deathacus12 t1_isrh1zi wrote
Artist here, actual question. Do indigenous tribes have the resources, experts, and facilities to conserve these pieces? Or is it a symbolic gesture and they're gonna stay with UC Berkeley.
dacuriouspineapple t1_isrxrfz wrote
It doesn't matter what one does with their own belongings. Aside from that, there's an underlying assumption baked into these types of questions that is offensive.
deathacus12 t1_isryy5x wrote
It does in this case since these objects have been deemed 'culturally significant' by historians. Their preservation is therefore important.
I'm not implying that these tribes are stupid or incapable of taking care of these objects. I would hate to see irreversible damage done to these artifacts, especially since their culture has been destroyed enough as is. Care of historic artifacts requires teams of folks with extensive domain knowledge, proper facilities, and money for upkeep. Unless they have a dedicated art or anthropology museum, they most likely don't have the necessary resources. Even if they do have the resources or could get them in the near future, transportation is an issue. Many of these artifacts are fragile. Transporting them to (probably) lesser facilities with the added risk of them being damaged in transit doesn't really make sense. That is, if you care about the cultural value these artifacts have.
Illithilitch t1_itdv2ux wrote
They rebury them. Just like you would if someone dug up your grandma. Preservation isn't the goal.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments