Cirrus@Austlit

'Geoffrey Gray’s (2008:114–15) remarks on Daisy Bates’ scientific achievements call for a biographer’s response — on her behalf and on behalf of the late Isobel White. My assertion that Bates ‘pioneered anthropological fieldwork’ (Reece 2007:9) was based on White’s chapter in Marcus’ collected essays on women anthropologists (White 1993:58–61). White’s editing of Bates’ manuscript, ‘The Native Tribes of Western Australia’, had given her an intimate knowledge of her modus operandi: a self-taught researcher who picked the brains of the experts to inform her ethnographic work. In her introduction to the edited version, White remarked that ‘while C Strehlow, Howitt, R H Mathews, John Mathew, Spencer and Gillen describe marriage rules, ceremonies, mythology and beliefs, Mrs Bates writes of everyday behaviour…she gives us a much more vivid picture of Aboriginal life than previous workers’ (Bates 1985:20–1). White did not claim, however, that Bates’ work ‘became the template for modern anthropological fieldwork’ (Gray’s words), which he attributes to Spencer and Haddon. Gray has set up a straw woman by misrepresenting White’s evaluation.' (Introduction)

'This recently published book is another fine example of a ‘demonstrative’ publication often produced by museums, archive authorities and public record offices, and libraries and institutions of a similar ilk. They are ‘demonstrative’ in that one of their aims is to demonstrate the value of the archival record for detailing Indigenous social and family history, or, as stated in the foreword, ‘We hope that it will inspire and inform the search for reconnection to family, land and culture for all Aboriginal people and will encourage many to find their own family history’ (Gibbs and Heazlewood 2008:v). In choosing a particular family, that of Lucy and Percy Pepper, the authors are seeking to illustrate what Aboriginal people may find in the archival record.' (Introduction)

'This is a book with a foreword (Michael Dodson), a prologue (Craddock Morton) and an introduction (Michael Davis), which are united in the belief that it presents the ‘views of non-Indigenous people who wrote about Indigenous heritage in their own words’ (pp.viii, ix, xiv, xx). To be precise, the volume is actually about Aboriginal heritage; the Torres Strait Islands are not included. Davis writes that his aim ‘in this book is not to discuss Indigenous cultural heritage as such, nor to describe a history of heritage production; rather, it is to describe textual representations of this heritage’ (p.xv)' (Introduction)

'This is a book that surprised me in the way that it gripped my attention. After some decades of Aboriginal biography and autobiography, many of which are concerned with removal fromfamily, one could be excused for thinking that there is not much that has not already been told.While every individual’s story is important and deeply personal to them and their kin, this book isinnovative and I venture to say groundbreaking in terms of the methodological approach of thewriter Mary Terszak. It is also very good story telling by an engaging and attractive personality.' (Introduction)

'This significant work, drawn from the author’s doctoral studies, is the first to report on Aboriginal child labour in Queensland. It follows excellent historiographies by Ros Kidd (1997) and Dawn May (1994), as well as that of Hetherington (2002) in Western Australia, but extends these by focusing exclusively on children. The author is generous in acknowledging the seminal works that pre-date hers, and in providing a comprehensive review of the historical literature centring on the Indigenous labour sphere. Thus this work fills an important gap because there has been little recognition of the role played by Aboriginal child labour in the formation of the post-colonial state.' (Introduction)

'We have to thank Chris Healy for reminding us so dramatically of the considerable gap between evidence-based historians and cultural historians. While the former are likely to find his new book provoking (in the sense of irritating or frustrating), the latter will probably greet it as a provocative triumph.'  (Introduction)