Papua, Publicity And Patrols

(By Gordon Thomas.)

THERE was rather a pitiful —almost a disconsolate —note that came to the surface, here and there, in your Papuan correspondent’s article, “Papuan Patrols” (“P.I.M.,” June 24th.).

The wistful “it is not fair to belittle the work of the patrol officers in Papua” seems rather incongruous, and gives one the idea that the correspon dent does not know what he is writing about. The exploits of the Papuan Service have gone down to history years ago, and in the archives of re

search you will find their doings recorded.

If such patrols have not occupied feature columns in the Australian press, it is possible that they (the patrols) may not have missed very much.

Together with this wistful note there appears to be an undercurrent of, shall we say, tribal jealousy or Territorial rivalry, and really I fail to understand the reason why an attempt should be made to foster that feeling which, un fortunately, amongst some of the more narrow-minded residents of both Man dated New Guinea and Papua, is too often apparent.

Actually there should be no rivalry between the two territories; because in reality it is almost impossible to place them side by side and attempt to make comparisons—at least insofar as economic conditions are concerned.

And as for the world’s knowledge of Papuan patrols I feel confident that, in the more distant parts of the world, the exploits of the Papuan officials are equally as well known (if not better) than those carried out by officers in the mandated area.

Murray’s Papua—or sometimes it may be Papua’s Murray—is a household word where exploration in uncivilised countries is discussed. For many years Murray’s administration in Papua has been held as an example of perfection, both in scientific and economic circles.

There is, possibly, the tendency at times for the individual to overshadow the Service as a whole. Be that as it may; it has resulted in the fact that Papua is most certainly “on the map” where patrols, penetrating into new country, are concerned. In fact the writer of the article himself in one instance refers to “The world-famous patrol of Messrs. Karius and Cham pion.” And the patrols of Staniforth Smith, up the Kikori, and Karius to the Fly watershed, both earned for these men the gold medal of the Royal Geographical Society.

If insufficient publicity in the Penny Press has become Papua’s grievance, surely that is easily overcome, either by the Administration appointing a publicity officer, or some private indi vidual electing himself a contributor to the Southern Press.

The world knows but only too well that Papua possesses writers of great popularity. No one could desire a more far-reaching circulation than Beatrice Grimshaw; and the stories of Turnbull, Armitt and "Alys Brown” all tend to bring Papua before the public eye; so much so in fact that I am prepared to wager that Papua is, at the present time, better known farther afield than the Territory of New Guinea.

But, nevertheless, inter-territorial jealousies are not going to assist in attaining the object which your cor respondent seems desirous of obtain ing.

Neither is unreliable information — passed on to a too-often indiscrimin ating public—a good foundation upon which to build up a publicity campaign in favour of Papua’s well-deserving patrol officers.

It would be both unfair and ludicrous to belittle the work of government officials who have pioneered the un known parts of Papua, or to make statements regarding their patrols which were untrue. From my knowledge of New Guinea history the statement re garding the Humphries’ expedition in 1917 “among tribes who had never been visited” seems hardly to coincide with historical data, which shows this country to have been visited by Monckton in 1909; by the Lutheran mis sionaries in 1913, and in 1914 by the German, Captain Detzner. Nor do I think that Humphries himself would lay claim to having been the first to make contact with tribes who already had been visited by other whites.

The reference to Hides’ patrol up the Tiveri River, in the Lakekamu gold fields area in 1930, loses much of its authenticity when it is remembered that the Lakekamu watershed has been the scene of activities by prospectors and officials since 1910, and since that date almost a score of attacks have been made upon Europeans, according to the Papuan Annual Reports; while Hides’ expedition, according to my, in formants, who are hard-bitten old timers, who miss very little that goes on in Papua, was anything but “blood less,” for he was attacked no less than nine times during that patrol.

I point these inaccuracies out purely for the purpose of historical correct ness, and also in the interests of the men who have been credited with per forming acts which actually differed from the writer’s version. Not for one moment do I desire to withhold credit where credit is due to the officials of the Papuan Service. That would at once savour of petty jealousy, which I trust I do not possess. Rather would I wel come a better understanding between all residents —official and unofficial, prospectors, planters and priests—of the two Territories.

Papua and Mandated New Guinea have much in common; and those aims could be realised far easier by working together than by being possessed of petty jealousies and rivalries that wilt tend more to retrogression than the progress which is so essential for both of these young Territories at this: present juncture.