langford 1983 - our heritage – your playground.pdf

8/10/2019 Langford 1983 - Our heritage your playground.pdf

1/7

Our Heritage - Your PlaygroundAuthor(s): R. F. LangfordSource: Australian Archaeology, No. 16 (Jun., 1983), pp. 1-6Published by: Australian Archaeological AssociationStable 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 Associationis 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 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=aaahttp://www.jstor.org/stable/40286421?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/40286421?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=aaa


2/7

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.

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


3/7

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-Americanculture 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



4/7

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):



5/7

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



6/7

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 fromthe 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

o

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].



7/7

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 PMAll bj JSTOR T d C di i

langford 1983 - our heritage – your playground.pdf

Documents