ICOM International Council of Museums - International Institute for ...

objects an illusion of cultural purity and his work the certainty and simplicity of salvage.”(Griffiths, 1996: 54)Katta Djinoong still strongly bears evidence of this type of collecting, it is one of themain threads of the exhibition although the museum seems oblivious of it. Hence, onlabels discussing displayed objects, one reads repeatedly this sort of statement:“Hafted metal adze north Canning Stock Route, collection O.H. Lippert, WesternAustralian Museum 1931.”“Boomerang, York, donated by Colonel Phillips, about 1892.”“Shield, York, donated by Colonel Phillips, about 1892.”“Spearthrower, Vasse District, Donated by A.E.P. West, 1946.”“Spear, South-West donated by Police Museum, 1976.”This denotative language masquerades as neutral. All the labels appear to have beenacquired from European sources. The museum adopts its flat, detached, scientificvoice to record facts about objects made by Aboriginal people. Little information isgiven (or probably can be given) about the objects and this shows that the objects havegone into European hands with little regard for the lives of those who made them. Theissue of the source of the objects is simply ignored. How the objects were used or whoowned them is not recorded, the objects are almost devoid of context.Their isolated display in glass cases is reminiscent of the way the collector, Johns, isdescribed above by Griffiths (1996). Examination of these labels illustrates thehistorical role of the museum in detaching these objects from their owners and thusimplicates the museum in the colonial process of dispossession. Ironically, the implicitintention of Katta Djinoong is to address the issues associated with colonialism: loss ofland, murder, sexual abuse, disease, premature deaths and enduring social problems.At the heart of the exhibition, therefore, is a failure of the museum to recognise its ownrole in colonialism. Riegel (1996) describes a similar process of failure to address theinstitutional role of the museum at the Royal Ontario Museum in its exhibition, Into theHeart of Africa (1989-1990) which examined colonial collecting practices.“In its ambiguous use of irony, it refuses to offer a substantial and unequivocal critiqueof colonial practices of conquest. Rather, it ultimately undermines its oppositionalpotential by refusing to state explicitly the museum’s position in the narrative itself.”(Riegel, 1996: 93)In the ten years that separated this famous Canadian example from the mounting ofKatta Djinoong, the Western Australian Museum had the opportunity to respond to thismuseological problem. In 2004 when the exhibition was relocated to another part of themuseum the opportunity was presented again. The fact that the Western AustralianMuseum did not engage with the institutional role of the museum in the history ofcolonialism indicates that this is still something that is too challenging for mostmuseums.The museum as a cultural leaderThe major museological shift that the Western Australian Museum made in KattaDjinoong was to use multiple voices, this dialogic difference sets it apart from Into theHeart of Africa. In the use of multiple voices, the museum shows that it is engaging withits emerging role in relation to history and that it wishes to be a cultural leader.292