Ownership and a peripatetic collection: Raymond Firth’s Collection from Tikopia, Solomon Islands. In A Pacific Odyssey: Archaeology and Anthropology in the Western Pacific. Papers in Honour of Jim Specht

The ethnographic collection made by Sir Raymond Firth in Tikopia, Solomon Islands, in 1928 and 1929 is used as a case study for the examination of the different meanings and interpretations attributed to museum collections. This collection is now housed at the Australian Museum in Sydney. In the 1970s the collection was subject to a repatriation request by the National Museum of the Solomon Islands, but the collection was not returned. In examining the progress of this request the history of the collection is traced, including acquisition in the field and subsequent re-locations between university, state and national bodies in Australia. I suggest that the reasons for the failure of the National Museum of the Solomon Islands to successfully negotiate the return of this collection lie in the nature of the repatriation request as an expression of political difference at a national level rather than cultural difference at the local level, and in the specific social relationships, past and present, surrounding the collection. However, the contemporary attitudes to the collection identified in this study should not be assumed to remain constant, as future generations of Tikopia may well reassess the cultural value of this collection. I conclude that museums are sites which mediate specific social relationships, at specific times in history. BONSHEK, ELIZABETH, 2004. Ownership and a peripatetic collection: Raymond Firth’s Collection from Tikopia, Solomon Islands. In A Pacific Odyssey: Archaeology and Anthropology in the Western Pacific. Papers in Honour of Jim Specht, ed. Val Attenbrow and Richard Fullagar, pp. 37–45. Records of the Australian Museum, Supplement 29. Sydney: Australian Museum. Records of the Australian Museum, Supplement 29 (2004): 37–45 ISBN 0-9750476-3-9 www.amonline.net.au/pdf/publications/1400_complete.pdf In the 1970s, twenty years prior to its transfer to the Australian Museum from the National Museum of Australia, the Firth Collection was earmarked for repatriation to the Solomon Islands. However, despite being partially funded for return, the collection remained in Australia. In this paper I examine some of the meanings of this collection in its Australian contexts by drawing upon documents and correspondence transferred to the Australian Museum along with the objects. In doing so I seek to shed light on why the return was not completed. In addition, I draw upon information gathered by Leonie Oakes (1988) in her survey and summary of papers relating to the University of Sydney Collection. In presenting a brief and necessarily partial history of the Firth Collection in Australia, I argue that it is people who attribute potency to objects and without a social context for repatriation, objects in museum collections remain simply “things”. Throughout this paper I refer to a number of different collections. For the purposes of clarity I will identify these now before embarking upon the main body of the paper. The Tikopia material forms one component of the University of Sydney Collection, which was made by anthropologists 38 Records of the Australian Museum, Supplement 29 (2004) working at the newly founded Anthropology Department from 1926. This collection includes materials from both Aboriginal Australia and the Pacific Region. One of the first researchers in the Anthropology Department was Raymond Firth who collected 641 objects during his first field trip to the tiny island of Tikopia in the Solomon Islands in 1928 and 1929. It is this collection which I henceforth refer to as “the 1928–1929 Firth Collection” although it falls within the umbrella of the University of Sydney Collection. Firth did in fact make a second collection in 1956 while working in Tikopia with his colleague James Spillius. I refer to this collection as “the Firth-Spillius Collection”. This collection forms one component of the Australian National University Collection, which is now housed on campus in Canberra. For a considerable number of years, both the University of Sydney Collection and the Australian National University Collection were housed, as part of the National Ethnographic Collection, in the basement of the Institute of Anatomy in Canberra, home to what is now ScreenSound Australia. In the documentation used in this paper, this institution is referred to by its previous name, the Australian Film and Sound Archive. During this period the ownership of the University of Sydney Collection was ambiguous. However, in 1989 the National Museum of Australia transferred ownership of the Pacific Island components of this collection to the Australian Museum. Notwithstanding the complexities of these interactions, and the large number of objects involved in addition to the Tikopia collections, it is the 1928–1929 Firth Collection that is the central focus of this paper. As a staff member of the Anthropology Division at the Australian Museum, my interest in this material has developed within the Museum’s positive stance on repatriation. This position has been fostered by Jim Specht who, since his career at the Australian Museum began in 1970, has worked tirelessly to build relationships between indigenous people and the Australian Museum. He has overseen the repatriation of many ethnographic objects, most of these returning to the national museums of Papua New Guinea, Vanuatu and the Solomon Islands, and has contributed to the literature on cultural heritage issues, collections and museums through 29 publications (Khan this volume). I am indebted to Jim for his knowledge and insights concerning issues relating to museums and cultural heritage. This paper is divided into four sections. In the first, I recount the sequence of events surrounding the request for repatriation, how the request was handled and by whom. This information is drawn from correspondence held by the National Museum of Australia, copies of which were transferred to the Australian Museum along with the collection. The second section describes the movement of the collection between Sydney and Canberra to become part of the National Ethnographic Collection. The third section examines the relocation of the collection to the Australian Museum and considers the status of the collection as “cultural heritage”. The last section examines the social relationships mediated by the objects in the collection both in the past and in the present. A brief chronology of an unsuccessful repatriation request In the 1960s the Honiara Museum Association was formed to find funding to build a museum and to unify the various collections scattered in colonial government buildings. This association, where members were for the most part expatriate government officials, obtained funds from the Gulbenkian Foundation, England, for a building and exhibition space (Foanaóta, 1994: 96), and the first gallery opened in 1969. Further funds were acquired through annual contributions from local councils in addition to international and local donations. In 1972 the Honiara Museum became the Solomon Islands National Museum and Cultural Centre and came under central government control. The institution’s aims were to collect cultural materials and information, carry out research, disseminate information through exhibitions and educational programs, and to entertain the general public. The collections comprised ethnographic and archaeological material, as well as natural history, geology and social history collections, including war relics (Foanaóta, 1994: 96). In the early 1970s Anna Craven, curator at the Solomon Islands National Museum, wrote to several museums in Australia and requested the repatriation of Solomon Islands cultural heritage materials. At this time the Firth 1928–1929 Collection was stored as part of the National Ethnographic Collection in the basement of the Institute of Anatomy. Professor Firth supported Craven’s request arguing that the people of the Solomon Islands “have a right to be educated in their cultural heritage” (Firth, 1973a). Both focused on the importance of the collection as the national heritage of the Solomon Islands, but while Craven wanted all material returned, Firth suggested that some of his collection remain to represent Tikopia people in Australia. The National Museum of Australia undertook to investigate the legal status of the collection (Keith, 1973). In 1977 Craven, frustrated by the lack of progress, wrote again to the National Museum of Australia (Craven, 1977). Firth also wrote to the Public Affairs and Cultural Relations Division of the Department of Foreign Affairs in 1978 pointing out that the Solomon Islands now had a museum where these objects could be preserved. Against the background of independence, Solomon Islanders were interested in their cultural heritage and he felt that Solomon Islanders should have access to items of their cultural heritage (Firth, 1978a). Letters were also written to Dr Jim Specht calling upon his assistance in the return (Firth, 1978a; Specht, 1978). In January 1979, the Firth-Spillius Collection from Tikopia, made in 1956, was brought into discussion for repatriation too. This collection was owned by the Anthropology Department at the Australian National University, and was also held in the basement of the Institute of Anatomy. While Firth supported the return of the FirthSpillius Collection, Spillius requested that twelve items be retained for himself (Spillius, 1979a). Both Firth and Spillius thought some of the 1956 collection should be put on display at the Australian National University for teaching purposes (Spillius, 1979b). Conservators assessed the 1928–1929 and 1956 collections—some 980 objects—and made preparations for their return (Preiss, 1980). The proposed return was approved by the Department of Home Affairs in March 1980 (Ryan, 1980). Bonshek: Raymond Firth’s Collection from Solomon Islands 39 However, in April of that year, in a letter from Foreign Affairs to the Department of Health, it was s