‘Absence’ to resurrection:

Indigenous watercraft in South-easternQueensland,

with special reference to the Sunshine CoastRay Kerkhove, with Lyndon Davis, John Waldron & James Muller

Abstract

No examples and few images survive of Indigenous watercraft in SE Queensland. Early sources are frustratingly light on details of how these vessels looked. Even so, itseems bark canoes were vital components of SE Queensland Indigenous culture. Thispaper reconstructs various aspects of the SE Queensland bark canoe, noting some conflicting records on raw materials and design. We document the spiritual and historical importance of bark canoes within this region including later ‘fusions’ with South Sea Islander and European boating traditions. Finally, the future of local canoe-building is examined – relating how a group of Gubbi Gubbi (Sunshine Coast) people are currently reviving canoe traditions in a contemporary manner through their choreography and art.

A.Apparent absence

One could be forgiven for thinking that Aboriginal people never developed watercraft in South-eastern Queensland. Not one example or photograph remains. In fact, no more than four images seem to have survived – all of them rather indistinct sketches or paintings:

1. 1824: a sketch by Robert Hobble in explorer John Oxley’s field notes of an “imitation of a canoe” – representing one of the mounds beside the ceremonial bora pathway (probably at Amity Point);

2. 1849: a rough sketch by settler/ timber-worker William Pettigrew in his diary, showing a bark sheet canoe Jackey(his Aboriginal worker) made near Brisbane;

1

3. 1856: a watercolour by artist John Andrew Bonar in the Mitchell Library (Sydney) showing “Blacks in their bark canoes or ‘Towroos’(sic)”1 on “Harvey’s Channel” (Hervey Bay);

4. 1870: a surveyor’s sketch from an Aborigine mooring a boat at a “landing place, Noosa” (Tewantin – WB39 109), but the latter is probably a European or European-style vessel.

Many of the usual ‘source materials’ for the material culture of south-east Queensland are equally terse. For instance, Matthew simply states that “the construction of bark canoes was understood, but they were rarely called into requisition” (Matthew 1910:121). Mathew Flinders reached a similar conclusion: “it should seem that these people are not dexterous in the management of the canoe or spear” (Flinders 1814: cxcviii).

Thus when John Steele wrote The Brisbane River, he felt confident to assert that canoes were not used around Brisbane (Steele 1976: 12). The misconception persisted into Doran’s definitive study of the types of Indigenous watercraft in Australia. Doran’s map stops precisely on the NSW border. Fromthat point running north, nothing is indicated until one reaches the vicinity of Townsville. Over the entire southern Queensland coast, Doran simply places a question mark (Doran 1981:76). Leon Satterthwait and Bill Arthur replicated this map for the authoritative Atlas of Aboriginal Australia (2005), perpetuating the myth and again leaving South-eastern Queensland blank (Satterthwait & Arthur 2005: 55).

This is ironic. South-eastern Queensland - especially the Gubbi Gubbi territory that is the focus of this study (the Caboolture/ Sunshine Coast/ Cooloola region) – has abundant rivers, creeks, lakes, bays, surf coasts and islands – each with food resources that can only be accessed by crossing

1 ‘Towroos’ is in fact the local word for fishing nets. Bonar presumably misunderstood what the Aboriginal parties were telling him.

2

bodies of water. More importantly, there are important local stories – both legendary and historic – about Aboriginal canoeuse and canoe journeys.

Presumably, ‘watercraft absence’ was due to the rapid extinction of traditional canoe-building. As early as the 1830s and 1840s, Aboriginal people in south-eastern Queenslandwere adopting European boats (Brown 2000:41), especially as they were frequently employed as the colony’s boat pilots, boat crews and fishermen. From the 1840s onwards, rowing regattas were being held on the South Brisbane Reach between blacks and whites. These proved so successful that rowing became a favourite sport amongst Indigenous groups of the district. As Aborigines continually won each contest, a separate Aboriginal regatta had to be created by the 1860s (Clark c.1905: 21).

Another factor seems to have been the speed and brutality withwhich European settlement occurred in southern Queensland, andthe associated lack of European interest in traditional culture. Thus what follows is a reconstruction from filaments and fragments.

B. Use of Canoes in South-eastern Queensland

1.Fishing and Hunting

From the earliest encounters with explorers on Moreton Bay andthe Sunshine Coast, there are descriptions of canoes used in fishing, turtle-hunting and dugong hunting expeditions. Tom Petrie’s Reminiscences (1904) offer by far the most detailed and frequent account of the region’s canoes. In this, it is recorded that when the weather was calm, Aborigines at Wynnum would embark by canoe for St. Helena Island to capture flying fox sleeping in the daytime there (Petrie 1904: 89). Flinderslikewise encountered “two or three bark canoes” on PumicestoneChannel which he surmised were there on account of the many swans - “of which eighteen were caught in our little boat,”

3

though he did not think the black canoeists had enjoyed similar success (Flinders 1814: cxcviii).

Presumably many islands with food resources (such as those on the Maroochy and Noosa Rivers, or Mudjimba Island - which was named partly for its abundant midyim berries) – were canoed to.Indigenous legends certainly speak of groups of canoes used near Mudjimba Island (see Q, 30 March 1912: 29). Petrie certainly records that women canoed to many "little islands" to do crabbing, collect oysters and shipworm (cobra) (Petrie inRoth 1904:16-17).

Tom Petrie also refers to canoes used in turtle-hunting – a deep water activity (Petrie 1904: 98). No eyewitness reports survive of turtle hunts using canoes, but in 1853 Aborigines at Cleveland performed a corroboree about a fatal incident involving turtle-hunting by boat off Victoria Point (Clark c.1905: 29). Likewise, Dunmore Lang describes the practiced repertoire of a group of blacks diving for turtle and hurling their massive catch into their boat in this early period (Lang1847: 27). These occasions imply canoe-hunting skills that long pre-dated the arrival of Europeans.

Canoes are also mentioned in dugong hunts. Petrie tells us that about ten men would stand in the water making a line withtheir hand-held nets whilst others would come from behind in canoes. Canoeists frightened dugong into the nets by hitting the water with sticks. The dugong drowned by entanglement in the nets (Petrie 1904: 67-68) – though Welsby states that “harpoons” or barbed spears were also involved (Welsby 1905: 108). Certainly the first encounter of Europeans with local canoes seems to have been a dugong hunt witnessed by Matthew Flinders at Green Island (near Fisherman Island) in 1799:

...they were standing upon a large flat, that surrounded the third island, driving fish into their nets, and... (they) had but two canoes among them. They were standing in a line, splashing in the water with long sticks, firstfrom some time on one side, and then all shifting to splash on the other (Flinders 18 July 1799 in Steele 1983: 22).

4

Kent and Banfield, recalling occasions in the 1880s, spoke of a combination of harpoon, net and line used with canoes to hunt dugong, though it is not certain if their description pertained to Moreton Bay or further north (near the Burdekin River?):

… blacks harpoon dugong as they do turtles… The black hunters scout in frail bark canoes for signs such as fragments of floating grass, following stealthily the feeding dugong and striking as it rises to breathe … A wild rush usually follows, and the canoe bounces madly over the water as the line tightens, while the occupant steers it with paddles of bark until the prey weakens andanother harpoon or a spear is thrust through the muzzle and suffocation (in the net) results (Q 8 Nov 1928: 59).

Fishing doubtless involved canoes to some extent, but it is unclear how much. Flinders observed the south-eastern Queenslanders being mostly occupied in “casting and setting nets” (Flinders 28 July 1799 in Swan 1999: 58) but he does notstate whether canoes were part of this process. Donar’s painting certainly shows a net in one canoe, and we know from Parsons and Finnegan (1823) that canoes held quantities of fish, presumably caught from a canoe. Welsby tells us that flathead were caught on the “flats” (shallow water) - by spearing or hooking - sometimes with dolphins - but again doesnot specifically mention canoes (Welsby 1905: 81). Fishing and dugonging was often conducted by wading into shallows and driving game into hand-held nets, set nets and fishing wiers. This did not necessarily require canoes.

Use of canoes for night fishing is equally speculative. Close to where Flinders made his observation of dugong fishing, an early visitor recorded:

....we saw a light on Outer Fisherman's Island. I knew the light was from the blacks fishing there. We made for the island, and arrived there about 10 o'clock that night. The blacks had about a cartload of mullet lying at their camp on shore.... (emphasis mine, Australian 22 December 1838:3).

5

Fishermen Island is quite a long swim from the mouth of the Brisbane River, which implies this was canoe-fishing but the reference is unclear. Likewise, Tedford - an early resident near Tewantin - recalled how during the 1880s-1890s, the NoosaLakes witnessed numerous men fishing with ti-tree torches madeby the women:

There might be 70 or 80 of these torches on Doonella Lake, which is shallow. They rarely missed the fish (mullet), which, when the white people came, they would sell for 1/- a dozen (‘The Aborigines,’ 1957: 2)

Again, the account seems to imply canoe use, but lacks definitive mention of watercraft.

2.Transport

We are on firmer ground concerning canoes as transport. Given the numerous creeks and rivers intersecting travel routes in South-eastern Queensland, canoeing must often have been the quickest form of transport, just as boating was in Colonial times. Canoes may have been constructed a good distance from water and then carried to the desired location. This apparently explains a canoe scar on the Gympie-Brooloo Road - the adjacent Mary River being a valued ‘travel route’ (Kathy Barrowcliffe in Buhle 1993:1). During the early decades of theMoreton Bay colony, even the colony’s mailman regularly journeyed by bark canoe from Point Lookout (Stradbroke Island)down the Bay islands and onto Brisbane to collect and deliver mail from passing ships (Campbell in Q 1894: 22).

Indigenous families regularly crossed by canoe between Moretonto Stradbroke Islands; between Toorbul and Caloundra to BribieIsland; between Redcliffe and Sandgate (over Hayes inlet); andbetween Hervey Bay and Fraser Island. They also ‘island hopped’– moving between Stradbroke, Maclaey, Russell, or Lamb Island and Cleveland. Finnegan, Parsons and Pamphlet – castaways who meandered around the Moreton region and up to the Sunshine Coast roughly a year– made these exact same

6

crossings in 1823 using Indigenous canoes. They additionally paddled over 20 kilometres up the Brisbane River (see Steele 1983: 69f).

Some canoes were apparently positioned where pathways ran downto good crossing points. This was for the benefit of travellers (presumably one canoe on each side). ‘Canoe River’ (today’s Oxley Creek) and ‘Canoe Reach’ on the Brisbane River were named after a major canoe-crossing place, as Oxley explains: “(this) being the spot where (the castaway) Parsons and his companions found a canoe in which they went down the river” (Oxley 1823 in Steele 1983: 69).

When Finnegan, Parsons and Pamphlet journeyed around south-eastern Queensland, they were constantly encountering and using such ‘crossing point’ canoes - at Hayes Inlet, South Passage, Caloundra and Oxley Creek. They report paddling one vessel only until they “found another canoe” near Bulimba. They even used two ‘finds’ concurrently (Pamphlet in Steele 1983: 71). By the time the castaways reached another ‘crossingpoint’ at Lytton, they were frustrated if they did not encounter a canoe ‘on hand’:

(We found) a place where it is evident the natives use tocross over... we could not find a canoe; we therefore resolved to go up river until we should find some means of crossing it (Pamphlet in Steele 1983: 69).

Indigenous groups also moored canoes (and rafts) close to camping grounds. For instance, when vigilante settlers attacked the Aboriginal camp that covered a ridge at the junction of the Brisbane and Bremer Rivers (Moggill area) theyknew the location because “a canoe and a small raft (were) fastened to the bank” (MBC 1846:2).

Such details imply a fairly well-organised system of ‘water routes.’ Scores of what are apparently canoe scars between Lake Cootharaba and Cooroy seem to indicate that in some areasat least, canoeing was quite fervent (Cato 1982). Use of

7

creeks, rivers and bays to haul timber from the Sunshine Coastto Brisbane c.1854-1880 reflects this ease of water transport.The ‘waterways’ in this case probably replicated Indigenous waterways, as the early timber-getters hauling the timber downthese creeks were mostly Indigenous (N & NCC, 4 March 1927: 2;Cato 1982:7,17). Even treacherous South Passage channel between Moreton and Stradbroke Island –only attempted by knowledgeable Aboriginals in good weather (Welsby 1967 V.II: 377) – saw sufficient ‘traffic’ for purely social calls:

Margaret Iselin remembers the old people from Myora talking about how they used to go across in canoes and land over there (on Moreton Island) because a lot of their relatives lived over there, or friends, and visited them. But that was only on fine days that they went over there (Cook 2005:26).

Iselin’s acknowledgement that crossings were only attempted when seas were not too choppy matches what Eipper observed about crossings between Toorbul and Bribie Island: “they know well their vessel cannot stand against wind and waves, therefore they would not venture to cross if the sea were ruffled…” (Eipper 1841).

3. Freight Vessels?

Canoes ‘shipped’ Indigenous ‘cargo!’ The castaways found a canoe near Redcliffe carting “20 or 30 large fish” (Pamphlet in Steele 1983: 71). When they stole this ‘shipload,’ they were pursued by the owners, who – it may be noted - were quickly able put their hands on another large canoe (Pamphlet in Steele 1983: 71). On the Burnett River, whole chunks of cattle killed in raids were transported across to an Aboriginal ‘hideout’ by canoe (Brough 1917/ 1944: 19).

Twenty large fish and whole sides of beef are quite heavy, suggesting local canoes were capable of carrying considerable weight. It may be noted that in the 1960s, the archaeologist Stockton found a 10 kilogram sandstone millstone on Bribie Island. This must have arrived via canoe, as such stone does

8

not occur naturally on the island (Tutt 1979: 32). Watkins recorded a constant exchange of shells, pounding stones and shields between Stradbroke and Moreton, and between these islands and the mainland (Watkins 1895: 46).

4. Surprise Raids/ Battles

Canoes allowed an element of surprise. In the early decades ofsettlement, Europeans were for this reason wary of any canoes containing spears:

One evening, on my way to the Flats, between Cabbage TreeCreek and the Pine River, I observed two canoes crossing the river from the on the south side, a little below Breakfast Creek, with two of the Kirkham tribe, as I supposed, in each condole (or bark canoe) and suspecting thatsomething had occurred, as they had their war-spears with them, or that a corroboree was to take place somewhere near, I waited until they had crossed the river. (emphasis mine, Australian 22 December 1838:3)

There are several stories of men from Bribie Island crossing (in good weather) to Moreton Island for the purpose of kidnapping women (Welsby 1967 Vol II: 377). This was a distance of 16 kilometres. Likewise there were sometimes retaliatory ‘canoe raids’ conducted between warriors of Moreton and Stradbroke Islands (see Steele 1984), and inland people travelled en masse by canoe to attend fight tournamentsat Fraser Island boras (Kelly 1934: 184).

5. Ceremony

As already mentioned, an earth or sand model of a canoe was a feature on the ceremonial pathway of at least one bora ground.This suggests sacred stories or ceremonies pertaining to bark canoes. According to Indigenous oral sources, some canoes wereconstructed purely for use in initiation rites. This can explain some ‘canoe scars’ on trees far from water (Buhle 1993:1).

9

Flotillas of canoes accompanied the remains of important elders across bodies of water, whenever people were interred on islands. Dinah’s Island near Boondall was used in this manner, as were parts of Bribie Island. Around 1870, Andrew Tripcony witnessed “a crowd” of Aboriginal canoes crossing “the Passage at Toorbul Point, where it is quite wide” to perform funerary rites on Bribie Island (Tutt 1979: 32). Thereis a similar pioneer account of a flotilla of “hundreds” of canoes coming back from Bribie to Sandgate, presumably after aceremony (see Lack mss).

10

C.Canoe Stories

1. Legendary Tales

From the coast of northern NSW up into SE Queensland, there isa recurrent legend involving canoes: the Three Brothers – Dreaming Heroes who came from across the sea. This trio canoednorthwards up the coast, landing at various places - creating landscape through dramatic interactions or encounters. Sometimes they also founded tribes (Steele 1984: 3). In some stories, an ogress in her anger creates waves which capsize the Three Brothers’ canoes (Steele 1984: 110).

Various Sunshine Coast landforms and Dreaming heroes were directly connected to canoes. Noosa Heads (Wantima) was created when a boy – curious as to what lay on the other side of Lake Cootharaba – canoed across (or paddled on a log – accounts vary) and was swallowed by Thargine (the Rainbow Serpent) at the mouth of Noosa River. His father also canoed over in search of him and as a result cursed all snakes to be killed and eaten (see Wells 2003: 101-2). Likewise, the Dreaming couple Nambord and Polkas (the ‘Coral Spirit’) used acanoe to elope into the sea where they escaped the wrath of their elders (Wells 2003: 105-6)

Moreton Bay had an important canoe story involving the mythical Bittern bird Hero. Bittern caught a dugong in his net at South Stradbroke Island and decided to tease his friends. He towed the dugong behind his canoe, camping or stopping at Russell Island, Coochie Mudlo, Peel, Green and St.Helena Islands. Friends followed in their canoes hoping that at one or another of these stops, Bittern would host a feast. He held his feast finally at Mud Island, knowing that the “oldwoman ghost of the island” would try to grab all the cooked meat. She did indeed appear, and the canoeists fled with pieces of dugong. The old woman in her rage created waves.

11

These capsized the canoes, turning the bobbing pieces of meat into innumerable dugongs (see Petrie 1904: 130-132).

An important canoe story involves one version of the Mudjimba (Old Woman) Island tale:

Why Old Woman (Island)? Well the story is that whenthe blacks went outside the (Maroochy) Heads in theirprimitive canoes on fishing excursions, they always tookthe precaution to take an old woman and put her on theisland. Her duty was to watch the waves and weather forsigns of an approaching storm, and warn the canoe men.One day a squall came along so quickly that the canoeswere barely able to reach smooth water and safety,without thinking of their look out. The squall settleddown into a heavy gale, which blew for a fortnight,accompanied by a tremendous sea. The old watch woman wasstill on the island, and the blacks considered that shewas dead. With their natural superstition they wereafraid to go and see for fear her spirit would attackthem. So no black went there afterwards, but they stillcalled the place Old Woman's Island (Q 30 March 1912:29).

According to another version of this story, there were two women on the island, who lived in “perpetual youth” in a cave there, but “for their food they come every night to the mainland in a canoe” (Thorne 1876: 65).

2. Historical Importance

Canoes were vital in Sunshine Coast Indigenous history. In 1836, Eliza Fraser was rescued at Wa-Wa corroboree grounds (Elanda Point) on Lake Cootharaba by canoe (Steele 1983: 181-2). An Aboriginal couple canoed convict John Graham across thelake to enable this (Brown 2000:41). The event was significantas it effectively began white involvement in the Sunshine Coast region.

Decades later, in a pre-mediated act, a local settler with a swag led curious Aboriginals from their camp on Lake Weyba up

12

a creek past settlers who lay in ambush. Aboriginals sometimesfled to the lake by canoe (or by diving into the water) when pursued by whites, but in this case, their curiosity was aroused and they came up the creek (which is quite deep) in canoes. Some seventy men were reportedly shot, one at a time. The creek was thereafter know as ‘Murdering Creek’ (Tutt 1974:83; Bull 1982:33-34).

The canoe-themed Murdering Creek massacre had a huge impact onGubbi Gubbi history, as it effectively halted the attempts of Reverend Edmund Fuller to establish a workable Mission on LakeWeyba. Fuller had chosen the area as it was close to a major camp where Murdering Creek emptied into the lake (Brown 2000:17-18).

D.Varieties of Watercraft in south-eastern Queensland

1.‘Small’ (river/ inlet?) and ‘large’ (sea-going?) canoes

Petrie insists that canoes of the region were all identical indesign, whether for “fresh or salt water” (Petrie 1904: 98). Neverltheess, he maintained that the “strongest and largest ones” were reserved for catching turtle. In all likelihood, such larger vessels also served for crossing large stretches of water, and for carrying more passengers or cargo, for Petrie adds that these bigger vessels could hold “nine to ten people” (Petrie 1904: 98). Pamphlett in 1823 was chased by blacks in such a canoe – manned “to the number of about ten” (Pamphlet in Steele 1983: 71). The only other “large” canoe Pamphlet and Finnegan encountered was loaded with fish (Pamphlet in Steele 1983: 71).This, and Flinders’ surprise at the large size of the canoe he viewed at Pumicestone Channel suggests that there was a line of canoes especially built for use in sea-hunting, long-distance crossings and cargo.

13

By contrast, the castaways state they employed a “smaller” canoe to paddle up the Brisbane River (Steele 1983: 71). Petrie states that “smaller ones” served “about five” and wereused for traversing shorter distances (Petrie 1904: 98).

14

2. Makeshift rafts

Occasionally, a makeshift raft was created for crossing streams:

...the aborigines made small rafts with dead, dry sticks bound together with bark string. These rafts were covered with sheets of tea-tree bark, young children and other belongings placed upon them, and then the men and women going into the water, swam alongside, pushing the raft (Petrie 1904: 99).

Small logs were also used for this purpose, but more as a swimming aid, especially “in swimming any distance” (Petrie 1904: 99).

3. South Sea outriggers and European boats

On the Sunshine Coast of Queensland, Indigenous and South Sea Islander families are often inter-related, having extensively intermarried c. 1880s – 1910s. This means that many Gubbi Gubbi families consider their identity and heritage to be a blend of Pacific Islander and Indigenous (Lyndon Davies, per. comm., 2011). They therefore aim to reference both their Islander and Aboriginal past in contemporary art involving watercraft. For example, Lyndon included sails in his recent work with Kris Martin and James Muller for Woodford Folk Festival, although these were not used on Indigenous watercraft here.

Recalling the 1880s, Joseph Dixon - the main employer of SouthSea Islanders at Buderim - recorded that during their free times, his Islander workers fashioned a traditional outrigger canoe:

These men amused themselves (at Buderim) in making a canoe of pretty large size; they hollowed it out with

15

tools and small fires – they had to take care the tools did not go through and spoil the canoe – the 2nd canoe wasa success – and I had the bullock team put it on the wagon and take it to the Mooloolaba Bay. Here (MooloolabaBay) on Sundays they built an outrigger to keep it upright in the water and sawed a plank on each side, to raise it out of the water. They got mast and canvas sailsand when finished they invited some of the whites to comefor a sail in the bay, and some of the men got on board and had a sail around the bay (Dixon: 12 January 1928)

Dixon adds that when these Islanders’ work contract had ended,they used their vessel to travel to Brisbane, apparently to meet up with a ship to take them back to the Islands:

As these boys’ time had expired, they got provisions and one day set sail for the Brisbane River and up the river.It was fine weather and they put to sea and came to Moreton Bay and up the Brisbane River – it was 60 miles. I have wondered what the lookout man thought when he saw them coming in it – it was something he had not seen before – I was told it was seen on the banks of the Brisbane River in a rotten condition (Dixon: 12 January 1928)

It is not certain whether and to what extent the Indigenous-Islander families blended their canoe-building traditions during this era, but around 1910, a large dugout drifted ashore at Inskip Point (near Fraser Island), arousing some interest (Sunpicture: Nambour Local Studies). This may have been the remnant of some mishap involving a North Queensland Aboriginal outrigger, as the latter having been sketched venturing to Mackay and beyond; or perhaps Melanesians attempting to cross the Coral Sea, but it is more likely another example of a vessel built by the Buderim community.

We face a similar dilemma in determining whether Indigenous people started imitating (building) boats of European (or quasi-European) design or materials. Western boats were rare

16

at this time. They were so prized that a boat gifted by the government to Aborigines who assisted shipwreck victims sparked a feud on Stradbroke Island (Balfour 1921 in Welsby 1940). The 1870 sketch of a native tying a canoe at Tewantin is curious in that the subject is completely naked (i.e. traditional), yet his watercraft seems European, or at least quasi-European.

E. Overall appearance (design)

1. Bark canoe diversity?

Paucity of actual images of Moreton/ Sunshine Coast canoes frustrates efforts to arrive at certainty as to their design. Canoe design varied a great deal around the Queensland coasts.Even early observers such as Dunmore Lang noticed major differences between north-eastern and south-eastern Queenslandwatercraft (Lang 1876: 398).

Immediately north of our study region, three-piece sewn canoesprevailed - at least from the Keppel Islands as far as south as Rockhampton (Jardine 1936:7; Fitzalan 1860:2). Yet even asfar north as Townsville, single-sheet bark canoes were additionally used (Q, 21 June 1884, p. 986).

Immediately south of our study area, from the Tweed Valley past Sydney to as far as Port Phillip Bay (Victoria), single-sheet bark canoes, tied at both ends, were apparently the solecanoe type (Doran 1981: 76). The latter all followed the same basic model, with slight regional differences. For instance, those of Lake Tyers (Victoria) were significantly more ‘sharp nosed’ than those of Sydney or the Hastings River.

2. Similarity to Sydney canoes?

In all likelihood, the “single-sheet tied-bark” tradition extended across the border into south-eastern Queensland. Both Eipper and Petrie describe all bark canoes of the

17

district as constructed from a single tied bark sheet. Likewise, William Lowe – one of the first Sunshine Coast residents – records canoes “made out of a single sheet of barktied at each end with vines” (Lowe 1944).

Our earliest ‘eyewitness’ – explorer Mathew Flinders - emphasized the similarity he found between one canoe he had the opportunity to examine closely (at Pumicestone Channel) and those of Sydney. He described it as “tied up in the same manner”, except that it was “much larger than any used at PortJackson” and (in his eyes) more “misshapen and clumsy” (Flinders 31 July 1799 in Steele 1983: 35-36).

Bonar’s watercolour of a canoe on Hervey Bay is not very detailed, but does seem similar to many sketches from Sydney Harbour: fairly flat and broad-hulled, with curved ends forming small, tied sterns and bows - both ends identical (forinstance, compare Bonar’s painting with nla.pic-an3291668 in the National Library collection). Note that Petrie also foundthat “both ends of the canoe were the same” (Petrie 1904: 98).

Curiously the design of Northern Rivers (NSW) canoes – which, being nearer, one would expect to be similar to South-eastern Queensland– seem significantly more narrow, with bows turned up 90 degrees, in sharp contrast to the 20 to 25 degree angle that seems more prevalent in SE Queensland (see Steele 1983: 136, figure 62 and National Library - nla.pic-an6617600-v).

3. Local or functional variations?

It is possible that designs varied considerably within the region. Some models may have been closer to Northern Rivers canoes is style. Certainly the earlier-mentioned sketch from Amity Point bora ground suggests a broad hull of ‘Sydney’ style, but with one end blunt - perhaps upturned like a Hastings River canoe.

William Pettigrew describes the Brisbane canoe he saw as “a large sheet of bark tied up at the four corners” (Pettigrew 1849 MSS).His accompanying sketch makes it clear that he meant a flat

18

sheet with four separately tied corners. This is a remarkable departure from the two-pointed bark canoe. It may represent something akin to a raft, suited for use on calm, relatively shallow bodies of water such as the Brisbane River offered. Unfortunately, the rough nature of his sketch precludes any certainty.

4. Inspiration from black bean pods?

One other possible clue to the appearance of Gubbi Gubbi canoes may lie in shape of a humble seed pod - that of the black bean/ moreton bay chestnut ( castanospermum australe). The canoes Bonar painted on Hervey Bay are remarkably similar in shape to split black bean pods. Lyndon Davis has found that out that in other parts of Australia, Indigenous canoes were shaped to mimic landscape features and other natural elements (Lyndon Davis, per. comm.., 2012). Black beans mostly grow along creeks and rivers in sub-tropic regions of NSW and Queensland. When in season, the pods split into canoe-shaped halves and are often encountered floating down various Sunshine Coast and Moreton Bay streams – a feature that has been noted since the 19th century. The fact that these pods served as ‘toy canoes’ for both Indigenous and non-Indigenous children on the Sunshine Coast in recent decades and probably for generations (Brent Miller, pers.comm. 2012) could signify that they influenced canoe design.

5. Estimating Size

We have some indications of the dimensions of local canoes. Petrie states that trees were cut “20 feet” up which agrees with Youlden telling us that a “five-person” canoe could reach20 feet (6 metres) in length (Youlden in Williams 1982:15). The canoe scar at Burpengary Creek was similarly some 18 feet (5.4 metres) long.

“Larger” nine or ten person canoes must have been longer. One purported canoe tree scar on the Cooroy-Tewantin Road (KC:A31)seems to be 30 feet (9 metres) long.

19

F. Raw Materials

1. The Hull

As mentioned, the body or hull of canoes from the Sunshine Coast/ Moreton region was made from a single sheet of bark. The relationship was so strong that the local word for ‘canoe’(kom’bar or kun’du/ kun’dul ) and ‘bark’ was identical (Watson 1944:12 ; Petrie 1904: 97).

a. Known hull materials: Swamp Mahogany

The tree most often used for the body of a canoe seems what local people called bulurtchu - lophostemon suaveolens (Petrie 1904:97; Monks 2001: 32). Bulurtchu is popularly called Swamp Mahogany, Bastard Mahogany or Swamp Box. It grows on low ground often near swamps. William Pettigrew asserted that “atWide Bay the natives at one time made their canoes of the barkof this tree” (Pettigrew 1878: 7). As Pettigrew worked the timbers of the Sunshine Coast region with local Gubbi Gubbi people at the very dawn of European-Indigenous contact, his observation hold considerable authority. All tree scars alongPumicestone Passage (between Bribie Island, Toorbul and Caloundra) that have been identified as “canoe tree scars” seem to be on Swamp Mahogany/ Swamp Box (McArthur 1978: 43), which further supports this conclusion.

The reason for this choice of wood is not hard to fathom. At one time in his forestry ‘science’ William Pettigrew tested the ‘seaworthiness’ of Swamp Mahogany against a number of other timbers including turpentine (eucalyptus stuartina) and peebeen (fraser island turpentine - syncarpia hillii). He found that even after 10 months, Swamp Mahogany would not be attacked by cobra (shipworm), although it did warp when dried (Pettigrew 1878: 7). Another reason given for the use of swamp or bastardmahogany is that it did not split easily (Petrie in Roth 1904:16).

20

Even then, Pettigrew notes that certain strains of Swamp Mahogany identified by Tom Petrie did not even warp or crack when dried (Pettigrew 1878:8). Presumably these varieties wereespecially utilized for canoe building, as most of Petrie’s information on native flora came from his Aboriginal friends.

b. Known hull materials: Stringy Bark

Apart from Swamp Mahogany, “stringy Bark” (probably swamp stringy bark - eucalyptus conglomerate - fairly common around the Sunshine Coast) was the main material for canoes: “if one of these (Bastard Mahogany) trees was not procurable, then a stringy bark or diura was sought” (see Petrie 1904: 97). MathewFlinders describes a large vessel he inspected as made of “stringy bark” (Flinders 1799 in Steele 1983: 36). Colin Monks makes a similar observation, adding that both species were favoured on account of being more waterproof than other barks (see Monks 2001: 31).

William Pettigrew observed that this timber had one advantage over swamp mahogany: it does not readily catch fire (Pettigrew1878:8). This may have made it the preferred material for constructing canoes for use in transporting firesticks or for night fishing with torches.

It should nevertheless be cautioned that Swamp Mahogany is sometimes called “Stringy Bark.” The earliest explorers like Flinders could only speak of what was familiar to them from Sydney, and as both trees have a similar, stringy exterior, itis possible that Flinders was mistaken (Lyndon Davis, personalcommun, 2011). Certainly Charles Archer, who made much observation of local use of trees in the 1840s, was of the opinion that stringy bark was more often a material for hut-building (Archer in Tutt 1979: 53).

c. Other possible hull materials

21

Another apparent candidate for canoe hulls is the tea-tree or paperbark (melaleuca quinquenervia). Andrew Tripcony – an early resident of the Moreton Bay region – recalled – as earlier noted - several canoes made from “tea-tree bark” crossing Pumicestone Channel in 1870 (see MacArthur 1978: 43). Profusepaperbark swamps grow on Bribie Island and around Pumicestone Channel. The bark is certainly waterproof, and is even tied at both ends with vine into ‘canoe-shaped’ coolamons in other areas of Australia (Elliot et al 1993:359). Whether, on a larger scale, this material would be sturdy enough to enable boat-building remains to be tested. Swamp Mahogany can look similar to varieties of paper bark (Lyndon Davies pers. comm, 2011). Thus again this could be a mis-identification.

Fed Williams’ work on Fraser Island Indigenous culture gives the false impression that Pettigrew had listed fraser island turpentine (syncarpia hillii) as the Indigenous material for canoe-building (Williams 1982: 15). In fact, a closer reading of theoriginal source indicates Pettigrew was simply comparing the seaworthiness of this material with swamp mahogany (see Pettigrew 1878: 7).

Another candidate is ironbark. Two purported ‘canoe’ scars have been recorded on iron bark trees (presumably eucalyptus fibrosa or eucalyptus creba) on Coochie Mudlo Island in Moreton Bay (Pearn 1995:596). Their relatively smaller size and “scutum (shield)”-shaped scars casts some doubt as to them actually being from canoe construction.

Finally, corkwood or bat’s wing coral (erythrina vespertilio) – which grows on the Sunshine Coast- is listed in Symons’ Bush Heritage (1994) as a local material for constructing canoes. Presumably Symons made this surmise on account of corkwood being used for canoes in northern Australia (NT – sees Symons 1994: 59).

2. Cord/ cane for tying canoe ends

22

Yurol or supplejack (flagellaria indica) is described in Petrie (Petrie 1904: 98) as being turned into cord to tie canoe ends.The same material was traditionally used on Groote Eylandt, NTto tie canoes (see Symons 1994: 66). However, Tennant Kelly states that according to her Indigenous informants in Cherbourg, the Nalbo and Dalla (a Gubbi Gubbi area – Blackall Ranges) used lawyer cane (calamus australis) to tie canoe ends (Tennant Kelly 1934:4).

3. Gunwales & lacing cord (along canoe side tops)

Petrie describes lengths of “wattle” (acacia) or alternatively nannam vine “stretched along the top of the inside” (Petrie 1904: 98). The latter is identified as malaisia tortuosa (Petrie 1904: 98) – commonly known as burney vine or crow ash. Tom Petrie’s father, however, describes the material as “cane” (Andrew Petrie 1863:3) as does Eipper: “strong pieces of splitcane” (Eipper 1841). Perhaps this reference is to lawyer cane. This was to firm up canoe gumwales. More yurol (supplejack) was looped through holes to bind these lengths into place (Petrie 1904: 98).

4. Canoe ribs?

Tenant Kelly’s notes refer to “ribs” inside Fraser Island and Wide Bay canoes (Kelly 1934:184). This is not mentioned by Petrie, but may have been used to strengthen larger canoes when crossing difficult stretches of water.

5. Thwarts (crosspieces)

Canoe crosspieces (thwarts) were apparently quite slim and didnot serve as seats (unlike some canoes of NSW). Petrie states they were basically “cane (yurol) twisted like rope... placed across the centre” (Petrie 1904: 98). Petrie’s father similarly states they were made from “cane” (Andrew Petrie 1863: 3), although it is unclear whether he was referring to supplejack or lawyer cane.

23

By contrast, Harry Youlden on nearby Fraser Island speaks of “sticks” placed athwart from gunwale to gunwale, and notes that these helped keep the canoe spread (Williams 1982: 15). It may be added that Petrie himself – when providing greater detail on canoe construction to Roth - described the thwarts as "stick/ sticks" - NOT vines or canes (Petrie in Roth 1904: 16-17). This is more likely correct, as the Gubbi Gubbi, in recently reconstructing a canoe, found they required sticks tohold the bark sheet firmly in shape.

6. Waterproof sealing

Colin Monks’ father informed him that grass tree /‘black boy’ (xanthorrhoea ) gum was used as a final sealant – at least around Noosa/ Tewantin:

...from the gum collected from many grass sticks, or as many call them, black boys, from the plains, there was ready made pitch to pour into the ends of the canoes to waterproof them. It acted like tar or waterproofing material used on wooden boats in the earliest days (Monks2000: 32)

This gum sets very hard, being used to haft stone axes and adzes onto their handles. However, it is curious that Petrie does not make any mention of this substance being used.

G. Construction Methods

1. General

On the basis of information contained in the various availablewritten sources (which is mostly Petrie, and some from Eipper and Roth), it would seem that the following sequence of procedures was followed for constructing a canoe in this region:

24

1) Wait till springtime (when tree sap is up) and travel to areas where bestsuitable trees can be found (sometimes in mountains)

2) Climb (with vine hoop) up tree to height required – c. 20-30 feet (6-9 mtrs)

3) Pick off rough scaly bark with pointed stick – “a small pointed spatulatewith a special name was used to pick off the bark whilst up the tree” (Petrie in Roth 1904:16)

4) Group below clean off bark within reach5) Cut right round tree at bottom with stone axe6) Cut at top – as far up as the group below can easily strip off – creating

a sheet 10-12 feet long, or 20+ ft if possible (Petrie in Roth 1904: 16-17)

7) Cut bark right through8) Man up tree cuts downwards in straight line, dividing the bark –

lengthening the cut as he proceeds down the tree9) Using stick flattened at one end (4 feet long) “job in” between bark &

tree10) Loosen the bark all round11) Peel the bark off12) Bend it into shape 13) Tie vines round each end to prevent bark sheet flattening out and to keep

it ‘funnel like’14) Inside the resultant hollow of the bark, place dry leaves and small

sticks and set on fire15) Continuously revolve/ roll the sheet to uniformly heat it, making it

pliable, and to prevent it burning through (“soften by steam” according to Harry Youlden – Williams 1982: 15)

16) Heat pointed ends of the bark over (external?) fire whilst still green and pliable and have a man at each end crinkle, fold and shape/ bend it (Monks 2001: 32; Petrie in Roth 1904:16-17)

17) After fire burnt out, and whilst bark is still hot, loosen vines tying ends

18) Bend both ends up – making sure both ends look the same19) Bundle up the bark and tie each end into a bunch with string (Petrie

1904; Eipper 1841; Flinders 1799 in Steele 36)20) Run a wooden skewer through each of the folded up ends – pushing the

whole into a bow shape (Eipper 1841)21) Bind more string round these ends to keep them firm22) Pour gum from grass trees into both ends to waterproof them (Monks 2001:

32)23) To strengthen sides, create gunwales by running/ stretching long pieces

of wattle, or split cane (Andrew Petrie 1863:3) or vine along top of inside edge of bark (Petrie in Roth 1904: 16-17)

24) Bind (overcast) these with more split lengths of yurol string25) Lace yurol through holes along top of these sides (make the holes with a

sharp-pointed stick) – “fastened on with small pieces of cord wound over them and carried through small holes of the bark”(Eipper)

26) Also overcast the skewers at each end of the canoe, again using yurol

25

27) Create a crosspiece: out of cane (yurol) or sticks - twisted like a rope,and nicked at both ends to fit into sides of canoe (Petrie in Roth 1904: 16).

28) Add these crosspieces (1 at centre for small canoe; 2-3 for larger canoe – middle and each end)

29) Fix (tie and fasten) ends of crosspiece(s) under surface of sides with string (this prevents canoe shrinking in sun)

30) Allow canoe to became dry and stiff before attempting to use (this will make its frame stronger)

31) Line inside (and outside?) of canoe with ti-tree bark (Andrew Petrie 1863: 3).

32) Add bailer, paddle stick, ball of clay (for leaks) and a small pile of dirt or clay at bottom (for firesticks)

For practiced hands, this mode of construction was surprisingly quick. Andrew Petrie (Tom Petrie’s father) campedwith a party of Gubbi Gubbi en route to the Blackall Ranges, and found they were able to repair one damaged canoe and buildanother new one “by sunrise next morning” (Courier 10 April 1863, 3).

A correspondent to the Courier alleged that there were particular individuals who were skilled “makers of canoes” andthat it was these who specialized in the craft (Yarra 1934: 21). It seems canoe-building was mainly conducted by men, but at least one pioneer recorded having canoes built for him by awoman, and certainly Petrie concedes that women often used smaller canoes for visits to "little islands" (Petrie in Roth 1904:16-17).

2.Canoe scars on trees: mis-identified?

One puzzle concerning construction pertains to tree scars in this region. The Thomas Dick photographic collection (north coast NSW) shows bark being peeled off to make a canoe practically around the entire circumference of a tree. This isexactly how Petrie states canoe bark was removed (Petrie 1904:173). It is also how single-sheet canoes continue to be constructed in Arnhem Land (Belinda Simonsen, pers.comm., 2011).

26

However, most markings identified as “canoe scars” in southernQueensland are not so large. They are oval in shape and only take up the front of a tree. At least in Central Queensland, oral Indigenous accounts have shown that many such scars were actually the marks of two co-joined ‘slabs’ of hut- roofing (for both Indigenous and settlers’ huts - Hedley Johnston, pers. commun, 2011). Stan Tutt discovered that a number of supposed ‘canoe scars’ are from slabs removed by settlers for building their homes (Tutt 1979: 41). Others were marker trees. For instance, Sylvia Cairns2 stated that a massive ‘canoe’ tree on the Cooroy-Tewantin Road (KC:A31) was actuallya tribal boundary marker (Sylvia Cairns, pers. comm., 1985).

This does not mean that the region is bereft of canoe scar trees, or that no oval scars are canoe scars. Stan Tutt felt certain that at least one ‘canoe tree’ identified near Burpengary Creek was definately from a canoe (Tutt 1979: 41). The Burpengary example is fairly large and more rectangular-shaped than many purported ‘canoe’ trees – which supports information provided by Cecil Monks of Noosa. According to hispioneering father, only trees with scars almost to the ground and going a very long way up (half the tree’s height) – and roughly halfway round – should be considered canoe scars (Monks 2000: 31). In neighbouring Central Queensland (Kangulu) territory, a thin band of bark was always left intact on the tree’s back when building canoes. This avoided ringbarking the tree (Hedley Johnston, pers. commun, 2011).

What then do we make of oval tree scars? Although some were hut or territory markers it seems many are simply scars that were once more rectangular but became increasingly oval through massive re-growth of the surrounding bark - perhaps over centuries (Lyndon Davies, pers.comm., 2012). In other words, some oval tree scars are very old canoe scars. In certain cases the regrowth has joined in the middle and the

2 Sylvia Cairns was the neice of Gaiarbau (Willie MacKenzie). His 1950s recordingsabout local Indigenous culture are considered the most accurate and comprehensive for SE Queensland.

27

scar is reduced to a slit, sometimes pushing out bits of the interior wood. Presumably these are the most ancient scars.

H. Canoe Equipment

1. Paddles

A three to four metre long “round stick” was used as a paddle,to push and steer (Petrie 1904:98; Petrie in Roth 1904: 16-17). These poles were a "couple of inches” wide (Roth 1904:16). In Wide Bay and possibly Moreton Bay, women sometimes fashioned pieces of bark, which they used to assist with paddling (Kelly 1934: 184).

2. ‘Repair Kits’

A Niugam or bailer shell was kept in canoes. The species was identified by Petrie as melo diadema (Petrie 1904: 173).

There was also putty in the form a ball of clay, to seal any leaks. Petrie informs us that special “whitish clay” was obtained from certain locations (e.g. Toorbul) for this purpose. It was also used to seal cracks on canoes on land – becoming rock hard when properly dry (Petrie 1904: 173).

3. Seating

Andrew Petrie described bark canoes as “lined with tea-tree bark” – presumably for comfortable seating and absorption of water (Andrew Petrie 1863:3).

4. Fires and other items

Canoes often held a “firestick resting on some dirt in the bottom” (Petrie 1904). This was to transport fire across bodies of water, or to use as a torch, warmth and ‘fish lure.’When giving extra details to Roth, Petrie states that “all” vessels had a fire that was kept glowing "at one end" of the canoe. He also states this sat on "clay" rather than earth (Petrie in Roth 1904:16-17). Canoes also sometimes carried

28

fishing nets (as in Bonar’s painting of 1856) and/ or spears -for hunting, fishing, steering or defence.

I.The Gentle Art of Canoeing

With his usual eye for detail, Petrie offers us our main account of how SE Queensland canoes were steered:

In a small canoe, a black fellow stood up in the middle and propelled the boat along by paddling first on one side and then on the other with a long round stick... In a large canoe two people had to do the same – one at either end (Petrie 1904: 98).

Petrie elsewhere describes this as "sort of punting movement (not touching the bottom of course)" and adds that one operated one end and one side whilst the other operated the other end and other side of the canoe (alternating as required) (Petrie in Roth 1904: 16-17).Petrie marvelled at how quickly this mode of rowing worked, and how well they could steer their course with poles (Petrie 1904: 98).

Eipper’s account concurs – saying the vessel they travelled inhad “two young men to row it” at either end (Eipper 1841). The image is further elaborated by explorer Flinders, from what he witnessed of a dugong hunt at Green Island (at the mouth of the Brisbane River):

...standing up in their canoes, and pulling towards them,with all their strength, in very regular order. They seemed to have long poles or spears in their hands, with which they also appeared to be paddling, the whole of them shifting their hands, after the manner of the South Sea Islanders (Flinders 18 July 1799 in Steele 1983:22).

Non-rowing passengers according to Petrie “always sat low downin the bottom out of the way” (Petrie 1904: 98). Eipper similarly states that he and his companion had to sit at the

29

bottom “almost immoveable” and could not stretch their feet, but that they were otherwise safe and comfortable (Eipper 1841).

J.Contemporary Resurrection: Gubbi Gubbi Choreography

1. Initial Forays

The rediscovery of Indigenous watercraft in south-eastern Queensland has been fairly recent. The first milestone in that regard was the work of Rick Rosser. A Bigambul (Warwick) Indigenous craftsman, Rick in the early 2000s was commissionedby the Queensland Maritime Museum to reconstruct a traditionalcanoe of the Brisbane/ Moreton Bay. Combining Petrie’s intimate description of construction methods with his own skills, he built a complete canoe, which still hangs from the ceiling of the Queensland Maritime Museum.

Independently, Lyndon Davis – Gubbi Gubbi artist, cultural worker and head of the Gubbi Gubbi dance troupe – has for years experimented with the importance of his people’s watercraft. He developed ways of combining this with his dancechoreographies and artworks. For example, at the Bunya Gathering celebrations held annually by Lake Baroon – a dam built over what had been one of the most important bunya gathering areas for his people – Lyndon in 2009 utilized a canoe-crossing as part of a larger fireside corroboree that forms the highlight of the gathering. This is now the annual climax of the Bunya Gathering at Baroon. Subsequently, Davies employed canoes for a dramatic performance in the internationally- recognised art and ecology event Floating Land. This event is held annually at Boreen Point on Lake Cootharaba(again, on Gubbi Gubbi land).

2. The Kabi Canoes Project

Next, in 2010, Lyndon Davis and Brent Miller (another Gubbi Gubbi artist/ performer) collaborated with natural fibre

30

artist Kris Martin and digital media artist James Muller (Earth Base Productions) to create Kabi Canoes. This installation showcased the emerging Gubbi Gubbi art movement that had been stimulated by Lyndon’s and Brent’s research intotheir heritage.  For Kabi Canoes, weed bamboo and other natural fibres were used to create symbolic canoes and totemic sails onto which a stylised representation of contemporary Gubbi Gubbi artwork and culture was projected.  The outer screens represented shield designs from the area and the central screen was in the shape of a bunya tree – the sacred tree of the region.  The project’s artforms included paintings, digital art and natural fibre sculpture.  Kabi Canoes was installed on the sedge ponds at the Woodford Folk Festival 2010/11. The installation won the Sunshine Coast Council’s Glossies Award for ‘Greening the Arts’ (Conte 2011:3).

3. Gubbi Gubbi Gun'doo Yang'ga'man

The following year, these efforts culminated in a project Lyndon titled Gubbi Gubbi Gun'doo Yang'ga'man (“constructing Gubbi Gubbi canoes”). This activity is supported by the Sunshine Coast Council’s Heritage Levy. The project consisted of researching (e.g. this current paper) and then physically reconstructing two traditional-style Gubbi Gubbi bark canoes. One canoe is intended for community celebration and ceremonialuse - the first occasion being Floating Land in June 2013. During that event, art workshop participants will also build small model canoes, to express Gubbi Gubbi connection with theunique Noosa Lakes environment that forms the venue for Floating Land performances. The other canoe will be presented for exhibition and educational purposes. A related Floating Land activity involving fibre artist Kris Martin will incorporate canoes, mullet, traditional nets and – hopefully - a choreographed performance. This again entails research and reconstruction (in this case, of traditional nets and fishing methods).

As part of the overall scope of Gubbi Gubbi Gun'doo Yang'ga'man, the team attended the 2012 NAWI Conference in Sydney. This wasto exchange and enhance their canoe-building skills with other

31

Indigenous communities. Involvement at the NAWI conference helped place the activities within a larger context, but also confirmed the paucity of knowledge concerning canoes of this region. Gubbi Gubbi interest has focused on choreographic uses of canoes. Therefore three Gubbi Gubbi Dancers joined Lyndon to stage a performance as a feature of the NAWI OpeningCeremony.

The “team” for Gubbi Gubbi Gun'doo Yang'ga'man includes Gubbi Gubbicraftsmen/ knowledge holders such as Brent Miller, Kerri Jonesand Nathan Morgan, and a number of non-Indigenous professionals. James Muller from Earthbase Productions has been intimately involved in helping both document the project and develop its audio-visual/ choreographic elements. Likewise John Waldron, both as the Sunshine Coast Council’s Cultural Heritage and Collections Manager and now as an independent consultant, has been steering the project’s relationship with broader arts initiatives, particularly with regards to events and exhibitions.

Due to the rapid development of the Sunshine Coast, and the mixed nature of its Indigenous population, the Sunshine Coast’s traditional culture is still little known, especially amongst its own Indigenous youth (Kerkhove 2010). Gubbi Gubbi Gun'doo Yang'ga'man aims to re-skill Gubbi Gubbi youth in canoe construction, sharing this and associated environmental heritage with the broader community. The project is thus becoming a vehicle for enhancing Gubbi Gubbi identity – offering a very concrete means of connecting local people withtheir past. Having a number of public platforms, Gubbi Gubbi Gun'doo Yang'ga'man is helping revive traditional skills whilst informing the public on aspects of traditional culture. As theteam is often called upon to give talks at schools, tertiary institutes or community outlets, their project has afforded a means of sharing their discoveries and stimulating reconciliation – through art!

BIBLIOGRAPHY

32

Q = The Queenslander

MBC = Moreton Bay Courier

N & NCC = Nambour & North Coast Chronicle

‘The Aborigines,’1957, History of the Tewantin-Noosa District Tewantin State School Project, Tewantin

The Dugong – One of Nature’s Curiosities,’ 8 November 1928, The Queenslander, p.59

‘Early Days Recalled: Epics of the Pioneering Stage,’ 4 March 1927, Nambour & North Coast Chronicle, 2

‘General News’, 21 June 1884, The Queenslander (Brisbane) p.986

‘Moreton Bay’, 22 December 1838, The Australian (Sydney) p.3

The Queenslander 30 March 1912, p. 29

Bonar, J A., ‘Views in NSW and Queensland, with sketches made on his voyages between England and Australia in 1854 and 1860,’ (sketch – mss), Mitchell Library (Sydney)

Brough, N W., 1944 (1919), Memoirs of a Queensland Pioneer, John Oxley Libray MSS, Sandgate

Brown, E., 2000, Cooloola Coast , University of Queensland Press, St. Lucia

Buhle, S., 21 January 1993, ‘Tree a Link to History,’ Gympie Times, p.1

Bull, D.W, 1982, Shortcut to Gympie Gold F H Watson, Yerongpilly

Campbell, F., 7 July 1894, ‘Pioneering in Moreton Bay – First Difficulty with the Blacks - An unrecognized shipwreck - Early Missionary Efforts, The Queenslander, p.22

Cato, N., 1982, The Noosa Story: A Study in Unplanned Development Jacaranda, Milton

Clark, W., ‘Aboriginal Reminiscences,’ 1905?, 29 in Melton’s Cutting Book (mss, Royal Qld Historical Society)

Cook, M., 2005, Shifting Sands – Memories of Moreton Island Moreton Island Protection Committee, Ashgrove

Conte, S., 24 June 2011,’Shiny, happy people,’ Sunshine Valley News, Vol.11:21, p.3

Dixon, J., 1928, Diary & Reminiscences MSS John Oxley Library, Brisabane

Doran, E., 1981, Wangka: Austronesian Canoe Origins ACM University, Texas

33

Eipper, Rev. C., 9th August 1841, Observations made of a journey to the natives at Toorbul August 2nd

1841 by the Reverend Christopher Eipper, of the Moreton Bay German Mission

Elliot, R. W, D L Jones& T Blake, 1993, Encyclopaedia of Australian Plants Suitable for Cultivation,Volume 6 - K-M.–P, Lothian Press, Melbourne, p. 359

Fitzalan, E., 1 November 1860, ‘Report of the Burdekin Expedition,’ Moreton Bay Courier, p.2.

Flinders, M., 1799, 114, A Voyage to Terra Australis Vol.1 Nichol, London

Jardine, (Mr), ‘The Coastal Aboriginal Tribes of Central Queensland,’ 9 July 1936, The Morning Bulletin (Rockhampton) No. 21, 829, p.7.

Kelly,T., 1934, Fraser Island Anthropological Field Notebook MSS.

Kerkhove, R., 2011, ‘Indigenous Quests for Group Identity through Material Culture: Examples from ICP Indigenous Heritage Work,’ Discovering Material Culture at UQ - Seminar Series 2011, Centre for Critical & Cultural Studies, University of Queensland, St.Lucia

Lack, C., n/d, 'The Story of Sandgate'  Sandgate Library Local History file, p.1 

Lang, J.D., 1847, Cooksland in Northeastern Australia Brown, Cohen & Longmans, London

Lowe, W.C, 14 November 1944, Letters MSS Royal Queensland Historical Society, Brisbane

Matthew, John, 1910, Two Representative Tribes of Queensland T J Unwin, London

McArthur, K., 1978, Pumicestone Passage Kathleen McArthur, Brisbane

Monks, C., 2001, Noosa the Way It Was and the Way It is Now Colin Monks, Tewantin

Pearn, J H., August 1995, ‘Aboriginal Habitation of Coochiemudlo Island,’ Royal Historical Society of Queensland Journal Vol. XV:12

Petrie, A., 10 April 1863, ‘Adventures in the Early Days of Brisbane,’ The Courier, p.3

Petrie, CC., 1904 Reminiscences of Tom Petrie Harold O’Neil, Hamilton

Pettigrew, W., 1849, Diary MSS Royal Historical Society of Queensland, Brisbane

__________, 1878, ‘Habitat and Peculiarities of Some of our Timbers,’ MSS John Oxley Library (RBJ 691.1)

Plan shewing G. Ward’s selection and suggested town site of Tewantin MSS (Tewantin – WB39 109), 1870, Lands Department Museum, Brisbane

Roth, Walter E., 1904, 'Transport and Trade,' North Queensland Ethnography, Bulletin No. 14, pp.16-17.

34

Satterthwait L & Bill Arthur, 2005, ‘’Technology and Material Culture, in Bill Arthur & Frances Morphy, eds., Atlas of Aboriginal Australia Macquarie Library & ANU, Sydney

Steele, J., 1976, The Brisbane River Rigby, Melbourne

_______, 1983, The Explorers of the Moreton Bay District Uni of Qld Press, St.Lucia

_______, 1984, Aboriginal Pathways Uni of Qld Press, St.Lucia

Swan, P.F., ‘Why Flinders failed to Discover the Brisbane River,’ 1999, Flinders in Moreton Bay: A Bicentenary Review 1799-1999 Royal Historical Society of Queensland, Brisbane, pp.55-59.

Symons, S & P, 1996, Bush Heritage Pat & Sim Symons, Nambour

Thorne, E., 1876, Queen of the Colonies, or Queensland as I Knew It Law, Marston, Searle & Rivington, London

Tutt, S., 1974, Pioneer Days Caboolture Historical Society, Caboolture

______., 1979 From Spear and Musket, Caboolture Shire, Caboolture

Watkins, G., 1891, Notes on the aboriginals of Stradbroke and Moreton Islands MSS John Oxley Library

Watson F.J., 1944, Vocabularies of four representative tribes of South Eastern Queensland : with grammatical notes thereof and some notes on manners and customs, also, a list of Aboriginal place names and their derivations Royal Geographical Society of Australasia (Queensland), Brisbane

Wells, R., 2003, In the Tracks of a Rainbow: Indigenous Culture and Legends of the Sunshine Coast Gullirae, Sunshine Beach

Welsby, T., 1905, Schnappering and Fishing in the Brisbane River and Moreton Bay Waters Outridge, Brisbane

________, 19?, Recollections of the Natives of Moreton Bay MSS JJohn Oxley Library (6758: Box 11392)

________, 1967 A K Thomson, ed., Collected Works of Thomas Welsby Vols I & II, Jacaranda, Brisbane

Williams, F., 1982 Princess K’Gari’s Fraser Island Jacaranda, Milton

Yarra, A E., Vanished Tribes of Brisbane – What Manner of Men?,  Courier Mail,   26 May 1934 p.21. 

35

36