Stingless Honeybee (Sugarbag) Naming, Identification and Conceptualization in Arnhem Land—A Lexicographic Approach

Abstract

The stingless honeybees of Arnhem Land (sugarbag) are a culturally important, but hard-to-identify group of insects. As a result, the dictionary definitions of these creatures in a range of Australian languages tend to lack precise scientific identifications, while also containing inaccurate or contradictory ethnobiological information. This paper attempts to address this problem by investigating honeybee terms and their semantics in 10 languages of western and central Arnhem Land. Biological specimens were collected in the presence of knowledgeable speakers of three languages, and identified by a taxonomist. Interviews with speakers of the remaining seven languages allowed the assigning of identifications to bee names in these languages. While the names and identifications of bee names in the languages Kune and Rembarrnga are presented here with a high degree of certainty, the proposed name correspondences, ethnospecies categories and scientific identifications for the remaining languages are tentative. Issues such as cross-linguistic patterns in naming, and inter-speaker and inter-language variation in the conceptualization of named categories are discussed. The paper concludes with a discussion on the lexicographic challenges of writing scientifically accurate and culturally sensitive definitions of invertebrate names.

Keywords:

• Austroplebeia
• Tetragonula
• Ethnobiology
• Indigenous Australia
• Invertebrates

Acknowledgement

The authors thank the many Indigenous people of Arnhem Land whose enthusiastic input made this research possible. In particular, we acknowledge the involvement of Charlie Brian, Jeffrey Campion, Jimmy Djamanba, Stanley Rankin, †England Banggala, †Terry Ngamandara, Crusoe Batara, Patrick Murtchana and †Thomas Dennis. This work was supported by a University of Melbourne McKenzie Postdoctoral Fellowship; a UoM Research Unit for Indigenous Languages travel grant; the Community Broadcasting Foundation and the Australian Government’s Indigenous Languages and Arts program.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes

1 See Halcroft et al. (2003) for descriptions of the nests and behaviour of Australian stingless honeybees.

2 The Gun-nartpa/Burarra dictionary database administered by Carew builds upon the earlier work of Kathy and David Glasgow. A published dictionary (Glasgow 1994) drew from the Glasgows’ earlier dataset. With the support of the Australian Society for Indigenous Languages, the Glasgows added to this dictionary until 2010, and it was published in electronic form in 2011 (Glasgow & Glasgow 2011). Since 2012 the database has been maintained by Carew, who has added material from her Gun-nartpa fieldnotes and text corpus.

3 Patrimoiety names are shared throughout north-central Arnhem Land, notwithstanding some minor variations. The terms are written according to the spelling conventions of each group. Kuninjku/Kune/Kunbarlang—Duwa and Yirriddja: Ndjébbana—Djówanga and Yírriddjanga; Na-Kara—Djowanga and Yirriddjanga; Gurr-goni—Djowunga and Yirritjinga; Burarra/Gun–nartpa—Jowunga and Yirrichinga; Djinang/Wurlaki—Djuwingi and Yirritjingi.

4 Cf. Gurr-goni git-gi-djel for ethnospecies 4.

5 Also noteworthy is the similarity of idiom used by Glasgow’s unnamed coastal consultant who describes woma ‘honey’ as ‘going’ inland from coastal habitats, to that of CB, who uses the same verb (gu-bona ‘it went’) to describe the presence of honey in various habitats.

6 This is spelled mai kuyin in McKnight (1981).

7 Many groups of scientifically recognized marine and terrestrial invertebrates—Polychaeta, Onychophora, Isopoda, Tunicata—may be completely unknown to field linguists, in spite of being diverse and common.