Assess the curatorial processes at the National Museum of Australia in response to changing attitudes towards First Nations people in Australia

BY ALICE DIXON, YEAR 12, 2021

Attitudes towards First Nations people in Australia have changed dramatically throughout history and the National Museum of Australia (NMA), Canberra, is currently the leading institution reflecting contemporary attitudes. The NMA was constructed to represent the culture and history of First Nations people, an element of history that was silenced until the emergence of post-colonial thought in the 1970s. Repatriation of human remains, and sacred objects of First Nations people is the first stage of the NMA’s curatorial process and is fundamental in showing society’s greater acceptance and empathy towards First Nations people. To further reflect today’s increasingly respectful attitude towards First Nations people, the NMA includes First Nations people in the process of curating the displays at the NMA and deciding what is and what is not to be included. However, although the NMA’s curatorial process is inherently well-meaning, it causes harsh complications within the communities of First Nations people.

Public attitudes towards First Nations people in Australia have been fluid since Captain James Cook’s 1770 voyage on the Endeavour, Britain’s first contact with Australia, and particularly since the colonisation of Australia in 1788. During colonisation, the British colonisers developed prejudices about the First Nations people they encountered and formed a highly dehumanising attitude towards them. First Nations people were traditionally disregarded as humans and rather viewed as “flora and fauna”.1 This is demonstrated by Sydney Parkinson, the botanical artist on the Endeavour, who included drawings of First Nations people in his collection of illustrations dedicated to plants and animals in Australia.2 As Australia’s colonisation progressed, First Nations people were included in public history, albeit through the dehumanising lens of the colonists. The First Nations people were treated as natural history, resulting in their human remains and sacred objects being predominantly included in natural history museums.3 This acted as a physical representation of the dehumanising attitude toward First Nations people and as stated by Alice Procter, it demonstrated how “institutions were complicit in the dehumanisation of colonised and racialized communities”.4 The colonisation of Australia caused the development of the dehumanised attitude towards First Nations people that once included in public history, museums further amplified.

Post-colonialism, a movement that began in the late 1970s and continues to develop today, has been a driving force in the movement away from the dehumanising view of First Nations people, and a transition to a more inclusive and culturally sensitive attitude. A dramatic increase in advocacy and activism by First Nations people challenged the views of British Australians and their voices started being heard. Post-colonial historians began constructing histories that offered a voice to population groups that were typically marginalised throughout history. According to Dr Michael Pickering, Senior Repatriation Advisor at the NMA, the 1990s was the first time museums demonstrated this sense of cultural sensitivity towards First Nations people, specifically with the redevelopment of the Melbourne Museum in 1997.5 The increased consideration for First Nations people and recognition of their culture provoked new expectations of public history institutions. First Nations communities have been regarded as having a “Treasure Box” which involves the “heritage and history of the community”, and that public history has an obligation to uphold the “protection and celebration of this Treasure Box”.6 This post-colonial expectation of public history is explicitly seen in the NMA that opened on 11 March 2001, which aimed to respectfully recognise and represent the “Treasure Box” of First Nations people. With post-colonial attitudes gaining immense popularity by the 1990s, the NMA adopted this and became more culturally sensitive towards First Nations people, in comparison to museums during Australia’s colonial period.

Despite the prevailing positive post-colonial attitude towards First Nations people at the inception of the NMA in 2001, large controversy surrounded the NMA’s construction. The design and construction of the NMA

HSC Extension History

were led by Dawn Casey, a First Nations woman whose work was criticised by John Howard, the Australian Prime Minister at the time.7 One of the NMA’s three primary aims was, and still is, to represent “Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander history and culture”,8 recognising First Nations people as having a past rich in heritage and culture, a direct shift from the traditional notion that First Nations people were animalistic and insignificant. The original architectural design of the NMA featured a large braille design spelling out ‘sorry’, in reference to the Stolen Generations, reflecting society’s more empathetic attitude towards First Nations people. However, Howard heavily criticised this design, claiming it “privileged” First Nations people,9 and he ordered it be removed. This act exemplifies Howard’s refusal to apologise for the Stolen Generations and it contributes to the ‘Black armband’ view of history that he previously condemned in his 1996 Sir Robert Menzies Lecture. 10 Geoffrey Blainey, in his Sir John Latham Memorial Lecture, first used the ‘Black armband’ term to describe perspectives on history that view the historical treatment of marginalised groups as “a disgrace”, sparking the ‘Black Armband History Wars’.11 Howard encouraged this view by not supporting the NMA’s attempt to explicitly reflect the empathetic attitude towards First Nations people that dominated society at the time, making the construction of the NMA highly controversial. Therefore, although the prevailing post-colonial attitudes towards First Nations people were empathetic, inclusive, and more culturally sensitive, Howard’s controversial perspective limited the extent to which the NMA could reflect the prevailing societal attitudes.

The first step of the NMA’s curatorial process, repatriation, successfully demonstrates the NMA’s acknowledgement of the contemporary notion that First Nations people are the custodians of their communities’ human remains and sacred objects. Major Sumner, a First Nations Elder, asserts that “Our [First Nations people’s] belief is that when our people’s remains are not with their people and in our country then their spirit is wandering”.12 Michael Mansell, a First Nations lawyer, further added, “The spirits of our [First Nations people] dead are disturbed by being separated from their bodies.”13 To respect these spiritual beliefs, the NMA “does not actively seek to acquire” human remains or sacred objects and no remains that it holds will be used in its collections and displays.14 Any remains or sacred objects that the NMA currently has, even those not displayed, have been donated from various communities, organisations and both Australian and overseas museums.15 The NMA’s recognition of the cultural significance that these materials have for First Nations people shows that the acceptance of changing attitudes towards First Nations people has led to a culturally sensitive repatriation process at the NMA. Furthermore, the NMA has repatriated over 350 sacred objects and 1700 individual remains to First Nations people,16 demonstrating that the NMA has been active in its written commitment to repatriation. The Repatriation Unit at the NMA is funded by a multitude of organisations including the museum itself, the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission and the Return of Indigenous Cultural Property.17 This is highly significant as it shows repatriation is a priority for the NMA in respecting First Nations People and it suggests that the NMA has a desire to gain support to improve the repatriation process for First Nations people. Repatriation plays a fundamental role in demonstrating the NMA’s active acknowledgement of the spiritual and cultural beliefs of First Nations people and therefore, reflects the NMA’s adoption of the dominant post-colonial attitude towards First Nations people.

Although repatriation is a highly effective means of reflecting the NMA’s acceptance of changing attitudes towards First Nations people, it poses significant ethical issues within First Nations communities. Burying the deceased is an important spiritual practice that is traditionally undertaken and involves cultural practices such as sprinkling the body with ochre, putting the body in a tree or wrapping it in bark to rest for several months before burying it.18 However, traditional practices were disrupted by historical events of grave robbing and the development of body farms.19 Many of these displaced human remains and sacred objects are now located at the NMA because under the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act 1984, the NMA is the legally prescribed authority of remains and objects.20 As the NMA will not display these materials, they are repatriated, placing First Nations people in an incredibly uncomfortable position as they are left to decide what is the ethically appropriate way to handle human remains and sacred objects.21 Concerning human remains, communities have had to consider whether the bodies should be buried but, this would technically be a ‘reburial’, a ceremony lacking tradition and process. This requires communities to discuss what the ceremony should involve so that it remains respectful to the deceased and

their culture. This occurred in 2002 when 21 remains of First Nations people were repatriated to La Perouse in Sydney and reburied by their descendants.22 A particular ethical issue that arises is the location of the ‘reburial’ because often the remains cannot be buried in their original location due to urban development. Therefore, the repatriation process raises concerns for First Nations people around the ethical treatment of their repatriated items.

The NMA recognises that First Nations people require additional support during the repatriation process as their communities are typically disadvantaged, reflecting the museum’s incorporation of an empathetic attitude. Often First Nations people call for materials to be repatriated, despite not having the facilities or capacity to reclaim them.23 For example, in Appin, NSW, they are currently seeking repatriation of human remains from the 1816 Appin Massacre despite lacking the facilities to accommodate the thousands of remains.24 Twenty years ago, the NMA addressed this by recognising the Appin community as custodians of the remains and holding them until the community can reclaim them.25 This ongoing agreement demonstrates the NMA’s commitment to long-term plans with First Nations people and the adoption of society’s more empathetic attitude towards them. However, repatriation can cause further harm to the communities of First Nations people that the NMA does not address. Pickering believes the acknowledgement of the community as the owner of the remains, is recognition of the First Nations people’s cultural rights and “an act of empowerment” for the community.26 However, although the return of objects is tremendously empowering for the communities, it increases the potential for conflict and unrest.27 Once numerous sacred objects were returned to the Kimberley, Western Australia, a smaller group felt overpowered by the Elders and so left the community.28 In this case, although the NMA’s intent for the repatriation process was culturally sensitive, it negatively impacted the community of the First Nations people by creating a social hierarchy and divide.

In addition, repatriated materials can remain highly vulnerable to being stolen or destroyed. The NMA is currently inquiring into a situation (the location cannot yet be publicly disclosed) where a box of remains was stolen from a Land Council Office and left on a nearby park bench, vulnerable.29 This suggests that the NMA’s repatriation process lacks consideration for the objects and remains once they have left the museum and the risk they pose to communities. Although repatriation is highly successful in reflecting the contemporary attitudes towards First Nations people, it is limited in its effectiveness as it sparks concern for the protection of the repatriated materials and creates a social divide between community members.

Reflecting the increasingly accepting attitudes towards First Nations people, the NMA has been significantly progressive in relation to the representation of First Nations people in their displays. Traditionally, museum curators included whichever objects or human remains they wished to showcase, whereas contemporary attitudes towards First Nations people have shifted tremendously and this is no longer ethically acceptable.30 Procter describes the holding of ancestral remains by public history institutions as an “act of violence” because it “sends a clear message of valuing the body over the person”.31 The NMA upholds this view by being highly selective in the curation of its displays. During the curation process, the NMA deals directly with the relevant descendants and custodians of human remains and sacred objects and will only include them if approved.32 This shows the NMA’s development of a more complex and culturally sensitive curatorial process in response to the progressive postcolonial attitudes towards First Nations people. Pickering commends the NMA’s development by expressing that by not including materials of First Nations people in NMA displays, it is in fact, providing a more culturally authentic experience for its consumers of history.33 This is because numerous objects within First Nations communities were sacred and only able to be used or seen by certain members of the community such as men or women. Therefore, by the NMA accepting the knowledge of First Nations communities and not including these items in its displays, the consumers of history gain an experience with increased cultural authenticity.

Finally, the predominant ‘voice’ of displays at the NMA is carefully developed by curators to uphold the postcolonial focus on providing a voice to historically marginalised groups. The NMA diminishes the voice of the curator and elevates that of First Nations people as seen in the 2015/16 Encounter exhibition which was predominantly the perspective of Shayne Williams, a Dharawal Elder.34

HSC Extension History

This increased focus on elevating the voice of First Nations people reflects the significant shift in the way First Nations people are represented in museums. According to Procter, the elevation of the voices of First Nations people in displays such as the Encounter exhibition and its text panels creates an “overall tone [that] is personal, emotional, rather than detached and academic” as museums traditionally were.35 The predominant use of the First Nations voice in NMA displays rather than the voice of the curator, combined with the involvement of First Nations people in the curation of materials, allows the NMA to explicitly reflect the increasing acceptance of First Nations people into contemporary society.

The NMA makes deliberate choices in its curatorial process to ensure it consistently reflects societal attitudes towards First Nations people. Traditionally First Nations people were included in natural history museums as they were disregarded as humans and perceived as animals. The development of post-colonial thought, and attitudes has been fundamental in the significant shift whereby museums began to provide a platform for First Nations people whose voice were silenced throughout history. Following this, the NMA developed a primary focus on displaying the history of First Nations people, though at first it was limited in this venture due to Howard’s heavy criticism. Despite this, the NMA persisted in its attempts to be culturally sensitive, particularly through placing a strong emphasis on the repatriation of human remains and sacred objects of First Nations people. However, the repatriation process is flawed as it continues to have adverse effects on the communities of First Nations people such as social divides and increased conflict. In contrast, the NMA is successful in creating explicitly post-colonial and highly culturally sensitive displays through strict guidelines for curating displays. Therefore, the curatorial process at the NMA successfully reflects the changing attitudes towards First Nations people in Australia, though at the compromise of First Nations communities.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act 1984 (1984). https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2016C00937. Augustat, Claudia. ‘Colonising Memory: Indigenous Heritage and Community Engagement’. In Mobile Museums, edited by Felix Driver, Mark Nesbitt, and Caroline Cornish, 283. Collections in Circulation. UCL Press, 2021. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv18kc0px.18. Chynoweth, Adele. ‘The History Wars Are over, Now It’s Time to Get Politics Back in Our Museums’. The Conversation, 2013. http:// theconversation.com/the-history-wars-are-over-now-its-time-toget-politics-back-in-our-museums-12575. Clarke, Philip A. Aboriginal People and Their Plants. Rosenberg, 2011. ‘Ethical Conduct in Research with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples and Communities: Guidelines for Researchers and Stakeholders.’ National Health and Medical Research Council, August 2018. https://www.nhmrc.gov.au/about-us/resources/ethicalconduct-research-aboriginal-and-torres-strait-islander-peoples-andcommunities. Aboriginal Victoria. ‘Fact Sheet: Aboriginal Burials | Aboriginal Victoria’, 2019. http://www.aboriginalvictoria.vic.gov.au/fact-sheet-aboriginalburials.

Feikert, Clare. ‘Repatriation of Historic Human Remains: Australia’. Web page. Library of Congress, 2020. https://www.loc.gov/law/help/ repatriation-human-remains/australia.php#_ftn7. Common Ground. ‘First Nations, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander, or Indigenous?’, 2021. https://www.commonground.org.au/learn/ aboriginal-or-indigenous. ABC News. ‘Howard Nearly Got Away with His Protest, until an Eagle-Eyed Engineer Decoded the Writing on the Wall’, 6 March 2021. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-03-07/national-museum-ofaustralias-secret-message-in-braille/13221782. Infrastructure, Transport, Regional & Comms. Indigenous Repatriation, 2020. https://www.youtube.com/ watch?v=4zNLXOCzGOY&feature=emb_logo. Janke, Terri. ‘First Peoples: A Roadmap for Enhancing Indigenous Engagement in Museums and Galleries’. Warralang Projects, 2018. https://docs.wixstatic.com/ugd/f76062_ c67539d5b2e2433181f66b15ec499d89.pdf. Kaus, David. ‘The Management of Restricted Aboriginal Objects by the National Museum of Australia’, March 2008. https://recollections.nma. gov.au/issues/vol_3_no_1/notes_and_comments/the_management_ of_restricted_aboriginal_objects. Korff, Jens. ‘Aboriginal Remains Repatriation’. Creative Spirits, 2020. https://www.creativespirits.info/aboriginalculture/people/aboriginalremains-repatriation. Lambert-Pennington, Katherine. ‘What Remains? Reconciling Repatriation, Aboriginal Culture, Representation and the Past’. Oceania 77, no. 3 (2007): 313–14. McCarthy, Greg. ‘The “New” Cultural Wars: “Constructing” the National Museum of Australia.’ Parliament of Australia, 2004. Click here to view. McKenna, Mark. ‘Different Perspectives on Black Armband History’. Parliament of Australia, 1997. Australia. https://www.aph.gov.au/ About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/ pubs/rp/RP9798/98RP05. National Museum of Australia. ‘National Museum of Australia – Australian Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Ancestral Human Remains Management and Repatriation Policy’, 2019. https://www. nma.gov.au/about/corporate/plans-policies/policies/aboriginal-torresstrait-islander-human-remains. National Museum of Australia. ‘National Museum of Australia – History of Our Museum’. Accessed 2 June 2021. https://www.nma.gov.au/ about/history. National Museum of Australia. ‘National Museum of Australia – The Return of Indigenous Human Remains and Sacred Objects’, 2002. https://www.nma.gov.au/about/corporate/annual-reports/02_03/ part_2/performance_commentaries_output_group_1.1/the_return_ of_indigenous_human_remains_and_sacred_objects. ‘National Museum of Australia Annual Report 2015-16’, 2016, 120. Neufeld, David. ‘Ethics in the Practice of Public History with Aboriginal Communities’. The Public Historian 28, no. 1 (2006): 118–19. https:// doi.org/10.1525/tph.2006.28.1.117. Office of the Arts, Department of Infrastructure. ‘Indigenous Repatriation’. Text. Office of the Arts, Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Communications, 20 December 2019. https://www.arts.gov.au/what-we-do/cultural-heritage/ indigenous-repatriation. Pickering, Michael. A Repatriation Handbook: A Guide to Repatriating Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Ancestral Remains. 1st ed. Canberra, 2020. https://nla.gov.au/nla.obj-2819639431. Pickering, Michael. ‘“Dance through the Minefield”: The Development of Practical Ethics for Repatriation’. In The Routledge Companion to Museum Ethics, 1st Edition., 256–74. Routledge, 2011. Pickering, Michael. Interview. Discussion with the author, 18 March 2021.

Pickering, Michael. ‘“The Big Picture”: The Repatriation of Australian Indigenous Sacred Objects’. Museum Management and Curatorship 30, no. 5 (20 October 2015): 427–43. https://doi.org/10.1080/096477 75.2015.1054418.

Pickering, Michael. ‘The Supernatural and Sensitive Indigenous Materials: A Workplace Health and Safety Issue?’ Museum Management and Curatorship 35, no. 5 (2 September 2020): 532–50. https://doi.org /10.1080/09647775.2020.1803113.

Pickering, Michael. ‘Up Close and Personal. The Management of Sensitive Indigenous Objects at the National Museum of Australia: Sensible Dinge in Museen Und Universitären Sammlungen’. In Nicht Nur Raubkunst!, 273–90, 2017. https://doi. org/10.14220/9783737008082.273. Pickering, Michael. ‘Where Are the Stories?’ The Public Historian 32, no. 1 (2010): 79–95. https://doi.org/10.1525/tph.2010.32.1.79. Pickering, Michael, and Phil Gordon. ‘Repatriation: The End of the Beginning’. National Museum of Australia. National Museum of Australia, 8 June 2011. https://nma.gov.au/research/understandingmuseums/MPickering_PGordon_2011.html. Procter, Alice. The Whole Picture: The Colonial Story of the Art in Our Museums & Why We Need to Talk about It. Octopus Books, 2020. Sculthorpe, Gaye. ‘Same objects, different stories: Exhibiting “Indigenous Australia”’. Journal of Museum Ethnography, no. 30 (2017): 88–89. State Library of NSW. ‘Sydney Parkinson | Captain Cook’s Voyages of Discovery’, 25 January 2016. https://www.sl.nsw.gov.au/stories/ captain-cooks-voyages-discovery/sydney-parkinson. PM Transcripts. ‘Transcript 10171 | PM Transcripts’, 1996. https:// pmtranscripts.pmc.gov.au/release/transcript-10171. Tyrrell, Katherine. ‘About Sydney Parkinson’. Botanical art & artists. Accessed 3 June 2021. https://www.botanicalartandartists.com/ sydney-parkinson.html.

HSC Extension History

FOOTNOTES

1. Michael Pickering, Interview, Discussion with the author, 18 March 2021. 2. ‘Sydney Parkinson | Captain Cook’s Voyages of Discovery’, State

Library of NSW, 25 January 2016, https://www.sl.nsw.gov.au/ stories/captain-cooks-voyages-discovery/sydney-parkinson. 3. Pickering, Interview. 4. Alice Procter, The Whole Picture: The Colonial Story of the Art in

Our Museums & Why We Need to Talk about It (Octopus Books, 2020), 134. 5. Pickering, Interview. 6. David Neufeld, ‘Ethics in the Practice of Public History with

Aboriginal Communities’, The Public Historian 28, no. 1 (2006): 118–19, https://doi.org/10.1525/tph.2006.28.1.117. 7. Greg McCarthy, ‘The “New” Cultural Wars: “Constructing” the

National Museum of Australia.’, Parliament of Australia, 2004, https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display. w3p;query=Id%3A%22media%2Fpressrel%2FZY1F6%22;src1=sm1. 8. ‘National Museum of Australia – History of Our Museum’, National

Museum of Australia, accessed 2 June 2021, https://www.nma.gov. au/about/history. 9. Adele Chynoweth, ‘The History Wars Are over, Now It’s Time to

Get Politics Back in Our Museums’, The Conversation, 2013, http:// theconversation.com/the-history-wars-are-over-now-its-time-toget-politics-back-in-our-museums-12575. 10. ‘Transcript 10171 | PM Transcripts’, PM Transcripts, 1996, https:// pmtranscripts.pmc.gov.au/release/transcript-10171. 11. Mark McKenna, ‘Different Perspectives on Black Armband History’,

Parliament of Australia, 1997, Australia, https://www.aph.gov.au/

About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_

Library/pubs/rp/RP9798/98RP05. 12. Jens Korff, ‘Aboriginal Remains Repatriation’, Creative Spirits, 2020, https://www.creativespirits.info/aboriginalculture/people/ aboriginal-remains-repatriation. 13. Korff, ‘Aboriginal Remains Repatriation’. 14. ‘National Museum of Australia Annual Report 2015-16’, 2016, 120. 15. Michael Pickering and Phil Gordon, ‘Repatriation: The End of the Beginning’, National Museum of Australia (National Museum of Australia, 8 June 2011), https://nma.gov.au/research/ understanding-museums/MPickering_PGordon_2011.html. 16. Pickering, Interview. 17. ‘National Museum of Australia – The Return of Indigenous Human

Remains and Sacred Objects’, National Museum of Australia, 2002, https://www.nma.gov.au/about/corporate/annual-reports/02_03/ part_2/performance_commentaries_output_group_1.1/the_ return_of_indigenous_human_remains_and_sacred_objects. 18. ‘Fact Sheet: Aboriginal Burials | Aboriginal Victoria’, Aboriginal

Victoria, 2019, http://www.aboriginalvictoria.vic.gov.au/fact-sheetaboriginal-burials. 19. Pickering, Interview. 20. ‘Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act 1984’ (1984), https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2016C00937. 21. Katherine Lambert-Pennington, ‘What Remains? Reconciling

Repatriation, Aboriginal Culture, Representation and the Past’,

Oceania 77, no. 3 (2007): 313–14. 22. Lambert-Pennington.: 313-14. 23. David Kaus, ‘The Management of Restricted Aboriginal Objects by the National Museum of Australia’, March 2008, https:// recollections.nma.gov.au/issues/vol_3_no_1/notes_and_ comments/the_management_of_restricted_aboriginal_objects. 24. Pickering, Interview. 25. Pickering, Interview. 26. Pickering, Interview. 27. Lambert-Pennington, ‘What Remains?’: 313-14. 28. Pickering, Interview. 29. Pickering, Interview. 30. Claudia Augustat, ‘Colonising Memory: Indigenous Heritage and

Community Engagement’, in Mobile Museums, ed. Felix Driver,

Mark Nesbitt, and Caroline Cornish, Collections in Circulation (UCL

Press, 2021), 283, https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv18kc0px.18. 31. Procter, The Whole Picture, 161. 32. Pickering and Gordon, ‘Repatriation: The End of the Beginning’. 33. Pickering, Interview. 34. Procter, The Whole Picture, 134. 35. Procter, The Whole Picture, 134.