Our Heritage - Your PlaygroundAuthor(s): R. F. Langford Source: Australian Archaeology, No. 16 (Jun., 1983), pp. 1-6 Published by: Australian Archaeological Association Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40286421 . Accessed: 01/11/2014 16:00 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp . JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact
[email protected]. . Australian Archaeological Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Australian Archaeology. http://www.jstor.org This content downloaded from 148.223.96.146 on Sat, 1 Nov 2014 16:00:07 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions OUR HERITAGE - YOUR PLAYGROUND presented by R.F. Langford for the Tasmanian Aboriginal Community DESECRATION One hundred years ago, a doctor crept into the night, his thoughts weren't on the living, but on those who weren't long dead, not normal human beings, so implied society, just a bunch of Aborigines, specimens of cave age ancestry, a spade was found, the earth was turned, the bodies carted off, then Crowther played at being doctor, and sawed their dead limbs off, a macabre scene no doubt we'd say, but in the doctor's eyes, the means did justify the end, for science's experience, and now the scene is set again, the children of those dead, have fought and won a major battle, for justice and humanity, to place their dead at rest, yet still today it is the same, where science has but one thought, to dig, to probe, to take, without regard for rights, belonging to those, whose land and bodies, they trespass upon, eagerly searching, for a treasure trove, to make their name and fortune, regardless as to who and what they may be hurting in the process. This content downloaded from 148.223.96.146 on Sat, 1 Nov 2014 16:00:07 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 2 It is time that we defined the Issues which have and continue to cause conflict between the science of archaeology and the Aboriginal people. To date» the Issues have been confused; archaeologists feel unfairly criticised and feel hurt because they say they are doing their best to develop an understanding of our culture, and we are angry because we are treated to token moves to obtain our approval and consent to what you are doing. The Issue is control. You seek to say that as scientists you have a right to obtain and study information of our culture. You seek to say that because you are Australians you have a right to study and explore our heritage because it is a heritage to be shared by all Australians, white and black. From our point of view we say you have come as invaders, you have tried to destroy our culture, you have built your fortunes upon the lands and bodies of our people and now, having said sorry, want a share in picking out the bones of what you regard as a dead past. We say that it is our past, our culture and heritage, and forms part of our present life. As such it is ours to control and it is ours to share on our terms. That is the Central Issue in this debate. This Issue involves three important aspects. The first is the debate about the relationship of scientists and science with the community at large. The second involves the particular aspect of the relationship of a white oriented science with the Aboriginal community. The third is that this debate is international. It extends to the demands of indigenous people throughout the world and to those countries which were subject to colonial powers . The first aspect is not of particular concern to the Aboriginal people although it should be of concern to you. As to the second, there can be no doubt that your science of archaeology is white organised, white dominated, and draws its values and techniques from a European and Anglo-American culture and devotes much of its time to the study of non-white people. As such it has within it a cultural bias which has historically formulated an equation between non-white races and primitiveness . Although portion of that bias cannot be avoided until there are sufficient Aboriginal archaeo- logists available (and we are not sure that training Aborigines within a white value science is desirable) that reality of bias cannot be used by science to say that our claims are unfair and unscientific. Whether one likes it or not your science is value laden and its values come from a culture which is not the culture being researched. As to the third, it is a matter of international debate. One cannot argue that the Aboriginal people are raising an empty or unreasonable demand. It is also the demand of others who have been treated in the same way. Two arguments are used to meet our demand. The first is that the Aboriginal people have much to gain from science and the second is that even if errors have been made in the past then everything is different now and that science is applying different values to its work. Let us look at some examples to test these arguments. Science, including the science of archaeology, determined that Truganinni was the last of our people. It did so by using scientific principles based upon European values. The effect of this 'scientific fact1 has been incalculable to the 4000 Tasmanian Aboriginals who reside in Tasmania. Science had proved that we didn't exist. White society wouldn't accept us (after all, racism transcends science) but it was science which denied us a separate existence. Science got what it wanted - some bones to parade through Europe enhancing the reputation of white colonials, leaving us with a struggle lasting 100 years to defeat that view. And science did not assist us in that fight. But what has changed? It was the Aboriginal people who fought for the return of the grave-robbed skeletons known as the Crowther Collection. There was no agitation from within your discipline for their proper burial or cremation. Instead there was opposition and This content downloaded from 148.223.96.146 on Sat, 1 Nov 2014 16:00:07 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 3 obstruction to our demand for the return of the dead. And it says something for the power of science that when one of your number, Professor Mulvaney, with honesty, stated that he had changed his mind and supported us, the remaining doors opened. What would have happened if a non-distinguished archaeologist had changed his or her mind? Probably nothing. Why was it that most of you waited and watched? What difference is there between inaction and indifference and the views of a Doctor Crowther or the Trustees of the Museum of Tasmania? And what of the role of the Museum itself? Not only did the Museum and its scientific staff deceive Aboriginal people in 1976 by concealing the fact that they held the remains of Aborigines other than those of Truganinni, but they also duped the Tasmanian Government. The archaeologists and their institutions placed themselves above Parliament and the Public as some divine group. Is archaeology tending towards a view that only archaeologists and their associates know what is right? But anyhow, let's get back to the basis of the disagreement between our people and the people that you represent. A number of views have been put forward by archaeologists in attempting to come to grips with (I suppose you would say) the incredible lack of appreciation Aborigines have for the work carried out by the majority of archaeologists. One argument is that archaeological activities have not, in the past, substantially aided Aboriginal groups and in the main have been, and still are, counterproductive. Professor Mulvaney would dispute this. He cites the acknowledgement which Aboriginal academic leaders have given to the contribution made by archaeology to land rights (Mulvaney 1981:20). Such a view ignores the fact that Aborigines have been forced to rely on white sciences to support land claims and have not done so by choice. Land claims are judged not on any objective universal criterion in this country, but upon a criterion handed down by the representatives of your race. You people invaded my country. You people have decided what we must satisfy to regain our land. And now we have to rely on you people to support our claims that we have satisfied that criterion. Thus the Government, the Land Councils and the mining companies hire their archaeologists and anthropologists and do battle in the courts. Science, not ownership, determines which land we shall get back. Another view suggests that if only archaeologists would take a few minutes of their valuable time to sit and talk with Aboriginal people then everything would be fine. As Nason (1981:16) puts it: Much of this data collecting is particularly onerous for those subjects. Some researchers have lacked the necessary sensi- tivity and common sense to carry it out at all well. And, some research projects are, from a theoretical and practical viewpoint, very poorly conceived. It is regrettable that such things have been true. And even though these cases are a minority, each one is served far beyond its actual potential for having to tear down all such research in the eyes of potential subjects. When we apply the same perspective to the cases of poorly done field collecting of specimens as well, we begin to have a serious problem indeed in receiving the goodwill and co-operation of many local communities. The view that Aborigines need only be appeased is obviously fairly represen- tative of archaeologists1 thinking. And in any event we as Tasmanian Aboriginals can quite clearly state that there has not even been consultation. And, as many have found, to underestimate our intelligence is in the long term self-defeating. The crux of the problem is spelled out by Professor Mulvaney, when, in arguing against Aboriginal ownership, he says (1981:20): This content downloaded from 148.223.96.146 on Sat, 1 Nov 2014 16:00:07 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 4 This virtually imposes a racial monopoly of data and its exposition. The implication of such claims to absolute custodianship of the past goes much further than the undoubted need for Aboriginal scholars to undertake research and tertiary education in their own cause... We would have identified the issue in different words, but semantics aside, the issue clearly is 'who owns the Aboriginal heritage?1 The United States case of the Zuni War God1, purportedly owned by the Denver Art Museum, is in point. That case made clear that the museum ideal of collecting and maintaining important specimens, legally acquired, for the general public was superseded by the particular needs of the ethnic community that had produced these objects. The argument against the approach adopted in that decision is perhaps best summed up by Professor Mulvaney where he states (1981:20): I am also an Australian and I regard with pride the cultural achievements during the remote past of this continent and wish to study and analyse it as part of the inheritance of all Australians. Similar arguments, of course, are used to deny Aboriginal people their right to land. It has even been suggested, by way of analogy, that Aboriginal claims of ownership of their heritage were synonymous with the Adolf Hitler view of the superior Origin race. I quote, 'Testimony to the excesses of mystical claims to folk monopoly of truth and research is provided by the Aryan racial intolerance of Hitlerite Germany (Mulvaney 1981:20). Really, that's a bit much. Underlying that view is the notion that heritage, no matter from which particular group it originates, and no matter what the view, the culture, the religion or conceptual significance that heritage has to the particular group, is the property of mankind. Mankind, needless to say, is mainly represented by that culture which has, and continues to exploit and invade the lands and cultures of 'other' societies. The mankind that view refers to is, of course, the white one. The underlying theme of that view is nothing new. In fact colonialism was justified on that basis. The view itself sounds quite reasonable, but it has enabled and justified the domination of other groups by the powerful, and stands condemned on that basis. The obvious counter to that approach is found in the question that if we Aborigines cannot control our own heritage, what the hell can we controls It seems that whites, whether they be pastoralists, philosophers or archaeo- logists, not only deny our right to our land but now want to deny us the right to our heritage. The theory that all mankind is one, hardly relates to practice. White people invaded our country. You still possess and claim to own our land. You cannot go on imposing your will upon us simply because you have the greater numbers and military might. The time has surely come for you people to accept our rights over ourselves, our destiny and our past. Certainly archaeology has a poor record in this area. Let's look at the 'modern' or 'informed' archaeologists. An archaeologist prepared a paper for a program for exploring Tasmania's 'prehistory' in 1981. And isn't 'prehistory' a lovely value-laden word? But to the quote: The Tasmanian story has only begun to be told. Yet this story, this vast heritage locked in those ancient silent sites, all that remains of an already vanished people - is threatened by destruction; yet again by the advent of modern human expansion. 1 Canadian Museums Association 14(4):4-27, 1980 This content downloaded from 148.223.96.146 on Sat, 1 Nov 2014 16:00:07 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 5 And further, !Not only would such a study help us preserve the evidence, it would also advance our understanding of a vanished society1. And in a section headed fTasmanian archaeology - where to from here?1, !A tremendous resource, a non-renewable resource, is being erased from the landscape daily. A resource that has major potential for tourism, recreation and education1.1 Then, because the paper contains a request for funding there is a passing reference to today's Tasmanian Aboriginal community. So we want to tell you some of our views and policies, in an area which can be either a battleground or a field of co-operation. And up until now science has made it a battleground. We all know of the severing of William Lanne's skull, and I've already mentioned the digging up of the body of Truganinni and the grave-robbing of Crowther and the subsequent actions of the Museum, all done in the name of science. And that is not the past. It has continued into the 1970s and 80s. And I want to use one story to show this continuation and how the values of archaeology have harmed us. I speak of course of the work of Dr Rhys Jones and his association with the film-maker Tom Haydon. Incidentally, Haydon was involved in an earlier film on Aborigines with another archaeologist. The distortions in that film caused the archaeologist to have the film withdrawn. I do not wish to discuss the expertise of Dr Jones in his particular field. Nor do I want to debate the various technical details of his work. But our association with him does show many of the ways in which science is used to harm us and how we are used to further the interests and careers of scientists. The history of the Royal Society of Tasmania (especially in the 19th century and the early part of the 20th century) is apt proof of this. Tom Haydon and Dr Jones approached the Aboriginal community for assistance with their work and the making of the film. We were told that there would be consultation and a sharing of information. We supplied them with all of the information required for the film - names, addresses, places, contacts and so on. We were promised in return that we could see the film, have a say in its editing and generally be involved in the view that the film was expressing. That process occurred over a number of years. Because of that, many Aboriginals opened their hearts, told stories, revealed secrets. We trusted and were betrayed. We weren't consulted, our stories were edited, a particular line was advanced, and we helped portray the story which denied our existence. Although I cannot claim the expertise of Rhys Jones in his archaeological playground, I can however challenge any conclusions he draws from his research findings. It seems that findings of fewer tools being used by Tasmanian Aborigines than by mainland Aborigines led to the scientific conclusion that Aborigines were in a state of decline in Tasmania. I need not argue on archaeological grounds to expose such a view for what it is worth. 'Isn't it marvellous that we lived here for at least 25,000 years, and, having achieved a balance, for no reason, began to go downhill'. As we all know the prevailing white opinion in the 19th century of Aborigines was that we were inherently inferior to whites, and more akin to savages than to other human races. Well! Hasn't science advanced! Of course the view was used by the white community to soften the guilt of invasion and the destruction of a society. In response to the claim by archaeologists that they are not responsible for what the press or the community makes of their conclusions, I would point out that Kutikina cave in the Southwest is a good example of manipulation by archaeologists for their own ends. Archaeologists have held press conferences over the 1 Quoted from an unpublished grant application prepared by the Tasmanian State Archaeologist, Don Ranson. In fairness to Mr Ranson it should be noted that the document was prepared for a State authority with no professional expertise in archaeology [Eds]. This content downloaded from 148.223.96.146 on Sat, 1 Nov 2014 16:00:07 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 6 'finding1 of this cave (among others) in support of the conservationists effort to prevent the flooding of the area. The manipulation of that issue by scientists has been made without recognition of the rights of Aborigines to preserve their own culture. Delegates would be aware that the Aboriginal Movement is in conflict with the Tasmanian Wilderness Society on this issue and there has been a stony silence by them on our claims whilst much mileage has been made by them on the importance of the sites. We are not averse to working with others on preserving our heritage but we will fight to prevent our heritage being treated as an historic commodity. We are the custodians. You can either be our guests or our enemies. That decision can only rest with you. Indeed we recognise that there are issues upon which we agree with the view taken by archaeologists. We too believe in preserving the environment. We too oppose mining of land because it involves the destruction of non-renewable cultural resources. And only recently we met with, and sought the support of, Professor Mulvaney for the return to us of the Crowther Collection. I am happy to say we received his support. But the ball is in your court. You, as a profession, have a lot of ground to make up. It was your profession which decreed us a backward and primitive people, that we were further down the evolutionary line. It was your profession which allowed itself to be used by white Australia generally, to live with the knowledge of what it did to my people and my people's society. Your profession gained from it - it became established as a science upon which the general community could rely to excuse gross atrocities committed against Aborigines. It was your profession which made its international reputation by digging up, analysing and proclaiming upon the Aboriginal dead. You repaid us with quotes such as, 'He remembered them as ugly, rather like monkeys with their clay pipes in their mouths' (Crowther 1974). Reputations, it seems, have been made and continue to be made, on the graves of our people. As for the future we cannot and will not say. Until we have determined the basis of our relationship and until we have stated the fundamental basis upon which you are prepared to work with us, we cannot determine the ground rules of our co-operation. We are not hostile to 'proper' science and we love our heritage and our culture. But until we can share that knowledge we must be secure with control of our land and our culture. When that is acknowledged we can begin to discuss the basis of our sharing that with you. The next step is for you to take. We suspect that it will be a much larger step than you believe. REFERENCES Crowther, W.E.L.H. 1974 The final phase of the extinct Tasmanian race 1847-1876. Records of the Queen Victoria Museum 49:1-34 Mulvaney, D.J. 1981 What future for our past? Archaeology and society in the eighties. Australian Archaeology 13:16-27 Nason, J.D. 1981 A question of patrimony: ethnical issues in the collecting of cultural objects. Museum Roundup 13. British Columbia Museums Association Tasmanian Aboriginal Centre GPO Box 569F Hob art Tasmania This content downloaded from 148.223.96.146 on Sat, 1 Nov 2014 16:00:07 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions