21
Click here to load reader
Click here to load reader
This article was downloaded by: [The University Of Melbourne Libraries]On: 05 October 2013, At: 04:45Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Reviews in AnthropologyPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/grva20
Negotiating Indigeneity: Culture,Identity, and PoliticsDAVID S. TRIGGER & CAMEO DALLEYPublished online: 09 Mar 2010.
To cite this article: DAVID S. TRIGGER & CAMEO DALLEY (2010) Negotiating Indigeneity: Culture,Identity, and Politics, Reviews in Anthropology, 39:1, 46-65, DOI: 10.1080/00938150903548618
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00938150903548618
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Negotiating Indigeneity: Culture, Identity,and Politics
DAVID S. TRIGGERCAMEO DALLEY
de la Cadena, Marisol and Orin Starn, eds. 2007. Indigenous Experience Today.Oxford: Berg.
Harrison, Rodney and Christine Williamson, eds. 2002. After Captain Cook:The Archaeology of the Recent Indigenous Past in Australia. Walnut Creek,
CA: AltaMira Press.
Defining ‘‘indigeneity’’ has recently been approached with renewedvigor. While the field can involve quite passionate commitment toadvocacy among scholars, theoretical clarity is needed in under-standing just who might be thought of as indigenous, and thereasons why this is so. Does ‘‘indigeneity’’ make sense only if it isunderstood in relation to the ‘‘non-indigenous,’’ and if so, howuseful is the latter category across societies and nations with verydifferent cultural histories? Two edited volumes, one whichaddresses this question in global perspective and another focusedexclusively on Australia, are reviewed and contextualized withinbroader debates.
KEYWORDS archaeology, Australia, cultural identity, indigenouspeoples, nativeness
INDIGENEITY: A CONCEPT GOOD TO THINK WITH?
Much recent discussion has considered the manner in which notions ofindigeneity are constructed at global and local levels (Kuper 2003; Barnard2006; Geunther et al. 2006; Merlan 2009). Merlan (2009:305) recognizestwo categories of definition: those characterized as ‘‘relational,’’ where
Address correspondence to David S. Trigger, Anthropology, School of Social Science,The University of Queensland, St Lucia, Qld 4072, Australia. E-mail: [email protected]
Reviews in Anthropology, 39:46–65, 2010Copyright # Taylor & Francis Group, LLCISSN: 0093-8157 print=1556-3014 onlineDOI: 10.1080/00938150903548618
46
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
The
Uni
vers
ity O
f M
elbo
urne
Lib
rari
es]
at 0
4:45
05
Oct
ober
201
3
emphasis is on ‘‘relations between the ‘indigenous’ and their ‘others’ ’’ andthose based on ‘‘criterial’’ qualities where ‘‘properties [are] inherent only tothose we call ‘indigenous’ themselves.’’ Kuper’s (2003) provocative contri-bution argued against criterial constructions of indigeneity, the latter beingthe approach enshrined by the United Nations Working Group on Indigen-ous Populations (UNWGIP).
The UN Working Group emphasizes four principles in the recognitionof indigenous peoples: priority in time in occupation of a specific territory;perpetuation of cultural distinctiveness; self-identification and recognitionas a collectivity by others, including the state; and an experience of margin-alization and dispossession either now or in the past (Kenrick and Lewis2004:5). This approach is particularly rooted in the international indigenouspolitical rights movement which strategically positions indigeneity as sepa-rate from claims ‘‘that can be made for all minorities’’ (Bowen 2000:12). Thus,while academic analysis suggests good reasons why ‘‘ ‘indigeneity’ as a polit-ical concept is like ethnicity’’ (Barnard 2006:13), ‘‘criterial’’ definitions arguefor a clear differentiation between indigeneity and either race or ethnicity,with the specific category of indigenous peoples deserving of distinctiverights and interests (Barber 2008).
The legal rights agenda as the basis for recognizing indigeneity is illu-strated well in post-settler Anglo-derived nations such as Australia. Aboriginaland Torres Strait Islander peoples have, for example, over the past 15 yearsclaimed traditional rights in land and waters through what is known as‘‘native title.’’ Making use of anthropological research, and their own first-hand traditional knowledge, those known as indigenous in Australia arerequired to demonstrate their existence as a discrete society, which has con-tinued over time within the much larger national population (Sutton 2003).Indigenous groups are understood in native title legislation to be collectiv-ities of persons united in and by their acknowledgement and observanceof a system of traditional law and custom. Anthropological research tosupport a native title claim must address the extent to which a ‘‘normative’’system of customary law has had ‘‘a continuous existence and vitality’’ sincethe establishment of British sovereignty (Yorta Yorta Aboriginal Communityv. Victoria [2002] HCA 58: paragraphs 47 and 50).
While cultural change will have taken place (Wright 2003), the indigen-ous claimants in Australia must demonstrate that their traditional law andcustom does not arise from a society other than the aboriginal one thatexisted at the time of British colonization (Yorta Yorta Aboriginal Com-munity v. Victoria [2002] HCA 58: paragraph 89). Such legal reasoning placesa heavy burden on anthropological research (and on claimants), involvingidentifying the ‘‘native’’ or ‘‘indigenous’’ heritage of contemporary Aboriginalpeople, as against those aspects of life deriving from the cultural traditions ofthe wider Australian society (Glaskin 2005). As the point has been maderecently regarding the global significance of this issue, such legal treatment
Negotiating Indigeneity 47
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
The
Uni
vers
ity O
f M
elbo
urne
Lib
rari
es]
at 0
4:45
05
Oct
ober
201
3
of indigeneity may well be the core of much international focus, yetconceptual clarity must continue to derive from sufficiently sophisticated‘‘academic and intellectual discussion’’ (Plaice 2006:22).
The analytical task in anthropology can be complicated when indigen-ous people themselves strategically embrace essentialist notions of anauthentically autochthonous cultural history, assuming that this can alwaysbe clearly distinguished from what is shared with other citizens (Paine2000:79–81, 90; Robins 2003:398). Then there is the issue of the parallel termsautochthony and aboriginality, which seemingly overlap with the notion ofindigeneity. If these words are synonyms they tend to be applied predomi-nantly in different parts of the world. For example, it is autochthony thatappears to be the emerging trope of choice in certain African debates(Ceuppens and Geschiere 2005; Geschiere 2009), while aboriginal is the his-torically accepted label in Australia (and adopted more recently in Canada).
The similarities of historical colonization from Britain and closely relatedlegal and political systems have established readily identifiable comparisonsbetween Australia, New Zealand, Canada, and the United States (Dyck 1985;Paine 2000; Perry 1996), all settings in which we have seen over time thedevelopment of a nationwide social category of ‘‘first peoples’’ that emergedhistorically through a process of ethnogenesis (Jones and Hill-Burnett 1982;Asch 1997). Indeed, Merlan (2009:327) in her global overview regards theseas the ‘‘establishing countries’’ (together with certain European social democ-racies) that gave rise to ‘‘international indigeneity’’ as a global concept.
However, in the context of the research challenge of theorizing the com-plexities of recognizing indigenous difference, while also understanding itsoverlaps with other societal identities, it is clear enough in recent anthropo-logical writing that broader comparisons with an array of diverse countriesare highly germane (Asch and Samson et al. 2004; Barnard 2006; Geuntheret al. 2006; Hodgson 2002; Kuper 2003). One impressive example of this glo-bal outlook is the collection of essays in de la Cadena and Starn (2007b).Indigenous Experience Today arose out of a 2005 Wenner-Gren Foundationsymposium, and presents papers that examine ‘‘the changing boundary poli-tics and epistemologies of blood and culture, time, and place that define whowill or will not count as indigenous’’ (de la Cadena and Starn 2007a:3).
Broadly, the editors wish to ‘‘historicize indigeneity,’’ as a relationalconcept, severing it from sedimented stereotypes about timeless tribalcultures, while acknowledging such idealized and romantic essentialistthemes are at times embraced by those identifying as indigenous peoplesas well as by activists and advocates for their cause (de la Cadena andStarn 2007a:3, 7). Here we have a number of scholars seeking to do awaywith equating authentic indigeneity ‘‘with autochthony and the premodern’’(de la Cadena and Starn 2007a:8), promoting an understanding of this ident-ity category is in no way dependent on staged native costumery or living upto an idealized image of tribal traditions. No contributions to this volume
48 D. S. Trigger and C. Dalley
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
The
Uni
vers
ity O
f M
elbo
urne
Lib
rari
es]
at 0
4:45
05
Oct
ober
201
3
have room for Ramos’s (1992, 1998) ‘‘hyperreal Indian.’’ The authors presenta clear break from any suggestions that indigenous identities need mimic afabricated category of person expected to be the bearer of tribal culture—persons who, as Ramos (1992:9) illustrated for the Brazilian context, canbe constructed as ‘‘more real than the real Indian.’’
The perspective throughout the book is that indigenous identities are ina process of becoming, ‘‘not a fixed state of being’’ (de la Cadena and Starn2007a:11), relational in the sense of always in dialogue with the so-callednon-indigenous, and emergent in different forms in different parts of theworld (de la Cadena and Starn 2007a:13). There is little envisioning of the‘‘oppressive authenticity’’ or notions of ‘‘indigenous purity’’ (Sissons2005:37–59) implicit within such legal regimes as the Australian system ofnative title claims, and indeed, remarkably little of the general ‘‘criterial’’ defi-nitions of indigeneity which (despite strategic flexible interpretation [Merlan2009:305]) pervade the international indigenous rights movement. Forexample, in his contribution, James Clifford (2007:199) points out that peopleare ‘‘improvising new ways to be native,’’ and that assertions of autochthony(that is, connectedness with a particular place) can ‘‘obscure important his-tories of movement.’’ ‘‘More happens under the sign of the indigenous thanbeing born, or belonging, in a bounded land or nation’’ (Clifford 2007:199).Clifford (2007:199) thus loosens ‘‘the common opposition of ‘indigenous’ and‘diasporic’ forms of life.’’ Clifford (2007:201) comments that the tensionsbetween indigeneity and diaspora are ‘‘good to think with.’’
While Indigenous Experience Today illustrates how interrogations of theconcept of indigeneity now build on a history of rich debates in culturalanthropology, such discourses are arguably more muted in other subfieldsof the discipline. Archaeology, for example, has addressed the politics ofits relationship to issues of concern for indigenous peoples in countries likethe United States, Canada, and Australia (Lilley 2000; Atalay 2006); however,apart from McGhee’s (2008) recent contribution, in our view it is less com-mon to find archaeologists problematizing the concept of indigeneity itself.If there is a disjuncture between theoretical approaches in cultural andarchaeological anthropology to the study of indigenous culture and identity,one likely explanation is archaeology’s commitment to scientific investigationof the material remains of the past. A deep time-depth orientation under-standably produces little knowledge of the complexities of living persons’negotiations of their cultural identities (Head 1998).
Nevertheless, particularly from the 1980s onward, some critics havechallenged the primacy of scientific archaeological methods in reconstructingaboriginal life-worlds (Langford 1983; Nicholas 2001; cf. McGhee 2008). Withfurther indirect influence of this kind from feminist archaeologists (Caseyet al. 1998; du Cros and Smith 1993), the archaeological study of the indigen-ous past has come to incorporate more diverse methodologies. Newlyembraced approaches have included those used in cultural anthropology
Negotiating Indigeneity 49
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
The
Uni
vers
ity O
f M
elbo
urne
Lib
rari
es]
at 0
4:45
05
Oct
ober
201
3
that focus on analysis of such data as photographs, historical documentaryrecords, and oral history accounts (Colley 2002:60–61; du Cros 2002). InAustralia, archaeologists have placed increasing value on these approaches,such that they are now applied within certain sectors of the discipline (Davidet al. 2004; Kearney and Bradley 2006; McNiven 2003; Tamisari and Wallace2006; Torrence and Clarke 2000). A commensurate change has been devel-opment of substantial theoretical interest in exploring ‘‘how different culturalgroups live in the same landscape’’ (Clarke and Paterson 2003:49), thisextending to inclusion of ‘‘the ways in which colonial=settler and recentmigrant populations responded to their immersion in new cultural land-scapes and to their exposure to other cultural groups’’ (Clarke and Paterson2003:49). There is a recognition that ‘‘Aboriginal and settler Australians defineone another’’ (Williamson and Harrison 2002:9), this notion of a ‘‘sharedhistory’’ (Harrison 2002; Murray 1996; Torrence and Clarke 2000:3) thusbecoming central to approaches known variously as cross-cultural, contact,or post-contact archaeology.
While some have interpreted such new approaches as reconfiguringarchaeology to ‘‘near-anonymity’’ (Birmingham 2004:52), resulting in aloss of subdisciplinary distinctiveness, others like Godwin and Weiner(2006:124) see the shift as a ‘‘long overdue rapprochement between prehis-tory and social anthropology.’’ Godwin (an archaeologist) and Weiner (acultural anthropologist) suggest that collaborations and the application ofcultural anthropological theory in archaeology can facilitate highly pro-ductive debate, with a capacity for the two subfields ‘‘to converge in Australiamore thoroughly than anywhere else’’ (Godwin and Weiner 2006:125). Thereis also a view that when archaeology engages with ethnographic methodthere is a greater opportunity for involvement of living indigenous peoplein research (Hodder 1991:15; McDavid 2002). Taking up this approach incontact archaeology, Harrison and Williamson’s (2002) edited volume AfterCaptain Cook offers a range of essays from around Australia, which presentcase studies of Aboriginal relations with non-Aboriginal society in the recentpast—since Captain James Cook landed on the Australian coastline in 1770.Before considering the contribution from this attempted new approach inAustralian archaeology we turn to the sophisticated cultural analysis at a glo-bal scale that we find in Indigenous Experience Today.
NEGOTIATING INDIGENEITY: GLOBAL CASE STUDIES
Few if any contributors to Indigenous Experience Today could be seen aslured by the state of ‘‘moral excitation’’ claimed by Beteille (1998:190–191)to derive among Western intellectuals from the idea of supporting the causeof indigenous people. Many of the authors do, however, recognize hiswarning (discussed with particular reference to the complex cultural history
50 D. S. Trigger and C. Dalley
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
The
Uni
vers
ity O
f M
elbo
urne
Lib
rari
es]
at 0
4:45
05
Oct
ober
201
3
of India) that the concept risks as much intellectual confusion as clarity. Forexample, in the highlands of Kalimantan, Indonesia, the idea of beingindigenous becomes more a choice of strategic alliance than of assertedintrinsic identity (Tsing 2007:41). While ‘‘[a]lmost everyone is ‘indigenous’in the sense of deriving from original stocks’’ (Tsing 2007:34), in Indonesiaindigeneity is not a self-evident category. Many oppose activist attempts topromote the concept; and in regions like Aceh and West Papua, activistsseeking independence themselves ‘‘find better routes to make their claimsthan indigenous politics’’ (Tsing 2007:36). Amidst a complex array of identitynegotiations, we learn that the only clear distinction is that the term pribumi(‘‘indigenous’’) is used to ‘‘legitimate discrimination against Chinese Indone-sians, who cannot be pribumi however many generations their ancestorsmay have been there’’ (Tsing 2007:54).
Sounding an even more direct warning, in relation to India, is Baviskar’s(2007:275) decidedly critical view of how ‘‘discourses of indigeneity [can be]deployed to support the claims of the politically dominant Hindu Right,disenfranchising religious minorities and legitimizing a politics of hate.’’ Herewe have fundamentalist organizations subscribing fervently to the idea oftheir people as indigenous, a status reserved only for Hindus, thereby erasingcenturies of Muslim presence in the subcontinent (Baviskar 2007:281).Though adivasis (literally ‘‘original dwellers’’) articulate a version of culturaldifference seemingly much closer to the descendants of colonized peoples infirst world countries, Baviskar (2007:293) comments that the contest overwho is indigenous in India should challenge any article of faith in theconcept as necessarily a ‘‘sign of subalternity or a mode of resistance.’’
Africa offers examples where the term indigenous was employed in theservice of European colonialism, then in struggles against it, and ultimatelydeployed unevenly among competing sectors of populations (Nyamanjoh2007:305). In Botswana, the Khoesan languages and the Basarwa peoplewho speak them are the most marginalized, ‘‘despite the fact they are histori-cally the most autochthonous’’ (Nyamanjoh 2007:309). But what distin-guishes this case from European-derived settler societies is that it is thehistorically arriving Tswana majority who have legitimated their version ofindigeneity and claims of authenticity over all others as the ‘‘first’’ citizensof Botswana (Nyamanjoh 2007:309). Thus, indigeneity is ‘‘a process subjectto renegotiation’’ (Nyamanjoh 2007:323).
A case like Tibet confirms how little room there can be for such negotia-tions to occur. Any assertions of indigeneity are constrained by China’s policyof minzu (nationality): ‘‘The only acceptable cultural difference is that whichupholds national unity’’ (Yeh 2007:71). While the relevant historical, politicaland social circumstances may invite others to call them indigenous, neitherordinary Tibetans nor activists use this terminology. Tibetan terms describing‘‘nativeness’’ (which translate as ‘‘born of this soil and rock’’) or ‘‘tribalness’’are used in everyday speech, but not to ‘‘mobilize claims about sovereignty,
Negotiating Indigeneity 51
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
The
Uni
vers
ity O
f M
elbo
urne
Lib
rari
es]
at 0
4:45
05
Oct
ober
201
3
human rights, national inclusion, environmental stewardship, or to demandrights that accompany the recognition of cultural difference’’ (Yeh 2007:70).
Identities encompassing histories of movement can also be reasons whyclaims to indigeneity are not made. Hmong=Miao people have migratedthroughout parts of Southeast Asia as well as to countries like the UnitedStates. While they could be seen as linked with the international indigenouspeoples movement through a history of unjust expropriation of once nativelands, they do not identify with the idea of rootedness in place, instead shar-ing ‘‘narratives of displacement’’ (Schein 2007:225). Hmong=Miao have been‘‘perennially on the move, . . . eschewing [the idea of] firstness per se’’ (Schein2007:230). Their textual, audio and visual media forms, targeted exclusivelyfor intra-ethnic consumption, do document ‘‘a mythologized land of originsin the mountains of southwest China’’ (Schein 2007:233). However, if thereare discourses of ‘‘diasporic longing’’ evident in these materials, Hmong=Miao ethnicity is said nevertheless to remain ‘‘contrapuntal to those collectiv-ities whose identity claims are based on rootedness’’ (Schein 2007:242).
Yet why should this be so? Is the historical experience of diasporanecessarily contradictory to the articulation of indigenous identities? Clifford(2007) points out that mobility and distance from traditional homelandsamong those identifying as indigenous (off-island Hawaiians, for example)thickens any sharp line separating such identities from those we regard asdiasporic. He seeks to ‘‘bring the language of diaspora into indigenouscontexts,’’ commenting that ‘‘cultural-studies diaspora theorists’’ dismissiveof locally rooted identities have risked throwing the native out with the bath-water of nativism (Clifford 2007:200). Using Fienup-Riordan’s (2000) workwith Yup’ik people in western Alaska, Clifford (2007:208) argues that adynamic local tradition can be sustained ‘‘and in certain respects strength-ened by experiences of mobility and diaspora.’’ While Clifford (2007:207)does not intend to romanticize sociocultural survival, what might have beenmore fully discussed here is the sense in which Yup’ik are alsonon-indigenous, if we are to acknowledge their mixed ancestries and livesas incorporated into the wider American society. Perhaps this is a case ofBeteille’s (2007:190–191) ‘‘moral charge’’ said to operate among Westernintellectuals, a political position productive of an unwillingness to acceptthe genuinely severe ruptures in Yup’ik history that would lead these peopleas much away from as towards an ‘‘indigenous’’ identity.
American Indian groups are, however, keen not to lose indigenousstatus. Choctaw tribe members are ‘‘phenotypically indistinct from whites,a reflection of extensive intermarriage’’ (Lambert 2007:158), 80% are less thanone-quarter Choctaw ‘‘by blood’’ (Lambert 2007:159) and the vast majorityare Christian, ‘‘reflecting a 200-year history of . . . churches and missionaries’’(Lambert 2007:161). Indeed, looking at census data, ‘‘Indians can be calledAmerica’s fastest-growing minority’’ (Hitt 2005), and there are concerns aboutethnic fraud whereby Native ancestry is claimed for a mix of varying
52 D. S. Trigger and C. Dalley
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
The
Uni
vers
ity O
f M
elbo
urne
Lib
rari
es]
at 0
4:45
05
Oct
ober
201
3
pragmatic and symbolic reasons (Hitt 2005; Pember 2007). There may be jobsavailable only to those of Indian descent (in higher education, for example,[AIANP 2003]), but there is also some serious ‘‘ethnic shopping’’ (Hitt 2005)driven seemingly by a desire to claim attractive nativeness. Moreover, thisis not a phenomenon confined to predominantly White settler-descendantnations. Japanese imaginings about Bolivian musicians who relocate toperform in Japan ‘‘evoke . . . images of a distant indigenous world’’ (Bigenho2007:247), pinning to this envisioned identity category a nostalgia for whatis thought to be lost in Japanese modernity. Thus, it is possible to read ofa young Japanese man (known as Apache, a nickname selected from theimagined indigeneity of North America) who draws ‘‘connections betweenthe Andean indigenous ritual world and a Japanese ritual world that heperceived to be disappearing in post-WWII Japan’’ (Bigenho 2007:262).
Nevertheless, it is clear enough that it is in the European-derived settler-descendant countries, that the idea of indigenous peoples has beenmobilized most successfully. The term itself is not necessarily the most wide-spread identity label among Aboriginal people in Australia (Merlan 2007:128;Australian Human Rights Commission 2009:4); nor in Canada, where‘‘indigenous’’ is not so much a ‘‘primary category of self-ascription’’ but is‘‘becoming the term of choice for some young urban activists’’ (Cruikshank2007:356). In New Zealand, the concept of indigeneity has mobilized a formof cultural resistance among ‘‘Maori’’ people in opposition to the otherwisedominant ‘‘Pakeha’’ (non-Maori settler) society (Tuhiwai Smith 2007:338–342). It is in these countries that individuals identifying as indigenous increas-ingly write passionately as scholars and advocates, the volume IndigenousExperience Today including several examples.
However, while Chaat Smith (2007) identifies as an American Indian, heis less than comfortable with common assumptions about what such an articu-lation means. Here there is no belief that an asserted indigenous identitynecessarily entails cultural knowledge. In a richly informative depiction of cre-ating the National Museum of the American Indian exhibitions (opened inWashington, D.C. in 2004), this author is critical of ‘‘essentialist Indian gate-keepers’’ (Chaat Smith 2007:382), of Indian intellectuals who are insufficientlyrigorous in their scholarship, and of ‘‘ferocious tribal politics’’ that would allownepotistic public celebration of prominent yet unworthy tribal members. Herecounts his personal struggle, as a museum employee, to create intellectuallysophisticated materials that go beyond simplistic ‘‘post-Quincentennial tri-umphalism’’ (Chaat Smith 2007:383)—a reference to indigenous activismarising from the Columbus Quincentennial events in 1992.
Chaat Smith (2007:385) faces squarely the dilemma of indigenous peoplewho do not know the cultural stories that their sense of identity leads them towant to tell. Critically, he also cuts through the constraints of identity politicsin countries like the United States, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand,by debunking one of the key myths underpinning the more essentialist
Negotiating Indigeneity 53
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
The
Uni
vers
ity O
f M
elbo
urne
Lib
rari
es]
at 0
4:45
05
Oct
ober
201
3
dimensions of politicized indigenism. Chaat Smith (2007:386) notes thatasserted identity in itself cannot bestow knowledge or wisdom: ‘‘cultureand history don’t come standard with any particular territory or anyone’s parti-cular DNA.’’ In his words, the suggestion that those identifying as indigenous,in a setting like the United States, ‘‘all carried on these wonderful intact deepnarratives of our past seemed to be like so much colonial bullshit’’ (2007:393).
In the context of this brutally honest assessment of indigenous identitypolitics, we have Pratt’s (2007:402) surprising suggestion that ‘‘the livedexperience of indigenous peoples remains largely beyond’’ the grasp of‘‘non-indigenous moderns.’’ This assertion, in the Afterword for IndigenousExperience Today, curiously ignores the many arguments against such anessentialist conceptualization throughout the book. At the least, we areprompted to ask who exactly might these non-indigenous moderns be, pre-sumably destined forever to be excluded from the experience of indigeneity?Pratt’s framing of rigidly separate indigenous and non-indigenous categoriesmight well be one of the ‘‘unwelcome effects’’ of separatism at times linked tothe concept of indigeneity (Brown 2007:171–172). Thus, what are the moraland political implications of the role played by the doctrine of ‘‘firstness’’(Brown 2007:177)? Is there a risk of a ‘‘suffocating ontology’’ and ‘‘relentlesspolicing of boundaries’’ linked to ideas such as indigenous sovereignty(Brown 2007:185)? It is the great strength of Indigenous Experience Todaythat such questions arise for discussion, alongside all contributors’ empathyfor those identifying as indigenous people.
THE CASE OF AUSTRALIA: ARCHAEOLOGY, THE RECENT PASTAND INDIGENOUS EXPERIENCE
After Captain Cook: The Archaeology of the Recent Past in Australia is thesecond in an Indigenous Archaeologies Series begun in 2000. Twelve chap-ters focus on the relationships between Indigenous people and others,although just what criteria are used to define indigeneity (or indeednon-indigeneity) in this context, is not a specific focus of these studies. Thisis foreshadowed when the series editors envision volumes that encompassresearch undertaken ‘‘in any of the seventy-two countries that have Indigen-ous populations’’ (frontispiece) yet we are left unsure of just which nations ofthe world these may be.
Chapters in After Captain Cook interpret archaeology broadly to includeresearch dealing with material culture, photographs, historical records, andoral histories from the early period of colonial contact. The application ofsuch approaches is geared towards a more nuanced interpretation of therecent historical past than archaeological survey and excavation methodsalone can offer. A closely related aim is that ‘‘archaeologists are increasinglyable to demonstrate that Aboriginal people were not passive recipients of
54 D. S. Trigger and C. Dalley
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
The
Uni
vers
ity O
f M
elbo
urne
Lib
rari
es]
at 0
4:45
05
Oct
ober
201
3
imposed cultural change, but rather active agents in responding to settlercolonialism’’ (Williamson and Harrison 2002:4). As in cultural anthropology,the indication here is that the conceptual problem of tradition and changebecomes central to archaeological studies investigating the recent indigenouspast. However, whether the complexities of negotiations over relationalidentities can be apprehended through contact archaeology remains unclearfrom this volume.
Ferrier (2002) and Williamson (2002) explore the relationship between‘‘black’’ and ‘‘white’’ experience through material culture transactions,whereby colonial objects were incorporated into Aboriginal life. Conclusionsare drawn about the degree to which Euro-Australian culture impacted Abor-iginal lives at specific locales and points in time (Ferrier 2002:32; Williamson2002:98–99). Such approaches can be extended by including Aboriginal oralhistory into the analysis, for example, in regard to the nature of post-contactsocial relations. Godwin and L’Oste-Brown (2002:197) find ‘‘a rich anddiverse range of places containing Aboriginal cultural values,’’ much of theevidence arising from ‘‘cogent oral testimony within the Aboriginalcommunity’’ (2002:198).
A focus on cultural change is also attempted when scholars consider therole of archaeology in the resolution of native title claims (Riches 2002; Vethand McDonald 2002). While the relevant Australian legislation ‘‘requires[cultural] continuity when the reality is change’’ (Riches 2002:115), Richessuggests archaeology’s contribution to this discourse should be to write anaccount of Aboriginal-European contact, that dismantles popular images ofAboriginal people as unchanging through time. This would open the wayfor greater acceptance of cultural change as commensurate with continuingtraditional rights in land and waters. Worthy though this aim may be, theparticular difficulty for archaeological approaches, is the doubtful ability ofits material culture perspective to directly prove a particular group’s histori-cal occupation of a specific area of land, this being a central requirement ofthe native title process (Veth and McDonald 2002:124). Indeed, there havebeen cases where judicial decisions focus specifically on the failure ofarchaeological evidence to support claims at the scale of specific claimantgroup territories (Risk v Northern Territory of Australia [2006] FCA 404:paragraph 106; Harrington-Smith on behalf of Wongatha people v. WesternAustralia (no.9) 2007 FCA 31: paragraphs 469–494.).
Some researchers question the efficacy, in principle, of integratingarchaeological interpretations into native title, as the legal process can appearto undermine the legitimacy of Aboriginal oral history in favor of a forensicscientific approach to studying indigenous culture and the past (McNivenand Russell 2005:246–247). Scientific method in contact archaeology willhave varying relationships with the living oral traditions of indigenouspeople, though how this may work is not always clear. Ground-penetratingradar techniques might well be used to ground-truth documentary records
Negotiating Indigeneity 55
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
The
Uni
vers
ity O
f M
elbo
urne
Lib
rari
es]
at 0
4:45
05
Oct
ober
201
3
of unmarked Aboriginal graves in an old mission cemetery in southeastAustralia (Brown et al. 2002); but it remains uncertain how such findingsrelate to the indigenous oral histories of the area, despite the authors’ com-ment that such techniques ‘‘should only occur with full endorsement of therelevant Aboriginal people and communities’’ (Brown et al. 2002:162). His-torical photographs are said to provide an opportunity for collaborativeresearch (Lydon 2002:72). However, again there is ambiguity regarding theextent to which the author’s interpretations may have encompassed oralcommentary from the relevant Aboriginal people; for example, in relationto the investigator’s reading from the images, that there was an analyticallysignificant and unusually close relationship with a non-indigenous managerat a particular Mission Station (Lydon 2002:60).
Contact archaeology’s focus on shared histories (Harrison 2002), exam-ining local-level relationships between Aboriginal people and White settlers,is particularly evident in studies of sites understood to hold significance forboth indigenous people and others (McIntyre-Tamwoy 2002). In Harrison’s(2002:39) view, scholars have previously paid insufficient attention to physi-cal locations that exhibit the material dimension of Aboriginal-Europeaninteraction. In archaeology, there is an ‘‘oldest is best’’ assumption thatpushes authentic Aboriginality into the deep past, and results in the disci-pline’s ‘‘alienation from national history-making’’ (Harrison 2002:39). Thecontributors to After Captain Cook seek to remedy this approach by facilitat-ing the writing of a ‘‘shared cross-cultural history and archaeology’’ (Harrison2002:41).
For some, this is an overdue theoretical dismantling of the perspectivethat envisions pre-contact Aboriginal sites as somehow more authentic orgenuinely indigenous than those from the post-contact period (Harrison2002:38; McNiven and Russell 2005:220–222). Authors in After Captain Cookappear to assume, rather than demonstrate, that scholarship focused on pre-contact indigenous culture is dismissive of the authenticity of post-contactAboriginal life. Nevertheless, this is a view seemingly held with great convic-tion. Byrne (2002:137) argues that archaeology’s well established fixednesson pre-contact Aboriginal sites has had the direct effect of disallowing con-temporary indigenous people from articulating the recent ‘‘physical tracesof their own past.’’ He proposes that contact archaeology has the potentialto ‘‘reverse the ‘detaching’ effect of the conventional practices of prehistoryand historical (read white) archaeology’’ (Byrne 2002:139).
This is possible not only in academic studies but also with development-driven environmental impact assessments which include a cultural heritagecomponent; such work should pay empathetic research attention to missionsites, post-contact Aboriginal cemeteries, fringe camps, short-term campingplaces and so on (Byrne 2002:142). Some, if not many, of these sites willexhibit ‘‘intangible heritage’’ in that there are no physical traces of theevents or associations that give them meaning to living Aboriginal people.
56 D. S. Trigger and C. Dalley
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
The
Uni
vers
ity O
f M
elbo
urne
Lib
rari
es]
at 0
4:45
05
Oct
ober
201
3
While intangible heritage places ‘‘are by definition non-archaeological,’’ the‘‘spatial sensitivity of archaeology equips it uniquely for this type of work’’(Byrne 2002:144). Heritage sites are ‘‘a powerful resource for locality buildingbecause the linkage between people and the soil . . . is considered to be thevery essence of nativeness and belonging’’ (Byrne 2002:138).
While the research presented in After Captain Cook seeks to produce‘‘an archaeology of continuity, survival and transformation’’ (Murray2002:218), what remains under-theorized is the negotiated extent to whichgreatly changed cultures among people with some Aboriginal ancestry arebest understood as exclusively ‘‘indigenous’’ in the modern nation state ofAustralia. Given that contact archaeology focuses on cultural histories thatare shared, we might expect greater attention to the complications ofpotential discontinuities or at least possible transformations in indigenousidentities. On this issue, the Australian case illustrates how archaeologistswishing to engage with living aspects of indigenous ‘‘nativeness andbelonging’’ (Byrne 2002:138), may find it productive to engage with thecontributions in Indigenous Experience Today.
UNDERSTANDING MULTIPLE AND EMERGENT INDIGENEITIES
Relational understandings of indigenous identities would seem to be in sometension with the idea that there are essential criteria necessary in the recog-nition of this social category. Much attention in cultural anthropology isbeing given to understanding the complexities of how indigeneity is nego-tiated differently across the world. While in archaeology, discussed here withparticular reference to a single case study country, scholars proclaiming afocus on colonial and postcolonial relationships of contact seek to distancetheir endeavors from established patterns of exclusive investigation of thepre-contact past. Both subdisciplines appear to seek analytical clarity aboutthe relationships between indigenous persons and others while respectingthe everyday aspirations of those groups who find the concept of indigeneityuseful and appropriate.
Amidst the rich materials available on understanding indigenous peo-ples it is clear enough that this is a plural world of multiple asserted identities.If there is a new direction for this research, it may well be to follow one of thelogics that derive from relational approaches to the operation of indigeneityas a fluid sociocultural phenomenon. This would be to more emphaticallyaddress the issue of whether the idea of being indigenous is applicable tothe descendants of colonizers. Perhaps more specifically, can indigeneitybe emergent over time in populations which begin their presence in alocation as settlers, migrants, and visitors?
This would be to take up the challenge arising from Dominy’s (2001)work, forged in research among White New Zealand farmers, yet relevant
Negotiating Indigeneity 57
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
The
Uni
vers
ity O
f M
elbo
urne
Lib
rari
es]
at 0
4:45
05
Oct
ober
201
3
across global settings. In the course of interrogating the concept of indigeneityas one that is too often uncritically accepted especially among scholars ofWhite post-settler societies, Dominy is interested in the ways Whites them-selves ‘‘try on words’’ such as ‘‘indigenous,’’ ‘‘authentic,’’ and ‘‘autochthon-ous.’’ Thus, she investigates the forms that ‘‘Anglo-Celtic settler-descendantindigeneity’’ may take, the implication in the New Zealand context beingthat such emplaced identity and belonging may be parallel to, but differentfrom, Maori indigeneity (Dominy 2001:27,45).
Such a conception of being indigenous is likely to be at odds withpolitical definitions stressing an encapsulated colonized history and theexperience of dispossession. Yet Nyamanjoh’s (2007:305) point remains: con-cepts that may work for political achievements are not necessarily therebyadequate for theoretical understanding. Given that people ‘‘are not indigen-ous naturally, but rather by convention and recognition by others’’ (Yeh2007:76), this literature logically raises the matter of who, in the end, is tobe regarded as essentially (if not primordially) non-indigenous?
The cases presented in Indigenous Experience Today can be supple-mented with many further settings in which this is a critical question. If,for example, in Botswana, the long-established White minority (2%) regardsitself as native, with ‘‘White skin and an African soul’’ (Gressier 2008), do wetheorize this asserted identity any differently from claims to indigeneityamong the descendants of the colonized? In Brazil, how do we understandthe huge racially mixed population which is unlikely to accept morallysuperior rights based on a ‘‘privileged source of nativeness’’ (Conklin 2002;Ramos 1990:455) among the several hundred thousand people who claimIndian status? In the Malay world, is it solely tribal peoples connected closelywith long-occupied traditional territories who are indigenous, when largesectors of the surrounding societal population identify as bumiputra,‘‘indigenous nationals’’ or ‘‘original inhabitants’’ (Benjamin 2002; Siddiqueand Suryadinata 1981–2)? Or, in South Africa, where some writers includeall Africans as indigenous as against European colonizers and their descen-dants (Perry 1996:215), is it not the once hunter-gatherer San minority whicharguably can claim the longest heritage of autochthonous occupation andpossibly a status as first people (Carruthers 2003:250; Kenrick and Lewis2004:6)?
In all these cases, just who inherits indigeneity via their ancestry, culturaltraditions, or political circumstances is highly complex. None of the examplescan easily be sidelined as irrelevant to the study of emergent, negotiated, andflexible indigeneities across the globe. To focus, as with recent developmentsin contact archaeology in Australia, on the significance of shared histories,may promise a productive approach to the emergence of such relational cul-tural identities over time. The lesson of Indigenous Experience Today is likelyto be that ethnographic insights from research among living populations aredifficult to match in studies focused on material culture or textual analysis
58 D. S. Trigger and C. Dalley
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
The
Uni
vers
ity O
f M
elbo
urne
Lib
rari
es]
at 0
4:45
05
Oct
ober
201
3
alone. While a broad suite of methods will doubtless continue to be used inthe study of indigeneity, it should not be difficult to make the case that bothcultural anthropology and archaeology have as much to offer the study ofculture and identity among dominant classes, as among subaltern groups.In our view, the concept of indigeneity thereby becomes genuinely ‘‘goodto think with,’’ apart from its value as a politically useful vehicle for theaspirations of particular populations across the world.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Michael Williams, Director of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander StudiesUnit at the University of Queensland, has generously discussed the issues inthis article with David S. Trigger over many years. Ian Lilley, also at the Unit,kindly advised on relevant sources for discussion of approaches in contactarchaeology.
REFERENCES CITED
(AIANP) Association of American Indian and Alaska Native Professors2003 Statement on ethnic fraud. http://www.uwm.edu/~michael/nativeprofs/
fraud.htm, accessed September 21, 2009.Asch, Michael, ed.
1997 Aboriginal and Treaty Rights in Canada: Essays on Law, Equity and Respectfor Difference. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press in associationwith the Centre for Constitutional Studies, University of Alberta.
Asch, Michael, Colin Samson, Dieter Heinen, Justin Kenrick, Jerome Lewis, SidsalSaugestad, Terry Turner and reply by Adam Kuper2004 Discussion of On the Return of the Native. Current Anthropology
45(2):261–268.Atalay, Sonia, ed.
2006 Decolonizing Archaeology. Theme issue, American Indian Quarterly30(3–4).
Australian Human Rights Commission2009 National Indigenous Representative Body: Summary Report, 11–13 March,
Stamford, Glenelg, Adelaide http://www.hreoc.gov.au/social_justice/repbody/index.html, accessed September 14, 2009.
Barber, Keith2008 ‘Indigenous Rights’ or ‘Racial Privileges’: The Rhetoric of ‘Race’ in New
Zealand Politics. Asia Pacific Journal of Anthropology 9(2):141–156.Barnard, Alan
2006 Kalahari Revisionism, Vienna and the ‘Indigenous Peoples’ Debate. SocialAnthropology 14(1):1–16.
Baviskar, Annita2007 Indian Indigeneities: Adivasi Engagements with Hindu Nationalism in
India. In de la Cadena and Starn, eds. Pp. 275–303.
Negotiating Indigeneity 59
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
The
Uni
vers
ity O
f M
elbo
urne
Lib
rari
es]
at 0
4:45
05
Oct
ober
201
3
Benjamin, Geoffrey2002 On Being Tribal in the Malay World. In Tribal Communities in the Malay
World, Geoffrey Benjamin and Cynthia Chou, eds. Pp. 7–76. Singapore: Instituteof Southeast Asian Studies.
Beteille, Andre1998 The Idea of Indigenous People. Current Anthropology 39(2):87–91.
Bigenho, Michelle2007 Bolivian Indigeneity in Japan: Folklorized Music Performance. In de la
Cadena and Starn, eds. Pp. 247–272.Birmingham, Judy
2004 Review of After Captain Cook: The Archaeology of the Recent IndigenousPast in Australia. Australian Archaeology 58:52.
Bowen, John R.2000 Should We Have a Universal Concept of ‘Indigenous Peoples’ Rights?
Ethnicity and Essentialism in the Twenty-First Century. Anthropology Today16(4):12–16.
Brown, Michael F.2007 Sovereignty’s Betrayals. In de la Cadena and Starn, eds. Pp. 171–196.
Brown, Steve, Steve Avery, and Megan Goulding2002 Recent Investigations at the Ebenezer Mission Cemetery. In Harrison and
Williamson, eds. Pp. 147–170.Byrne, Denis
2002 An Archaeology of Attachment: Cultural Heritage and the Post-Contact.In Harrison and Williamson, eds. Pp. 135–146.
Carruthers, Jane2003 Contesting Cultural Landscapes in South Africa and Australia: Comparing
the Significance of the Kalahari Gemsbok and Uluru-Kata Tjuta National Parks.In Disputed Territories: Land, Culture and Identity in Settler Societies, David S.Trigger and Gareth Griffiths, eds. Pp. 233–268. Hong Kong: Hong KongUniversity Press.
Casey, Mary, Denise Donlon, Jeanette Hope, and Sharon Wellfare, eds.1998 Redefining Archaeology: Feminist Perspectives. Canberra: ANHPublications.
Ceuppens, Bambi, and Peter Geschiere2005 Autochthony: Local or Global? New Modes in the Struggle over Citizenship
and Belonging in Africa and Europe. Annual Review of Anthropology 34:385–407.Chaat Smith, Paul
2007 The Terrible Nearness of Distant Places: Making History at the NationalMuseum of the American Indian. In de la Cadena and Starn, eds. Pp. 379–396.
Clarke, Anne, and Alistair Paterson2003 Cross-Cultural Archaeology: An Introduction. Archaeology in Oceania
38:49–51.Clifford, James
2007 Varieties of Indigenous Experience: Diasporas, Homelands, Sovereignties.In de la Cadena and Starn, eds. Pp. 197–223.
Colley, Sarah2002 Uncovering Australia: Archaeology, Indigenous People and the Public.
Crow’s Nest, New South Wales: Allen & Unwin.
60 D. S. Trigger and C. Dalley
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
The
Uni
vers
ity O
f M
elbo
urne
Lib
rari
es]
at 0
4:45
05
Oct
ober
201
3
Conklin, Beth A.2002 Shamans versus Pirates in the Amazonian Treasure Chest. American
Anthropologist 104(4):1050–1061.Cruikshank, Julie
2007 Melting Glaciers and Emerging Histories in the Saint Elias Mountains. In dela Cadena and Starn, eds. Pp. 355–378.
David, Bruno, Bryce Barker, and Ian J. McNiven, eds.2006 The Social Archaeology of Australian Indigenous Societies. Canberra:
Aboriginal Studies Press.David, Bruno, Ian McNiven, Louise Manas, John Manas, Silia Savage, Joe Crouch,
Guy Neliman, and Liam Brady2004 Goba of Mua: Archaeology Working with Oral Tradition. Antiquity
78(299):158–172.de la Cadena, Marisol, and Orin Starn
2007a Introduction. In de la Cadena and Starn, eds. Pp. 1–32.de la Cadena, Marisol, and Orin Starn, eds.
2007b Indigenous Experience Today. Oxford: Berg.Dominy, Michele
2001 Calling the Station Home: Place and Identity in New Zealand’s HighCountry. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
du Cros, Hilary2002 Much More than Stones and Bones: Archaeology in the Late Twentieth
Century. Carlton, Victoria: Melbourne University Press.du Cros, Hilary, and Laurajane Smith, eds.
1993 Women in Archaeology: A Feminist Critique. Occasional Papers inPrehistory, 23. Canberra: Department of Prehistory, Research School of PacificStudies, The Australian National University.
Dyck, Noel1985 Aboriginal Peoples and the Nation-States: An Introduction to Analytical
Issues. In Indigenous Peoples and the Nation-State: ‘‘Fourth World’’ Politicsin Canada, Australia and Norway, Noel Dyck, ed. Pp. 1–26. St John’s, NL:Institute of Social and Economic Research, Memorial University ofNewfoundland.
Ferrier, Asa2002 TheMjoberg Collection and Contact Period Aboriginal Material Culture from
North-East Queensland’s Rainforest Region. In Harrison and Williamson, eds.Pp. 18–35.
Fienup-Riordan, Ann2000 Hunting Tradition in a Changing World. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers
University Press.Geschiere, Peter
2009 The Perils of Belonging: Autochthony, Citizenship and Exclusion in Africaand Europe. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Geunther, Mathias, Justin Kenrick, Adam Kuper, Evie Placie, Trond Thuen,Patrick Wolfe, Werner Zips, and Alan Barnard2006 Discussion of The Concept of Indigeneity. Social Anthropology
14(1):17–32.
Negotiating Indigeneity 61
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
The
Uni
vers
ity O
f M
elbo
urne
Lib
rari
es]
at 0
4:45
05
Oct
ober
201
3
Glaskin, Katie2005 Innovation and Ancestral Revelation: The Case of Dreams. Journal of the
Royal Anthropological Institute 11(2):297–314.Godwin, Luke, and Scott L’Oste-Brown
2002 A Past Remembered: Aboriginal ‘Historical’ Places in Central Queensland.In Harrison and Williamson, eds. Pp. 191–212.
Godwin, Luke, and James F. Weiner2006 Footprints of the Ancestors: The Convergence of Anthropological
Perspectives in Contemporary Aboriginal Heritage Studies. In David, Barker,and McNiven, eds. Pp. 125–138.
Gressier, Catie2008 ‘White Skin and an African Soul’: Whiteness, Emplacement and
Autochthony in Ngamiland, Botswana. In Toxic Belonging: Identity andEcology in Southern Africa, Dan Wylie, ed. Pp. 162–177. Newcastle, UK:Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Harrison, Rodney2002 Shared Histories and the Archaeology of the Pastoral Industry in Australia.
In Harrison and Williamson, eds. Pp. 37–58.2004 Shared Landscapes: Archaeologies of Attachment and the Pastoral Industry
in New South Wales. Sydney: University of New South Wales Press.Harrison, Rodney, and Christine Williamson, eds.
2002 After Captain Cook: The Archaeology of the Recent Indigenous Past inAustralia. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press.
Head, Lesley1998 Risky Representations: The ‘Seduction of Wholeness’ and the Public Face of
Australian Archaeology. Australian Archaeology 46:1–4.Hitt, Jack
2005 The Newest Indians. The New York Times Magazine, August 21:36–41.Hodder, Ian
1991 Interpretive Archaeology and Its Role. American Antiquity 56(1):7–18.Hodgson, Dorothy L., ed.
2002 In Focus: Indigenous Rights Movements. Theme Issue, AmericanAnthropologist 104(4).
Jones, Delmos J., and Jacquetta Hill-Burnett1982 The Political Context of Ethnogenesis: An Australian Example. In
Aboriginal Power in Australian Society. Michael C. Howard, ed. Pp. 214–246.St Lucia: University of Queensland Press.
Kearney, Amanda, and John Bradley2006 Landscapes with Shadows of Once Living People: The Kundawira
Challenge. In David, Barker, and McNiven, eds. Pp. 182–203.Kenrick, Justin, and Jerome Lewis
2004 Indigenous Peoples’ Rights and the Politics of the Term ‘Indigenous.’Anthropology Today 20(2):4–9.
Kuper, Adam2003 The Return of the Native. Current Anthropology 44(3):389–395 (followed
by comments by Keiichi Omura, Evie Plaice, Alcida Rita Ramos, Steven Robins,and James Suzman, 395–400, and reply by Adam Kuper, 400–402).
62 D. S. Trigger and C. Dalley
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
The
Uni
vers
ity O
f M
elbo
urne
Lib
rari
es]
at 0
4:45
05
Oct
ober
201
3
Lambert, Valerie2007 Choctaw Tribal Sovereignty at the Turn of the 21st Century. In de la Cadena
and Starn, eds. Pp. 151–169.Langford, Ruby F.
1983 Our HeritageYour Playground. Australian Archaeology 16:1–6.Lilley, Ian, ed.
2000 Native Title and the Transformation of Archaeology in the PostcolonialWorld. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press.
Lydon, Jane2002 ‘The Civilising Experiment’: Photography at Coranderrk Aboriginal Station
during the 1860s. In Harrison and Williamson, eds. Pp. 59–72.McDavid, Carol
2002 Archaeologies That Hurt; Descendants That Matter: A Pragmatic Approachto Collaboration in the Public Interpretation of African-American Archaeology.World Archaeology 34(2):303–314.
McGhee, Robert2008 Aboriginalism and the Problems of Indigenous Archaeology. American
Antiquity 73(4):579–597.McIntyre-Tamwoy, Susan
2002 Place People Value: Social Significance and Cultural Exchange inPost-Invasion Australia. In Harrison and Williamson, eds. Pp. 171–189.
McNiven, Ian J.2003 Saltwater People: Spiritscapes, Maritime Rituals and the Archaeology of
Australian Indigenous Seascapes. World Archaeology 35(3):329–249.McNiven, Ian J., and Lynette Russell
2005 Appropriated Pasts: Indigenous Peoples and the Colonial Culture ofArchaeology. Lanham, MD: AltaMira Press.
Merlan, Francesca2007 Indigeneity as Relational Identity: The Construction of Australian Land
Rights. In de la Cadena and Starn, eds. Pp. 125–149.2009 Indigeneity: Global and Local. Current Anthropology 50(3):303–333.
Murray, Tim1996 Contact Archaeology: Shared Histories? Shared Identities? In Sites: Nailing
the Debate: Archaeology and Interpretation in Museums, Pp. 200–213. Sydney:Historic Houses Trust of New South Wales.
2002 Epilogue: An Archaeology of Indigenous=Non-Indigenous Australia from1788. In Harrison and Williamson, eds. Pp. 213–223.
Nicholas, George P.2001 The Past and Future of Indigenous Archaeology: Global Challenges, North
American Perspectives, Australian Prospects. Australian Archaeology 52:29–40.Nyamanjoh, Francis B.
2007 ‘‘Ever-Diminishing Circles’’: The Paradoxes of Belonging in Botswana. Inde la Cadena and Starn, eds. Pp. 305–332.
Paine, Robert2000 Aboriginality, Authenticity and the Settler World. In Signifying Identities:
Anthropological Perspectives on Boundaries and Contested Values, AnthonyCohen, ed. Pp. 77–116. London: Routledge.
Negotiating Indigeneity 63
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
The
Uni
vers
ity O
f M
elbo
urne
Lib
rari
es]
at 0
4:45
05
Oct
ober
201
3
Pember, Mary Annette2007 Ethnic Fraud. Diverse Issues in Higher Education. http://
www.diverseeducation.com/artman/publish/article_6918.shtml, accessedSeptember 21, 2009.
Perry, Richard1996 From Time Immemorial: Indigenous Peoples and State Systems. Austin:
University of Texas Press.Plaice, Evie
2006 Discussion of The Concept of Indigeneity. Social Anthropology 14(1):22–24.Pratt, Mary Louise
2007 Afterword: Indigeneity Today. In de la Cadena and Starn, eds. Pp. 397–404.Ramos, Alcida Rita
1990 Ethnology Brazilian Style. American Ethnologist 5(4):452–472.1992 The Hyperreal Indian. Serie Antropologia 135.1998 Indigenism: Ethnic Politics in Brazil. Madison: University of WisconsinPress.
Riches, Libby2002 Legislating the Past: Native Title and the History of Aboriginal Australia.
In Harrison and Williamson, eds. Pp. 105–119.Robins, Steven
2003 Comment. Current Anthropology 44(3):398–399.Schein, Louisa
2007 Diasporic Media and Hmong=Mao Formulations of Nativeness andDisplacement. In de la Cadena and Starn, eds. Pp. 225–245.
Siddique, Saron, and Leo Suryadinata1981–2 Bumiputra and Pribumi: Economic Nationalism (Indiginism) in Malaysia.
Pacific Affairs 54(4):662–687.Sissons, Jeffrey
2005 First Peoples: Indigenous Cultures and Their Futures. London: ReaktionBooks.
Sutton, Peter2003 Native Title in Australia: An Ethnographic Perspective. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.Tamisari, Franca, and James Wallace
2006 Towards an Experimental Archaeology of Place: From Location to Situationthrough the Body. In David, Barker, and McNiven, eds. Pp. 204–223.
Torrence, Robin, and Anne Clarke, eds.2000 The Archaeology of Difference: Negotiating Cross-Cultural Engagements in
Oceania. One World Archaeology, 38. London: One World Archaeology.Tsing, Anna
2007 Indigenous Voice. In de la Cadena and Starn, eds. Pp. 33–67.Tuhiwai Smith, Linda
2007 The Native and Neoliberal Down Under: Neoliberalism and ‘‘EndangeredAuthenticities’’. In de la Cadena and Starn, eds. Pp. 333–352.
Veth, Peter, and Jo McDonald2002 Can Archaeology Be Used to Address the Principle of Exclusive Possession
in Native Title? In Harrison and Williamson, eds. Pp. 121–132.
64 D. S. Trigger and C. Dalley
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
The
Uni
vers
ity O
f M
elbo
urne
Lib
rari
es]
at 0
4:45
05
Oct
ober
201
3
Williamson, Christine2002 Finding Meaning in the Patterns: The Analysis of Material Culture from a
Contact Site in Tasmania. In Harrison and Williamson, eds. Pp. 75–101.Williamson, Christine, and Rodney Harrison
2002 Introduction: ‘Too Many Captain Cooks’? An Archaeology of AboriginalAustralia after 1788. In Harrison and Williamson, eds. Pp. 1–13.
Wright, Lisa2003 Themes Emerging from the High Court’s Recent Native Title Decisions.
National Native Title Tribunal Occasional Papers Series No. 1. Canberra:National Native Title Tribunal.
Yeh, Emily T.2007 Tibetan Indigeneity: Translations, Resemblances, and Uptake. In de la
Cadena and Starn, eds. Pp. 69–97.
DAVID S. TRIGGER is Professor of Anthropology at The University ofQueensland and Winthrop Professor of Anthropology at The University ofWestern Australia. His research interests encompass the different meaningsattributed to land and nature across diverse sectors of society. In AustralianAboriginal Studies, he has carried out more than 30 years of anthropologi-cal study on Indigenous systems of land tenure, including applied researchon resource development negotiations and native title. He is the author ofWhitefella Comin’: Aboriginal Responses to Colonialism in Northern Austra-lia (1992) and co-editor of Disputed Territories: Land, Culture and Identityin Settler Societies (2003).
CAMEO DALLEY is a Ph.D. candidate in anthropology at The University ofQueensland. Her current research focuses on social constructions of relat-edness in a remote island Aboriginal community in northern Australia.She is interested in how relatedness structures relationships between Abor-iginal and non-Aboriginal people, as well as among Aboriginal kin. Herearlier research examined relationships between Aboriginal people andresearchers in community archaeology projects. She recently published anarticle (co-authored with Paul Memmott) in the International Journal ofHistorical Archaeology on Aboriginal and missionary engagement on Mor-nington Island during the early to mid-1900s.
Negotiating Indigeneity 65
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
The
Uni
vers
ity O
f M
elbo
urne
Lib
rari
es]
at 0
4:45
05
Oct
ober
201
3
