| TELLING IT LIKE IT WAS?- IDEAS ON THE INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY
ELERY HAMILTON-SMITH
Introduction There is currently a widespread awareness of and interest in Australian history. Doubtless, it is all part of the Bi-Centenary, and the extent to which those who can make financial and political capital out of an arbitrary 200 years have fanned the rest of us into an enthusiasm for it. Part of it is also something to do with a new nationalism - seeking to re-establish our identity as a people in a changed and changing world scene. Nevertheless, those who travel are now awake to history in a new way, and likely to increasingly demand a historic perception of what they visit. All too often the interpretation of history rests upon either or both physical artifacts which can be seen and touched, and/or the story of the past hero (or heroes) who played a key role in the establishment of the site. Sometimes these are combined - many U.S. cave tours show visitors the ‘original’ entrance and, at the same time, tell the story of the fearless one who first entered through it. Now although both of these elements may well be an important part of the historical story, they are not in themselves a sufficient basis for the whole story. The artifacts are only a very small part of what once existed, and may even be an atypical part. Much more important artifacts have vanished because they are perishable or because they were deliberately destroyed in the course of re-development. The accident of which items have survived is no basis for an adequate picture of the past. Stories of past heroes are fragile stuff indeed. Inevitably, the hero becomes enlarged; his deeds are exaggerated and narrated out of context; he is glorified at the expense of the non-heroes, who may in fact have been much more important. Important as one individual may be in influencing what happens, a focus on the hero myth is subscribing to the outmoded historical theory that individuals shape the world. There has also been a view of history which assumes that there is only one correct story, and that the historian’s task is simply to find the facts. This, of course, leads not only to a history which simply lists or describes a series of events, but to one which inevitably is an over-simplification. There are differing ways of perceiving what is happening at any given time, and each of these has some validity. In addition, the actors in any event just do not see or know all the influences which may be shaping what does happen. Add to that the fact that each historian has a different way of perceiving the past and reconstructing it in the present, and history becomes very complex indeed. Thus, to take one simple example, the popular history of Buchan tells one story of the past, and this is commonly told to cave visitors and so shapes their perception of the caves. The contemporary accounts in letters, newspapers and photographs tell a quite different story. Interviews with Frank Moon shortly before his death tell still another. The gaps in the contemporary accounts add something more and raise the most interesting questions -Why is there no identifiable photograph of Frank Wilson, who discovered and explored more caves than Frank Moon? What about the wondrous discoveries which Moon told the press about, but which now cannot even be identified? Why was Wilson appointed over the head of Moon? How could it be that Moon’s first great “discovery” was that of a cave which had already been explored and described some years previously? And so on ? To unravel all this is a long and difficult task, which means putting together the varying perceptions which are recorded for us, trying to understand and explain the gaps and ambiguities, and then finding a way to reconstruct the past so that it will make sense in the present. It is not simply a matter of finding the one truth, but of integrating as well as one can the varying truths which people have found in the situation. As a final theoretical note, virtually all current history is the history of men. I have been doing some work with a group of students on the history of tourism in the Grampians - a well-known mountain resort. All the figures who are said to have shaped the Grampians as a tourist resort are men - Alfred and Charles D’Alton, Frederick Pasch and Gilbert Rogers, each of whom guided tourists and introduced them to the region. Women have hardly been noticed, yet almost by accident, we have established that virtually all of those who managed the hotels and guest houses were women. Nobody remembers them or talks of them but a different sense of history would have looked at their obvious influence on the experience of visitors. Tragically, that seems to have been lost. Similarly, and turning to a cave-related example, who is the attractive lady who appears in many of the early 1900s photographs of Jenolan, often in the company of dignitaries? Perhaps she was “just a wife”, or, as has been suggested to me, the housekeeper at Caves House. But in either case, it is obviously significant that she is the one woman who appears in a number of such photographs, yet the (male) recorders of history have not seen fit to record her role in any way. So, all history is selective - it favours particular kinds of story over others, heroes over non-heroes and men over women. Now let us turn to what the cave manager and cave guide might do about all of this. It would be all too easy to say that we don’t know enough, so we have to put up with what we do know and leave it at that. Certainly our knowledge and understanding of spelean history in Australia is very limited (Cave History 1986) but we do know something and we can use that positively until more a more adequate basis is available. Some Examples There are immense differences in the resource and information base for interpretation. Let us start with Jenolan. Here there is a relatively sound traditional history (Havard 1934) and there is a potential basis for turning that history into interpretation (Dunkley 1986a, 1986b). There are also more physical artifacts than probably in any other Australian cave park, probably more writings about Jenolan than all other Australian cave areas put together, an existing historical society focussed on the area, a number of fascinating ambiguities known to the guiding staff, and an already rich popular history. In fact, I doubt if any cave park in the world has a better starting basis for historical inter-pretation. There are also a set of constraints, including a guidebook (Dunlop 1950 and many later editions) which treats history simply as a set of ‘facts’ (many of which can be subjected to other interpretations or even contradictions); a packaging of tours which focuses upon specific routes within the cave system and a particularly inadequate visitor centre. At the other extreme, Buchan has some popular history, virtually all of which is more myth than fact (Hamilton-Smith 1987); virtually no significant historical artifacts; such writings as are known fall into the ‘rare book’ category or are in newspaper stories; guiding staff have no base of historical knowledge other than the popular myths mentioned above; and there is no visitor centre. So, for purposes of this paper, I will use Buchan
as a central example, partly to enhance the
interpretive resources for that area. At the same time,
I will draw upon examples from elsewhere to illustrate what might
be done
When people first settled at Buchan in 1838-39, they probably saw a number of the caves straight away. Certainly a lot of the caves were known from early days and there is no record of their first discovery. By 1885, and perhaps earlier, people were coming to Buchan to visit the caves, and being shown around by local people who used torches of bark soaked in kerosene for lighting. Two government geologists visited the caves, and both, with little success, argued that they should be managed by the government. The local residents also visited the caves for their own enjoyment, and even established picnic tables inside Wilson’s Cave. In 1906, a man called Frank Moon explored what we now call Moon’s Cave, and was given a lot of publicity, even though the cave had been previously explored by two different government geologists. However, the publicity which was given to the area following Moon’s venture increased public interest and encouraged him to look for more caves. It also led to the government taking a much stronger interest in the management of the caves. In March 1907, he found the Fairy Cave. This received even more publicity, and the government then employed Frank Wilson, formerly of Jenolan Caves, to develop the cave with paths and protective netting and to manage the caves of the area, while Moon remained as guide. The popular history tells us a different story - that tourism started with Moon’s discovery of Fairy Cave and that he discovered many other caves in the area. In fact, Frank Wilson, by then in his late 60s, discovered and explored more caves at Buchan than did Moon, yet he is utterly neglected in the popular history and there is not even an identifiable photograph of him. So, a myth built up about Frank Moon - probably not because of any deliberate lies by him or anyone else, but because he had an eye to publicity and friends (Flynn and Bulmer) who could build up that publicity. And, of course, we all like hero stories, so Moon became a hero and non-heroes were forgotten. Now it is one thing to put together a story like that,
but it is quite another to tell it. Let me suggest a few possibilities
There are many of the Bulmer and other early photographs available - a good photographic display with adequate captions should be properly mounted somewhere within the reserve and eventually incorporated into a fully developed visitor centre. Such a display might well include the several photographs which may include Wilson amongst those shown. Then there are a range of possibilities for printed materials. Let us start with the entry ticket - this could be based on the original tickets, each of which carried the guide’s (Moon’s) signature. Early photographs, particularly those showing people, might be reprinted as a postcard set. A simple brochure could tell parts of the story, or in due course, something equivalent to Dunkley (1986b) might be produced. Another possibility would be to reprint one or another of the early brochures or guidebooks. The publications from any Australian parks are generally a poor batch from a historical perspective. Probably the most notable cave exceptions are Dunkley (1986b) already noted, and Olsen (1964, 1978) while the best I have seen from any Australian park is that produced by the WA National Parks Authority for Hill Springs Homestead in Cape Arid National Park. Historic tours of Wilson Cave or Moon’s Cave with candles and kerosene torches could be mounted, also using magnesium ribbon as Moon did, and if possible magnesium lamps as introduced by Wilson. This sort of re-construction is often a very valuable way of demonstrating, rather then merely talking about history. It has considerable potential, and similar practices have been used occasionally at Naracoorte with candle-lit tours of the Blanche Cave, and at Jenolan with various candle-lit tours and the smoke concerts in the Grand Arch. Historic tours are a regular feature in some U.S. caves, perhaps best known at Mammoth. The problem with re-construction is that we can all too easily miss the essential features of what we are trying to convey. Most of our historic village museums throughout Australia present a nostalgic-romantic version of the past with none of the conflict and struggle which actually dominated the scene. So, to return to Buchan as an example - the awfulness of the coach journey from Nowa Nowa, the muddiness of the pre-Wilson cave tours, and the depressed economic conditions which prevailed at the time of Moon’s early work should not be neglected. Buchan fails to provide examples of artifact-based interpretation because the important artifacts have gone. All too often, artifacts are collected together in some sort of museum display, isolated from their real context - and at times there may be little choice. However, let me plead for trying to keep artifacts in context. If we want to show original physical items, it should be in situ - as the magnificent wiring left intact in the Shambles or the Leffel Wheel alongside the creek at Jenolan. Yanchep offers magnificent examples with the tramcar-based worker cottages of the work relief program and the grotesque art nouveau Silver Stocking Cabaret Cave. Yanchep also has the finest setting for its visitor museum, in utilising Gloucester House - the old caves hotel. The ideal way in which to interpret on-site artifacts and other accessible historical features is probably the self-guided walk with an appropriate brochure. However, probably only Jenolan and Yanchep have enough in the way of accessible historic features to establish a self-guided walk. This is regrettable, as the method is a powerful one if well applied. Conclusion By way of summary -history is of considerable interest to the public today,
and should be part of our interpretation
program.
Finally, we are making history now. It amazes me how difficult it is proving to be to re-capture the history of Naracoorte Caves in the 1965-75 period - although we know some of the events which occurred, the reasons and processes behind those events seem to have been lost, just as the same years were probably the most destructive of the physical heritage. So, do not destroy artifacts unthinkingly; keep examples of brochures, tour tickets, guide uniforms, light bulbs, etc.; if anything is changed, record the reasons for the change and the processes by which it took place. The commonplace today will be the raw material of history in even twenty years time, let alone one hundred years. References CAVE HISTORY - Papers presented at the Australian Caves
History Seminar, Helictite, 24(1 & 2)1-64, 1986
|