An Anthropological Assessment

of Turrbal Connection

Claim No: QUD 6196/1998; QC98/026

Note fro,m Gaynor

I have included this so that we can discuss the impications of the totemic matrimoieties in the ‘Riverine’ area of s/e Australia.

Note that there is NO mention of patriclans in this entire region., no patri- estates, etc Why not?!

What I am referring to as the Riverine in fact extends well into Queensland, beyond the Murray-Darling Basin.

Prepared at the request of the Turrbal Association by Dr Gaynor Macdonald Department of Anthropology University of Sydney June 2010 Contents 2.6 Matriclans and matrimoieties ...... 49 2.6.1 Matrimoieties ...... 49 2.6.2 Sections and marriage ...... 51 2.6.3 Marriage and residence ...... 54 Contents ...... ii 2.7 Turrbal leadership and authority ...... 54 Table of Tables ...... ix 2.7.1 Models of the Aboriginal polity ...... 55 2.7.2 Law as justice ...... 56 Table of Maps ...... ix 2.7.3 Law as care ...... 58 2.7.4 Self-help and dispute management...... 60 Table of Plates ...... x 2.7.5 Law as resource allocation ...... 60 2.7.6 Authority, knowledge and decision making ...... 64 Chapter 1: Introduction ...... 1 2.8 Religious and secular authority in the Turrbal/Riverine tradition ...... 65 1.1 Terms of reference ...... 1 Chapter 3: Mapping Turrbal Territory and Language ...... 67 1.1.1 Court guidelines ...... 1 3.1 Mapping southeastern Queensland: an analysis ...... 67 1.2 Summary of Findings ...... 4 3.1.1 The literature on mapping ...... 67 1.2.1 Findings regarding Turrbal law and custom as at 1788: ...... 4 3.2 Mapping criteria ...... 71 1.2.2 Findings regarding continuity and change in Turrbal law and custom ...... 5 3.2.1 Nations ...... 71 1.3 Report structure ...... 7 3.2.2 Language ...... 73 1.4 Specialised knowledge ...... 8 3.3 The Yagerabic/Dhurabic language family ...... 77 1.4.1 Experience ...... 8 3.3.2 Yagera ...... 80 1.4.2 Social anthropology ...... 8 3.3.3 Turrbal ...... 81 1.5 Methodology and research conducted ...... 10 3.3.4 Djandai ...... 83 1.6 My professional independence ...... 13 3.4 Mapping Turrbal-speaking territory: western limits ...... 83 1.7 Guidelines for Expert Witnesses in the Federal Court of Australia ...... 14 3.4.1 The Lower Brisbane catchment boundary: the western limits of Turrbal ...... 83 1.8 Orthography and glossary...... 14 3.4.2 Northern limits of Turrbal ...... 86 1.8.1 Orthography ...... 14 3.4.3 Pumicestone ...... 88 1.8.2 Glossary ...... 15 3.4.4 Eastern limits of Turrbal ...... 93 1.9 The Study Area ...... 16 3.4.5 Southern limits of Turrbal ...... 98 Chapter 2: Turrbal in the Context of the Riverine Cultural Bloc ...... 21 3.5 Mapping Turrbal local dialect territories ...... 99 2.1 The Riverine cultural bloc ...... 22 3.5.1 Buyubara/Bo-oobera local territory ...... 99 2.1.1 The distinctiveness of the Riverine system within Australia ...... 22 3.5.2 Pine Rivers local territory ...... 100 2.1.2 The Riverine in south eastern Queensland ...... 25 3.5.3 Caboolture River local territory ...... 101 2.2 Understanding a normative social system ...... 28 3.5.4 Tjipara (Jeeparra, Chepara, Jubiwara) local territory ...... 102 2.2.1 Normative systems as vehicle for the transmission of law and custom ...... 28 3.5.5 Kulpurum/Coorpooroo local territory ...... 102 2.2.2 ‘Society’ ...... 28 3.5.6 Local-territory economies ...... 102 2.2.3 Social organisation – Conceptual clarification ...... 29 Chapter 4: Laws and customs in relation to land immediately prior to 1778 ...... 106 2.2.4 Dual identity ...... 30 4.1 The nature and content of Turrbal law relating to land ...... 106 2.3 Kinship as pathways to social action ...... 32 4.1.1 Introductory remarks ...... 106 2.3.1 Principles of Turrbal kinship ...... 32 4.2 The laws through which rights and interests in land were attained ...... 109 2.3.2 Characteristics of the Riverine cultural bloc immediately prior to 1788: ...... 36 4.2.1 Means by which rights in land were ascribed ...... 109 2.3.3 Language groups and the significance of ‘language’ ...... 38 4.2.2 Filiation ...... 111 2.3.4 Tribe ...... 39 4.2.3 The argument against patri-filiation ...... 111 2.3.5 Hordes, band clusters, local groups and divisions ...... 40 4.2.4 Place of birth ...... 113 2.3.6 Clans ...... 41 4.2.5 Filiation vs. descent ...... 114 2.4 Totems and their social and spatial significances ...... 42 4.2.6 Uxoripatrilocal residence and mother’s country ...... 115 2.5 Individuals’ sites and fertility sites ...... 47 4.2.7 Adoption and fostering ...... 116

Turrbal Anthropological Report / Macdonald / p.iii Turrbal Anthropological Report / Macdonald / p.iv 4.3 Differential exercise of rights ...... 117 5.3.16 The move to Bribie Island ...... 157 4.3.1 Shared rights ...... 117 5.3.17 Wamgool and Tommy ...... 158 4.3.2 Rights differentiated by age ...... 118 5.3.18 Working on stations ...... 159 4.3.3 Rights differentiated by gender ...... 118 5.3.19 Engaging with pastoralists ...... 161 4.3.4 Rights differentiated by knowledge ...... 118 5.4 Brisbane and Mary River Valleys ...... 163 4.3.5 Rights differentiated by totemic affiliation ...... 120 5.4.1 Turrbal individuals within a regionalised system ...... 163 4.3.6 Rights outside local territories stemming from totemic relations ...... 120 5.4.2 Early pastoral stations ...... 163 4.3.7 Rights differentiated by locality ...... 120 5.4.3 Narangba and Menvil Wanmuran/ Jackie Delaney ...... 164 4.3.8 Individual succession ...... 121 5.4.4 Kilkivan ...... 164 4.3.9 Rights differentiated by seniority ...... 123 5.4.5 Monisdale ...... 165 4.3.10 Economic rights ...... 124 5.5 Goomeri district (Wakka Wakka/Gabi Gabi border area) ...... 166 4.4 Visiting and trespass ...... 125 5.5.1 Booubyjan, Windera and Boonimba ...... 166 4.4.1 The value of visiting ...... 125 5.5.2 Jimmy Crowe (Booubyjan Cobbo) (c1830-1893) ...... 166 4.4.2 Trespass ...... 126 5.5.3 Duncan Tjiburoo Crowe, ...... 167 4.4.3 Breaches of rights ...... 129 5.5.4 Billy Ward ...... 168 4.4.4 Alienation of rights ...... 129 5.5.5 Billy Isaacs (1880-1923) ...... 169 4.4.5 Rights of non-member residents ...... 129 5.6 Kenilworth and Imbil district (Gabi Gabi) ...... 169 4.5 Succession ...... 130 5.6.1 Imbil station ...... 169 4.5.1 Individual succession ...... 130 5.6.2 Tommy ‘Longshanks’ (Peter) Imbil ...... 170 4.5.2 Group succession...... 130 5.6.3 Kenilworth Station ...... 171 5.6.4 Kitty Kulkarawa ...... 171 Chapter 5: The Turrbal in historical context ...... 132 5.6.5 Bulimba Station ...... 173 5.1 The analysis of change in the social and cultural lives of Turrbal people ...... 133 5.6.6 Yandina ...... 173 5.1.1 Ethnohistorical methodology ...... 133 5.6.7 Jimmy Isaac (Isaac Isaac) ...... 174 5.1.2 Before and during the nineteenth century ...... 138 5.6.8 Lizzie Yoelbungbin Brown (aka ‘Saturday Lizzie’) ...... 175 5.2 A chronological view of 19th century Turrbal experiences ...... 139 5.7 Dealing with change ...... 175 5.2.1 1820s ...... 139 5.7.1 Joseph Monkland ...... 176 5.2.2 1840s ...... 140 5.7.2 Davey and Annie Crowe...... 177 5.2.3 1850s ...... 143 5.8 Questions about other ancestors ...... 177 5.2.4 1860s ...... 144 5.8.1 Descendants of Gairballie “King Sandy and/or Naewin ‘Sarah’ ...... 177 5.2.5 1870s ...... 146 5.8.2 King Jackey Jackey, King of the Logan and Pimpana ...... 180 5.2.6 1880s ...... 148 5.8.3 Tommy Minippi Rawlins, King of Tingala ...... 180 5.2.7 1890s ...... 149 5.8.4 Bell/Bonner ...... 181 5.3 Turrbal people of the nineteenth century ...... 149 5.8.5 Kirk family members ...... 182 5.3.1 Dakiyakka, Duke of York ...... 150 5.8.6 Bond family members ...... 183 5.3.2 Molrubin ...... 152 5.9 Life on Barambah/Cherbourg ...... 183 5.3.3 Gavan Mary/Cabon Mary ...... 152 5.9.1 Establishing Barambah/Cherbourg ...... 183 5.3.4 King of Toorbul/Turrbal ...... 152 5.9.2 The spatial socialities of Cherbourg ...... 187 5.3.5 King Brown ...... 153 5.9.3 Learning the laws of spatial and social identity ...... 188 5.3.6 Turrbal ‘chiefs’ ...... 153 5.9.4 Evidence of the continuity of law and custom ...... 191 5.3.7 Dalaipi and Peter Stanley ...... 153 5.9.5 Nudla Crowe and William ‘Willie’ Crowe ...... 192 5.3.8 Gairballie (Kerwalli) ‘King Sandy’ (?-1900) ...... 154 5.10 The kin networks of Riverine people ...... 194 5.3.9 Sam Pootingga (c1831-1905) ...... 155 5.10.1 The extent of networks ...... 194 5.3.10 King Johnny/Billy Cook ...... 155 5.10.2 Demonstrating kin networks ...... 197 5.3.11 Telweea ‘Billy Button’ ...... 155 5.10.3 A continuing Turrbal presence ...... 202 5.3.12 Billy Lillis, Gabi Gabi ...... 156 5.11 Contemporary lives ...... 202 5.3.13 King Fred and Queen Elena ...... 157 5.11.1 Continuing connection to Turrbal language-territory ...... 202 5.3.14 Thamgun-Gan-i ...... 157 5.11.2 The Turrbal claim group is currently constituted by: ...... 202 5.3.15 Dundalli and Billy Barlow ...... 157

Turrbal Anthropological Report / Macdonald / p.v Turrbal Anthropological Report / Macdonald / p.vi 5.11.3 Connie Isaacs ...... 202 6.9 Recognition of rights of Turrbal claimants ...... 265 5.11.4 Connie Isaacs’ family ...... 206 6.9.1 Recognition by non-Turrbal neighbours ...... 265 5.11.5 David ‘Dave’ Isaacs ...... 207 6.9.2 Rights of succession ...... 267 5.11.6 Arthur Isaacs ...... 209 5.11.7 Maroochy Barambah ...... 211 Chapter 7: Conclusions ...... 270

Chapter 6. Continuities and discontinuities in Riverine law and custom ...... 224 References ...... 276 6.1 Introduction ...... 224 6.1.1 Outlining the chapter ...... 224 Appendix A: Short Curriculum Vitae ...... 290 6.1.2 Processes of change and their interpretation ...... 225 6.2 Changes in the Riverine/Turrbal system of belief ...... 226 6.2.1 Cosmology in the context of law ...... 226 6.2.2 Law and religion ...... 227 6.2.3 Spiritual knowledge and power ...... 229 6.3 Changes in systems of social organisation ...... 230 6.3.1 Kin relatedness as the core of the normative order ...... 230 6.3.2 Kin networks and the totemic matrimoieties ...... 233 6.4 Changes in law and custom relating to land ownership ...... 234 6.4.1 Rights and responsibilities of landowners ...... 235 6.4.2 Continuities in the ascription of primary rights ...... 235 6.4.3 The exercise of primary rights ...... 236 6.4.4 Secondary rights (privileges) ...... 237 6.4.5 Rights acquired through place of birth ...... 237 6.4.6 Rights acquired through totemic affiliations ...... 239 6.4.7 Rights acquired through marriage ...... 240 6.4.8 Changes in marriage laws ...... 241 6.4.9 Long-term residence ...... 243 6.4.10 Close kin ties ...... 244 6.4.11 Continuities in the traditions regarding corporeality ...... 244 6.4.12 Disregard for rights and appropriate responses ...... 245 6.4.13 Activating one’s primary rights ...... 246 6.5 Changes in the Riverine/Turrbal system of law ...... 249 6.5.1 Continuities in the form of Riverine law ...... 250 6.5.2 Judical law ...... 250 6.5.3 The laws of care and sharing ...... 251 6.5.4 The secularising of laws ...... 253 6.6 Leadership and authority ...... 253 6.6.1 Social responsibility ...... 254 6.6.2 Looking after and responsibility ...... 254 6.6.3 Access to resources, including avenues for law enforcement ...... 256 6.7 Limitations on ability to enforce laws ...... 257 6.7.1 Dealing with offences ...... 257 6.7.2 Transforming resources to re-establish social values ...... 259 6.7.3 Systems of self-help ...... 262 6.8 Cultural transmission ...... 264 6.8.1 Facilitating cultural transmission: Barambah/Cherbourg ...... 264 6.8.2 Knowing and transmitting law and custom ...... 264

Turrbal Anthropological Report / Macdonald / p.vii Turrbal Anthropological Report / Macdonald / p.viii Chapter 2: Turrbal in the Context of the Riverine Cultural Bloc  The claim to filiation, as the law which connects or embodies people within a specific, named language-territory, is only one ‘ingredient’ of an extensive kinship system and must be validated within that wider system;

Key points in Chapter 2:  Spatial (territorial) and social (kin) identities are distinctively constructed and legitimated but are interdependent in ensuring the transmission of rights  The normative social order (‘society’) of which Turrbal territory and thus and interests in territory. Turrbal landowners were a part is the Riverine cultural bloc; 2.1 The Riverine cultural bloc  The forms of social organisation which provide the principle vehicle for the recognition and transmission of normative social practice, value and law were based on social relations conceptualised in terms of kinship; 2.1.1 The distinctiveness of the Riverine system within Australia 2.1.1.1 In this chapter I am referring to what I consider to have been the case immediately  Various ways of organising kin for different activities existed in the past, only prior to 1788 (and expressing my opinions in this regard), even where I write in the some of which are evident today; present tense to describe aspects of the system as I understand it to have existed at

 The normative social world of which Turrbal were a part was regionalised and that point, except where I explicitly refer to something as being the case in the modern not confined to residents of Turrbal language-territory or to Turrbal land- era/present day. As stated in chapter 1 above, I am making assumptions of fact that owners; observed in the early contact era and through to the beginning of the twentieth century  The regionalised nature of the normative social world for Turrbal people werethe relevant the same practices as those and practices behaviours which of weremembers being of carried the Riverine out, and ‘society’ behaviours which which were included people who identified with adjoining and adjacent language- were being exhibited by, members of that society since prior to 1788. In this chapter, territories; I cite relevant contact-era accounts as evidence of pre-1788 practices and behaviours. (The same accounts could of course be relied on as evidence of continuity in generations  Unlike the non-negotiable spatial identity of those people with rights in a particular territory (land-owners), social relations, responsibilities and rights following European contact, but I engage with such sources in that context in chapters gave rise to extensive networks which had regionalised patterns and were not 5 and 6 below.) bounded; 2.1.1.2 It has been recognised by anthropologists since the 1970s that there are large Aboriginal cultural blocs which approximate ecological regions in Australia (Peterson  Regionalised kin-based social networks were not left to chance or preference: 1976) but it is not as well known that there are distinct differences between them (but they were a part of a complex structuring of kin relatedness based on unbounded see Keen 2004). The Riverine cultural bloc is one such bloc. Others include, for instance, socio-centric (totemic) and ego-centric (genealogical) social relations; Arnhem Land, the Central Desert, the Western Desert and the Kimberley. The Riverine  It was in the interests of people associated with a particular territory to have cultural bloc encompasses the entire Murray-Darling River system with the exception wide kin/social links, which sustained systems of resource-sharing, political of the Murray River mouth. I demonstrate below (Chapter 3) that it also encompasses strength and recognition, ceremonial life and forms of knowledge, and the inland river systems of southeast Queensland and the coastal area into which these marriage;

 The composition of local residential groupings was not based on formal 2.1.1.3rivers The flow. Riverine bloc is distinctive for its matrimoiety totemic system and the structures of descent but the core of a local residential grouping was comprised of one or more land-owners and other kin, Turrbal and non-Turrbal; A preliminary point important for the consideration of people-place relations in the absence of patriclans. The significance of these features is described in this chapter.  The people who identified with a language-territory did not necessarily live with place and become landowners) differs from that of social organisation (how people within it or speak its language, fluently or otherwise; areRiverine organised is that vis-à-vis the Riverine each other system for ofa variety local organisation of social contexts). (how people Local organisation are identified is

 Kin-oriented social organisation did not produce bounded membership of social groups but there is no ambiguity about membership of the group who in terms of a catchment or sub-catchment of a river system, a distinctive language and, precise, bounded and mappable in the Riverine area and is based on territories defined may claim Turrbal identity and thus constitute the land-owning group; at a more local level, a distinctive ecology. The ways in which people are organised for cultural and social purposes does not correspond to these mappable localities. In

Turrbal Anthropological Report / Macdonald / p.21 Turrbal Anthropological Report / Macdonald / p.22 used, especially where the language territory was extensive. But this is not an Aboriginal concept and can be misleading. For instance, R H Mathews (1898) sought to identify territoryother words, with throughout which a language this cultural is associated. bloc, a ‘social group’ is not confined to ‘a locality’. Likewise, a ‘society’ cannot be identified by an individual language or by an individual 2.1.1.4 complexitynations because to support he recognised these localised the interdependency groupings and, when of smaller he saw features territorially-defined in common, network of regionalised relations. While the wider system of law and custom is that units. He anticipated that there ought to be a form of social organisation of sufficient The notion of ‘society’ in the Riverine needs to be understood in terms of a of the Riverine as a whole, law and custom was recognised, observed and transmitted Wiradjuri or Gamilaraay are simply references to large territories over which the same at the lower level of the regionalised network within which members of various languagetended to is identify spoken. this Language-territories commonality as a are nation. not socially But references or politically to ‘nations’ bounded. such The as

dialect territories but were shared, reproduced and transmitted through networked language-territories participated. Law and customs were not specific to language/ relationships based on kinship. northinterconnectedness by the same source: of people the is mountain. more like As a flow, I will like show the in rivers the case themselves. of river Evencatchments where below,ranges itintervene, is not too the much creeks to say that that flow the toriver the system south areitself connected was the metaphor to those thator model flow 2.1.1.5 for social connectedness, and this was explicitly stated in the performance of ritual. understanding the regionalised nature of law, custom and authority, across various localisedThe language-territories. distinction between Just social as ecology and local – the organisation network of isrivers, thus creeks significant and the to thousands of special and unique features along them – connected territories over a huge terrain, so too did social and cultural practices network people across vast distances.

territories which in turn were part of language-territories. In turn, these language- territoriesAt the same were time, part each of an person entire was river identified system. The in termsgeo-cultural of specific model sites, that within determines local

based on hydrography and topography. I have found no exceptions to this model within theboundaries vast Riverine, in the andRiverine it is evident is based on on the the coastal river system. strip to Socially-defined its east as well. territories are

The relationship between the territorial distinctions reflects that of the river system in the following way:

Creeks and tributaries (= -bara in s/e Qld) used by residential groupings for of a main river hunting/gatheringSmallest named ‘local-territories’, and named for an ecological characteristic Territory known by its language, Sub-catchment of a (-bal/bul in s/e Qld) main river system Grouping of language-territories, River catchment as a As in the entire ‘language-territory’ possibly distinguishable by the whole Brisbane River naming style of the languages catchment - not named Higher order grouping, used in Grouping of river The Riverine cultural anthropology and possibly also catchments with bloc known to Aboriginal people by the similar ecological and naming style of the languages cultural characteristics

2.1.1.6 The higher order level of cultural-social-ecological organisation referred to by anthropologists as the Riverine cultural bloc is not named in Aboriginal practice. It is recognisable, however, in the sharing of law and custom over thousands of square kilometres (see Map 2.1). Although early researchers attempted to identify a higher order Map 2.1: The Murray-Darling River system of south eastern Australia

which might be contained as ‘a society’, this remainedTurrbal elusive. Anthropological The idea Report of / ‘nations’ Macdonald /was p.23 Turrbal Anthropological Report / Macdonald / p.24 2.1.2 The Riverine in south eastern Queensland

2.1.2.1 The Riverine system that is described here has been the focus of my own research 2.1.2.2 Map 2.3 clearly shows the presumed limits of the Riverine system as being the for many years, predominantly in central western New South Wales. It is only recently limits of the catchments of the Murray-Darling system which extends into southern that I have been able to conduct the comparative work required to support the model Queensland. However, there is evidence that the Riverine social/cultural system was put forward here. What has not previously been recognised is that portions of the spreading north and east, across the Great Dividing Range, to the southern Queensland southeastern region of Queensland should be included within the anthropological coast. The study region base map (Map 1.3 above) illustrates the topographical understanding of the Riverine bloc. On the basis of my previous research as relationship between the Murray-Darling catchment and the rivers of the study region. complemented by my research conducted for the Turrbal native title claim, I have On the basis of my analysis of materials for south eastern Queensland, I have formed the opinion that the Turrbal, Yagera, Gabi Gabi, Wakka Wakka, and possibly other The bloc has been associated in the past only with the Murray-Darling River catchment. language territories, are part of the same cultural system. There are regional variations Horton’sreached a (1996) firm opinion map (Map that the2.2) study is useful region in doesthat, indeedalthough form not part meant of the to Riverinebe precise, bloc. it throughout, but these are slight compared to the extent of the similarities. What is includes not only the distribution of language-territories but also the ways in which they have been understood as constituting regional cultural blocs (by red lines). He shows the Murray Darling River drainage system as one cultural bloc, the Riverine. notable is that the creeks of the northern part of the Murray-Darling system, flowing south to the Barwon River, flow from the same ranges as those which flow north into the rivers which flow into the Brisbane River.

Map 2.2 Aboriginal Australia showing cultural blocs Source: Horton 1996 Map 2.3: Northern portion of Riverine cultural bloc source: adapted from Horton 1996

Turrbal Anthropological Report / Macdonald / p.25

Turrbal Anthropological Report / Macdonald / p.26 2.1.2.3 I am not able to give an historical trajectory to these movements, which were, language-territory might suggest. It is my opinion that his has been a critical factor in in any case, disturbed by the intensive and rapid colonisation of the whole region in the history of Turrbal cultural reproduction over time, and thus in the transmission of the nineteenth century. However, what this does illustrate is the dynamic nature of rights and interests in land (I address these matters in detail in chapters 5 and 6 below). Aboriginal social life. It cannot be assumed, as has often been the case, that there was a set of static, non-changing social worlds prior to British colonisation. 2.2 Understanding a normative social system 2.1.2.4 The Riverine cultural system does not include the Bundjalung language territories to the south of Turrbal, such as Yugambeh on the Logan River, the Gold Coast area, 2.2.1 Normative systems as vehicle for the transmission of law and custom and the northern coastal rivers of New South Wales. It may not have included Moreton 2.2.1.1 Any system of law must exist within a social vehicle which recognises, legitimates, upholds and transmits that law. This is done through the ways in which social relations family. Bannister (1984:2) clearly saw a difference between the Gnoogee of Moreton are organised over time, and through the cultural values and beliefs which inform IslandIsland, andwhere the the rest Gowar of the languageregion. It reflects may be thethat influence Moreton ofIsland the Bundjalungwas still undergoing language those social processes, giving social practices their meaning and value over time. It is a process of change as at 1788. This does suggest that the south east of Queensland important to understand cultural and social life as both distinctive but interdependent. may have been more closely aligned with the Bundjalung coastal territories in former They do not necessarily change together or in the same ways. Practices can be introduced times. Ridley (1866), very familiar with the overall Riverine social system which he from one social context to another but be given different meanings (examples I discuss

in mediating change in economic and social practice in the Riverine bloc). The body andcalled many Kamilaroi other tribes,(after hisas farfirst at studies least as among Wide BayGamilaraay in Queensland people), and also the recognised Maranoa, thisare ofin Chapterculturally-informed 6 below include social gamblingpractice which and dancing, provides which what have can beenbe referred of significance to as a fromextension their ofbirth the divided Riverine into area four into classes, south-eastern distinguished Queensland: in Kamilaroi ‘All Kamilaroi by the following blacks, normative system does not imply that any system does not have a variety of practices, names …’ Wide Bay marks the northerly point of the Gabi Gabi language territory.

the Darling River, just west of Brewarrina. Ridley’s remarks are consistent with the sometimes contradictory, sometimes in conflict. The Maranoa River is one of the most northerly tributaries which flows south into 2.2.2 ‘Society’ 2.2.2.1 2.1.2.5mapping Another of the feature Riverine of interestcultural isbloc that as the I have Brisbane defined River it here. as well as the Mary River, the organisation capable of transmitting law and custom. The European notion of society two largest rivers of the study region, while rising from the east of the Great Dividing assumesIn non-legala relationship contexts, between the notion territory, of ‘society’language refers and people, to specific such forms that laws of social and customs are integral to and inherent in that relationship, which can then be distinguished valleys as do the rivers of the Murray-Darling system. The Mary River and Brisbane River,Range, with flow north/souththeir tributaries, on the although west of moreto the easterly west of ranges, the Great thus creatingDividing wideRange, inland are language are in an inseparable relationship and form only one part of every person’s from another ‘society’. In the Aboriginal case, it is my opinion that territory and the sea. They are thus distinguishable from the coastal rivers to the south of the study nevertheless rivers which flow west of more easterly ranges before they turn to flow to dual identity (see further below). Every person must know ‘where’ they come from. above). However, this is an insufficient identity. One must also have a social identity, and be part region which flow more directly from the east of the ranges to the sea (see Map 1.2 through which one learns the law and custom of the peoples of the region within which of a social constellation, made up of people known as kin (consanguineal and affinal) 2.1.2.6 Turrbal territory is located. It is necessary that these people be kin or totemically- study region in Queensland, apart from the rivers and creeks which are part of the associated (which is also a way of indicating kinship but can be genealogically distant Murray-DarlingI am not able system to say and what thus influences part of the the Riverine. Riverine culturalThe south-eastern system had Queensland west of the even if totemically close) but it is not necessary that they all be Turrbal, although some area is the only place where the Riverine system extends to the coast, as it does not include the mouth of the Murray River itself. 2.2.2.2will necessarilyIn order to be accuratelyTurrbal because describe of one’s the filialpre-sovereignty relationship model to Turrbal of the identity. normative 2.1.2.7 system of which the Turrbal were and are a part, I have found the equivalence of will become apparent below when the social-cultural characteristics of the bloc are The significance of recognising that Turrbal is within the Riverine cultural bloc in a European political model (see, especially, Rumsey 1993) – to be ethnographically elaborated. In short, the Riverine comprises sets of interlocked social networks which language and territory with a normative social order – which usually defines ‘a society’ operate in a regionalised way to link people within and across language-territories. It misleading and potentially distorting. Hence, to avoid any ambiguity in my use of the follows from the inclusion of Turrbal in the Riverine that Turrbal social organisation will be more extensively networked over a much larger region than the notion of a Turrbal term society, I define it not as Turrbal but as the Riverine normative social system of

Turrbal Anthropological Report / Macdonald / p.27 which Turrbal is a part. This is an ethnographicallyTurrbal more Anthropological specifiable Report way / of Macdonald describing / p.28 the dual memberships (spatial and social, see below) which a Turrbal claimant in the present day should be required to demonstrate. This is no way negates or denies the territory did not operate as a holistic social unit. In other words, it would be erroneous need to demonstrate that a normative social system has existed over time and that this people who can be identified as land owners of a specifiable and mappable language- normative system includes those laws and customs by which people acquire their right to identify with and speak for particular territories. discussto assume these that themes patriclans to demonstrate had ‘disappeared’, characteristics or that landowners of the normative of a language-territory social system of were equivalent to the constitution of a ‘society’ or ‘normative social system’. Below I 2.2.2.3 Within the normative social system of the Riverine there were many differences on characteristics essential to the transmission of rights in territory, as were able to be of language because it included many territories. Sacred stories which pertained exercisedthe Riverine, by land-owners.the Riverine ‘society’ of which Turrbal people are a part. I focus especially

to specific locations within the Riverine differed from those told in other Riverine 2.2.4 Dual identity below),locations. this Yet can there legitimately is a significant be called degree a regional of cultural cultural similarity bloc. Turrbal in modes local of socialand social and 2.2.4.1 The normative social system within which all Turrbal people and their Riverine organisationlocal organisation conforms such withthat, givenall the local major specificities characteristics (some of of this which cultural I will bloc. be illustrating

neighbours operated had two inseparable and interdependent dimensions: The first is 2.2.3 Social organisation – Conceptual clarification territory over which they acquired the right to identify and, in time, the right to speak forthe andsystem make by decisions which people about were this identifiedterritory and/or spatially portions – in other of it. words, This localised with a particular identity 2.2.3.1 I describe below, in as straightforward a way as possible, the key features of Turrbal social organisation as it stood, in my opinion, immediately prior to 1788, including the cultural rationale for any particular form of social organisation: people was derived from a specific, bounded territory, associated with a specific, named organise for a variety of reasons not all of which are relevant to this report. Having language. I have specifically referred to this as a ‘language-territory’ in this report and done so, I will be in a better position to demonstrate the extent to which changes in will describe it more fully in Chapter 3. To claim ‘Turrbal’ identity was to claim this beliefs, values and practices are changes of form but are essentially the same vehicle eachspatial human identity. being It refers as a unique to ‘being and of’ autonomous that territory, person to being but onea manifestation who was embedded of spirit in essence, or whether they are more radical changes in kind which have broken with inancestors a vast network of that territory of social who relations worked and through responsibilities. filial (parent This to child) spatial links system to constitute will be traditions of the past. I will show in what follows that both forms of change are evident, described in more detail in following chapters. and that this distinction will enable the assessment of the extent to which change has or has not impacted on law and custom over time. 2.2.4.2 for the purposes of participation in various social activities (a large number of which 2.2.3.2 requireThe as second a prerequisite is the system that of one social is able organisation, to identify through oneself which spatially people – theseare identified are not Aboriginal Australia, can distort understanding of a distinctive system. Terms such as alternative but equally important and interdependent identities). Social organisation Early studies, and the influence of inapplicable models from other parts of reality of Riverine forms of social organisation. Thus, I take it as a methodological startingtribe, clan, point community, that it is importantsociety, horde not andto treat others the may models or may of social not reflect and local the ethnographic organisation 2.2.4.3was usuallyThese dualexpressed spatial/social in terms identities of kin relatedness are not identical and/or totemicand only affiliation. partially overlap in

both were essential to the legitimising of a claim to rights and interests in country. The beidentified established in one ethnographically. part of Aboriginal I clarify Australia below as providingthe exact ways a model in which or precedent terms (such for any as that spatial identities are based on filiation, one expression of kin-relatedness. However, other part. Whether there are commonalities which allow for comparison must first the spirit world through one’s spirit land on one’s death. forms of social organisation interacted with the system of locality-based organisation first identity, spatial, is foundational – one is born out of the spirit-land and returns to ‘clan’) are or are not applicable in the Riverine social system so as to demonstrate which 2.2.4.4 The second, social identity, is as important because it is through social engagement that a person learns the laws and customs by which his or her spatial/territorial identity 2.2.3.3which One gave of people the reasons rights infor specific taking language-territories.due care, from an anthropological perspective, of is recognised and legitimated, and which allows for the reproduction of law and custom over time. Neither spatial nor social identity accord rights independently of the other, and these relations are maintained, structurally and socially, through kinship networks. formodels instance, relied that on therein analysis were nois patriclansthat a mis-identification in the pre-sovereignty of past practicenormative can system give anof theimpression Riverine. of Matriclans ‘cultural loss’ did existwhen, but in did fact, not no establish such practice rights ever to land, existed. although I argue they below, gave rise to the regionalised normative system of social organisation. This regionalised social

system was not definable by reference to the boundariesTurrbal Anthropological of a language-territory: Report / Macdonald those / p.29 Turrbal Anthropological Report / Macdonald / p.30 2.2.4.5 It was through participation in an active and ongoing system of kinship networking with people who share their laws and customs such that they have been able to acquire that a person could acquire the knowledge, laws and customs which entitled him or her these. Filiation to a language-territory delineates a person’s primary territorial-based to identify with, speak for and make decisions about the territory to which they were rights, expressed in terms of the language which adheres to that territory. This right, however, is meaningless unless accompanied by the laws and customs which translate that right into customary social practice. Social engagement in an active network of whofiliated. were This known required to share that a the Turrbal same person normative engage laws within and customs an active as social Turrbal network people. that I the relevant normative social system determines whether one acquires the laws and willincluded explain Turrbal in the as discussion well as people below who why identified these social with networks other language-territories, cannot be restricted but to customs which apply to that territory and others within that system.

people. People were networked, through kinship, over sometimes vast areas. It is within 2.3 Kinship as pathways to social action thesepeople networks who identified of relationships as Turrbal. that Their a personnetworks would would learn always their include laws and non-Turrbal customs,

2.3.1 Principles of Turrbal kinship 2.2.4.6including Thus, those there which was pertaina normative to the social territory order with of whichwhich they each identified. Turrbal person was a 2.3.1.1 part. The normative order was greater than the territory, language, rights or people The Turrbal kinship system is ‘classificatory’, kin of varying genealogical relationship being classified together under one term (known to anthropologists as ‘the identified as Turrbal. Those people who identified with a particular local territory and and also mother’s sister, mother’s mother’s sister’s daughter, and so on. This system is wellequivalence known ofin siblings’the Aboriginal rule). Aand term general such asanthropological ‘mother’ will includeliterature. a person’s Turrbal motherpeople necessaryits language/dialect that they didreside not in constitute that territory. a ‘social People group’ who for had any the purpose. right toThey identify did not as Turrbalnecessarily might ever reside come in together various non-Turrbalas a relevant territories, and functioning and might ‘group’, speak and a numberit was not of system because they are used to encompassing a far greater range of kin than would be languages. They must have had access to knowledge about Turrbal territory, however, commontoday use to English English kin language terms, speakersbut they retainof European some oforigin. the features of the classificatory and direct knowledge if they were to gain the right to speak for it or make decisions about 2.3.1.2 to specify the recognition and activation of a set of reciprocal obligations, privileges it. Thus, to demonstrate connection to specific territory over time it was essential that Whilst kin terms reflect genealogically-defined relationships, they are also used knowna person to be have able been to demonstrate able to transmit not lawonly and their custom filial relationship for that normative (ultimately system. traceable to an ‘apical ancestor’) but also their participation in regionalised networks of people aboutand responsibilities what is expected between in a social the tworelationship. people using The termsthe terms. are thus Thus extended a ‘mother’ to shouldpeople 2.2.4.7 It is common in literature, past and present, to read that an important etiquette ofperform other genealogicalthe social role relationships expected of who a ‘mother’. do perform The theseterm roles.is a package A person of today information reared of introduction among Aboriginal peoples is to ask a person where they are from and who they are related to. This signals the dual identity that a person must establish to be fully recognizable. Thus, Maroochy Barambah would describe herself as Turrbal of genealogicalby a grandmother relationship, may address including her non-Aboriginal as ‘Mum’, for people, instance, they even are if assumed referring to to carry her the Isaacs mob. A Gabi person might describe himself as Gabi from Yandina and part of theas ‘my same grandmother’. package of meanings If extended - and in thusthe present the same day expectations to people not of the in arelationship. conventional A

Gabi language-territory. ‘the Crowe mob’, Yandina adding a more local territorial referent within the large Gabi person is called ‘brother’ in the desire that he be prepared to act as brother should, or 2.2.4.8 This dual identity is essential but means that, although any person can identify 2.3.1.3in affirmation Among Turrbalthat he doespeople so. and their neighbours, people were generally known others who are Turrbal, this list of people will not correspond with the list of people to each other by kin terms or section terms (see below). People were given special names at different levels of initiation but these were used only in restricted contexts. are not Turrbal but who are nevertheless essential to one’s personal and social identity. who are significant kin. This second list will include various, if not many, people who 2.2.4.9 Thus, it is possible in the present day to identity all those people with the right of children. European names were often adopted as nicknames as they were initially Nicknames were common and usually reflected the observed behaviour or inclinations to claim Turrbal identity, as an identity based on language-territory. These are the required for communication with Europeans because they were not attributed with the people who have the right to identify with, speak for and make decisions about Turrbal meanings that Turrbal kin or sacred names held. Some of these nicknames became the language-territory. To identify these people alone would not prove that these people, or any one of them, were included in a normative social system by which laws and customs life. In pre-sovereignty Turrbal life, there were various kin structures which organised surnames of the next generation. Kinship as ‘structure’ has always organised Turrbal could be transmitted over time. It is also necessary to be able to demonstrate that people for different activities, particularly rituals. As rituals are no longer practiced, the particular forms of kin organisation which supported them are also no longer

people who are identified as Turrbal have, over time,Turrbal been Anthropological included Report in social / Macdonald contexts / p.31 Turrbal Anthropological Report / Macdonald / p.32 discernible. However, kinship continues today to be important in the organisation of 2.3.1.6 Care is required in an analysis of the corpus of literature because of the ways both social life and in people’s relationship to place. Early Turrbal literature tends to in which notions relating to social organisation are used (cf., Blackburn 2002). In my focus on some structures and kin relationships while ignoring others. The interest opinion, mapping language with territory is based on a geo-cultural model which, at the end of the nineteenth century was with exotic practices and it is these which with historical and/or ethnographic input, can be discovered in most cases. Mapping proved more vulnerable in the situation of colonial change. But this should not lead people as social groups in which are vested all those laws and customs which would to the conclusion that the kinship system as a whole was dependent for its continuity enable them to exercise rights to the exclusion of others is, however, not the same task. and adaptability on those practices which fascinated Europeans at the time. Kinship Rather, social organisation operates on building up networks which are both socio- and also refers to obligations, responsibilities and privileges which attach to relationships ego-centric but which are not spatially bounded. While each person must have their

2.3.1.4between Kin kin,relationships many of which are generally are evident stable today throughout (cf. Macdonald a person’s 1998; life 2000). but there are few ‘place’ in the world, this ‘place’ is socially affirmed by participation in the normative societies in which they are completely non-negotiable. A person can be dispossessed local world of the region, and is based on kinship and totemic affiliations which create partregional of Turrbal networks. language-territory These networks might were be defined closer byto theirGabi centreGabi and rather Wakka than Wakka their situations, and can change primary allegiance from one kin grouping to another (as peopleextremities. than toOne Turrbal might peoplefind, for to instance,the south that or west Turrbal of Turrbal people language-territory. living in the northern The of their kin-based rights and statuses, can move in and out of obligations in conflict in mother’s to father’s). The overall structure is a framework for action, within which language-territory created no boundary in terms of social organisation, and nor did a relationships are understood as being more dynamic and negotiable than sometimes language difference impede communication. While it was required to ask permission the description of the structure might convey. to enter into another language-territory, this was a mark of respect and was seldom 2.3.1.5 was highly valued and frequently undertaken. People liked to visit kin and would by Turrbal and their neighbours, they tend today to use English kin terms in ways denied. Only when people entered without permission did conflict result. In fact, travel Although rules which once classified everyone into sections are no longer applied

to provide the pathways for social action. Kin at some genealogical distance will travel long distances to do so. They travelled for reasons of ceremony, trade, to find that reflect the value that they continue to place on extensive kin-based relationships territorymarriage are partners, not only and linked to engageto that territory in fights in occasioned the appropriate by people way but doing have the also wrong been genealogically but also in terms of expectations, obligations and responsibilities to engagedthing. It isin important the wider to social be able relations to show and that practices those people through who which claim lawsrights and to a customs specific onestill another. be called Turrbal ‘aunty’, people ‘cousin’ can or name ‘sister’ more because of their these distant terms relatives bind people than is not usually only are transmitted. Filiation to country is only part of what constitutes someone as having the case for non-Aboriginal Australians, and they recognise more degrees of kinship in a right to identify with territory. One must be connected within culturally viable social networks within which knowledge is transmitted and lived out, and these networks required to establish a relationship: a parent is one degree, a grandparent, two degrees, invariably and necessarily extend beyond one’s own territory to engage others of other acalculating grandparent’s kin-defined sibling’s responsibilities son is four degrees). and obligations It is sometimes (a ‘degree’ the caserefers in tothe each modern step territorial identities. era that Aboriginal people will use terms such as cousin and aunty as a form of polite or affectionate address, in the same way as Anglo-Australians do. In some cases, young 2.3.1.7 On a more general note, the notion of social organisation is used in anthropology people may assume that such forms of address are merely politeness when in fact older to show the systems whereby people are organised in relation to each other for different people insist on the use of a kin term because they understand the actual kin relationship. purposes. There may be a range of different and overlapping forms of organisation in Increasingly, however, Aboriginal people are also using terms such as brother/sister/ any one society, depending on the range of rights, obligations and activities in which people engage. Descent from a common ancestor is one way of organising people, of address for other non-related people. This is a more recent move and should be gender or age another, shared life experience (such as shared initiation ceremonies) distinguishedcousin (or a morefrom informalthe use of style kin ofterms each in such such as a ‘bro’, way ‘cuz’)as to asimply a generalised kin obligations form (sometimes only the context will enable one to distinguish the difference). Also new is the use of the terms Aunty and Uncle for older Aboriginal people one is not related to, a andor skills negotiable (fighting, (for tracking) example, aremembership others. Any of forma health of socialclub may organisation require an might annual be situation that would have rarely been encountered in the pre-colonial past and during the subscriptionin accordance and with adherence formal and to certain strict criteriacodes as of a membershipformal membership, or be much excluding more those fluid twentieth century, when older Aboriginal people one was not related to were normally

using English, as this language does not contain Aboriginal-style kin and respect forms. negotiablewho do not group). comply; Social on the organisation other hand, is asimply group a of reference people whoto the occasionally ways in which go fishingpeople called Mr or Mrs ‘so-and-so.’ Aunty and Uncle are now used to signal respect when aretogether organised over aaccording weekend to and some is loosely kind of put meaningful together andfrom shared family criteria, or friends which is a fluidincludes and notions of family or relatives (kinship).

Turrbal Anthropological Report / Macdonald / p.33 Turrbal Anthropological Report / Macdonald / p.34 2.3.1.8 2.3.1.10 To give some examples, if men inherited their country from their fathers (= used when it is clear that some form of membership criteria exists, whether formal patrilineally) and always lived on it, with their wives joining them in that country, they or informal,Linked and to this the idea members is that of of the ‘a group’. group Inrecognise this Report, each the other term as ‘group’such and will can be would over time form a pattern of patrilocal patriclans. If a couple lived in the wife’s distinguish themselves from non-members. Where such self-conscious membership country they would be living uxorilocally or, more often the case, uxoripatrilocally, as it would be the husband’s relationship with his father-in-law which might the key principle. If membership of the land-owning group was matrilineal one might expect a does not exist, I will use the expression ‘grouping’. This will signify a collectivity or an rule of matrilocal residence (living in the husband’s mother’s country). These residence aggregate of people but where it is not clear that there are recognised ‘members’. A terms take the new husband as the reference point, thus patrilocal/matrilocal usually fromcrowd the that supermarket’. gathers to watch All Aboriginala bushfire issocieties a grouping have rather a variety than aof group, ways evenof organising if, within peoplethat crowd, for, for is instance,a ‘family participationgroup’ or a ‘group in ceremonies, from the identifying bowling club’ people or ‘ain groupmarriageable of staff categories, sharing food and technological items, and linking people with sites and means the husband’s father/mother – not the wife’s, unless this is specifically indicated, territories. I will discuss only the most pertinent of these, being those that potentially by using that description or the term uxori- as a prefix. These terms can be awkward connect people to territory in such a way that they acquire rights in that territory or groupingsbut they do in allow the study for more area, andprecision will return than Englishto this point classificatory below. terms such as uncle validate a person’s claim to identify with territory. People belong to various different or cousin. I have found no system of descent which defines the composition of local forms of social organisation and these need not have reference to territory. I will be 2.3.1.11 I examine here the membership of the various groups organised for different mentioning some that have been mistaken for forms of local (territorial) organisation. purposes in the overall study region. I look at what kind of organised groups existed in the past and how they were constituted in terms of membership. 2.3.1.9 organisation’, where the latter refers to people organised in relation to territory, can be 2.3.2 Characteristics of the Riverine cultural bloc immediately prior to 1788: distinguished.The important Not all forms point of to social make organisation here is that link ‘socialpeople to organisation’ country or equate and ‘local with a form of local organisation. Likewise, identifying systems of local organisation does not 2.3.2.1 Characteristics of the Riverine cultural bloc immediately prior to 1788 were: enable us to tell the whole story about the ways in which people are organised socially.  A clear association of language with territory at a regional and local level In kin-oriented societies, because most forms of social and local organisation have relations amongst kin at their core, the anthropological literature uses a vocabulary  Totemic matrimoieties developed to describe these relations. The main ones used in this Report include:  Four sections, two within each moiety

patri-  A normative set of laws and customs which characterised most of the region, father into which peoples were networked on the basis of both kinship and totemic referring to a person’s father, sometimes specifically to a husband’s affiliation matri- mother  An ego-centric rather than socio-centric understanding of sociality referring to a person’s mother, sometimes specifically to a husband’s viri- referring to a husband  An absence of patriclans uxori- referring to a wife  A possible preference for patrifiliation -lineal a descent line (unilineal follows one line, patri or matri) 2.3.2.2 The pattern this produced is of people who were networked across a wide region,

bilateral mother’s and father’s sides (eg. cousins) related to or made claims on any other person were shaped by both locality/territorial bilineal; Drawing on both patri and matrilines; drawing on kin from both within which was the territory he/she identified with. The bases upon which a person cognatic Includes all consanguineal (blood) kin regardless of gender identity, which was equivalent to language and/or dialect identity, and kin/totemic- based identity. -local where a man lives after his marriage (uxoripatrilocal, in wife’s father’s territory) 2.3.2.3 part of the twentieth century, that all Aboriginal societies were patrilineal (descent was only reckonedIt was once through thought, the following male line) the andinfluential patrilocal work (men of Radcliffe-Brown continued to live in the in earlytheir -filial relation between a parent and his or her son or daughter (patrifilial, father’s country after marriage, with their wives joining them). This simple patrilineal/ matrifilial)

Turrbal Anthropological Report / Macdonald / p.35 patrilocal model has been significantly challengedTurrbal since Anthropological the 1960s, Report revealing / Macdonald a more / p.36 2.3.3 Language groups and the significance of ‘language’

complex picture of social and local organisation in many parts of Australia (see, for 2.3.3.1 This term is commonly used to refer to a higher order grouping of people who have in common the fact that they spoke the same language. Usually this is assumed in northern and central Australia. instance, Hiatt 1986; 1997). Most of this debate has taken place with respect to studies was spoken. However, this is misleading. Many people might have spoken a particular 2.3.2.4 The Riverine cultural bloc and its cultural system, often referred to as the language.to also mean It was people common who thatformed Aboriginal a ‘society’ people within were the multi-lingual location where because that travellinglanguage between territories was highly valued. A person travelling or visiting would have but there is little published material of the system as a whole when compared with other changed language when entering the language-territory of others. Non-land owning ‘Kamilaroi’ system because this was the language-territory first studied, is distinctive areas of the continent. One distinctive feature is the presence of totemic matriclans (see residents may have spoken a language because they lived within the boundaries of the language-territory. between social and local organisation. below) and it is their influence which is important to understanding the relationship 2.3.3.2 2.3.2.5 Because much of the Riverine literature stems from unsystematic observation in more in common with each other than they did with speakers of other languages. This the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, it is also replete with terms used in Reference to ‘language groups’ also assumes that speakers of a language had myriad and misleading ways, as well as assumptions which are better understood from the perspective of contemporary anthropology conducted in the late twentieth century andwas didnot notthe case.necessarily Those livepeople within who or identified even speak with the (belonged language to, of owned)their own a language- territory and recently. Although it would be Radcliffe-Brown who introduced the importance of wellterritory (but see did next not necessarilypoint). confine their interactions to fellow-language speakers, studying social and cultural life as systems in the 1930s, this was long after interest in the Aboriginal Riverine had faded due to impoverished understandings of culture and 2.3.3.3 I cover the relationship between language and territory at greater length in Chapter change at the time. I will deal with some of the misleading terms in the next section. 3. so will summarise here: It has been recognised by anthropologists and linguists that language adheres to country – in other words, that particular country and a particular 2.3.2.6 The literature for southeast Queensland is clear on some topics but leaves many place names, was given to territory by the creator spirits(s) and is thus non-negotiable. that anthropologists might do today. However, because of the commonalities between language are associated by Aboriginal people as ‘belonging’ to each other. Language, like thequestions systems unanswered of the Brisbane and reflects River, the the lack Sunshine of long termCoast systematic area and researchother parts of the of kind the Riverine of south eastern inland New South Wales (the Murray-Darling River system), This close relationship between territory and language means that a ‘tribal map’ is much of the local literature is able to be interpreted within this broader context. There thisusually cultural a language understanding map (see that Tindale’s language 1974 was map given and to Horton’scountry by1996 the map).creator Specific spirits. are several forms of social organisation mentioned in the south-eastern Queensland Likewise,languages each adhere locality to specific within territories. a language-territory I use the term was distinguished ‘language-territory’ by a distinctive to reinforce use literature, most of which are highly problematic as they do not take account of the of that language, what linguists and others have sometimes called a dialect, although it distinction between spatial and social identity and tend to assume that one place = one is not a dialect in the normal sense of this term. Rather, the conception of language is one people. These terms include:

language groups These do not exist as groups. There are language-territories and people who are collectively owners of that territory but they do not necessarily of identity rather than simply communication. To say that one ‘belongs to a language’, act together and do not necessarily reside in the language-territory for all‘is astatements language’ orof hasthe rights‘rights towithin a particular a language-territory’ spatial identity. are Such all equivalent statements statements. have little which they are owners toIn othersdo with words, whether to say a person ‘I belong speaks to Turrbal’, Turrbal ‘I or am lives Turrbal’, within or Turrbal ‘my country language-territory. is Turrbal’ are tribes These do not exist hordes, band Hordes was one way in which structure was imposed on local groupings In this sense, language is a spatial concept: it locates people in a world of spaces which clusters, and is not useful. Band cluster is a more useful term, as is community, have been given different languages by the spirits to differentiate them. The language communities because they do not assume composition is determined. belongs (adheres to) that place/territory, not to a person who happens to live in that local groups Useful if understood as a residential grouping, labile and composed of a range of kin and people who identify with various language-territories clans (patri/matri) Patriclans do not exist. Matriclans exist and are important in a people living together and speaking the same language who therefore identify with place. Thus, I avoid the use of ‘language group’ as it may be taken to imply a group of ceremonial context that language. Instead, I refer to a language-territory, to people who reside within a totemic matriclans Socially important but doubtful if, in themselves, they enabled people to language territory (who may or may not identify with that language-territory and who and matrimoieties gain rights in land sections Useful for regional ceremonies 2.3.2.7 I will deal with each of these, explaining how they are used as well as clarifying are thus not a ‘language group’), and to people who have rights in a language-territory, my own usage. who are therefore land owners (who might be regarded today as ‘traditional owners’ Turrbal Anthropological Report / Macdonald / p.38

Turrbal Anthropological Report / Macdonald / p.37 or rightful claimants), whether or not they reside in it or speak the language. However, relationship between social and local organisation in the Riverine. I will not be using it it was most likely that, as found elsewhere in Australia, to know a language one was in my analysis here so as to avoid the ambiguities it creates. required to demonstrate knowledge of the territory to which it adheres, including its law, songs and stories. A non-speaker or poor speaker could thus be assumed to have 2.3.4.2 are referred to only in the context of gatherings brought about for other purposes, Descriptions of ‘tribal councils’, in which a number of senior men met together, 2.3.3.4limited rights to ‘speak for’ this territory. membership of the group who can assert rights over a language-territory are the land- asuch language-territory as for an initiation (see, ceremony for example, or a fight.Mathews There 1900:560) is no evidence or a land-owningthat such occasions group. owningThe group. group Strictly of people one could who interpret have an this identifiable as a language and group, verifiable but not right in the to sense claim brought together ‘a language group’ as a gathering of all of the people associated with that it includes all who speak the language, only those who have rights in the language for instance, gathered for an initiation, in their hundreds, among whom there would be groupingsRather, the associated impetus for with gatherings different seems language-territories. to have been based on kinship. Specific kin, have the right to identify with a language have the right to constitute themselves into aterritory. polity, as ‘Language land-owners groups’ (see isSutton used 1998).in this Thisway group,at times, however, to signify is not that constituted people who by 2.3.4.3 Such occasions, which brought together different constellations of local groups, reference to their use of a language but only by reference to their right to claim identity with the language and the territory to which it adheres. composition of this council would need to be understood in context. It does not might provide the occasion for the meeting of a ‘council’ of headmen and thus the 2.3.3.5 Languages can include several dialects, with linguists and others distinguishing some dialects as different languages or vice versa. In other cases, languages are grouped meanimply that seniora ‘tribe’ men has from a centralised one part leadershipof a language-territory (council) which could would speak constitute for the whole it as territoryan authoritative unless recognised body over asthe having whole been ‘tribal given area’ the and right over to doall soits by affairs. others. Nor does it more than a distinctive use of the language which is able to differentiate local territories into ‘language families’ but this notion is not an indigenous one. ‘Dialects’ are usually no within the language-territory as a whole. 2.3.5 Hordes, band clusters, local groups and divisions

2.3.3.6 2.3.5.1 While the family-based groups which might have numbered about 20 people the territory of that language. They were not a tribe, a language group, a society or a The people who are identified with a particular language are thus identified with equivalentcould also beto calleda land-owning ‘tribes’, they group are as also it willreferred usually to asbe bands, comprised hordes of andvarious local kin groups. from political unit impelled to act as ‘a society’. I will use the term local group to refer to a residentially-defined group, which is not 2.3.4 Tribe other language-territories. A local group (see Taylor 1967:162-4) was characterised by

2.3.4.1 Discussion of the term tribe has been covered above but its usage is so common foraging rights; a distinctive name (suffixed with –bara) usually based on the ecology of Australian anthropology from the study of social organisation in other parts of the world markings.the area; a Taylorcore family goes and/oron to incorrectly couple, at identifyleast one them of whom as patrilineal has land-owning and patrilocal rights clans.in the (inthat particular, the difficulties Africa). are It worthhas always expanding sat awkwardly on. This termwith modeswas initially of social introduced organisation into local-territory. A local owner would also have distinctive scarifications and decorative characteristic of Australian Aboriginal peoples. Partly as a result of this awkwardness 2.3.5.2 The south eastern Queensland literature, including Turrbal, Gabi Gabi and Wakka Wakka in particular, suggests that residential groupings were formed by people of various different forms of social organisation in the literature, creating much confusion. Someand the accounts lack of usea specific the same and term relevant to describe meaning, different it has forms come of to social be used organisation to describe in (thevarious latter kin, often totemic strategically and language-territory negotiated to maximise relationships wider (e.g.,access Petrie to ritual 1904:137; and economic Steele recognise how a particular writer is using the term. A writer might call people speaking resources1984; Gunson that 1978;kinship Winterbotham afforded). In my1957), opinion, those a opened local group up by was kinship not exogamous and marriage by the sameone article. language, It can or amean small no grouping more than living ‘group’ and hunting and it istogether, thus important or a cluster to tryof such and a wife beyond their home locality (as they may have been too close to locally-residing clans (see below). This model is also based largely on African studies and does not have women)rule or definition, that it might although have appearedit may have to beenhave sobeen common a rule. for young men to have sought thesmaller same groupings, applicability ‘a tribe.’in Australia, A ‘tribe’ although is often in assumed some parts to beof Australiamade up itof is a more number useful of than in others. What these usages have in common is an attempt to link a grouping 2.3.5.3 A local group is not a land-owning group. This is simply a way of describing the of some kind with a territory and/or language. This has been the major problem with groupings of people who lived and foraged together. They would generally be comprised the term. The association of territory+language+people+residence implied in the term of a core couple, either or both of whom would be land owners with rights, and various

‘tribe’ is, like that of ‘language group’, ‘society’ or ‘nation’,Turrbal Anthropological not a useful Report way to/ Macdonald capture / thep.39 other kin, consanguineal and affinal, and of adjacentTurrbal Anthropological ascending and/orReport / Macdonald descending / p.40 2.3.6.3 1910. Its composition and size might vary with seasons and the life cycles of those who ways to denote, for example, a local group, a family, or a descent group, e.g.: constitutegenerations. it. It might today be referred to as ‘a local community’, as did John Mathew in In the south east Queensland region’s literature, the term ‘clan’ is used in various

2.3.5.4 A division is a cluster of local groups who occupy a portion of a larger language- 1. A ‘group’ which is not defined by the writer but is commonly associated with territory: territory. It is only used in the context of large language-territories (Wiradjuri in central toJones which (1990:7) a man ‘Thebelonged Nalbo could clan “owned”be recognised the Blackall by the Range,incisions the on Conondale his body andRange, limbs. and The the western New South Wales is one such example) and does not appear to be an indigenous DallambaraMary River Plain.’had a Jonestransverse (1990:7-8, cut on citing each Gaiarbauside of the in abdomen. Winterbotham The chest 1957:65) and shoulders‘The clan were covered in many small perpendicular nicks.’ concept. 2. A reference to the ways in which Aboriginal people themselves use the term: Eckermann 2.3.6 Clans older(1970) person. records A clanfive largewas not family a single groups community in the Ipswich in spatial area terms. which It localoften Aboriginal included spouses people 2.3.6.1 In formal anthropological terms, a clan is a group whose members share unilinear whoreferred had tocome as ‘clans’.from elsewhere. Each clan Thishad ausage number points of ‘families’to a residential-based which centred kin on grouping. a particular descent from a common ancestor. Unilinear (through one line) descent implies that one’s ancestry is traced through either a male line or a female line. A clan is conventionally 3. Totemic matriclan (Kelly 1935:471). A person receives his or her totem from the clan of his kinship and not the sections were of primary importance in marriage and descent.’ A more through the female line). Anthropologists do refer to ambilineal and omnilineal clans detailedmother and discussion mother’s of brother.matriclans (Kelly is below. 1935:471) ‘It would seem that the totemic clans and atdefined times as but being these either more patrilineal confusing (traced usages throughwill not thebe used male here. line) Membershipor matrilineal in (traced a clan 4. A patriclan. Nolan (1986:11, citing Taylor 1967:164) suggests that groups referred to as follows strict principles. Although in some parts of Aboriginal Australia it is possible that clans may allow for adoption, it is not a practice I am familiar with and is not understood as exogamous, patrilineal clans.’ Nolan’s example is taken up below. ‘tribes’ in the early south-east Queensland literature ‘would have been more correctly evident in the Riverine records. In any Australian Aboriginal society there may be both patriclans and matriclans, each serving different social and cultural purposes. 2.3.6.4 the literature that there were patriclan estates within local group territories and she Nolan also refers to ‘estates’ owned by patriclans but there is no evidence in 2.3.6.2 provides no evidence, although she seems to collapse the local group territory with sovereignty Riverine social system. They are occasionally assumed by authors but there is no ethnographyThere is no evidence to support of such patriclans usage. havingThe lack had of formalany social rules significance or roles for ina patriclan the pre- clearly that it is not. There is certainly evidence for such systems elsewhere in Australia but‘estate’, not implyingin this south the residential eastern totemic group ‘ought’matrimoiety to be based system. on a patriclan,Mathew (1910:147) although stating does

will usually mean that, even where patrifiliation (the relationship between a child and was in the territory for which one could act as a host. This statement does not make his/her father) is a common pattern, there may be no specific role that a patriclan as clearnote that whether the ‘the it refers bora toto which the son one as belongeda child or was an initiated that of the man. father’, A man, assuming at his initiation, this bora thata ‘descent-defined this is how men group’ communicated is expected to each to play other, in theit would society. be surprisingPetrie (1904:60-1) if women saidand had choices which would be exercised primarily by his MB as well as M, F and WF. The the‘children children’s were matrikin always spokentook the of same as belonging view: they to would their father.’be more While likely I tohave describe no doubt the choices of which bora, and in which local part of which territory, was more negotiable children as belonging to them, and both paternal and maternal claims have relevance than this suggests. in Aboriginal social organisation. Mothers had responsibility for children until their initiation, when boys were taken over for training by their mother’s brothers and 2.3.6.5 With the exception of the matriclan (3), other uses of the notion of clan are either unsupported or used in inconsistent ways. to their father’. Given the importance of the mother’s brother, this may be no more girls by mothers and grandmothers. There is no context for this notion of ‘belonging 2.4.12.4 totemsTotems and their social and spatial significances

was reporting. This lack of evidence of a patriclan system applies throughout the 2.4.1.1 To introduce the totemic system in general terms, it is posited on the creation than a ‘fatherly’ statement that Petrie, who would have been speaking mostly to men, of all life through the active and animating forces of various creator spirits, whose life preference, it was not a rule and choices were able to be exercised and were exercised force continues to live in its creative expressions. One spirit might be responsible for entire Riverine and not just Turrbal. It indicates that, even where patrifiliation was a (see also, Ch.5). bringing into life certain topographies with their hydrosystem, language, named places and characteristic ecology, as well as certain people, animals and birds. This spirit will be associated with those places, objects and people and this creative relationship is referred to as totemic. An animal or other object will come to symbolise that spirit force, such as a honey bee. Thus one can speak of honey bee sites, people and stories, and

Turrbal Anthropological Report / Macdonald / p.41 Turrbal Anthropological Report / Macdonald / p.42 likewise of wallaby sites, people and stories. This relationship is also widely referred to was adopted by a person to his/her own totem, with varying degrees of respect, use or as one’s Dreaming or the Dreaming story of a place. Thus a totem is a symbolic as well as distance towards other totems or totemic categories.

matrilineally among the Turrbal and throughout the Riverine. It linked people in a form 2.4.1.7 All people and all objects and elements in the natural world were divided into one an actual sharing of the same life-giving substance. One’s ‘totemic being’ was inherited of two moieties (a grouping of social and other things into one of only two categories) and, within these, grouped further into totemic categories (matriclans) which were of ‘social kinship’, unlike genenealogically-defined kinship which is ego-centric rather linked or contrasted. Petrie (1904:117) noted that men and women owned different genealogicalthan socio-centric. distance. Who is a mother or mother’s brother is dependent on who ‘ego’ is, but totems connected people as being of ‘one blood,’ across language, territory and 2.4.1.2 Totems were normally natural species (plants, animals, water, etc) and were accessfruits, flower-treesto such resources. or shrubs. A man might own part of a river or creek which was good for fishing. In such cases, permission had to be given by the owner for the right of 2.4.1.8 grouped into affiliated totems. As described by Gaiarbau McKenzie, there were three Totemic affiliation governed a great deal of social action in the past. They were (dawun),groups, each bee of(gaiar) which and had emu a bird: (ngo:I) the were first alwaysincluded closely honey associated, bee, opossum, and always emu, stoodbeing on the basis of sharing totems, and they strictly governed who one may or may not the tree totems (the association with trees is not clear): ‘The tree totems of opossum a major organising principle in ceremonies, allowed for people to closely affiliate

together in a fight, but could not intermarry’. This group could also not eat eels, catfish, wellmarry. beyond People language-territory who shared a totem boundaries, were regarded enabling as links of the between ‘same blood’,distant irrespectivekin. Totems of genealogical closeness. Totemic affiliations created strong bonds which stretched mopoke.and fish without scales as a common category of forbidden foods. The second group is: kangaroo, brown snake, eaglehawk; and the third is: flying squirrel, kangaroo rat, 2.4.1.3 The most important totemic group was the one into which he/she was born which, animatewere sometimes and inanimate referred beings to as ‘skinor objects names’ in (Kelly their 1935:472).world and Theyto ancestral were part spirits. of who As Mathewand what (1910:145) a person ‘is’described and how it, theythe connection were connected between to other the human people being as well and as the to

Therein the Turrbalwere also case totems was inheritedassociated from with one’s gender, mother common (Mathews ones in1898:329; the Riverine 1907:168; being Balkuin wanted information about a friend, and saw a magpie lark, he would ask the theWinterbotham bat for men 1957:21).and the owlet This nightjar included for a women main totem (Howitt as 1889b:57ff.).well as several Shared ‘sub-totems’. totemic littlenatural bird objects a question, belonging such as,to his“Is myor herbrother moiety coming?” was very and intimate: it would, ‘Thusby its note,if a Barang give him or a suitable and intelligible reply.’

matteraffiliations to what created tribe strong they belonged’ associations (Gaiarbau between Mackenzie people withinin Winterbotham and across 1957:19). language- 2.4.1.9 When a Bora ceremony was held near Tallwood Station on the Weir River, the territories: ‘All members of [a person’s] totem were his tribal brothers or sisters, no messengers were of the same section (matriclan) and totem as the ceremony’s headman 2.4.1.4 Whitehouse (1973:6) recorded that people could not kill their own totem. However, he added that they could eat it although generally avoided doing so. They did have the responsibility to ensure that it was not over-eaten by others. Mackenzie identity(Mathews – the1896). territory Mackenzie to which (in Langevad one belonged, 1982:86-7; and then see alsosocial Kelly identity 1935 –below) expressed also also asserted that people could not eat their own totems, but Mathew (1910:145) noted that funeral processions were organised first according to each person’s spatial maintained: to its proximity and direction to the territory of the deceased. Totems, likewise, were organisedthrough one’s according totem. toEach totemic territorially-defined proximity to the group deceased. present was organised according So far as I am aware, the restrictions about food were not dependent upon the classes, but were determined by other principles, such as age, sex, and occasions of mourning. . . . The Kabi word for the totemic animal was murang 2.4.1.10 As Kelly pointed out, matrilineal succession of totems does not mitigate against from killing and eating his totem, but in practice he protected it and regarded it as belonging a close relationship between a man, his son and grandson (SS). Ideally a man would to his own people. A person’s totem was ,never meaning changed. flesh or animal. . . . A man was not debarred have shared the same totem as his SS, thus linking men of alternate generations. The 2.4.1.5 Turrbal claimants today believe that they should not kill or eat their own totem. explains: influence of a father’s totems was also reflected in the naming system. Kelly (1935:468) 2.4.1.6 Totems also intimately connected people to their environment and, in doing so, Three names are given to both men and women. First the Yamba name which indicates the embodied a wealth of information about it, just as they embodied knowledge about spirit home of the bearer. At his death his spirit will return to this place. Old people on the social relations and responsibilities. They did not constitute people as land-owners but Settlement many miles from their own territory grieved to get back to their own tribal territory before they died in order to ensure their spirit’s safe return to its home. Secondly the Kujal they did give them responsibilities for particular sites as well as rights to access totemic name. This is held in common with brothers and sisters. Strangers can know you by this name. Thirdly the Kyi name which is a personal and secret name rarely told to anyone unless a close people associated with it and could also act as a guardian or friend. A ritual attitude relation. The second and third names are derived from the father’s totem. Thus a woman who species when in other language-territories. Each totem ‘kept a protective eye’ on the Turrbal Anthropological Report / Macdonald / p.43 Turrbal Anthropological Report / Macdonald / p.44 was opossum (inherited from her mother) was named for emu because that was her father’s totem. Her Yamba or spirit home name was Butilbaru birds similar to the Darling River moiety names, Kilpara and Mukwara, except Ibbai Kujal (eaglehawk), a section name in the Wiradjuri language, which Mathew thought might (a sandy creek-bed ‘back home’), her be the analogue of Kilpara. 2.4.1.11 The name settlement meant ‘old emuto which walking Kelly up and was down’. referring was Barambah/Cherbourg where she was conducting her research. In this quotation, the spirit home is linked to one’s 2.4.1.14 Mathew (1910:167) observed that the moieties on the Darling River, the Murray territory of identity, the territory out of which one entered the human world from the spirit home, and to which one’s spirit returned after death. The desire to return to one’s own territory before death was strong because that facilitated the return home of theseRiver moieties above its extended confluence about with 400 the miles Darling, from the NW Lachlan to SE and River about and 350 to its miles north from all one’s spirit, ensuring it did not get lost. Kelly illustrated here the dynamic that existed NEshare to SWvariants along of the the course same of moiety the Darling.’ system. In He fact, concludes: he also recognized ‘Therefore that the the territory moieties of between the totemic identity derived from one’s mother and the naming system that among the Gamilaraay and Gabi Gabi, as well as the Maar in western Victoria were linked one to one’s father’s totem. region. Lang (1911:3) analyses the importance of colour and habitat of the totems 2.4.1.12 Mackenzie (in Langevad 1982:88) said that one’s section or totem did not come withinvariants each and moiety he notes for thethe Gabilinguistic Gabi. Heaffinity looks of at matrimoiety the two moieties, names Kupaithin across thisand entireDilebi into consideration in deciding where someone was to be buried. I interpret this as a and realises that the totems within each moiety are not determined randomly, but reinforcement of the distinction I have made above between spatial and social identity, and their relative salience at different times in a person’s life. A person emerged from and White Eagle Hawk while Kupaithin had Rock Carpet Snake and Scrub Carpet Snake. according to colour and habitat. Dilebi has as ‘sub-class’ (or sections) Black Eagle Hawk

2.4.1.13and returned to a spirit home through their ‘home’ territory. (1915)Moreover, also Mathew argued alsothat confirmsfor the Kangulu that for people the Gabi that Gabi lived and between Waka Waka the Mackenzie Dilbai moiety and corresponded with ‘Light’ blood and Kopaithin moiety with ‘Dark’ blood. Mathew Mathew (1910) strongly argued against Howitt’s artificial explanation of the the Lower Dawson Rivers Yungaru corresponds to Dilbai of the people further south (Gabi Gabi) and Wutaru to Kopaithin. In a previous paper published in 1910 in the themselves.significance Aboriginal of moieties people for the argued purpose for of the incest existence avoidance, of two in favourpeoples of different a ‘natural’ in Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute Mathew had argued that Yungaru meant skinexplanation tone. This based idea ongave the rise ‘colour’ to the distinctiondistinction pointedbetween outthe bytwo Aboriginalmoieties strongly people white cockatoo and Wutaru meant crow, so that the colours of the birds of each moiety associated with light/shade differences, blood and totems. In support of his argument Mathew gives the following cases: In the Barambah Aboriginal Settlement in 1906, he observed that phratries (moieties) were regarded as having different shades of Creekcorresponded and Kolan with River ‘light’ (1915). and ‘dark’ The termsblood bondadistinctions. (kangaroo) This was and also dhewain the case, (emu) Mathew used blood, Dilbai being light blood and Kupaitthin dark blood. The complexions of these byfurther the Gabi stated, Gabi for are the also Gurang recognised Gurang for people the Gamilaraay of Wide Bay and and the the Kangulu. Burnett Hence, River, Bafflethese phratries were supposed to correspond to the shades of blood. This is similar to terms were used throughout an expanse of 500 miles in a direct line from the northern Langloh-Parker’s observation among the Euahlayi on the Narran River, NSW, where the lands of the Gurang Gurang, through the Gabi Gabi, and into Gamilaraay country. two equivalent phratries were Gwaigulleah, light-blooded, and Gwaimudthen, dark- blooded. In a similar system, in two Aboriginal reserves in Victoria (Condah, August 2.4.1.15 The connections within the region extend well beyond areas of linguistic and even totemic similarity. The cosmo-ontological connections throughout this vast expanse of 60) told Mathew that they could distinguish members of Kurokaitch from those of land not only substantiates my opinion that the Riverine is a network enmeshed within 1907; Coranderrk in January 1909), four Aboriginal elders (one was 80, another over Kapaitch phratries, and members of the Bundyil from those of the Wa by the quality of a common social and cosmological tapestry, but, more importantly, substantiates my opinion that the Riverine cultural bloc extended into coastal south-east Queensland, and the other coarse. A man from Swan Hill on the Murray River said he was Kirlba, touching the ocean at the mouth of the Mary River, including groups such as Gabi Gabi, their hair (1910:166-167). Another two men told him that one phratry had fine hair straight hair, while another was Mukwar, curly hair and explained that straight hair Wakka Wakka, and the Moreton Bay islands, and probably Gurang Gugang, Mitta Mitta people could not marry among themselves but had to intermarry with the curly hair and Wulli Wulli. people, and vice versa. At Condah, Murray River, another elderly man told Mathew the names Kirlba and Mukwar implied different qualities of hair and that these were moiety names for most of the western half of New South Wales. Mathew associated these names with Eaglehawk and Crow, although he was not sure which was which, but in fact the light/dark or straight/curly distinctions seems to have been another

layering of the complex system of classification. On the Darling River in NSW the name

for Eaglehawk is bilyara and for crow waku and MathewTurrbal Anthropological could not find Report names / Macdonald for these / p.45 Turrbal Anthropological Report / Macdonald / p.46 2.5 Individuals’ sites and fertility sites

2.5.1.1 2.5.1.4

tribe (WinterbothamThere is some suggestion 1957:31). Bujibarain the literature is a local that territory totems name belonged (carpet to snake ‘a tribe’ + –bara or a personMackenzie’s in these ceremonies. reference to He ‘the refers bora’ to is thisto initiation allocation ceremonies. as taking Heplace refers when to himselfpeople residential group. Mackenzie said the carpet snake (buji) ‘belonged’ to the Bujibara as ‘belonging’ to his father’s bora, yet his mother’s brother would have been the key matrilineally and there is no evidence of any matrilocal residence rule which would initiated so he may not have been clear about such details himself. besuffix) the withcase whichif a totemic specific matriclan people would was associated be filiated. with However, a site. totems It is possible were inherited that an were ‘little’ but the bora reference implies at least young adulthood. He was not fully important carpet snake breeding ground was in that territory, for which residents had 2.5.1.5 Species’ breeding grounds, known as mimburi, were sites which Winterbotham to be responsible. implies continuous action’. Mimburi might be referred to as increase or fertility sites 2.5.1.2 Mackenzie also noted that men were assigned an individual site, which he (1957) translated as a reference to ‘a source – a continual flow . . . anything which described as usually but not necessarily linked to their totem. His own totem was the imbued with the power of the creative spirit of that totem. It appears that, usually, honey bee but he explained that because he had proved inept at tree climbing and womenfor animals and childrenetc associated were barred with specific from them totems. although Thus there they iswere some spiritually evidence ofdangerous, women’s sites with the same power. Welsby (1923) recalled one such healing site, owned by an that he wasn’t sure why. The description he gave to Langevad (1982:39-40) appears contradictory:adept at fishing, he had been assigned a fishing spot, although he also acknowledged mother, which spot contained all charm for all illnesses ... This rock was regarded as the old lady, Shag Rock on Stradbroke Island: ‘There was one spot ... sacred alone to her To all the members were given certain portions of the tribal territory as theirs. The laws concerning this were taught to the little ones by their mother’s people: the mother’s father (natja) would teach the boys, and the mother’s mother (bujar) the girls. As Gaiarbau was a 1920:125).property of Althoughher mother there ...’ Womenis little information bore scarifications, about women conducted in the their entire own Turrbal women’s and southceremonies eastern and Queensland had their own literature, ceremonial there grounds are comments (Winterbotham which suggest 1957:75-6; they Welsbyhad, as bora gave it to him. . . . The portion he received was, he states, the breeding ground (mimburi) fisherman, a portion of a certain creek was committed to him as his. His expression was that the elsewhere in Australia, their own knowledges, powers and sites. tracts of country were given to other people and they had the right of hunting over this area. Certainof the freshwater bunya pines jewfish, belonged and tonobody certain could persons, fish in certain it without honey his trees permission. to others. Similarly Women certaindid not 2.5.1.6 I have found scant evidence in this region for fertility/increase rituals (nor elsewhere in the Riverine literature) although these were held in territories on the given permission. come into this distribution, but they did their share of fishing and collecting of honey when coast further south (in NSW). However, in Elkin’s notes (1946, but perhaps written by 2.5.1.3 the mother’s brother rather than the mother’s father as the teacher of a young man. area, It is more likely that the reference to a person’s ‘mother’s people’ would be to Radcliffe-Brown) is the description of a ‘Kabi type’ of social organisation, covering an Senior members of one’s matriclan were commonly one’s teachers. The pattern I have on the coast on both sides of the boundary between NSW and Qld. It extends from the Clarence discerned from brief references in the Riverine literature as a whole suggests that River in the south to the Burnett River in the north, and includes a number of tribes, of which young men were allocated part of a creek during their initiation and that the choice the chief are the Yukum, Yagara, Djandai, Waka, Kabi and Koreng’. These notes indicate Yukum and Yagera also have a system of totemism with local totem-centres and increase rites similar of this allocation was made by senior male kin including MB (in particular). This to that of the Kumbaingeri. The word for totem-centre is djurbil

himself spatially. It indicated his status as an initiated man, and he would announce . Each ‘horde’ [small residential allocation was significant, because it would remain a key way in which a man identified centresgroupings] had has their a number origin in of the centres time associatedof the mythical with ancestorsdifferent species (Budjeram which). are thus the totems his creek name on entering a ceremonial ground. This site was allocated on the basis of the members of the ‘horde’ who can perform the rites for making the increase. The totem- 2.5.1.7 The notes suggest there were rites associated with such sites, and that there belonged to someone else at the time. It was a distinctive and individualised spatial might be several in any local-territory. A system sounding like one of increase sites of discussion among senior kin and could not be ‘inherited’ because it could have relationship. It was most probably the case that this creek was within one’s own local- and rituals does appear to emerge in a reading of Winterbotham (1957) and Radcliffe- territory and language-territory but I have not yet found information about how the choice of site was made. It is my understanding that the allocated site in the Riverine Gumbainggirr to the south of the study region is unambiguous in that it describes these area was always water-based – a creek, a section of a creek or a soak, for instance. So sites,Brown rituals (1930), and although meanings not with in greaterany definitive clarity. Iway. have The argued literature above onthat Bandjalung there had been and Mackenzie may have been incorrect in assuming it should have been connected to his pre-1788 historical change in this area, which I interpret as the pushing north of the honey-bee totem. Riverine system. It is certainly possible that locally-residing members of the appropriate totemic matriclan at least had primary responsibility for any ceremonies conducted for totemic matriclan species associated with sites in their area, and for their protection in other respects but the evidence does not point to a system of increase rituals north of Turrbal Anthropological Report / Macdonald / p.47 Yugambeh (Yukum) and its neighbours of the southern Bandjalung bloc.

Turrbal Anthropological Report / Macdonald / p.48

2.6 Matriclans and matrimoieties

2.6.1 Matrimoieties trade routes. Once people were congregated on Cherbourg, such advantages would 2.6.1.1 As totemic succession was matrilineal (see further below), this formed matriclans graduallyability to travel decrease in times in value. of economic need (including drought and flood), and extensive

or matriclan, would have comprised all those people, men and women, who could trace 2.6.1.5 Importantly, the matriline represented members of totemic clans which were theirbased descent on totemic from affiliation, their clan which ancestor were through divided ainto female two moieties.line (through A matrilineal their mother, clan, spread throughout the region. These totemic clans had ritual roles to play in relation mother’s mother, etc). There are matriclans in the Turrbal and neighbouring social to each other during ceremonies such as initiation and burials. In particular, a man’s system and these are described below. Matriclans are important to understanding mother’s brother would have played an important part in his spiritual upbringing and the regionalised nature of the normative social system in the Riverine. They do not, initiation. Totems were associated with only one moiety. however, constitute a form of local organisation and do not give people rights as land- 2.6.1.6 Another characteristic of the regionalised matrimoieties was their association owners. with a widely held regional belief system which featured a Sky God, his wives and son as 2.6.1.2 The entire society within the Riverine belonged to one of two moieties, these well as other creative spirits. This belief system could be shared across many language- moieties differing in name from one part of the Riverine to another but operating in territories because it was not site-based, even though there were sites associated with similar ways. Totemic succession was either direct (straight from one’s M) or indirect it. It did not give rise to patriclan estates as in other parts of Australia. It did sustain a (from one’s MM), the latter form being the more common and that which was found in the study region. While the mother determined the totemic identity of her children, etiquette that engaged people in a regionalised network well beyond their language- wide regional affiliation based on shared cosmology and a normative system of law and it was not the same totem as her own. Rather it was a linked totem, within the same the legitimacy of their rights to identify with a language-territory. In the past, such territory, but which affirmed their specific rights to engage in that cult on the basis of of clans, but when there are only two groupings, as is common in Australia, the term moiety. In the literature, the moieties are sometimes called ‘phratries’, meaning a group the creek catchments or portions of them within the language-territory, which were rights could also have been more locally-specific than they are today and would specify Turrbal moieties being Kaputhin and Dilbi (with various spellings and neighbouring variants,moiety (from see below), the Latin, which ‘half’) are is shared the more with common various term.other Eachpeoples moiety of the had Riverine. a name, the 2.6.1.7specifically Matrimoieties given to awere man aor form woman of social at his organisationor her initiation. but not of local organisation. 2.6.1.3 This system is reproduced one generation after another, down through the They linked people who belonged to different residential groups and land owner groups matriline. In other words, a matriclan is formed on the basis of totemic succession. As on a regional basis. They may have linked locally-resident holders of a totem to sites associated with that totem. They organised people in a regionally-based ritual/belief this produces matri-moieties. Members of a matrimoiety were important to each other. system characterized by an All-Father. They were activated for ceremonial purposes Athese young matriclans man’s mother’s were divided brother into (MB) two sponsors moieties, him in which through totems his initiation were moiety-specific, ceremonies, (initiations, funerals) and members had ritual responsibilities for matrilineal kin. They and is important in arranging both his marriage and the marriage of his sister. All these did not determine residence and were not land owning entities. There is no evidence people share the same totem. that they owned land as a group at any level of local organisation. There is a relationship between the totemic matriclan system, the system of alternate generations evidenced 2.6.1.4 Radcliffe-Brown (1923:446), commenting on this form of social organisation in in section descent, the arrangement of marriages in the interests of paternal totemic

New South Wales, described the totemic matriclan as being ‘of great relative importance units in the system’. In the 1930s, Kelly (1935:466) said moieties were known and WF.affiliation, While it and might what conceivably is really anbe openpossible mode to describe of local residentialthis as a totemic group patriclan recruitment, over recognisedand independence’ on Cherbourg and Beckett but seldom (1959:205) mentioned says they because are ‘the greater basic emphasis and most was important placed which includes affiliation through a patrifilial kin link or through the totemic link with on totems. This, however, is more likely to be an outcome of colonial disruptions. The great value of the matrimoiety system was that it linked men across very wide areas in ignoredalternate the generations, discrepancies the systemfor all practical cannot actually purposes. work As like I will this. argue The below, flexibility the allowedecology what could be called a regional matricult. This provided access to greater resources, the offor this in ‘wrong’ region orworks second against preference the constitution marriages wouldof social have groups upset which the system, are too even narrowly if men focussed, such as is the case in a patriclan system. The need for strong alliances beyond one’s own local-territory makes the regional matrimoiety system a social and economic ideal while political strength and day-to-day economic needs are met in the system Turrbal Anthropological Report / Macdonald / p.49

which affiliates people to specific territory over which they have rights.

Turrbal Anthropological Report / Macdonald / p.50 2.6.1.8 Kelly (1935) explains that one’s father was always in the opposite moiety to one’s own, and that moieties were exogamous (people had to marry outside their own moiety), ensuring a person could not marry into the same group of totems as themselves. division’Kaiabara (moiety) had patrilineal as their descentfather, which of totems would and give sections. rise to patrimoieties. He defined this system as patrilineal because he thought, incorrectly, that children were in the same ‘primary 2.6.2.3 2.6.2 Sections and marriage by earlier work in Central Australia, believed the section system universally served to 2.6.2.1 As mentioned above, within a moiety there are two sections (sometimes referred regulateMathews marriages had aand long-running did not explore disagreement further, assuming over this withthis toHowitt apply who, in the influenced Riverine area. Mathews (1918) reported that the Turrbal had a system of alternate marriage it was indirect, meaning that a person’s section was inherited matrilineally but not (similar to elsewhere in the Riverine) in which a man could marry into his own section directlyto as ‘classes’). from the While mother. inheritance Rather, a person of one’s took section their sectionmembership membership was also from matrilineal, the other but only to a woman of a different and appropriate totem. He notes that this system had

is according to alternate generations. Table 2.1 demonstrates the two moieties, the and thus could not be attributed to innovation or breakdown following colonisation. section in the matrimoiety (Mathews 1907:167;1898). In other words, section descent Bothbeen observedRobert Mathews as early (1898)as 1866 and by Ridley John Mathew and verified (1910:131-136) on different occasionsargued convincingly by himself, For instance, a Banjur man married a Derwain woman and their children, male and against Howitt that the moiety/section systems of the study region (including Gabi Gabi female,two sections would which be Bunda. belonged They to took each this moiety section and membership how an ‘ideal’ from marriage their mother. would So work. that if the Derwain mother married a Barang man, her children would still be Bunda. The theand Wongaibon,Turrbal) were Kamilaroi, not exogamous Ngeumba, or basedWirraidyuri, on patrifiliation, Barkunjee butand ‘given other bytribes matrilineal in New the same totem as his FF, and thus the totemic link between a boy and his father’s father Southdescent.’ Wales In fact,and Victoria’Mathews as (1905:104) far as sections reported were anconcerned. ‘entire absence Elkin resolved of exogamy this amongdebate marriages illustrated are called ‘ideal’ because they enable a man to marry someone of in a review of the literature he conducted in 1933 and he concluded decisively that Table 2.1: Sections in relation to marriage and succession Mathews was right and Howitt was wrong. There is little dispute now that a person’s is strong in both patrifilial and totemic terms. (after Mathews 1898:328, totems from Howitt 1889b:38,49) assumed this to have been the case. Moiety Moiety totems Male marries** children are principal totem was acquired through matrifiliation within the study region, and I have (some) 2.6.2.4 Elkin (1933) determined that totemic and genealogical relations governed

Kaputhin Carpet snake Banjur* Derwain Bunda the sections were of primary importance in marriage and descent. ... it is the totemic Native cat marriage rules in this system: ‘It would seem that the totemic clans and kinship and not Flood water Barang Bunda Derwain 2.6.2.5grouping which is fundamental’ (Kelly 1935:470; cf. Elkin 1933). the same totem as the man’s father - which therefore brings the man’s children back to his father’sKelly (1935:470)totem’. For instance,described if thea Banjur ideal marriagecarpet snake as being man marrieswhen the a womanDerwain was turtle ‘of Dippil Turtle Bat Bunda Barang Banjur woman, his son will be Bunda turtle. As his own father is Bunda, his son is also Bunda Lightning Derwain Banjur Barang and potentially turtle like his grandfather as well. Kelly (1935:466) also describes how,

ensure that the deceased’s father’s father might recognise his grandchild as he entered * In the Wide Bay area (Gabi Gabbi) this section was called Bulkoin thein the spirit burial world’. ceremony Clearly described men were above, concerned ‘The eagle-hawk for their rite children was performed and grandchildren. in order to However, Howitt was incorrect in assuming this was a system of indirect patrilineal ** The name of the women’s section normally had a –gan or –gun female suffix

the section membership determined by their mother, regardless of the section or totem 2.6.2.2 Early studies on the function of the section system interpreted them as a means ofinheritance their father. because, when the marriage was not ‘ideal’, the children always followed put forward by such people as Fison and Howitt (1880) and Spencer and Gillen (1889), of regulating marriage. They were initially associated with a theory of ‘group marriage’ 2.6.2.6

stringentThe rulesnotion prohibiting of ‘wrong’ marriagemarriages with refers someone to those of which the same are acceptable totem, someone but not who the systemwho contributed from the Gabi to theGabi debate when he initiated studied by it among Louis Henrythe Kaiabara. Morgan He (1871; argued see that Hiatt the ‘ideal’. There were also prohibited unions, subject to severe punishment. There were 1996:36ff for a review). Howitt (1889b:38, 49) actually distinguished the ‘Kamilaroi’ was genealogically close and someone of the same section (Kelly 1935:470-1, although see the point about intra-section marriage above). Marrying a person of the same

Turrbal Anthropological Report / Macdonald / p.51 Turrbal Anthropological Report / Macdonald / p.52 section in a moiety did not inter-marry with the members of the other section in that moiety (moiety and section exogamy). totem or its small group of affiliated totems, regardless of genealogical relationship, was incestuous and strictly forbidden (Kelly 1935:470; Mathews 1896:329; Gaiarbau had been through his initiation, the time when his wife would be chosen by his senior 2.6.3 Marriage and residence matrikin,in Langevad sometimes 1982:45-6,28; along withWinterbotham his father (Winterbotham 1957:17). Nor 1957:34).could a man marry until he 2.6.3.1 2.6.2.7 Early preoccupation with trying to understand the section system tended to give it too much weight in the study of social organisation. The section system appears to Howitt (1889b:35) notes that intermarriage across what he called ‘tribes’ was extent,common: and ‘the include boundaries aggregates of anyof tribes one classwhich [section] may well system be termed are nations, usually for wider they than are was overlain on a kinship system in which totemic relations remained paramount, the boundthose of together a single by tribe, a community and ... the of classesboundaries which of indicates a ‘type’ ofa community system have of descent,a still wider and twohave systems been introduced not being relativelyentirely compatible. recently (though The totemic definately system prior was to a 1788)great deal in that more it which is usually accompanied by more or less frequent intermarriages’. layered and subtle than the section system could allow for. Beckett (1959:205), for instance, regarding western NSW/Riverine explains it thus: 2.6.3.2 Marriages created important alliances with neighbours, opening up rights to resources, knowledges and visits in each generation. They were arranged by senior To be more precise, the two basic principles of Australian kinship – the equivalence of siblings kin with these politics in mind. This meant that marriage, like the matrimoiety system, brought people into a regionalised experience of their normative social system, one not irrelevantand the distinctness to all this, but, of successiveas has already generations been suggested, – come it into remains conflict. a useful The means conflict of isidentifying resolved dependent upon either the Turrbal language-territory’s residents or its land-owners. strangersby the introduction in either moiety. of a further It does ‘auxiliary’ not seem thatset ofthe kinship sections terms. had any The other section function: system they is quitewere not for example, recognised in ceremonies and there were no section totems. on marriage alliances, gender and ceremonial alliances, even siblings might have It was not the case that Turrbal people all defined themselves as close kin – depending 2.6.2.8 The same picture emerges from the south east Queensland region literature. It distinctive experiences within the regionalised system. would appear that the sections had a relatively small role to play in social organisation. 2.6.3.3 the course of a person’s lifetime. This would have led to a local residence group There was clearly flexibility in residence patterns and these could change over For instance, the sections do not ‘function ceremonially; throughout the transition and mortuary ceremonies, it is the moieties and [matri]clans which constitute the groupings land-owning persons, and people identifying themselves as coming from non-Turrbal language-territories.comprised of cognatic and affinal kin, amongst whom there would be a core of Turrbal toand describe set the maritalbehaviour and of other all concerned’ social relationships (Kelly 1935:471). (Whalley Section 1987:129, affiliation 137). allows for the incorporation of strangers into a category of kin relatedness, and is an efficient way 2.6.2.9 People often used section names as form of personal address when referring 2.7 Turrbal leadership and authority to themselves or others (Whalley 1987:129). Howitt (1889b:37) claims that people who lived on the borders of language groups might use the terms of both languages in Key points: describing their section.  Turrbal law was both religious and secular. Both included moral authority, based 2.6.2.10 Whalley (1987:129, citing Holmer 1983:410 and Mathew 1910:137) notes that on moral-legal codes not on hierarchised positions of power or governance. Authoritative positions were achieved not ascribed. With the exception of a either sections, or the totems on which they were loosely based, could have been trained clever man/woman,designated roles were not recognised within a section terms ‘may map onto land’ but does not make this clear. It is hard to see how Turrbal community, except for within certain limited organisational contexts; natural species within the environment, but these do not link to land ownership, ever. age was respected but did not necessarily confer authority or influence; ‘mapped.’ Whalley appears to be drawing on observances of totemic affiliation to  People of particular influence emerged from time to time as a result of the 2.6.2.11 wide recognition and respect paid to those persons’ adherence to Turrbal law distances when they came together for any reason. Sections acted like a socio-centric and custom throughout their lives; these people were regarded as headmen or systemSections of kinship, were allowing useful in people that they to identify acted aswhich a way section of affiliating they belonged people toacross and thusvast women; use this as a form of short-hand for identifying the kin relationship of the person being

spoken to. If one was of Banjur section and met another person who was Banjur then,  A system of ‘self-help’ encouraged any person of any age to take action on depending on age, one might call that person brother or grandfather. The section system their own behalf to punish breaches of the moral law which directly affected in the Riverine seems to have been adapted from a system in which the members of one them or their immediate kin, primarily through recourse to verbal or physical confrontation;

Turrbal Anthropological Report / Macdonald / p.53 Turrbal Anthropological Report / Macdonald / p.54  The Turrbal political economy was based on the social/moral law of care, which was expressed in economic terms as ‘sharing’ (or looking after); Aboriginal polity in Australia, he argued that established role-based authority existed  ‘Sharing’ was an economic system sanctioned by moral law; sharing was only within the ritual sphere. It was, in this context, authoritarian. Ritual discipline neither optional or altruistic. It was a responsibility of kin relatedness; served to counter the high social value placed on personal autonomy.  Age was not a factor in determining who becomes a ‘boss’ (seniority or headship is not equivalent to ‘oldest’ although may be the ideal); authority was contextual and senior kin dealt with issues within kin groups; local land especiallyI see no logical senior difficulty males, in compete maintaining for simultaneouslycontrol of scarce that natural traditional and Aboriginalmetaphysical communities resources lack enduring hierarchies of authority for the administration of public affairs; that individuals, owning people dealt with territorial issues at a local level; males exercise a degree of domination over junior males and females, especially in the sphere ofin religionorder to (Hiatt gain or 1987:180). enhance reputations as ceremonial big-men; and that, collectively, senior  A ‘regional’ council of senior men (and/or women) discussed issues which affected people more broadly throughout the region, each of whom were 2.7.1.5 Hiatt’s conclusion recalls the claim made by Meggitt (1964:176) that, in the legitimised/recognised at both a local and regional level as people of authority, but they did not form a governance body for a region; meetings of a ‘regional council’ were ad hoc, the composition of the group depending upon the context Centralno matter Desert how at much least, authority religious people authority conceded was to a ‘non-portable’ ritual leader in the (Hiatt’s sacred sphere,term): it did which had brought certain people together. derive any special freedom from social conventions in the secular world: he had no immunity fromnot as criticism a rule extend or from at open all into violence secular in affairseveryday ...; thedisputes. religious Away expert from did the not ceremonial on this account ground 2.7.1 Models of the Aboriginal polity he was but another member of an intensely egalitarian society.

2.7.1.1 Here I examine Turrbal understandings of law and power, the structures of 2.7.2 Law as justice authority which stem from these understandings, and the characteristics of those who exercise authority. Again, these are consistent with my experience elsewhere in the 2.7.2.1 In all Aboriginal societies, a distinction can be made between authority exercised Riverine. (I consider authority in relation to land in Chapter 4). in ritual/religious spheres of life, and that exercised in the day to day (secular or quotidian) spheres. The right to exercise authority in one sphere does not imply that 2.7.1.2 The remainder of this chapter draws on my knowledge of the Riverine system in this right translates to other spheres. particular and Aboriginal political values more widely. There is almost nothing written 2.7.2.2 about Aboriginal law and politics prior to European contact which I believe most social order, and for the management of disputes: law is a governing system or a The notion of ‘law’ normally refers to mechanisms for establishing and maintaining anthropologistsabout Turrbal politics today are or comfortable law. I have summarised,with, notwithstanding first, the local general variants, understandings and which judicial system. Justice refers to a system which recognises respect for people’s rights I am assuming to be factually correct. In the absence (for the most-part) of a literature as individuals. Structures of law consist in part of systems of rules and regulations explicating the Turrbal system as it may have been prior to 1788, I have tested the which are formally enforced by community-sanctioned elders. Turrbal/Riverine law as general understandings against my own understanding of the Riverine, based on my a judicial mechanism was undergirded by religiously-articulated beliefs and sanctions. long-term analyses and historical and contemporary studies, in order to arrive at the 2.7.2.3 Coercive power is often a focus of studies of political systems because it is the major opinions which I express below, with respect to the Turrbal system immediately prior type of power upon which political systems of European origin are based. Coercive or to 1788. I refer to Turrbal literature where this exists. disciplinary power stems from the understanding of law as justice. It implies the ability 2.7.1.3 Aboriginal authority structures were hierarchised in certain contexts but were to force people into certain forms of action and involves the notion of punishment for not centralised. They were based on a combination of kinship relations, land-based wrong-doing. It frequently but not always sets up arbitrary rules which apply to all relations, knowledge and resources. These interacted with the situation at hand, making people or to certain categories of people (based, for instance, on age or gender), or to certain situations (such as penalties which apply to transgressions of religiously- which has eluded easy analysis in the past. Early observers, however, recognised that eachthe actual Turrbal exercise local residentialof authority grouping specific hadto a asocial-spatial person regarded context. as a Itheadman, is this specificity and that analysed as being derived from supernatural or ritual knowledge and its attendant defined laws). In Aboriginal societies this form of power has most frequently been at least one or more headmen were widely recognised throughout Turrbal territory as sanctions. It has been seen as being available in the past to, in particular, clever people well as beyond. male power. 2.7.1.4 In Hiatt’s (1987) attempt to reconcile the various anthropological models of the (sorcerers) and ritual leaders (or totemic leaders) and is most frequently identified as 2.7.2.4 Berndt (1947a:328) describes the supernaturally-derived powers, as once

Turrbal Anthropological Report / Macdonald / p.55

Turrbal Anthropological Report / Macdonald / p.56 Howitt (1904:384) also indicates that medicine men could practice sorcery on Turrbal people from as much as one hundred miles distant. effectiveexercised means by Turrbal/Riverine of social control, clever associated men and with women both negative(Mathews and 1897b, positive Howitt sanctions, 1904; Berndt 1947a/b; Elkin 1945), as ‘esoteric law’ and it is evident that it was feared and an including the power to take life. Its operation and system of sanctions centred on (i) 2.7.3 Law as care the intensive training involved in the initiation process (see further below), and (ii) the practice of sorcery. Turrbal/Riverine clever people practiced sorcery for a variety of 2.7.3.1 general as I discuss them above applied to the Riverine bloc immediately prior to 1788.It However, is my firm this opinion is only athat part the of theprinciples way in whichwhich Aboriginalapply to Aboriginal people thought societies about in reasons, including revenge for injury to oneself or one’s family; avenging the sickness or death of a close relative; vindictiveness (rare); imagined insults; traditional grievances centred on a family or group; persistent adultery; transgressions of tribal law; the law. As significant as a system of law as justice is one that can be referred to as law as care (referred to through the twentieth century in the Riverine simply as ‘caring’ warrantedflouting of religious,action, sorcery esoteric would or moral be performed codes; and at serious the request insults of andothers, quarrels. for which Sorcery the this is a concept linguistically named and widely acknowledged throughout Aboriginal or ‘looking after’). While I have not been able to find a Turrbal expression for caring, sorcererwas not just would carried expect out some for the form benefit of remuneration of the practitioner. (Berndt If he1947b:68-69). or she considered a case Australia. It points to the moral order which operated not so much as conscience- driven imperatives but as axiomatic principles for social life. This second characteristic 2.7.2.5 Within the context of coercive or disciplinary legal mechanisms it might be power. However, the Turrbal/Riverine understanding of personhood, emphasising as it does exercise of authority is more influential and pervasive than the exercise of coercive expected to find a discussion of parental power, as in the right to discipline children. 2.7.3.2 The over-riding authority in a Turrbal/Riverine community was (and remains The right to command suggests that a person is subject to another or has some kind of today) a shared moral authority which has the force of law, and is not vested in a possessorythe autonomy rights of each over person,another. does Both not cases include are contradictions any right to ‘command’of the highly other valued people. right person or persons, or in roles, but in the community as a whole. This legal-moral code to autonomy. I have seen even small children react negatively to commands, or with an remains so consistent that it is experienced almost identically in any Turrbal/Riverine community in the present day, irrespective of the particular personalities of old people sense, place or country, or to the social body as a whole, but possessory rights were not heldassertion over ofother their people, right to although make up they their are own sometimes minds. One referred can ‘belong to in anger to’, in or a possessory humour in the codes or etiquettes of daily life, the consciousness of belonging to a social whole the case of spouses in the modern era (see, for comparison, a similar argument in Chase whichor any isothers. written The into Turrbal/Riverine a particular landscape, self was and a ‘social an awareness self.’ The of lawa broader of care social provided and 1984:117). The more assertive a person became, the less likely it is that they would spiritual whole to which each person and the social/cosmic whole belonged.

2.7.3.3 Moral orders are well known as features of Aboriginal law and studies link 2.7.2.6retain As the a respectcorollary of to the the community law of justice, upon and which often their working power in to tandem influence with was it, based.was the power of trained clever men or women. The power of clever people was controlled conceptual frameworks which underpinned law and social organisation there was no splitauthority between to ‘looking-after’ the legal and (see,the moral. for example, The notion Myers of 1986,law was Ch.8; founded Keen 1994:181ff). on moral precepts In the that their power was not exclusive. According to Eliade (1967:179-83), any initiated both by the presence of other clever people to counter their influence, and the fact a world view which valued individual autonomy highly, which recognised the fact and individuals’. He further notes that this: and encapsulated all areas of everyday social practice. The ‘law of care’ existed within person could exercise similar powers if inspired to do so as ‘non-professional but gifted clearly expressed the reaction against the privileged elite, and, implicitly, the will to empty that in which it was necessary to maintain a balance or harmony so as to avoid a destructive elite’s values, behaviour, and the institutions of the sacred aura they originally had. tendencyinfluence toof personalindividuation. interest, and yet which saw each person as part of a social whole 2.7.2.7 Eliade interprets this as a process of secularisation on the part of the non- 2.7.3.4 When law is merely a governing system, social acts can be regarded as immoral professional individuals who wished to acquire power and prestige without the

Aboriginal societies because governance and the moral order cannot be separated in form opens the way to a process of resacralisation of other sectors of the collective thisbut notway. be The defined law is as broken illegal. when In my the opinion moral this code distinction has been infringedhas rarely upon been to observed the degree in orhardships individual of life’. training. This model He adds presents that the a constant ‘secularization dialectic of in a power traditional and authority religious that it has disrupted the lives of individuals or the social group as a whole. relations. The ability of all individuals to act on their own behalf constitutes an ever- present challenge to leaders. Individual autonomy and freedom of action is maintained 2.7.3.5 Any society in which identity is collectively, as opposed to individually, formulated to counteract any tendency to abuse of coercive power - a cultural system equivalent in function to the separation of powers within the state. 2.7.2.8 Nevertheless, the power of sorcery was acknowledged, practiced and feared. Turrbal Anthropological Report / Macdonald / p.57 Turrbal Anthropological Report / Macdonald / p.58 will depend heavily on ethical and moral codes which will protect and nurture that could only do so when absolutely necessary to stop a situation becoming out of control society. How such a code is internalised by the group members is of vital importance. or they, in turn, would be accused of interfering and exacerbating a situation rather In western societies, participants expect to have an externalised and abstracted than easing it.

2.7.4 Self-help and dispute management moralityrelationship of ato given ‘the law’ situation. as one ofIn theAboriginal many institutions societies thewhich moral regulates code andis internalised constrains fromaction. an Rarely early age does as a framework person call of upon obligations notions and of ‘legality’expectations when designed contemplating to promote the 2.7.4.1 Aboriginal people, particularly in relation to the moral codes, have always (ie. and enhance the emotional dimension of what it is to be human in an environment of is taken to redress wrongs by those persons affected. Third party interference is not since before 1788 through to the present ) had a system of ‘self-help’ in which action Aboriginal societies, human actions are always contextualised in terms of their impact sanctioned (unless things get seriously out of hand). Fighting has long had the status onrelatedness. the social. As Good within and the bad wider are frameworkrelative. It ofis whata morality it means which to be is a intensely ‘social self’ personal within of law and a role similar to that of the law court. Fights have been subject to traditions rather than impersonal, particular rather than abstract and universal, immediate rather of law which govern what is acceptable practice and what is not. In this context, than delayed, related to the everyday of life rather than high moral standards. What is

one’sfights (individualcould be thought or group) of inrights, terms to ofmake the aformer point aboutEuropean such coderights, of and duelling, thus to whether restore 2.7.3.6‘good’ Sansom is what takesis good as for an you/me/us/her,example of this theright concept now, here. of moral violence. He observes: socialinvolving harmony individuals (see also, or large Ch.4). groups. The main point of any fight was to stand up for

payment, executed with due attention to formal witnessing’ (Sansom, 1980:92). 2.7.4.2 ‘it is worth noting that acts of moral violence have a judicial character. They are due collective culture such as this. Transgressors might have voluntarily left the area for a More serious transgressions led to ostracism, a significant punishment in a proceeds in stages. The initial actions are wholly verbal and are followed by the physical while or for good, depending on the nature of the issue. The issue may be seen as too actionsHe cites in the which example the recipientof a man isgiving entirely his wifepassive a beating both physically for ‘playing and around’. verbally. The He actor she has accepted that a moral code has been broken in the context of it being an act and was thus the more severe because one lost all rights as a result. The most severe great to deal with in a fight: fights restored valued relationships. Ostracism ended them or a set of acts which has disrupted the social. The case of adultery is a good example transgressions, those against the religious law, were punishable by death because a of how the moral code is contextually-based instead of being morally absolute, as in person was deemed to be too much of a danger to the social and cosmic whole. western societies. In Aboriginal societies adultery is common place and is not seen to be particularly harmful to the social order. One thing that Aboriginal cosmologies tell us 2.7.5 Law as resource allocation about what it is to be human is that desire will always triumph. This is not a problem. 2.7.5.1 A third form of power, which overlaps the law of justice and that of care, is what It is a question of how and with whom the adulterous behaviour is carried out that is the issue. In Sansom’s example, a wife had carried on a series of public affairs in 2000, Austin-Broos 2003, 2009). It is authority associated with economic relations. WhilstTurrbal/Riverine these types refer of power to as can ‘sharing’. be discussed I refer separately, to it as allocativeit should be power remembered (Macdonald that carried out punishment in the socially-sanctioned manner. The act was sanctioned by these are analytical categories developed for easier comprehension of complex social bothher husband’s the witnesses absence and thewith recipient the ‘wrong and men’.when Upon it was returning over the debt and hadbeing been informed paid. The he dynamics. In reality they overlap and intersect. Before elaborating on allocative power, witnessing was important because the act was as much restoration of social equanimity however, it is necessary to outline the economic principles upon which it is based. as it was personal retribution. The law had been maintained in the interests of the 2.7.5.2 Discussion about economic systems throughout the twentieth century has assumed that it is individuals who produce in different ways, and individuals who must social. My own studies (Macdonald 1988, 1993) of Wiradjuri/Riverine fighting in the to have been restored and the issues which produced it are not revisited: it would be then exchange what they have for what they need. The difference between economics modern era also make the point that once a fight has taken place, social order is deemed morally wrong to do so. as exchange and my view of the Turrbal/Riverine economy as at 1788 as one of sharing might seem small - a nitpicking with words. But it is more important than this in its 2.7.3.7 general as I discuss them above applied to the Riverine bloc immediately prior to 1788. economic system, a different way of ensuring that people within a society have what is WithinIt ais law my of firm care, opinion those who that held the anprinciples authoritative which position apply to of Aboriginalrespect were societies expected in requiredconsequences. to sustain What them. Riverine It is an people expression refer to of today a different as ‘sharing’ understanding is not merely of personhood a different to ensure the stability and fairness of the moral order on behalf of all. The respect in and thus of authority relations. which they were held would have accorded them the right to intervene when required as a third party in matters in which others, even close kin, had no right to do so. They 2.7.5.3 In my opinion, sharing characterises a society in which the notion of personhood

Turrbal Anthropological Report / Macdonald / p.59 Turrbal Anthropological Report / Macdonald / p.60 system which cannot be reduced to these activities. Colonisation has forced changes in autonomy is highly valued but always within a social context. Without that social context,is always they defined are a socially non-being. not Peopleindividualistically. share the same The spiritual-social person is a social existence. being, Peoplewhose have to be brought into this relationship of oneness or wholeness in order to have gathering’the Turrbal masks mode theof production, continuity butof the not complex as significantly, economy until of sharing,very recently, of which in the hunting mode meaningful relationships. Obviously, one of the severest forms of punishment in this andof circulation. gathering wasThus once to speak a major of thepart, pre-sovereignty but which in recent Turrbal decades economy has as become ‘hunting minor. and kind of society is ostracism: social death. Sharing is a giving to a part of the self which Such a narrow view of Turrbal/Riverine economic traditions would tend to encourage is a social self. Not to share when one should and is in a position to do so is to deny not the case. It has, however, come under particular stress in recent decades, as will be discussedan assumption in Chapter that the 6 below. Turrbal economic system has ‘died out’, or been ‘lost’, which is meansthe relationship by which theand integration this inevitably of the leads other to into conflict. the construction Sharing is ofthe social means identity by which and this ontological characteristic of Aboriginal cultural practice finds expression, the 2.7.5.7 What is circulated in a hunter-gatherer economy of sharing is sociality, based is responding to the humanness and the right to social engagement of another person. on a particular morality, of which goods are but an expression. The distinction lies in oneness takes place (cf. Temple 1988b:43). In responding to a ‘demand’ to ‘share’, one the understanding of the relationship as one of material exchange (money for food or 2.7.5.4 knowledge, cloth for tools or labour) which distinguishes those individuals from each other and from what is exchanged, as compared to one of social obligations which arise culturesLiberman can be traced maintains directly that: to ‘The these ontological differences’ bases (Liberman of Aboriginal 1978:161). and InEuraustralian my opinion, because of moral imperatives, in which both people and goods are bound into a oneness thinking differ in a spectacular way, and the terms of the conflict between these two by the act of sociality implied in the giving. The Turrbal/Riverine economic system understanding of what it means to be in the social world. Relations of sharing are those was a system of sociality, informed by a moral framework, rather than merely a system within‘sharing’ which is not human an example beings of aare system constituted of exchange as a butpart belongs of a social to a different whole and ontological without whereby goods were produced and distributed. Turrbal/Riverine economies existed to which they have no meaning. The differences between these economic systems lies augment and give expression to the social, not the reverse (see Peterson 1993). not in the mode of production but in the foundations of their very different notions of 2.7.5.8 Concepts such as production, work, gender, responsibility and exchange concepts need the Riverine now describe this system) to ensure they would get when in need. It was People did not give or ‘share’ (‘sharing’ being the way most Aboriginal people in to‘being be understood, in the world’, unpackaged in the systems as ofit meaningwere, in thewhich context distinguish of the peopleparticular from frameworks each other. not a strategy to alleviate poverty. Rather, giving was what being in a social relationship was all about. Not to give when one was in a position to was not to be in relationship, or how authority based on providing resources (allocative power) works, as well as the within which different people use them. This difference is significant in that it explains a person tested a relationship. Need was irrelevant and not taken into account by either to deny the relationship (tantamount to a significant insult). Thus in making a demand, systems of exchange. difficulties which have been posed for Aboriginal peoples in their encounters with one hand, a palpable economic system and, on the other, a manifestation of a set of 2.7.5.5 Studies of nineteenth century Riverine economic systems are few, the mentions moralparty. obligations‘Sharing’ was integral embedded to the innature the interface and quality between of sociality. morality Sharing and seteconomics: up a system on of social obligation rather than indebtedness, and all people, including children, were expected to uphold this moral principle. The underlying moral message is not that one suggestbeing mostly no more to than the notiona method of ‘huntingof procuring and foods, gathering’ with anda division lists ofof foodslabour and usually the day you may need people to share with you, so, in the meantime, you make sure that assumedtechnologies to beused based to procure on gender them. distinctions, There is a tendency even though for ‘hunting it is well-recognised and gathering’ toin you share with them. The message is simply that the moral imperative is to share what anthropology that complex rules existed for the distribution of goods in all Aboriginal one has when one has it, and that that is what sociality, the social self, is about. societies. However, it is my opinion that an economic system, as part of an overall cultural system, is more than the gathering of resources. It includes the issue of power over 2.7.5.9 Sharing was expressed through the obligations of kin relatedness and vast kin those resources, the ways in which they are distributed, and how they are expended to networks were the social expression of this system of moral law and economy. And it produce desired results. The expression, hunting and gathering, emphasises production, was kinship, in turn, which provided the pathways for their expression. 2.7.5.10 dynamic of social relations. It is the general principle which lay behind various Turrbal dynamicswhich can which distort characterise and devalue the the different significance dimensions of modes of ofboth circulation/distribution. their pre-sovereignty customs, ‘Sharing’ including thus rules refers of to hospitality, a set of values the wayand activitiesland-people which relations controlled were the understood, economic andThe descriptioncontemporary of Turrbal economic people systems. as ‘hunters and gatherers’ risks peripheralising the alliances, and the strategies that animated political life. It contributed to community 2.7.5.6 The point here is merely to stress that hunting and gathering are only one part of a

and personal self-awareness, differentiated distant or close kin within the community; Turrbal Anthropological Report / Macdonald / p.61 Turrbal Anthropological Report / Macdonald / p.62 2.7.6 Authority, knowledge and decision making

2.7.6.1 well-being. territory were not required to reside in it. People (men and women) frequently resided distinguished outsiders who had less right to ask; and ensured people’s continued I have expressed the opinion above that those people identified with a language- 2.7.5.11 In contrast to European attitudes in relation to the accumulation of and attachment in the Aboriginal social world was in terms of their right to identify with the territory in the language-territory of their spouse. However, the specific component of their place greater the knowledge obtained of that territory, through usage, occupation, visiting, to material objects, Turrbal people did not (and do not today) fixate on the object as an Objects function as mediums through which social relations are negotiated and shaped holdingof father ceremonies, and/or mother being (filiation). involved However,with it, the authority greater accruesone’s respect with knowledge. would become The abstract thing in itself to be acquired as part of the pursuit of individual gratification. on an on-going basis. The value of an object is relative in terms of its potential to and thus the greater the authority that person would achieve in matters concerning

it can be used rather than what it is in itself. Objects are the medium through which there is also evidence of headwomen in early Riverine records. These were statuses influence and determine the nature of various social outcomes. It is more a case of how demands can be recognised. thatterritory. were It achieved was common not acquired. for men toThey emerge were as based ‘headmen’ not only in such on knowledgecircumstances, of one’s and territory but also on one’s involvement in the regionalised social system and thus the 2.7.5.12 This does not mean, contrary to popular notions of Aboriginal communal extensive networking and additional knowledge of the region that came with that ownership, that there was no notion of individual ownership. On the contrary, obligations social and cultural involvement. Young men travelled extensively among kin prior to of reciprocity could only exist if highly differentiated notions of personal ownership their marriage, and were later involved in many regionalised ceremonies, festivals and were recognised. Sharing requires a strong conception of personal autonomy and personal property because it is precisely in the nature of how one shares what one has territory, associated with different local-territories. However, they did not become fights. There might be several such prominent men and women within a language- 2.7.5.13rights The over capacity that one to is, establish in turn, defined.one’s personal integrity is deeply grounded in how one successor but only if he could gain for himself the respect required. Headmen could and ‘chiefs’ and there was no system of succession of headship. A son might be a preferred acts in relation to the responsibilities ingrained in sharing relationships. This is also would bypass a son in favour of a nephew or a son-in-law in terms of transmitting their knowledge. Likewise women would hand down knowledge to their own daughters for (1992:33, speaking of Tiwi Aborigines in a contemporary context) has expressed this preference but not always to the eldest and might prefer nieces or granddaughters. well:linked to the way in which people execute demands on significant others. Robinson 2.7.6.2 There remains one further aspect of relevant social organisation to be discussed, Everyday demanding and giving, of money, of food or beer, of access to personal possessions, that of authority relations and modes of decision making. Both Petrie (Petrie 1904:22) themselves in respect of others in the webs of relationships in which Aborigines invest so much timeclothes, and implementsenergy, often andat the so seeming on, reflects expense the of continuous the individual’s striving capacity of individuals to make effective to locate use who had the power to speak for others and decision-making power. The notion of a of his own personal material resources. In fact he or she is attempting to deploy resources in and Gaiarbau Mackenzie (Winterbotham 1957:71-73) refer to ‘councils’ of headmen such a way as to maximise possibilities and pleasures through obligations incurred by others head woman came together on the basis of kinship and context. There is no evidence set of associations surrounding what constitutes the nature of having possessions which is so council appears to refer to those headmen who had some influence. Headman and /or distinctiveand to maximise of Aboriginal the capacity ways ofto being.make demands on the basis of giving. It is this free floating councils are invariably referred to throughout the Riverine in the context of gatherings constitutedthat there wasby people a specific from callingvarious togetherlanguage-territories. of all people The with context such of authority. such gatherings These 2.7.5.14 The key principles in this moral community of sharing are: was rarely ascertained by observers. There was no apparent structure to them and the membership of such councils appeared to be dependent on which groups joined  All people are under an obligation to share what they have with those who ask together and where. It is clear that a host group, for whatever occasion, had a major legitimately, legitimacy being based on the relative kin positions of the persons involved;

 Any person without desired items has a right to ask of a person who has, if that 2.7.6.3influence. Regionalised gatherings did not necessarily involve all people of a regional area. person has a legitimate right to ask;

 The onus is on a person to ask, not on the possessor of valued items to give; Fights and ceremonies, for instance, could have brought the specific people together  The rules of giving and asking are circumscribed by rules of kinship and theirwho wereactual concerned membership with composition that issue. Thererather is than no evidenceto all senior that people ‘councils’ of thewere region. held membership of social groups; Thereindependently is likewise of nosuch evidence occasions, that so they were had most any authorityprobably limitedlocally orto regionallyspecific people beyond in

 A person who desires to acquire or maintain power is under an obligation to

circulate goods and other things of social value to others. Turrbal Anthropological Report / Macdonald / p.64

Turrbal Anthropological Report / Macdonald / p.63 that which their respective statuses normally accorded them (in other words, they oldest male member of a totemic matrimoiety and/or clan acted as leader and had were not a governance body in any formal sense). major responsibilities in matters of ceremony for that matriclan (Howitt 1904:303). The oldest member of a matriclan at a local level would defer to a more senior person 2.7.6.4 in regionalised ceremonies. This seniority system meant that some local residential conferred during ceremonies. I disagree. In my opinion, it is more probable that it grouping might have a few or even no totemic leaders, depending upon their totemic Whalley (1987:33) concluded from his study that the status of ‘headman’ was

women had to be able to command respect at a local level before gaining recognition and Berndt 1970:149). However, this form of totemic leadership did not necessarily was recognised and affirmed rather than conferred. It is my opinion that headmen/ at a regional level. I do agree with Whalley (1987:34), however, when he remarks that providecomposition, or legitimise or it could the have exercise several of(Howitt authority 1889:321; on a day-to-daycf. Mathews basis 1906a:942; and the Berndt only there could be a variety of competing political claims for authority. This has been well examples Howitt gives of their authority is within ritual contexts. recorded in the Cape York area (von Sturmer 1978) and is discussed in Rowse (1992). One reason for allocating an individual site to a young man during his initiation may 2.8.1.4 The headman of a bora (initiation) ceremony was normally the headman, well have been to spatially separate siblings who would otherwise vie for positions muningburum, for the territory in which the bora ground was located. Thus his status within one territory. derived from his position as the locally-resident head of the land-owning group (Winterbotham 1957:73). 2.7.6.5 In summary, although the literature for the region doesn’t deal in detail with authority relations, information available for the Riverine cultural bloc more generally 2.8.1.5 Outside of the religious/ritual sphere, leadership was not vested in an individual indicates that senior men (and women) achieved their status over a lifetime marked by

orator,and was, or asnegotiator, described a above,person situationally-specificwith the appropriate and qualities based was on whateversought. A qualities familial achievements in areas which included: knowledge of law and territory (see also Ch.4); disputewere required would bybe areferred particular to thesituation. oldest Ifappropriate the need, for kin instance, member was present. for a skilful fighter, orskills status in dispute where thismanagement, was considered ability not to fight; to have oratory been andearned persuasion, or had been ability lost to through access wrongresources; practice. and their own personal stature. Age alone did not confer authority, respect

2.8 Religious and secular authority in the Turrbal/Riverine tradition

2.8.1.12.8.1 three Collective societies depend heavily on structured pathways of recognition and responsibility so that transitions through life stages can be accommodated in terms successful to both individual and group. The major transitions ritualised by the Turrbal were initiation, as the move from childhood to adult responsibilities, and the funeral, which recognised the passage of a person’s spirit back to the other world but also had implications in the rearrangements of relationships among the living. Initiation in particular had implications for relationships to territory and I will deal with these in more detail in Chapter 4.

2.8.1.2 It is clear from early studies of Riverine political structures that a distinction between religious and secular authority was made, and that religious authority, based either on training as a clever man or woman, or on seniority in the regionalised totemic matrimoieties, did not translate into local authority in general. However, this distinction was not always made by early observers, Howitt (1904), among them.

2.8.1.3 Howitt (1904:320) says of headmen, a term he uses in preference to chief, that they

tribes in other parts of the world, their power is limited, yet it is an actual power to command,have a power coupled to direct with people a certain ‘[a]lthough measure whenof ability compared to compel with obedience’. those of well-known Elsewhere,

he restricts the notion of ‘headman’ to that of the leader of a totemic division. The Turrbal Anthropological Report / Macdonald / p.65 Turrbal Anthropological Report / Macdonald / p.66