There are Many Difficult Problems

The Journal of Pacific History

ISSN: 0022-3344 (Print) 1469-9605 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cjph20

There are Many Difficult Problems Geoffrey Gray To cite this article: Geoffrey Gray (2003) There are Many Difficult Problems, The Journal of Pacific History, 38:3, 313-330, DOI: 10.1080/0022334032000154065 To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/0022334032000154065

Published online: 03 Jun 2010.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 45

View related articles

Citing articles: 2 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=cjph20

The Journal of Pacific History, Vol. 38, No. 3, 2003

313

There are Many Difficult Problems Ernest William Pearson Chinnery — Government Anthropologist

GEOFFREY GRAY LITTLE HAS BEEN WRITTEN ON PRE-WORLD WAR II AUSTRALIAN COLONIAL OFFICIALS,

such as Ernest William Pearson Chinnery (1887–1972), who occupied senior positions in Australian colonial administration.1 Chinnery’s position was unique. His appointments — Government Anthropologist, Director of District Services in New Guinea, Commonwealth Advisor on Native Affairs and Director of the Northern Territory Department of Native Affairs as well as his earlier service in Papua — make him one of the few colonial officials to work in the three main Australian administered territories of Papua, New Guinea and the Northern Territory.2 What set Chinnery apart from most of his contemporaries was his promotion of anthropological training for colonial field staff, his support for an anthropologically informed colonial policy and practice and his status as a departmental head, first as Government Anthropologist and then as Director of District Services, reporting directly to the Administrator.3 Chinnery was born in Waterloo, a Victorian country town, in 1887. He joined the Papuan service in 1909 as a clerk. ‘Seeking the prestige of field service’, he was appointed as a patrol officer in July 1910 and posted as a relieving officer to Ioama in the Mambare division. The next three years were spent in the Kumusi division, where he claimed to have obtained the respect and confidence of the local tribes; he reputedly underwent a tribal initiation ceremony. But his relations with the

1 See, e.g., G.W.L. Townsend, District Officer: from untamed New Guinea to Lake Success, 1921–1946 (Sydney 1968); J.K. McCarthy, Patrol Into Yesterday (Sydney 1964); Ian Downs, The Last Mountain: a life in Papua New Guinea (St Lucia 1986); George Stocking, ‘Gatekeeper to the field: E.W.P. Chinnery and ethnography of the New Guinea Mandate’, History of Anthropology Newsletter, 9⬊2 (1982), 3–12; Robin Radford, Highlanders and Foreigners in the Upper Ramu: the Kainantu area, 1919–1942 (Melbourne 1987); Deidre J.F. Griffiths, ‘The Career of F.E. Williams, Government Anthropologist of Papua, 1922–1943’, MA thesis, Australian National University (Canberra 1977); Sarah Chinnery, Malaguna Road: the Papua and New Guinea diaries of Sarah Chinnery, ed. and intro. Kate Fortune (Canberra 1998); Naomi McPherson, ‘Wanted: young man, must like adventure. Ian McCallum Mack, Patrol Officer’, in Naomi M. McPherson (ed.), In Colonial New Guinea: anthropological perspectives (Pittsburgh 2001); George Westermark, ‘Anthropology and administration. Colonial ethnography in the Papua New Guinea Eastern Highlands’, in ibid.; cf. Maria Lepowsky, ‘The Queen of Sudest. White women and colonial cultures in British New Guinea and Papua’, in ibid.; Francis West, ‘An Australian moving frontier’, in Niel Gunson (ed.), The Changing Pacific (Melbourne 1978); Francis West, Hubert Murray: the Australian Pro-Consul (Melbourne 1968); Bill Gammage, The Sky Travellers: journeys in New Guinea 1938–1939 (Melbourne 1998); Francis West, ‘E.W.P. Chinnery’, Australian Dictionary of Biography, vol. 7 (Melbourne 1979), 639–40; I.C. Campbell, ‘Anthropology and the professionalisation of colonial administration in Papua and New Guinea’, Journal of Pacific History, 33 (1998), 69–90; Geoffrey Gray, ‘Being honest to my science: Reo Fortune and J.H.P. Murray, 1927–1930’, The Australian Journal of Anthropology, 10 (1999), 56–76. This list is by no means exhaustive. 2 Others who worked in Papua and New Guinea and Australia include Leo Austen, who obtained work with the New South Wales Aborigines’ Welfare Board, and, S.G. Middleton, who was appointed Commissioner for Native Affairs in Western Australia. 3 Various, Canberra, National Archives of Australia (hereinafter NAA), A452/1, 1959/6066, Pt 1.

ISSN 0022-3344 print; 1469-9605 online/03/030313-18; Carfax Publishing; Taylor and Francis Ltd  2003 The Journal of Pacific History Inc. DOI: 10.1080/0022334032000154065

314

JOURNAL OF PACIFIC HISTORY

white residents of Papua were not so amicable. In the Rigo district in 1914, a patrol led by him clashed with tribesmen and seven were shot. J.H.P. Murray, LieutenantGovernor of Papua, ‘saw the incident as probably unavoidable’.4 By 1917, Chinnery was patrolling into new country behind Kairuku and into the Kunimaipa valley, where he discovered, he claimed, the source of the Waria River.5 He served as a flying officer (navigator) in the Australian Imperial Force during World War I. In tracing Chinnery’s professional life and the role of anthropology in colonial administration, I ask, first, a general question: in what ways, if any, did anthropology affect the practice of colonial administration? Secondly, more specifically, was Chinnery, because of his ‘anthropological method’, able to affect changes in policy and practice in New Guinea?6 In considering these questions, I discuss briefly the development of anthropology during the inter-war period, and its emphasis on assisting colonial practice. Chinnery was attracted to anthropology early in his colonial career, although his initial interest may have been sparked when working in the Papuan administration under J.H.P. Murray, who took an interest in ethnology and the use of anthropology in colonial administration. His interest further developed through correspondence with Alfred Cort Haddon, who had read a report by Chinnery on an initiation ceremony and sent him literature on native races. Due to his correspondence with Haddon, he was able to see his work ‘from a wider angle and to use new methods, which brought me into closer and more intimate touch with native thought and the problems ahead, and which took me farther into the confidence of the people themselves’.7 Chinnery’s interest in what he called ‘anthropological method’ in native administration was formed by his experience with Haddon when he did a diploma in anthropology8 at Cambridge in 1919. He also studied psychology under W.H.R. Rivers. Haddon and Rivers were considered the leading 4 Chinnery described this encounter to the Royal Geographic Society. See E.W.P. Chinnery, ‘The opening of new territories in Papua’, Geographical Journal, June (1920), 439–59; ‘The application of anthropological methods to tribal development in New Guinea’, Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute, 49 (1919), 36–41. 5 West, ‘E.W.P. Chinnery’, 639–40. 6 The influence of anthropology on colonial administration and colonial (native) policy has been discussed extensively with a range of views regarding the effect of anthropology on colonial practice, e.g. Talal Asad (ed.), Anthropology and the Colonial Encounter (London 1975); Adam Kuper, Anthropology and Anthropologists: the modern British School (3rd edn, New York 1996); Nicholas Thomas, Colonialism’s Culture: anthropology, travel, and government (Melbourne1994); Robert C. Kiste and Mac Marshall (eds), American Anthropology in Micronesia: an assessment (Honolulu 1999); John Gledhill, Power and Its Disguises: anthropological perspectives on politics (London 2000); McPherson (ed.), In Colonial New Guinea; Sally Falk Moore, ‘Changing perspectives on a changing Africa: the work of anthropology’, in Robert H. Bates, V.Y. Mudimbe and Jean O’Barr (eds), Africa and the Disciplines (Chicago 1993), 3–57. 7 E.W.P. Chinnery, ‘Applied anthropology in New Guinea’, Presidential Address, Section F — Anthropology, Sydney, Aug. 1932, p. 164, copy in Chinnery Papers (hereinafter CP; see explanation in Acknowledgements). E.W.P. Chinnery and A.C. Haddon, ‘Five new religious cults in New Guinea’, Hibbert Journal, 15 (1917), 448–63. Cf. Peter Worsley, The Trumpet Shall Sound: a study of ‘cargo’ cults in Melanesia (London 1970), 69; W.E.H. Stanner, The South Seas in Transition (Sydney 1953), 61. Haddon conducted a wide ranging correspondence with colonial administrators and missionaries, especially in the Pacific and the Torres Strait Islands. 8 The diploma course comprised three terms of instruction in prehistoric and historic anthropology, ethnology (including sociology and comparative religion) and physical anthropology. A dissertation was also required. A.C. Haddon, ‘The regulations for obtaining a diploma of anthropology in the University of Cambridge’, Man, 79 (1908), 42.

MANY DIFFICULT PROBLEMS

315

anthropologists of their generation. Haddon is often credited with introducing participant observation as an anthropological method: he brought together two important principles — long fieldwork and the use of the local language. During the inter-war years, there was a vigorous debate, especially in the 1920s, about the importance of anthropology as an aid to native (colonial) administration. It could assist in what were considered the many difficult problems of preparing ‘primitive’ or ‘backward’ peoples for civilisation. These problems included depopulation, magical practices, sorcery, native marriage, ‘cargo cults’, burial customs, mortuary rites, ‘headhunting’, social control, land tenure, the ‘economics of native foods’, the influence of European contact on ‘backward’ peoples and such like. One of Chinnery’s teachers, Rivers, set out how ‘anthropology can point the way to the better Government’ of peoples ruled by Britain. According to Rivers, there were three possible lines of action when one people assumes the management of another: destruction, preservation or compromise. Whatever the degree of interference, ‘knowledge of the culture to be modified is absolutely necessary if changes are to be made without serious injury to the moral and material welfare of the people’.9 Many anthropologists and colonial administrators sought to understand the meaning of ‘culture contact’ or ‘culture clash’, and the effect this encounter with Europe had on native life.10 Anthropologists considered themselves well suited to conduct such investigations and provide, to government, a scientific method for developing and controlling native peoples, civilising ‘backward’ peoples and hence creating harmony between natives and Europeans. Haddon was especially persistent in arguing the ‘Practical value of Ethnology in regard to the Administration of backward peoples’.11 By the application of knowledge gained through research, ‘the natives themselves [could be encouraged] to take an active interest and responsibility for their own progress’. Moreover, anthropological research could be used in fulfilling the spirit of the League of Nations Mandate requirement for the ‘moral and spiritual progress of the natives’.12 A.R. Radcliffe-Brown, Raymond Firth and A.P. Elkin, at various times professors of anthropology in the University of Sydney, all asserted that without intensive field research anthropology could not fulfil its practical aims, ‘fitted to the needs of those who have the task of administering to native peoples’.13 Elkin commented that, as a general rule, anthropology ‘endeavours to supply detailed knowledge of native social life in all its ramifications, and so be in the position to offer suggestions with 9 W.H.R. Rivers, ‘The government of subject peoples’, in A.C. Seward (ed.), Science and the Nation: essays by Cambridge

graduates (Cambridge

1917), 302–3, 305. For an interesting discussion on these matters see Sjoerd Jaarsma, ‘Conceiving New Guinea: ethnography as a phenomenon of contact’, in McPherson (ed.), In Colonial New Guinea. 11 Haddon to Prime Minister (Hughes), 23 Sept. 1921, NAA, A452, 1959/6066, Pt 1; Knibbs and Spencer to Pearce, 28 Apr. 1924, NAA, A518, P806/1/1, Pt I. 12 Chinnery, ‘Applied anthropology in New Guinea’. Cf. J. Ainsworth, ‘Report on administrative arrangements and matters affecting the interests of natives, 1924’, Commonwealth Parliamentary Papers, 1923–24, vol. 4 (Melbourne 1924). 13 Radcliffe-Brown to Lowie, 28 June 1927, Sydney, University of Sydney Archives, Elkin Papers (hereinafter EP), 164/4/2/17. 10

316

JOURNAL OF PACIFIC HISTORY

regard to changes which are considered desirable’.14 ‘I found it easier’, Chinnery told the audience at the 1955 ANZAAS Conference in Melbourne, ‘after training in anthropology and scientific methods of enquiry, to study the beliefs and practices of the people, to win and retain their confidence, and to help them through their problems, and changes due to Government, Mission and Industrial influences’.15 The creation of the position of Government Anthropologist in the Territory of Papua and later in the Mandated Territory of New Guinea was partly a response to this debate. The Protector of Natives in New Guinea, H.C. Cardew, advocated establishing a position of ‘Government Ethnologist’. He set out the three main reasons, accepted in part or in whole by those most engaged in the debate, why such a position was of benefit to government and attractive to scientists. He contended that ‘a good deal of information concerning the sociology and customs of the native life in its primitive state in the Territory is being passed over’; that ‘the value of the report to the League of Nations would be enhanced by a comprehensive Ethnological Survey of portion of the Territory’, and finally that a ‘study of Ethnology is deemed a necessary adjunct of native administration in most other Colonial administrations’.16 The secretary of the Department of Home and Territories told his minister that the ‘appointment of an Anthropologist to the staff of the New Guinea Administration would afford a tangible assurance to the League of Nations and to the world generally of Australia’s appreciation of its obligations under the Mandate’.17 The Papuan Government Anthropologist was expected ‘to advise the Government on questions of practical administration, and so assist [it] in [its] task of fitting or, as it were, dovetailing existing customs into the new civilisation [the government officers] are introducing’.18 For example, W.E. Armstrong, who was assistant Government Anthropologist in Papua 1919–20, advised the Papuan administration over issues such as the hostile attitude of missionaries to mortuary feasts, pointing out the feasts’ value as ‘an excellent vehicle for the expression of grief and respect for the dead person’, and he considered specific questions which concerned the Papuan administration such as food tabus and fasting and the effect on the people’s health.19 F.E. Williams, assistant Government Anthropologist 1921–28, Government Anthropologist of Papua to 1943, did not see his role as simply confined to working for the administration, however; he argued that he should be able to undertake field research ‘just the same as his unofficial colleagues’.20 His 14

A.P. Elkin, ‘Anthropology and the Australian Aboriginal’, in J.S. Needham (ed.), White and Black in Australia (London 1935), 34. 15 Chinnery, ANZAAS, 1955. Copy in CP. 16 Memorandum, Prime Minister’s Department, nd, NAA, A452/1, 1959/6066 Pt 1. 17 Minute, Department of Home and Territories, 10 Sept. 1923, NAA, A452/1, 1959/6066 Pt 1. 18 J.H.P. Murray, Foreword to F.E. Williams, The Natives of the Purari Delta, Papua Anthropology Report No. 5 (Port Moresby 1924), iii. 19 W.E. Armstrong, The Suau-Tawala, Papua Anthropology Report No. 1 (Port Moresby 1921), 31–2. 20 F.E. Williams, ‘Creed of a Government Anthropologist’, in Erik Schwimmer (ed.), Francis Edgar Williams: ‘The Vailala Madness’ and other essays (London 1976), 409–11, 399. Walter Strong, Chief Medical Officer, was Government Anthropologist until 1928.

MANY DIFFICULT PROBLEMS

317

body of work shows that possibly he concentrated more on intensive rather than survey research.21 Chinnery may have harboured similar aims, but he was preoccupied with the application of anthropology to native administration. Part of his duty as Government Anthropologist was to be critical of policy: ‘if there is anything wrong about the policy of administration it is my job to point out where it is wrong and how it can be adjusted’.22 Elkin, however, contended that a territory was a place of ‘experiment’, where the administration and missions were altering a people’s way of life. ‘And while both the Administration and the Missions cannot but observe some of the obvious results of their experiments, it is the task of the Government Anthropologist to observe the experiments in a methodical and scientific manner, to report and advise’.23 Murray was more direct: a Government Anthropologist must not forget that ‘our direct aim is its application to practical administration’.24 While at Cambridge, Chinnery presented a lecture to the Royal Geographic Society in which he outlined the ‘sound principles of [native] administrative policy’. He used examples from his work in Papua and emphasised the importance of ‘peaceful penetration’, enlisting the support of villagers through ‘friendly means’ in ‘weaning the tribes from such practices as headhunting and cannibalism’.25 He was eager to apply his new knowledge. to Atlee Hunt, Government Secretary, seeking support for Chinnery to stay in England to complete some anthropological studies with a view to these qualifications assisting him in promotion in the Papuan service. Hunt discussed these matters with Murray, who informed him that he could not arrange a position for Chinnery on his return to Papua. Much of this was unknown to Haddon. When Murray was searching for a Government Anthropologist, Haddon put forward Chinnery’s name. Murray wrote to his brother Gilbert:

HADDON WROTE

We have a man called [Chinnery] who is in England now — Haddon has a great opinion of him and wants him appointed. But he would not do at all — he is quite unreliable as to observation, collection of evidence etc — he will say any mortal thing in order to excite interest and attract attention. Not that he is a liar — but he must attract notice.26

Having failed to gain a government post in Papua, Chinnery left England in 1920 to take up a position as supervisor of native labour for New Guinea Copper at Bootless Bay in Papua. He made representations to the Australian government, including the Prime Minister, for an ‘anthropological appointment’ in the League of Nations Mandated Territory of New Guinea. To demonstrate his enthusiasm 21 Griffiths, ‘The career of F.E. Williams’, 223. 22 Chinnery to Haddon, 10 Apr. 1925, CP. 23 A.P. Elkin, ‘F.E. Williams. Government Anthropologist’, Oceania, 14 (1943), 92. 24 Murray to Gilbert, 7 Nov. 1922, Francis West, Selected Letters of J.H.P. Murray (Melbourne 1970), 114. 25 ‘At the sign of the world’s cross roads. A young Australian administrator’, The Field, 6 Mar. 1920, in NAA, A1/1,

item 21/9820. 26 Murray to Atlee Hunt, 21 Mar. 1919, NAA, A1/1, item 21/9820; also Murray to Gilbert Murray, 2 Dec. 1919, Murray to Gilbert, 17 July 1919, in West, , 106–7 (West deletes Chinnery’s name). Cf. Minute, Murray, 22 Mar. 1922, NAA, A452, 1959/6066, Pt 1. Selected Letters of Hubert Murray

318

JOURNAL OF PACFIC HISTORY

and commitment to anthropology and its use in the governance of native peoples, he advised the Commonwealth that while he waited for a reply he was going on to Papua to spend a short time in the mountains investigating the social organisatioin of one of the ‘negrito tribes’.27 At the Pan Pacific Science Congress of 1923, there was considerable support for creating a position of Government Anthropologist in New Guinea.28 Murray, who had been consulted by the government, while conditionally supportive of a Chair of Anthropology in an Australian university, was not overly enthusiastic about an anthropological position in New Guinea, although he recognised its value for Australia internationally.29 He did not encourage his officers to obtain expert training in anthropology: rather he selected his staff personally, as far as possible choosing them from men who had grown up in the country, experience which he felt qualified them better than any special training.30 The Administrator of New Guinea, E.A. Wisdom, initially was opposed to the establishment of a position of anthropologist on economic grounds: ‘the policy of the Territory is to live within its income … I cannot afford an anthropologist at present’.31 By January the following year, Wisdom accepted that a position of Government Anthropologist which was ‘entirely for the direct benefit of the natives’ should be paid for by the Native Education Trust Fund.32 G.F. Pearce, the responsible minister, supported the creation of such a position, informing Earle Page, acting Prime Minister, that the League of Nations would welcome the appointment as a ‘tangible assurance of Australia’s appreciation of its obligations under the Mandate to safeguard the rights and interests, and generally promote the moral and material progress, of the native population’.33 Chinnery commenced duty on 25 April 1924.34 He understood his appointment was to advise on native administrative matters. At Chinnery’s suggestion, the minister told the Administrator that Chinnery’s first few months in the Territory should be spent in the outside districts for the purpose of — 1. making a general investigation of the distribution, cultures and conditions of native inhabitants; 2. becoming acquainted with District Officers, their methods of

27

Chinnery to Prime Minister, 25 May 1921, NAA, A452,1959/6066, Pt 1; Chinnery to Official Secretary, Commonwealth of Australia, 27 May 1921, NAA, A518/1, R815/1 Pt 1. 28 Notes by Alfred C. Haddon, ‘Anthropological research in Territory of New Guinea’, 10 Sept. 1923; Resolutions from Pan Pacific Science Congress, 1923: NAA, A452/1, 1959/6066, Pt 1. See also J.H.P. Murray’s address in NAA, A452/1, 1959/6066, Pt 1. 29 Memorandum, Home and Territories Department, 18 Oct. 1923, NAA, A452, 1959/6066, Pt 1. Cf. Campbell, ‘Anthropology and the professionalisation’, takes a view stressing the importance of Murray and downplaying the role played by both British based anthropologists such as Haddon and Australian scientists as represented by the ANRC. See also Gray, ‘Being honest to my science’, passim. 30 Lucy Mair, Australia in New Guinea (London 1948), 12. Cf. Campbell, ‘Anthropology and the professionalisation’. 31 Wisdom to Secretary, Home and Territories Department, 22 Sept. 1923, NAA, A452, 1959/6066, Pt 1. 32 Wisdom, 12 Jan.1924, NAA, A452, 1959/6066, Pt 1. Cabinet approved the position in January 1924. 33 Pearce to Acting Prime Minister, 6 Jan. 1924, NAA, A452, 1959/6066, Pt 1. Earle Page’s brother Harold was Government Secretary in New Guinea. 34 Secretary, Home and Territories, to Chinnery, 4 June 1924, NAA, A452, 1959/6066, Pt 1.

MANY DIFFICULT PROBLEMS

319

native administration, etc. and 3. examining the conditions of life and treatment of native labour on various places of employment.35

Chinnery hoped to be more than a Government Anthropologist burdened with the requirements of colonial administration. He nevertheless recognised that the nature of his work would preclude him from ‘really exhaustive study in any one area’, although he did undertake long periods in the field.36 On several occasions, he attempted to return to Cambridge with the intention of undertaking a Doctorate of Philosophy; he asked Haddon whether he could arrange for his service in New Guinea to be counted as fieldwork so that he could ‘offer the material I am doing here either for the PhD or the MSc’.37 He confided to Haddon: ‘Although most of my time has been spent [on] administrative duties with little direct gain to anthropology I have accumulated an enormous number of disconnected data and have gained a good general knowledge of the conditions of the Territory both coastal and inland’.38 By August 1931, however, Chinnery realised that he had made a mistake in not staying at Cambridge to take a degree.39 Even the book he and Haddon planned to write on the distribution of tribes in Papua and New Guinea40 — ‘this book we are going to give the world’ — was abandoned. He hoped to ‘work it up … one day’.41 He never did. CHINNERY WAS AT the forefront of training cadets in anthropology and other matters

associated with the governance of colonial peoples; he not only took a direct interest but also encouraged those officers who had done preliminary training with him to attend further courses at the newly created Department of Anthropology in the University of Sydney.42 Anthropology fitted neatly with the work of the patrol officer, described by Chinnery as the exploration of new areas, discovering and pacifying the natives living there, and guiding them through an administrative system which includes among other things, the establishment of law and order, the improvement of sanitary and health conditions, the encouragement of contact and friendly relations between tribes, the introduction of new economic ideas and the encouragement of education.43

In the year he arrived in New Guinea, Chinnery gave instruction to the District Officers who were, he told Haddon, ‘men without training in native work’. Many of these men were ex-Australian Imperial Forces, such as G.W.L. ‘Kassa’ 35 Chinnery to Secretary, Home and Territories, 10 June 1924; Secretary, Home and Territories, to Administrator, 11 June 1924, NAA, A5/1, NG 24/1564; Chinnery to Haddon, 10 Apr. 1925, CP. 36 Chinnery to Haddon, 22 Nov. 1928, CP; Sarah Chinnery, Malaguna Road, 33. 37 Chinnery to Haddon, 10 Apr. 1925, CP. 38 Chinnery to Haddon, 22 Nov. 1928, CP. 39 Chinnery to Haddon, 20 Aug. 1931, CP. 40 Chinnery to Haddon, 12 Dec. 1924; Chinnery to Haddon, 10 Apr. 1925; Chinnery to Haddon, 14 Apr. 1925: CP. 41 Chinnery to Haddon, 25 June 1929, CP. 42 Radcliffe-Brown to Gregory, 17 Mar. 1930, EP, 164/4/2/12; Radcliffe-Brown to Robert Lowie, 28 June 1927, EP, 164/4/2/17; Radcliffe-Brown to McLaren, 11 June 1928, NAA, A518, N806/1/1, Pt 1. 43 Chinnery, ‘Applied anthropology in New Guinea’, 163; Chinnery to Haddon, 12 Dec. 1924, CP.

320

JOURNAL OF PACIFIC HISTORY

Townsend.44 J.K. McCarthy remarked on this when describing his fellow passengers on the Marsina in 1927: ‘almost every man on board was an ex-serviceman … [m]ost had gone to New Guinea in the early 1920s’.45 These men were instructed with the cadets in ‘the ethnography of the Territory, distributions, etc and in ethnographical methods of district administration, investigation etc’.46 He outlined the course to the Government Secretary: My instruction will deal with Ethnography of the Territory and its relation to Administration … . It will embrace a brief survey in the history of our native peoples, their distribution and culture; a general outline of the problems peculiar to the Territory (complex conditions arising out of the discovery and development of backward peoples, especially those questions connected with native labour, native institutions, population etc) and instruction (practical where possible) in scientific methods of investigating native problems together with advice as to the practical application of ethnographic knowledge … To better illustrate my instructions and further to impress upon the cadets the nature and importance to their future work and obligations I shall arrange a series of ‘talks’ dealing with the experiences of a ‘new tribe’ from the time of its discovery until it reaches a condition of definite control. By the time the cadets are ready I trust the new museum building will be available for the proper arrangement and exhibition of native collections. I shall require it for instructional purposes.47

Chinnery was pleased that the cadets were trained ‘on the spot’, although he would have preferred them to have completed their other courses first. Although he had planned to take the cadets into the field, this did not occur; he assured the Administrator that ‘[m]eantime the Cadets should be able to make good use of what I taught them by the actual work they do’.48 He also provided them with a standardised reporting form which covered kinship, system of law and such like, which would be useful in establishing a general survey of New Guinea tribes. In August 1926, soon after his arrival in Sydney, Radcliffe-Brown discussed with the secretary of the Department of Home and Territories the question of providing cadets and officers of the ‘territorial services’ with instruction in anthropology at the University of Sydney.49 While the government accepted his proposals it was not until 1929 that the first officers attended the university,50 although Radcliffe-Brown gave a special course of lectures during the vacation (December 1927 to March 1928) to three students — two from the Mandated Territory (Robert Melrose and Bertram Calcutt) and one from Papua (Leo Austen).51 The Administrator took the opportunity of straitened times in the early 1930s to question the value of sending cadets and officers for training at the University of Sydney. He thought a local course of three months duration would suffice.52 There 44 45 46 47 48

Townsend, District Officer. McCarthy, Patrol Into Yesterday, 9. Chinnery to Haddon, 10 Apr. 1925, CP. Chinnery to Government Secretary (Rabaul), 6 Apr. 1925, CP. Chinnery to Administrator, 29 Sept. 1926, CP; cf. McCarthy, Patrol Into Yesterday, 15, who states there was no formal instruction when he arrived in Rabaul. 49 Memorandum, 10 Sept. 1926, NAA, A518, N806/1/1, Pt 1. 50 See various, NAA, A518, N806/1/1, Pt 1. 51 Radcliffe-Brown to McLaren, 11 June 1928, NAA, A518, N806/1/1, Pt 1. 52 Memo, Prime Minister, 7 Apr. 1932, NAA, A518, P806/1/1, Pt 2.

MANY DIFFICULT PROBLEMS

321

were discussions between the Administrator and Chinnery over the possibility of formalising local on-the-spot training with intensive courses in anthropology, annually if necessary.53 Chinnery, however, was keen for training to continue at Sydney: the courses in anthropology, tropical hygiene, law and topography were, he said, of great benefit.54 Cadets and officers from the New Guinea administration continued to attend the University for training. Murray, on the other hand, did not send cadets and withdrew his support for the training of colonial officers at the University of Sydney.55 Chinnery liked to inform himself about the ‘administrative work that is being done among the Bushmen tribes or other backward tribes of Africa … It would be of tremendous value for purposes of comparison, and I would like to see what methods the Colonial Office uses for people in that stage of development.’56 He considered a system of sympathetic contact between District Officer and people, and if the District Officer keeps personally in touch with the conditions and deeds of the natives in his district so that each native will regard him as one who can be relied upon for redress or assistance the District Officer can be said to have the confidence of his people, and the policy of the Government is in safe hands … District Officers therefore must take care that nothing comes between themselves and the people to jeopardise their influence.

He did not think the large tribes and influential chiefs found in Africa were present in New Guinea, although there was sometimes ‘some sort of headman who has limited authority within the subgroup but usually no influence outside it … [I]t rarely occurs that any large number of people recognise the authority of any one man.’ He therefore did not consider it possible for New Guineans to be able to govern themselves: in my experience I have never met a native of New Guinea in whom I would place authority of the smallest kind without constant supervision … generations will pass before the native develops the sense of responsibility necessary to carry him through the temptations and difficulties attached to a position of trust, and meantime it is safe to say that a good deal of the unrest and discontent which at times appear in native districts can be traced back to wrongful actions or omissions of native authorities. The armed constable especially needs close supervision.

In support of this view, he quoted approvingly the remarks of Lord Raglan: The idea of allowing natives to govern themselves through their own chiefs appeals to idealists and I am afraid to lazy administrators. In practice it has serious disadvantages … and the administrator is placed in the dilemma of having either continually upset decisions of the chiefs or else to connive at injustice. If the administration understands the customs of the district, is patient in having cases and prompt in giving 53 Ibid. 54 A/Administrator to Secretary, Prime Ministers Department, 28 Nov. 1932, NAA, A518, P806/1/1, Pt 2; E.W.P.

Chinnery, ‘Anthropology and administration in the Mandated Territory of New Guinea’, TS, nd, CP. 55 Gray, ‘Being honest to my science’. 56 Chinnery to Haddon, 12 Dec. 1924.

322

JOURNAL OF PACIFIC HISTORY

decisions the natives will always have recourse to him rather than to have responsibility taken out of their hands.57

Chinnery’s representations of the governability of ‘backward’ peoples and their potential for change and civilising were deeply embedded in his advice to government. He is valuable because he makes explicit the broad comments on the aims and assumptions of government officials rarely made by others in the Mandate. He generally took a view that the danger was from the ‘savage’ who was responsible for the violence between natives and Europeans. He explained that the ‘savage’ is extremely cunning and patient. He is a past master in the arts of disarming suspicion and simulating friendship. Treachery is one of his most effective weapons in ordinary native warfare. The majority of Europeans who have lost their lives in New Guinea, owe it to lack of caution. They have been lulled into a false sense of security and then treacherously slain … The natives attack Europeans for many reasons. In the first place they are always excited by the steel implements and goods of the Europeans and will go to any length to acquire them when the slightest opportunity presents itself. In the second place the natives see the Europeans encroaching on their lands and naturally feel that some harm will come to them if Europeans are not driven off. In some cases attacks are made in retaliation for thefts by carriers and labourers of food, pigs etc … stealing out of the gardens and villages — an offence responsible for many of the hostilities occurring in country of this kind.58

Anthropologists, if properly used, could, he argued, dampen this conflict and help pacify people before the incursion of white people — ‘the march of penetration’. The gold miners in the Upper Waria River were pushing into the uncontrolled areas, although whites had been in the area 15 years before. Chinnery was ‘sent there to prepare the natives for the coming of the prospectors … The measure of friendly contact established was demonstrated a short time after, when prospectors working in the region found themselves received without hostility and succeeded in procuring native food and guides as they journeyed from place to place.’59 It was, he considered, the government’s sacred function, trust and responsibility, not that of the missions, to explore, control and govern the country.60 Hence, his relations with missions were uneasy. For example, he advised government not to support missions when they wanted to ban a practice such as polygamy. He wrote to Haddon: The Missions are trying desperately hard to have the native marriage customs modified and they are especially keen in urging the Government to interfere with polygamy, divorce, marriage arrangements etc. I have managed so far to induce the Government to leave such matters to the natives themselves and I am hoping that this attitude will be maintained. The position becomes rather stormy at times. Mission influence makes itself felt in many quarters, political and departmental, and one has to tread cautiously at times.61 57 58 59

Chinnery, c. 1924, transcript, CP. Chinnery to Acting Administrator, 10 Jan. 1933, CP Annual Report of the Government Anthropologist, 1927/1928, in Report to the Council of the League of Nations on the Administration of the Territory of New Guinea, 1927–28 (Rabaul 1928), 19. 60 Chinnery to Administrator, 4 Sept. 1936, NAA, A518, H 840/1/3; Chinnery to Haddon, 30 Oct. 1932, CP. 61 Chinnery to Haddon, 20 Aug. 1931, CP.

MANY DIFFICULT PROBLEMS

323

Other matters on which Chinnery advised government were to do with homosexuality on plantations, a problem presented by indentured labourers of one gender working on plantations and other such projects. Chinnery stated that when he worked for the New Guinea Copper Mines they dealt with the problem of ‘homosexuality among the native labourers’ by ‘employing on the job a number of labourers (married) from districts where all women are used in common by anyone who cares to make arrangements with the man socially recognised as the husband’.62 Earlier he had been asked about controlling or eradicating ‘native incest’; he argued that there was insufficient ethnographic knowledge to legislate against it. The Administrator accepted this advice.63 Chinnery’s interest in (and practical experience with) native labour fitted in with the work of an anthropologist charged with the social welfare of native people and to assist in the introduction of cultural change and advancement. At the 1923 Pan Pacific Science Congress, he presented a paper on native labour in which he discussed his work at the copper mine: As an adequate supply of native labour is essential … considerable thought has been given by … officials as to the best means to adopt for insuring the numbers of recruits needed from time to time … It is felt that strict observance of the provisions of the ‘Native Labour Ordinance’, maintenance of the natives of the pre-war purchasing power of money, provision of suitable variety of foods, and the creation of conditions for insuring health and contentment of the natives, will combine to attract … many boys who have refrained hitherto from entering into a contract of service, and an increased number of boys who have already worked a term.64

After nearly six years in the position of Government Anthropologist, Chinnery nominated native labour as one of the main issues to be addressed.65 He was concerned that native people be properly treated, have reasonable working conditions, be paid a fair remuneration, and be repatriated to their village at the completion of the indenture.66 The other issue which exercised the minds of both administrators and anthropologists was the rapid extinction of native peoples once contact had been made with Europeans. There were numerous theories to explain the high death rates of indigenous peoples.67 In July 1929, Chinnery applied, successfully, for a Rockefeller Foundation Fellowship68 to study, among other issues, depopulation in other colonial territories, questions connected with native labour and native administra62 Chinnery to Administrator, 12 Apr. 1927, CP. 63 Administrator to Commissioner for Native Affairs, 14 Nov. 1925, CP. See also Heather Radi, ‘New Guinea under

Mandate, 1921–1941’, in W.J. Hudson (ed.), Australia and Papua New Guinea (Sydney 1971), 91–2. 64 Paper presented by Chinnery to Health Section, Pan Pacific Science Congress (Haddon chair), 1923, TS, CP. 65 Chinnery to Haddon, 29 July 1929, CP. 66 Cf. Radi, ‘New Guinea under Mandate’, 91–3, 118–19, 130. 67 Chinnery to Government Secretary, 7 Apr. 1925, CP. W.H.R. Rivers (ed.), Essays on the Depopulation of Melanesia (Cambridge 1922); also Russell McGregor, The Doomed Race (Melbourne 1997). 68 For a discussion about the Rockefeller Foundation and its role in the development of social anthropology see, e.g., Donald Fisher, ‘American philanthropy and the social sciences in Britain 1919–1939, the reproduction of a conservative ideology’, Sociological Review, 28 (1980), 277–315; idem, ‘Rockefeller philanthropy and the rise of social anthropology’, Anthropology Today, 2 (1986), 5–8.

324

JOURNAL OF PACIFIC HISTORY

tion in the Malay States and Java. He explained to Radcliffe-Brown that there were practical reasons for this: Since my duties on returning to New Guinea will be largely connected with investigation of problems of depopulation I feel that our present methods of investigation and treatment of this and related problems would be considerably improved if I could be given an opportunity of meeting authorities in America and England and discussing with them the peculiar difficulties I have already encountered in the field, receiving the benefit of their specialized knowledge and experience. Such an opportunity would also permit me to discuss the general conditions of the natives of New Guinea and Papua and possibly facilitate further research.69

Chinnery undertook an investigation in New Ireland of the ‘depopulation problem’ and advised the administration on how it could be addressed practically. He argued that many of the causes are reducible by intensive medical treatment and infant welfare work and an important part of the programme will be in the introduction of new food plants and instruction in the village of scientific methods of cultivation so that the same ground can be used over and over again, thus releasing women from the strain of shifting about in the mountains in search for virgin ground.70

He had had some success in convincing the administration to implement some of his advice: ‘as a result of my Report to the Admin & Medical Offices, an infant welfare nurse and an Agricultural Instructor are being established 100 miles from Kavieng on the E[ast] coast road to see what can be done with the depopulation problems’.71 Chinnery nonetheless believed that his lack of formal qualifications diminished his authority, and his advice was therefore not accepted readily by the administration. He confided to Haddon that had he remained at Cambridge to take a degree ‘It would probably have given my advisory work the weight necessary to compell [sic] my seniors to take it more seriously. In far too many cases they have found themselves in a ditch I tried to keep them out of. However, I shall keep plodding ahead; patience will win in the end.’72 some of his disappointment with the administration and limited opportunities to devote himself to intensive anthropological research, Chinnery encouraged anthropologists to work in New Guinea. It would enable an ethnographic coverage of the native peoples before it was too late: there was, he told Haddon, an ‘overwhelming mass of country not even known’.73 Chinnery wanted researchers initially placed in settled areas. The reason for this was that researchers could address problems pertinent to the administration, thus enhancing

TO HELP OVERCOME

69 Chinnery to Radcliffe-Brown, 29 July 1929, CP. 70 Chinnery to Haddon, 20 Aug. 1931, CP. See NAA, A52, item 312.09936 CHI, which contains material on the

German investigation in 1911, Chinnery’s 1931 investigation and a follow-up investigation by Chinnery in 1951. This will be the subject of a future paper on scientific racism. Roy Scragg also conducted an immediate post-war population survey; he concluded that the declining population in New Ireland was due to venereal disease! 71 Chinnery to Haddon, 3 Jan. 1932, CP. 72 Chinnery to Haddon, 20 Aug. 1931, CP. 73 Chinnery to Haddon, 22 Nov. 1928, CP.

MANY DIFFICULT PROBLEMS

325

anthropologists’ value to the administration.74 It would also enable him to ‘go straight ahead, opening up new country, making an ethnographic survey of its inhabitants and generally preparing the way for intensive workers … Operations of this kind will mean that researchers will be able to get into contact with new people before they have been modified to any great extent by Europeans.’75 Chinnery was, in George Stocking’s words, a ‘gatekeeper to the field’.76 He supervised the entry there of Gregory Bateson, Beatrice Blackwood, Reo Fortune, Margaret Mead, Hortense Powdermaker, Camilla Wedgwood, H. Ian Hogbin and other Australian National Research Council (ANRC) workers as well as students from overseas — including J.A. Todd, Nelengolo, south coast of New Britain; W.C. Groves, Fissoa, New Ireland; F. Bell, Tanga, New Ireland.77 However, he alone did not make the choice of field site; he consulted at various times with Haddon, Radcliffe-Brown, Firth and Elkin as to where best to place researchers in terms of a wider anthropological research project developed by Radcliffe-Brown.78 He worked with the aim of describing and classifying all ‘native tribes’ according to a range of criteria loosely based on evolutionary and diffusionist characteristics. This plan was also adopted by Radcliffe-Brown’s successors, Firth and Elkin.79 Of course not all anthropological research in New Guinea was under the auspices of the Sydney department or the ANRC. Stocking’s view of Chinnery as a gatekeeper is limited to and dependent upon selected letters between Haddon and Chinnery, and does not explain various practical and personal factors determining the way in which a site was chosen for anthropological research or the importance of both the Professor of Anthropology in the University of Sydney and the ANRC. When Hogbin was looking for a suitable field site, Elkin wrote to Alec Gibson, honorary secretary of the ANRC, that Hogbin was ‘anxious to find a place where a primitive culture still contains most of its features. He further believes that there is not a single society of this description in the whole of the Solomons.’ Elkin imagined New Guinea would provide ‘new and untouched fields’ for Hogbin to work in, noting, ‘we can rely on Mr Chinnery to choose a good sphere for work’.80 Chinnery, who had conducted a brief survey there in 1930, had already considered Wogeo as a suitable site; he commented to Haddon that Wogeo [in the Schouten Islands] … would be an excellent place for intensive study … Wavy (black) hair — some almost straight. Mongol fold in eye but a perfectly straight nose — Standing stones (circles) and a very interesting mythology connected 74 75

Chinnery to Haddon, 25 June 1929, CP. Chinnery to Haddon, 26 May 1926, CP. See Ann McLean, ‘In the footprints of Reo Fortune’, in Terence E. Hays (ed.), Ethnographic Presents: pioneering anthropologists in the New Guinea Highlands (Berkeley 1992), 36–67. 76 Stocking, ‘Gatekeeper to the field’, 3. 77 Report to The Council of the League of Nations on the Administration of the Territory of New Guinea, 1934–35 (Rabaul 1935), 19. 78 Roger Sanjek (ed.), Fieldnotes: the makings of anthropology (Ithaca 1990), 220; also Hortense Powdermaker, Stranger and Friend: the way of an anthropologist (New York 1966), 66. 79 Memo, ‘Chair of Anthropology (University of Sydney)’, 10 Sept. 1926, NAA, A518, N806/1/1, Pt 1; Radcliffe-Brown to Gregory (Bishop Museum), 2 Apr. 1928, EP, 164/4/2/12. 80 Elkin to Gibson, 22 Mar. 1933, Sydney, University of Sydney Archives, Hogbin Papers (hereinafter HP).

326

JOURNAL OF PACIFIC HISTORY

with the principal stones. Melanesian language, two moieties, Hawk and Flying fox. Matrilineal descent but patrilineal succession (to stones) and inheritance of property — Good climate and no mosquitoes — about 600 people to examine. No missions. Masks, Bamboo Flute (initiation) Drums and Slit-Gongs.81

Chinnery advised Hogbin to carry out his research either in Wogeo or New Hanover.82 In January, Hogbin again sought Elkin’s advice before deciding on Wogeo.83 Chinnery expressed concern about single women working on their own. He told Haddon that if any more ‘lady anthropologists are thinking of coming out here you had better suggest that they bring a husband with them. I know of no place where a woman can work without fear of molestation from the natives.’84 Hortense Powdermaker, who worked in Lesu, a village located on the east coast of New Ireland, said that Chinnery visited her ‘whenever he made a patrol on the island’. He helped her find a suitable field site, and arranged for Gregory Bateson, who had gone to New Ireland on the same boat, to assist her with her first camp.85 Chinnery had previously encouraged Bateson to work in the Sepik, but he was more interested in working with the Baining; later, he worked with Mead and Fortune in the Sepik.86 When Camilla Wedgwood, a lecturer in anthropology at the University of Sydney, was ready to undertake her own fieldwork, Chinnery discussed a suitable site with Firth, then acting Professor of Anthropology at Sydney: he told Haddon that Firth and I yarned about Camilla’s work and decided that Manam Island off Potsdamhafen would be the best place … As you know [New Guinea] is awkward for a girl working alone and even in Rabaul there are risks from male natives. There is also a strong feeling about white women being alone in villages … I had thought of other places but the white women didn’t like the idea of Camilla being alone in the villages and so finally on the advice of the Wauchopes I suggested Manam and Firth agreed with me.87

Wedgwood referred to Chinnery as ‘my great friend the Government anthropologist whom I have known for many years’, and who had specially picked Manam Island for her.88 In early 1939, when Elkin was seeking a place for Phyllis Kaberry, he told the ANRC that the location would be decided ‘after consultation with Mr Chinnery and the Administration in Rabaul’, although by this time Chinnery had returned to Australia.89 81 Chinnery to Haddon, 3 Jan. 1932; Hogbin to Elkin, 19 Sept. 1933: HP. 82 Hogbin to Elkin, 11 Jan. 1934, HP; Chinnery to Haddon, 26 May 1926. 83 Hogbin to Elkin, 9 Jan. 1934, HP. 84 Chinnery to Haddon, 25 June 1929. See also Beatrice Blackwood, ‘Report on fieldwork in Buka on Bougainville’,

Oceania, 85 86 87 88 89

2 (1931). Powdermaker, Stranger and Friend, 105; Sarah Chinnery, Malaguna Road, 34–5. Chinnery to Haddon, 3 Jan. 1932. Chinnery to Haddon, 30 Oct. 1932. Cited in D. Wetherell and C. Carr-Gregg, Camilla. C.H. Wedgwood 1901–1955 (Kensington 1991), 56. Elkin to ANRC, 15 Mar. 1939; ANRC to Elkin, 21 Mar. 1939. EP,156/4/1/14.

MANY DIFFICULT PROBLEMS

327

CHINNERY’S PROMOTION in 1932 to Director of District Services and Native Affairs and Government Anthropologist was seen by him as a triumph for anthropology: ‘Don’t you think’, he wrote to his mentor Haddon, ‘my appointment to this extremely important job is a compliment to anthropology? I feel as pleased as if I had been given a degree.’ It was, he declared, a further opportunity to direct and develop ‘wide spread ethnographical surveys and exploration and … apply anthropological methods to … administration’. He planned to organise the department so that he could spend a time in the districts and ‘put certain trained officers on anthropological work of an administrative nature — such as depopulation inquiries — mapping and other things of importance — marriage customs, systems of inheritance etc etc’.90 What happened as a consequence was that his patrol work diminished as did his occasional and brief anthropological investigations. What he hoped for in 1932 — ‘in a couple of years I hope to be publishing reports contributed by officers’ — also did not eventuate.91 Rather his efforts were focused on matters to do with Australia’s stewardship of the territory and other administrative matters associated with overseeing district services.92 Anthropology was pushed to the margin as he became increasingly occupied with administration.93 In late 1937, Chinnery took long service leave which was due to expire in August 1938; within a few months of his arrival in Australia, he was transferred on secondment to the Commonwealth as Commonwealth Advisor on Native Affairs and, soon after, he was appointed to the position of Director of the newly created Branch of Native Affairs in the Northern Territory, largely because of his practical experience and anthropological training. There were a number of reasons why he left New Guinea. Sarah, his wife, was based in Melbourne, and his children were at school there. The volcanic eruption in 1937 had destroyed their house, and Sarah no longer wished to return to Rabaul. Chinnery himself appeared to be under pressure and suffered an attack of shingles.94 It seems also that the volcanic eruption had led to a reappraisal of his life and achievements — a sort of life crisis. When an opportunity arose to move to Australia, Chinnery was ready to take it.95 He did not return to New Guinea except to tidy up his affairs. He felt no regrets at leaving, and believed that he had succeeded in building up ‘a fine Department … which is functioning well and has achieved tremendous things in the way of administrative exploration and control’.96 He resigned from the Northern Territory in 1947, although he continued to represent Australia at both the South Pacific Commission and the United Nations, retiring in 1952. He died at Prahran in 1972. AT THE START of this paper, I asked two questions: in what ways, if any, had anthropology affected the practice of colonial administration, and secondly, more 90 91 92 93 94 95 96

Chinnery to Haddon, 25 Sept. 1932. Chinnery to Haddon, 30 Oct. 1932. See various Annual Reports, 1931–38. See Radi, ‘New Guinea under Mandate’. Chinnery to Haddon, 24 Apr. 1939. Chinnery to Sarah Chinnery, 24 Mar. 1940, CP. Chinnery to Haddon, 24 Apr. 1939.

328

JOURNAL OF PACIFIC HISTORY

specifically, was Chinnery, because of his anthropological method, able to affect changes in policy and practice in New Guinea? There have been various judgements about Chinnery’s success or otherwise as an anthropologist, Government Anthropologist and as an anthropologically trained colonial official. Sjoerd Jaarsma dismisses Chinnery’s ‘contribution to anthropology [as no] more than that of a gatekeeper … introducing several researchers to the field’.97 In J.K. McCarthy’s memoir, Chinnery is not mentioned, although McCarthy was presumably trained by Chinnery when he arrived in Rabaul in 1927, and Chinnery was his director from 1932 until he left New Guinea in 1938.98 Stocking described Chinnery as a ‘humane and talented person’ and wondered whether his contribution to ethnography ‘might have been much greater had he not been so pre-occupied with the day-to-day responsibilities of empire at close quarters’.99 Heather Radi asserts Chinnery’s contribution was slight: he did not provide direction on broader aspects of policy, and his anthropological work was limited in its application.100 Francis West, however, is the harshest critic; he doubts the value of Chinnery’s anthropology and contends that Chinnery ‘supplied useful contemporary raw material on native society’, but, he argues, his ‘type of anthropological work was overtaken by the new professional standards of the 1920s and 1930s’.101 West’s assessment is somewhat severe, especially when both Haddon and Rivers were at the forefront of modern anthropological method in the 1920s, developing and propagating arguments about the application of anthropological method and knowledge to colonial administration. Haddon described Chinnery in 1921 as a young Australian who has what I can justly describe, a brilliant record. He has been particularly successful in dealing with wild natives and bringing them under the Government. He has wide sympathy and great tact in dealing with such. He has fine ideals of Empire building … [H]e has been trained in the Modern Methods of Ethnological Research.102

Haddon and Rivers, while not functionalists per se, understood the importance of ‘ethnographic method’ in obtaining an understanding of native life to enable gradual change as a way of becoming civilised (if not modern). This method ideally suited the type of anthropology practised by Government Anthropologists. Like most anthropologists of the time Chinnery was an amalgam of evolutionist and diffusionist who accepted the notion of the functioning whole of native culture. The most common approach at the time was that of substituting a less aggressive or violent activity for practices which were unacceptable to the good order of government, such as headhunting and warfare. Otherwise, native culture should be changed slowly while retaining acceptable cultural practices. Chinnery’s anthropo97 Jaarsma, ‘Conceiving New Guinea: ethnography as a phenomenon of contact’, 203. 98 McCarthy, Patrol Into Yesterday. 99 Stocking, ‘Gatekeeper to the field’, 4. 100 Radi, ‘New Guinea under Mandate’, 103. 101 West, ‘E.W.P. Chinnery’, 640. 102 Haddon to Prime Minister (Hughes), 23 Sept. 1921, NAA, A452, 1959/6066, Pt 1. Cf.

moving frontier’, 222–3.

West, ‘An Australian

MANY DIFFICULT PROBLEMS

329

logical method was neither anachronistic nor antiquarian. Reviewing the pre-war New Guinea administration, Lucy Mair considered that the training provided to patrol officers was more advantageous than that employed in Britain, since ‘anthropology was taught not as a subject of antiquarian interest but as one immediately relevant to the government of native peoples’.103 The 1920s saw the rise of Malinowskian functionalism in Britain. This theory — which saw the unity of cultural practice and developed an idea about the equilibrium of culture — spread into the practice of anthropology throughout the British empire, although it hardly affected the practice of Chinnery or Williams.104 It did not mean, however, that the influence of evolutionism and diffusionist theories was suddenly and irrevocably overtaken; nor did it mean that functionalist anthropologists, that is those trained by Malinowski, were somehow opposed to the modernising of native peoples. Quite the contrary. They argued that change, which was inevitable, should be gradual — this would help ameliorate the impact of Europeans on native life. I offer no firm conclusion with regard to the first question other than to suggest that anthropology as a discipline developed coincidentally with reform and change in colonial administration. The Australian government accepted the argument that anthropology could be harnessed to show that Australia was a modern colonial power pursuing the ideals expressed in the Permanent Mandates Commission of the League of Nations. One of the most pressing issues at the time was that of depopulation. Elkin observed that ‘[w]hatever the use of anthropology on the depopulation issue, the latter was of use to anthropology. The disappearance of whole peoples as well as the breakdown of cultures provided an argument for research and teaching which no one was prepared to gainsay.’105 Whether anthropology influenced the practice of colonial administration is a vexed question; however, an examination of Chinnery’s work provides an insight into the practical problems of colonial governance. Chinnery’s appointments to key administrative positions — starting with the training of patrol officers in New Guinea — enabled him to introduce what he called an anthropological method to colonial governance. The success of this method depended upon acceptance by the colonial administration, and secondly, acceptance and use by field staff. The attendance of patrol officers and cadets, supported by government, at the University of Sydney to be trained in the theory of anthropology in relation to colonial administration supported Chinnery’s methods. A patrol officer, who went on to become a District Officer, told me that, without anthropological training, there is much he would never have understood in his dealings with New Guineans.106 Chinnery, as one of the primary advocates of anthropological method as an aid to colonial administration, was able to develop arguments for its effectiveness in the 103

Mair, Australia in New Guinea, 42. See also A.R. Radcliffe-Brown, editorial, Oceania, 1⬊1 (1930), and A.R. Radcliffe-Brown, ‘Applied anthropology’, in Report of 20th Meeting of ANZAAS (Melbourne 1930). 104 See Williams, ‘Creed of a Government Anthropologist’, 396–418. 105 Elkin, ‘The threefold use of anthropology’, Anthropological Forum, 1 (1964), 159. 106 Ian Downs, pers. comm., 1993; West, ‘An Australian moving frontier’, 223. Cf. Campbell, ‘Anthropology and the professionalisation’; Adam Kuper, Anthropologists and Anthropology: the British School 1922–1972 (London 1973), 129.

330

JOURNAL OF PACIFIC HISTORY

welfare of dependent peoples. He was convinced that anthropology was an enlightened discipline that could only benefit indigenous peoples and their colonisers and bring about peaceful penetration and successful pacification. His ideas on the capabilities of native peoples were based on an evolutionary and hierarchical view which placed, for example, agriculturalists above nomadic hunters and gatherers. Like many of his contemporaries, he accepted the inevitable disappearance of ‘backward’ cultures, albeit not the disappearance of all native peoples. He also believed that the development of native peoples was hindered by their position on the evolutionary scale. He used these ideas to assess the mental and psychological capacities of native peoples and their ability to govern themselves. He was not confident that ‘backward’ people would be able to govern themselves for generations. Chinnery believed that his administrative appointments would not interfere with his ethnographic interests and desires: he was wrong in this assessment. If he is remembered more as a colonial administrator, it is because his work as an anthropologist has been marginalised, and he published little. It was his anthropological training that enabled him to obtain administrative success, and it was paradoxically his success as an administrator that undermined his work as an anthropologist. Acknowledgements

I would especially like to thank Sheila Waters, a daughter of Chinnery, for allowing me free access to her father’s papers: both she and her husband Larry were always generous with their time and hospitality. Most of my work on Chinnery was undertaken before his papers were deposited in the National Library of Australia. Therefore, I have preferred to use CP rather than the National Library of Australia file number, NLA MS 766, unless otherwise indicated. I would like to thank Robin Hide for use of his unpublished material on early British anthropology; also Peter Hempenstall, Hank Nelson and Christine Winter for their comments on earlier versions of this paper. ABSTRACT Little has been written on pre-World War II Australian colonial officials, such as Ernest William Pearson Chinnery (1887–1972), who occupied senior positions in Australian colonial administration. Chinnery occupied a unique position — Government Anthropologist, Director of District Services in New Guinea, Commonwealth Advisor on Native Affairs and Director of the Northern Territory Department of Native Affairs as well as his earlier service in Papua. What set Chinnery apart from most of his contemporaries was his promotion of anthropological training for colonial field staff, his support for an anthropologically informed colonial policy and practice and his status as a departmental head as well as being formally trained in anthropology. His appointments were due in no small measure to his anthropological training and yet, despite his aspiration, he is remembered more as a colonial administrator than as a Government Anthropologist. Chinnery’s career provides an opportunity to examine in what ways anthropology affected colonial administration and whether he was able to influence policy and practice according to anthropological principles.