Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-684899dbb8-gblv7 Total loading time: 0.403 Render date: 2022-05-28T01:19:31.998Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "useRatesEcommerce": false, "useNewApi": true }

The Dialectal Tribe and the Doctrine of Continuity

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 April 2014

Josh Berson*
Affiliation:
Max Planck Institute for Human Cognitive and Brain Sciences

Abstract

In Australia, applicants for native title—legal recognition of proprietary interest in land devolving from traditions predating colonization—must meet a stringent standard of continuity of social identity since before the advent of Crown sovereignty. As courts and the legislature have gravitated toward an increasingly strict application of the continuity doctrine, anthropologists involved in land claims cases have found themselves rehearsing an old debate in Australian anthropology over the degree to which post-contact patterns of subsistence, movement, and ritual enactment can support inferences about life in precontact Australia. In the 1960s, at the dawn of the land claims era, a handful of anthropologists shifted the debate to an ecological plane. Characterizing Australia on the cusp of colonization as a late Holocene climax human ecosystem, they argued that certain recently observed patterns in the distribution of marks of social cohesion (mutual intelligibility of language, systems of classificatory kinship) could not represent the outcome of such a climax ecosystem and must indicate disintegration of Aboriginal social structures since contact. Foremost among them was Joseph Birdsell, for whom linguistic boundaries, under climax conditions, would self-evidently be congruent with boundaries in breeding pools. Birdsell's intervention came just as the Northern Territory Supreme Court was hearing evidence on the value of dialect as a marker of membership in corporate landholding groups in Yolngu country, and offers an object lesson in how language, race, mode of subsistence, and law come together in efforts to answer the questions “Who was here first?” and “Are those people still here?”

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Society for the Comparative Study of Society and History 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Angelbeck, Bill and Grier, Colin. 2012. Anarchism and the Archaeology of Anarchic Societies: Resistance to Centralization in the Coast Salish Region of the Pacific Northwest Coast. Current Anthropology 53, 5: 547–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Australian Indigenous Law Reporter, eds. 2006. Jango v Northern Territory of Australia [2006] FCA 318. Australian Indigenous Law Reporter 10, 2: 2340.Google Scholar
Beardsley, Richard K., Holder, Preston, Krieger, Alex D., Meggers, Betty J., Rinaldo, John B., and Kutsche, Paul. 1956. Functional and Evolutionary Implications of Community Patterning. Memoirs of the Society for American Archaeology, no. 11, Seminars in Archaeology: 1955, 129–57.Google Scholar
Berndt, Ronald M. 1959. The Concept of “the Tribe” in the Western Desert of Australia. Oceania 30, 2: 81107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berndt, Ronald M. 1976. Territoriality and the Problem of Demarcating Sociocultural Space. In Peterson, Nicolas, ed., Tribes and Boundaries in Australia. Canberra: Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies, 133–61.Google Scholar
Birdsell, Joseph B. 1958. On Population Structure in Generalized Hunting and Collecting Populations. Evolution 12, 2: 189205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Birdsell, Joseph B. 1967. Preliminary Data on the Trihybrid Origin of the Australian Aborigines. Archaeology & Physical Anthropology in Oceania 2, 2: 100–55.Google Scholar
Birdsell, Joseph B. 1970. Local Group Composition among the Australian Aborigines: A Critique of the Evidence from Fieldwork Conducted since 1930. Current Anthropology 11, 2: 115–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Birdsell, Joseph B. 1976. Realities and Transformations: The Tribes of the Western Desert of Australia. In Peterson, Nicolas, ed., Tribes and Boundaries in Australia. Canberra: Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies, 95120.Google Scholar
Brown [Radcliffe-Brown], A. R. 1913. Three Tribes of Western Australia. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Association of Great Britain and Ireland 43, 1: 143–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burke, Paul. 2007. The Problem When Flexibility Is the System. Anthropological Forum 17, 2: 163–65.Google Scholar
Carpenter, Kristen A., Katyal, Sonia K., and Riley, Angela R.. 2009. In Defense of Property. Yale Law Journal 118, 6: 1022–25.Google Scholar
Clastres, Pierre. 1974. La société contre l'état: recherches d'anthropologie politique. Paris: Minuit.Google Scholar
Coon, Carleton S., Garn, Stanley M., and Birdsell, Joseph B.. 1950. Races: A Study of the Problem of Race Formation in Man. Springfield, Ill.: Charles C. Thomas.Google Scholar
Dixon, R. M. W. 1976. Tribes, Languages and other Boundaries in Northeast Queensland. In, Peterson, Nicolas, ed., Tribes and Boundaries in Australia. Canberra: Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies, 207–38.Google Scholar
Engle, Karen L. 2010. The Elusive Promise of Indigenous Development: Rights, Culture, Strategy. Durham: Duke University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans, Nicholas. 2007. Warramurrungunji Undone: Australian Languages in the 51st Millennium. In Brenzinger, Matthias, ed., Language Diversity Endangered. Berlin: De Gruyter, 342–73.Google Scholar
Firth, Raymond. 1931. Anthropology and Native Administration. Oceania 2, 1: 18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fleming, Luke. 2011. Name Taboos and Rigid Performativity. Anthropological Quarterly 84, 1: 141–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fulcher, Jonathan. 1998. The Wik Judgment, Pastoral Leases and Colonial Office Policy and Intention in NSW in the 1840s. Australian Journal of Legal History 4, 1: 3356.Google Scholar
Gannett, Lisa. 2003. Making Populations: Bounding Genes in Space and Time. Philosophy of Science 70, 5: 9891001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glasgow, David I., Hocking, F. M., and Steiner, W. L.. n.d. [1971]. Linguistic Survey of N. E. Kimberleys Survey [sic], October 1970. Transcription of Conversations on Languages and Tribes. Library of the Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies, PMS 1766.Google Scholar
Gowlett, John, Gamble, Clive, and Dunbar, Robin. 2012. Human Evolution and the Archaeology of the Social Brain. Current Anthropology 53, 6: 693722.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hale, Ken 1980. Warlpiri: Traditional Aboriginal Owners. ARC [Aboriginal Resource Center] Newsletter 4, 4 (Dec.): 5. In Kenneth Hale Papers, Institute Archives and Special Collections, MIT Libraries, Cambridge, Mass., MC 523, box 2, folder labeled with the paper's title.Google Scholar
Harrison, Rodney. 2002. Archaeology and the Colonial Encounter: Kimberley Spearpoints, Cultural Identity and Masculinity in the North of Australia. Journal of Social Archaeology 2, 3: 352–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haviland, John B. 1979. Guugu Yimidhirr Brother-in-Law Language. Language in Society 8, 2–3: 365–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Henderson, John and Nash, David, eds. 2002. Language in Native Title. Canberra: Aboriginal Studies Press.Google Scholar
Hiatt, L. R. 1962. Local Organization among the Australian Aborigines. Oceania 32, 4: 267–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hiatt, L. R. 1984. Your Mother-in-Law Is Poison. Man 19, 2: 183–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kesaba, Reşat. 2009. A Moveable Empire: Ottoman Nomads, Migrants, and Refugees. Seattle: University of Washington Press.Google Scholar
Lee, Richard B. and DeVore, Irven, eds. 1969. Man the Hunter. Chicago: Aldine.Google Scholar
Lydon, Jane. 2005. Eye Contact: Photographing Indigenous Australians. Durham: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
Maddock, Kenneth. 1981. Warlpiri Land Tenure: A Test Case in Legal Anthropology. Oceania 52, 2: 85102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McNeil, Kent. 2010. The Sources and Content of Indigenous Land Rights in Australia and Canada: A Critical Comparison. In Knafla, Louis A. and Westra, Haijo, eds., Aboriginal Title and Indigenous Peoples: Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press, 146–70.Google Scholar
Meggitt, Mervyn J. 1962. Desert People: A Study of the Walbiri Aborigines of Central Australia. Sydney: Angus and Robertson.Google Scholar
Merlan, Francesca. 2005. Indigenous Movements in Australia. Annual Review of Anthropology 34: 473–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morphy, Frances. 1977. Language and Moiety: Sociolectal Variation in a Yu:lngu Language of North-East Arnhem Land. Canberra Anthropology 1, 1: 5160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mulvaney, John. 2008. WEH Stanner and the Foundation of the Australian Institute for Aboriginal Studies, 1959–1964. In Hinkson, Melinda and Beckett, Jeremy, eds., An Appreciation of Difference: WEH Stanner and Aboriginal Australia. Canberra: Aboriginal Studies Press, 5875.Google Scholar
Myers, Fred R. 1986. Pintupi Country, Pintupi Self: Sentiment, Place, and Politics among Western Desert Aborigines. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press.Google Scholar
Nettheim, Garth. 2008. The Influence of Canadian and International Law on the Evolution of Australian Aboriginal Title. In Foster, Hamas, Raven, Heather, and Webber, Jeremy, eds., Let Right Be Done: Aboriginal Title, the Calder Case, and the Future of Indigenous Rights. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press, 177–99.Google Scholar
Ong, Aihwa. 1999. Flexible Citizenship: The Cultural Logics of Transnationality. Durham: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
Peterson, Nicolas. 1976. The Natural and Cultural Areas of Aboriginal Australia: A Preliminary Analysis of Population Groupings with Adaptive Significance. In Peterson, Nicolas, ed., Tribes and Boundaries in Australia. Canberra: Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies, 5071.Google Scholar
Peterson, Nicolas. 2010. Common Law, Statutory Law, and the Political Economy of the Recognition of Indigenous Australian Rights in Land. In Knafla, Louis A. and Westra, Haijo, eds., Aboriginal Title and Indigenous Peoples: Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press, 171–84.Google Scholar
Radcliffe-Brown, A. R. [see also Brown]. 1930. The Social Organization of Australian Tribes, Part I. Oceania 1, 1: 3463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Radcliffe-Brown, A. R. 1931. The Social Organization of Australian Tribes. Melbourne: Macmillan, Oceania Monographs, no. 1. (Repr. from Oceania 1.)Google Scholar
Radcliffe-Brown, A. R. 1935. Patrilineal and Matrilineal Succession. Iowa Law Review 20: 286303.Google Scholar
Radcliffe-Brown, A. R. 1940. Preface. In Fortes, Meyer and Evans-Pritchard, E. E., eds., African Political Systems. London: Oxford University Press, xi–xxiii.Google Scholar
Rigsby, Bruce and Sutton, Peter. 1980. Speech Communities in Aboriginal Australia. Anthropological Forum 5, 1: 823.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roberts, Janine. 2007. Glitter and Greed: The Secret World of the Diamond Cartel. New York: Disinformation.Google Scholar
Ruggie, John G. 1993. Territoriality and Beyond: Problematizing Modernity in International Relations. International Organization 47, 1: 139–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sansom, Basil. 1980. Statement on the Utopia Land Claim. Lander Warlpiri Anmatjirra Land Claim to Willowra Pastoral Lease, Exhibit 64. Darwin: Office of the Aboriginal Land Commissioner.Google Scholar
Sansom, Basil. 2007. Yulara and Future Expert Reports in Native Title Cases. Anthropological Forum 17, 1: 7192.Google Scholar
Sassen, Saskia. 2006. Territory, Authority, Rights: From Medieval to Global Assemblages. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Schneider, David M. 1984. A Critique of the Study of Kinship. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scott, James C. 2009. The Art of Not Being Governed: An Anarchist History of Upland Southeast Asia. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google ScholarPubMed
Shankman, Paul. 2009. The Trashing of Margaret Mead: Anatomy of an Anthropological Controversy. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.Google Scholar
Shapiro, Warren. 2008. What Human Kinship Is Primarily About: Toward a Critique of the New Kinship Studies. Social Anthropology 16, 2: 137–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sheehan, James J. 2006. The Problem of Sovereignty in European History. American Historical Review 111, 1: 115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stanner, W. E. H. 1933. The Daly River Tribes: A Report of Fieldwork in North Australia. Oceania 3, 4: 377405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stanner, W. E. H. 1965. Aboriginal Territorial Organization: Estate, Range, Domain and Regime. Oceania 36, 1: 126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Strelein, Lisa. 2009. Compromised Jurisprudence: Native Title Cases since Mabo. 2d ed.Canberra: Aboriginal Studies Press.Google Scholar
Sutton, Peter and Palmer, Arthur B.. 1980. Daly River (Malak Malak) Land Claim. Darwin: Northern Land Council.Google Scholar
Sutton, Peter and Rigsby, Bruce. 1979. Linguistic Communities and Social Networks on Cape York Peninsula. In Wurm, Stephen A., ed., Australian Linguistic Studies. Canberra: Research School of Pacific Studies, Australian National University, 713–32.Google Scholar
Tiger, Lionel and Fox, Robin. 1972. The Imperial Animal. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
Tindale, Norman B. 1974. Aboriginal Tribes of Australia: Their Terrain, Environmental Controls, Distribution, Limits, and Proper Names. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Tindale, Norman B. 1976. Some Ecological Bases for Australian Tribal Boundaries. In Peterson, Nicolas, ed., Tribes and Boundaries in Australia. Canberra: Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies, 1229.Google Scholar
Weitz, Eric D. 2008. From the Vienna to the Paris System: International Politics and the Entangled Histories of Human Rights, Forced Deportations, and Civilizing Missions. American Historical Review 113, 5: 1313–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, Nancy M. 2008. Stanner, Milirrpum, and the Woodward Royal Commission. In Hinkson, Melinda and Beckett, Jeremy, eds., An Appreciation of Difference: WEH Stanner and Aboriginal Australia. Canberra: Aboriginal Studies Press, 198216.Google Scholar
Wilson, Edmund O. 1975. Sociobiology: The New Synthesis. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
1
Cited by

Save article to Kindle

To save this article to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

The Dialectal Tribe and the Doctrine of Continuity
Available formats
×

Save article to Dropbox

To save this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

The Dialectal Tribe and the Doctrine of Continuity
Available formats
×

Save article to Google Drive

To save this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

The Dialectal Tribe and the Doctrine of Continuity
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *