Aboriginal name for Federation Peak?

[headwerkn]

Hi all,

Wondering if anyone knows of an aboriginal/pre-European name or names for Federation Peak?

"Sprent's Obelisk" or "The Obelisk" are well recorded prior to the 1901 renaming. Unlike many other areas though, there's nothing published - official or otherwise - regarding indigenous names for the Peak. That I can unearth anyway.

Just an educated guess, but you'd assume the Tahuni Lingah and Toogee (Southeastern/Southwestern) tribes would have had a name for the distinctive peak, as it would have been useful for navigational purposes when migrating around the area.

Any info would be greatly appreciated!

Cheers, Ben.

[grunter]

I have Kevin Dorian's Federation Peak book. I'll check when I can if it's mentioned.

[lefroy]

Not in Doran's book, states that it was no doubt seen and known to the Aboriginals but no mention in Robinson's journals etc.
You could email Rodney Dillon or similar?

[grunter]

Only got the same info as yourself. I thought I saw a post on Facebook about this topic not so long ago. I can't find that post.

[doogs]

The closest that I can think of is in here which gives a name for the Arthur Range (pics attached). There might be one for Fedders that I've missed. It's great to see so many mountain names amongst the list and even better that they are starting to make it on to maps
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source= ... wyTLOHFVct

[wander]

Best bet would be to look thru Robinson's diaries.

[headwerkn]

Thanks Doogs. I'd come across "Loinnekumme" as a Toogee/Southwest nation name, though listed specifically for the Western Arthurs rather than the whole range. Nation/tribe boundaries are pretty vague described as you'd expect, but as far as I can tell the Eastern Arthurs was more in the Tahuni Lingah/Southeast nation, so that end of the range and Fedder's notably jagged outline likely had its own name or names.

It's generally considered some of the main walking tracks around the South coast, Southern Ranges/Huon and Port Davey areas follow long standing aboriginal walking routes with plenty of movement and migration. Based on my admittedly very limited knowledge/experience of Tasmanian Aboriginal history (I was involved with AHU in a few educational multimedia projects some 15+ years ago) while the people would have likely had little motivation to travel close to the mountain(s) themselves (no food, bad weather) the individual peaks would have been a common sight along these routes and distinctive shapes would likely been useful for navigation. Given Federation Peak is arguably the most distinctive, noticeable and generally interesting looking feature on the skyline in the area, it would be have likely had many names.

Unfortunately it appears that such names are likely lost forever, as European interest in the region seems to come well after the decimation and displacement of the Aboriginal tribes.

[doogs]

I was last in the Eastern Arthurs region a couple of years before the recent fires (2018/19), you could see the patchwork layout of the plains which screamed 'this area was culturally burned'. Also in one of the small forested areas, near The Razorback, was I tree that had been 'fired' many times to create a shelter tree. None of the surrounding vegetation/forest showed any signs of fire and many of the trees would have been several hundreds of years old. So, yes, I agree that the area would have been extensively visited by the indigenous population and there would have been names for much more of the country than has been recorded. The European settlers/invaders mainly stuck to the coastline and therefore much of the inland country names have been lost.
As Wander mentioned, Robinsons diaries could hold some information.

[potato]

I was last in the Eastern Arthurs region a couple of years before the recent fires (2018/19), you could see the patchwork layout of the plains which screamed 'this area was culturally burned'. Also in one of the small forested areas, near The Razorback, was I tree that had been 'fired' many times to create a shelter tree. None of the surrounding vegetation/forest showed any signs of fire and many of the trees would have been several hundreds of years old. So, yes, I agree that the area would have been extensively visited by the indigenous population and there would have been names for much more of the country than has been recorded. The European settlers/invaders mainly stuck to the coastline and therefore much of the inland country names have been lost.
As Wander mentioned, Robinsons diaries could hold some information.

Do you have evidence for any of that or is it just a belief?

[headwerkn]

I was last in the Eastern Arthurs region a couple of years before the recent fires (2018/19), you could see the patchwork layout of the plains which screamed 'this area was culturally burned'. Also in one of the small forested areas, near The Razorback, was I tree that had been 'fired' many times to create a shelter tree.

Would the first area be within the vicinity of the Wargata Mina/Judd's Cavern Aboriginal site north of the Farmhouse Creek track in the south Cracroft Valley? That would make sense.

[doogs]

I was last in the Eastern Arthurs region a couple of years before the recent fires (2018/19), you could see the patchwork layout of the plains which screamed 'this area was culturally burned'. Also in one of the small forested areas, near The Razorback, was I tree that had been 'fired' many times to create a shelter tree.

Would the first area be within the vicinity of the Wargata Mina/Judd's Cavern Aboriginal site north of the Farmhouse Creek track in the south Cracroft Valley? That would make sense.

That's not the area I was thinking of but, the Farmhouse Creek track/Cracroft Plains are very similar. I was considering the McKays track area of the Arthur Plains. If you look at the 'State Aerial Images' layer on TheLIST, these are from before the fires, you can kinda see what I mean. From Luckmans Lead or even Mount Bobs you get fantastic views of the area too and I found myself trying to image how the area was used/farmed.

[potato]

The plains were there long before people arrived to the area. The impact of people on the distribution of the plains remains unknown and is only speculated on in the scientific and non-scientific literature.

[north-north-west]

The plains were there long before people arrived to the area. The impact of people on the distribution of the plains remains unknown and is only speculated on in the scientific and non-scientific literature.

In fact, there is solid scientific evidence of major vegetation changes (eg from forest to sedge/heath) concurrent with the increasing incidence of fire that commenced with human arrival. Now, sure, correlation does not equal causation, but with sufficient evidence we can progress from 'speculation' to 'reasonable certainty'.
Aboriginal peoples made significant changes to vegetation patterns all over this country, including Tasmania. That is beyond doubt. Why the resistance to accepting that?

[potato]

Because its science and tomorrow we may learn something new. Specifically though, the analysis of the pollen from lake sediments which most of the information comes from is broad and lacks the detail to provide an accurate reflection of the vegetation structure across time.

When you combine this uncertainty with the uncertainties around our understanding of climate across time, our understanding is... uncertain.

Further to this, there is also much uncertainty about how people used the area. I take this example from north WA where in my view from working in the space for a couple of decades, this area has maintained some of the strongest links to indigenous land management across Australia. But as this article points out, we have lost information that you would expect might have been maintained: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-05-11/ ... /100083720

So I do have doubt. Particularly when people immediately point to humans as significant agents of burning and the structure of vegetation in Tasmania. In my scientific view, the evidence isn't there and until we get a time machine, the tools we currently employ contain too much uncertainty to say anything beyond doubt. What killed the megafauna is another good example. I know many archaeologists and palaeontologists who do ignore uncertainty because there is nothing better than spinning a good yarn in an academic paper.

[wander]

Have you read Gamage and Pascoe on this topic @potato?

[potato]

I have - the Pascoe material is very good but still mainly his observations of interpretations. Darwin was an observationist though, but its been a long time since this approach has been applied in science.

I'm looking forward to Pascoe's work from the Birdville area, it will open the eyes of a lot of people.

Science is not a religion like some make people believe. When new information comes to scientists, our understanding may change. The data however needs to be robust.

[Nuts]

Some of the most recent Tasmanian (post fire) study is leading to increased importance on the use of closed wet sclerophyll forests. I'm not so much unconvinced by the fire effect on landscape but am on the notion of 'farming' especially on elevated plains and plateaus. Whether you believe there were 4,000 or 40,000 original occupants it doesn't follow that they'd rely on resources from elevated inland areas when they are equally abundant on the coast. Maybe excursions with other cultural purpose or routes, passing through. Maybe burning because it could only help/would make sense. Hunting food to consume underway, maybe carrying pelts (maybe). Even in summer, 'you'd' think any prolonged stay would be in fringe areas, on the forest edge, where hunting is more varied and shelter is easier (this in itself skewing the landscape response to even small numbers or isolated fire events. Decreasing or opening up forest.. rather than any intent on, or much need for, increasing open plains).



Anyhow, it also makes perfect sense to have named prominent peaks, I've had the same thoughts about other peaks.

[headwerkn]

While I think it is a pretty safe assumption that buttongrass plains adjacent known, date-able cave and dwelling sites were very likely influenced by aboriginal fire-burning practices, what potato is saying is essentially correct.

Again, I'm far from an expert or even particularly well read on the subject, but I did spend quite a bit of time with Don Ranson and the Aboriginal Heritage Unit back in 2006-2007, attempting to devise an educational multimedia platform for explaining the changes in Tasmanian aboriginal distribution, diet and lifestyle from the ending of the last ice age to near history. That was rather a while ago but I still recall my frustrations with the difficulty of simply aligning specific bits of information to a rough timeline eg. when abalone became a major part of coastal communities' diets, because no one really knew.

How much of that was due to the lack/limitations of archeological knowledge and how much due to the oral history being lost I can't say - I was a digital media guy, not an archeologist . But the project eventually fell apart (at least during my period of involvement) due mostly to the inability to actually align habitual facts and actual dates/falling sea levels with any confidence.

A question for those who actually have science degrees... when does "we don't know but we have a solid theory" transition to "this is accepted fact until proven otherwise*"?

* memories of being three weeks of Y12 Physics study into quarks, only to have our teacher come in one morning to dryly state "so, turns out all of this has just been disproven... but it'll still be in the exam anyway..." *