---

---

On Tuesday July 9th, an article about the didjeridu appeared in the Wall Street Journal's front page as well as on its Web Site. The headline of the Article read, "The Didgeridoo Is Sacred to Aborigines, Who Hate Fakes." The article touched off much discussion amongst the didjeridu players in the USA who participate in the Mills Didjeridu List Server discussion group. Personally, I though the article was good as far as it went (no where near far enough) and bad in that it vilified some people who probably don't deserve such treatment in a national publication. But, as one list subscriber very astutely pointed out, "it is interesting to get the perspective of an 'outsider'".

In a discussion about "fake" didjeridus, one has to define their terms somewhat. What do we mean by the word fake in this case? I think there are a couple of levels to this issue and the first I'd like to tackle is misrepresentation of product. Something I'd been thinking about a lot as I was preparing an article, which asserts that most of the so-called collectable "Aboriginal" didjeridus sold in the USA are neither collectable or Aboriginal at all. On the slip tags of many of the higher priced didjeridus, an Aboriginal artist name is proudly displayed. More and more often (and in the case of some exporters) that name only gives credit to the person who painted it. That is because most of these are cut by some unknown person, made by yet another unknown person and finally given to the artist who is employed to paint it. In her article, Leila Abboud describes a romantically describes how Aborigines walk through the bush of the Northern Territories selecting the most likely candidates for a good instrument amongst trunks of trees hollowed out by the termites. But in most cases, didjeridu exporters by cut sticks from didjeridu dealers in volume, ship them to their location and finish them up there. They are then sorted and graded according to size and potential. They are then heavily sanded inside and out to make them easier to play for westerner players using both hand wood working tools and power tools. Holes and other flaws are repaired using modern materials like epoxy. Then they are painted by artist employed by the company.

It gets better. Experience has taught them well what designs sell the best. So the artist most highly sought may or may not have a cultural connection to Arnhem Land. The artist is often "guided" by their employers to paint certain popular motifs. In one of the best examples of this kind of market driven art, a very successful Aboriginal woman artist is cranking out her work on Bull Roarers. Interesting, only in that for many Aboriginal people, tradition would normally mandate that a woman or child never see or touch the sound instrument we call the bullroarer. But the buyers and sellers of cultural items seem to take pride in comodifying their stock in trade especially when it is at the expense of the very culture they are marketing.

And it gets even murkier if your look for authenticity. A lot of the instruments, which are bought in the communities from traditional makers, are then sanded out by the exporters. Here's the line you will get, "they don't take the time to finish them off properly." The reality is that they are sanding them out to make them more responsive and louder for modern non-traditional playing situations. While that may be what the western market wants to buy, they are sold as "traditional" instruments, not as modified westernized instruments. What is the whole point about termites hollowing out inside to make a natural shape if all workings of the termites are sanded away? What is "traditional" and drill bit extensions and steel chisels?

So "fake" encompasses a lot of territory. An instrument which is made in Australia, out of eucalyptus which was hollowed out by termites can be "faked" by virtue of having little to no indigenous involvement with it's manufacture but is marketed as a cultural artifact or at least referenced to the outside world as one. Fortunately, that tide is changing. Aboriginal communities in the North, more and more, are taking their products directly to the world consumer. Representing their respective cultural knowledge systems and sharing that which is by tradition allowed to be shared with outsiders. It will take time and a lot of patience on the part of everyone with an interest in reversing the litany of lies told around the world in shops, booklets and on the Internet about the real origins of instruments on sale. But steps forward are constantly be taken by Aboriginal groups, the Australian government and concern educators everywhere. People are beginning to see that manufactured or remanufactured sticks with pay by the piece Aboriginal art is not worth the 200% markup. Getting an authentic stick made entirely by traditional people who are living on their traditional homeland is not more expensive at all. It is in fact cheaper in a lot of case and more of the profits go to the artist than the middleman.

Now for the rest of the fakes. The article mentioned that on Ebay one could find hundreds of "real and improvised" didjeridus. Curious about the offerings mentioned on Ebay, I decide to have a look. Most of the didjeridus available were from the same individual who seems to claim invention of the plastic didgeridoo. With statements like, "Others try to copy & emulate, but there is only one real…" and "Don't be fooled by impostor plastic didges & auctions...get the one and only real plastic." Marketing savvy at it's best. I've always found it odd that people, as soon as they learn to circular breath (and in some cases before) seek to make and sell instruments they make out of everything from plastic to bamboo. It as if the "haunting sounds of our earthly heritage", to paraphrase one self styled didjeridu guru, sounds a great deal like, "cha ching"! At least, most of these instruments are marketed as "educational" or "learner" instruments. You can learn to play on them, they are relatively inexpensive and in the case of Tim Whittemore (who I think is unfairly singled out) is made from materials which would otherwise likely wind up in a landfill. They aren't usually passed off as authentic, traditional or even particularly related to some perception of indigenous knowledge, culture or spirituality.

If Ms Abboud (author of the controversial article in the Wall Street Journal) really wanted a slant on profiteering, she was on the right track but just missed the mark when she references the Bali didjeridus. My issues with these are a little different than the fact, and an important one, that they cut not only the Australian Aborigines out of the loop of success resulting from interest in the instrument but all of Australia. But my real issue is that the profiting from the sales of these exploits a cheap labor source of a country, which is already being cheated by major corporations. These didjeridus, some bamboo and some hardwoods from an already greatly deforested part of the world, are truly mass-produced by workers who are paid a pitiful salary in exchange for working long hours under hot and humid conditions. The markup in the US market for retail is about 400%.

And now, where I thing Ms Abboud missed the mark. She is right to sling the arrows, but off in her target selection. I know many non-indigenous didjeridu makers around the world and have been fortunate to play some of their best work. The overwhelming percentage of them just want to create a truly unique instrument with playing characteristics that set them apart by experimenting with different materials and designs. They sell their instruments to support their education and understanding of it. Many of them seek and will obtain information from indigenous people about playing, making and respecting the instrument. It is the industry, the co modification and, to use a term Mr. Peckham is quoted in the article as using, the bastardization of it, which is the target which begs investigation by anyone concerned with Aboriginal property rights.

The Aboriginal knowledge systems about culture, land relationship, music and art are intact. We need but to open our eyes and ears to the indigenous people of Australia to learn how to support the continuation of these systems. That the instrument has been globalized is not news to anyone. That it has been misused misrepresented and falsely tied to a romantized and entirely fictional view of the culture it belongs to is only an opportunity to learn about the real people to which this story belongs. It's a fascinating, remarkably diverse story. My advice? Pick up an instrument and play it. That's where any story about the instrument we call the didjeridu begins. And there is no end…

---