Aboriginal consultation and co-operation should be sought for exhibitions and the like - after all it is their people and their culture - otherwise we display a regrettable superior attitude and bad manners

Stockton, Eugene

Australian Archaeology

English

Flinders Academic Commons

Australian Archaeology    Archived at Flinders University: dspace.flinders.edu.au  Full Citation Details: Stockton, E 1975. Archaeologists and Aborigines. 'Australian Archaeology', no.2, 10-12. ARCHAEOLOGISTS  AND  ABORIGINES At a time when  relations between  archaeologists and Aborigines are under  discussion,  I  though it might  be useful to offer a few  thoughts drawn  from my  experience both here and in the Middle East. It may  come  as a novel  idea,  to you  as to me,  that we have  never  asked the Aboriginal  people if we  could  dig up  their past.  Certainly we  regard this research as pertinent to the whole  human  race,  but  I  am sure I  would  regard it as a discourtesy if someone were  to research my  life and  fail to consult me.  Each archaeologist may  have his own  way  of  telling Aborigines what  he is doing and  of  seeking approval,  but  I  think it is time we  did it symbolically for the whole  science - symbols  being an  important part of Aboriginal  communication.  For  example,  delegates on  behalf of Australian archaeologists might  meet  with the NAC  -  socially, formally and with plenty of  P.R.  -  explaining why  this study is so important to us,  what  has been  learnt so far and  what  we  still hope to learn and  then actually asking permission  (with apologies  for neglect  in the past).  If tactfully done,  there need  be no apprehension  of  refusal.  hch  the same  could be done  regionally for Aborigines  generally feel a greater sense of belonging  to specific areas,  rather than to the continent as a whole. The  need  for feedback  was  impressed  on us at the last ANZAAS  conference.  This can be  done by  lectures and  popular writing  (e.g.  in AboriginaZ  News,  New  Dawn, Identity or the local newsletters).  Some  academics  have  tried this and  all would  agree on  the interest aroused.  It is noticeable how  press reports on spectacular finds are quickly taken up by  Aboriginals  and  used  in their propaganda.  Again  social occasions are useful for this, especially barbecues  and  bush  outings,  when  everyone  settles around the fire to tell stories.  The  academic  will find his work  takes on  a new  character when  he  can  simply share experiences with his dark friends. It is no derogation of a scientific attitude to profess unashamedly  a spiritual and  emotional bond  with our work.  I  like to point out that white Australians,  well-off  in other ways,  are spiritually deprived because rootless,  that the Aboriginal  story is the heritage of  all Australians and  that through them  we  have vicarious roots in the Australian  soil.  Noting  that even urban Aborigines have  a feeling that the spirits of  the Old  People  reside in the earth,  I  sometimes  explain that these ancestors communicate with us by  what  they left in the ground  and  archaeological methods gives us a way  of  hearing what  they say.  While  working  in the Blue Mountains,  I recalled to my  friends the fancies of  a mountain childhood that,  since the mountain  people had  died out or scattered, I  felt I  owed  it to the spirits of the dead  to find out all I  could and  pass it on.  Such thinking and  speaking is quite compatible with a scientific mentality,  for surely it is a mark  of a  truly educated person that he can pass with ease between different thought-worlds. Archived at Flinders University: dspace.flinders.edu.auOn  the other hand  it is fatal to be  forced or corny  -  listening awhile will give the cue  as to what  to say, with  sincerity. Aborigines,  as a matter of policy,  could well  be employed on  excavations.  They  show  considerable  interest and  also qualities which  can be  highly useful,  e.g.  sharp eyes,  sensitive handling, careful movement,  sense of  history.  From  the beginnings  of Middle  East  archaeology,  the British trained local Arabs  in certain aspects of  excavation,  e.g.  trowelling,  and  in time there resulted a pool  of workers  so skilled that no  campaign  could afford to do without  them.  Often I  have  seen a European trench supervisor call in one of  the technical assistants to find a level he had  lost. Some  of the technical assistants were  promoted  by  British archaeo- logical bodies to  university study of archaeology and  conservation, and  these men  in time came  to be the all-important  Directors of Antiquities in newly  independent  states - to the great advantage of British excavators.  The  British,  generally,  were  sensitive to the impact  of  a dig on  the local economy  and  were  tactful in local and regional politics.  Since the Six Day  W~T, for instance,  they have avoided  all but  salvage operations in Israel.  This kind  of  policy paid off  in remarkable  relations with the Arabs  at both  local and government  levels.  Such  examples  can teach us a lot for the Australian scene. On the subject of  desecration,  the observation can be  made that, for practical purposes  (i  .  e.  apart from  internal theological considerations),  things are not sacred in themselves but  only in respect b  certain peopZe.  They  can be  sacred in varying degrees and  at varying levels.  Sacred things are not necessarily untouchable - what  is expected is that they be  dealt with respectfully,  reverent- ially, and  only by  those who  have  a right to deal with them.  The scientist himself  shows  a spirit akin to  religious awe,  a submission to facts which  is very much  like what  the ancients termed  'Pietyw, but he shows that respect by  an objective attitude to his data.  But this treating a thing as an  "object"  can be objectionable to a person who  regards it with religious reverence,  or even with  some  kind  of emotional commitment  (e.g.  sex as an  object of scientific study). In a pluralist society it is no argument  to say that such an attitude is irrational,  unfounded  or obstructive to scientific investigation,  because  attitudes at conflict are by  definition subjective (on both sides), their validity above  question and  their respective value not comparable.  Where  conflict between  attitudes appears,  the solution need  not be  the cancelling of  the one  or the other, but rather the engineering of  a situation where  both  lots of respect can be held simultaneously.  In other words,  the scientist with due permission may  be  able to handle his material with outward marks  of  respect which  will satisfy the believer. This applies to the question of burials and  human  bones. Just as the doctor is permitted to handle the living body,  so the anatomist may  be  able to  handle the dead  with due reason,  permission and  respect.  I  feel we  should enquire more  specifically into the real attitude of modern  Aborigines  towards the dead,  e.g.  is it out of reverence  for the dead,  or to avoid disturbing the spirit or Archived at Flinders University: dspace.flinders.edu.aureleasing it on  the living.  During  Professor Hennessy's  excavation of Teleilat Ghassul,  we  accidentally dug  into a Turkish cemetery and it was  not  feasible to shift the trenches.  The  first skeleton to appear,  in what  was  then thught to be  a Chalcolithic burial, was carefully brushed  and  lifted (with much  loss of  time)  and,  only after a further check  on  the section and  on  the orientation of the burial, did it become  clear that we  were  dealing with a recent  Moslem interment.  Our  Arab  workers  were  asked  to  give the skeleton a decent reburial, with feet towards Mecca  and  two  grave-markers.  Eventually another six Turks appeared  and  our workers  repeated the ritual with paint brush  and  all, just  as they had  seen the infidel excavators do. Time was  lost and Western  patience tried, but diplomacy scored admirably as our neat  little cemetery expanded. After the study of  skeletal material we  should  give thought to their solemn reburial,  with a monument  and  plenty of publicity. Surely casts could be made  of bones where  a permanent  record is needed. It is a horrifying thought,  even  for white people,  that real human bones  be  on  display. As it was  pointed out at the ANZAAS  conference,  Aboriginal consult  at  ion  and  co-operat ion should be  sought for exhibitions and the like - after all it is their people and  their culture - otherwise we  display a regrettable superior attitude and  bad  manners.  Local communities  could be  encouraged  (and  financially assisted) to have custody of  locally faund  artefacts and  to run  local museums  for teaching the young  and  for displaying the old culture proudly to glgubsll.  The  provision of  locked storage for sacred objects has been enthusiastically received by  some  connuunities  in Australia.  The idea of  Aboriginal  rangers in national parks,  especially those containing rock  art, meets with general approval  and  only waits for general execution.  These matters may  concern  government,  rather than archaeologists,  but  our lobbying  for them  would  effectively show our sincerity in regard to other Aboriginal  antiquities. Eugene Stockton St. Patrick's College MANLY.  N.S.W. Archived at Flinders University: dspace.flinders.edu.au

Archaeologists and Aborigines

http://dspace.flinders.edu.au/xmlui/bitstream/handle/2328/127/1975002010012_final.pdf?sequence=3

Archaeologists and Aborigines

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Flinders Academic Commons