On Taungurung Land Sharing History and Culture by Uncle Roy Patterson and Jennifer Jones

Abstract

Reviewed by: On Taungurung Land Sharing History and Culture by Uncle Roy Patterson and Jennifer Jones Julia Hurst On Taungurung Land Sharing History and Culture By Uncle Roy Patterson and Jennifer Jones. Canberra: Australian National University Press, 2020. Readers are advised that this writing contains the names of Aboriginal people who are deceased. I attempted a number of times to find my way into the rhythm and knowing of Uncle Roy Patterson and Jennifer Jones’s book On Taungurung Land Sharing History and Culture. My last and final attempt was on 26 January this year as social media pinged with calls to “Change the Date” (of Australia Day) and with pictures of the Aboriginal flag finally “freed.” So, with a heavy critique already instilled in my heart, I began to read through the opening chapters. I must admit for a while I could not find my way into the narrative. I wondered, is this all there is? As I continued though, the story became clear and the deep knowledge, reciprocity and care taken to create this book became evident. I am so glad I persisted. I do, however, have some concerns. Historian Jennifer Jones was approached to co-author this book with Uncle who died before their work was complete. Uncle wanted to secure his knowledge for future generations: “I want this book to get out to people that I don’t teach and schools I don’t get near, to museums and universities that know nothing about it. It will be something to show about our culture” (4). As Jones described, Uncle believed that encounters with significant Aboriginal places and place-based knowledge could be transformative for both Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people. I agree with this sentiment. The book is divided into two sections. The first section (chapters one to five) detail Taungurung history since invasion. Written in Jones’ scholarly voice, her focus is on the settler policies of “protection” that affected Taungurung people and Uncle’s ancestors, highlighting the decisions of relevant white settlers and officials. As Jones explains, her aim was to contextualise the knowledge that Uncle shared with her by developing a biographical and historical picture of the settlers with whom Taungurung people interacted, and to provide a foundation for the full appreciation of Taungurung survival. Intermittently, the ghostly voice of Uncle interrupts the archive to verify the history being shared against his generational oral knowledge. The brief interceptions of Uncle’s voice remind the reader that there is indeed more going on here than meets the archive and this story. The second section (chapters six to eight) focuses on Taungurung cultural knowledge as passed down to Uncle. Written in his voice, this section offers a keen and welcome departure from the first. His storytelling relates to his generational and cultural knowledge of bush tucker, bush medicine and Taungurung cultural practices. This section is richly descriptive and generous. However, the writing was left to Jones and when people asked her whether she could finish the book without Uncle, she reflected, “perhaps the answer should have been ‘no’” (7). I do not believe that this should have been the case although I do wonder why she persisted if this is what she thinks. I can imagine, if Uncle was still alive, the structure of the book might be very different, and here there is an important point to make. Uncle had no control over the final product, his legacy. Jones’ aim was to provide a foundation for Uncle’s story to rest. She presents the reader with an archival history of Aboriginal protection, greed and power on Taungurung land and a separate account of Uncle’s generational Aboriginal Knowledge. This structure sits uneasily with me because it sustains a status quo whereby the very active making of Aboriginal history, storytelling and handing-down of his generational knowledge at the time of invasion, colonisation and making of the archive still remains. Why does the archive of his scholarly work (as Aboriginal expert) sit outside of the “scholarly archive” of Jones’ historical writing? Is Uncle’s generational knowledge not considered part of history-making? What is so obvious about this work, is that Taungurong people were handing on...