Continuity and Change in Warlpiri Practices of Marking the Landscape

Warlpiri people of Central Australia have served on a number of occasions as exemplars of the Derridean premise that no society is without writing (Derrida 1976: 109) (e.g. Rothenberg and Rothenberg 1983: 139; Biddle 2002). The debate about the reasoning behind this proposition is outside the scope of my interests here. Nonetheless, it is certainly helpful to have a term, such as “writing”, that groups together the various kinds of practices that Warlpiri engage in to give visual form to their understanding of the world. Earlier work has focused on such aspects of Warlpiri visual communicative practices as sand drawings, body and ground designs, and sacred objects (e.g. Munn 1974); contemporary acrylic paintings (e.g. Dussart 1999); and gesture language (e.g. Kendon 1988). Building on the voluminous literature on marking of the Australian landscape by ancestral Dreaming beings (e.g. Meggitt 1986; Myers 1986; Munn 1974; Langton 2000), more recent work among Warlpiri and their neighbours has explored the issue of inscription of the landscape in relation to the domain of women’s ritual and artistic practice (Biddle 2002; Watson 2003). The purpose of the present contribution is to extend the discussion of the marking of landscape. Drawing on long-term ethnographic research, this chapter explores how, when and why Warlpiri Aboriginal people in Central Australia mark the landscapes within which they live. Attending to continuities in people’s socio-cultural practices through time, I also consider the relationship between ancestral and contemporary practices of marking landscape, through which people imbue place with meaning and manage space.Australian Research Council Linkage Project LP140100806 "Reintegrating community cultural collections

Alien relations: Ecological and Ontological Dilemmas Posed for Indigenous Australians in the Management of “Feral” Camels on their Lands

The colonization of indigenous people and their lands typically involved the introduction of domesticated species integral to the development of settler economies. These animals were bound up with European social and ontological understandings that were profoundly different to those of the peoples being colonized—in particular, notions of the human–animal divide. In central Australia, Indigenous people have responded to introduced animals variously with fear, resistance, openness, creativity and resilience. In doing so, they have had to negotiate incommensurable differences and disjunctions, involving the nature of the animals themselves and the “pastoral” relations Europeans have with these animals compared to Indigenous people’s totemically based relations with native animals.1 Now, irrevocably entangled, they have to re-negotiate their relations with domesticated animals such as camels, which have become free-ranging and are increasing in number on their land. The management of these animals creates tensions and dilemmas for people who want to maintain proper relationships with their country and the other-than- human constituents who inhabit it. This chapter addresses the situation in regard to camels in central Australia, focusing on Aboriginal people who adopted camels for use as transport. It considers the conflicts and challenges people face in reconciling their responsibilities toward beings to whom they are ancestrally related with their responsibilities toward camels, with whom they have a shared history and whose cosmological significance has shifted with the adoption of Christianity. I argue that the choices people make have implications not only for other entities in their environment, but also for the people themselves and for their relational ontologies.Australian Research Council Linkage Project LP140100806 "Reintegrating Community Cultural Collections

Reconfiguring relational personhood among Lander Warlpiri

In recent years many Indigenous communities in central Australia have undergone multiple dramatic changes. Responses to the resulting tensions, conflicts and anxiety illuminate local understandings of personhood. Drawing on long term ethnographic fieldwork with Lander Warlpiri/Anmatyerr Willowra (Northern Territory), this paper discusses how relatedness (involving social obligations and reciprocity) among particular categories of persons was understood and maintained during the 1970s, comparing this with the contemporary period, in which considerable conflict between previously united families has occurred. It considers the implications of these differences for notions of personhood, taking into account the altered material conditions in which people live today, changes in practices such as marriage arrangements and ritual, shifting notions of “property”, and embodied relations to land. Local cultural understandings of relational being are explored through analysis of a myth that was publicly performed by a senior male and recorded by young media trainees, with the intent that the younger generation reflect upon what it is to be a person in Warlpiri/Anmatyerr society today.Australian Research Council Linkage Project LP140100806 "Reintegrating Community Cultural Collections

“Bilingual time” at Willowra: The beginnings of a community-initiated program, 1976-1977

Formal schooling began at the Warlpiri-speaking community of Willowra, in north-western Central Australia, in 1968. When the present authors arrived at the school in 1976, to take up positions as the new teachers, many adults spoke An- matyerr in addition to Warlpiri, and also “station English”, which they had learnt while working in the pastoral industry. Few younger children spoke English, but were expected to learn to read and write it at the school, which was still something of a foreign country for them and their families. The educational material provided was largely irrelevant to them, and little printed matter existed outside of the school, with only a few Warlpiri adults able to read it. People’s understandings of the meaning of school derived from visible, pedagogic practices characteristic of mainstream schools; for example, children were required to wear uniforms, sit at desks and learn to write using pencils. Yet, despite the alien nature of school, the community came to embrace it, transforming its relevance and role in their lives through the introduction of a Warlpiri-English bilingual program. In this chapter we review “bilingual time” (as it is remembered at Willowra) in the years we spent there in 1976-1977, when the bilingual program was introduced. We set our narrative in the context of policy conflicts that eventually led to the dismantling of the program in the early 2000s, and consider the advantages of the short-lived pol- icy environment in which we operated, which was school-based and community- oriented.Australian Research Council Linkage Project LP140100806 "Reintegrating community cultural collections

‘Looking after country two-ways’: Insights into Indigenous community-based conservation from the Southern Tanami

This paper offers insights and practical lessons for a ‘two-way’ approach to combining Indigenous and non-Indigenous ecological knowledge in environmental planning and management. It is based on the experience of developing an Indigenous Protected Area to conserve 10 million hectares of biologically and culturally significant land in the Southern Tanami region of Central Australi

Who’s the boss? Post-colonialism, ecological research and conservation management on Australian Indigenous lands

The involvement of Indigenous people in the national conservation effort is increasingly being acknowledged and valued in Australia. Ecological research can play an important role in reinforcing the efforts of Indigenous land managers; and interest from Indig- enous and non-Indigenous ecologists and land managers to work together on ecological issues of common concern is increasing. Although there are many examples of successful collaborations there are also many instances where expectations, particularly of the Indige- nous partners, are not met, and this is less frequently communicated. This paper, written from the perspective of an Arrernte researcher in partnership with his non-Indigenous colleague, outlines a range of challenges including the need for Indigenous people to have more control of what is done and why it is done on their country and to define and prioritise their own objectives for land management, which may or may not align with mainstream conservation agendas. Currently, Western conservation paradigms play the dominant role in how Natural Resource Management is practiced and how broader policy is set, and ecological research on Indigenous land is still most often led by the Western ecologists. This can leave out the ideas of Indigenous people and does little to address underlying inequitable power relation- ships. Indigenous Australians do not want to become spectators in the research process, giv- ing away knowledge, or labourers to Western conservation agendas. They want to be active partners in developing better understandings of the environment and implementers of man- agement that reflects shared agendas. Open discussion of these issues within the main- stream ecological literature is an important step towards change and will create better opportunities for both Indigenous and non-Indigenous ecological practitioners and Indi- genous people dealing with land management policy

Australian approaches for managing ‘country’ using Indigenous and non-Indigenous knowledge

This paper synthesises the lessons learnt and challenges encountered when applying Indigenous and non-Indigenous knowledge and methods in natural and cultural resource management (NCRM) in northern and central Australia. We primarily draw on the papers within this special issue of Ecological Management & Restoration, which originated largely from the Indigenous land management symposium at the 2010 Ecological Society of Australia conference. Many of the papers and therefore this article discuss practical experiences that offer insight for enhanced on-ground cross-cultural NCRM and can inform broader thinking and theoretical critiques. A wider literature is also drawn upon to substantiate the points and broaden the scope of the synthesis. Four key themes for consideration in collaborative cross-cultural NCRM are discussed. They are as follows: 1. The differences in environmental philosophy between Indigenous and non-Indigenous cultures which profoundly shape perceptions of environmental management; 2. Cross-cultural awareness of Indigenous and non-Indigenous knowledge and methods; 3. The mechanics of two-way approaches to ecological research and managing country (NCRM as perceived by Indigenous people) and 4. Operational challenges for Indigenous NCRM organisations. To conclude, we point out five broad principles for managing country using Indigenous and non-Indigenous knowledge: (i) Recognise the validity of both Indigenous and non-Indigenous environmental philosophies; (ii) Create more opportunities for improved cross-cultural understanding, respect and collaborations; (iii) Involve Indigenous people and their knowledge and interests at all stages of the Indigenous NCRM project or research (including planning, design, implementation, communication and evaluation); (iv) Ensure that time and continuity of effort and resources are available (to undertake participatory processes and for trust-building and innovation) and (v) Establish high-level political support through legal and policy frameworks to maintain continuity of government commitment to Indigenous NCRM