Summary:
In 2025, the group calling itself the “GuriNgai Mob” launched a new website (guriNgai.com) and social media pages. These sites present the group as Aboriginal custodians of Northern Sydney, Hornsby, the Northern Beaches, and the Central Coast. They promote ceremonies, environmental activism, and claim descent from Bungaree, a well-known Aboriginal leader from Broken Bay.
Yet all credible evidence shows these claims are false.
The Name “GuriNgai” is Fake
The word “Kuring-gai” (also spelled “Guringai” or “GuriNgai”) was invented by a white schoolteacher, John Fraser, in 1892. He placed it on a map without any Aboriginal basis. Professional anthropologists at the time rejected it. Linguistic research confirms the genuine Guringay people are from north of the Hunter River, not Sydney.
The Genealogy Doesn’t Work
The group claims descent from Bungaree through a daughter named “Sophy,” who supposedly had a child, Charlotte Ashby. However, historical and church records show Bungaree never had a daughter named Sophy. Charlotte Ashby’s father was a European settler, John Smith, not Bungaree. A 2015 report by Dr. Natalie Kwok for the National Native Title Tribunal showed this family story was impossible. The Federal Court later threw out the “Awabakal and Guringai” native title claim based on this false genealogy.
Aboriginal Communities Have Rejected Them
Aboriginal Land Councils across Sydney and the Central Coast have formally rejected the GuriNgai group. In 2020, several Land Councils wrote to the NSW Premier stating the group is not Aboriginal and has no authority on Country. In 2021, Darkinjung LALC warned that impostor groups were confusing councils and stealing resources meant for legitimate Aboriginal communities.
Why This Matters
The GuriNgai cult’s activities cause real harm. They:
- Mislead the public about who the real custodians are.
- Cause distress to Aboriginal families who see their history stolen.
- Divert money and opportunities from genuine Aboriginal people.
- Distort census data and government policies like Closing the Gap.
- Create confusion in schools, councils, and cultural institutions.
Introduction
In mid-2025, the group styling itself as the “GuriNgai Mob” launched a newly designed website (guringai.com) alongside recently created Instagram and Facebook pages. These platforms present the group as a contemporary Aboriginal community with custodial rights in Northern Sydney, the Northern Beaches, Hornsby Shire, and the Central Coast. They feature ceremonies, environmental activism, cultural “resources,” and genealogical claims linking them to Bungaree and Matora of Broken Bay.
This digital expansion comes despite overwhelming evidence that the group is not Aboriginal. Extensive research by Aboriginal organisations, linguists, anthropologists, and genealogists, consolidated in guriNgai.org and bungaree.org, demonstrates that “GuriNgai” is a fabricated identity. The term itself is a colonial invention, their genealogical narratives are demonstrably false, and they have been formally rejected by recognised Aboriginal Land Councils, government agencies, and community Elders (Kwok, 2015; Wafer & Lissarrague, 2010; Metropolitan Local Aboriginal Land Council, 2020; Darkinjung Local Aboriginal Land Council, 2021).
The persistence of the GuriNgai cult, and their rebranding through digital platforms, is a form of simulated sovereignty (Cooke, 2025). It is a performance of Indigeneity that uses digital imagery, ceremony, and cultural mimicry to compensate for the absence of genuine genealogical, linguistic, and cultural foundations. The result is a settler cult that exploits the aesthetics of Aboriginal identity for authority and legitimacy in environmental, cultural, and political contexts.
The problem of fabricated identity in Australia is well-documented. John Fraser’s invention of the term “Kuring-gai” in 1892 (Champion & Champion, 2003; Wafer & Lissarrague, 2010) created a fictitious ethnonym that continues to be appropriated. Dr. Natalie Kwok’s anthropological report (2015) dismantled the fabricated genealogies used in the failed “Awabakal and Guringai People” native title claim, showing that key figures like “Sophy” and “Charlotte Ashby” could not be credibly linked to Bungaree. Linguistic research by Lissarrague and Syron (2024) confirmed that the genuine Guringay people are located north of the Hunter River, not in Sydney. Local Aboriginal Land Councils have issued joint statements rejecting “GuriNgai” as fraudulent, and the NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service has removed the term from its signage.
Despite these authoritative rejections, the GuriNgai cult persists. Their new online presence illustrates the resilience of fabricated identities in the digital age, where repetition and visual performance can give the appearance of legitimacy. This dynamic reflects what Leroux (2019) calls “distorted descent” and what Kolopenuk (2023) terms the “pretendian problem”—the systemic appropriation of Indigenous identity by settlers for power, profit, or prestige.
This paper critically evaluates the GuriNgai cult’s recent efforts by situating their claims within the broader context of Indigenous identity fraud in Australia. It will demonstrate that their assertions regarding Aboriginality, land custodianship, cultural practices, legal standing, and linguistic heritage are unsupported by any credible evidence and are directly contradicted by historical records, community testimony, and scholarly research. The analysis is organised into sections that address the colonial invention of “Kuring-gai,” the genealogical falsehoods, the formal rejection by Aboriginal institutions, the simulation of culture, and the harms these practices inflict on Aboriginal people and communities.
2. Historical and Linguistic Origins
2.1 Fraser’s Invention of “Kuring-gai”
The modern usage of “GuriNgai” by the cult is a direct continuation of a colonial fiction. The term “Kuring-gai” was coined by John Fraser in 1892 when he unilaterally expanded “Gringai” (a documented Aboriginal group near Dungog in the Hunter Valley) into “Kuring-gai,” assigning it to an implausibly vast region stretching from Port Macquarie to Sydney and south to Bulli (Champion & Champion, 2003). Fraser’s coloured ethnographic map placed this term over the Northern Beaches and Pittwater, despite the complete absence of any Aboriginal testimony, vocabulary, or cultural record to support such an attribution.
Fraser justified this act as the result of “ten years’ thought and inquiry,” but his methodology amounted to what Wafer and Lissarrague (2010) later described as “ethnographic fabrication.” Anthropologists like R. H. Mathews and A. W. Howitt rejected Fraser’s classifications. Howitt’s 1904 map deliberately left the Manly–Warringah–Pittwater area blank, acknowledging that no legitimate tribal name was known for the region (Champion & Champion, 2003).
2.2 Absence in Early Colonial Records
The absence of “Kuring-gai” in early colonial records is striking. First Fleet officers, including Dawes, Collins, Hunter, Phillip, and King, carefully recorded Aboriginal words and customs in the 1780s and 1790s, yet none mention “Kuring-gai.” Reverend Lancelot Threlkeld’s extensive linguistic work with Awabakal speakers at Lake Macquarie in the 1820s and 1830s also makes no reference to “Kuring-gai” (Champion & Champion, 2003). The earliest known use remains Fraser’s 1892 publication, confirming it is not an Aboriginal word but a late colonial imposition.
The Aboriginal Heritage Office’s (2015) report Filling a Void further substantiates this point, concluding that “Guringai” was a settler construct with no basis in Aboriginal language or oral tradition. The report emphasises that the use of the term by contemporary groups risks perpetuating a colonial fiction at the expense of authentic identities.
2.3 The Kuringgai Puzzle and Linguistic Critiques
Wafer and Lissarrague (2010), in their landmark study The Kuringgai Puzzle, identified that “Kuring-gai” has been inconsistently applied to a range of vocabularies from Sydney, the Central Coast, and the Hunter. They demonstrated that Fraser’s reclassification collapsed distinct groups into a single, invented category. Their linguistic analysis showed these vocabularies were actually part of well-documented neighbouring languages such as Dharug, Awabakal, and Gathang, rather than evidence of a separate “Kuringgai” language.
Later linguists, including Jakelin Troy (1993) and Val Attenbrow (2002), also rejected “Kuring-gai” as a valid identifier, stressing the need for clarity and accuracy. Attenbrow (2002) explicitly stated there is “no support in the early colonial records” for a separate language or dialect on the north shore of Port Jackson attributed to “Guringai.”
2.4 Distinguishing Genuine Guringay from Fabricated “GuriNgai”
The most definitive resolution to the “Kuringgai puzzle” was offered by Lissarrague and Syron (2024) in Guringaygupa djuyal, barray. Their study affirms that the authentic Guringay people are a distinct group whose language is a dialect of Gathang, with territory located north of the Hunter River. They show that colonial misspellings like “Gringai” or “Goringai” were phonetically altered by English speakers and later manipulated by Fraser into “Kuringgai.”
Crucially, the paper documents how this false term has since been appropriated and rebranded as “Guringai” or “GuriNgai” in Sydney and the Central Coast. This represents a profound act of identity theft, where non-Aboriginal groups exploit Fraser’s error to claim an Aboriginal identity where none exists.
2.5 Scholarly Consensus: A Fabricated Identity
The historical and linguistic record is unanimous. Anthropologists, linguists, and Aboriginal community organisations all agree that “Kuring-gai” and its modern variant “GuriNgai” are fabricated identities, not genuine Aboriginal nations. Tindale (1974) condemned Fraser’s approach as “arbitrary” and disconnected from Aboriginal realities, and his own maps deliberately excluded “Kuring-gai” from Sydney in favour of historically attested groups.
The persistence of “GuriNgai” as a self-applied ethnonym today is therefore not an innocent error but a deliberate continuation of colonial fabrication. The cult’s adoption of the name is a strategy of mimicry that seeks to anchor their fabricated genealogy and cultural simulation in a false linguistic foundation.
3. Genealogical Fabrication
3.1 The Sophy–Charlotte Ashby Narrative
The central genealogical claim of the GuriNgai cult rests on the assertion that Bungaree of Broken Bay and his wife Matora had a daughter named “Sophy,” whose own daughter, Charlotte Ashby, became the ancestral link to present-day families. This narrative is repeated on their website and in promotional materials. It underpins their supposed descent from Bungaree and forms the basis for their self-ascribed status as traditional custodians.
However, no credible genealogical or historical evidence supports the existence of “Sophy” as a child of Bungaree and Matora. Bungaree’s known children are well-documented in early colonial sources, including Sarah Wallace (also called Biddy or Biddy Lewis), and others whose names are preserved in colonial journals and parish registers (Smith, 2011, as cited in bungaree.org, 2025). The invention of “Sophy” appears only in late twentieth-century claims by settler families, with no archival basis.
3.2 Kwok’s Anthropological Report (2015)
The most authoritative forensic examination of these genealogical claims was undertaken by Dr. Natalie Kwok in her 2015 report for the National Native Title Tribunal (Kwok, 2015). Kwok reviewed archival, genealogical, and oral history materials relating to the “Awabakal and Guringai People” native title claim. She concluded that the Sophy–Charlotte Ashby descent line was “genealogically incoherent” and could not be substantiated.
Kwok’s report identified significant inconsistencies. Archival evidence suggested Charlotte Ashby’s father was John Smith, a European settler, not Bungaree. The marriage and baptismal records for Charlotte’s children make no reference to Bungaree, nor do any contemporaneous Aboriginal testimonies link her to the Broken Bay community. As Kwok noted, the genealogical scaffolding was a construction of claimants, not an inherited truth.
3.3 Discontinuation of the Native Title Claim
Kwok’s findings proved decisive. In 2017, the Federal Court formally discontinued the “Awabakal and Guringai People” native title claim (NC2013/002), citing insufficient evidence to establish a credible connection to land or descent from recognised ancestors (National Native Title Tribunal, 2017). The discontinuance was an official recognition that the genealogical claims underpinning the GuriNgai identity were unsustainable.
The cult nevertheless continues to present the discontinued claim as if it conferred legitimacy, asserting it remains “registered but undetermined.” This misrepresentation obscures the reality: the claim was withdrawn due to the collapse of its genealogical foundation.
3.4 Community Testimony and Digitised Evidence
Aboriginal organisations have also directly refuted the genealogical fabrications. In a 2020 joint statement, multiple Local Aboriginal Land Councils wrote to the NSW Premier affirming that the so-called “Guringai” or “GuriNgai” claimants are not Aboriginal and have no authority in Northern Sydney or the Central Coast (Metropolitan LALC, 2020). Darkinjung LALC reiterated in a 2021 statement that impostor groups were presenting themselves falsely as cultural authorities, warning that their activities undermine statutory Aboriginal governance.
Digitised archives presented by guriNgai.org (2025) have confirmed the absence of any credible genealogical link between Bungaree’s line and the Ashby or Howie–Whitfield families. DNA testing has further established that key families within the cult have no Aboriginal ancestry (bungaree.org, 2025).
3.5 Comparative Context: Distorted Descent
The GuriNgai cult’s genealogical fabrications reflect what Leroux (2019) describes as “distorted descent”—a phenomenon in which settler families manipulate narratives to claim Indigenous ancestry despite clear documentary evidence to the contrary. This practice aligns with North American cases of “pretendianism” described by Kolopenuk (2023), where fabricated genealogies are paired with public performances of cultural authority to gain access to resources, prestige, and political influence.
4. Institutional and Community Rejection
4.1 Local Aboriginal Land Councils’ Position
The most decisive rejections of the GuriNgai cult have come from Aboriginal Land Councils. In June 2020, multiple Local Aboriginal Land Councils, including the Metropolitan, Darkinjung, Deerubbin, and others, issued a joint letter to the NSW Premier. This statement affirmed that the so-called “Guringai” or “GuriNgai” claimants are not Aboriginal and do not hold custodianship of land in Northern Sydney, Hornsby Shire, or the Central Coast (MLALC et al., 2020). The letter stressed that the only genuine Guringay people are located north of the Hunter River, as affirmed by linguistic research.
Darkinjung LALC has been particularly outspoken. In its 2021 statement on Aboriginal cultural authority, it warned that impostor groups were presenting themselves to councils and institutions as cultural consultants, thereby undermining statutory governance. In a 2022 submission to the Central Coast Council, DLALC reiterated that the Central Coast is Darkinjung country and that “GuriNgai” claims represent misinformation and settler appropriation.
4.2 NSW Aboriginal Land Council and NTSCORP
At the state level, the NSW Aboriginal Land Council (NSWALC) has consistently emphasised that cultural authority resides in Aboriginal-controlled structures, not external or impostor groups. Its annual reports stress the importance of verifying Aboriginal identity through statutory governance, not self-identification or fabricated genealogies (NSWALC, 2019).
Similarly, NTSCORP, which provides native title services, has emphasised the dangers of fraudulent claims. In its submissions on cultural heritage reform, NTSCORP argued that only recognised Aboriginal organisations should be empowered to speak for Country, warning against the risks of impostors compromising decision-making processes (NSWALC & NTSCORP, 2011).
4.3 Parliamentary Inquiries
The NSW Parliament’s Report No. 15 on the Aboriginal Cultural Heritage (Culture is Identity) Bill 2022 recognised that impostor groups and individuals have become a major obstacle to cultural heritage protection. The inquiry stressed that Aboriginal self-determination requires clear governance structures and statutory recognition, not the proliferation of settler mimicry (NSW Parliament, 2022). The NSW Council for Civil Liberties (2022) similarly argued that cultural heritage protection must rest on Aboriginal governance and not be diluted by non-Aboriginal appropriators.
4.4 Removal from Institutional Frameworks
Institutions have also responded. In 2021, the NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service began removing “Guringai” from signage after consultations confirmed the term lacked Aboriginal endorsement (Cooke, 2025). Councils including Hornsby Shire have faced criticism for consulting with the cult rather than with legitimate Aboriginal organisations, leading to the misallocation of funds and cultural misrepresentation.
4.5 A Unified Aboriginal Rejection
These responses reflect a unified rejection by Aboriginal communities and institutions. The consistent position across Local Aboriginal Land Councils, NSWALC, NTSCORP, parliamentary inquiries, and civil liberties organisations is that the GuriNgai cult does not represent Aboriginal custodianship. Their persistence is not evidence of cultural continuity but of deliberate fabrication in the face of sustained rejection.
5. Cultural Simulation and Performance
5.1 Digital Self-Fashioning
The launch of guringai.com and social media pages is a deliberate attempt to construct digital legitimacy. Their posts feature ochre-painted faces, staged ceremonies, and environmental activism framed through an “Aboriginal” lens. This aesthetic self-fashioning is designed to create the appearance of cultural authority, despite the absence of any genealogical or historical foundation. This digital mimicry is a form of simulated sovereignty (Cooke, 2025), where non-Aboriginal groups perform Indigeneity to assert symbolic authority.
5.2 Invented Ceremonies and Totemism
The cult promotes “New Moon” rituals and children’s dance events and claims the stingray (Darinyung) as their totem. Yet no historical or ethnographic sources connect these practices to the Aboriginal peoples of Northern Sydney or the Central Coast. Instead, these ceremonies appear to be constructed performances designed to provide an aura of tradition. This aligns with Ingram’s (2008) analysis of “sleight of hand Aboriginality,” where settler individuals use performative rituals to authenticate false identities.
5.3 Pseudo-Language
The GuriNgai website asserts that their ancestral language is “Karee.” However, linguistic research has confirmed that “Karee” is not a distinct Aboriginal language. It was a term introduced in nineteenth-century missionary and settler writings, later conflated with Fraser’s “Kuring-gai.” By appropriating “Karee,” the cult engages in what Go-Sam (2011) has described as fabricated Aboriginality in cultural production, where linguistic mimicry is used to validate a false identity.
5.4 Cultic Dynamics of Performance
The repetitive posting of images and ceremonies on social media mirrors cultic strategies of indoctrination, where repetition and aesthetics are used to normalise falsehoods. This is consistent with the illusory truth effect, where repetition increases perceived truth (Metropolitan LALC, 2020). Within this framework, the GuriNgai group functions not as a misguided community but as a settler cult, performing Indigeneity to create the illusion of authority.
6. Legal and Policy Dimensions
6.1 Native Title Failures
The most direct legal test of the GuriNgai cult’s claims came through the native title claim (NC2013/002). As Dr. Natalie Kwok’s anthropological report (2015) established, the genealogical foundation of the claim was “genealogically incoherent.” The Federal Court formally discontinued the claim in 2017, confirming the group could not establish descent from recognised Aboriginal ancestors (National Native Title Tribunal, 2017). Despite this, the cult continues to misrepresent the claim as “registered but undetermined” to create an illusion of legitimacy.
6.2 Land Rights and Aboriginal Governance
Under the Aboriginal Land Rights Act 1983, cultural authority and land claims are the responsibility of recognised Aboriginal Land Councils. Both the Metropolitan Local Aboriginal Land Council and the Darkinjung LALC have rejected the GuriNgai cult’s claims outright (MLALC et al., 2020; DLALC, 2021). The NSW Aboriginal Land Council (NSWALC) has consistently emphasised that cultural authority resides in Aboriginal-controlled structures, not external or impostor groups. Its annual reports stress the importance of verifying Aboriginal identity through statutory governance, not self-identification or fabricated genealogies (NSWALC, 2019).
6.3 Cultural Heritage Law Reform
The issue of impostor groups has become particularly urgent in debates over cultural heritage law. Submissions from NSWALC and NTSCORP (2011) and parliamentary inquiries (NSW Parliament, 2022) have all stressed that fabricated claimants are a major barrier to effective heritage protection.
6.4 Local Government and Institutional Complicity
Despite these rejections, some local councils and institutions have engaged with the GuriNgai cult. Hornsby Shire Council, for example, has been criticised for consulting with the group rather than with legitimate Aboriginal organisations, leading to financial losses and cultural misrepresentation. This reflects a wider policy failure: institutions often lack robust identity verification mechanisms and can be swayed by the performative aesthetics of fabricated Aboriginal groups.
7. Harms of Indigenous Identity Fraud
7.1 Cultural Displacement
The most immediate harm is the displacement of genuine Aboriginal custodians. By claiming descent from Bungaree and presenting themselves as custodians, the cult erases the Marramarra Carigal, Darkinjung, and Guringay peoples from public consciousness. This misappropriation not only misrepresents history but also undermines the authority of Elders who carry legitimate knowledge. The Aboriginal Heritage Office warned that continued use of “Guringai” by councils and schools perpetuates colonial fictions and confuses the public about authentic identities (2015).
7.2 Psychological Harm
The appropriation of Aboriginal identity inflicts psychological harm on Indigenous communities. Survivors of dispossession and intergenerational trauma experience retraumatisation when their identity is stolen. This is a form of “sleight of hand Aboriginality” (Ingram, 2008), where settler mimicry undermines Aboriginal people’s lived experience.
7.3 Statistical Sabotage
Identity fraud also distorts national statistics. Watt and Kowal (2019) have shown a marked increase in people self-identifying as Indigenous without genealogical verification. This “statistical indigeneity” inflates census figures, obscures demographic realities, and complicates policy initiatives like Closing the Gap. Fabricated groups like the GuriNgai contribute to this sabotage, diluting Indigenous status and making it harder to assess the actual needs of Aboriginal communities.
7.4 Policy and Resource Diversion
Fabricated groups often attract funding, consultancy contracts, and institutional partnerships meant for Aboriginal people. The Darkinjung LALC (2021) explicitly warned that impostor groups were securing paid contracts and diverting resources away from legitimate communities.
8. Conclusion
The launch of the guringai.com website is the latest iteration of a long-running performance of fabricated identity by the non-Aboriginal GuriNgai cult. While these digital platforms project legitimacy, they cannot obscure the overwhelming historical, genealogical, and institutional evidence that proves the group is not Aboriginal.
The evidence is unequivocal. The term “Kuring-gai” was a colonial invention of John Fraser, never used by Aboriginal people of the Sydney region. Linguistic and anthropological research has confirmed that the genuine Guringay people live north of the Hunter River (Wafer & Lissarrague, 2010; Lissarrague & Syron, 2024). Genealogical investigations, notably Dr. Natalie Kwok’s report (2015), dismantled the fabricated Sophy–Charlotte Ashby narrative, and the Federal Court’s discontinuance of their native title claim in 2017 formalised this collapse.
Aboriginal institutions have been united in their rejection. Local Aboriginal Land Councils, NSWALC, and parliamentary inquiries have confirmed that the GuriNgai group has no cultural authority and that impostor groups threaten Aboriginal self-determination and divert resources. The NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service’s removal of “Guringai” from signage is a clear recognition of this reality.
The harms caused by the GuriNgai cult are significant. They displace genuine custodians, retraumatise Aboriginal people through identity theft, distort census data, divert funding, and undermine trust in Aboriginal governance. Their performances are a form of simulated sovereignty—a settler cult strategy that creates the illusion of Aboriginal authority while inflicting real harms.
The persistence of the cult, despite repeated exposure, reflects a broader structural problem: institutions remain vulnerable to the aesthetics of simulation. Councils and organisations that engage with fabricated groups perpetuate colonial violence, however unintentionally. Addressing this requires not only rejecting impostor groups but also strengthening genealogical verification, institutional accountability, and Indigenous data sovereignty.
Based on the accumulated evidence, the conclusion is clear: the GuriNgai cult is a non-Aboriginal impostor group, wholly without legitimacy. Its digital expansion is not a revival of culture but a repetition of fraud. Genuine reconciliation and sovereignty demand the decommissioning of these false narratives and the affirmation of Aboriginal authority through recognised governance structures and verified genealogical descent.
J.D. Cooke
A Long Con, Gone on Too Long. 
Leave a comment