The northern origins of the present common name for
‘Australia’ and ‘Australians’ – and the acceptance of that foreign term of
identity by people who live here –
reminded me of some of the issues surrounding collective (group) names and/or
language names for some First Peoples in Central Australia.
I am not a linguist nor am I particularly good with language
matters. So what follows should be regarded as merely a bit more stimulation to
a wider conversation in which others have more important things to say.
Particularly important, we need to hear from First Peoples
themselves. While waiting for that i have turned to some good non-indigenous
sources.
What follows is just a quick exercise in finding out a
little more about some aspects of language and identity in this country.
RECOMMENDATION
If you do nothing else around the 26 January, I highly
recommend you take a good look at the map of Australia ’s
indigenous languages.
http://www.abc.net.au/indigenous/map/
(David R Horton, creator, © Aboriginal Studies Press, AIATSIS and
Auslig/Sinclair, Knight, Merz, 1996 - accessed 13 Jan 2014. )
Have a look at it and – if so moved to learn a little more -
find the Central Australian language names Warumungu: Alyawarre; Andegerebenha;
Arrernte; Antakarinja; Yankuntjatjara; Pitjantjatjara; Pintupi and Luritja.
Note also what the accompanying text says on the ABC
website. This is just one means of representing First Peoples socio-cultural
relations in this country. The language map is not the final story, but it does
make a start to better visually represent language and country.
Stick with it – this confusing array of original names from
this country will soon begin to be a little more digestible – and that has to a
good thing.
This AIATSIS map, i think it correct to say, is an improved
version of an earlier 1970s attempt by the anthropologist Norman Tindale to
graphically represent what was then thought of as the tribes of Aboriginal
Australia.
His careful work sought to standardise what was their name
(or names); where were their tribal boundaries etc. When I first saw Tindale’s
1974 map in the mid 1970s, it made a profound impression on me.
All the maps of this continent i had seen previously were
those which showed the Australian States
While regarded as possibly flawed by today’s standards, Tindale’s
map has to be regarded as a great contribution to the process by which
non-indigenous eyes learn to see this country,
And , after i saw Tindale’s map, i saw the map of Aranda
country by T G H Strehlow – showing so many, many named sites on Aranda
country. This revealed this country at another level of magnification. My eyes were opened even wider to realities
in this part of the world.
The mists were lifting from my own case of terra nullius of
the mind.
I am a word person, but i think the visual media provide a
far more direct route to our minds than long-winded strings of words.
I was lucky enough to see a wonderful display of First
Peoples art of Central Australian countries about the same time as i saw
Tindale’s map, and that was truly mind-blowing. I was working as a tutor at
James Cook university at Townsville then, so it must have been 1976 or 1977.
In the early 1980s i was fortunate to work with senior
lawmen in Central Australia , helping Warumungu and
Alyawarra people to prepare their land claims.
Our Westernised eyes are slowly learning to ‘see’. And part
of this requires us to stop looking so hard with eyes re-enforced with heavy
duty Western notions of bounded objects.
LANGUAGE NAMES
In “The Languages of Australia” Professor R.M. Dixon touched
on the issue of language and tribal names (1980:40-43 Section 2.4)
Using a distinction between language speakers own usage
(language1) and a more technical use by linguists (language2) Professor Dixon
wrote:
“I mentioned in the last section that a certain linguistic
feature may be taken as indexical of tribal membership. It is, in fact, not
uncommon for a language1 name to be based on such a word. In the Western
Desert
So Yankuntjatjara has the word yankuntja to distinguish its speakers from Pitjantjatjara speakers
etc. A google search reveals that yankuntja
means ‘come/go’. (wikipedia ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yankunytjatjara_dialect
)
The most frequent linguistic common pattern, according to Dixon ,
is for the language1 name to be based on the word for ‘no’ in that language. He
cites Wira+dhuri as No+HAVING from North East Queensland. And in some parts of Northern
Victoria and southern New South Wales
the word for ‘no’ is reduplicated as with “Yota-Yota”.
Early ethnographers like A.W. Howitt tackled the question of
‘tribal’ identity in relation to territory and language:
“The tribes-people recognise some common bond, which may be
their word for “man,” that is, an aboriginal of Australia .
In such cases there is a prefix or postfix meaning “people”
or “tribe”; thus the Wotjo are collectively called Wotjo-baluk, that is to say,
“tribe of men.” Or the name may be derived from the word in their language for
“no” or “yes,” more frequently the former …” (Howitt 1904 1996:41)
Howitt also invokes the term ‘nation’, and this is in
keeping with what some First Peoples have and continue to say:
“But while the individual tribes are thus distinguished from
others, there are numerous cases in which the word for “man” is common to the
languages of a considerable number of more or less related tribes, indicating a
larger aggregate, for which, in default of a better term, I use the word
“nation.”
“ … if several different tribes have the same word for ‘man’
it need not imply any political or linguistic unity (any more than need the
same word for ‘stomach’ or ‘sun’) . It is true that in many cases a group of
tribes which speak dialects of the same language, often have a common word for
‘man’ (the tribes speaking Dyirbal do, for instance: in contrast, ‘woman’, for
instance, seems much less liable to dialect variation. But the word for ‘man’
cannot be taken as any sort of linguistic or political criterion, as Howitt
seems to imply.” (Dixon, in Peterson 1976:233)
Curiously, Dixon ’s
1976 paper makes much of what he was told by the then late Jack Stewart of the
Yidinjdji tribe who explained to Dixon
that:
“ … what Europeans called a ‘tribe’ was more appropriately
described as a ‘nation’. He explained that aboriginal Australia
had many separate nations, just as did Europe (he
mentioned France ,
Italy , Germany ,
and so on)… He said each Australian nation had its own ‘language’: this would
sometimes have a degree of intelligibility with the language of the next
nation, and sometimes not.” (Dixon 1976:214)
The formation of national languages in all those European
countries is itself a fascinating topic and it is by no means obvious that they
– as imagined at a particular stage in their ‘history’ - represent ‘solid’
entities which can be used as a universal yardstick either by Westerners or by
First Peoples.
I sometimes wonder that, given the earlier use of the word
‘man’ in English (for ‘mankind’ ‘humanity’), if the recorded use of the local
First Peoples word for ‘man’ was a result of European inquiries. Anthropology,
for example, was once regarded as ‘the science of man’.
What can be clearly identified from both Jack Stewart and
other sources is that there is some idea of a much larger collective identity
and larger social formations than that of individuals and ‘clans’.
If i understand correctly there is a grouping of
Nyangatjatjara which joins both Yankuntjatjara (Yankunytjatjara) and
Pitjantjatjara, as they both have
nyangatja demonstrative ‘this’ or
‘this one’ (See en.wikipedea.org.au/Yankunytjatjara_dialect )
(‘nyangatja ’ also
given as ‘right here’ in Daniele M. Klapproth, 2004 “Narrative as Social
Practice: Anglo-Western and Australian Aboriginal Oral Traditions” – which
looks like a good read. See google e-books)
That is, in place of an entirely either/or mentality, a
both-and approach can operate as well. Modern social scientists and other
Western experts make much of an either-or logic but are less proficient in the
both-and arts of life.
There is also a sense, in more recent times than those of
Howitt, that ‘tribes’ are appropriate for First Peoples and ‘nations’ are
reserved for Europeans.
‘Same language’ ‘same tribe’ ‘same nation’ – the philosopher
Wittgenstein might ask “What do we mean by ‘same’ here?” Certainly there is
plenty of confusion, especially when these terms are bounced back and forward
across major cultural boundaries such as those which exist between English and
First Peoples.
I recall reading somewhere that the different words for
‘man’ is what gives us the Koori-Yuin distinction (along the South Coast of
NSW, and into Victoria ). “Yuin is
also a general name for all the tribes from Meimbula to Port Jackson …”
wrote Howitt (page 82)
(Wikipedia ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yuin_people
Note also reference to other group name using word for ‘no’).
Also check out Wilhelm Schmidt’s 1919 map for Yuin and Koori
at http://austlang.aiatsis.gov.au
You will have to read the disclaimer before entering the AIATSIS Austlang site.
The notion of a Yuin nation is alive at the Sandon Point
Aboriginal Tent Embassy in the Northern Suburbs of Wollongong at this time
(2014) as some local First Peoples continue to assert their sovereignty.
‘Koori’, by contrast
to Yuin, has taken on a wider usage.
Other group names over much of Queensland ,
writes Dixon , make use of the
suffix -barra ‘belonging to’ and are
based on geographical features. Dixon
cites Gulgibarra ‘people associated with sand’. These may be names of more
local groups and perhaps dialects rather than ‘tribal’ names Dixon
1976:210)
A WARUMUNGU EXAMPLE
Spencer and Gillen (1904) provide a similar usage to that of
-barra in connection with Warumungu
speaking people in the Northern Territory .
Using a slightly different spelling:
“Warramunga is the name by which the members of this tribe
speak of themselves, and is also that by which the are most often called by
other tribes, but in this instance they are sometimes referred to under the
name of “Bata aurinnia,’ which means “the people who dwell on hard ground.”
This term is applied to them by strangers, and is not in any way the equivalent
of a tribal name. It is remarkable how difficult it often is to ascertain the
latter with certainty.” (1904:11)
By contrast, and this may reflect a historical shift, the
1988 report of the Aboriginal Land Commissioner, Maurice J, on the Warumungu
land claim notes:
“Partta
20.2.1 Warumungu witnesses call the area around Tennant
Creek and the McDouall Ranges ‘Partta’, (‘hard ground’) and the people
associated with it ‘Parttawarinyi’ or ‘Partta people’…” (Maurice 1988:68)
‘Parttawarinyi’ must be the equivalent of Spencer and
Gillen’s ‘bata aurinnia’. The orthography used in the 1980s is different to
that of the 1900s.
The Aboriginal Land Commissioner continued:
“20.2.2 While the word Partta denotes this particular area,
which geographically is quite central to Warumungu territory, it can also have
a wider meaning. Partta can be said to typify the Warumungu, their culture and
way of life and it can refer to all the Warumungu people living at Tennant
Creek.” (Maurice 1980:68)
This may (or may not) be true at this time, but it may also
be ‘situational’ as Fred Myers says in regard to Pintupi (see below).
Returning to my language theme, we can see that some names given for First Peoples languages can be teased out by reference to a key word they use, or by some other feature including compass or directional factors.
If you check the languages on the AIATSIS map will you see
Alyawarre and Andegerebenha. Alyawarre is also written Alyawarra. The adoption
of a two vowel orthography for Aranda/Arrernte took place in the 1980s. and i am guessing that Andegerebenha is
Andakerebina in what follows.
Colin Yallop, in his 1977 book “Alyawarra – An Aboriginal
Language of Central Australia” provides an example relevant to where this piece
of writing is heading. Amongst other things, he notes that:
“…’Andakerebina’ is an Arandic equivalent of the term
‘Southerners’ (Alyawarra antikirripirna
= ‘from the South’)…” (1977:2)
Does this indigenous example parallel the origins of the
word “Australia ”
– based on a southern and an apparently geographical reference?
And, if those directional based terms are accepted by those
thus identified, is there any problem? Southerners, Westerners, Northerners,
Easterners.
As we know from European values, references to direction may
also carry other meanings (which may cut both ways).
My guess is this is especially true within First Peoples
cosmologies, where direction is not merely an abstract thing but embedded in
all manner of other considerations.
PINTUPI
Jumping a little to the West of Alyawarre speakers, and
coming around from the -tjarra
grouping, we come to Pintupi.
In his 1986 book “Pintupi Country, Pintupi Self” Fred Myers
pays very careful attention to questions of social identity. The people Fred
worked with in 1973 had come ‘into’ places like Papunya from the Gibson
Desert , mainly during times of major droughts. He writes:
“Even their name is an artefact imposed upon them by
changing conditions. Though known in the area where they came to live as
“Pintupi,” most say the never used this label to refer to themselves before
contact with whites. While they speak a common language, with some dialectical
differences, the people called the Pintupi do not represent a single social entity,
neither as a tribe nor as a language group. Asked if a person is a Pintupi,
they are likely to respond that “he is from the west, indeed” (yapurramalu kula)! The reply underscores
a consistent view of social identity: that their conceptual unity results from
their migration eastward, a product of time and space.” (1986:28)
Fred continues:
“Despite the reassuring presence of tribal groupings on some
ethnological maps such as Tindale’s (1974), such overarching social identities
hold little significance in this region and are genuinely misleading. Names
need not specify social boundaries. Identity, as among many
hunting-and-gathering peoples, is situational. “The people from the west” exist
only in contrast to “the people from the east”. (1986:28-29)
However, a better term than ‘situational’, since it can
extend the range of factors to those which Fred Myers may wish to include, is
‘contextual’.
Contextual factors have to be seen as key factors running
through all of these matters. Life is
not as ‘fixed’ as some modern masters would like it to be.
SITUATING EUROPEANS - BEREEWOLGAL
What Fred Myers says is interesting for ‘Australians’ as
‘Southerners’. Can we say that the people in the south exist only in contrast
to the people in the north?
By contrast Tench, mentioned earlier in relation to his
account of initial colonisation circa 1788, wrote that, in addition to a term for gun-bearers ‘gooroobeera’’ (stick of fire) local
First Peoples had a term for the new arrivals “… the appellation by which they
generally distinguish us was that of bereewolgal,
meaning men come from afar.’ (Tench
in Flannery 1996:266)
‘Strangers’ in more senses than one might be another
interpretation.
A full review of First Peoples words for Europeans would be
interesting. Maybe someone has already done this, but i have not come across
it.
‘Gubba’ is used for non-indigenous person in the Illawarra
area where i presently live, but i am unaware of there being any actual meaning
for that term.
Jumping from Sydney
to Tennant Creek, in the Northern Territory
- Gillen, who was mentored by Warumungu people in 1901, recorded in his diary
that “These people call the whites “Papilarinyi” …” (Gillen 1901 1968:262).
This is an interesting characterisation since skin colour
(Whiteman) is not the feature Warumungu people found most striking when
Europeans arrived, uninvited, into their country.
The 1901 term is now pronounced “papulanyi” – ‘papulu’ is an
enclosed space, i was told by a linguist, such as the gall formed by the gall
wasp, and hence extended to mean ‘house’. ‘Warinyi’ means ‘dweller, sider’ (Evans ‘A
Learner’s Guide to Warumungu’ 1982:14 and see Disbray et al Warumungu Picture Dictionary
2005:2 – both produced by the IAD Press in Alice Springs).
When Europeans first arrived in Warumungu country, after
perhaps initially living in tents, they built a stone building for a telegraph
repeater station on the Overland Telegraph Line and it was designed with
defensive capabilities - vis-à-vis their Warumungu hosts - in mind.
LURITJA
Spencer and Gillen worked with Aranda men in Alice
Springs in 1896-7. The great anthropological field-working team
accepted that the European notion of the ‘tribe’ could be applied to First Peoples
Ways . They
also considered the notion of ‘nation’ which, at that time, was used by others
writing about First Peoples.
Prior to the formation of the Commonwealth of Australia
there are references, for example, in other writers’ works to a Yuin nation
covering a considerable stretch of the South East coast
of New South Wales .
Clearly alive to such issues, Spencer and Gillen
investigated relationships between language names and social identity while
carrying out fieldwork in Central Australia and in
writing up their accounts.
In their 1904 book “The Northern Tribes of Central
Australia” they note, in relation to tribal names:
“The names used are those by which the members of the tribes
respectively call themselves, and which outsiders also apply to them. Thus, for
example, the Arunta call themselves by this name, and it is used by the Kaitish
in speaking of them.” (1904:10-11)
A footnote is attached to the last sentence which states:
“The Luritja tribe possible forms an exception to this, but
we are not able to speak positively. It is possible that the names of the
tribes were originally applied to them by outsiders and were subsequently
adopted by the members of the tribe themselves, but the evidence is scanty and
inconclusive.” (1904:10-11 Fn2)
‘Outsiders’ - as significant others (certainly in Central
Australia ) – may play an important role in matters of identity.
Modern Western thinking often situates a locus of
responsibility ‘within’ individuals and, mistakenly, introduce something
Westerners take for granted into their attempt to make sense of First Peoples
Ways.
There is a much larger totality of exchange relationships
(positive and negative) at work when it comes to individual and group identity
than those envisaged by thinkers who restrict First Peoples horizons to than of
clans.
T.G.H. Strehlow grew up speaking Aranda (Arrernte) at the
Hermannsburg Mission and knew both sides of the local cultures in Central
Australia extremely well.
In his index to 1947 book “Aranda Traditions” (republished
1968) Strehlow provides the following brief note regarding Loritja:
“Loritja, name applied by Aranda to all the western speech
groups … ‘Loritja’ languages are spoken from the Western MacDonnells to Mt
Margaret, in Western Australia, and from The Granites in the north to Ooldea on
the transcontinental railway. None of these western groups speak of themselves
as ‘Loritja’. They call themselves Kukatja, Pintubi, NGalia, Ilpara,
Andekerinja etc.” (1968:177-178)
So far so good. Note what Strehlow said about Pintupi
vis-à-vis what Fred Myers said.
Far more importantly on pages 51-52 we gain something of an
insight into the additional dimensions of the term “Loritja’ to those of simple
geographical reference. In regard to sharing a common language (Northern
Aranda and Western Aranda ) and common
cause, Strehlow writes:
“A feeling for tribal unity is almost completely absent. The
bond of a common tongue is not valued very highly. The Northerner, for
instance, sneers at the dialect of the Western man: he regards it as an
inferior mongrel language, which has been degraded by admixture with Loritja
words. Indeed, he looks upon the Westerner himself as a ‘half-breed Loritja’;
and Loritja is to him a term which is suggestive of everything that is
barbarian, crude, savage, and, generally speaking, non-Aranda.” (1968:51-52)
You can only wonder what these Aranda men made of those
other Westerns – Europeans.
The attitude Strehlow attributes to Aranda men is in keeping
with what Dixon noted in his book
on the Languages of Australia:
“Each community in Australia
– as in many other parts of the world – considers its own language to be the
ideal way of speaking, and looks down on all other tongues.” (Dixon 1980:41).
I guess the same can be said of English speakers, French
speakers and so on. Against this many First Peoples in Central
Australia speak several languages and have a great linguistic
ability. I imagine this was the case in areas which have been long subject to
the language suppression practices of colonisation.
SO WHAT?
I am not sure if this leads anywhere.
The one thing i have gained from this brief and very
incomplete review of some aspects of First Peoples group names and languages is
that there many different accounts according to who is providing the
information.
Pintupi are not Pintubi. Loritija are not Loritija. And,
perhaps by similar criteria, Australians are not Australians.
Things are not set in stone. Flexibility characterises the
lived realities as much as any preconceived ideas of ‘solid’ bounded things
like ‘tribes’. There are networks of people who share common codes and who are
(or are not) in exchange relationships.
Rather than force an interpretation on any of this, i will
let it mull for a while.
No comments:
Post a Comment