4 ms·
I don't see how images (assuming photographs) are necessarily important here. Traditional owners have been passing down stories of country for tens of thousands
by triggercut 6y ago
I don't see how images (assuming photographs) are necessarily important here.
Traditional owners have been passing down stories of country for tens of thousands of years, passing them down by oral history and experiencing place. Marking history with physical presence of permanence is a primarily western phenomenon (for example: not all cultures had access to hard stone for construction, be it either locally, or via trade - wood succumbs to the elements eventually - the physical record of built form in Japan doesn't go back very far because buildings and structures were more impermanent. Some argue this is why they have such a strong written tradition and a focus on gardens, similar for areas of china and many island nations). "Evocative" images are irrelevant.
- prawn 6y agoFWIW, BHP has since said they will consult the traditional owners and not disturb the 40 heritage sites. Often the oral histories are general or associated with distinct features. If we're talking about broader areas, I think the key ones would be protected already or not signed over to a mining company. My point was that these don't sound like distinct places, else I'd guess images would aid the public cause in pressuring mining companies. The Rio Tinto story was accompanied by a photograph of the gorge/cave.