ABST100 LECTURE WEEK 9 Todays lecture very different, talking about Country as the foundations of indigenous identity, talking

g about indigenous knowledge and kinship with country, and talking about the living spirit of country and the lore of country. Finish by explaining how land rights not just a socio-political struggle, as people might believe it to be, it is also a spiritual struggle as well. Tried to bring a strong indigenous perspective to it, so it could come across as little bit different, and it may be a little bit difficult to grasp some of the concepts that he is talking about. Everyone will certainly benefit to some degree from the lecture, as he will be going into indigenous psychology a little bit. The best way to learn about indigenous peoples is by not only learning about the peripheral things to their culture, but also about the deeper inner sanctity and identity which also includes their cultural psychology. The term Country has been consistently used by lecturer, Country is a pivotal term and the concept enveloped within it is the key to understanding indigenous cultures, not just here in Australia, but across the globe as well. Country for all indigenous peoples is far more than just the land we stand upon, the rivers that run through the land, or the seas that surround it. Country, for indigenous peoples, sits at the very core of their being. It is the spirit energy held within the earth, the sea, and the sky. This spirit energy is a cultural oxygen for indigenous Australians, and this oxygen is not the same as the western scientific chemical construct, it is the life force of their spiritual ancestors. Everything on country and inside country is breaths with their spiritual being. Country includes the landscape, the sea and the sky. There is no separation between these elements. They are as one, as Country. Everything is alive within country to indigenous Australians. This concept of being alive, encapsulates elements that are not termed living in a western sense. Meaning that rocks, mountains etc are not seen as alive in western thinking, yet to aboriginal peoples are very much alive and its spirit lives. Lecturer has a DVD he wants to show later on that will support what he is saying here (dont know what it is, and no link on Board, and no access to lecture notes). Beings such as trees are considered alive in western thinking, but they are not thought of as having spirit. Animals, birds, insects and all other life forms have spirit too. Everything is seen as life form, and everything is seen as possessing spirit, and that spirit is synonymous with Country. This makes Country a holistic living breathing entity. This concept is the key to how well we read indigenous Australian art and therefore the key to aboriginal Australians world view. Art and Country are inseparable, and country in turn is inseparable from spirit, and spirit is inseparable from knowledge because it is knowledge for aboriginal peoples. Indigenous spiritualism as knowledge is something that doesnt get talked about much. It is something that many indigenous people dont want to talk about for various reasons. Lecturer thinks that if you want to learn about indigenous peoples then you need to find the link, or be taught the link, between aboriginal spiritualism and knowledge. Country is the living embodiment of all corpuses of knowledge. It is a difficult concept to fully understand. For lecturer it is the strongest

avenue for teaching students about the deep structures and frameworks of their knowledge systems. No indigenous cultural practices are understandable unless people realize the inseparable interconnectivity between country, spirit and knowledge. This is who aboriginal peoples are, and once that is understood, people who once thought of as exotic cultural practice, will become an entirely logical cultural practice. Everything that lecturer has to say on cultural practices today is embedded with the spirit energy of his own spiritual ancestors. Paying tribute njunga peoples of central Australia and South Australia, picture of Uluru, it has long been a premier tourist attraction, featuring in just about every national tourist campaign, and it is also features heavily in visual narratives about who aboriginal peoples are as Australians. This rock is synonymous with the national ether of Australia, and the image of a sun burnt country, and formally this rock was known by non-indigenous Australia as Ayers Rock. To this day it remains the subject of much western scientific intrigue, and has been described by western geologists as composed of arcose (course sandstone), and is said to be the visible tip of a large underground formation. This rock however has never been to indigenous peoples as Ayers Rock, it is for aboriginal peoples a matter of recognition of the local mutujulu(?) peoples, and other angunungu(?) peoples as Uluru. Uluru breathes for the Amangu nation, so a place created by their ancestors. The jukapar(?) and wappa(?) of the Amangu nations teaches us that Uluru was formed to the movement of jugaricha(?) and waparicha(?), so Jukupa = dreaming (language of pitinjara(?), pitabi(?), walpi(?), arunda(?), whole section of central Australia). Massive concept Jukupa(?). Lecturer using 2 distinct terms, because these terms are specific to particular cultures. This is because the Amangu nations are more than 1 culture, jukaricha and waparicha is the spirit being which moved through the earth during jukapa and wappa, and created Uluru. In creating Uluru, jukaricha and waparicha, cemented their spiritual presence within Uluru. The Amangu know this presence, they can feel it, they can see it and they learn through it. They live by the law that is contained in Uluru, that is why the Amangu nations, and in particular the local mutujulu(?) community, request that people refrain from climbing Uluru. The Amangu nations accept that people will continue to climb Uluru but that doesnt mean that they are not affected by this. Every time someone climbs Uluru, they in fact compromise the spirit of lore and this at a spiritual level is deeply troubling for the Amangu peoples. Uluru also contains in it particular laws of access as well. Men are not able to access certain places, within and around Uluru, because certain sections contain womens sites. The concept of law being held by spirit places such as Uluru, is common in all indigenous cultures. Paying tribute to lecturers people on the North Coast, the Dhungutti. Picture of great grandmother. The profound place that Uluru holds in Amangu peoples lore, is the same profound place that Burrelbulli(?) holds in lecturers Dhungutti culture. The mountain pictured on PowerPoint Presentation (couldnt find). This mountain was created for Lecturer and his people during the time of Burumburri(?). Burelbulli(?) has in it the spirit being of bungai(?) (the witchetty grub dreaming), when lecturer sees this mountain, he does not see it as an inanimate land form, rather he sees it as a living, breathing spirit energy of his spirit ancestor. The witchetty grub lays around the base of the mountain. Burrelbulli(?) is a powerful knowledging place for lecturer, and it gives him his lore. It gives him his identity because it contains the essence of him. He knows he belongs to the spirit

energy of this mountain. His family and extended family say that this mountain has the power to bring its people back all the time no matter where they live. This mountain sits at the core of his cultural psychology and as it does with all Dhungutti people. He sees in this mountain all of his Dhungutti family, all the grandmothers and grandfathers that came before him are in this mountain. I can see my great grandmother in this mountain, and the tribal name is Bola (aunty senior tribal woman). Pay tribute to the Urala(?) peoples, the caterpillar in picture show on slide, McDonald Ranges, around Alice Springs, showing land forms. These ranges have become a major tourist attraction, and geological fascination as well. These land forms in actuality sit at the core of country for the Arana(?) peoples. The shape of the land itself is direct manifestation of the movement of the aranga(?) peoples spirit ancestors. Caterpillar ancestor had a dominant role in creating this region, and therefore has a dominant role in aranga(?) cultural life. Often it is described as a dreaming trail, because it involves a large region which extends from the east of Alice Springs to the west of Alice Springs, and out as far as the Simpson Desert, so it is quite big site. When lecturer looks at these land sites he sees the impression of the aranga(?) peoples spirit ancestors in the land and he can sense the breath of their spiritual presence. He doesnt really look at this land as picturesque, he looks at it as spirit country. The particular cultures of the arunda peoples each hold sacred specific areas within the McDonald Ranges. It is a very big tribal group, east, west and central arunda. These spirit places maintain supremacy within their cultural psychology, in the same way that burelbulli(?) does within lecturers cultural psychology. There is no separation between who they are as arunda peoples and country which is the living manifestation of yiparaenga(?) (aboriginal name for McDonalds Ranges) shows picture of river created by the rainbow serpent. While rainbow serpent is integral in the ontology of many indigenous nations, lecturer thinks it is a mistake to assume that rainbow serpent is present in all indigenous Australians ontologies. Photo Adelaide River in NT. You can see from the formation of this river that a spirit ancestor of a serpent has moved through the land, and through these examples you can begin to see that indigenous people KNOW that country lives. Country is not something that sits as a part of a cultural life it is the very essence of cultural life. There is no separation between who we are as indigenous beings and country. Important point the power of aboriginal peoples psycho-connection to country is beyond strong, it is a force that when broken causes immense spiritual loss and pain, a sort of spiritual anguish which is witnessed in their history with their old peoples. In a lot of aboriginal cultures, they have a saying that the land speaks to them. Many use the phrase the land speaks to us, the reason we say this is because of the living spiritual being of country. They sense that country as a living being communicates with them eg. Lecturers culture when eastern wattle blooms, they know that country is speaking to them, to tell them that the time is right to catch a particular species of fish brim and whiting in particular. We see in this a very complex interplay between knowledge being given to them by country in a form of ecological guardianship as part of country. We are taught how to read country so as to maintain this lore and that is part of indigenous education. As part of this, they taught about the positions of the moon as well. Astronomy is a part of aboriginal culture, not just a discipline that belongs to western sciences eg. In lecturers Dhungutti culture, the moon is positioned in a particular place in relation to Burrelbulli(?)

Mountain, country is telling them the time is right to catch perch in the McLeay River. So country manages us, we dont manage it, so there is a reciprocity there. This is where contemporary environmental movements find a connection to aboriginal peoples, and their cultures, because they interpret this concept of living in harmony with the land. To a great extent this concept is true, but we do have ecological practices such as fire stick burning. Fire stick burning is a method that some of our cultures employ during the colder parts of the year to rejuvenate country and to spur on new growth. All this is done in accordance with lore of country. When we burn off country it is about getting rid of the dead grass and ticks etc and when its burnt down the new grass comes up really green and that also attracts roos and wallabies back to those areas as well. A lot of fire stick burning was going on here in Sydney during the early days of the settlement, but the problem with the settlement was that it burnt some of their farms down and the people running those farms misinterpreted that, they thought they were trying to burn them out but they were carrying out lore according to looking after country. Those cultures that employed these methods of ecological sustenance of country do so through a decision making process which involves the reading of country, and it falls under our laws of cultural maintenance of country. These management practices however are not exclusively determined by us, they are undertaken when country communicates that the time is right, hence the reading of country. To explain how this works more thoroughly, ontology centered on the time of their creation ancestors, that is the time when their creation spirits were active on earth and created everything that now stands as country. To explain in greater detail, lecturer going to draw on Dhungutti culture. In his dreaming, there are five primary elements that define his existence: 1. Speaks of the period of time when his spirit ancestors came into being and moved across country, creating country, and everything within country. 2. Speaks of the spiritual energy and power of his spirit ancestors, they invented within everything in and on country. 3. Knowledge that spirit ancestors gave us, which is as far as we are able to, due to the onslaught of invasion, we keep sacred in our knowledge in stories. 4. Lore itself 2 aspects of this a. Law conduct that covers every aspect of their cultural behaviors towards one another. b. Lore of spirit covers every aspects of their cultural behavior towards all other beings within country that is all life forms including the allegedly inanimate, eg rocks, mountains etc. 5. Kinship, which is the familial interconnectivity with all beings of country which our spirit ancestors created for us. In western anthropology kinship is defined as those of extended familial and honorary relations that bind human beings together, in that regard is interpreted as a human social structure. Some western anthropologists will recognize that in cultures such aboriginal cultures that they have a totemic system. That is a system and recognizing relationship structures beyond human society. This particular form of so called totemic relation is usually, which he would argue very strongly, is usually associated with primitivism, and it was in fact why early anthropology mounted the spirits argument that aboriginal peoples were closer to animals rather than humans.

Lecturer would like to say that he does not subscribe to the notion of the totemic system defined by western anthropologists. He does not see himself or any other aboriginal peoples as totemic for two fundamental reasons: 1. The word totem tends to be ecstrapolated to the idea of an emblem, which in essence means symbolic, or symbol representation. This he finds troubling, because symbolism suggests a measure of separation, and also suggests belief, and to some western anthropologists this in turn brings up the matter of worship. 2. Other reason for not feeling associated with the term totem, there is for lecturer no recognizable or tangible league of play in his kinship. It is organically spiritual knowledge, and as such indisputable fact. He doesnt know his kinship as having an element of animal worship at all, rather he knows who his family is. That said many indigenous people will use the term totem, but in doing so they are emphasizing their closeness to these spirit beings as kin. In indigenous kinship systems or extended family structures bind all beings together through the spiritual essence of country as created for us and defined for us by their spirit beings. Their country and their ontology are one entity and this one entity gives them kinship that is because their spirit ancestors are of non-human form. We see kinship as something that goes beyond human relationships. In creating their lures of kinship, they establish the direct genealogical lineage between us and themselves, and doing so they cemented all of us together as family. What you see on slide is goodegin(?), an insect by western systems of knowledge, that is exactly who this person is, this person is goodegin(?), you will notice that I said this person, and that is because the praying mantis is his Dhungutti culture is not just an insect as in the western sense, it is one of their spirit beings, and goodegin is as much as a spirit person as lecturer is. There is no separation between his spirit ancestor and a member of his cultural family structure, and Goodegin stands inside my cultural family in equality with brother, sister, aunty, uncle, grandmother, grandfather etc. Lecturers kinship with Goodegin is defined accordingly, when he sees the manifestation of Goodegin in the life form western peoples term praying mantis, he sees a member of his own cultural family, and Goodegin speaks to him through his life form. An example of this is when in lecturer before he came to work at Macquarie back in 2007, he was offered a lectureship at Charles Sturt University at Bathurst, which he accepted and it was the very first time he had been out of Sydney in his whole life. Knowing that he would have to go out of country and have to leave his own cultural country here on the coast line and go inland, to a western person this would more than likely be inconsequential, it might mean shifting from a familiar location to an unfamiliar location, and it may even mean family separation, but thats probably about it. For Lecturer there were deep spiritual issues as stake, issues he had to work through, so he could make this move in a spiritual sense. So the first way he dealt with it, was to accept that his spirit ancestors gave him the opportunity in the first place, as much as he knew this he needed country to communicate that to him. This communication came to him when he went out to Bathurst itself, and on the very first day that he arrived, he stood looking at the hotel window which was on campus, and a Goodegin landed on the window, it turned and stayed there for a while and moved around. Many non-indigenous people would say that this was just a coincidence, they would also assert on that basis that he is a very underdeveloped, and probably superstitious person, but his indigenous knowledge tells him otherwise, he new straight away that Goodegin was speaking to him, telling him that he was meant to be there at that period in his life. He knew that because his spiritual ancestors, including Goodegin are part of his life map. He believes

his life is actually mapped, some may say you work hard to make yourself and create your own path, but he believes differently. Goodegin told him that he had permission to be present in Wiradjuri country but of course he new whose country he was in and he felt spiritually humble about that. It was a spiritual journey for him as he began to meet other indigenous people who were related to him either through marriage relations, or extended family relations, so for some reason right from the very start he met a fellow that was retiring before him, he met him as he was going out the door, and his first cousin from La Perouse is married to his first cousin in La Perouse, so that was freaky. One of the other lecturers, from Cowra, was a lecturer in human movement, walked into the room and lecturer had a picture of his grandmother from La Perouse on the table, and his father name was William foot, and he said that he was related to the Foots, and when they got talking, they realized that were distant relations. Lecturer had never been to Bathurst his whole life, or past the Blue Mountains, the very first day he was there he started running into people that were connected. Country spoke to him in a way that told him this was his time to return, and he knew that because he is a salt water person. He was reminded about this the other day, when he bumped into a couple of his cousins, he hadnt seen them for a couple of years, he told him that he had been at Bathurst for 2 years, and they said see youre a salt water fella, you couldnt stay away. They were right, his spiritual knowing bought him home in the same way that he was taken away. He is standing here today talking to us because he is meant to be here, and being a lecturer here at this institution and standing here in front of you fellas is all part of the path that he is on. He knows that this is a definitive fact, people can dispute that if they wish, but he was born to develop into a culture teacher that he has become and it is his way of working for his spirit ancestors as well, so that he can contribute to their cultural struggle, to have the spiritual foundation of Australia accorded proper place in this nations ethos. Photo of spirit being, that is part of his families kinship structure, in pic you can see a beautiful seascape with a majestic whale moving through it. That ocean that is in picture, is what us saltwater fellas say is in our blood, it runs through their veins, it oxygenates their spirits, as much as blood oxygenates their bodies. So the whale is not whale to lecturer, it is the pooriboori(?), it is the living entity of my dharrawul(?) spirit ancestor pooriboori(?), and is related to me as family in the same way as goodegin is. The picture on screen is a representation of how kinship with country manifests in me as a Dhungutti person and as a dharrawul(?) person. The interrelationship between landform and life form is so complex and so complete for him, that he sees no point of separation between himself and who he is in the spirit of country. He cannot conceive of himself, and therefore his being as outside this, so his kin, land, and kin life forms are not totemic, they are real within his kinship relational structure. All of this is extremely difficult for non-indigenous peoples to understand because it involves unfamiliar knowledge concepts. In the western system of knowledge, proof or evidence is required to substantiate that. This proof of evidence needs to be acquired through a rigorous process of scientific discovery or from deep analytical reasoning and theorization. You can see that there is an absolute difference between western scientific notions of proof and evidence in terms of legitimating knowledge, and how indigenous people legitimate knowledge. There is a real tension there as well. How can lecturer expect us to believe what he is telling us about their kinship structure if our ontology is fundamentally embedded in the western requirement to be able to prove things as scientific things. That which is found to be provable or evidential can be welcomed in the western knowledge system, but there are issues to do with proof. Their systems of knowledge are not seen through non-indigenous eyes to have this same element of analysis, theorization, proof or

evidence, they do however have all these elements within their epistemological structures, the same level of deep analytical reasoning and theorization exists within their epistemology as does the same need for proof and evidence. So the actual difference rests on how these elements are determined. Theirs is determined by spiritualism, so a spiritual happening, and experiential communication stands as forms of proof and evidence for us. For instance his communication with Goodegin in Bathurst stood for him as proof and evidence, and similarly the physical appearance of landforms stands as proof and evidence of movement of spirit beings. It is their analysis and theorization about experiential happenings, experiential communication and the form of country as proof and evidence that is experientalises their knowing. He knew through spiritual analysis of the proof and evidence communicated to me by Goodegin, at the core of his cultural knowing, that he was being offered spiritual affirmation, that his decision to leave country was spiritually sound. The power of their spiritualism and their spirit ancestors can be seen so very clearly in all their cultures. Paying tribute to Tiwi nations in Bathurst and Melville islands. On slide Pukumani pole, these poles fulfill a particular spiritual function in the burial of the Tiwi peoples. The pole features the owl, this owl was carved by Freddy Puruntamiri(?), the keeper of the cultures owl dance. Paying tribute to the ___________ peoples, on the screen is a bark painting by Mr Marawonga, painting of salt water crocodile (narramarwarra(?)(?)). This salt water crocodile takes prominence in Mr Marawongas ontology, and as such his lore of country and his kinship. The relational kinship indigenous Australians hold with their non-human beings of country is something that is common also to their sisters and brothers of the Torres Strait. On screen picture of Dhurri(?) or headdress, carved by Mr Ken Friday senior, and as you can see, Mr Friday expresses, in his headdress his relational foundation with hammerhead shark. Every indigenous culture has its own specific relational kinship structures as defined through their specific ontologies, and each individuals identity is constructed on the basis of these relational kinship structures which bond them to other living beings of country. As individuals you can have connections with in a collective sense, spiritual relationships with particular life forms, at the clan level as well, you would have a connection with another life form there. In terms of your specific family, as in lecturers case Goodegin and pooriboori(?), you would have a spiritual connection with that life force, and of course as an individual as well you would also have a spiritual connection with a life form as well. A lot of people may see a lot of contradictions in what he is saying. Lecturer wants us to remember that living beings means all life forms, and landforms as well. In lecturers case, his relational lore brings into his familial world, Goodegin and Burrabulli(?). Everyone has this form of relational structure. These relational structures are highly complex and multifaceted as well, and each cultural nation holds relations with multiple life forms and landforms. Each clan within a culture may also have further distinct relations, and added to this family and indeed each individual may also be designated under lore specific relations. This means that anyone of them, depending on their own particular cultural knowledge system, may in fact hold relations with multiple beings as extended family kinship. The common misconception though, is that they relate to absolutely everything on country at a sacred level, they dont relate to every single thing on a sacred level, though one sense it is true, but in a practical sense that is not exactly how their relational structure works for them. They believe that every being on country holds spirit and that every being on country is related to

someone. They are however given highly specific relations so that one person may be related to a kangaroo, another person in the same culture may be related to emu. Now all of this is bound up in complex systems of knowledge in stories, and the spiritual laws contained within them. Particular knowledge in stories belong to specific peoples, families, and clans, and that is why when he spoke about the Tiwi peoples, he noted that Freddy Puruntamiri(?) the keeper of his peoples owl dance. This dances knowledge in story in his culture, and he has a particular relationship with owl because he is the holder of its knowledge. Sometimes we describe these specific relations as sacred. We use the word to try and capture the seriousness and importance of these relations and to communicate the depth of knowledge enveloped within these relational structures. A lot of people may see contradictions in what he is saying so he thought he would discuss that with us. Those people that are yet to become fully familiar with the core principles of familial kinship structure as being ecstrapulated to all beings of country, pose questions along the line of, if such and such animal is part of your family, how come you kill it for food? Or they might say, if that tree is part of your family, why do you strip the bark of it for painting? Or, they can even say, if you have such a spiritual connection to all living animal beings, why arent you a vegetarian? Over the years lecturer has heard many such questions along these lines, and they are still quite common, and many of the aboriginal people try to provide answers. These questions themselves are quite poignant as it is possible to see at the surface level a certain contradiction within the integrity with the claim that they live in harmony with the land. However once you begin to understand that the lore of country defines very specific relational constructs that envelope all beings, then you can begin to understand that access to living beings as food sources is embedded within another deeper layer of cultural regulation. Country speaks to them so as food collection is strictly controlled by seasonal cycles, and is also controlled by strict limitations on how much can be taken. All indigenous cultures hold fast to the philosophy that only that which is fundamentally needed for sustenance or life may be taken, so killing or unrestricted harvesting is not something that we do as a matter of sport or recreation. In contemporary we do look at ways of sustainable cultivation, but that is worked out so their foundational philosophy, which is imbued with spiritual consequence is not flouted. Even though they do take food they a very selective about what we take depending on the season. Where lecturer comes from in Botany Bay, when the blue swimmer crab are around in large numbers, we usually dont take the females (the ones that carry the eggs), we dont take the small ones, only the reasonably sized male ones. This is the sort of stuff that indigenous Australians teach national parks as well. National parks are looking quite seriously at different ways of managing their estates, and they feel that the indigenous perspective has a very strong and relevant place in land management practices. We dont overtake things too, as we feel there is a spiritual consequence to it. That you could bring bad luck to yourself or the area if you overharvest something or you kill things for the sake of it. Further within foundational rule and regulation, certain people are restricted in what they can and cannot have based on lore. As indigenous people go through their cultural laws, certain things are forbidden, as food, and that is a way of making sure that there is a strong balance between all other life forms. These laws come from that higher degree of knowledge that lecturer mentioned earlier, and they are given, through the process of lore within ceremony. Ceremony reinforces these laws to make sure that people adhere to the way that they behave on country.

We all know those of our spirit ancestors created them as human beings, and in doing so they realized their physical needs for food, and accordingly they structured their laws in accordance with access to food, and very importantly, their laws of preparation and consumption of food, to accommodate this need in a way that sustains life holistically. Just as lizards eat grasshoppers, we too are given, by our spirit ancestors, same fold access, praise is given to the being that gives us life through lores that determine different methods of dispatch and cookery. In some parts of the country, the spirit kangaroo, for example, provides aboriginal people with a major law. They can still eat the animal, but to cook it other than leaving its coat on and cooking it in the ground is breaching lore, and anyone who is caught doing that sort of thing, out in certain places, and results in sever punishments. Only in some or their cultures the cooking of Kangaroo has to be done according to law in a particular way. This may be done in the ground as said previously, with the skin intact. Lecturer not going to make further generalizations here, as each culture has its own laws, so what is true of one culture is not necessarily true of another. The principle of relational conduct remains in place for all indigenous peoples. Just as we may well call certain beings sacred, you will find we all label certain landforms as sacred as well. to understand this you need to remember what he said about landforms having spirit and being, as living entities. These are places that are called sacred sites, often times there are places where they conduct ceremony in accordance with lore. On the eastern side of Australia in particular, their access and therefore their continuity through ceremony has been irreparably damaged through denial of access to country. In short that is denial of cultural education for them. He would say it is because their sacred sites are entirely entwined within the concept of education. Cultural education takes place through the medium of morality and within that storing through the methods of yarning, talk, music, song and dance. This cultural education foundationally never took place just anywhere, rather it built into the country. For yarning of knowledging stories to take place as cultural education, we must be present at particular cultural sites. He will expand on this at the end of lecture, when he talks about land rights as a spiritual matter. What he would like to say now is that each society is underpinned by very particular systems of approach and conduct, sometimes these places are so sacred that many aboriginal peoples cannot access them, only their very senior knowledge holders have access and right, and even then that is further delineated in accordance with individual familial kinship structures, so particular individuals in a particular family have right of access. The spiritual laws pertaining to how they conduct themselves on country are highly complex and multifaceted. In terms of sacred sites, they can in a general sense define these as being either collective sites, open to all, womens sites, such as around Uluru, or means sites. Collective sites are sites that are available to all members of the collective, and it is within these sites that non gender specific knowledging can take place. Womens sites are confined to women only, and it is absolutely forbidden for men under any day to day circumstance to access these sites without permission. Most often men cannot access womens sites, but if a rare circumstance where a male presence and expertise is required, ceremonially based, negotiations can be undertaken, and there was an example of this at Uluru, an indigenous womens site there, they needed the expertise of a nonindigenous male, and that was fully negotiated, so there is flexibility there. These exceptions are quite rare. Womens sites are where women conduct their specific knowledging. A good example of the rule and regulation of conduct in relation to womens sites, occurred during the running of the

Olympic torch in 2000, when it passed by Uluru. Lecturer remembered seeing on the television, a well known indigenous Australian identity, who was unable to run in a certain area around Uluru, because he knew that his presence as an indigenous male was prohibited. When lecturer went to Uluru, he stayed with Mutijulu(?) people at a distance from Uluru, because he knew that Uluru contained so many sites that were restricted to womens and mens lore, and that as a person from another culture, he had no right to access and he didnt want to accidentally stumble onto a site where he wasnt supposed to be so he didnt take any chances what so ever. He could not take any chance of spiritual consequence so he didnt go to close. Similarly mens sites are confined to men only, accordingly women may not enter these areas except under exceptional negotiated circumstance, because their cultural expertise was required for a given matter. Within each type of site, collective, womens, and mens. There are also levels of access. Certain collective womens and mens sites are only accessed by persons of particular knowledge standing and status. To gain access to these sites an individual would have to have pass worthy appropriate level of cultural knowledging through lore. This especially so in what we usually refer to as high degree knowledge levels. As mentioned earlier, living the spirit of country involves highly complex systems of spiritual lore and social conduct law. Spiritual lore determines a range of issues including, learning cycles through ceremony, and cycles of maintenance of country. This cultural education is ongoing for aboriginal peoples, but it is organized and undertaken in predetermined cycles that ecstrapulate the spiritual lores of knowledge that tells us when knowledging ceremonies are to be taking place. Social conduct law is especially complex and relates to how they conduct themselves with regard to each other, and with regard to their sacred being and sites. Within this there are very distinct language structures, and interpersonal behavioral structures, including the practice of what they usually term avoidance. Avoidance can be as simple as a woman or a man turning their back when going past a region which holds within it culturally designated female or male sites. Avoidance is also practiced in familial situations, such as the turning of the back, or avoidance of direct eye contact, in relations such as mother in law, and so on. Each culture has their own range of avoidance laws which are usually highly complex. In lecturers own Dhunghutti culture, he knows of the practice of avoidance from his 2nd cousin, who is no longer with us. His cousin practiced avoidance by turning her back to one of her uncles on the basis of particular law of cultural practice. None of this is done out of rudeness, rather it is done out of respect and deference. Depending upon which culture they are in they may well find themselves being required to speak multiple language dialects based on relations eg. Mother in law language exists in many indigenous cultures. In many indigenous cultures people can speak up to 13 dialects of language, but there is always one dialect reserved just for the mother in law. Particular practices associated to your mother in law, they have a special relationship with the mother in law, because she gave you a good wife, so she should be treated well and with respect. If you wanted to give your mother in law a gift, in some places you would not look at her directly, stand with your back to her, and pass the gift to her over your back. In lecturers Dunghutti culture, his own family used to do this to one another. His uncle and 2nd cousin were 1st cousins, there were particular cultural practices they had to adhere to as part of that culture. Lecturers mother used to tell him, that people would sit back to back, and if someone wanted a smoke or something, they would say has someone got a smoke, then it would be passed over the back by the other person. These sorts of codes of conduct are bound up in law, in the way that people interact with one another.

Secret Aboriginal languages are not available to just anyone, they are used by senior knowledge holders, and only in the sanctity of sacred sites. This is commonly termed secret language, of course. All that lecturer has shared today, can only be considered very introductory. Indigenous Australians have maintained very intricate and highly complex systems of knowledge, systems of spirit lore, and systems of social conduct law, all of which work together under the auspice of country. Country, education, and cultural maintenance are bonded together. Many people think that when aboriginal peoples mount campaigns asserting their right to land, and make native title claims, that they are waging a socio-political campaign, waged on the basis of historical subjugation ( ), on a surface level that is the case, however on a far deeper level, land rights is a spiritual struggle for them. It is a spiritual struggle because the land as country sits at the core of their identity, it is who they are as indigenous people. They may have lost languages and certain knowledge stories, certain cultural protocols and practices, but none of this is irreparable to them if they maintain their connectivity to the spirit of country. Cultural survival for aboriginal peoples is psycho-cultural, it is how they carry within them their spiritualism, it is their spiritual way of knowing doing and being, that has held steadfast, and it is what underpins every demand they make in the name of land rights. Spirit and country are one, if you learn nothing else about indigenous Australia at least try to remember this about them. Spirit is who lecturer is as the kin of Goodegin. Playing of DVD no title. captures what he has communicated today, runs for 26 mins.