Hi Felicia:

 

As a regular of Museum-L (and of Anthro-L) I will reply as a denizen of both.

 

Note that first, while Danny Yee's homepage is a valued portal into Anthro-L, the official link is:

 

That said, while I too, do not know the specifics of this development director's qualms about the use of the "ethnographic" to refer to "selection of African, Oceanic and Pre-Columbian objects,"  I will say,

 

-the term "Pre-Columbian" anyway would be "archaeological,"  

 

But, that said,

 

-I do think that I, too, would have curatorial problems with otherwise unprovenanced artifacts, whether they were African and Oceanic or Martian, being called "ethnographic." To me, an ethnographer, "ethnographic" implies that the collecting was done in "controlled" conditions [e.g. that the collector recorded the who what whys] rather than "souvenir" conditions [e.g. that the collector recorded... well, nothing.]

 

Artifacts without provenance are not "ethnographic." They may be really neat things, but without provenance, they are nothing. There used to be a notice over in the mammals range of the 3d floor of NMNH, something to the effect of  "Field specimens without documentation are worthless." I always wanted to copy it and post it noticably in the Anthro museums I visited.

 

Thomas Kavanagh

Museum Administrator, Seton Hall University