I have wondered for some time if there isn't room for another, intermediate,
category of ownership. Given that museums exist to hold objects for ever &
thus remove them in some ways from the material(ist) world, it ought to be
possible for us to use anotherform of intellectual categorisation....

What I imagine is something that maintains the legal ownership of an object
in the museum but also allows for a form of intellectual/moral ownership of
the object by representatives of the originating group - much in the way as
you could own a painting but the artist still retain copyright over the
image.

In this way the 'home' culture could be acknowledged in any literature and
advise on the interpretation and care of the artefacts. The object would
then be jointly managed by the museum who wants to store it for ever and
interpret it to the public and originating culture who may wish to see it
treated respectfully and in accordance with their own values and practices.

Obviously there might be problems if the two were in contradiction (which
reminds me of the Japanese business man who bought some Van Gogh flowers and
said he wanted them cremated with him.... but that's another story!) - but
could it not be a useful principle to inform practice?



>     "...The question of how, when, and where the indigenous
>     objects were obtained creates a mine-field of both
>     legal and moral dimensions..."
>
>     That was well said, and I agree completely.  The matter
>     DOES require serious consideration from a variety
>     perspectives.  I don't think there is a simple answer
>     applicable to all cases, except perhaps that museum
>     folk should/must afford indigenous people's claims the
>     right to serious examination and consideration in such
>     matters.  My knee-jerk reaction to your original post
>     was in response to the implication that original owners
>     were always still "rightful" owners.
>
>     Even the car analogy, presuming that you sold it to me
>     outright and with no liens or other encumbrances,
>     doesn't always work.  In ND if a person under 21 years
>     of age sells something, he/she can state they didn't
>     understand the matter and re-claim the sold item (and
>     return the purchase price) until they ARE 21.  We found
>     that out the hard way when we accepted an artifact
>     donation from a 16 year old.  She later changed her
>     mind and the lawyers held that we had to return the
>     item even though we'd gotten the teenager's mother to
>     countersign the deed of gift.  We no longer accept
>     donations from people under 21.
>
>     Good luck.
>
>     Chris Dill
>
>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>C. L. Dill, Museum Director
>State Historical Society of North Dakota
>612 East Boulevard
>Bismarck  ND  58505-0830    USA
>P: (701)328-2666
>F: (701)328-3710
>E:  [log in to unmask]
>Visit our Web site at: http://www.state.nd.us/hist/
>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>