-----Original Message-----
From: Heleanor Feltham
Sent: Thursday, 21 January 1999 16:05
To: owner-museum-l
Subject: RE: aboriginal artefacts
Very few people who buy things that have 'fallen off the back of a truck'
are permitted to keep them when the police come knocking. Among the few
exceptions are, of course, the famous 'hot pot' - the Eumorphos Vase -
and the Elgin marbles. In the Australian context, Strehlow's 'ownership'
of the Aboriginal artefacts was dubious to say the least.
The complex pressures behind the sale or gifting of sacred objects,
especially during periods of enforced socio-religious change, is a
significant issue throughout the Asia-Pacific region and some of the
documents produced during the UN Year of Indigenous People addressed the
ethical problems involved. Buying ship textiles in the Indonesian
archipelago, ceremonial pots in Niuguinea, can do enormous damage to
local cultures.
Perhaps Paul could talk with some of the New Zealand museums, such as Te
Papa Tongarewa, Manuwatu, Hawk's Bay.... about their complex curatorship
of Maori artefacts and their relationships with the local Maori
communities.
Heleanor Feltham
Powerhouse Museum
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-museum-l [SMTP:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Thursday, 21 January 1999 13:24
To: MUSEUM-L
Subject: Re: aboriginal artefacts
Dear Christopher Dill,
I agree with you that my original statement of
"...the question of whether aboriginal (indigenous)
> artefacts should or should not be returned to
> their rightful owners..."
is quite presumptuous! It somewhat suggests an already made conclusion.
However, the question of ownership is a very complex one. Can ownership
be defined simply by purchase? Or by having cultural ties to the
creators of such objects?
You gave the analogy of the purchase of a car. However, one may
purchase a car of a person, or dealer, who may still owes money on the
vehicle to a money-lending body. Even though, i have paid money for the
car, the vehicle is not by law mine.
Cultural ownership is extremely difficult to gauge and interpret. It
is definitely not straight-forward as one may presume at first glance.
The question of how, when, and where the indigenous objects were
obtained creates a mine-field of both legal and moral dimensions. There
is no ready made fix for disputes over indigenous cultural items.
The above statement would have been better phrased as such:
should aboriginal artefacts be returned to aboriginal people who may
have connections/affiliations with the items?
or
Does a non-indigenous cultural institution have the right to control and
'own' (keep) the sacred cultural property of the indigenous people of
that country without their consent.
how's that?
THANK YOU ALL FOR REPLYING TO MY QUESTION!
Kind regards
paul willis
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
|
