In a message dated 95-12-07 12:16:01 EST, [log in to unmask]
(Christopher Whittle) writes:

> I imagine that bonafide
>museums have many items that have been stolen by unscrupulous or
>overzealous collectors.  We cannot hide behind the premise that returning
>these items to their rightful owners will disrupt our practice of museology.

Again I comment - all things in moderation. I know of many examples where
*precious* Native American objects have been traded to very scrupulous
collectors for more precious items like guns, food and smokes! Another issue
is the concept of ownership and the transfer of title! Many objects which
reside in museum collections were gifts from native informants. Was the
anthropologist supposed to ask the informer to provide a receipt with it?
What about objects that have no known provenance? Why do they have to be
returned (especially in those cases where the tribe does not want them, has
no room for them and cannot care for them)? Each and every repatriation case
should be looked at according to the circumstances of the original
acquisition of the object, who the people were that were involved and what
the goal of the transfer is. My point a few weeks ago remains that science as
we know it WILL suffer as a result of repatriation and whereas I cannot
condemn all cases, I do condemn the ideology of mass repatriation which WILL
leave our Natural History museums EMPTY.

Whew, didn't mean to get so worked up about this :?)

- Adrienne