> I'm not a member of MUSEUM-L so I don't know what all of you > are talking about when you talk about "the team approach." > However, I am at Field Museum and I am the Curator of the > Pacific, and I intimately recall everything that happened over > our present "new" Pacific galleries. I don't think that > MUSEUM NEWS had a thing to say about the controversy. The New > York Times Sunday Magazine did have something to say but got > it mostly wrong (see January 14, 1990, Section 6) because the > writer from New York didn't catch on that natural history > curators don't have the same job that art museum curators have > (and the New York Times seems to think all museums are art > museums or somethin'). > > Anyway, if you want to get the story straight, begin with my > article called "Disneyland and the future of museum anthropology" > in the AMERICAN ANTHROPOLOGIST 93(1), 1991:149-153. Read > between the lines and you will discover that what went wrong > with our Pacific galleries wasn't the fault of the team approach. > Things went wrong was because we didn't follow the team approach. > > (p.s.: No, I didn't resign and am still curator of the Pacific; > but I had to resign as department chairperson and I take > no blame or credit for the exhibits now on display at the Field > on the Pacific, except for the wonderful Maori meeting house > which got done after the Pacific galleries and WAS accomplished > using the team approach + full "native community" participation. > This is a much better story to read about and I encourage you to > read MUSEUMS JOURNAL for March 1993 (Vol. 93, No. 3): "We want > our treasures back" -- "Chicago's Field Museum has forged new links > and greater understanding with the Maori people through its > repatriation policy. John Terrell explains how".) > > John Terrell > [log in to unmask] >