumbidgee and crossed it where William Buckly was cooking at/near present day Wantabadgery/Hillis Creek where these days, the heritage listed Yabtree Station is near Mundarlo Bridge. Recorded in Mitchell's 'Three Expeditions' Journals online.

If people here edit stuff (editing being the main purpose of those who sit tying stuff in), why do some have to make a point about correcting a typo or spelling error. Its easier to just correct the error and that is it. Finito. If there were no spelling errors here though that would rob some of being able to complain so they actually feed off having errors to fix.