aboriginal–makassan interactions in the eighteenth …lryb.aiatsis.gov.au/pdfs/aasj04.1_...

Australian Aboriginal Studies 2004/1 3

Denise RussellUniversity of Wollongong

Abstract: The first native title claim to the seas under theNative Title Act was brought by the traditional owners ofCroker Island in the Northern Territory, Australia. Thisclaim was partially successful. The High Court judgementon this case in 2001 resulted in the granting of non-exclusive sea rights. Exclusive rights were not granted as itwas argued that the Croker Islanders had not asserted aright to exclude non-Aboriginal fishers in the past. Thisarticle looks at the basis for rejecting exclusive sea rights.Through an analysis of the complex relationships betweenAboriginal and Makassan fishers in the eighteenth andnineteenth centuries, an argument is made that there couldwell be a basis in traditional practices for the granting ofexclusive sea rights to some Aboriginal communities in theNorthern Territory.

There are current moves by Indigenous Australians toattain sea rights to Australian waters. The first case toreach the High Court, brought by representatives ofMandilarri-Ildugij, Mangalara, Murran, Gadurra-Minaga and Ngaynjaharr peoples, concerned the seasin the Croker Island region (High Court of Australia2001a). The judgement brought down in October 2001was that non-exclusive sea rights be granted; therewas an unchallenged finding of fact that tradit-ional laws and customs were and are observed inrelation to the claimed area. However, it was foundthat Aboriginal sea rights cannot preclude the right ofinnocent passage or navigation and the public right tofish (High Court 2001b:19). It is in this sense that therights are non-exclusive.

The result may appear to be a victory forAboriginal peoples but it is the public right to fish thatposes a large threat to these maritime cultures. If theycannot exclude non-Aboriginal fishers, whethercommercial or recreational (or receive compensationfor fishing), then their food supply, their spiritualconnections and their way of life are in jeopardy. Theargument against exclusive sea rights put by the HighCourt rested heavily on the finding that historicallyMakassans had not been refused entry to fish thesewaters.1 Aborigines had not asserted a right toexclude these fishers (High Court 2001b:26); hence, itwas argued, there is no basis in traditional practices todeny a public right to fish today.

The majority view in the Croker Island case thatMakassans had not been refused entry was notsupported in Justice Michael Kirby’s minorityjudgement. He claimed that a right to exclude waspart of the traditional practices but not alwaysenforceable (High Court 2001b:75):

To posit an obligation of the poorly armed forebears ofthe claimants to assert against the…Macassans…a rightof physical expulsion, in order to uphold their nativetitle over their sea country…is to define the problem in

Aboriginal–Makassan interactions in theeighteenth and nineteenth centuries innorthern Australia and contemporary searights claims

Aboriginal–Makassan interactions, Russell, Australian Aboriginal Studies 2004/1, by subscription

Published by Aboriginal Studies Press www.aiatsis.gov.au/research_program/publications/australian_aboriginal_studies This material is copyright. Other than for personal study, no copying or sharing is allowed. Contact Aboriginal Studies Press for permission to reproduce this material.

4 Australian Aboriginal Studies 2004/1

Aboriginal–Makassan interactions—Russell

terms of a desired outcome that would always beunfavourable to the rights of persons such as theclaimants.

There is a growing body of information on theextensive interactions between Aboriginal people andfishermen from Makassar that could well be relevantto sea rights claims. These interactions varied in bothspace and time. In some areas, Makassans weredenied entry; in others, they were allowed entry tomutual benefit. An analysis of these variedinteractions is presented in this article. If theseconsiderations are brought into play, a stronger basisfor exclusive fishing rights claims for certain coastalareas in northern Australia can be put.

The focus is on the interactions betweenAborigines and Makassans. Sources, written andpictorial, derive from a wide range of fields.Aboriginal accounts are drawn on as much aspossible; there is one Indonesian description, alongwith the records of the English explorers, King andFlinders, and the writings of a selection of anthropol-ogists, archaeologists and linguists from the nine-teenth century to the present day. The transcripts fromthe Federal Court and the High Court judgements onthe Croker Island case have been used. Some works ofhistorians and political scientists have also beenconsulted. Interviews were conducted with AnneClarke and Nicolas Peterson of the Department ofArchaeology and Anthropology at the AustralianNational University, and Lisa Strelein of the NativeTitle Research Unit at AIATSIS. Visits to theAustralian Maritime Museum (Saltwater Exhibition1999 and 2002 and the Banumbirr Exhibition 2002),the Australian Museum, the National Museum ofVictoria, and the Macleay Museum of the Universityof Sydney (Shaping Australia Exhibition 2002)provided a useful stimulus for this work. Given thehistory of white domination of Australia for the last200 years, one that had an assumed legitimacy in theeyes of most non-Indigenous settlers and writers, andgiven that that legitimacy is now being questioned onmany fronts (e.g. in land rights legislation), several ofthe sources used need to be treated with caution. Iexamine the impact of assumptions of whitelegitimacy on the accounts, especially of the EuropeanAustralian writers, and some of the other biases thatenter the writings, which may undercut their value.There are many inconsistencies in the accountsconsulted. Some of the reasons for these are exained.The question about the value of any conclusion, giventhe inconsistencies, is also considered.

The first four parts of the following discussiondeal with the nature of the interactions, includingwhere and when they happened, and economic andcultural features. The importance of the economic andcultural interactions is debated: whether interactionsoccurred in a hostile or friendly environment couldhave had a bearing on Aboriginal views about thelegitimacy of the fishing. Further scrutiny is made ofsources, especially concerning consistency andcredibility, and the final part ties the discussion ofMakassan–Aboriginal interactions back to the searights legal cases.

General nature of the interactions

Macknight conducted archaeological work at AnuruBay near Millingimbi in Arnhem Land in 1966 and1967, and made an extensive study of the literatureavailable at that time (Macknight 1972, 1976, 1981;Macknight & Gray 1970). Fishermen from Makassarin the southern Celebes (Sulawesi) visited the coastbetween the Cobourg Peninsula and the Sir EdwardPellew Group from 1720 to 1906 (Figure 1). GrooteEylandt was commonly visited but Melville, Bathurstand the Wellesley Islands only occasionally(Macknight 1972:284; 1976:36). A customs officer inthe late nineteenth century, Alfred Searcy (1909:46),claimed that the Aborigines on Melville Island did notlet Makassans fish there. Linguistic studies supportthis claim for the Wellesley Islands but they revealthat Melville Island languages do contain asubstantial number of Makassan words, which iscurious if Makassan visitors were rare or excludedaltogether (Evans 1992:46, 51–2). At Howard Island, aplace of mythical encounter in eastern Arnhem Land,no trepanging occurred. Lanhupuy told Ian McIntosh(1997:73) that ‘Macassans regarded this site as strictlyoff limits’.

Makassans called eastern Arnhem Land ‘Marege’’(Macknight 1972:284). The western Arnhem Landerscalled Makassar ‘Manggadjara’ or ‘Munanga’ (Berndt& Berndt 1990:4). The Makassans fished for trepang oremployed Aborigines to do so (Worsley 1955:2).2 Theytraded goods with Aborigines and took some toMakassar, and some Makassans lived with localinhabitants; they built temporary structures toprocess the trepang but no permanent dwellings(Macknight 1972:284, 287). Seeds from the tamarindfruit brought to Australia have left tamarind trees,and broken Indonesian pottery abounds in thetrepang processing areas, along with some glass,





coins, fishhooks, pieces of metal and clay pipes(Macknight 1976:59, 78, 80–1). Some Makassansinteracted culturally with the Aboriginal residents infeasts, ceremonies and liaisons, and a mixed languageevolved in some places (Evans 1992:46; Urry & Walsh1981:93). Within the last decade, there have been visitsby Aborigines from northern Arnhem Land tosouthern Sulawesi to re-establish contacts withrelatives there (Evans 1992:46) and to perform culturalceremonies that have an Aboriginal/Makassanhistory (McIntosh 1996:53). The remains of Makassantrepang processing sites give some indication of theareas of most intense activity (see Figure 1). There arenumerous Aboriginal pictorial records of the visits(e.g. Figures 2 to 4).

Mawalan Marika, of the Rirratjinu clan, Dhuwamoiety, has painted a remarkable map of Yalangbara(Port Bradshaw). The route taken by the Makassans is

red edged with blue, which differs from the routestaken by earlier (yellow edged with red) and laterfishers (blue edged with red). The painting alsodepicts travels of ancestral beings and it is ofparticular interest that Makassan history is tightlyinterwoven with these travels (Hutcherson 1995:33–4)(Figure 3).

Makassans came in small sailing boats, calledperahu,3 on the winds of the north-west monsoon,and returned some months later on the south-eastwinds (Macknight 1972:284). The trepang4 were takenback to Makassar and traded with Chinese who seemuniquely to appreciate their qualities (Crawfurd1971:440; Macknight 1976:7). The number of fishersfrom Makassar each year in the nineteenth century isconservatively estimated at 1000 (Macknight 1976:29).There are depictions of perahu in rock-art (Figure 4)and also in bark-paintings (Figure 5).

Figure 1Makassan trepang processing sites in northern Australia (Macknight 1976:62). Reprinted by permission of CC Macknight





Macknight (1976:33) suggested that Makassansfished along the coast of Western Australia, south ofCape Londonderry; they called this area of theKimberley coast ‘Kayu Jawa’. Crawford (1968:19)conducted archaeological investigations along someof this coast in 1963, finding Makassan camps andpottery. He claimed (1968:18) that there wereenormous quantities of trepang in the area but thatMakassan fishing activities were limited. He admittedthat he had visited only a small percentage of sites

known to Aborigines. Following a 1968 visit to thearea, Crawford (2001:91) discussed this fishery withIndonesian fishers; he ascertained that the Makassantrade had extended as far as Rowley Shoals.Morwood and Hobbs (1997:198–9), reporting onrecent archaeological work along the north Kimberleycoast, claimed that the Makassan visits were on alarge scale. Stone and Morwood (Stone 1999)identified more sites, the locations of which were notgiven at the request of the Wanambal-GaamberaAboriginal Corporation, traditional owners of thecountry that includes the site areas. Additional sites were found by an expedition led by theUniversity of Western Australia and WesternAustralian Conservation and Land Management in2003 (Penny Coleing, pers. comm.). An overview ofthe sailing routes is presented in Figure 6.

Several anthropologists and archaeologists whohave researched in northern Australia have confirmedthis picture.5 Other records confirm the generaloutline of the fishery. Baudin’s expeditions in 1803encountered 26 large perahu off northern WesternAustralia, and the expeditioners ascertained thatMakassans had been visiting for centuries (Serventy1952:15). Matthew Flinders (1814:232) met up with sixperahu off north-eastern Arnhem Land in 1803 andwas able to converse with the crew by using atranslator. The Makassans kindly delayed their returnjourney in order to give Flinders more informationabout the fishery.6 Captain Phillip King (1827:135–6)

Figure 2Aboriginal cave-painting of a Makassan house or trepangsmokehouse at Mabuludu in the Wellington Range, westernArnhem Land (Macknight 1976: following 53). Reprinted bypermission of George Chaloupka

Figure 3Mawalan Marika, Map of Yalangbara (Port Bradshaw) (Hutcherson 1995:34). Reprinted by permission of Buku-Larrngay Mulka and theBerndt Museum





met a fleet of perahu in Timor in 1827 and was toldthat 200 or so perahu annually left Makassar for theAustralian coast, mostly heading for eastern ArnhemLand. Alfred Searcy (1909), a Sub-Collector ofCustoms in northern Australia from 1882 to 1896,described interactions with the Makassan fishers.

Baudin’s claim about the history of the fisherywould take it back before the eighteenth century, butthere are some other suggestions about earlierinteractions (McIntosh 1995; cf. Berndt & Berndt1954:15). Others have pointed out that Macknight hasnot satisfactorily explained his very early archaeo-logical dates (800 BP) for the industry (Clarke2000a:325–6; Evans 1992:46). There is, however, no evidence of Chinese traders visiting southernSulawesi prior to the seventeenth century (Reid1983:122), and they were a driving force for thefishery. At least there is a consensus that the Makassanfishery in Australia was thriving in the eighteenth andnineteenth centuries. Makassan fishing was stopped

Figure 4Rock-painting of Makassan perahu (carrying three canoes) inBickerton Island (Turner 1973:314). Reprinted by permission of DTurner and Oceania

Figure 5Wonggo (from Caledon Bay), drawing of a Makassan perahu (Thomson 1949: following 58). Photograph by DF Thomson, courtesy of MrsDM Thomson and Museum Victoria





Figure 6The northern Australian coast and adjacent areas of Indonesia. Dashed lines show shipping routes for Australian trepang (Morwood &Hobbs 1997:198). Reprinted by permission of Oceania

in 1906 by the Australian government, probablybecause they wanted to take over the fisherythemselves (Berndt & Berndt 1954:78).

Macknight (1976:17–18) claimed that the fishersfrom southern Sulawesi, who have been loosely calledMakassan, were composed of two groups: Makassansand Bugis. It is possible that the two groups visitedseparately and that there were other people fromTimor and Aru involved in fishing the Australiancoast (Berndt & Berndt 1954:40). The detail of thatdebate is not central to the main concern of this paper.‘Makassan’ as an umbrella term for people fromMakassar will be used. There does seem to beagreement that they were the most numerous visitors.

Economic features of Makassan–Aboriginal interactions

A superficial acquaintance with Makassan–Australianhistory may lead to the view that Makassans camehere, took what they wanted from the sea and, on the

side, did a bit of trading with Aborigines. A similarlynarrow perspective sees Makassans as bestowing giftson Aborigines. A more detailed study, especially of the few Aboriginal accounts, shows that theeconomics of the fishery was much more complex.There is evidence to suggest that Makassans nego-tiated with Aborigines for the right to fish thesewaters. The trepang were one of the trade items; theywere not just freely given to the Makassans. ManyAborigines were employed as key workers in thefishery.

Mary Yarmirr, in giving evidence in the CrokerIsland case (Federal Court of Australia 1997:47), saidthat:

I was told by my father that those people [Makassans]who did come, when they anchored these waters hereand came ashore, they asked permission from the chiefor the head person, the leader, to get trepang.

Donald Thomson’s Arnhem Land informants said‘that they [Makassans] paid tribute each season to theowners of the territories for the right to fish for



trepang and pearls’ (Thomson 1949:51). Palmer(1988:151), working on Groote Eylandt, was informedthat traditional owners:

have the right to be consulted about any activity that isto be conducted within their estate. This includes…casual visits and access…the Macassan trepangers hadalways asked for this permission and…it had usuallybeen granted.

If it was not necessary for Makassans to seekpermission, then it is puzzling that they did not fish insome areas, such as Melville Island, that were much more accessible than places further south. TheMelville Islanders were said to be hostile (DaengSarro, in Mulvaney 1989:182; Searcy 1909:46), butperhaps they simply did not want the Makassans towork there. This point is taken up below.

As well as permission to fish, payment in the form of exchange was given for the trepang. This was part of a broad exchange arrangement wherebyAborigines allowed the extraction of trepang andgave the Makassans other goods, and Makassanssupplied Aborigines with various goods, sometimesmoney (Berndt & Berndt 1954:16, 44).

There is an account from Makassar in the 1950s:Daeng Sarro remembered the trade and mentionsgiving tobacco and strong drink in exchange forturtle-shell, bezoar stones, mother-of-pearl and horn(Mulvaney 1989:180–5). Harry Makarrwalla, inter-viewed in 1926 in Millingimbi, listed tomahawks,calico, rice, syrup, knives and gin as trade items(Anon. 1997:35). Dugout canoes seem to have been ahighly prized item of exchange (Thomson 1949:58).One such canoe is in the Australian MaritimeMuseum. It belongs to the Yanuwa people fromeastern Arnhem Land. The caption says that theyoriginally obtained these canoes from Makassans andthen made their own. McCarthy (1960:381–2),discussing the Chasm Island rock-art picturingdugout canoes, said that such paintings were similarto those found on nearby Groote Eylandt.

Permission was also given to Makassans to hewlong cypress pine logs for building projects inMakassar (Mulvaney 1989:26). According toMacknight (1976:84), the effective value of theseexchanges was greater for Aborigines. Warner(1932:484, 487) mentioned that Aborigines put novalue on trepang, turtle-shell or pearls; the latter twowere easily obtained while getting food or pearl shell.

The third economic aspect of the Makassan–Aboriginal interchange concerns the employment ofAborigines in the trepang industry. Daeng Sarro

stated that Aboriginal men were prepared to work onthe perahu, collecting trepang in return for food andtobacco (Mulvaney 1989:182). Tindale (1926:130),Worsley (1955:3) and the Berndts (1954:45) mentionedother goods and money as payment for labour.Wanduk Marika (1995:51), a custodian of Yalangbara(Port Bradshaw) and leader of the Rirratjinu people,Dhuwa moiety, also mentioned monetary payment:

Macassan used to give this thing to Yolngu for working,they used to work for Macassans, my father’s father,Djuwakan, used to working for them and mygrandfather and my father used to work on this one,and they, Macassans, used to give them this—bulayi ordoi, and that why they get this name—rupiah, becausethe Macassan gave them this name (but our own nameis bulayi). Bulayi is a metal, doi is the money, rupiah isthe money we use right now.

Given this range of economic interactions, it is notpossible to conclude that one side benefited at theexpense of the other, as some authors suggest, at leastnot for 200 years. Berndt (1979:294), for instance,wrote that the north-eastern Arnhem Landers usedthe Makassans for their own purposes; Searcy(1909:13) that, before the annexations by Europeans in1863, Makassans were free to fish ‘to their own profit-able account’ as ‘the coast was waste’. Others considerthat a mutually profitable economic relationship wasmore plausible (Mulvaney & Kamminga 1999:414),while granting that there are likely to have beenpockets of exploitation and violent encounters fromboth sides during some of the time in some of theplaces.

There are differences of opinion about theimportance of these economic interactions. Warner(1932:481–2) claimed that they had little importance,stressing that the Aboriginal ideas of trade remainedunaltered. Worsley (1955:4) argued that there waslittle effect on economic organisation. A detailedargument was presented by Thomson (1949) thatthere was an important effect on the elaborate systemsof exchange operating between coastal and inlandAboriginal groups. Recent archaeological work on theCobourg Peninsula by Scott Mitchell backs this up.He found that the largest assemblages of artefactsfrom inland locations occurred in coastal sites datingto the period after Makassan fishing began; it seemsthat Makassan goods were traded out of the area andhe suggests that this practice helped to ‘mediatedisputes and defuse violence’ that ‘accelerated aftersmallpox ravaged the area’ (Mitchell 1995, 1996,2000). Judy Campbell’s study of smallpox certainly







supports the point that it had a massive impact innorthern Australia (Campbell 2002).

Another important economic consequence wasthe shift to a more marine economy by coastalAboriginal peoples. The dugout canoes allowed themto fish in deeper water and with greater stability. Thismade it easier to catch big marine mammals such asdugong and sharks, an idea developed by Clarke(2000a, 2000b).

Related to the shifts in economic arrangementsare two points about gender. Clarke (2000b:171)argued that, if Aboriginal men were engaged somemonths of the year in working for the Makassans,then Aboriginal women may have been forced tocarry out a broader range of subsistence practicesthan prior to the Makassan visits. Also, Aboriginalmen who were involved in collecting the trepang forthe Makassans were carrying out an activity,gathering, that was traditionally female.

Cultural features of the Aboriginal–Makassan interactions

Here too there are differences of opinion. Someinvestigators downplay any cultural influence onAboriginal peoples (Crawford 1968; Warner1958:468). Macknight (1972:318) wrote that the‘Macassan influence contributed merely an exoticcolour to the cultural fabric of certain Aboriginalsocieties’. Others say that the influence was profound(Thomson 1949:82–3; Worsley 1955:6). There was littlediscussion of Aboriginal cultural influences onMakassans in the literature surveyed, except a hintabout languages and ceremony. Urry and Walsh(1981:91) suggested that an amalgam of Aboriginaland Makassan languages had developed. McIntosh(1996:53) mentioned that in 1996 some dancers fromElcho Island went to Makassar:

to perform a ritual associated with the ‘Dreaming’creation figure, Walitha/walitha, also known as Allah.Aborigines are said to share this ceremony, known asthe Wurramu, with the people of Macassar.

It is very unlikely that, over a 200-year period, thecultural influence was only one way. It would beinteresting to know for example what happened tothe pearls and turtle-shell taken to Makassar; werethey traded out of the country like the trepang?Makassans shared with Aboriginal peoples a regardfor the sea as a spiritual place. Both groups

proclaimed certain rocks along the coast to be sacred.Makassans placed offerings on them in the form offood, goods and money, ‘to appease the spirits of thesea...The Aborigines, who respected this custom andlooked upon the rocks as sacred, would never removeor steal [the offerings]’ (Berndt & Berndt 1954:45).Some Makassan houses were made out of Australiantimber. Some Makassans were placed within anAboriginal kinship framework (Macknight 1976:85).Together these suggest there was some influenceupon Makassan culture.

The influence of Makassan on Aboriginal culturestakes diverse forms, involving ceremonies, customs,languages, artistic works, myths and song cycles.Burial ceremonies, for instance, incorporatedMakassan features reminiscent of the raising of thesails for the departure of the perahu (Marika 1995:50);a display in the Australian Museum explains thisceremony. In a secular Aboriginal ceremony, thecarved wuramu figure represents the ‘Collection’ or‘Crook Man’ inspired by the observations during thelate eighteenth century that Europeans took moneyfrom the Makassans for licences and duties on goods(Searcy 1909). In the ceremony, the Crook Manattempts to take valuable items that are not his(Berndt & Berndt 1954:16–17, 62–3). Pipe smoking andthe growth of a particular form of beard worn bysome Aboriginal men were customs copied fromMakassans (Marika 1995:50). A Makassan glass bottlehas been incorporated as a ceremonial totem by theMildjini people in Arnhem Land (Figure 7).

Several recent studies of the acceptance ofIndonesian words in Aboriginal languages have beenconducted. Evans (1992) found 200–300 words fromMakassan in Yolngu languages (see also Walker &Zorc 1981). Urry and Walsh (1981) accepted that therewere influences on the vocabulary and also suggestpossible syntactic/semantic influences, claiming thatin some languages the effect was more marked andthat after 1906 the influence lessened. Worsley(1955:5) attributed the introduction of carving in theround by Aboriginal artists to Makassan influence.The motifs in many Arnhem Land artworks showstrong Makassan themes, for example in sandsculpture (Figure 8) and stone pictures (Figure 9). Theanvil shape of Makassan sails is a common motif inArnhem Land paintings even in recent times.

There are numerous paintings of Makassanperahu (see Figures 4 and 5) and dugout canoes.There is an extraordinary painting by Nawakadj





Figure 9A stone picture of a Makassan prau in Wurrawurrawoi,eastern Arnhem Land (Macknight & Gray 1970:12). Reprintedby permission of CC Macknight

Figure 7Replica or ‘malli’ of old square-faced bottle. The geometric designrepresents clouds reflected on the wet surface of the bottlewashed up on the shore. The small figures around the centre aretrepang seen through clear water (Thomson 1949:following 58).Photograph by DF Thomson, courtesy of Mrs DM Thomson andMuseum Victoria

Figure 8A sand sculpture of an anchor and mooring rope, with aMakassan-influenced grave-post in the background. North-eastern Arnhem Land, photo by Donald Thomson, 1937 (Wiseman1996:81). Courtesy of Mrs DM Thomson

Nganjmirra, a senior man of the Djalama clan and amember of the Yirridja moiety whose country is eastof Oenpelli; it is extraordinary because of the intensityof the violence depicted, violence against Makassansfor sailing into a sacred place and by a Makassan,‘Luma Luma’. Nganjmirra (1997:249) wrote:



This man Luma Luma came from overseas,Macassar…he sank that Macassan boat because theysailed into a sacred place. Luma Luma, he broke thatboat, any boat—warship or canoe, Luma Luma willbreak that boat into pieces. He’s a strong man. He cutthat boat into pieces and killed all them people. Theycame to the wrong place.

Myths documented by Warner (1958:536–7) abouta Makassan man and a dog take up themes of identityand ownership. McIntosh (1994:81) interpreted thesestories to mean ‘that Aborigines must direct change intheir lives, in their own ways’. Finally, some songcycles recount the Makassan voyages (Berndt &Berndt 1954:51; Worsley 1955:5).

The diversity and depth of Makassan influence onAboriginal culture shows quite a high degree ofaccommodation and acceptance of the fishermen andtheir activities that would be unlikely if there were notmutual respect for people and property.

Psychological features of the interactions

The relevant psychological features concern thefriendliness or hostility between Aboriginal peoplesand Makassans. If the relations were friendly, then itis likely that some satisfactory negotiation had takenplace concerning the fishing industry; if there washostility, then one side or the other considered that thearrangements were not working for them.

There are varying reports in the literature. ThatMelville Islanders were hostile to Makassans wasnoted by the Indonesian informant Daeng Sarro(Mulvaney 1989:182) and Macknight (1969:182), but itdoes not fit well with the linguistic evidence referredto above. Tindale (1925:66) stated that ‘The NorthernTerritory natives have apparently always been hostileto the alien intruders who visited their coasts’,reporting that Groote Islanders hated the Makassansand tried to kill them; but he does say that theMakassans stole things from them, enticed them todrink, beat them when they would not work, andabducted Aboriginal women to take back to Makassar(Tindale 1926:131). Pobasso, the Makassan who spokewith Flinders (1814:231–2), said that ‘they sometimeshad skirmishes with the native inhabitants of thecoast’ and cautioned him to ‘beware of the natives’.Crawford (2001:76) claimed that the Kimberley coastAboriginal people were ‘extremely fierce’, butMorwood and Hobbs (1997:200) cited linguisticevidence that hostility was not always the case in thatarea.

Using archaeological work in the northernKimberley, Stone (1999:73, 75) argued that there weretwo phases in the Makassan fishery. In the earlynineteenth century, sites were located in defensiblepositions, suggesting to him that relations betweenMakassans and Aborigines may have been hostile. Inthe late nineteenth century, Makassan sites were notlocated in defensible positions, suggesting thatrelations were peaceful. Stone also drew attention towhat appear to be strategically planted tamarindtrees;7 the trees are found about 10 km apart in thenorthern Kimberley, corresponding with trepangprocessing sites. Stone (1999:99–100) considered theexistence of tamarind trees in these locations toindicate that Makassans ‘had a highly organisedapproach to the trepang industry…with a substantialexpectation of longevity of the industry’, anexpectation which would have been ill-founded in ahostile environment.

There is visual evidence pointing to peacefulrelationships in Melville Bay, as depicted in thepainting (Figure 10) where the black figures representAborigines, the others Makassans; it is a harmoniousscene, with the two groups working together.

Thomson (Wiseman 1996:2) wrote to the Ministerfor the Interior in 1935 that:

Generally speaking, the Arnhem Landers of this area[Caledon Bay] did not welcome aliens except on theirown terms, i.e. according to the rules of behaviour laiddown by Aboriginal law. Later comers, the Europeansand Japanese, did not conform to the code of conduct towhich the Macassans had abided for hundreds of years. In 1932, as a result of behaviour consideredinappropriate in relation to Aboriginal women, the menof Caledon Bay killed five...Japanese [crew].

Lack of respect for Aboriginal women seems to be acommon theme in reports of Aboriginal hostility(Berndt & Berndt 1954:22–3, 47, 213; Swain 1993:164).But Warner’s (1958:467) eastern Arnhem Landinformants spoke ‘very highly’ of Makassans andmentioned their generosity; they particularly notedthat the Makassans ‘let our women alone’.

The Berndts (1954:17, 19) claimed that during theearly Makassan visits ‘relations between theAborigines and the traders seem to have been mostamiable’ but that they broke down when Euro-peans entered the area. Searcy, the customs officermentioned above, certainly found Aborigines un-friendly, but he was taking money from the Makassanfishers, a practice that Aborigines did not considerlegitimate, and at the same time interfering with the





arrangements they had with the Makassans. Searcy(1909:174) wrote glibly that ‘a whole nigger camp waswiped out’, but ‘thus it will ever be in developing anew country where the aborigines are all hostile’. Thisstands in sharp contrast with the Makassan attitudeas reported by Thomson in 1949: ‘the Macassanseafarers recognised the native ownership of the landand the surrounding waters, and paid tribute to themembers of the local clans for the fishing rights’(Anon. 1999:21).

Consistency and credibility of sources

There is very little inconsistency in the generaldescription of Aboriginal–Makassan interactions.Earlier, no investigations had been completed on theKimberley coast but that is now recognised as animportant area of interaction (disagreement on thetiming of the visits is of marginal concern to thisdiscussion).

Some of the economic features noted above arenot mentioned by some commentators—they maydiscuss trade but not employment or permission.Lack of mention of employment may just indicate thatin the particular area studied Aboriginal people werenot employed in trepanging. Lack of mention ofpermission to fish may reflect a European perspective,such as that of Searcy (1909:13), that there was noneed for permission as the coast was ‘a waste’. Itwould then be hard to hear Aboriginal voices thatwere saying that permission was needed.

The views of early writers such as Warner (1932)that the economic interactions were unimportant donot stand up with the recent research into exchangenetworks, especially the archaeological work ofMitchell (1995, 1996, 2000). The shift into a broadertype of marine economy enabled by the use of dugoutcanoes (Clarke 2000b) was another important conse-quence of the interactions. Whether the shifts ingender roles attending the changed economicsituations had any long-term reverberations isuncertain.

It is difficult to reconcile the view that Makassaninfluences on Aboriginal cultures were minimal withthe wide range of examples presented above, butmuch of that material may not have been known toearly writers. The linguistic evidence in particular hasbeen published only in the last 20 years.

A mixed picture of the psychological interactionsemerges from the literature, but blanket statementssuch as: ‘Aborigines were hostile/friendly’ seem



Figure 10Bark-painting of two perahu and trepang boilers under atamarind tree, by Madaman (Riradjingu clan) (Macknight 1976:following 44). Reprinted by permission of Buku-Larrngay Mulkaand National Museum of Australia



unsustainable. Generally, if Aboriginal peoples weretreated with respect in three key areas—the treatmentof women, ownership of land and sea country, andspirituality—then relations were friendly. Specificareas of hostility which cannot be explained in thisway may be a result of unique circumstances; thehostility of Melville Islanders towards all foreignersmight be explained by their being enslaved byPortuguese before Makassans arrived (Mulvaney &Kamminga 1999:422).

Apart from the issue of consistency it is alsoimportant to ask what factors could affect thecredibility of these accounts. There could have beentrade rivalry; Pobasso might have been concernedthat Europeans could become rivals for the trepangtrade and thus overemphasised to Flinders stories ofAboriginal hostility.

That Eurocentric perspectives dominatedEuropean views of Aboriginal peoples until the latetwentieth century is especially important to thecurrent topic in that Aboriginal ideas of ownership,possession and right might be rendered invisiblebecause of Eurocentric bias. There is very littlecriticism in the sources concerning the Europeanassertion of ownership of northern Australia in themid-nineteenth century (McGrath 1995:275). If thatownership claim is not challenged, there is apresumption that there was no prior ownership ofland; it is even more difficult from a Eurocentricperspective to accept the idea of ownership of sea.However, if it is the case that Aboriginal peoples donot make a distinction between land and sea country,a point strongly argued in the Saltwater collection(Anon. 1999:12–17) and by Bradley (1998:128), thenfor coastal groups ownership of sea is no moreproblematic than ownership of land.

It is instructive to look at an advertisement placedin the early twentieth century, encouragingEuropeans to take over Aboriginal land (Figure 11),and to compare it with the type of promotion ofpresent-day fishing in the Northern Territory.According to Fishing the Territory, fishing opport-unities in ‘beautiful billabongs, big tidal rivers,mangrove-lined estuaries and pristine coastal water’are wide open except for some catch limits (Anon.2002:2, 46). This encourages non-Indigenous fishers toexploit Northern Territory waters. The assumption inboth cases is that Indigenous interests in land or seado not count.

Even the anthropologists who seem closest toAborigines (Thomson and the Berndts) engaged in aEurocentric practice: the collection of paintings and

sculptures for museums, a practice that may havebrought appreciation of Aboriginal ways of life toEuropeans but which may have also entrenched ideasabout difference in respect to rights, encouragingperception of Indigenous peoples as objects of studyand interest but not as full citizens.

Another issue of credibility of the sourcesconcerns the fact that most of the accounts are frommen and about men. Catherine Berndt, CarmelSchrire, Annie Clarke, Judy Campbell and MaryYarmirr are exceptions. Ronald Berndt (1979:282)worked on genealogies, as this:



Figure 11Advertisement, reproduced in Searcy (1909, appendix 11: ‘Pointsfor Intending Settlers’)





procedure provided one of the best means of getting toknow people. It enabled me to see the organization ofsocial life through the eyes of a number of men, since Ihave worked only with men.

Perhaps some balance was provided by the insights ofCatherine Berndt, but other European explorers,anthropologists and archaeologists seem to beworking exclusively in male company. Theirapproaches might fail to take account of women’sperspectives. In particular, women sometimes wereitems of exchange in Aboriginal–Makassan trading(Swain 1993:164). What did they think about this? Didthey view that interaction as legitimate or as a form ofsexual slavery? Makassans were collecting trepangwith or without the help of Aboriginal men.Collecting was a traditional female occupation; whatdid women think about this violation of role and thelegitimacy of the fishery? The fact that they mighthave been powerless to stop it does not mean thatthey did not have views about its legitimacy. Theviews of Aboriginal women concerning the Makassanfishery might have been quite different from what themale informants have told the male investigators.

What conclusions are possible about Aboriginal–Makassan interactions when possible sources of biasare considered? The Eurocentric bias might disguiseevidence that Aborigines entered into negotiatedarrangements for fishery to proceed—that is, that theyexercised a right to exclude. Whether the generaldescription of the interactions would change if thevoices of women could be heard is difficult to say.Mary Yarmirr’s evidence in the Croker Island casedoes not contradict this account, but more oralhistories would be valuable.

How are the documented interactionsrelevant to sea rights claims?

The interactions described show that in some placesAborigines did assert a right to exclude Makassanfishers. At Melville, Bathurst, Wellesley and HowardIslands, there was no fishing or it was very restricted,and at least for two of these islands the reasons seemclear. At Howard Island there were spiritual reasons,and at Melville Island there were historically badrelations with other foreigners. Given the size ofMakassan fleets, it is likely that Aborigines often wereoutnumbered, and they had inferior weaponry(Macknight 1976), so Kirby’s High Court argument is

pertinent. Although Aboriginal peoples may havehad a right to exclude, and in some cases wanted to,in some instances they may have been unable to doso.

The view that Aborigines did not assert a right toexclude Makassan fishers seems very limited. If it wasthe case on Croker Island, as stated by Mary Yarmirr,that Makassans were given permission to fish, thiscould have been to the mutual benefit of her ancestorsand the Makassans. To argue that they did notexclude Makassans is irrelevant to whether they havea justifiable claim over the sea country.

As a general point, Aborigines may not haveasserted their right to exclude because they had nodesire to do so. This is where the arguments abovecome into play. To take the economic interactions first:if permission had been requested to fish, if paymentwas made for the fishery (e.g. canoes for trepang), ifmen were employed in exchange for goods, if therewas further trading to mutual benefit, why wouldAborigines not allow the fishery to flourish?

Economic benefit is not everything. If Makassansviolated social norms or spiritual beliefs, then it islikely that friction occurred; Makassans had goodreasons not to do so, however, as it would havedisrupted their fishery. They shared a belief in the seaas a spiritual realm, which would have made themopen to Aboriginal concerns about spirituality.Nevertheless, it is clear that at times Aborigines hadsocial and spiritual reasons for wanting to limit thefishery. If there had not been a broad acceptance of thelegitimacy of Makassan fishery, the influence ofMakassan culture on Aboriginal culture, especially inareas of deep significance such as burial rituals,would be difficult to explain.

The history of Makassan–Aboriginal interactionsjustifies a rethink of the basis for sea rights claims forAboriginal peoples. If Makassan fishing formed partof a network of negotiated arrangements in theeighteenth and nineteenth centuries, this providesgood basis for the restitution of similar negotiatedarrangements in the twenty-first.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I thank Annie Clarke, Lisa Strelein and Nicolas Peterson for usefuldiscussions, Lesley Head for her comments on an earlier draft andher encouragement, Graeme Ward for patient editorial work,anonymous reviewers, and the Saltwater Exhibition for aninspiring presentation of sea rights claims.



NOTES

1. The trading port in southern Sulawesi was called ‘Macassar’ bythe Dutch. Suharto changed the name to ‘Ujung Pandang’. Gus Durchanged it to ‘Makassar’ in 2000. The last spelling will be followedhere except for direct quotes.

2. Trepang was sometimes called ‘sea swallow’ (Hall 1957:29).

3. There are some Anglicised versions of this word, most commonly‘prau’. The Indonesian spelling for boat is ‘perahu’. This will beused unless quoting directly.

4. A member of the class Holothuroidea and the animal phylumEchinodermata.

5. Lloyd Warner (1958) worked mainly in the Millingimbi region inthe 1920s; Donald Thomson (1949; Wiseman 1996) workedextensively in Arnhem Land in the 1930s; Frederick McCarthy andFrank Setzler (1960) in eastern Arnhem land in the 1940s; Ronaldand Catherine Berndt (1954, 1990; Berndt 1979) in Arnhem Landalso in the 1940s; John Mulvaney in Arnhem Land in the 1960s;Carmel Schrire (1972) at Port Bradshaw in 1970s; Ian McIntosh(1994, 1995, 1996, 1997) in eastern Arnhem Land in the 1990s; andScott Mitchell (1995, 1996, 2000) on the Cobourg Peninsula. Therehave been many researchers on Groote Eylandt, including NormanTindale (1925, 1926) during 1921 and 1922; Peter Worsley (1955) in1952 and 1953; and more recently David Turner (1974), and AnneClarke (2000a, 2000b).

6. In May 2002 an Australian stamp was produced commemoratingthe meeting between Baudin and Flinders in Encounter Bay nearAdelaide in 1802.

7. The fruit of the tamarind was used by Makassans for ‘flavouringrice and fish dishes, making an astringent vitamin supplementdrink and eaten raw’ (Stone 1999:93).

REFERENCES

Anon. 1997, The native born, Museum of Contemporary Art, Sydney,in association with Bula’bula Arts, Ramingining.

—— 1999, Saltwater: Yirrkala bark paintings of sea country: recognizingIndigenous sea rights, Buku-Larrngay Centre in association withJennifer Issacs Publishing, Yirrkala and Sydney.

—— 2002, Fishing the Territory 2002/2004, Northern TerritoryHoliday Centre, NT Tourist Commission, Darwin.

Berndt, RM 1979, ‘Looking back into the present: a changingpanorama in eastern Arnhem Land’, Anthropological ForumIV:281–97.

Berndt, RM & Berndt, CH 1954, Arnhem Land: its history and itspeople, Cheshire, Melbourne.

—— 1990, Man, land and myth in north Australia: the Gunwinggupeople, Ure Smith, Sydney.

Bradley, J 1998, ‘We always look north: Yanyuwa identity and themaritime environment’, in N Peterson & B Rigsby (eds), Customarymarine tenure, University of Sydney (Oceania Monograph 48), pp.125–41.

Campbell, J 2002, Invisible invaders, Melbourne University Press.

Clarke, A 2000a, ‘The “Moorman’s Trowsers”: Macassan andAboriginal interactions and the changing fabric of indigenoussocial life’, in S O’Connor & P Veth (eds), East of the Wallace Line:studies of past and present maritime cultures of the Indo-Pacific region,AA Balkema, Rotterdam, pp. 315–35.

—— 2000b, ‘Time, tradition and transformation: the negotiation ofcross-cultural engagements on Groote Eylandt, northern Australia’,in R Torrence & A Clarke (eds), The archaeology of difference:negotiating cross-cultural engagements in Oceania, Routledge, London,pp. 142–77.

Crawford, I 1968, The art of the Wandjina, Oxford University Press,Melbourne.

—— 2001, We won the victory: Aboriginal and outsiders on the north-west coast of the Kimberley, Fremantle Arts Centre Press, Fremantle.

Crawfurd, J 1971 (1856), A descriptive dictionary of the Indian islandsand the adjacent countries, Oxford University Press, New York.

Evans, N 1992, ‘Macassan loanwords in Top End languages’,Australian Journal of Linguistics 12:45–91.

Flinders, M 1814, A voyage to Terra Australis...in the years 1801, 1802and 1803 in His Majesty’s Ship the Investigator, G&W Nicol, London.

Hall, B 1957, ‘The oldest industry’, Walkabout 1 May, pp. 29–30.

Hutcherson, G 1995, Djlkiri Wanga: the land is my foundation, BerndtMuseum of Anthropology, University of Western Australia, Perth.

King, PP 1827, A survey of the intertropical and western coasts ofAustralia 1818–1822, vol. 1, John Murray, London, pp. 128–38.

Macknight, CC (ed.) 1969, The farthest coast: a selection of writingsrelating to the history of the northern coast of Australia, MelbourneUniversity Press.

Macknight, CC 1972, ‘Macassans and Aborigines’, OceaniaXLII:283–319.

—— 1976, The voyage to Marege’: Macassan trepangers in northernAustralia, Melbourne University Press.

—— 1981, ‘Journal of a voyage around Arnhem Land in 1875’,Aboriginal History 5(2):135–44.

Macknight, CC & Gray, WJ 1970, Aboriginal stone pictures in easternArnhem Land, Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies, Canberra.

Marika, Wanduk 1995, Wanduk Marika: life story, University ofQueensland Press, St Lucia.

McCarthy, FD 1960, ‘The cave paintings of Groote Eylandt andChasm Island’, in CP Mountford (ed.), Records of theAmerican–Australian Scientific Expedition to Arnhem Land, vol. 2,Melbourne University Press, pp. 297–414.

McCarthy, FD & Setzler, FM 1960, ‘The archaeology of ArnhemLand’, in CP Mountford (ed.), Records of the American–AustralianScientific Expedition to Arnhem Land, vol. 2, Melbourne UniversityPress, pp. 215–95.

McGrath, A 1995, Contested ground: Australian Aborigines under theBritish Crown, Allen & Unwin, Sydney.

McIntosh [MacIntosh] IS 1994, ‘The dog and the myth maker:Macassans and Aborigines in north-east Arnhem Land’, AustralianFolklore 9:77–81.





McIntosh, IS 1995, ‘Yolngu sea rights in Manbuynga ga Rulyapa(Arafura Sea) and the Indonesian connection’, in J Finlayson & DESmith (eds), Native title: emerging issues for research, polity andpractice, Centre for Aboriginal Economic Policy Research,Australian National University, Canberra, pp. 9–22.

—— 1996, ‘Islam and Australia’s Aborigines: a perspective fromnorth-east Arnhem Land’, Journal of Religious History 20:53–77.

—— 1997, ‘The Birrinydji Legacy: Aborigines, Macassans andmining in north-east Arnhem Land’, Aboriginal History 21:70–89.

Mitchell, S 1995, ‘Foreign contact and indigenous exchangenetworks on the Cobourg Peninsula, north-western Arnhem Land’,Australian Aboriginal Studies 1995/2:44–8.

—— 1996, ‘Dugongs and dugouts, sharptacks and shellbacks:Macassan contact and Aboriginal marine hunting on the CobourgPeninsula, northwestern Arnhem Land’, in IC Glover & P Bellwood(eds), Bulletin of the Indo-Pacific Prehistory Association 15:181–91.

—— 2000, ‘Guns or barter? Indigenous exchange networks and themediation of conflict in post-contact western Arnhem Land’, in RTorrence & A Clarke (eds), The archaeology of difference: negotiatingcross-cultural engagements in Oceania, Routledge, London, pp.182–214.

Morwood, MA & Hobbs, DR 1997, ‘The Asian connection:preliminary report on Indonesian trepang sites on the Kimberleycoast, NW Australia’, Archaeology in Oceania 32:197–206.

Mulvaney, DJ 1975, The prehistory of Australia, Penguin, Melbourne.

—— 1989, Encounters in place: outsiders and Aboriginal Australians1606–1985, University of Queensland Press, St Lucia.

Mulvaney, DJ & Kamminga, J 1999, Prehistory of Australia, Allen &Unwin, Sydney.

Nganjmirra, Nawakadj 1997, Kunwinjku Spirit: creation stories fromwestern Arnhem Land, Melbourne University Press.

Palmer, K 1988, ‘Customary marine tenure at Groote Eylandt’, in NPeterson & A Rigsby (eds), Customary marine tenure, University ofSydney (Oceania Monograph 48), pp. 150–1.

Reid, A 1983, ‘The rise of Macassar’, RIMA 17:117–60.

Searcy, A 1909, In Australian tropics, George Robertson & Co.,London.

Schrire, C 1972, ‘Ethno-archaeological models and subsistencebehaviour in Arnhem Land’, in DL Clarke (ed.), Models inarchaeology, Methuen, London, pp. 653–70.

Serventy, DL 1952, ‘Indonesian fishing activity’, AustralianGeographer 6:13–16.

Stone, G 1999, ‘The archaeology of fishing: interpreting theevidence for the trepang industry in north Kimberley’, BA(Hons)thesis, University of New England, Armidale.

Swain, T 1993, A place for strangers: towards a history of AustralianAboriginal being, Cambridge University Press.

Thomson, DF 1949, Economic structure and the ceremonial exchangecycle in Arnhem Land, Macmillan, Melbourne.

Tindale, NR 1925, ‘Natives of Groote Eylandt and of the west coastof the Gulf of Carpentaria: part 1’, Records of the South AustralianMuseum 3:62–102.

—— 1926, ‘Natives of Groote Eylandt and the west coast of the Gulfof Carpentaria: part 2’, Records of the South Australian Museum3:103–35.

Turner, DH 1973, ‘The rock art of Bickerton Island in comparativeperspective’, Oceania 43:286–325.

—— 1974, Tradition and transformation: a study of Aborigines in theGroote Eylandt area, northern Australia, Australian Institute ofAboriginal Studies, Canberra.

Urry, J & Walsh, M 1981, ‘The lost “Macassar language” of northernAustralia’, Aboriginal History 5:91–108.

Walker, A & Zorc, D 1981, ‘Austronesian loanwords in Yolngu-Matha of northeast Arnhem Land’, Aboriginal History 5:109–34.

Warner, WL 1932, ‘Malay influence on the Aboriginal cultures ofnorth eastern Arnhem Land’, Oceania 2:476–95.

—— 1958, A black civilization: a social study of an Australian tribe, rev.edn, Harper, New York.

Wiseman, JP 1996, Thomson Time. Arnhem Land in the 1930s: aphotographic essay, Museum of Victoria, Melbourne.

Worsley, PM 1955, ‘Early Asian contacts with Australia’, Past andPresent 7:1–11.

Legal transcripts

Federal Court of Australia 1997, The Commonwealth of Australia v.Yarmirr and Ors; Yarmirr and Ors v. the Northern Territory of Australiaand Ors (Summary of Judgement by Justice Olney).

High Court of Australia 2001a, The Commonwealth of Australia v.Yarmirr and Ors; Yarmirr and Ors v. The Northern Territory of Australiaand Ors, February.

High Court of Australia 2001b, Decision of the High Court ofAustralia, 11 October 2001, updated 29 January 2002, TheCommonwealth v. Yarmirr; Yarmirr v. Northern Territory.

Denise Russell, after receiving a doctorate in philosophy,lectured in the philosophy department at the University ofSydney where she stayed for two decades, heading thedepartment for three years. She has published widely inbooks and journals on issues to do with knowledge claimsin science, social political philosophy and environmentalphilosophy. Her attraction to the sea has guided her currentpostgraduate work in geoscience, but concern about issuesof social justice remains dominant.

c/o School of Earth and Environmental Science, University ofWollongong, <[email protected]>





aboriginal–makassan interactions in the eighteenth …lryb.aiatsis.gov.au/pdfs/aasj04.1_...

Documents