While I am loathe to jump into the middle of this fight, I would like to
suggest a few things here:

First, most people, even the most educated amongst us, are not aware of the
restrictions of the Migratory Bird Act, which regulates possession of a
great many species (it is a stretch, but not too much of one, to say that it
covers everything except pigeons and sparrows).

Next, identification of genus and species is something that (generally) only
trained ornithologists, sometimes with the aid of a reference collection,
can do.   When you deal with modified or partial feathers it gets even
harder.

Since I have already deleted all of this thread I cannot vouch for David
Haberstich's exact wording, but I did not get the impression that he
"blamed" the native artist and "excused" Lawrence Small. He did raise an
important issue, namely that to stop the killing ("taking") of regulated
animal species (like the illicit excavation of archaeological remains) we
need to look at what is happening at the beginning of the
collecting/creating process as well as the end user.
The use of alternative materials (or even alternative income sources) is one
possibility that, for better or worse, has become fairly standard with
contemporary Native American art; most of us are resigned (for lack of a
better word) to the fact that the feathers on our art will be painted turkey
or chicken and not hawk, eagle or any other regulated species.

Finally, I think it is not unreasonable to remember that there are some
people involved in this whole "scandal" who have political motivations and
that a like or dislike of Mr. Small's other activities have influenced their
behavior.


Janice Klein
Director, Mitchell Museum of the American Indian
[log in to unmask]
www.mitchellmuseum.org


-----Original Message-----
From: Museum discussion list [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On
Behalf Of ldewey
Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2004 10:13 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Scandal at the Smithsonian


David Haberstich's most recent defense of Lawrence Small ("Re: Scandal
at the Smithsonian: L's Bells") exceeds his earlier note in both
verbosity and turbidity. However.

Either Mr. Small's private collecting is a sign of expertise and
indicates how he is qualified to serve as Secretary at SI, or Mr.
Small's illegal collecting activity is the honest mistake of
inexperience, abetted by misinformation from a lawyer. Pick one.

Certainly an experienced collector, especially one with such a focused
interest as to purchase one thousand pieces at a time, would be aware
of laws that affect collecting or transport of art, antiquities and
ethnographic objects, and would take the appropriate measures to ensure
provenance and legality. There is now several decades of international
law governing the transport of art and antiquities, as well as CITES,
in no small part because of illegal activity in the Americas.

The legal charges are broad and specify his intent; "did possess,
transport, cause to be transported, purchase, offer to purchase, carry
and cause to be carried, migratory birds and parts thereof."

As I wrote earlier,

"At best, Small did not exercise due diligence in regard to his
collecting activities. He ought to have been aware of both the
statutory and the ethical requirements."

D.H., please note that these are separate sentences and do not equate
collecting activity with unethical behavior.

The SI Code of Conduct does state that "Employees will not engage in
criminal, dishonest, or other conduct adversely affecting the
reputation or operations of the Smithsonian Institution." It certainly
appears that Mr. Small has failed at least two of those tests.

I would expect Mr. Small's lawyer to advise him regarding the statutory
matters (as I wrote, but which David Haberstich had difficulty
understanding), but I would expect his lawyer to defer on other
matters, such as provenance or even issues of ethics. I don't think it
is reasonable to expect his lawyers to provide "a qualified assessment
of the collection," though David Haberstich apparently does.

I was giving David Haberstich the benefit of the doubt in regard to his
statement about prosecuting tribal artists whose work ends up in a
private collection overseas. I was obviously mistaken in that
assumption.

However, my point was and is that the relationship between the artist
and Mr. Small is not an equal one. There is considerable evidence of
this inequality, as any reasonable study of post-Columbian history
would indicate. David Haberstich's assignation of "blame" to the
Amazonian artists (who, tellingly, remain anonymous in all of the
reporting), while excusing Mr. Small, is stunning.

-L.D.

=========================================================
Important Subscriber Information:

The Museum-L FAQ file is located at
http://www.finalchapter.com/museum-l-faq/ . You may obtain detailed
information about the listserv commands by sending a one line e-mail message
to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read "help"
(without the quotes).

If you decide to leave Museum-L, please send a one line e-mail message to
[log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read "Signoff
Museum-L" (without the quotes).

=========================================================
Important Subscriber Information:

The Museum-L FAQ file is located at http://www.finalchapter.com/museum-l-faq/ . You may obtain detailed information about the listserv commands by sending a one line e-mail message to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read "help" (without the quotes).

If you decide to leave Museum-L, please send a one line e-mail message to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read "Signoff Museum-L" (without the quotes).