Subject: | |
From: | |
Reply To: | |
Date: | Tue, 17 Oct 1995 09:58:53 -0400 |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
In a message dated 95-10-17 09:46:34 EDT, [log in to unmask] (ljs5)
writes:
> When I first heard of this, my first reaction was that it could
>explain much of the reluctance of museum curators to become more active
>in repatriation. After all, who wants to returna toxic, spiritually
>significant, object to its original owners?
> I welcome any and all comments on this subject, either posted here or
>directly to me at: [log in to unmask]
> ([log in to unmask])
I can assure you that this was not a practice aimed at Native American
artifacts. ALL Natural History artifacts in most museums around the world
were treated with arsenic b/c it worked!! There is an article on late 19th
century conservation treatment techniques that I would be willing to get the
citation for you if you are truly interested, but I think you are going to
get blasted for presuming that toxicity of artifacts has ANYTHING to do with
the repat issue. This is a heated topic and even more so now with the mass
repatriation planned by Suzanne Harjo's rainbow coalition!!!!! I think it is
safe to say however that arsenic plays little to no role in the ongoing repat
travesty. :[[
|
|
|