By Dr. JACOB L SIMET
IT WAS reported on January 07 this year (The National, pp.3) that a group of Bougainvilleans removed an advertising sign-board of a certain telecommunications company, somewhere on Buka, which portrayed the sacred “Upe” hat in a form which seriously violated what we may refer to as “cultural protocol”.
Cultural protocol being the rules and regulations which guide the use of such cultural properties; whether they be sacred or otherwise.
According to the report, Bougainville chiefs were offended by the billboard which “depicted Bougainville’s sacred emblem, the initiation Upe, being trampled on by women, which is against Bougainville custom and traditions”.
We are told that this kind of action by the people relating to the “Upe” had happened on at least three occasions before. On one of these earlier actions, it was against the Autonomous Bougainville Government (ABG) for violations against the protocols of the “Upe” tradition.
Another incident on Bougainville reported in the media led to the ABG taking severe disciplinary action against some senior public servants, for violations of cultural protocol. It was alleged that sometime after the death of Peter Tsiamalili, the senior public servants were drinking at his grave, resulting in some of them either urinating on or very close to the grave. This action was in serious breach of customary observance of respect for the late Peter Tsiamalili but also the dead generally.
In 1992. The National Cultural Commission got a telephone call from Rabaul requesting someone travel there immediately to inspect two containers of what were alleged to be “sacred” items which were packed ready for export at the Rabaul wharf. The items, bought by a German artifact dealer, were destined for Europe. The locals had managed to put a stop to the shipment.
On inspection we found that both containers had an assortment of cultural items from East New Britain; covering Baining, Pomio and Tolai, Duke of York Islands, while the other items were from the Namatanai district in New Ireland province.
The “sacred” component of this shipment were a number of masks, figurines and at least thirteen coils of tabu (shell-money) from the Tolai, Duke of York and Namatanai area. There were also a number of madas masks from the Baining area.
The inspection was done together with leaders from these areas who declared these items as prohibited from export. The items were removed from the containers; most of them were ritually destroyed immediately, some were stored in a tubuan sanctuary which were destroyed in the 1994 volcanic eruptions while the rest were moved into storage where they are still located today.
The Rabaul incident of 1992 illustrates the kind of challenges which the cultures of the indigenous peoples of PNG have had to endure since the first outsiders set foot on our shores.
Amongst those early entrepreneurs of all sorts, there were those artifact dealers who dealt in what was called the “primitive art” trade.
While the 1992 Rabaul story was about the unauthorized appropriation of actual tangible cultural material, the 2008 Bougainville story is about the unauthorized appropriation of the same kinds of cultural material in different format, ie, image form.
Both stories are about the misappropriation of peoples cultural properties for purposes related to trade and without due regard for the value and importance of these items to the owners.
In recent years there has been growing concern about peoples’ cultural properties being misappropriated.
There are a number of reasons for this concern, among which is the growing value of some of these properties in the world of intellectual property. But more than this, there is a growing awareness and concern by indigenous people, about the ways their properties have been used. There is concern about the violations of the rules and regulations regarding their cultural properties, which we could generally refer to as “cultural protocol”.
In some parts of PNG, specific rules and regulations regulate the creation, use and disposal of certain cultural items. In the Gulf province for instance, masks are created and used within specific guidelines. The masks are created for specific purposes and are supposed to be “alive” for a specific time only. After the use of these masks in ceremonials, one of the most important rules to be observed is that they have to be ritually destroyed within a certain time-frame. The destruction of the mask is done in entirety, which means no part of the mask, including even the design is to be saved for any reason. What is to remain and is passed onto future generations is stored in people’s heads.
For those of us who have the mandate to safeguard and maintain indigenous peoples’ cultural heritage with some integrity, the types of stories such as those of Bougainville and Rabaul present constant challenges. To deal with the kind of situation as presented in the Rabaul story, some national laws had to be drawn to address them, such the Antiquities Ordinances of the Colonial era.
This has since been superseded by what is now known as the National Cultural Properties and Preservations Act 1965, and other related provisions of the National Museum and Art Gallery Act 1993 and the National Cultural Commission Act 1994.
At the same time we understand that some support protection are provided by other national laws such as those regarding Environment and Conservation, Customary Law and relevant provisions of the Organic Laws on Provincial and Local Governments.
The Bougainville story demonstrates a practice which seems to have become common-place today. This is where everyone, most particularly commercial entities go about using indigenous peoples cultural properties, both material and non-material in ways and for purposes which seriously violate “cultural protocol”.
The most common of these is the use of still and moving images of cultural forms in ways which indigenous people find disrespectful and offensive. These are evident in billboards everywhere around the country, in advertising magazines and other publications and as moving images in public television.
In many of these cases, no approval has been sought and obtained from the owners of these cultural forms, in that arrangement which known in many international fora as “prior informed consent”. No advice is sought on the appropriateness or inappropriateness of use of these images. These violations are not restricted to sacred items such as the “Upe” hat or “Tubuan” masks, they also include other cultural items such as cultural performance costumes, over which there are clear access and use restrictions.
In many ways the new challenges to the integrity of indigenous people’s cultural properties relate to technological developments, such a those in information and communication technology. However, much of this relates to a lack of understanding and appreciation of the value and sanctity of indigenous peoples’ cultural value systems. There is wrong assumption that all of indigenous peoples’ cultural property is in that area of copyright known as the “public domain” and are free for all to use. There is also further misunderstanding that what are of importance are the actual physical items and things such as photographs and recordings in other forms are of no importance.
Quite the contrary, images are very important in PNG and Melanesian cultures.
In PNG we are looking at developing new instruments which would respond directly and more effectively to these new challenges. One such initiative is the work being undertaken in partnership with Pacific Island states and some international organizations; to protect indigenous people’s Traditional Knowledge and Traditional Cultural Expressions (TK&TCEs).
This will support the existing national legislations such as Sections 42 and 44 of the Organic Law on Provincial and Local Level Governments, National Cultural Commission and National Museum legislations.
Concern with the new challenges is felt at a number of different international fora, such as UNESCO, the Convention on Biodiversity (CBD), World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) and the World Trade Organization (WTO).

 

Previous | Back to Top | Next