Caging the Rainbow: Places, Politics and Aborigines in a North Australian Town

Seven: Do Places Appear? Further Struggle in Space

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Seven Do Places Appear? Further Struggle in Space 209 Ch a p t e r 2 explored loss of a place formerly differentiated in Aboriginal terms from its surroundings, through the evanescence of the rainbow ’s cave.This chapter is concerned with another aspect of change and continuity with respect to places in the recent period. It tells, as far I was able to follow events over a number of years,of the emergence of a place near one of the Katherine camps. The way in which the place came to be known was simple: as a finding in daily camp life. But from simple beginnings,the place came to play a role in complex current events having to do with changes in the participation of Aborigines in the town, region, and nation. The episode points to issues of several kinds.First, under what conditions may mythically storied places appear around the town? Does sociohistorical process tend only in the direction of disappearance of places having the duality of temporary camp and enduring country (Myers 1986:57–59) through which places are made Dreaming story? Second, the episode is relevant beyond the Katherine scene because of what it has to tell us about the way in which local cultural creativity be- comes enmeshed in new and complex circuits of representation and action .This new circuitry gradually transforms local conditions.The episode is illustrative of problems concerning the extent to which indigenous“cultural ” materials may persist in having a degree of independence and fluidity , rather than being pinioned under complex demands that arise as part of the changing character of Aboriginal affairs within the nation.All the complications described emerge, somewhat paradoxically, in the context of recent liberalization of thinking and action concerning “Fourth World peoples” within First World nation-states.They would not emerge, or be possible, were the political cultures of these nation-states simply repressive ones. Third, the problem of the intersection of local creativity with wider forces brings us once again to the question of specifically anthropological representations as among them and to issues that have been recently discussed as ones of social constructionism (Anderson 1983, Keesing 1989, Guss 1995), invention (Hobsbawm and Ranger 1983; Hanson 1989; Jackson 1989; 1995a, 1995b; Linnekin 1991), and the issue of scholarly authority in research on these matters (Briggs 1996). Because of the typically long-term nature of anthropological fieldwork, the researcher comes to know situations in detail at particular moments, and thus is often able to see change in them over time. In the episode at issue,Aboriginal people recognized the novelty of the place in one way, but in another did not accept the notion of novelty.Where does the anthropologist stand who reports and analyzes such a situation? Does she, as Briggs (1996:462) has acutely posed as a problem,unconscionably remove constraints on the circulation of cultural representations and thereby limit any effective local control over the circulation of discourse?Would this be irresponsibility on the part of the anthropologist, and does it identify anthropological representation with postmodern concepts of the free play of signifiers? Culture and the Politics of Invention A great deal of current public debate in Australia ranges around the concept of “Aboriginal culture.”Will this be seen as static or as dynamic? And if the latter, to what extent? Current social justice perspectives seek recognition of indigenous “rights” to culture (Dodson 1995, cf. Merlan 1995).Although there has been increased effort to create mechanisms for the protection and preservation of places of demonstrable significance to 210 • c h a p t e r s e v e n Aboriginal people (e.g., the Aboriginal andTorres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act 1984, under review in 1995), contestation over places has emerged most strongly over the notion of“sacred sites.”Several sacred sites disputes of recent years in Australia have become nationally notorious (e.g.,Noonkanbah inWestern Australia:Hawke and Gallagher 1989,Kolig 1987,Vincent 1983; a dam near Alice Springs:Wootten 1992; Coronation Hill in the Northern Territory: RAC 1991, Brunton 1991, Merlan 1991a; and most recently, dispute over the significance to Aboriginal people of Hindmarsh Island in South Australia:Saunders 1994,Mead 1995,Mathews 1996, Brunton 1996).1 In all of these, a central issue has been whether signi ficance attributed to places claimed to be sacred sites is of long standing (even if not, as a...