Search

Events that have become popularly known as ‘the Hindmarsh affair’ arose from conflict over a bridge development, and refer to an Aboriginal heritage issue that has had a significant impact on Australian society.1 The attendant controversy and dissension have ramified widely, beyond matters of Aboriginal heritage and its relationship to development, to include the status and role of anthropological research and reporting, past and present. A brief chronology of developments both prior to and following the Hindmarsh Island Bridge Royal Commission (1995) is provided here as a backdrop for discussion of these matters. Other salient issues also examined include: the nature of culture in relation to the complexities of ‘tradition’ and the effects of change; the structural correlates of secrets; the politics of interpretation; and the legitimacy of innovative processes in Aboriginal cultural construction and representation. In conclusion, some implications of the Hindmarsh affair for the anthropology profession are considered.

According to Hogbin, the Wogeo believe that their culture heroes (nanarang), one of several classes of spirits, provide the ulimate supernatural sanction1 for their whole land tenure system. He divides the culture heroes into two species ? those still living on the island and those who left it in the past ? which have so little in common that he was surprised that a common name is used for them. He dismisses the existing culture heroes with a few words as having scarcely any relevance for the land tenure system and subdivides the departed culture heroes into four varieties. "The first two varieties between them give a sanction for the occupation of the island by the present population; the third gives the same type of sanction for the tenancy of the districts; and the fourth provides authority for the exercise of rights of residence and cultivation" (1939 40:151).

Influence et impact d'un systeme juridique occidental impose au code traditionnel| transformation du mode de vie, et plus particulierement concernant la tenure fonciere et les conflits fonciers.

in 1910, after summarizing the data on Aboriginal local organization, concluded that the land-owning unit was the local group or " undivided family."1 Howitt had used the latter expression to denote " a number of persons very closely related, and having a common descent from a known ancestor, together with their wives."2 Wheeler found evidence suggesting that individuals and families had exclusive rights in land, and that the land rights of individuals, families and local groups were subject to tribal overrights (p. 45). His general conclusion to the chapter on tribal organization was that " the most important unit is not the tribe, but the smaller local group, several of which groups make up the tribe " (p. 55).

Your Land Is Our Land: Aboriginal Land Rights. By Kenneth Maddock. Victoria. Penguin Books. 1983. Pp. xiii + 215, 1 map, 13 black and white photographs. Price: $8.95 paper.