Open Forum

Hello all,

I am a strong proponent of repatriation. One of the many reasons I left a previous job was the fact that I did not want to take an item that should have been repatriated - and future repatriation was not on the table (also warranty of title was sketchy). 

Luckily, my new place of employment just repatriated a Japanese family flag - and it went quite well. It was already in the works before I was hired, but I was able to see the process through.

Now, I'm in a weird spot. We were offered a large collection of military artifacts and archival material. Of that collection, a flag (similar to the one we just repatriated) is being offered. I have already reached out to the organization that helped us with the repatriation to see their thoughts on the item. This item could be deemed 'of important cultural significance.' Now, do I take the item only to repatriate it... or work with the donor to return the flag? It's a weird spot to be in because, if it is important, it should be returned. However, if the donor knows this... they might hold on to it.

I just finished writing our policies and procedures and, currently, it is our policy that nothing should be deaccessioned within a couple of years of acceptance unless new information becomes known which makes it suspect, falls under NAGPRA, or should be repatriated due to its cultural significance (if not under NAGPRA). However, it is also our policy that a good faith effort is made to determine an item's ethical and legal viability before we even take the items.

Thoughts anyone?

------------------------------
Samantha Tubbs
Museum Director
New Mexico Military Museum
------------------------------

I'm currently working on doing the same with a Japanese flag in our posession.  Personally, I would inform the current owner and discuss the reasons behind the practice.

------------------------------
Lacey Price
San Jose State University

------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: 06-22-2020 03:12 PM
From: Samantha Tubbs
Subject: Repatriation Question

Hello all,

I am a strong proponent of repatriation. One of the many reasons I left a previous job was the fact that I did not want to take an item that should have been repatriated - and future repatriation was not on the table (also warranty of title was sketchy).

Luckily, my new place of employment just repatriated a Japanese family flag - and it went quite well. It was already in the works before I was hired, but I was able to see the process through.

Now, I'm in a weird spot. We were offered a large collection of military artifacts and archival material. Of that collection, a flag (similar to the one we just repatriated) is being offered. I have already reached out to the organization that helped us with the repatriation to see their thoughts on the item. This item could be deemed 'of important cultural significance.' Now, do I take the item only to repatriate it... or work with the donor to return the flag? It's a weird spot to be in because, if it is important, it should be returned. However, if the donor knows this... they might hold on to it.

I just finished writing our policies and procedures and, currently, it is our policy that nothing should be deaccessioned within a couple of years of acceptance unless new information becomes known which makes it suspect, falls under NAGPRA, or should be repatriated due to its cultural significance (if not under NAGPRA). However, it is also our policy that a good faith effort is made to determine an item's ethical and legal viability before we even take the items.

Thoughts anyone?

------------------------------
Samantha Tubbs
Museum Director
New Mexico Military Museum
------------------------------

I don't have an earth shattering answer, but I would give the family the chance to pursue the right thing. I'm so pleased that your institution is doing the work! Thanks for your leadership in this area.

------------------------------
Jacqueline Maronic
Learning Experiences Team Leader
Naper Settlement
Naperville IL
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: 06-22-2020 03:12 PM
From: Samantha Tubbs
Subject: Repatriation Question

Hello all,

I am a strong proponent of repatriation. One of the many reasons I left a previous job was the fact that I did not want to take an item that should have been repatriated - and future repatriation was not on the table (also warranty of title was sketchy).

Luckily, my new place of employment just repatriated a Japanese family flag - and it went quite well. It was already in the works before I was hired, but I was able to see the process through.

Now, I'm in a weird spot. We were offered a large collection of military artifacts and archival material. Of that collection, a flag (similar to the one we just repatriated) is being offered. I have already reached out to the organization that helped us with the repatriation to see their thoughts on the item. This item could be deemed 'of important cultural significance.' Now, do I take the item only to repatriate it... or work with the donor to return the flag? It's a weird spot to be in because, if it is important, it should be returned. However, if the donor knows this... they might hold on to it.

I just finished writing our policies and procedures and, currently, it is our policy that nothing should be deaccessioned within a couple of years of acceptance unless new information becomes known which makes it suspect, falls under NAGPRA, or should be repatriated due to its cultural significance (if not under NAGPRA). However, it is also our policy that a good faith effort is made to determine an item's ethical and legal viability before we even take the items.

Thoughts anyone?

------------------------------
Samantha Tubbs
Museum Director
New Mexico Military Museum
------------------------------

I am more of an expert on ethics rather than an expert on repatriation. I would start with informing the donor about what you know or reasonably suspect concerning all items within the collection, including (but certainly not limited to) the flag. I would inform them of the historic and/or cultural significance of each piece, how your museum plans to use the items if they are donated, and any plans to inquire about repatriation. In this way, they have all the information you can provide them to make an informed decision. It would be advisable to have some documentation of this conversation as well. This prevents any future problems with the donors claiming to not know you would attempt repatriation or any disagreements concerning how you use "their" items. Good luck with the project.

------------------------------
Laura Benedict MLS
Cultural History Collections Manager
Las Vegas Natural History Museum
Las Vegas NV
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: 06-22-2020 03:12 PM
From: Samantha Tubbs
Subject: Repatriation Question

Hello all,

I am a strong proponent of repatriation. One of the many reasons I left a previous job was the fact that I did not want to take an item that should have been repatriated - and future repatriation was not on the table (also warranty of title was sketchy).

Luckily, my new place of employment just repatriated a Japanese family flag - and it went quite well. It was already in the works before I was hired, but I was able to see the process through.

Now, I'm in a weird spot. We were offered a large collection of military artifacts and archival material. Of that collection, a flag (similar to the one we just repatriated) is being offered. I have already reached out to the organization that helped us with the repatriation to see their thoughts on the item. This item could be deemed 'of important cultural significance.' Now, do I take the item only to repatriate it... or work with the donor to return the flag? It's a weird spot to be in because, if it is important, it should be returned. However, if the donor knows this... they might hold on to it.

I just finished writing our policies and procedures and, currently, it is our policy that nothing should be deaccessioned within a couple of years of acceptance unless new information becomes known which makes it suspect, falls under NAGPRA, or should be repatriated due to its cultural significance (if not under NAGPRA). However, it is also our policy that a good faith effort is made to determine an item's ethical and legal viability before we even take the items.

Thoughts anyone?

------------------------------
Samantha Tubbs
Museum Director
New Mexico Military Museum
------------------------------

We once had a similar situation with a Native American item. We explained to the donor the significance of the piece, which he understood, and let him know we could provide contact information for the proper institution through which he could repatriate it. He wasn't interested in doing it himself and indicated he was more inclined to sell it if we didn't want it because that was easier for him. Instead, we offered to take possession of the piece but not accession it, for the purpose of repatriating it ourselves. The donor was fine with that arrangement. It all worked out well and we got the item back to where it belonged. I think the key part of making this arrangement was helping the donor to understand the cultural significance of the piece and how it would benefit its community of origin to have it back. Once he understood that, and we removed the inconvenience for him, he was amenable to it going back.

------------------------------
Jennifer Day
Head Registrar
Indian Arts Research Center at the School for Advanced Research
Santa Fe NM
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: 06-22-2020 03:12 PM
From: Samantha Tubbs
Subject: Repatriation Question

Hello all,

I am a strong proponent of repatriation. One of the many reasons I left a previous job was the fact that I did not want to take an item that should have been repatriated - and future repatriation was not on the table (also warranty of title was sketchy).

Luckily, my new place of employment just repatriated a Japanese family flag - and it went quite well. It was already in the works before I was hired, but I was able to see the process through.

Now, I'm in a weird spot. We were offered a large collection of military artifacts and archival material. Of that collection, a flag (similar to the one we just repatriated) is being offered. I have already reached out to the organization that helped us with the repatriation to see their thoughts on the item. This item could be deemed 'of important cultural significance.' Now, do I take the item only to repatriate it... or work with the donor to return the flag? It's a weird spot to be in because, if it is important, it should be returned. However, if the donor knows this... they might hold on to it.

I just finished writing our policies and procedures and, currently, it is our policy that nothing should be deaccessioned within a couple of years of acceptance unless new information becomes known which makes it suspect, falls under NAGPRA, or should be repatriated due to its cultural significance (if not under NAGPRA). However, it is also our policy that a good faith effort is made to determine an item's ethical and legal viability before we even take the items.

Thoughts anyone?

------------------------------
Samantha Tubbs
Museum Director
New Mexico Military Museum
------------------------------