I am looking for any information/reaction to the so-called George Brown
fiasco which occured in 1985/86 in Britain and resulted in the breakup and
loss of an important ethnographic collection to the country.  The resulting
furore surrounding this affair brought about a change in the export laws to
close a loophole and the institution of a scheme to register collections of
national significance, by the Museums and Galleries Commission.
 
I have to investigat the reaction in the museum/anthropology world to the
above affair, for an essay.  So far all I can find are a few short articles
in the Museums Bulletin and Anthropology Today.  If there are any
curators/collectors or other interested parties out there who have/had views
on the topic, I would love to here from you.  Direct address
[log in to unmask]
 
Here is a little more background to the George Brown fiasco.  George Brown
(1835-1917) was a missionary who collected a most impressive array (3,166)
of Pacific Artifacts.  His will expressed the wish that they be kept in the
NE of England, his home area.  In 1953 the University of Newcastle upon Tyne
bought the collection for a nominal =A31,250 from a local museum.  During=
 the
period of this 'caretakership',  the collection was comprehensively
catalogued using public funds and conservied with the assistance of the
Museum of Mankind (Britsh Museum).  In March 1985 the university announced
plans to sell the collection in order to fund a new science building.  The
collection, it was stressed, would be kept together.  Despite pleas from the
museum and anthropology world, the planned sale to the National Museum of
Ethnology in Osaka, for =A3600,000 went ahead.  The prospect of blocking the
sale by denying the collection an export license was proved useless when a
loophole allowing any individual item valued under =A316,000 to be exported
without a license.  Pleas for the collection to be treated as an entity fell
on deaf ears.  However, some pieces were indeed over the limit and licenses
for them denied, as a result, some were subsequently bought by various
museums around the country.  The end result of this embarrassing episode was
that one of the most comprehensive and well-catalogued collections of
Pacific artifacts was not only lost to the country but more importantly
perhaps the collection was split up.
 
If you have made it thus far, I would be very grateful of any suggestions
and comments you may have on the topic.
 
Sources
Anthropology Today, Vol.2, no.4, August 1986
Museums Bulletin, Vol.25, no.10, January 1986
Marie-Claire