Journal articles on the topic '1854-1934'

Definir temporalidades, como variações na história, aproxima o tempo vivido ao tempo histórico. A imbricação do existencial ao tempo cósmico torna o trabalho do historiador uma busca de compreensão das relações que o presente estabelece com o passado e com o futuro. Essas questões, suscitadas pela filosofia da história de Paul Ricoeur (2010), contribuem para ensaiar uma marcação temporal da escolarização católica no Rio de Janeiro entre as décadas de 1850 e 1930. São “tempos menores” da escola católica dentro de um “tempo maior” da história da educação brasileira. A participação católica no contexto educacional brasileiro é tomada por sua posição ideológica em relação ao Estado, marcada pelo conflito entre liberais e ultramontanos, e na tipificação do modelo institucional escolar, marcada pelo público a ela destinada e à forma de sua mantença. Essa escolarização foi impactada pela atuação de religiosos estrangeiros e nacionais. O ensaio interpretativo apoia-se na produção historiográfica e em pesquisas documentais, especialmente por fontes jornalísticas

Tarihçi Muhammed Murad Remzi, 10 Ekim 1854'te Batırşah Abdullah'ın dördüncü ve en küçük çocuğu olarak, bugün Sovyet Rusya içinde bulunan Tataristan Cumhuriyeti (Kazan ülkesi), Minzele ve Çallı kasabaları bölgesindeki Elmet köyünde dünyaya gelmiştir.

A checklist of the dragonflies and damselflies occurring in Bangladesh, Bhutan, India (including Andaman and Nicobar Islands), Nepal, Pakistan and Sri Lanka is presented. In total 588 (including 559 full species) taxa are known to occur in the region of which 251 taxa (species & subspecies) are single country endemics. Recent taxonomic changes relevant to the area are summarized. Sixteen taxa are synonymized and a checklist of all synonyms established since 1950 is provided. Information is given on available larval descriptions including a list of genera present in the region for which no larvae have yet been described. Numerous species occurring in the area are still poorly known and a list of genera for which a revision is urgently needed is provided. The following new synonyms are established: Calicnemia sudhaae Mitra, 1994 = Calicnemia imitans Lieftinck, 1948 syn. nov.; Ceriagrion fallax cerinomelas Lieftinck, 1927 = Ceriagrion fallax Ris, 1914 syn. nov.; Ceriagrion fallax pendleburyi Laidlaw, 1931 = Ceriagrion fallax Ris, 1914 syn. nov.; Coenagrion kashmirus Chowdhary & Das, 1975 = Ischnura forcipata Morton, 1907 syn. nov.; Enallagma insula Fraser, 1920 = Aciagrion occidentale Laidlaw, 1919 syn. nov.; Himalagrion pithoragarhicum Sahni, 1964 = Ceriagrion fallax Ris, 1914 syn. nov.; Ischnura bhimtalensis Sahni, 1965 = Ischnura rubilio Selys, 1876 syn. nov.; Onychargia indica Sahni, 1964 = Paracercion calamorum (Ris, 1916) syn. nov.; Anaciaeschna kashmirense Singh & Baijal, 1954 = Anaciaeschna martini (Selys, 1897) syn. nov.; Cyclogomphus vesiculosus Selys, 1854 = Cyclogomphus ypsilon Selys, 1954 syn. nov.; Chlorogomphus brittoi Navás, 1934 = Chlorogomphus xanthoptera (Fraser, 1919) syn. nov.; Hylaeothemis indica Fraser, 1946 = Hylaeothemis apicalis Fraser, 1924 syn. nov.; Sympetrum durum Bartenef, 1916 = Sympetrum striolatum commixtum Selys, 1884 syn. nov.; Sympetrum himalayanum Navás, 1934 = Sympetrum hypomelas (Selys, 1884) syn. nov.; Sympetrum haematoneura Fraser, 1924 = Sympetrum speciosum Oguma, 1915 syn. nov.; Sympetrum speciosum taiwanum Asahina, 1951 = Sympetrum speciosum Oguma, 1915 syn. nov. In addition, Periaeschna lebasi Navás, 1930 is regarded a nomen nudum. The following new combinations are proposed: Onychogomphus acinaces Laidlaw, 1922 is transferred to the genus Melligomphus Chao, 1990 resulting in Melligomphus acinaces (Laidlaw, 1922) comb. nov. Onychogomphus saundersii Selys, 1854 is transferred to the genus Nychogomphus Carle, 1986 resulting in Nychogomphus saundersii (Selys, 1854) comb. nov..

Este artigo é fruto da análise da trajetória formativa de Maria Amélia Cavalcanti de Albuquerque (1854-1934), primeira médica pernambucana, formada em faculdade brasileira, em 1892. Por meio de pesquisa bibliográfica e documental a investigação revelou caminhos, estudos, trajetos formativos, problemas do ser mulher, bem como as oportunidades educacionais aproveitadas. Longe de uma história de opressor versus oprimido, o que se buscou foi a aproximação de uma escrita da história que valoriza a atuação de mulheres a partir dos dispositivos formativos de um período histórico que consorciam tradição familiar, poder econômico, redes de relacionamentos, subvenção pública, além da vontade de enfrentar uma sociedade androcêntrica que, se não impedia, dificultava qualquer tipo de ascensão feminina.

Four species of the genus Trifurcula Zeller, 1848 are described from Italy: Trifurcula (Trifurcula) aetnensis sp. n. on Genista aetnensis (Biv.) DC., T. (T.) cytisanthi sp. n. on Genista radiata (L.) Scop., both close to T. (T.) aurella Rebel, 1933; T. (T.) baldensis sp. n. on Genista radiata close to T. (T.) immundella (Zeller, 1839), and T. (T.) trasaghica sp. n. on Corothamnus decumbens (Durande) Spach similar to T. (T.) pallidella (Duponchel, 1843), but more close to T. (T.) beirnei Puplesis, 1984 and T. (T.) squamatella Stainton, 1849. Additional faunal data on the family Nepticulidae are given from Italy: 4 species are new for Italy: Stigmella irregularis Puplesis, 1994, Trifurcula thymi (Szöcs, 1965), T. ortneri (Klimesch, 1951) and T. austriaca van Nieukerken, 1990; 17 species are new for Sicily: Stigmella luteella (Stainton, 1857), S. glutinosae (Stainton, 1858), S. alnetella (Stainton, 1856), S. rolandi van Nieukerken, 1990, S. hybnerella (Hübner, 1813), S. salicis (Stainton, 1854), S. trimaculella (Haworth, 1828), S. plagicolella (Stainton, 1854), S. incognitella (Herrich-Schäffer, 1855), S. basiguttella (Heinemann, 1862), Acalyptris platani (Müller-Rutz, 1934), Trifurcula saturejae (Parenti, 1963), T. eurema (Tutt, 1899), T. subnitidella (Duponchel, 1843), T. aurella Rebel, 1933, Ectoedemia atrifrontella (Stainton, 1851) and E. gilvipennella (Klimesch, 1946).

Abstract Anthropogenic environmental change is leading to changes in distribution for many organisms. While this is frequently discussed for prominent organisms of high conservation value, the same is true for the many cryptic species that rarely figure in debates on the human impact. One such cryptic taxon is the European Ptomaphagus sericatus (Chaudoir, 1845) and related forms. During a citizen science expedition in the Vondelpark, Amsterdam, the Netherlands, we obtained two forms of this species complex. We placed the examination of these specimens in the context of a re-analysis of the species group, and, using DNA barcoding and genital study on material collected thoughout Europe, found that the P. sericatus species complex consists of three distinct, partly sympatric species, one of which was previously undescribed. On the basis of collection data, at least two species, P. medius and P. thebeatles sp. n., show signs of having recently undergone (possibly anthropogenic) range changes, with P. medius even reaching North America. We describe P. thebeatles sp. n.; we raise two subspecies, viz. P. sericatus sericatus (Chaudoir, 1854) and P. sericatus medius (Rey, 1889) to the level of species, and designate a neotype for the former; we identify P. dacicus Jeannel, 1934 and P. pyrenaeus Jeannel, 1934 as junior synonyms of P. sericatus, and P. compressitarsus (Rey, 1889) as a junior synonym of P. subvillosus Goeze, 1777; we identify P. septentrionalis Jeannel, 1934 and P. miser (Rey, 1889) as junior synonyms of P. medius; we designate lectotypes for P. medius and P. miser.

Details are provided on 124 land snail species and varieties from New Zealand, and a further 14 species putatively from New Zealand, all of which were described by European and North American taxonomists between 1830 and 1934, based on specimens collected between 1824 and 1924. Primary type material of 95 of these taxa was located in Northern Hemisphere museums during the present study. Lectotypes are designated for: Helix chimmoi Pfeiffer, 1857, Helix glabriuscula Reeve, 1852, Helix (Paryphanta) gilliesi Smith, 1880, Nanina ? celinde Gray, 1850, Zonites chiron Gray, 1850 and Zonites coma Gray, 1843. Neotypes are designated for Helix conella Pfeiffer, 1861 and Helix tau Pfeiffer, 1861. Primary type material of the following taxa is figured herein for the first time: Bulimus? (Laoma) leimonias Gray, 1850, Cyclophorus cytora Gray, 1850, Cyclostoma (Cyclophorus?) lignarium Pfeiffer, 1857, Helix chimmoi Pfeiffer, 1857, Helix egesta Gray, 1850, Helix fatua Pfeiffer, 1857, Helix greenwoodi Gray, 1850, Helix guttula Pfeiffer, 1853, Helix kermandeci Pfeiffer, 1857, Helix portia Gray, 1850, Helix sciadium Pfeiffer, 1857, Helix venulata Pfeiffer, 1857, Helix (Paryphanta) gilliesi Smith, 1880, Hydrocena (Omphalotropis) vestita Pfeiffer, 1855, Nanina ? celinde Gray, 1850, Nanina erigone Gray, 1850, Nanina mariae Gray, 1843, Patula modicella var. vicinalis Mousson, 1873, Realia egea Gray, 1850, Vitrina kermadecensis Smith, 1873 and Zonites chiron Gray, 1850. New taxonomic combinations introduced herein include: Allodiscus nematophora (Reeve, 1854), Cavellia biconcava (Reeve, 1852), Charopa chimmoi (Pfeiffer, 1857), Coneuplecta regularis (Reeve, 1854), Delos jeffreysiana (Reeve, 1852), Fectola tau (Pfeiffer, 1861), Fectola varicosa (Reeve, 1852), Flammulina crebriflammea (Reeve, 1852), Lyrotropis vestita (Pfeiffer, 1855), ?Neophenacohelix ziczac (Gould, 1846), Parabalea peregrina (Gould, 1847), Phacussa hypopolea (Reeve, 1852), Phenacharopa novoseelandica (Küster, 1852), Phrixgnathus glabriusculus (Reeve, 1852), Phrixgnathus poecilostictus (Reeve, 1852), Thalassohelix obnubila (Reeve, 1852), Tornatellinops novoseelandica (Küster, 1852) and Wainuia urnula (Reeve, 1854). Helix collyrula Reeve, 1852 and Nanina tullia Gray, 1850 are treated as junior synonyms of Phenacohelix (Neophenacohelix) giveni Cumber 1961 nomen protectum and Helix (Huttonella) pseudoleioda Suter, 1890 nomen protectum, respectively. A brief account is given of the history of research on the New Zealand land snail fauna from 1824 to 1917.

The taxonomy of aeolidacean nudibranchs of the traditional group previously known as Tergipedidae is discussed. To integrate the diverse molecular phylogenetic pattern and morphological disparity in a broadly ontogenetic context a revised classification at the family level is presented. The families Calmidae Iredale & O'Donoghue, 1923, Eubranchidae Odhner, 1934, Fionidae Gray, 1857 s. str. (restricted, with the genus Fiona only), and Tergipedidae Bergh, 1889 s.str. (restricted, with inclusion of the genus Tergipes only) are restored. The families Cuthonidae Odhner, 1934 s.str. (restricted, with only single genus Cuthona), Cuthonellidae Miller, 1971, stat. nov., and Trinchesiidae Nordsieck, 1972 (with inclusion of the genera Catriona, Diaphoreolis, Phestilla, Tenellia, Trinchesia) are reinstated. At the genus level, the family Trinchesiidae appears as a most diverse assemblage that needs to be further divided. In the present study, the “Eolis” pustulata species complex is particularly investigated, including description of a new ontogenetically different species Zelentia ninel sp. nov. “Eolis” pustulata Alder & Hancock, 1854 and two closely related species are morphologically well separated from Trinchesia s. str. (absence of foot corners, narrow radular teeth) and form a distinct molecular phylogenetic clade basal to all the other Trinchesiidae. Therefore, this group is a distinct unit according to both morphological and molecular data and is separated here as a new genus, Zelentia gen. nov. The genus Catriona is also briefly discussed and the valid status of the species Catriona aurantia (Alder et Hancock, 1842) stat. nov. is confirmed.

In this paper, we will try to give a dynamic characterization of the object and the subject of Modern theology among the Tatar Muslims on the exemplar of the theological views of ‘Abdunnasīr Qursavi (1776–1812), Shihabutdin Marjani (1818–1889) and Murad Ramzi (1854–1934) (and partly of their contemporaries). The incognizability of the Creator and the faith as “a thing-in-itself” transformed Tatar Religious Epistemology into the cognition of more defi nite realities. Agnosticism in the question of God’s attributes led to the anthropocentric features of theological worldviews. The above-mentioned chain of theologians demonstrates not only the continuity of the Tatar Theology, but also refl ects the dynamics of the evolution of the attitude towards the madhhabs and towards the role of an individual, the specifi cs of the Naqshbandi-Mujaddidiya Sufi brotherhood, as well as the Ottoman ‘usul fi qh’ in the modernization period of the early XVIII century. In general, the works of Qursavi constitute a certain system of views that can be considered as a certain cornerstone, the so-called ‘starting point’ of Tatar School of Theology.

AbstractDer Einfluss der Theosophischen Gesellschaft auf die Entwicklung der modernen westlichen Esoterik kann kaum überschätzt werden. Sowohl direkt als auch indirekt funktionierte die Theosophie als Katalysator und Quelle für fast alles in der westlichen Esoterik, das die Veröffentlichung der Lehren von Helena Petrovna Blavatsky (1831–1891) und die Gründung der Theosophischen Gesellschaft im Jahre 1875 folgte. Während der Einfluss der Theosophie auf die westliche Esoterik gut dokumentiert ist, wird sie weniger häufig als Vorläufer der westlichen Magie gesehen. Obwohl Blavatsky das bereitstellte, was man als die den rituellen Magie zugrundeliegenden esoterischen Philosophie betrachten könnte, lieferte Charles Webster Leadbeater (1854–1934) die mehr praktischen, und tatsächlich beliebteren und schmackhafteren, Erklärungen, wie und warum sie wirksam sein könnte. Seine Behauptung, dass rituelle Magie nicht einfach symbolisch oder psychologisch sei, sondern eine wirkliche Transformation der Teilnehmer und der äußeren Welt verursachte, hat die meisten modernen ritualmagischen Gruppen und Texte beeinflusst und ist da deutlich offenkundig. Es ist ein Theosophischer Einfluss aber nicht einer, der Blavatsky, oder die Theosophische Organisationen welche das, was oft 'Neo-Theosophie' genannt wird, ablehnen, erkennen würden.

A revision of the genus Leydigia Kurz, 1875 (Anomopoda, Cladocera, Branchiopoda) is presented. The list of all species-group nominal taxa consists of 34 published and 3 unpublished names. Of these, 12 species are accepted as valid: (1) Leydigia (Leydigia) leydigi (Schödler, 1863); (2) L. (L.) louisi Jenkin, 1934 with two subspecies L. louisi louisi Jenkin, 1934 and L. louisi mexicana Kotov, Elías-Gutiérrez et Nieto, 2003; (3) Leydigia (Neoleydigia) propinqua Sars, 1903; (4) L. (N.) australis Sars, 1885; (5) L. (N.) microps Sars, 1916; (6) L. (N.) sp. nov. from 'L. acanthocercoides' in Alonso, 1996; (7) L. (N.). macrodonta Sars, 1916; (8) L. (N.) acanthocercoides (Fischer, 1854); (9) L. (N.). laevis Gurney, 1927; (10) L. (N.) cf. ipojucae Brehm, 1939; (11) L. (N.) ciliata Gauthier, 1939; (12) L. (N.) cf. striata Birabén, 1939. Lectotypes are selected for 3, 5, 7, and 9. Exact identification of 10 and 12 is not possible without examination of material from type localities and neotype selection. As confirmed by examination of authors' type material, some taxa (Leydigia africana Gurney, 1904 and Leydigia ankammaraoi Prasad, Santa Kumari et Bose, 1985) prove to be junior synonyms of previously described species; species 8-12 form a compact acanthocercoides-group, with fine differences among members. A cladistic analysis for 13 studied taxa and 18 morphological characters resulted in four most-parsimonious trees (TL = 32; CI = 0.78), which differ only in the grouping of members of the L. acanthocercoides-group. A slightly polytomic strict consensus tree (the 50% majority rule bootstrap simulation led to a tree of similar topology to the contree), as well as some 'orthodox' ideas on the evolution of the genus (not contradicting each other), are used to subdivide the genus into two subgenera, Leydigia (Leydigia) Kurz, 1875 and Leydigia (Neoleydigia) subgen. nov. L. (N.) acanthocercoides is the type species of the latter. A key for the identification of well-known species of Leydigia is provided. The level of description of representatives of the genus Leydigia in different continents is estimated, and perspectives for further investigations are outlined.

The Stratiomyidae (Diptera) of Paraguay is cataloged and illustrated, and information is given on distributions, name-bearing types, synonyms, and pertinent literature. Previously to this study, the fauna of soldier flies in the country comprised 18 genera and 29 species, which has been raised up to 35 genera and 63 species, of which only nine are assigned to morphospecies level. The list of species is based on the examination of the original descriptions of all nominal species, all other references known to us containing taxonomic and distributional information, and new material examined from various collections. Images of 45 species are herein provided, which include type specimen images of seven valid species, of which three are exclusively found in the country. One subfamily is newly reported from Paraguay: Chrysochlorininae. Fourteen genera are newly reported from Paraguay: Acanthinomyia Hunter, 1900; Archistratiomys Enderlein, 1913; Auloceromyia Lindner, 1969; Chrysochlorina James, 1939; Gowdeyana Curran, 1928; Hoplitimyia James, 1934; Leucoptilum James, 1943; Neoberis Lindner, 1949; Myxosargus Brauer, 1882; Nothomyia Loew, 1869; Panacris Gerstaecker, 1857; Promeranisa Walker, 1854; Psellidotus Rondani, 1863; and Raphiocera Macquart, 1834. Twenty-two species are newly reported from Paraguay: Acanthinomyia elongata (Wiedemann, 1824); Archistratiomys rufipalpis (Wiedemann, 1830); Auloceromyia pedunculata Pimentel & Pujol-Luz, 2000; Chordonota inermis (Wiedemann, 1830); Chrysochlorina albipes James, 1939; Chrysochlorina incompleta (Curran, 1929); Gowdeyana vitrisetosus (Lindner, 1935); Hermetia flavipes Wiedemann, 1830; Hermetia pulchra Wiedemann, 1830; Hermetia teevani Curran, 1934; Leucoptilum plaumanni James, 1943; Merosargus cingulatus Schiner, 1868; Merosargus coxalis Lindner, 1949; Merosargus golbachi James in James & McFadden, 1971; Merosargus nebulifer James in James & McFadden, 1971; Merosargus obscurus (Wiedemann, 1830); Merosargus stigmaticus (Lindner, 1949); Neoberis brasiliana Lindner, 1949; Panacris nigribasis Lindner, 1949; Promeranisa nasuta (Macquart, 1850); Raphiocera armata (Wiedemann, 1830); and Sargus thoracicus Macquart, 1834. Four species are removed from the Paraguayan fauna: Cyphomyia albitarsis (Fabricius, 1805), Euryneura pygmaea (Bellardi, 1862), and Nemotelus niger Bigot, 1879 have no specimens known from Paraguay, so the inclusion of Paraguay in their distribution is a typing error; and Nemotelus eburneopictus James (1974) has its type locality corrected to Argentina. The examination of the material allows the proposition of three specific synonyms: Cyphomyia imitans Curran, 1925 syn. nov. of C. gracilicornis Gerstaecker, 1857, Panacris breviseta Lindner, 1964 syn. nov. of P. nigribasis Lindner, 1949, and Dicranophora brevifurca James, 1943 syn. nov. of Dicamptocrana jorgenseni Frey, 1934 (this species is newly recorded to Brazil, state of São Paulo), after removing D. brevifurca out of synonymy with Dicranophora bispinosa (Wiedemann, 1830). Additionally, a female lectotype is designated for Rhingiopsis enderleini Lindner, 1928.

Abstract: The foundation of the Bitola Seminary was to a great extent possible due to efforts of Bishop Josif Cvijović (1878–1957), so its fate was tied to him. The idea to open a seminary arose shortly after his enthronement, in the summer of 1921. The seminary was built in very difficult conditions because Bitola, as a border town on the outskirts of the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes, was largely destroyed and devastated. On the other hand, there was a lack of material resources because opening this new school was not foreseen in the state budget. Bishop Josif, in his efforts to open a seminary, was extremely supported by the then Bishop Nicholai of Ohrid. Bishop Nicholai Velimirovich (1881–1956) has supported the Bitola Theological Seminary since the efforts to establish this seminary in 1921. In order to enable the opening of the Bitola Theological Seminary, the collecting of contributions in money and things for the basic needs of the school and boarding school has begun in 1921. The American Commission to Serbia (Commissioner Dr. Rudolph Rex Reeder (1859–1934)) was the first to send abundant aid, thanks to Bishop Nicholai Velimirovich who interceded with the scientist Mihajlo Pupin (1854–1935) on this issue. As the diocesan bishop of the Diocese of Ohrid and Bitola, Bishop Nicholai took special care of the Seminary of St. John the Theologian in Bitola in the period from 1932 until 1938, when he moved to the Diocese of Žiča. Key words: Bitola Theological Seminary, Diocese of Ohrid and Bitola, Bishop Nicholai Velimirovich (1881–1956), Bishop Josif Cvijović (1878–1957), Bishop John [Maximovitch] of Shanghai (1896–1966).

Sažetak Josip Margitaj (1854.-1934.), učitelj i mađaron, bio je utemeljitelj pojma “međimurskoga jezika”. <a target="_blank" rel="nofollow"> </a>Godine 1884. počeo je izdavati dvojezični tjednik Medjimurje/Murakoz. Jezična inačica, koju Margitaj zove „međimurskim“, zaista u maloj mjeri predstavlja međimurski dijalekt. U većoj mjeri pokazuje jezičnu srodnost s kasnijim djelima kajkavskoga književnog jezika, koja su bila prožeta utjecajem hrvatskoga književnog jezika štokavske osnovice. Neposredan je uzor Margitajevu jeziku bila susjedna slovenska pokrajina u Ugarskoj (danas Prekomurje u Sloveniji i Porabje u Mađarskoj), gdje je ostvaren književni jezik prema lokalnom dijalektu u 18. stoljeću, a koji je u Ugarskoj službeno bio nazvan “vendski”; taj se jezik, prema tzv.“ vendskoj teoriji“, nastojalo razlikovati od slovenskog jezika. Po oslobođenju Međimurja (1918.) prestali su pokušaji pisanja „na međimurskome“, za razliku od Prekomurja, gdje je još bila aktivna lokalna književnost do 1945. godine. Međimursko je pitanje bilo oživljavano u doba mađarske okupacije (1941.— 1944.), ponovno zbog propagandističkih i mađarizacijskih ciljeva, kao i 1942. godine, kad su napisane dvije kratke standardne gramatike (međutim, te gramatike nisu mogle stvoriti pravi normativni jezik). Krajem Drugoga svjetskog rata (1939.-1945.) jednom zauvijek dovršeni su „pokusi“ tzv. međimurskog jezika. Zaista lažan, „međimurski jezik“ nema nikakva traga u međimurskoj kulturnoj baštini, dok prekomurski jezik ipak ima živu tradiciju podjednako u Sloveniji i Mađarskoj. Ovaj rad Akoša Antona Dončeca - čiji je domicil Verica-Ritkarovci (Ketvolgy / Mađarska) - prvi je dio cjelovite studije (u dva nastavka) - koji razmatra program tzv. „međimurskog jezika“ Josipa Margitaja, kao i onaj Ferenca Gonczija, u kontekstu prekomursko-kajkavskih povijesnih, književnih i jezičnih veza, zatim mađarsko-hrvatskoga spora o Međimurju, pokušaja mađarizacije u Međimurju, Prekomurju i Porabju – sve do pred Prvi svjetski rat. Rad je na hrvatski preveo dr. sc. Elod Dudaš.

Abstract The discussion of floods in this paper covers the section of the Odra River basin from its source down to the mouth of the Nysa Klodzka River and the section of the Vistula River basin down to the Krakow profile. The area of the upper part of Odra River basin is 13,455 km2 and the length of the river bed in this section is ca. 273.0 km. In the reach examined, the Vistula River is 184.8 km long and has a catchment area of approximately 8,101 km2. Geographical and environmental conditions in the upper part of the Vistula and Odra Rivers basins are conducive to floods both in the summer and winter seasons. The analyses conducted for the 19th and 20th centuries demonstrate that two main types of floods can be distinguished. Floods with a single flood wave peak occurred in the following years in the upper Odra River basin: 1813, 1831, 1879, 1889, 1890 and 1896, and on the Vistula River they were recorded in 1805, 1813, 1816, 1818, 1826, 1830, 1834, 1844 and 1845. In the 20th century, similar phenomena were recorded on the Odra River in 1903, 1909, 1911, 1915, 1925, 1960, 1970 and 1985, and on the Vistula River they occurred in 1903, 1908, 1925, 1931, 1934, 1939, 1948, 1951, 1970, 1972, 1991, 1996, 1997 and 1999. The second category includes floods with two, three or more flood wave peaks. These are caused by successive episodes of high rainfall separated by dry periods that last for a few days, a fortnight or even several weeks. Such floods occurred on the upper Odra River in 1847, 1854, 1880, 1888, 1892, 1897 and 1899; while on the Vistula River only two (1839 and 1843) floods featured two flood wave peaks. In the 20th century on the upper Odra River, floods of this type occurred in 1902, 1926, 1939, 1940, 1972, 1977 and 1997; on the upper Vistula River, they were recorded in 1906, 1915, 1919, 1920, 1940, 1958, 1960 and 1987.

The field collections made from Burma (Myanmar) by the Geological Survey of India, and described by F.R.C. Reed more than a century ago, still provide the only ‘ground truthing’ for an important region of the Ordovician marginal terranes fringing Gondwana. A revision of these faunas is overdue, particularly as it is likely that further collections cannot be made in the northern Shan State in the near future. The specimens, stored in the Geological Survey of India collections in Kolkata, cannot be loaned. Sixteen species are fully revised herein; another twelve species are left under open nomenclature because of inadequacies in the material. Several of Reed’s species subsequently became type species of genera that have proved to be widespread: Birmanites Sheng, 1934, Encrinurella Reed, 1915, Neseuretinus Dean, 1967, and Pliomerina Chugaeva, 1956. Reed’s Ordovician trilobite collections came from two main areas: northern Shan State (Myanmar), and westernmost Yunnan (China). The Burmese (Myanmar) collections are from the Upper Ordovician (Katian) while Yunnan specimens are from the Middle Ordovician (Darriwilian), though Upper Ordovician trilobites also occur in the area. Both collections are predominantly from clastic strata. Based on a small new Katian collection from Pupiao, we report Neseuretinus birmanicus (Reed, 1906) in common between the northern part of the Shan State and western Yunnan. A few genera (Dionide Barrande, 1847, Phorocephala Lu, 1957, Lonchodomas Angelin, 1854, Nileus Dalman, 1827) are distributed worldwide, and include pelagic (Phorocephala) or deeper benthic (Dionide) taxa. The palaeogeographic comparisons offered by the other taxa are mostly peri-Gondwanan and extend from southwest China westwards (present geography) as far as the Iberian Pennsula. Birmanites is the type genus of a subfamily (Birmanitinae Kobayashi, 1960, revived herein) widely distributed over Ordovician Gondwana, and absent from Laurentia, Baltica and North China/Siberia. Mioptychopyge Zhou, Dean, Yuan & Zhou, 1998, probably belongs with the same group and is otherwise known from South China. Parillaenus Jaanusson, 1954, is also peripheral Gondwanan, as is Prionocheilus Rouault, 1847. The Reedocalymeninae Kobayashi, 1951 (Neseuretinus, Reedocalymene Kobayashi, 1951) are similarly diagnostic of peri–Gondwanan sites. However, some genera (Pliomerina, Encrinurella, Ovalocephalus Koroleva, 1959) have been associated with other oriental and Australian occurrences in particular, with ‘outliers’ in certain terranes in Kazakhstan, i.e. palaeotropical Gondwana.

Introduction: Brain plasticity is not limited to childhood or adolescence, as originally assumed, but continues into adulthood. Understanding this conceptual evolution about the nervous system, neuroscience and neurorehabilitation, researchers have left different proverbs and aphorisms derived of their investigations that are still used in university and postgraduate training. A proverb is defined as a phrase of popular origin traditionally repeated invariably, in which a moral thought, advice or teaching is expressed. On the other hand, an aphorism is understood as a brief and doctrinal phrase or sentence that is proposed as a rule in some science or art. The aim of this paper is to present a compilation of proverbs and aphorisms related to neuroscience and neurorehabilitation, classified chronologically, to illustrate the conceptual evolution about the brain and to improve our understanding about the management of neurological patients through the methods and techniques developed during the 19th, 20th and 21st centuries, as many therapies are based on them. Methods: A literature review was conducted based on the recommendations for Systematic Reviews guidelines for scoping reviews. A computerized search was conducted in the following electronic databases: CINAHL Medical Science, Medline through EBSCO, PubMed, Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) and Scopus, limiting the search to papers published until April 2021 in English and Spanish. Inverse searches were also carried out based on papers found in the databases. The following data were extracted: technique or approach; author; date of birth and death; proverbs and aphorisms; clinical interpretation. Results: Proverbs and aphorisms linked to authors such as Charles Edward Beevor (1854–1908), Heinrich Sebastian Frenkel (1860–1931), Rudolf Magnus (1873–1927), Nikolai Bernstein (1896–1966), Donald O. Hebb (1904–1985), Elwood Henneman (1915–1996), Wilder Graves Penfield (1891–1976), Humberto Augusto Maturana Romesín (1928), Edward Taub (1931), Janet Howard Carr (1933–2014), Roberta Barkworth Shepherd (1934), Brown & Hardman (1987), Jeffrey A. Kleim and Theresa A. Jones (2008) were compiled. Conclusion: Different authors have developed throughout history a series of proverbs and aphorisms related to neurosciences and neurorehabilitation that have helped to better our understanding of the nervous system and, therefore, in the management of the neurological patient through the methods and techniques developed throughout the 19th, 20th and 21st centuries.

This overview of the Luciolinae addresses the fauna of S. E. Asia including India, Sri Lanka, China, Japan, Malaysia, Thailand, Laos, Cambodia, Vietnam, Indonesia, the Philippines, the Republic of Palau, Federated States of Micronesia, and the Australopacific area of Australia, Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands, New Caledonia, Vanuatu and Fiji.Of the 28 genera now recognised in the Luciolinae we address 27 genera from the study area as defined above, including three new genera which are described herein, and 222 species including 13 species newly described herein. Photuroluciola Pic from Madagascar is the only Luciolinae genus not addressed here. A key to genera is presented. Keys to species are either included here or referenced in existing literature. Twelve genera have had no new taxonomic decisions made nor are any new species records listed, and are addressed in an abbreviated fashion, with short diagnoses and plates of features of life stages: Aquatica Fu et al. 2010, Australoluciola Ballantyne 2013, Convexa Ballantyne 2009, Emeia Fu et al. 2012a, Inflata Boontop 2015, Lloydiella Ballantyne 2009, Missimia Ballantyne 2009, Pteroptyx Olivier 1902, Pyrophanes Olivier 1885, Sclerotia Ballantyne 2016, Triangulara Pimpasalee 2016, and Trisinuata Ballantyne 2013. Abscondita Ballantyne 2013 contains 8 species, and includes new records for Abs. anceyi (Olivier 1883), Abs. chinensis (L.) (which is newly synonymised with Luciola succincta Bourgeois), Abs. terminalis (Olivier 1883) including a first record from both Laos and Thailand, and Abs. perplexa (Walker 1858). Luciola pallescens Gorham 1880 is transferred to Abscondita and the pronotal colour range is addressed from a wide range of localities. Abs. berembun Nada sp. nov. and Abs. jerangau Nada sp. nov. are described from Malaysia. Hooked bursa plates are described for pallescens and berembun. Aquilonia Ballantyne 2009 is expanded to include 3 species. Gilvainsula Ballantyne 2009, represented by two species from the south eastern coast of New Guinea is synonymised under Aquilonia Ballantyne 2009, which is briefly redescribed and keyed from: Aquil. costata (Lea) from northern Australia, including many new records, Aquil. messoria (Ballantyne) comb. nov. and Aquil. similismessoria (Ballantyne) comb. nov. Asymmetricata Ballantyne 2009 now includes 4 species. As. bicoloripes (Pic 1927) comb. nov. and As. humeralis (Walker 1858) comb. nov. are transferred from Luciola, with L. doriae Olivier 1885, L. impressa Olivier 1910b and L. notatipennis Olivier 1909a newly synonymised with As. humeralis. Luciola aemula Olivier 1891 is synonymised with As. ovalis (Hope 1831). The variation in the extent of the anterior median emargination of the light organ in ventrite 7, and the possibility of a bipartite light organ in males of As. circumdata (Motsch. 1854) is explored. Females of both As. circumdata and As. ovalis (Hope 1831) are without bursa plates and the distinctively shaped median oviduct plate in each is described. Records from Thailand are recorded for both As. circumdata and As. ovalis. Atyphella Olliff 1890 now contains 28 species with 4 transferred from other genera, and one new species: Aty. abdominalis (Olivier 1886) comb. nov. and Aty. striata (Fabricius 1801) comb. nov. are transferred from Luciola, with Aty. carolinae Olivier 1911b and Aty. rennellia (Ballantyne 2009) comb. nov. transferred from Magnalata Ballantyne 2009. Atyphella telokdalam Ballantyne sp. nov. from Indonesia is described herein. Atyphella is now known from records in the Philippines and Indonesia as well as Australia and New Guinea. Colophotia Motschulsky 1853 is considered here from seven species for which intact types can be located for three. An abbreviated revision based on the United States National Museum collection only is presented, with specimens of C. bakeri Pic 1924, C. brevis Olivier 1903a, C. plagiata (Erichson 1834) and C. praeusta (Eschscholtz 1822) redescribed, using where possible features of males, females and larvae. Colophotia particulariventris Pic 1938 is newly synonymised with C. praeusta. Colophotia miranda Olivier 1886 and L. truncata Olivier 1886 are treated as species incertae sedis. Curtos Motschulsky 1845 includes 19 species with suggestions made, but not yet formalised, for the possible transfer of the following seven species from Luciola: Luciola complanata Gorham 1895, L. costata Pic 1929, L. delauneyi Bourgeois 1890, L. deplanata Pic 1929, L. extricans Walker 1858, L. multicostulata Pic 1927 and L. nigripes Gorham 1903. Curtos is not revised here. Emarginata Ballantyne gen nov. is described for E. trilucida (Jeng et al. 2003b) comb. nov., transferred from Luciola and characterised by the emarginated elytral apex. An extended range of specimens from Thailand is listed. Kuantana Ballantyne gen. nov. from Selangor, Malaysia is described from K. menayah gen. et sp. nov. having bipartite light organs in ventrite 7 and an asymmetrical tergite 8 which is not emarginated on its left side. Female has no bursa plates. Luciola Laporte 1833 s. stricto as defined by a population of the type species Luciola italica (L. 1767) from Pisa, Italy, is further expanded and considered to comprise the following19 species: L. antipodum (Bourgeois 1884), L. aquilaclara Ballantyne 2013, L. chapaensis Pic 1923 which is synonymised with L. atripes Pic 1929, L. curtithorax Pic 1928, L. filiformis Olivier 1913c, L. horni Bourgeois 1905, L. hypocrita Olivier 1888, L. italica (L. 1767), L. kagiana Matsumura 1928, L. oculofissa Ballantyne 2013, L. pallidipes Pic 1928 which is synonymised with L. fletcheri Pic 1935, L. parvula Kiesenwetter 1874, L. satoi Jeng & Yang 2003, L. tuberculata Yiu 2017, and two species treated as near L. laticollis Gorham 1883, and near L. nicollieri Bugnion 1922. The following are described as new: L. niah Jusoh sp. nov., L. jengai Nada sp. nov. and L. tiomana Ballantyne sp. nov. Luciola niah sp. nov. female has two wide bursa plates on each side of the bursa. Luciola s. lato (as defined here) consists of 36 species. Twenty-seven species formerly standing under Luciola have been assigned to other genera or synonymised. Seven species are recommended for transfer to Curtos, and 32 species now stand under species incertae sedis. Magnalata Ballantyne is reduced to the type species M. limbata and redescribed. Medeopteryx Ballantyne 2013 is expanded to 20 species with the addition of two new combinations, Med. semimarginata (Olivier 1883) comb. nov. and Med. timida (Olivier 1883) comb. nov., both transferred from Luciola, and one new species, Med. fraseri Nada sp. nov. from Malaysia. The range of this genus now extends from Australia and the island of New Guinea to SE Asia. Medeopteryx semimarginata females have wide paired bursa plates. Pygoluciola Wittmer 1939 now includes 19 species with 5 new species: P. bangladeshi Ballantyne sp. nov., P. dunguna Nada 2018, P. matalangao Ballantyne sp. nov. (scored by the code name ‘Jeng Matalanga’ in Ballantyne & Lambkin 2013), P. phupan Ballantyne sp. nov. and P. tamarat Jusoh sp. nov. Six species are transferred from Luciola: P. abscondita (Olivier 1891) comb. nov., P. ambita (Olivier 1896) comb. nov., P. calceata (Olivier 1905) comb. nov., P. insularis (Olivier 1883) comb. nov., P. nitescens (Olivier 1903b) comb. nov. and P. vitalisi (Pic 1934) comb. nov., and redescribed from males, and includes female reproductive anatomy for P. nitescens comb. nov. and P. dunguna, both of which have hooked bursa plates. Serratia Ballantyne gen. nov. is erected for S. subuyania gen. et sp. nov. and characterised by the serrate nature of certain antennal flagellar segments in the male. The following 37 species listed under species incertae sedis are further explored: Colophotia miranda Olivier 1886, Lampyris serraticornis Boisduval 1835, Luciola angusticollis Olivier 1886, L. antennalis Bourgeois 1905, L. antica (Boisduval 1835), L. apicalis (Eschscholtz 1822), L. aurantiaca Pic 1927, L. bicoloriceps Pic 1924, L. binhana Pic 1927, L. bourgeoisi Olivier 1895, L. dilatata Pic 1929, L. exigua (Gyllenhall 1817), L. exstincta Olivier 1886, L. fissicollis Fairmaire 1891, L. flava Pic 1929, L. flavescens (Boisduval 1835), L. fukiensis Pic 1955, L. immarginata Bourgeois 1890, L. incerta (Boisduval 1835), L. infuscata (Erichson 1834), L. intricata (Walker 1858), L. japonica (Thunberg 1784), L. klapperichi Pic 1955, L. lata Olivier 1883, L. limbalis Fairmaire 1889, L. marginipennis (Boisduval 1835), L. melancholica Olivier 1913a, L. robusticeps Pic 1928, L. ruficollis (Boisduval 1835), L. spectralis Gorham 1880, L. stigmaticollis Fairmaire 1887, L. tincticollis Gorham 1895, L. trivandrensis Raj 1947, L. truncata Olivier 1886, L. vittata (Laporte 1833) Pteroptyx atripennis Pic 1923 and P. curticollis Pic 1923. While phylogenetic analyses indicate their distinctiveness, no further taxonomic action is taken with Luciola cruciata Motschulsky 1854 and L. owadai Sâtô et Kimura 1994 from Japan given the importance of the former as a national icon. Analyses also indicate that Lampyroidea syriaca Costa 1875 belongs in Luciola s. str. A much wider taxonomic analysis of this genus including all the species is necessary before any further action can be taken.

Canon and oblivion. The memorials of archaeologyThe article takes its point of departure in the sun chariot; the find itself and its find site at Trundholm bog where it was discovered in 1902. The famous sun chariot, now at the National Museum in Copenhagen, is a national treasure included in the Danish “Cultural Canon” and “History Canon”.The find site itself has alternated bet­ween experiencing intense attention and oblivion. A monument was erected in 1925; a new monument was then created in 1962 and later moved in 2002. The event of 1962 was followed by ceremonies, speeches and songs, and anniversary celebrations were held in 2002, during which a copy of the sun chariot was sacrificed.The memorial at Trundholm bog is only one of several memorials at archaeological find sites in Denmark. Which finds have been commemorated and marked by memorials? When did this happen? Who took the initiative? How were they executed? Why are these finds remembered? What picture of the past do we meet in this canon in stone?Find sites and archaeological memorials have been neglected in archaeology and by recent trends in the study of the history of archaeology. Considering the impressive research on monuments and monumentality in archaeology, this is astonishing. However, memorials in general receive attention in an active research field on the use of history and heritage studies, where historians and ethnologists dominate. The main focus here is, however, on war memorials. An important source of inspiration has been provided by a project led by the French historian Pierre Nora who claims that memorial sites are established when the living memory is threatened (a thesis refuted by the many Danish “Reunion” monuments erected even before the day of reunification in 1920).Translated into Danish conditions, studies of the culture of remembrance and memorials have focused on the wars of 1848-50 and 1864, the Reunion in 1920, the Occupation in 1940-45 and, more generally, on conflicts in the borderland bet­ween Denmark and Germany.In relation to the total number of memorials and public meeting places in Denmark, archaeological memorials of archaeology are few in number, around 1 % of the total. However, they prompt crucial questions concerning the use of the past, on canon and oblivion.“Canon” means rule, and canonical texts are the supposed genuine texts in the Bible. The concept of canon became a topic in the 1990s when Harold Bloom, in “The Western Canon”, identified a number of books as being canonical. In Denmark, canon has been a great issue in recent years with the appearance of the “Danish Literary Canon” in 2004, and the “Cultural Canon” and the “History Canon”, both in 2006. The latter includes the Ertebølle culture, the sun chariot and the Jelling stone. The political context for the creation of canon lists is the so-called “cultural conflict” and the debate concerning immigration and “foreigners”.Canon and canonization means a struggle against relativism and oblivion. Canon means that something ought to be remembered while something else is allowed to be forgotten. Canon lists are constructed when works and values are perceived as being threatened by oblivion. Without ephemerality and oblivion there is no need for canon lists. Canon and oblivion are linked.Memorials mean canonization of certain individuals, collectives, events and places, while others are allowed to be forgotten. Consequently, archaeological memorials constitute part of the canonization of a few finds and find sites. According to Pierre Nora’s thesis, memorials are established when the places are in danger of being forgotten.Whether one likes canon lists or not, they are a fact. There has always been a process of prioritisation, leading to some finds being preserved and others discarded, some being exhibited and others ending up in the stores.Canonization is expressed in the classical “Seven Wonders of the World”, the “Seven New Wonders of the World” and the World Heritage list. A find may be declared as treasure trove, as being of “unique national significance” or be honoured by the publication of a monograph or by being given its own museum.In practice, the same few finds occur in different contexts. There seems to be a consensus within the subject of canonization of valuing what is well preserved, unique, made of precious metals, bears images and is monumental. A top-ten canon list of prehistoric finds from Denmark according to this consensus would probably include the following finds: The sun chariot from Trundholm, the girl from Egtved, the Dejbjerg carts, the Gundestrup cauldron, Tollund man, the golden horns from Gallehus, the Mammen or Bjerringhøj grave, the Ladby ship and the Skuldelev ships.Just as the past may be used in many different ways, there are many forms of memorial related to monuments from the past or to archaeological excavations. Memorials were constructed in the 18th and 19th centuries at locations where members of the royal family had conducted archaeology. As with most other memorials from that time, the prince is at the centre, while antiquity and archaeology create a brilliant background, for example at Jægerpris (fig. 2). Memorials celebrating King Frederik VII were created at the Dæmpegård dolmen and at the ruin of Asserbo castle. A memorial celebrating Count Frederik Sehested was erected at Møllegårdsmarken (fig. 3). Later there were also memorials celebrating the architect C.M. Smith at the ruin of Kalø Castle and Svend Dyhre Rasmussen and Axel Steensberg, respectively the finder and the excavator of the medieval village at Borup Ris.Several memorials were erected in the decades around 1900 to commemorate important events or persons in Danish history, for example by Thor Lange. The memorials were often located at sites and monuments that had recently been excavated, for example at Fjenneslev (fig. 4).A large number of memorials commemorate abandoned churches, monasteries, castles or barrows that have now disappeared, for example at the monument (fig. 5) near Bjerringhøj.Memorials were erected in the first half of the 20th century near large prehistoric monuments which also functioned as public meeting places, for example at Glavendrup, Gudbjerglund and Hohøj. Prehistoric monuments, especially dolmens, were also used as models when new memorials were created during the 19th and 20th centuries.Finally, sculptures were produced at the end of the 19th century sculptures where the motif was a famous archaeological find – the golden horns, the girl from Egtved, the sun chariot and the woman from Skrydstrup.In the following, this article will focus on a category of memorials raised to commemorate an archaeological find. In Denmark, 24 archaeological find sites have been marked by a total of 26 monuments (fig. 6). This survey is based on excursions, scanning the literature, googling on the web and contact with colleagues. The monuments are presented chronological, i.e. by date of erection. 1-2) The golden horns from Gallehus: Found in 1639 and 1734; two monu­ments in 1907. 3) The Snoldelev runic stone: Found in c. 1780; monument in 1915. 4) The sun chariot from Trundholm bog: Found in 1902; monument in 1925; renewed in 1962 and moved in 2002. 5) The grave mound from Egtved: Found in 1921; monument in 1930. 6) The Dejbjerg carts. Found in 1881-83; monument in 1933. 7) The Gundestrup cauldron: Found in 1891; wooden stake in 1934; replaced with a monument in 1935. 8) The Bregnebjerg burial ground: Found in 1932; miniature dolmen in 1934. 9) The Brangstrup gold hoard. Found in 1865; monument in 1935.10-11) Maglemose settlements in Mulle­rup bog: Found in 1900-02; two monuments in 1935 and 1936. 12) The Skarpsalling vessel from Oudrup Heath: Found in 1891; monument in 1936. 13) The Juellinge burial ground: Found in 1909; monument in 1937. 14) The Ladby ship: Found in 1935; monument probably in 1937. 15) The Hoby grave: Found in 1920; monument in 1939. 16) The Maltbæk lurs: Found in 1861 and 1863; monument in 1942. 17) Ginnerup settlement: First excavation in 1922; monument in 1945. 18) The golden boats from Nors: Found in 1885; monument in 1945. 19) The Sædinge runic stone: Found in 1854; monument in 1945. 20) The Nydam boat: Found in 1863; monument in 1947. 21) The aurochs from Vig: Found in 1904; monument in 1957. 22) Tollund Man: Found in 1950; wooden stake in 1968; renewed inscription in 2000. 23) The Veksø helmets: Found in 1942; monument in 1992. 24) The Bjæverskov coin hoard. Found in 1999; monument in 1999. 25) The Frydenhøj sword from Hvidovre: Found in 1929; monument in 2001; renewed in 2005. 26) The Bellinge key: Found in 1880; monument in 2003.Two monuments (fig. 7) raised in 1997 at Gallehus, where the golden horns were found, marked a new trend. From then onwards the find itself and its popular finders came into focus. At the same time the classical or old Norse style of the memorials was replaced by simple menhirs or boulders with an inscription and sometimes also an image of the find. One memorial was constructed as a miniature dolmen and a few took the form of a wooden stake.The finds marked by memorials represent a broader spectrum than the top-ten list. They represent all periods from the Stone Age to the Middle Ages over most of Denmark. Memorials were created throughout the 20th century; in greatest numbers in the 1930s and 1940s, but with none between 1968 and 1992.The inscriptions mention what was found and, in most cases, also when it happened. Sometimes the finder is named and, in a few instances, also the person on whose initiative the memorial was erected. The latter was usually a representative part of the political agency of the time. In the 18th and 19th centuries it was the royal family and the aristocracy. In the 20th century it was workers, teachers, doctors, priests, farmers and, in many cases, local historical societies who were responsible, as seen on the islands of Lolland and Falster, where ten memorials were erected between 1936 and 1951 to commemorate historical events, individuals, monuments or finds.The memorial from 2001 at the find site of the Frydenhøj sword in Hvidovre represents an innovation in the tradition of marking history in the landscape. The memorial is a monumental hybrid between signposting and public art (fig. 8). It formed part of a communication project called “History in the Street”, which involved telling the history of a Copenhagen suburb right there where it actually happened.The memorials marking archaeological finds relate to the nation and to nationalism in several ways. The monuments at Gallehus should, therefore, be seen in the context of a struggle concerning both the historical allegiance and future destiny of Schleswig or Southern Jutland. More generally, the national perspective occurs in inscriptions using concepts such as “the people”, “Denmark” and “the Danes”, even if these were irrelevant in prehistory, e.g. when the monument from 1930 at Egtved mentions “A young Danish girl” (fig. 9). This use of the past to legitimise the nation, belongs to the epoch of World War I, World War II and the 1930s. The influence of nationalism was often reflected in the ceremonies when the memorials were unveiled, with speeches, flags and songs.According to Marie Louise Stig Sørensen and Inge Adriansen, prehistoric objects that are applicable as national symbols, should satisfy three criteria. The should: 1) be unusual and remarkable by their technical and artistic quality; 2) have been produced locally, i.e. be Danish; 3) have been used in religious ceremonies or processions. The 26 archaeological finds marked with memorials only partly fit these criteria. The finds also include more ordinary finds: a burial ground, settlements, runic stones, a coin hoard, a sword and a key. Several of the finds were produced abroad: the Gundestrup cauldron, the Brangstrup jewellery and coins and the Hoby silver cups.It is tempting to interpret the Danish cultural canon as a new expression of a national use of the past in the present. Nostalgia, the use of the past and the creation of memorials are often explained as an expression of crisis in society. This seems reasonable for the many memorials from 1915-45 with inscriptions mentioning hope, consolation and darkness. However, why are there no memorials from the economic crisis years of the 1970s and 1980s? It seems as if the past is recalled, when the nation is under threat – in the 1930s and 40s from expansive Germany – and since the 1990s by increased immigration and globalisation.The memorials have in common local loss and local initiative. A treasure was found and a treasure was lost, often to the National Museum in Copenhagen. A treasure was won that contributed to the great narrative of the history of Denmark, but that treasure has also left its original context. The memorials commemorate the finds that have contributed to the narrative of the greatness, age and area of Denmark. The memorials connect the nation and the native place, the capital and the village in a community, where the past is a central concept. The find may also become a symbol of a region or community, for example the sun chariot for Trundholm community and the Gundestrup cauldron for Himmerland.It is almost always people who live near the find site who want to remember what has been found and where. The finds were commemorated by a memorial on average 60 years after their discovery. A longer period elapsed for the golden horns from Gallehus; shortest was at Bjæverskov where the coin hoard was found in March 1999 and a monument was erected in November of the same year.Memorials might seem an old-fashioned way of marking localities in a national topography, but new memorials are created in the same period as many new museums are established.A unique find has no prominent role in archaeological education, research or other work. However, in public opinion treasures and exotic finds are central. Folklore tells of people searching for treasures but always failing. Treasure hunting is restricted by taboos. In the world of archaeological finds there are no taboos. The treasure is found by accident and in spite of various hindrances the find is taken to a museum. The finder is often a worthy person – a child, a labourer or peasant. He or she is an innocent and ordinary person. A national symbol requires a worthy finder. And the find occurs as a miracle. At the find site a romantic relationship is established between the ancestors and their heirs who, by way of a miracle, find fragments of the glorious past of the nation. A paradigmatic example is the finding of the golden horns from Gallehus. Other examples extend from the discovery of the sun chariot in Trundholm bog to the Stone Age settlement at Mullerup bog.The article ends with a catalogue presenting the 24 archaeological find sites that have been marked with monuments in present-day Denmark.Jes WienbergHistorisk arkeologiInstitutionen för Arkeologi och ­Antikens historiaLunds Universitet

1. O direito de propriedade – ou seja, o reconhecimento que a organização da Sociedade (Estado) dispensa aos poderes de alguém sobre coisas – encarta-se, ao nosso ver, no Direito Público e não no Direito Privado.1 É evidente que tal Direito comporta relações tanto de Direito Público quanto de Direito Privado. Entretanto, o direito de propriedade, como aliás sempre sustentou o prof. Oswaldo Aranha Bandeira de Mello é, essencialmente, um direito configurado no Direito Público e – desde logo – no Direito Constitucional Com efeito, basta ver que dependendo do tratamento que for dispensado ao direito de propriedade um Estado será socialista ou capitalista, com todas as implicações jurídicas daí decorrentes. Trata-se, portanto, de um direito nodular à caracterização político-social do Estado e, por isso, de todo o quadro jurídico da sociedade; logo um Direito Público, por excelência. De resto, ao falar-se em função social da propriedade está, ipso facto, fazendo referência à caracterização que o Direito Público lhe irroga. É o Direito Constitucional quem outorga esta fisionomia à propriedade. 2. Ninguém ignora que, de há muito, a propriedade e, pois, os poderes que se lhe consideram correlatos vêm sofrendo progressivo assujeitamento às conveniências sociais. Com isto, por óbvio, os proprietários passam a sofrer constrições cada vez maiores no uso, gozo e disposição dos bens que lhes pertencem. Não se trata, propriamente, de restrições ou limitações ao “direito de propriedade”, mas de restrições ou limitações à propriedade. Deveres – bem disse Renato Alessi – não são de confundir propriedade (ou liberdade) com direito de propriedade (ou direito de liberdade). O direito de propriedade é a expressão juridicamente reconhecida à propriedade. É o perfil jurídico da propriedade. É a propriedade, tal como configurada em dada ordenação normativa. É, em suma, a dimensão ou o âmbito de expressão legítima da propriedade: aquilo que o direito considera como tal. Donde, as limitações ou sujeições de podres do proprietário impostas por um sistema normativo não se constituem em limitações de direitos pois não comprimem nem deprimem o direito de propriedade, mas, pelo contrário, consistem na própria definição desde direito, compõem seu delineamento e, desde modo, lhe desenham os contornos. Na Constituição – e nas leis que lhe estejam conformadas – reside o traçado da compostura daquilo que chamamos de direito de propriedade em tal ou qual país, na época tal ou qual. 3. Pois bem, se é fato que desde períodos recuados têm havido expressivas manifestações de que a propriedade deve ajustar-se a conveniências sociais – e valem como exemplo as velhas disposições urbanísticas para as colônias hispano-americanas ou o instituto do comisso nas concessões de sesmarias e cartas de data, no Brasil-Colônia – ninguém contestará que se está a falar de fenômeno bem mais recente, animado de características perfeitamente específicas, quando nos dias atuas se faz alusão à função social da propriedade. Sem embargo, esta temática já está vivamente posta em causa, pelo menos, desde o começo do século. É memorável a série de conferências proferidas, por Léon Duguit, em 1911, na cidade de Buenos Aires e que foram convertidas em livro, publicado na França em 1912, nas quais este alumiado jurista expunha a concepção de que o proprietário, ao invés de titular de um direito subjetivo, era apenas o detentor da riqueza, de certo modo na condição de gestor de um bem socialmente útil, pois a propriedade devia ser concebida, em si mesma, como uma função social – não como um direito ajustável a uma função social. A Constituição de Weimar, de 1919, dispunham, em seu art. 153, que a propriedade acarreta obrigações para seu titular e que o direito de propriedade acarreta obrigações para seu titular e que o direito de propriedade deve ser exercido no interesse social. 4. Vejamos qual a evolução deste tema nos dispositivos dos vários Textos Constitucionais brasileiros. As Constituições de 1824 e 1891, respectivamente em seus arts. 179, 22 e 72, § 17, simplesmente declaravam garantido o direito de propriedade em toda sua plenitude. É com a Constituição de 1934 que, pela primeira vez, em Lei Magna brasileira, se fez expressa referência as relações entre propriedade e função social. No art. 113, 17, estatui-se ser garantido o direito de propriedade que não poderá ser exercido contra o interesse social ou coletivo. Nota-se que, embora não afiliando a propriedade ao cumprimento de um interesse social, opõe-se a ela uma barreira: a vedação de que o correspondente direito seja utilizado em desacordo com o interesse social ou coletivo. A Carta de 1937 é silente quanto a este tópico, o qual irá ressurgir com a Constituição de 1946. Sobre estatuir que a garantia do direito de propriedade não o resguarda contra a desapropriação por interesse social – além dos casos de necessidade ou utilidade pública – consoante rezava seu art. 141, § 16, explicitamente dispôs, no art. 147, que “o uso da propriedade será condicionado ao bem estar social. A lei poderá com observância do disposto no art. 146, § 16, promover a justa distribuição da propriedade, com igual oportunidade para todos”. Sem dúvida alguma, este preceptivo é um marco jurídico. Com efeito, não apenas se prevê a desapropriação por interesse social, mas se aponta, no aludido art. 147, para um rumo social da propriedade, ao ser prefigurada legislação que lhe assegure justa distribuição, buscando mais que a tradicional igualdade perante a lei, igualdade perante a oportunidade de acesso à propriedade. 5. Nas Cartas de 1967 e 1969, conquanto inexistia este tipo de alusão, ao nosso ver muito prezável, há, contudo, outro avanço na linguagem normativa. De fora parte a reiteração da expropriabilidade de bens por interesse social – tal como referido na Constituição de 1946 – sobre vir suposta uma modalidade de desapropriação específica para imóveis rurais, em certas condições, com pagamento em títulos da dívida pública, resgatáveis em parcelas anuais e sucessivas ao longo de 20 anos (art. 157, §§ da Carta de 1967 e 161 e §§ da Carta de 1969), ambas proclamam explicitamente a “função social da propriedade”. Fazem-no em termos que podem ser considerados enfáticos, pois a Carta de 1967, no art. 157 e a de 1969, no art. 160, declaram ser finalidade da ordem social realizar entre outros princípios arrolados, o da “função social propriedade” (item III dos citados versículos). Já agora, portanto, não se trata apenas de coibir o uso antissocial da propriedade, mas o de fazer com que cumpra tal função, já que esta passa a ser um bem jurídico conaturalmente definido, a nível constitucional, como teleologicamente orientado para este destino. 6. Surge aqui o primeiro dentre os quatro tópicos que, nesta exposição, nos propomos a aflorar com base no direito posto, a saber: 1) a propriedade é uma função social ou é direito que deve cumprir uma função social? 2) em nosso sistema podem ser distinguidos como direitos autônomos, o direito de propriedade e o direito de usar dela? 3) dever-se-á entender por função social apenas o destino economicamente útil do bem ou com tal locução quer-se significar, demais disso, a possibilidade de operar um projeto de “justiça social”, substanciável – à moda do que referia a Constituição de 1946 – com propósito de favorecer a ampliação do acesso de todos à propriedade, gerando iguais oportunidades aos indivíduos ou concorrendo para ensejá-las? 4) cabem apenas limitações à propriedade, isto é, vedações ao uso insatisfatório dela à luz da função social, ou podem ser impostas injunções positivas para exigir que se engaje nesta linha de interesse? 7. Consideremos o primeiro tópico. Estamos em crer que, ao lume do direito positivo constitucional, a propriedade ainda está claramente configurada como um direito que deve cumprir uma função social e não como sendo pura e simplesmente uma função social, isto é, bem protegido tão só na medida em que a realiza. Deveras, a entender-se que o protegido é a propriedade função-social, ter-se-ia, consequentemente, que concluir ausente a proteção jurídica a ou às propriedades que não estivessem cumprindo função social. Estas, pois, deveriam ser suscetíveis de serem perdidas, sem qualquer indenização, toda e cada vez que fosse demonstrável seu desajuste à função social que deveriam preencher. Ora, o art. 161 da Carta do País, prevê desapropriação, mediante indenização, embora através dos aludidos títulos da dívida pública, para os imóveis rurais incursos nesta modalidade expropriatória. Pois bem, quais são eles? São – na dicção deste preceito – os que “contrariem o acima disposto”, isto é, o disposto no art. 160, o qual, justamente, conforme se disse, consagra a “função social da propriedade” (entre outros interesses a que a ordem econômico-social deve servir). Ergo, existe proteção também para a propriedade que contrarie a função social, conquanto tal proteção seja menos completa, pois, neste caso, a indenização devida não se apura segundo o “justo” perquirível ao lume do valor efetivo do imóvel, mas segundo os critérios que a lei estabelecer e far-se-á “em títulos especiais da dívida pública, resgatáveis no prazo de vinte anos, em parcelas anuais e sucessivas...”, tudo como dispõe o referido art. 161. 8. Diga-se de passagem que o Supremo Tribunal Federal, adversando às escâncaras a letra e o espírito do regramento constitucional, vem entendendo que, mesmo nestes casos, há de buscar-se um justo valor indenizatório aferível pelo valor de mercado. Nisto, o STF rejeitou a linguagem clara do art. 161 que remeteu o justo ao critério legal (“justa indenização segundo os critérios que a lei estabelecer”) sendo que existe lei regulando a forma de apurá-lo – o Dec.-lei 554, de 25.4.69 – como ignorou olimpicamente a ressalva do art. 153. § 22. É que este preceptivo, após estabelecer a justa indenização como regra para os casos de desapropriação, fez explícita ressalva ao disposto no art. 161. 9. De toda sorte – mesmo prescindindo da arbitrariedade interpretativa praticada pela Suprema Corte – é inegável que o art. 161 impede a intelecção de que a propriedade utilizada em descompasso com a função social carece de proteção jurídica. Donde, não ser acolhível o entendimento de que, em nosso direito, a propriedade é uma função, à falta do que assujeita-se, nos termos das leis existentes ou que se editem, às medidas conformadoras ou a eventual desapropriação. 10. O segundo tópico também não pode, ao nosso ver, ensejar resposta consentânea com as posições mais avançadas na matéria. É dizer: não cabe admitir, em face do direito brasileiro, a possibilidade de se considerar – como o fazer os direitos espanhol e italiano, por exemplo – que o direito de propriedade e o direito de usar da propriedade em sua manifestação edilícia, são direitos distintos, autônomos. Não é possível considerar que o direito de construir é uma “concessão” do Poder Público, por consistir em algo diverso do direito de propriedade. Deveras, ao declarar que é garantido o direito de propriedade, o Texto Constitucional certamente assegurou algo mais que uma palavra oca, que um som vazio, que um sem-sentido. Donde, é forçoso reconhecer que existe um conteúdo mínimo significativo ao qual se reportou a Carta do País. Se não fora assim, inexistiria garantia constitucional da propriedade, mas apenas – e eventualmente – garantia legal, pois as normas deste escalão atribuiriam (ou não) e na medida em que bem quisessem o sentido e a extensão do direito de propriedade. Não há como negar que à Lei assiste amplo espaço para delinear o direito de propriedade, mas, à toda evidência, haverá de existir um conteúdo mínimo que se tem por referido pela Carta Constitucional. O qual não pode ser desconhecido ou deprimido. 11. Qual seria este conteúdo mínimo? Ao pronunciar-se o som “propriedade” todos entendem que está sendo feita alusão à possibilidade de usar, gozar e dispor de uma coisa. Donde, ter-se-á de entender que o Texto Constitucional, ao servir-se deste vocábulo, aludiu a sua significação corrente. Sendo as palavras meios de comunicação e havendo a Lei Maior se valido de uma palavra que possui um sentido usual, uma vez que não a redefiniu, forçosamente haverá se utilizado dela na acepção que se lhe atribuiu correntemente. Logo, o direito de usar do bem e de nele edificar, assim como o direito de dispor, são expressões do direito de propriedade, dele inseparáveis, pois é o plexo destes poderes de uso, gozo e disposição que, em sua unidade, recebe o nome de direito de propriedade. Elididos estes podres, nada mais restaria. Daí a impossibilidade de considerar direitos autônomos, distinguíveis, o direito de propriedade e o direito de construir, de usar, de gozar ou de dispor do bem. 12. De outro lado, com dizer que a “função social da propriedade” é princípio basilar da ordem econômica e social, a Carta do País deixou explícito que a propriedade e que, portanto, todas as suas expressões naturais – o uso, o gozo e a disposição do bem – não só podem, mas devem, ser regulados de maneira tal qual se assujeitem às conveniências sociais e que se alinhem nesta destinação, de tal modo que a propriedade cumpra efetivamente uma função social. E aqui entramos em um tópico fundamental, a ser considerado como terceiro ponto que nos propusemos referir. Afinal, que é função social da propriedade? 13. Perante a imposição constitucional de que a ordem econômica e social realize o princípio da “função social da propriedade”, cabem, em tese, as seguintes distintas intelecções sobre o significado desta “função social” que lhe é exigida. Numa primeira acepção, considerar-se-á que a “função social da propriedade” consiste em que esta deva cumprir um destino economicamente útil, produtivo, de maneira a satisfazer as necessidades sociais preenchíveis pela espécie tipológica (ou pelo menos não poderá ser utilizada de modo a contraditar estes interesses), cumprindo, dessarte, às completas, sua vocação natural, de molde a canalizar as potencialidades residentes no bem em proveito da coletividade (ou, pelo menos, não poderá ser utilizada de modo a adversá-las). Em tal concepção do que seria a função social da propriedade, exalça-se a exigência de que o bem seja posto em aptidão para produzir sua utilidade específica, ou, quando menos, que seu uso não se faça em desacordo com a utilidade social. Nesta primeira acepção – distintamente de outro possível entendimento sobre função social da propriedade, sobre o qual se falará mais além – não se põem em pauta exigências de uma ordem social mais justa em relação aos economicamente hipossuficientes, não se coloca a temática de um maior equilíbrio ou nivelamento dos vários segmentos da sociedade; em uma palavra, não há preocupações com a chamada Justiça Distributiva. Função social da propriedade é tomada como necessidade de que o uso da propriedade responda a uma plena utilização, otimizando-se ou tendendo-se a otimizar os recursos disponíveis em mãos dos proprietários ou, então, impondo-se que as propriedades em geral não possam ser usadas, gozadas e suscetíveis de disposição, em contradita com estes mesmos propósitos de proveito coletivo. 14. É desta linha, por exemplo – para referir instituições vetustas – a previsão, nas concessões de sesmaria e cartas de data ao tempo do Brasil-Colônia, de que as terras não demarcadas e cultivas revertessem à Coroa (comisso), para serem redistribuídas a quem lhes desse destino produtivo, isto é, socialmente útil. Do mesmo modo, a Lei Imperial 601, 1850 e seu Regulamento, 1.318, de 1854 – normas que cumpriram função fundamental em matéria fundiária – prestigiaram ao máximo, nas revalidações de propriedade e legitimações de posse, a efetiva utilização da terra, vale dizer, sua preposição em atividade produtiva. A legislação vigente sobre reforma agrária (Lei 4.504, de 30.11.64) também privilegia este aspecto – da aplicação produtiva da terra – pois exclui das desapropriações embasadas no arr. 161 da Carta do País as “empresas rurais”, isto é, os imóveis economicamente aproveitados de acordo com os padrões regularmente estabelecidos. Assim, ainda aqui o que prepondera é uma concepção de fundo social da propriedade ligada à atribuição de um destino útil a ela. Advirta-se, entretanto, que o art. 161 comporta desapropriações por títulos em hipóteses muito mais amplas, posto que, conforme dantes se disse, tem incidência possível em quaisquer casos nos quais a propriedade territorial rural contrarie as diretrizes do art. 160, o qual, sobre referir a função social da propriedade, encampa ainda os princípios da “valorização do trabalho como condição da dignidade humana” (item II), “harmonia e solidariedade entre as categoriais sociais de produção” (item IV), “repressão do abuso do poder econômico, caracterizado pelo domínio dos mercados, eliminação da concorrência e aumento arbitrário dos lucros” (item V) e “expansão das oportunidades de emprego” (item VI). 15. É certo, contudo, que mesmo a perspectiva restrita sobre o alcance da expressão função social propriedade – vinculando-a tão só ao destino produtivo do bem – já permitiria adotar, caso se desejasse fazê-lo deveras, uma série de providencias aptas a conformá-la ao proveito coletivo. Assim, exempli gratia, a instituição de uma pesada e progressiva tributação sobre imóveis rurais e urbanos ociosos ou insatisfatoriamente utilizados, a proteção legal a posses produtivas sobre prédios rústicos inaproveitados por seus titulares ou sobre terrenos urbanos estocados para valorização e não edificados, seriam providências confortadas pela noção de função social da propriedade, mesmo que disto se tenha uma visão atreladas tão somente à sua aplicação útil. É verdade, consoante observação feita anteriormente, que o sistema legal não pode negar proteção à propriedade alheiada de um destino socialmente útil, pena de transmudar a propriedade em mera função social, ao invés de reconhece-la como um direito que se deve ajustar tal função, mas sem dúvida pode agravar os que se recusam a tal submissão, estimulando-os, pois, a se vergarem ao intento constitucional. 16. À expressão “função social da propriedade” pode-se também atribuir outro conteúdo, vinculando a objetivos de Justiça Social; vale dizer, comprometido com o projeto de uma sociedade mais igualitária ou menos desequilibrada – como é o caso do Brasil – no qual o acesso à propriedade e o uso dela sejam orientados no sentido de proporcionar ampliação de oportunidades a todos os cidadãos independentemente da utilização produtiva que porventura já esteja tendo. Nesta hipótese, seriam cabíveis providencias normativas que tomassem por norte estes objetivos, ensejando, e.g., desapropriações com o fito de promover o acesso à propriedade, rural ou urbana, dos sem-terra ou sem habitação, facultando disposições legais defensivas da melhoria das condições de vida dos hipossuficientes, como a participação dos empregados nos frutos, ou nos lucros de qualquer empreendimento promovido por pessoa jurídica ou física com o concurso de assalariados. 17. Parece fora de dúvida que a expressão “função social da propriedade” comporta não apenas o primeiro sentido, a que dantes se aludiu, mas também esta segunda acepção a que ora estamos reportando. Com efeito, se alguma hesitação pudesse existir tanto a isto, bastaria uma simples inspeção visual no art. 160 da Carta do País – antas vezes referido – para verificar-se que nele está explicitamente afirmado ser finalidade da ordem econômico e social realizar o desenvolvimento nacional e a justiça social. Ora bem, uma vez que estas finalidades hão de ser realizadas com base, entre outros princípios, no da “função social da propriedade” (item III), é óbvio que esta foi concebida tomando em conta objetivos de justiça social. De passagem observa-se que seria equivocado supor que entre “desenvolvimento nacional” e justiça social” haja sido priorizado o primeiro, pelo fato de – na redação do art. 160 – ter sido mencionado antes. Como bem anotou Eros Grau, tal precedência é puramente redacional, não trazendo consigo outra implicação. Aliás, basta examinar os diversos itens do preceptivo em causa para ver que apontam sobretudo para o tópico da justiça social. Assim, o que se deverá depreender dele é que o “desenvolvimento nacional” terá de se realizar de modo obediente à justiça social, ou seja, concorrendo para realiza-la. Não é ela que se atrelará ao desenvolvimento. É o desenvolvimento que se atrelará a este projeto de justiça. 18. O último dentre os quatro tópicos incialmente referidos, põe em causa a questão de saber-se se, em nome da função social da propriedade, cabe tão só a edição de regras proibitivas que obstem o uso antissocial da propriedade ou se, demais disso, há a possibilidade de impor ao dominus, através de lei, comportamentos ativos que se alinhem na direção do proveito social. Do quanto se disse até aqui já é possível inferir que consideramos exequível – revendo nisto anterior posicionamento sobre a matéria – também esta imposição legal de sujeições da propriedade a um compromisso positivo com a função social. Então, parece-nos cabível, por exemplo, a previsão de obrigações de construir, impostas ao proprietários de terrenos ociosos, ou a de coloca-los no mercado em prazo fixo, ou mesmo a de sujeitar-se a empreendimentos de remodelação urbana, à moda do que se estabelece no direito espanhol. 19. Sem embargo, cumpre ressalvar que a imposição de obrigações de fazer tem de ater-se a limites muito cautelosos para não se transmudar em instrumento de perseguições pessoais ou políticas ou ainda em veículo de favorecimento de interesses de grupos. Além disso é preciso convir que tais providencias podem igualmente ser fonte de maiores desajustes sociais quando incidem sobre segmentos da população que inobstante dispondo de propriedades muitas vezes carecem de meios para lhe dar destinação mais produtiva. Assim é que, inobstante nos pareçam compatíveis com o Texto Constitucional, para não se converterem em fórmulas que terminariam por desvirtuar a alvejada “função social da propriedade”, hão de ser compostas com critérios de aturado precado, sem o que redundariam, elas mesmas, em disposições inconstitucionais, seja por atentarem contra as garantias do cidadão arroladas no art. 153 ou decorrentes do sistema (como refere o § 36 do mesmo artigo), seja por terminarem assumindo o vetor antagônico à justiça social. Assim, apenas um exame caso por caso autorizaria a concluir se as injunções positivas guardariam ou não afinidade com o regramento constitucional. Feita essa necessária ressalva, convém esclarecer porque considerarmos aberta a possibilidade da lei impor a este propósito obrigações de agir, além das meras proibições coibitivas de uso antissocial da propriedade. É que, na Carta vigente, tal como na de 1967, não se fala apenas, como ocorria em 1946, em “condicionamento” da propriedade ao bem-estar social ou na proibição de seu exercício em contradita ao interesse social coletivo, como dizia a Constituição de 1934. Fala-se, muito claramente, que a “função social” da propriedade é princípio de toda ordem econômica e social. Logo, à propriedade atribui-se o caráter de um direito vocacionado a atender à finalidade do desenvolvimento econômico e da justiça social. Segue-se que o Estado pode pretender dos proprietários que concorram nesta direção – e não apenas que se abstenham de adversar esta diretriz (1986).

Special Care Notice This paper discusses trauma and violence inflicted upon the Indigenous peoples of Tasmania through the process of colonisation. Content within this paper may be distressing to some readers. Introduction The decimation of the First Peoples of Van Diemen’s Land (now Tasmania) was systematic and swift. First Contact was an emotionally, intellectually, physically, and spiritually confronting series of encounters for the Indigenous inhabitants. There were, according to some early records, a few examples of peaceful interactions (Morris 84). Yet, the inevitable competition over resources, and the intensity with which colonists pursued their “claims” for food, land, and water, quickly transformed amicable relationships into hostile rivalries. Jennifer Gall has written that, as “European settlement expanded in the late 1820s, violent exchanges between settlers and Aboriginal people were frequent, brutal and unchecked” (58). Indeed, the near-annihilation of the original custodians of the land was, if viewed through the lens of time, a process that could be described as one that was especially efficient. As John Morris notes: in 1803, when the first settlers arrived in Van Diemen’s Land, the Aborigines had already inhabited the island for some 25,000 years and the population has been estimated at 4,000. Seventy-three years later, Truganinni, [often cited as] the last Tasmanian of full Aboriginal descent, was dead. (84) Against a backdrop of extreme violence, often referred to as the Black War (Clements 1), there were some, admittedly dubious, efforts to contain the bloodshed. One such effort, in the late 1820s, was the production, and subsequent distribution, of a set of Proclamation Boards. Approximately 100 Proclamation Boards (the Board) were introduced by the Lieutenant Governor of the day, George Arthur (after whom Port Arthur on the Tasman Peninsula is named). The purpose of these Boards was to communicate, via a four-strip pictogram, to the Indigenous peoples of the island colony that all people—black and white—were considered equal under the law. “British Justice would protect” everyone (Morris 84). This is reflected in the narrative of the Boards. The first image presents Indigenous peoples and colonists living peacefully together. The second, and central, image shows “a conciliatory handshake between the British governor and an Aboriginal ‘chief’, highly reminiscent of images found in North America on treaty medals and anti-slavery tokens” (Darian-Smith and Edmonds 4). The third and fourth images depict the repercussions for committing murder, with an Indigenous man hanged for spearing a colonist and a European man also hanged for shooting an Aborigine. Both men executed under “gubernatorial supervision” (Turnbull 53). Image 1: Governor Davey's [sic - actually Governor Arthur's] Proclamation to the Aborigines, 1816 [sic - actually c. 1828-30]. Image Credit: Mitchell Library, State Library of NSW (Call Number: SAFE / R 247). The Board is an interesting re-imagining of one of the traditional methods of communication for Indigenous peoples; the leaving of images on the bark of trees. Such trees, often referred to as scarred trees, are rare in modern-day Tasmania as “the expansion of settlements, and the impact of bush fires and other environmental factors” resulted in many of these trees being destroyed (Aboriginal Heritage Tasmania online). Similarly, only a few of the Boards, inspired by these trees, survive today. The Proclamation Board was, in the 1860s, re-imagined as the output of a different Governor: Lieutenant Governor Davey (after whom Port Davey, on the south-west coast of Tasmania is named). This re-imagining of the Board’s creator was so effective that the Board, today, is popularly known as Governor Davey’s Proclamation to the Aborigines. This paper outlines several other re-imaginings of this Board. In addition, this paper offers another, new, re-imagining of the Board, positing that this is an early “pamphlet” on crime, justice and punishment which actually presents as a pre-cursor to the modern Australian true crime tale. In doing so this work connects the Proclamation Board to the larger genre of crime fiction. One Proclamation Board: Two Governors Labelled Van Diemen’s Land and settled as a colony of New South Wales in 1803, this island state would secede from the administration of mainland Australia in 1825. Another change would follow in 1856 when Van Diemen’s Land was, in another process of re-imagining, officially re-named Tasmania. This change in nomenclature was an initiative to, symbolically at least, separate the contemporary state from a criminal and violent past (Newman online). Tasmania’s violent history was, perhaps, inevitable. The island was claimed by Philip Gidley King, the Governor of New South Wales, in the name of His Majesty, not for the purpose of building a community, but to “prevent the French from gaining a footing on the east side of that island” and also to procure “timber and other natural products, as well as to raise grain and to promote the seal industry” (Clark 36). Another rationale for this land claim was to “divide the convicts” (Clark 36) which re-fashioned the island into a gaol. It was this penal element of the British colonisation of Australia that saw the worst of the British Empire forced upon the Aboriginal peoples. As historian Clive Turnbull explains: the brutish state of England was reproduced in the English colonies, and that in many ways its brutishness was increased, for now there came to Australia not the humanitarians or the indifferent, but the men who had vested interests in the systems of restraint; among those who suffered restraint were not only a vast number who were merely unfortunate and poverty-stricken—the victims of a ‘depression’—but brutalised persons, child-slaughterers and even potential cannibals. (Turnbull 25) As noted above the Black War of Tasmania saw unprecedented aggression against the rightful occupants of the land. Yet, the Aboriginal peoples were “promised the white man’s justice, the people [were] exhorted to live in amity with them, the wrongs which they suffer [were] deplored” (Turnbull 23). The administrators purported an egalitarian society, one of integration and peace but Van Diemen’s Land was colonised as a prison and as a place of profit. So, “like many apologists whose material benefit is bound up with the systems which they defend” (Turnbull 23), assertions of care for the health and welfare of the Aboriginal peoples were made but were not supported by sufficient policies, or sufficient will, and the Black War continued. Colonel Thomas Davey (1758-1823) was the second person to serve as Lieutenant Governor of Van Diemen’s Land; a term of office that began in 1813 and concluded in 1817. The fourth Lieutenant Governor of the island was Colonel Sir George Arthur (1784-1854); his term of office, significantly longer than Davey’s, being from 1824 to 1836. The two men were very different but are connected through this intriguing artefact, the Proclamation Board. One of the efforts made to assert the principle of equality under the law in Van Diemen’s Land was an outcome of work undertaken by Surveyor General George Frankland (1800-1838). Frankland wrote to Arthur in early 1829 and suggested the Proclamation Board (Morris 84), sometimes referred to as a Picture Board or the Tasmanian Hieroglyphics, as a tool to support Arthur’s various Proclamations. The Proclamation, signed on 15 April 1828 and promulgated in the The Hobart Town Courier on 19 April 1828 (Arthur 1), was one of several notices attempting to reduce the increasing levels of violence between Indigenous peoples and colonists. The date on Frankland’s correspondence clearly situates the Proclamation Board within Arthur’s tenure as Lieutenant Governor. The Board was, however, in the 1860s, re-imagined as the output of Davey. The Clerk of the Tasmanian House of Assembly, Hugh M. Hull, asserted that the Board was the work of Davey and not Arthur. Hull’s rationale for this, despite archival evidence connecting the Board to Frankland and, by extension, to Arthur, is predominantly anecdotal. In a letter to the editor of The Hobart Mercury, published 26 November 1874, Hull wrote: this curiosity was shown by me to the late Mrs Bateman, neé Pitt, a lady who arrived here in 1804, and with whom I went to school in 1822. She at once recognised it as one of a number prepared in 1816, under Governor Davey’s orders; and said she had seen one hanging on a gum tree at Cottage Green—now Battery Point. (3) Hull went on to assert that “if any old gentleman will look at the picture and remember the style of military and civil dress of 1810-15, he will find that Mrs Bateman was right” (3). Interestingly, Hull relies upon the recollections of a deceased school friend and the dress codes depicted by the artist to date the Proclamation Board as a product of 1816, in lieu of documentary evidence dating the Board as a product of 1828-1830. Curiously, the citation of dress can serve to undermine Hull’s argument. An early 1840s watercolour by Thomas Bock, of Mathinna, an Aboriginal child of Flinders Island adopted by Lieutenant Governor John Franklin (Felton online), features the young girl wearing a brightly coloured, high-waisted dress. This dress is very similar to the dresses worn by the children on the Proclamation Board (the difference being that Mathinna wears a red dress with a contrasting waistband, the children on the Board wear plain yellow dresses) (Bock). Acknowledging the simplicity of children's clothing during the colonial era, it could still be argued that it would have been unlikely the Governor of the day would have placed a child, enjoying at that time a life of privilege, in a situation where she sat for a portrait wearing an old-fashioned garment. So effective was Hull’s re-imagining of the Board’s creator that the Board was, for many years, popularly known as Governor Davey’s Proclamation to the Aborigines with even the date modified, to 1816, to fit Davey’s term of office. Further, it is worth noting that catalogue records acknowledge the error of attribution and list both Davey and Arthur as men connected to the creation of the Proclamation Board. A Surviving Board: Mitchell Library, State Library of New South Wales One of the surviving Proclamation Boards is held by the Mitchell Library. The Boards, oil on Huon pine, were painted by “convict artists incarcerated in the island penal colony” (Carroll 73). The work was mass produced (by the standards of mass production of the day) by pouncing, “a technique [of the Italian Renaissance] of pricking the contours of a drawing with a pin. Charcoal was then dusted on to the drawing” (Carroll 75-76). The images, once outlined, were painted in oil. Of approximately 100 Boards made, several survive today. There are seven known Boards within public collections (Gall 58): five in Australia (Mitchell Library, State Library of NSW, Sydney; Museum Victoria, Melbourne; National Library of Australia, Canberra; Tasmanian Museum and Art Gallery, Hobart; and Queen Victoria Museum and Art Gallery, Launceston); and two overseas (The Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard University and the Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, University of Cambridge). The catalogue record, for the Board held by the Mitchell Library, offers the following details:Paintings: 1 oil painting on Huon pine board, rectangular in shape with rounded corners and hole at top centre for suspension ; 35.7 x 22.6 x 1 cm. 4 scenes are depicted:Aborigines and white settlers in European dress mingling harmoniouslyAboriginal men and women, and an Aboriginal child approach Governor Arthur to shake hands while peaceful soldiers look onA hostile Aboriginal man spears a male white settler and is hanged by the military as Governor Arthur looks onA hostile white settler shoots an Aboriginal man and is hanged by the military as Governor Arthur looks on. (SAFE / R 247) The Mitchell Library Board was purchased from J.W. Beattie in May 1919 for £30 (Morris 86), which is approximately $2,200 today. Importantly, the title of the record notes both the popular attribution of the Board and the man who actually instigated the Board’s production: “Governor Davey’s [sic – actually Governor Arthur] Proclamation to the Aborigines, 1816 [sic – actually c. 1828-30].” The date of the Board is still a cause of some speculation. The earlier date, 1828, marks the declaration of martial law (Turnbull 94) and 1830 marks the Black Line (Edmonds 215); the attempt to form a human line of white men to force many Tasmanian Aboriginals, four of the nine nations, onto the Tasman Peninsula (Ryan 3). Frankland’s suggestion for the Board was put forward on 4 February 1829, with Arthur’s official Conciliator to the Aborigines, G.A. Robinson, recording his first sighting of a Board on 24 December 1829 (Morris 84-85). Thus, the conception of the Board may have been in 1828 but the Proclamation project was not fully realised until 1830. Indeed, a news item on the Proclamation Board did appear in the popular press, but not until 5 March 1830: We are informed that the Government have given directions for the painting of a large number of pictures to be placed in the bush for the contemplation of the Aboriginal Inhabitants. […] However […] the causes of their hostility must be more deeply probed, or their taste as connoisseurs in paintings more clearly established, ere we can look for any beneficial result from this measure. (Colonial Times 2) The remark made in relation to becoming a connoisseur of painting, though intended to be derogatory, makes some sense. There was an assumption that the Indigenous peoples could easily translate a European-styled execution by hanging, as a visual metaphor for all forms of punishment. It has long been understood that Indigenous “social organisation and religious and ceremonial life were often as complex as those of the white invaders” (McCulloch 261). However, the Proclamation Board was, in every sense, Eurocentric and made no attempt to acknowledge the complexities of Aboriginal culture. It was, quite simply, never going to be an effective tool of communication, nor achieve its socio-legal aims. The Board Re-imagined: Popular Media The re-imagining of the Proclamation Board as a construct of Governor Davey, instead of Governor Arthur, is just one of many re-imaginings of this curious object. There are, of course, the various imaginings of the purpose of the Board. On the surface these images are a tool for reconciliation but as “the story of these paintings unfolds […] it becomes clear that the proclamations were in effect envoys sent back to Britain to exhibit the ingenious attempts being applied to civilise Australia” (Carroll 76). In this way the Board was re-imagined by the Administration that funded the exercise, even before the project was completed, from a mechanism to assist in the bringing about of peace into an object that would impress colonial superiors. Khadija von Zinnenburg Carroll has recently written about the Boards in the context of their “transnational circulation” and how “objects become subjects and speak of their past through the ventriloquism of contemporary art history” (75). Carroll argues the Board is an item that couples “military strategy with a fine arts propaganda campaign” (Carroll 78). Critically the Boards never achieved their advertised purpose for, as Carroll explains, there were “elaborate rituals Aboriginal Australians had for the dead” and, therefore, “the display of a dead, hanging body is unthinkable. […] being exposed to the sight of a hanged man must have been experienced as an unimaginable act of disrespect” (92). The Proclamation Board would, in sharp contrast to feelings of unimaginable disrespect, inspire feelings of pride across the colonial population. An example of this pride being revealed in the selection of the Board as an object worthy of reproduction, as a lithograph, for an Intercolonial Exhibition, held in Melbourne in 1866 (Morris 84). The lithograph, which identifies the Board as Governor Davey’s Proclamation to the Aborigines and dated 1816, was listed as item 572, of 738 items submitted by Tasmania, for the event (The Commissioners 69-85). This type of reproduction, or re-imagining, of the Board would not be an isolated event. Penelope Edmonds has described the Board as producing a “visual vernacular” through a range of derivatives including lantern slides, lithographs, and postcards. These types of tourist ephemera are in addition to efforts to produce unique re-workings of the Board as seen in Violet Mace’s Proclamation glazed earthernware, which includes a jug (1928) and a pottery cup (1934) (Edmonds online). The Board Re-imagined: A True Crime Tale The Proclamation Board offers numerous narratives. There is the story that the Board was designed and deployed to communicate. There is the story behind the Board. There is also the story of the credit for the initiative which was transferred from Governor Arthur to Governor Davey and subsequently returned to Arthur. There are, too, the provenance stories of individual Boards. There is another story the Proclamation Board offers. The story of true crime in colonial Australia. The Board, as noted, presents through a four-strip pictogram an idea that all are equal under the rule of law (Arthur 1). Advocating for a society of equals was a duplicitous practice, for while Aborigines were hanged for allegedly murdering settlers, “there is no record of whites being charged, let alone punished, for murdering Aborigines” (Morris 84). It would not be until 1838 that white men would be punished for the murder of Aboriginal people (on the mainland) in the wake of the Myall Creek Massacre, in northern New South Wales. There were other examples of attempts to bring about a greater equity under the rule of law but, as Amanda Nettelbeck explains, there was wide-spread resistance to the investigation and charging of colonists for crimes against the Indigenous population with cases regularly not going to trial, or, if making a courtroom, resulting in an acquittal (355-59). That such cases rested on “legally inadmissible Aboriginal testimony” (Reece in Nettelbeck 358) propped up a justice system that was, inherently, unjust in the nineteenth century. It is important to note that commentators at the time did allude to the crime narrative of the Board: when in the most civilized country in the world it has been found ineffective as example to hang murderers in chains, it is not to be expected a savage race will be influenced by the milder exhibition of effigy and caricature. (Colonial Times 2) It is argued here that the Board was much more than an offering of effigy and caricature. The Proclamation Board presents, in striking detail, the formula for the modern true crime tale: a peace disturbed by the act of murder; and the ensuing search for, and delivery of, justice. Reinforcing this point, are the ideas of justice seen within crime fiction, a genre that focuses on the restoration of order out of chaos (James 174), are made visible here as aspirational. The true crime tale does not, consistently, offer the reassurances found within crime fiction. In the real world, particularly one as violent as colonial Australia, we are forced to acknowledge that, below the surface of the official rhetoric on justice and crime, the guilty often go free and the innocent are sometimes hanged. Another point of note is that, if the latter date offered here, of 1830, is taken as the official date of the production of these Boards, then the significance of the Proclamation Board as a true crime tale is even more pronounced through a connection to crime fiction (both genres sharing a common literary heritage). The year 1830 marks the release of Australia’s first novel, Quintus Servinton written by convicted forger Henry Savery, a crime novel (produced in three volumes) published by Henry Melville of Hobart Town. Thus, this paper suggests, 1830 can be posited as a year that witnessed the production of two significant cultural artefacts, the Proclamation Board and the nation’s first full-length literary work, as also being the year that established the, now indomitable, traditions of true crime and crime fiction in Australia. Conclusion During the late 1820s in Van Diemen’s Land (now Tasmania) a set of approximately 100 Proclamation Boards were produced by the Lieutenant Governor of the day, George Arthur. The official purpose of these items was to communicate, to the Indigenous peoples of the island colony, that all—black and white—were equal under the law. Murderers, be they Aboriginal or colonist, would be punished. The Board is a re-imagining of one of the traditional methods of communication for Indigenous peoples; the leaving of drawings on the bark of trees. The Board was, in the 1860s, in time for an Intercolonial Exhibition, re-imagined as the output of Lieutenant Governor Davey. This re-imagining of the Board was so effective that surviving artefacts, today, are popularly known as Governor Davey’s Proclamation to the Aborigines with the date modified, to 1816, to fit the new narrative. The Proclamation Board was also reimagined, by its creators and consumers, in a variety of ways: as peace offering; military propaganda; exhibition object; tourism ephemera; and contemporary art. This paper has also, briefly, offered another re-imagining of the Board, positing that this early “pamphlet” on justice and punishment actually presents a pre-cursor to the modern Australian true crime tale. The Proclamation Board tells many stories but, at the core of this curious object, is a crime story: the story of mass murder. Acknowledgements The author acknowledges the Palawa peoples: the traditional custodians of the lands known today as Tasmania. The author acknowledges, too, the Gadigal people of the Eora nation upon whose lands this paper was researched and written. The author extends thanks to Richard Neville, Margot Riley, Kirsten Thorpe, and Justine Wilson of the State Library of New South Wales for sharing their knowledge and offering their support. The author is also grateful to the reviewers for their careful reading of the manuscript and for making valuable suggestions. ReferencesAboriginal Heritage Tasmania. “Scarred Trees.” Aboriginal Cultural Heritage, 2012. 12 Sep. 2015 ‹http://www.aboriginalheritage.tas.gov.au/aboriginal-cultural-heritage/archaeological-site-types/scarred-trees›.Arthur, George. “Proclamation.” The Hobart Town Courier 19 Apr. 1828: 1.———. Governor Davey’s [sic – actually Governor Arthur’s] Proclamation to the Aborigines, 1816 [sic – actually c. 1828-30]. Graphic Materials. Sydney: Mitchell Library, State Library of NSW, c. 1828-30.Bock, Thomas. Mathinna. Watercolour and Gouache on Paper. 23 x 19 cm (oval), c. 1840.Carroll, Khadija von Zinnenburg. Art in the Time of Colony: Empires and the Making of the Modern World, 1650-2000. Farnham, UK: Ashgate Publishing, 2014.Clark, Manning. History of Australia. Abridged by Michael Cathcart. Melbourne: Melbourne University Press, 1997 [1993]. Clements, Nicholas. The Black War: Fear, Sex and Resistance in Tasmania. St Lucia, Qld.: U of Queensland P, 2014.Colonial Times. “Hobart Town.” Colonial Times 5 Mar. 1830: 2.The Commissioners. Intercolonial Exhibition Official Catalogue. 2nd ed. Melbourne: Blundell & Ford, 1866.Darian-Smith, Kate, and Penelope Edmonds. “Conciliation on Colonial Frontiers.” Conciliation on Colonial Frontiers: Conflict, Performance and Commemoration in Australia and the Pacific Rim. Eds. Kate Darian-Smith and Penelope Edmonds. New York: Routledge, 2015. 1–14. Edmonds, Penelope. “‘Failing in Every Endeavour to Conciliate’: Governor Arthur’s Proclamation Boards to the Aborigines, Australian Conciliation Narratives and Their Transnational Connections.” Journal of Australian Studies 35.2 (2011): 201–18.———. “The Proclamation Cup: Tasmanian Potter Violet Mace and Colonial Quotations.” reCollections 5.2 (2010). 20 May 2015 ‹http://recollections.nma.gov.au/issues/vol_5_no_2/papers/the_proclamation_cup_›.Felton, Heather. “Mathinna.” Companion to Tasmanian History. Hobart: Centre for Tasmanian Historical Studies, University of Tasmania, 2006. 29 Sep. 2015 ‹http://www.utas.edu.au/library/companion_to_tasmanian_history/M/Mathinna.htm›.Gall, Jennifer. Library of Dreams: Treasures from the National Library of Australia. Canberra: National Library of Australia, 2011.Hull, Hugh M. “Tasmanian Hieroglyphics.” The Hobart Mercury 26 Nov. 1874: 3.James, P.D. Talking about Detective Fiction. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2009.Mace, Violet. Violet Mace’s Proclamation Jug. Glazed Earthernware. Launceston: Queen Victoria Museum and Art Gallery, 1928.———. Violet Mace’s Proclamation Cup. Glazed Earthernware. Canberra: National Museum of Australia, 1934.McCulloch, Samuel Clyde. “Sir George Gipps and Eastern Australia’s Policy toward the Aborigine, 1838-46.” The Journal of Modern History 33.3 (1961): 261–69.Morris, John. “Notes on a Message to the Tasmanian Aborigines in 1829, popularly called ‘Governor Davey’s Proclamation to the Aborigines, 1816’.” Australiana 10.3 (1988): 84–7.Nettelbeck, Amanda. “‘Equals of the White Man’: Prosecution of Settlers for Violence against Aboriginal Subjects of the Crown, Colonial Western Australia.” Law and History Review 31.2 (2013): 355–90.Newman, Terry. “Tasmania, the Name.” Companion to Tasmanian History, 2006. 16 Sep. 2015 ‹http://www.utas.edu.au/library/companion_to_tasmanian_history/T/Tasmania%20name.htm›.Reece, Robert H.W., in Amanda Nettelbeck. “‘Equals of the White Man’: Prosecution of Settlers for Violence against Aboriginal Subjects of the Crown, Colonial Western Australia.” Law and History Review 31.2 (2013): 355–90.Ryan, Lyndall. “The Black Line in Van Diemen’s Land: Success or Failure?” Journal of Australian Studies 37.1 (2013): 3–18.Savery, Henry. Quintus Servinton: A Tale Founded upon Events of Real Occurrence. Hobart Town: Henry Melville, 1830.Turnbull, Clive. Black War: The Extermination of the Tasmanian Aborigines. Melbourne: Sun Books, 1974 [1948].