Introduction: Debates between applied and pure anthropologists demonstrate the difficulties encountered by those engaged in native title disputes. Debates over whether anthropologists engaged in native title hearings are morally and intellectually adequate are debated in contemporary anthropology. These debates between anthropologists give rise to various ambiguities regarding the role and capacity of those who practice engaged anthropology. David Trigger's article, 'Pure and Secular Anthropology: The Politics of Applied Research in Aboriginal Australia', describes some of the criticisms leveled at anthropologists and attempts to refute them. The points raised by Trigger in this article have provoked debate among applied and pure anthropologists, revealing many ambiguities and complexities. First, I will discuss Trigger's arguments regarding the uncertainties of the moral and intellectual capacity of anthropology engaged in native title cases. Second, by citing anthropologists such as Diane Austin-Broos, Rohan Bastin and Francesca Merlan, I will show the ambiguous role of engaged anthropologists and the complex relationship between pure and applied anthropology. Third, by discussing Bruce Kapferer and Barry Morris's responses to Trigger, I will show the complex relationship between anthropology, the state, and business. Then the difficulties faced by anthropologists in the legal field will be highlighted. Finally, I will examine the challenges faced by those engaged in native title cases in determining whether their work is to aid or subjugate indigenous communities. These ambiguities, difficulties, and complexities that arise from anthropologists' engagement with native title are examined in the following essay. Ambiguous Nature o...... middle of article ...... References: Austin-Broos, D 2012, 'Three points and three answers', Anthropological Forum, vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 68-69Bastin, R 2012, “Commentary on the Manichean dualism of Trigger”, Anthropological Forum, vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 71Merlan, F 2012, “Different, not impure”, Anthropological Forum, vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 75-78Morris, B 2012, “Expert Knowledge and the Tide of History”, Anthropological Forum, vol. 22, no.1, pp. 79Peterson, N 2012, “Comment on Trigger's Paper”, Anthropological Forum, vol. 22, no.1, pp. 81Trigger, D 2011, “Pure and secular anthropology: the politics of applied research in Aboriginal Australia”, Anthropological Forum, vol. 21, no. 3, pp. 234-248Trigger, D 2012, “Response to comments”, Anthropological Forum, vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 85-89Vaarzon-Morel, P 2012, “Intertwined anthropologies”, Anthropological Forum, vol. 22, no. 1, p.p... 84