>    I have been told that it was not an uncommon practice to use arsenic
>to preserve Native American artifacts as late as the turn of the century.
>And that many of the perishable artifacts (such as clothing, bow quivers,
>and dance regalia) that were collected before it was understood how toxic
>arsenic and other poisons are, are now dangerous to handle.  I would like
>to know if anyone has any knowledge of these practices or if you have had
>to abide by any precautionary measures (such as rubber gloves or face
>masks) while examining artifacts.
>    When I first heard of this, my first reaction was that it could
>explain much of the reluctance of museum curators to become more active
>in repatriation.  After all, who wants to returna toxic, spiritually
>significant, object to its original owners?
>    I welcome any and all comments on this subject, either posted here or
>directly to me at:  [log in to unmask]
>                   ([log in to unmask])
>
>                 -Thank you,
>
>                         Larry


Yes, not only NA artifacts, but old taxidermy as well.  Arsenic was
considered very effective against infestation.  Back in my Registrar days,
my practice  was to use surgical gloves when handling old or questionable
taxidermy just to be safe.  Chances are that if it was made before the turn
of the century, it was probably arsenic treated.  Likewise, I would
consider some NA skins, hides and other parishible items as risky at best.
It depends in part on the practices of the institution or the individual
doing the collecting, although such practices are difficult to document.
It might be worth the trouble to have the pieces analyzed.  Almost any
conservator trained in chemistry can do that.

Henry B. Crawford
Curator of History
Museum of Texas Tech University
Box 43191
Lubbock, TX  79409-3191
806/742-2442
FAX 742-1136
[log in to unmask]