Australian Journey Episode 09: Encounters interview

SUSAN CARLAND: Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people should be aware that this series may contain images, voices or names of deceased persons.

BRUCE SCATES: Welcome to ‘Susan Carland: In Conversation’. This interview is a supplement to Episode 9 in the Australian Journey series, ‘Encounters’.

SUSAN CARLAND: I’m here today in the Gallery of the First Australians in the National Museum of Australia, and joining me is Peter Yu, a Yawuru man from the Kimberleys.

Peter is the retiring member of the board of the National Museum of Australia and also the retiring Chair of the Indigenous Reference Group for the Museum. Peter, thank you for joining me today.

PETER YU: Thanks very much, Susan.

SUSAN CARLAND: Peter I understand that you were quite pivotal in the developing of the ‘Encounters’ exhibition, which I imagine was a quite rewarding but also complex role that required you to negotiate many different interests from different parties. Can you tell me a bit about that process?

PETER YU: Thanks Susan, well it was part of my role as Chair of the National Aboriginal Reference Group of the National Museum of Australia, and I also did some work, contracted to the team in the negotiations as a development of the project. It’s perhaps one of the most rewarding jobs that I’ve had in the last little while.

I think it was a very complex piece of work. Matters of negotiation between the National Museum of Australia and the British Museum, and then the engagement with the broader Aboriginal community. We started off with about 27, I think we had about 30 at the end of the day, of first contact communities from whence the materials originated and were in the British Museum, and some of that material was here in the National Museum as well.

So it was a collaborative effort that took a lot of hard work and a lot of, I guess, generosity on both parts of the British Museum and the Aboriginal community that we engage with, as well as the National Museum of Australia.

SUSAN CARLAND: I understand that the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander groups that you consulted with weren’t aware of the extent of the numbers the British Museum had – in terms of items from local Australian communities. I know it would be difficult to generalise across 30 communities, but were there any common themes or concerns that they raised about this fact?

PETER YU: I think that’s correct, not many people knew to the extent that the British Museum has a – I think it’s a collection of about 6,000 pieces from Australia, and some people of their own accord have actually visited the Museum, and not necessarily from the communities you work with. So there is a general knowledge and awareness about, that have come through, I suppose, the broader politic of dealing with the remains, the skeletal remains, issues of the repatriation of skeletal remains.

And so that’s probably very much heightened awareness of that in the Aboriginal community, but in terms of particular objects, which of course is not necessarily dealing with the British Museum when I talk about the skeletal remains, but the Natural History Museum in London and amongst many, many private and other institutions around the world.

I think you’d be quite surprised unfortunately at how many pieces of materials are there, but this was not to do with that, this was to do with material objects that were taken from Australia under various circumstances. And there’s conjecture and debate and discussion about what those circumstances might have been or were.

So people were intrigued and very interested to find out more, but very anxious to know whether there was material from their particular communities, and what they were and to understand what they were.

SUSAN CARLAND: The ‘Encounters’ exhibition straddles quite a wide range of items and artefacts and displays right from cultural dispossession to items that reflect the strong resilience of Indigenous communities in Australia. Can you tell me if there were two artefacts that personally really impacted on you?

PETER YU: Well it’s hard to go by the Gweagal shield. I think that, you know, is described in this kind of business as a ‘champion object’ – in respect, it stands out because it was on that day in 1770 at Botany Bay when Captain Cook –sorry it was Lieutenant James Cook at that stage, he wasn’t Captain, was he – and when there was that first encounter on the beach with the traditional owners.

And you know it has a little piercing hole in the shield – if people have seen it at the exhibition. And there was kind of conjecture as to what – was that a musket hole or was that a spear hole?

I think the experts of research have said it was probably a spear hole, rather than musket hole, but it was dropped on the beach and was collected by Cook. To see that object and the emotion attached around it is quite – it’s an incredible experience. What I first saw that object in London, it was very emotive.

And every other Aboriginal person who I’ve spoken to have been to London and seen that, had exactly the same response. They were basically brought to tears by it, because of what it represented and what it didn’t represent in terms of what happened on that day and subsequently in the history of this country. It’s highly symbolic in nature but the object itself tells you this amazing story.

And I think the other one – and I might be a bit biased on this one – but they’re the Kimberley kind of spear points, mainly because I think that what they demonstrate is the ingenuity in the technology, in using the kind of raw materials that were used and then the evolution of that into ceramics, you know, from the old telegraph poles, conductors and then into glass, bottle-glass and various other objects.

I think the fact that there is a view about the lack of technology or creativity, or ingenuity, in our culture and in Aboriginal society and that and they’re magnificent pieces of work. But for me they’re kind of like, they’re art pieces, but they were also, you know were used for very serious matters as well – for hunting.

So I think those two. But it would be unfair to just nominate them because, I mean, the entire collection represents so much more in terms of its meaning from which from the communities from whence they came and the people who are directly associated with those objects.

I mean we shouldn’t underestimate the nature of the emotion that evokes, and how people feel that personally and how the community kind of feels about that in terms of its – how it identifies itself, what its connection to that in terms of the circumstances, what it means in terms of their future aspirations.

I think objects are grossly underestimated in terms of their, you know, psychological but also emotional but social impact on us, and in identifying who we are in any particular group and how that belongs to us and reminds us. It’s a clear reference point to the whole range of things that provides this issue of identity.

SUSAN CARLAND: Peter you’ve written a reflective piece that accompanies the exhibition, where you talk about perhaps moving away from an urgent push for repatriation and perhaps moving towards a more consensual approach amongst communities. Do you see any evidence for approaching this consensual approach amongst Indigenous or non-Indigenous Australian groups?

PETER YU: Well I think like any society there’s going to be diversity of views about this highly sensitive question and particularly for First Peoples in a marginalised environment where, as I’ve indicated, the attachment goes way beyond just a piece of object material.

It is fundamental in terms of people’s reference points and who they are, where they’ve come from, and where they are today and, and you know what their aspirations are in the future.

That’s the way I see these objects, and I think a lot of the responses we got from the community. So I think there’s similar kind of feelings, so I don’t think there’s a ready-made answer to a very complex and highly charged kind of question in respect to repatriation.

I do, I do think that what I was extremely pleased about and happy about is that the engagement methodology of the Museum with the 30 communities, where we allowed them to have ownership directly associated with what they thought, what they felt about those objects, and what their views were, in fact, in how we even designed the exhibition.

And we took great notice of that and I think you know in this modern contemporary time the issue of free, prior, informed consent you know which is fundamentally the rights particularly of First Peoples around the world. We were asking this question about what should the relationship be between First Peoples and cultural institutions in the 21st century.

So many people – I was quite pleasing to hear and to have the comments that came from the communities concerned. Not everybody agreed but basically their interest is to recognise that museums did have a role historically, that nothing was perfect in terms of the manner in which some of those objects were obtained.

You know, some were stolen, some were gifted, some were negotiated. I mean there’s a whole range of what the – you know – what the provenance of that, is a matter of historical kind of legacy and judgment if you want.

But people are a lot more sophisticated today, and we have access to an immense range of technology that changes the nature of which we’re thinking but it doesn’t take away that fundamental concern about recognition identity, ownership. So that the consensus approach is about negotiating what’s the best alternatives you know, as they say, the best alternative to a negotiated agreement, you know, as they teach at Harvard.

So the thing is people were – wanted to bring some of those materials back home so they could show the younger people the design, the technology. Other people wanted to take the material and then to make their own determination about what should happen with it. Other people wanted to negotiate a bit of protocol at the Museum in terms of accessing those materials.

So there’s a whole range of kind of possibilities and I think that, I think that the kind of black and white responses to, you know, hugely complex kind of questions deserve a lot more thinking. And I think a lot more, I think we’re better equipped today to be able to negotiate them.

An example of this was the Noongar community in Albany, who said during the consultation that they wanted the Trustees of the British Museum to write to them to thank them for allowing the Trustees to be the custodians of the material they own. You know, there are other examples of where people have offered to make replicas of them – of the object – and to replace that, but to get the original one back. And this is not just unique to the Australian context – internationally, that’s happened before.

There was an example in Canada, of a very sacred totem pole that was taken by a foreign government and museum and a lot of the young men wanted to go and take it, rip it out of the ground, and the old people said, ‘No, we will negotiate’. So they built a replica, but they consecrated this the same way and they replaced that, but they’ve got the original one back. So there’s a whole – we have to be much more clever and smarter and I think that people are today.

SUSAN CARLAND: And the older people are sort of taming it, the fire of the younger people, it seems to happen with every generation.

PETER YU: Yes, and I think – I think that that’s sorta, you know – it’s a fire burning as a result of the ongoing historical grievances and you don’t blame people for that.

SUSAN CARLAND: Yes.

PETER YU: And you don’t try and move away from that. It has to be part of the discussion it has to be part of the negotiation – that people’s discontent, people’s historical grievances, their anger, their kind of their need to be able to have answers, is part of the conversation. It can’t – to not do that would be disingenuous and would in fact, you know, deny a great opportunity to try and arrive at some agreeable position on this.

SUSAN CARLAND: Peter, you’ve described the ‘Encounters’ exhibition as an important milestone in the relationship between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians, but the term ‘milestone’ implies there’s a journey. What do you think is the next milestone in the journey, or where are we in this journey?

PETER YU: Well I think it’s a milestone for the Museum in the first instance, as a cultural institution and the success that it’s had. I think it’s a milestone in the story of the country, in respect of its contribution to the current discussion, debate about constitutional reform issues, about a recognition of Aboriginal people.

We’ve got a wide public debate about – that deals with issues of sovereignty about treaty. We’ve had 40 years of basically failed public policy in respect to dealing with historical grievances of Aboriginal people. We’re the oldest living continuous culture on the earth, you know on the planet, and that’s not just a slogan, that is a reality.

The milestone that should point to what should happen is that the exhibition ‘Encounters’, is really a portal for all Australians to come through and to kind of orientate – to investigate themselves about what those truths are – truths are – but not just as a matter of guilt. You know, Mandela said, ‘We don’t want you to feel guilty for what’s happened, but feel guilty if you only want to perpetuate what’s happened,’ you know. And I think that same kind of thing applies in this country.

The Aboriginal people don’t want the broader community to feel guilty about what happened, but understand what happened so that we’re not repeating those things. And so the, the portal is for ordinary Australians to investigate and to embrace this – it’s not just an Aboriginal thing, this is an Australian thing. And all Australians should be part of this and that’s what the ‘Encounters’ exhibition has offered.

So if we – part of that legacy is to build on understanding and improving our relationship through cultural objects, through kind of, you know – Aboriginal art is well recognised in this country already, and there’s probably artworks through every office in Parliament House, yet you wonder if the politicians really appreciate the stories, the significance, and the values that are expressed in terms of this particular form. I wouldn’t hesitate to question that’s in fact something that they do.

You know it’d be very nice for them to come and understand what cultural institutions like the Museum is doing – its contribution to Australian society. These are critically important institutions that define us in our evolution towards a greater sense of maturity in this country.

And so, you know, I would sincerely hope one of the legacies is that – and a lot of people came to the exhibition – I think it’s over about 90,000 people over four-month period, which is a bit of a record for the Museum. But I would hope that they’ve gone away and, I’ve spoken to a lot of people who have been here and have said how emotional it was for them as Australians – these are non-Aboriginal people – and said it was a fantastic exhibition because they didn’t know, they didn’t know the stories that these objects told, they didn’t know the stories that were coming from the communities, from where these objects came and how it was, you know, relating to the experiences of those communities and the aspirations of those communities, so it’s critically important.

It can’t just be seen as a exhibition in the National Museum of Australia. It has to be seen as a kind of a tool that we can use to better understand ourselves and better understand and prepare us for how we might negotiate. I mean, if we’re successful in the constitutional recognition, the most important day will be the day afterwards. What will happen then in the relationship between the broader society, and we as the First Peoples of this nation? That’s the question. So this is not outside the realms of those discussions and the questions that are asked that remain unanswered.

SUSAN CARLAND: By all evidence the ‘Encounters’ exhibition was incredibly successful. Tens of thousands of people came through in just a few months. I’m interested to know what would you change about the exhibition? What do you think could have been improved? What could have been better?

PETER YU: Well, I think you could always improve things. I’ve been, you know, I’m extremely happy and I think the Museum is really happy and if you define it as a milestone I think you’ve got to be happy.

But what can be improved is, I think, the nature of the kind of political interest in this country, to become more engaged and to understand the expressions of the values and the voices that come from this Museum, that they embrace that in some genuine leadership fashion so that cultural institutions become a place in the hearts and minds of all Australians.

Not just because they are situated in Canberra, and those people who make the effort to come here, but we need to explore the genuine contribution that this institution can make. And it’s a pity that more of our senior leadership in this country don’t take the time or the effort to come and do this. I mean we’re only probably a couple of kilometres down the road where the big house is but it’s – yet when you go, when you travel overseas, you can see the nature of how the culture of the community or the people are, is embedded in everyday life in the social conversation, in the kind of political manifestations, in support of cultural institutions.

We haven’t yet reached that point and that’s the challenge for us, and so how do we manifestly try and display the kind of values and embrace the values as a community and how do we engender the nature of the ownership of those values within it, within a mainstream way. And I think, you know, they’re kind of ambitious philosophical kind of, you know, pining’s, I suppose, but I think that’s what we have to aim for. So I think what we’ve got to do is to build on the legacy of this.

And one of the legacy issues is that we now have a six scholarships for young Aboriginal researchers and people involved in cultural studies who, in partnership with the Prince’s Charities of Australia, Prince Charles’s charities in Australia. And he was a patron of both the ‘Enduring Civilisation’ exhibition our sister exhibition in London at the British Museum, and the ‘Encounters’ as well. And he came, and he’s seen both of them and he was, he’s been very supportive of that. And as a result we have a joint venture between the National Museum of Australia and his charities to sponsor six young Aboriginal – maybe not so young – Aboriginal people, people involved in this area, to study in London, at his school of traditional arts, and Oxford and Cambridge, British Museum and also here in the National Museum of Australia.

So that’s the legacy issue, and we would hope that we can – what we’ve done is to build some capacity in learning and competency in Museum Studies and curatorial responsibilities so that at least the people could use that experience back in their own communities. But hopefully it will also enhance the kind of, the communication and the bridge between the Museum into the future with, with communities around the country.

SUSAN CARLAND: Thank you so much, Peter.

PETER YU: Thanks very much Susan.

SUSAN CARLAND: And if you’re interested to see more of the ‘Encounters’ exhibition, including responses from some of the community members that Peter referred to, check it out at the National Museum of Australia website.

[TEXT]: At the request of Aboriginal community representatives in Sydney, the British Museum is undertaking further research into the shield.

Findings will be published when the process is complete.