Valuable sticks

Tim Simmons · 15th April 2006, 05:24 PM

Very interesting newspaper article today.

I hope this is not too small to read. Tim

ariel · 15th April 2006, 10:22 PM

If these sticks are so valuable, either the Kenyans or the British ( or both) are welcome to my backyard; we have 2 old trees to chop down and the contestants can have all the branches they want.

Jim McDougall · 16th April 2006, 11:18 PM

Hi Tim,
I wanted to thank you for sharing this very interesting article! For many years I have nearly obsessively pored through at least 3-4 newspapers a day looking for this type of news items. I always date and file them in the ever growing archives here (nearing dangerous cave in proportions

!!

It seems that the tribal staffs and clubs often used by shaman and by chieftains in Africa were characteristically held as imbued with considerable ethereal properties. Much as what we are discussing in your concurrent thread on the use of copper in material culture and weapons, the same magical and amuletic properies held inherent in certain rocks,gems and metals are typically applied to various woods and botanicals. The fact that a certain item, such as a staff or club was used by important tribal figures simply elevated the already revered items to even higher dimensions.

The types of wood chosen for certain weapons it would seem, may have been for talismanic value as well as practical value, I believe there are a number of weapons that may have even been named for the wood used.

Thank you again for sharing this article!!!

All best regards,
Jim

yuanzhumin · 17th April 2006, 02:28 PM

Hi Tim
Thank you for this very rare and nice story.
The return of the stolen objects during the colonization times is really an important topic.
I was discussing it just few days ago with the curator of one of the main museum of primitive art in France that is visiting here. He agreed himself that there is no interest to keep that many objects in the western museums when, in the countries where these artifacts are coming from, the museums have often so little to show.
The return is something to think about mostly when we know that the museums in the western hemisphere show around 5% of their collections average, the rest being stored in wharehouses or underground where they are not always properly taken care of because of budget restrictions.
In the case of Taiwan, no western colonisation, but japanese one from 1895 to 1945. When they arrived in the island, they were the first to show interest in the aboriginal people. I f they sent ethnologists in the tribes, it was in order to learn about them for scientifical purpose but also in order to better colonise them. While the French were sending missionaries first before the soldiers, the Japanese were sending ethnologists.
They collected the first objects from these territories considered as terra incognita till their arrival and where nobody was daring to go as the head hunters were everywhere.
Step by step, they accumulated a lot of knowledge and objects from these tribes. At the same time, they submitted them to their laws.
Except what the Japanese had brought before the end of the 2nd world war to their country, before being expelled from Taiwan by the Americans and Chiang Kai-chek, the rest of the objects remained in the taiwanese museums. There are today around 12 000 aboriginal objects in the public museums here. But it's true also that a bigger number, with the oldest pieces, is still in Japan.
Thanks again for the article, Tim.
Best,
yuanzhumin

katana · 17th April 2006, 04:10 PM

Very interesting article Tim,
it seems that the perception of an article's worth is often gauged by its monetary value in today's society. The Holy Grail, of legend, was often described as being made of precious metal and gem stones, this, presumably to enhance the significance of such a religious icon. In reality the grail, the supposed drinking vessel used at the last supper would have been much, much more modest. ( I also appreciate the grail, is also believed to be symbolic of the 'wife' of Jesus..... but that’s another story.)
My simplified, generalised point is this, our modern, westernised views of what qualities objects are revered for, has changed to a more materialistic stance away from our ancestor's more spiritual view. (Unfortunately

)

Having said that, there is a piece of cloth, that has been visited by hundreds of thousands of people; is held, by those who believe, to be one of greatest Christian religious relics...... the Turin shroud, in essence .....a linen sheet.............now about those 'sticks' ?!!?

Tim Simmons · 17th April 2006, 05:49 PM

I am pleased other people found this article interesting. It does raise several dilemmas, the return of objects taken in recent times on questionable grounds. That is a tough one, although I have a modest collection there are one or two pieces that might have an unseen value. I do not mind honestly saying "no, they are mine now" but is this right with big collections often having more than they know what to do with, in particular those owened by the state?

The appeal of lavish and opulently decorated pieces is obvious however that is not where I see the value in collections, uses beyond the immediate attract me the most.

ariel · 17th April 2006, 06:10 PM

It is an interesting discussion and it begs a question: who should be the rightful owner of an antique object?
I cannot accept the idea that antique objects of art (or culture) belong exclusively to the ethic tribe of the creator. If one wants to insist upon this rule, then all Rembrandts should be returned to the Netherlands. I bet that 99.99999% of our collections "rightfully belong" to somebody else.
There is an unfortunate tendency to counterpose "Western society" with the rest of the world ( the former being greedy, materialistic and imperialistic whereas the latter being uniformly labelled as spiritual, environmetally sensitive and possessing deep wisdom).
Balderdash! Any society curious enogh about other cultures and rich/powerful enough to acqure artefacts , did it with gusto! Turkish museums are filled with European trophies including the sword of Stefan cel Mare . The Russian Tsars built the Hermitage for their acquisitions, and our Nihon-to colleagues salivate at night over their Koto katanas taken to the US by veterans of WWII. Japanese, in exchange, buy Van Goghs. Taiwanese museums are filled with the goods from China taken there by Chang Kai-shek (those that were not, were destroyed during the Cultural Revolution by Mao's goons).
Objects of art from any culture were sold, re-sold, taken af war trophies, stolen and found innumerable times over the centuries. Our only hope to see them preserved 1000 years from now is to place them in professional museums, not to surrender them to their tribal shamans. Had it not been for the Western museums, most ethnographic artefacts would have beed destroyed, lost and damaged by the elements in their natural habitats.
These Kenyan sticks would have rotted long ago had they stayed with the tribal witch doctors.
If a creator society wants, they can borrow the artifacts from other museums. But the idea that all Nigerian swords belong to Lagos, all Michelangelos to Rome, all Russian icons to Moscow and all statues of Buddha to Bangkok strikes me as absurd.

Tim Simmons · 17th April 2006, 06:41 PM

I do believe some very high up people from the countries that clamour for repatriation of artifacts, often do rather well when they offer treasures for sale on the black or even open market. I had better get ready to duck

.

Titus Pullo · 18th April 2006, 02:20 AM

Yes, I seem to be sharing your view on the cultural values from different cultures...especially religeon. I think it helps you understand and learb about yourself better by studying the important values behind each items, religeons, and other items. Especially, religeon is very important because true logic and wisdom can only be found in your heart...only in love. Why? Because when you have no respect for anything you tend loose focus on the objectivity...like when you are angry or prejudice, you tend to think what you want to think. For instance, people who have no respect for beer might kill himself drinking death. You a lot of young people partying and drinking excessively,thinking they'll be ok. You need to have respect...having a cool head...and that comes from your heart and love for life, people and the culture.

ariel · 18th April 2006, 04:11 AM

Titus,
Come over, I'll take you to our local microbrewery and guarantee that after 3 glasses your heart will be filled with the most selfless love for the entire universe!
Then, after an urgent trip to the loo, the love dissipates. Start all over. Yin, yang, yin, yang.... Very Zen-ic....

yuanzhumin · 18th April 2006, 06:24 AM

Hello

Interesting discussion.

I don’t want to get involved in the debate of colonization, or its goods and wrongs. And believe me, I'm far from being a utopian or an anti-imperialist guy. I think what we are talking about here is above all political considerations.

It's about being fair and having a certain notion of sharing.

Sharing : The fact that all Nigerian swords belong to Lagos, all Michelangelos to Rome, all Russian icons to Moscow and all statues of Buddha to Bangkok strikes me as absurd as it can be. Yes, that's why I think artpieces should be shared with others, mostly when we have so many of them from all around the world that are stored in western museums without being displayed for ages and often will never be, because of space or budget issues. I'm thinking, by the way, that these sticks had more risks to get rotten in the underground where they were kept in England than in the hands of the people that value them. And if they are lost in a war, or in a natural catastrophy, this is their destiny after all. Look at the Bamyan buddhas in Afghanistan. What could we do ? On the other way, I think we did a great job in Cambodgia to help them save and recover their khmer patrimony.

So instead of not doing anything, why shouldn’t we share part of the western collections with the other countries and even returning them sometimes when the items are coming from abroad ? In which conditions it could be done, this is another debate, but the principle is there: it’s possible to share.

Now, there may be also few western art pieces abroad, in the Middle East, in Asia or in other parts of the world. But very often they are found in the private collections of very rich people, and more seldomly found in public museums. In Taiwan, for example, there is one museum, yes, where you can find western paintings and art works, but it has been founded by one of the richest man on this island. The guy could have kept its masterworks for himself but no, he wanted to SHARE its personal collection with the public.

Talking about Turkey, it is a country that had a long history with Europe to such an extent that it is waiting to get inside the European Union. So nothing extraordinary to the presence of European artworks in Turkey or in Russia. But what about all the other countries ? In the Far East, in South America, in Oceania ? Take Africa, is there any Michel Angelo in the African museums ? They don’t even have their own stuff that is already, most of the time or for the best pieces, in western museums. That’s the reason why I think the story of these sticks going back to their people is nice. It’s a very little drop in the bucket, but it’s nice.

Being fair : There is something else important to underline. It is the fact that these sticks were stolen in a violent episode. These were not items that were discarded after being used or collected innocently. These sticks were stolen while they were still full of the power entrusted to them by the people that used them. So they have a symbolic value that gives to them and to their return a very special significance, I think. Wouldn't it be normal to ask for the return of the original documents of the American Constitution if they were stolen or would you think that they are only old papers just good to be thrown away ?

Concerning the National Palace Museum in Taiwan, where there are so many pieces from China, there are very different ways to see the situation:
- * if you are a chinese communist : you think these pieces have not left the country as they are in Taiwan that is, the communists insist, still a part of China.
- * if you are from the Kuomintang (Nationalist Party): you think these pieces have not left the country because they are in Taiwan that is also, for the Kuomintang people, a part of China, only the definition of their China being different.
- * if you are a taiwanese independantist : you think most of these pieces are coming from a foreign country, China, and should go back there if only the Chinese could put away the 800 missiles that they have turned on Taiwan. Another possibility would be to give part of the collections to the Japanese museums in exchange for most of the Taiwanese aboriginal artifacts collected in their museums.
What do you think ?

Greetings,

yuanzhumin

Tim Simmons · 18th April 2006, 07:39 AM

In my heart I feel there may be a case for the return of some artifacts on diplomatic and moral grounds. After all, some efforts have been made to return stolen art from the worlds most recent conflicts. If I was in charge of the British Museum I would not want to be the one who set the precedent.

ariel · 18th April 2006, 12:34 PM

Yuanzhumin,
I loved your argument about China/Taiwan!
Yes, a lot of "ownership' is in the eyes of the (be)holder.
And the British museum may, indeed, be in trouble. Elgin's stones from Greece, treasures of the Peking Summer Palace ( BTW, do you know that it was looted and destroyed by Lord Elgin, the son of the Elgin's stones guy? Heredity, heredity....). British Crown contains Koh-i-Noor, a giant diamond taken by the Brits as a part of indemnity after the Sikh War, etc, etc,
No matter what, most valuable antiques will always be concentrated in the hands of rich and famous ( states or individuals). And, yes, it is a pity that museums have so little exhibition space.The only solution is exchange exhibitions.

yuanzhumin · 19th April 2006, 11:47 AM

Hi everybody,
What brings me to a much bigger stick :
Should we ask the French to give back the obelisk standing on the Concorde Square in the middle of Paris ?
In fact, it looks better than the guillotines the revolutionaries used to set up there. To the great despair of the ones that would like to see me under their blade

, I would say no.
I was remembered not long ago that this obelisk was not stolen by Napoleon during his Egyptian campaign, but was offered to France by the sultan of Egypt, Mohammed Ali, in 1830.
So if this one was a gift and legally entered France, that other one was not : the obelisk of Axum that used to stand in Roma till last year and that had been looted from Ethiopia by the Italian army in 1937. See this article http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/4458105.stm**
By the way, I just realized that we could celebrate these days the first anniversary of the return of this cultural relic in its country.
Best,
yuanzhumin

Tim Simmons · 19th April 2006, 07:16 PM

The British Museum has far more important things in my mind than the Elgin marbles, various treasures equivalent to the UK crown jewels from some sea board countries, taken within the last 110 years. I could well see this as a cause for concern in the "modern" world "global village", but as I said if I were the boss I would not sign the paper and I think that will always be the case of the person lucky enough to become the boss.

katana · 19th April 2006, 11:04 PM

With the continual advance of modern, industrial society encroaching onto the lands and lives of tribal members, (Africa, Borneo, Tibet etc.) their established cultural lives are being seriously eroded. New generations are adapting or are forced to adapt to modern ethics and lifestyle, much of the wisdom and knowledge of their ancestors will surely be lost as the 'old ways' are forgotten. This I feel is a sad state of affairs

.
Perhaps you could argue that museums and collectors would become the 'custodians' of their cultural history. And by doing so, would educate others and preserve their heritage. But, generally the driving force behind many museums and dare I say, some collectors is an economic one. Obtaining 'treasures' legally or otherwise, for the purpose of increasing the number of the paying guests (museum), for prestige (museum/collector) or to sell on for profit (collector).
Articles 'stolen' as war trophies is an obvious grey area, after all many countries' borders have changed due to conflict, yet it is rare for the vanquished to expect to regain land lost after a war. Whether this is morally wrong is down to the individual and the circumstances. But as Darwin points out, it is (unfortunately) 'survival of the fittest'.
I also agree that many poorer (economically) countries seem to have corrupt regimes, whom, would surely sell, any returned 'national treasures' for personal gain. Depriving their own people of their heritage and the country's property.
I hope that if decisions are made about the return of artefacts to their rightful heirs, they are based on moral judgement, and are individually assessed on their merits. It is important that these 'treasures', whether they are 'sticks' or a Chinese jade death mask, are preserved, and available for research or viewing.

If man forgets where he came from... how will he know where he’s going.....

Who would have thought that an article about the return of 'some sticks' would stir such debate.......

fernando · 19th April 2006, 11:10 PM

If man forgets where he came from... how will he know where he’s going.....

Amen

Rick · 20th April 2006, 12:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by katana

With the continual advance of modern, industrial society encroaching onto the lands and lives of tribal members, (Africa, Borneo, Tibet etc.) their established cultural lives are being seriously eroded. New generations are adapting or are forced to adapt to modern ethics and lifestyle, much of the wisdom and knowledge of their ancestors will surely be lost as the 'old ways' are forgotten. This I feel is a sad state of affairs

.

Unfortunately this seems inevitable in today's world ; societies evolve or die .

Quote:

Originally Posted by katana

Perhaps you could argue that museums and collectors would become the 'custodians' of their cultural history. And by doing so, would educate others and preserve their heritage. But, generally the driving force behind many museums and dare I say, some collectors is an economic one. Obtaining 'treasures' legally or otherwise, for the purpose of increasing the number of the paying guests (museum), for prestige (museum/collector) or to sell on for profit (collector).

I will not indict the Dealer/Collector as he advances his collection by selling and acquiring ; IMO most "Dealers" do not get rich . There are many more efficient ways to accumulate wealth than selling antique arms .
I also believe the Collector can be instrumental in keeping interest in these artifacts alive providing he is willing to share and he maintains his collection unlike many museums that are constrained by a budget .

Quote:

Originally Posted by katana

I also agree that many poorer (economically) countries seem to have corrupt regimes, whom, would surely sell, any returned 'national treasures' for personal gain. Depriving their own people of their heritage and the country's property.

This is why I would presently not consider returning my collection to the countries that they originated from .

Quote:

Originally Posted by katana

I hope that if decisions are made about the return of artefacts to their rightful heirs, they are based on moral judgement, and are individually assessed on their merits. It is important that these 'treasures', whether they are 'sticks' or a Chinese jade death mask, are preserved, and available for research or viewing.
If man forgets where he came from... how will he know where he’s going.....

Very true .

katana · 20th April 2006, 06:46 PM

QUOTE :
I will not indict the Dealer/Collector as he advances his collection by selling and acquiring ; IMO most "Dealers" do not get rich . There are many more efficient ways to accumulate wealth than selling antique arms .
Rick

In general I totally agree, but there is a very small number of unscrupulous dealers of Antiquities that are actively involved in under-hand methods to procure their items. Bribery, site/grave robbing is not uncommon. Apparently, the information provided in several documentaries (last year) support this. South America was the main example. Various newly discovered sites were 'looted' before archaeologists had any chance of excavating. It seems that the 'stolen' items are 'supplied' cheaply and then 'sold on'. The items, because they are illegally obtained, cannot be publicly displayed and have no provenance and yet they are still purchased by unethical collectors, whom are totally aware of the article's illegality. In this particular case we are talking objects often made of solid gold, jade etc.
This causes two major problems, 1 the sites are often 'vandalised' to remove the articles, causing a loss of data for the archaeologist. And 2. The loss of these items,which would allow further insight into the history and culture of these ancient civilisations.

QUOTE:

I also believe the Collector can be instrumental in keeping interest in these artifacts alive providing he is willing to share and he maintains his collection unlike many museums that are constrained by a budget .
Rick.

I couldn't agree more

Rick · 20th April 2006, 08:54 PM

Sad but true ; grave robbers have existed since time immemorial .

Tim Simmons · 20th April 2006, 09:14 PM

I am sure at a certain level there is a dark side to dealing in antiquities including weapons just as there is with things like precious stones. Some collectors with the means will always be able to say I want one of those "now".

At least since the mid 20th the idea of keeping human museum relics like the bones and skulls of the last Tasmanians and other folk is over. A disgraceful episode in British colonial history.

ariel · 20th April 2006, 11:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tim Simmons

I am sure at a certain level there is a dark side to dealing in antiquities including weapons just as there is with things like precious stones. Some collectors with the means will always be able to say I want one of those "now".

At least since the mid 20th the idea of keeping human museum relics like the bones and skulls of the last Tasmanians and other folk is over. A disgraceful episode in British colonial history.

There is a "moving exhibition" of human bodies, skinned, preserved with special plastics and posed coquetishly (playing baseball, dancing, etc), that travels from city to city around the US (hosted by major museums !) and the admission price is $40. To the best of my knowledge, the cadavers were bought in India.
In my mind, this is a disgrace and abomination. And I do not know who is more depraved: the owners or the prurient visitors...

katana · 21st April 2006, 12:19 AM

BOTH.

I think it is important that death is realised. Death is something modern society tends to ignore. Our ancestors and many so called 'primitive' societies celebrated death as part of the 'circle of life'. Perhaps if we understood this concept more fully, we would celebrate life with more vigour.
But , using cadavers in life like poses is tasteless, and using the 'excuse' that it is art, is meaningless, it is just 'shock value' and 'hype'.

Rick · 21st April 2006, 01:33 AM

Depraved .

Andrew · 21st April 2006, 03:47 AM

The practice of dissecting and plasticizing cadavers is not new. Scientists first did this for educational purposes. I believe the Mutter Museum in Philadelphia, USA, has displayed some of these original examples.

Needless to say, this precedent does not excuse the practice of grave robbing (even in the name of science), nor the purient interest generated therefrom.

ariel · 21st April 2006, 04:30 AM

There is a major difference in the use of cadavers for educational/scientific purposes and contorting a dead body to twist the Hula Hoop for $40 a pop.
Students in medical schools are taught respect for the dead body and gratitude to the donor. No levity is allowed or tolerated.
Studies of skeletons of native people is important for anthropological purpose; having finished the measurements and having created computer-controlled plastic copies, the bones are returned to the tribe if requested.
Buying corpses from the Third World countries to create an anatomic Disneyland is abhorrent and no justification can be advanced for this sacrilege. The unspoken "mitigation" that those people were " natives" and, horror of horrors, poor strikes me as the worst example of racism and denial of humanity. Would anybody in his right mind take his kids to such a show?
This is NOT science and NOT education!
I am surprised that there is no legal action yet to ban these "exhibitions".
It is currently in New York, the world capital of liberalism and political correctness.

Andrew · 21st April 2006, 05:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ariel

There is a major difference in the use of cadavers for educational/scientific purposes and contorting a dead body to twist the Hula Hoop for $40 a pop.
Students in medical schools are taught respect for the dead body and gratitude to the donor. No levity is allowed or tolerated.
Studies of skeletons of native people is important for anthropological purpose; having finished the measurements and having created computer-controlled plastic copies, the bones are returned to the tribe if requested.
Buying corpses from the Third World countries to create an anatomic Disneyland is abhorrent and no justification can be advanced for this sacrilege. The unspoken "mitigation" that those people were " natives" and, horror of horrors, poor strikes me as the worst example of racism and denial of humanity. Would anybody in his right mind take his kids to such a show?
This is NOT science and NOT education!
I am surprised that there is no legal action yet to ban these "exhibitions".
It is currently in New York, the world capital of liberalism and political correctness.

I was pointing out that the technology and practice have legitimate origins.

I thought this comment needed no further explantion:

Quote:

Needless to say, this precedent does not excuse the practice of grave robbing (even in the name of science), nor the purient interest generated therefrom.

Tim Simmons · 21st April 2006, 07:18 AM

wow! I was not thinking of the "freak show" more the late 19th cent cataloguing and dubious science carried out on people new to Europeans. This I am sure was the forefather of ideas of eugenics and the ultimate disaster that led to. Or am I just loosing my grip

.

yuanzhumin · 21st April 2006, 08:44 AM

Well, should we advocate for the return of these " artpieces " to Europe or China?
The body artist is Gunther Von Hagens, from Germany, but it is said that some of the corpses are coming from China (they have a lot of death row prisoners there to help supply) where he maintains a center for plastination of the bodies. See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gunther_von_Hagens

ariel · 21st April 2006, 12:07 PM

Now we know where he got his genes from....At 12,000 euros a day,he must be a multimillionaire by now.
There is an unofficial ban in the scientific community on all studies done by the German scientists during WWII that involved prisoners: these papers are just not cited.
Some time ago, at a meeting, a colleague from France did show some microscopy pictures from that era and casually noted that the materials were obtained from concentration camps. I confronted him; he apologized and left the meeting right away.

15th April 2006, 05:24 PM	#1
Tim Simmons Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: What is still UK Posts: 5,806	Valuable sticks Very interesting newspaper article today. I hope this is not too small to read. Tim

17th April 2006, 06:41 PM	#8
Tim Simmons Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: What is still UK Posts: 5,806	I do believe some very high up people from the countries that clamour for repatriation of artifacts, often do rather well when they offer treasures for sale on the black or even open market. I had better get ready to duck . Last edited by Tim Simmons; 17th April 2006 at 07:13 PM. Reason: spelling!!

19th April 2006, 11:47 AM	#14
yuanzhumin Member Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Ex-Taipei, Taiwan, now in Shanghai, China Posts: 180	What about a much bigger stick? Hi everybody, What brings me to a much bigger stick : Should we ask the French to give back the obelisk standing on the Concorde Square in the middle of Paris ? In fact, it looks better than the guillotines the revolutionaries used to set up there. To the great despair of the ones that would like to see me under their blade , I would say no. I was remembered not long ago that this obelisk was not stolen by Napoleon during his Egyptian campaign, but was offered to France by the sultan of Egypt, Mohammed Ali, in 1830. So if this one was a gift and legally entered France, that other one was not : the obelisk of Axum that used to stand in Roma till last year and that had been looted from Ethiopia by the Italian army in 1937. See this article http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/4458105.stm** By the way, I just realized that we could celebrate these days the first anniversary of the return of this cultural relic in its country. Best, yuanzhumin

21st April 2006, 12:19 AM	#23
katana Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Kent Posts: 2,653	BOTH. I think it is important that death is realised. Death is something modern society tends to ignore. Our ancestors and many so called 'primitive' societies celebrated death as part of the 'circle of life'. Perhaps if we understood this concept more fully, we would celebrate life with more vigour. But , using cadavers in life like poses is tasteless, and using the 'excuse' that it is art, is meaningless, it is just 'shock value' and 'hype'. Last edited by katana; 21st April 2006 at 02:14 AM.

15th April 2006, 10:22 PM	#2
ariel Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 5,503	If these sticks are so valuable, either the Kenyans or the British ( or both) are welcome to my backyard; we have 2 old trees to chop down and the contestants can have all the branches they want.

16th April 2006, 11:18 PM	#3
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 9,938	Hi Tim, I wanted to thank you for sharing this very interesting article! For many years I have nearly obsessively pored through at least 3-4 newspapers a day looking for this type of news items. I always date and file them in the ever growing archives here (nearing dangerous cave in proportions !! It seems that the tribal staffs and clubs often used by shaman and by chieftains in Africa were characteristically held as imbued with considerable ethereal properties. Much as what we are discussing in your concurrent thread on the use of copper in material culture and weapons, the same magical and amuletic properies held inherent in certain rocks,gems and metals are typically applied to various woods and botanicals. The fact that a certain item, such as a staff or club was used by important tribal figures simply elevated the already revered items to even higher dimensions. The types of wood chosen for certain weapons it would seem, may have been for talismanic value as well as practical value, I believe there are a number of weapons that may have even been named for the wood used. Thank you again for sharing this article!!! All best regards, Jim

17th April 2006, 02:28 PM	#4
yuanzhumin Member Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Ex-Taipei, Taiwan, now in Shanghai, China Posts: 180	Hi Tim Thank you for this very rare and nice story. The return of the stolen objects during the colonization times is really an important topic. I was discussing it just few days ago with the curator of one of the main museum of primitive art in France that is visiting here. He agreed himself that there is no interest to keep that many objects in the western museums when, in the countries where these artifacts are coming from, the museums have often so little to show. The return is something to think about mostly when we know that the museums in the western hemisphere show around 5% of their collections average, the rest being stored in wharehouses or underground where they are not always properly taken care of because of budget restrictions. In the case of Taiwan, no western colonisation, but japanese one from 1895 to 1945. When they arrived in the island, they were the first to show interest in the aboriginal people. I f they sent ethnologists in the tribes, it was in order to learn about them for scientifical purpose but also in order to better colonise them. While the French were sending missionaries first before the soldiers, the Japanese were sending ethnologists. They collected the first objects from these territories considered as terra incognita till their arrival and where nobody was daring to go as the head hunters were everywhere. Step by step, they accumulated a lot of knowledge and objects from these tribes. At the same time, they submitted them to their laws. Except what the Japanese had brought before the end of the 2nd world war to their country, before being expelled from Taiwan by the Americans and Chiang Kai-chek, the rest of the objects remained in the taiwanese museums. There are today around 12 000 aboriginal objects in the public museums here. But it's true also that a bigger number, with the oldest pieces, is still in Japan. Thanks again for the article, Tim. Best, yuanzhumin

17th April 2006, 04:10 PM	#5
katana Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Kent Posts: 2,653	Very interesting article Tim, it seems that the perception of an article's worth is often gauged by its monetary value in today's society. The Holy Grail, of legend, was often described as being made of precious metal and gem stones, this, presumably to enhance the significance of such a religious icon. In reality the grail, the supposed drinking vessel used at the last supper would have been much, much more modest. ( I also appreciate the grail, is also believed to be symbolic of the 'wife' of Jesus..... but that’s another story.) My simplified, generalised point is this, our modern, westernised views of what qualities objects are revered for, has changed to a more materialistic stance away from our ancestor's more spiritual view. (Unfortunately ) Having said that, there is a piece of cloth, that has been visited by hundreds of thousands of people; is held, by those who believe, to be one of greatest Christian religious relics...... the Turin shroud, in essence .....a linen sheet.............now about those 'sticks' ?!!?

17th April 2006, 05:49 PM	#6
Tim Simmons Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: What is still UK Posts: 5,806	I am pleased other people found this article interesting. It does raise several dilemmas, the return of objects taken in recent times on questionable grounds. That is a tough one, although I have a modest collection there are one or two pieces that might have an unseen value. I do not mind honestly saying "no, they are mine now" but is this right with big collections often having more than they know what to do with, in particular those owened by the state? The appeal of lavish and opulently decorated pieces is obvious however that is not where I see the value in collections, uses beyond the immediate attract me the most.

17th April 2006, 06:10 PM	#7
ariel Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 5,503	It is an interesting discussion and it begs a question: who should be the rightful owner of an antique object? I cannot accept the idea that antique objects of art (or culture) belong exclusively to the ethic tribe of the creator. If one wants to insist upon this rule, then all Rembrandts should be returned to the Netherlands. I bet that 99.99999% of our collections "rightfully belong" to somebody else. There is an unfortunate tendency to counterpose "Western society" with the rest of the world ( the former being greedy, materialistic and imperialistic whereas the latter being uniformly labelled as spiritual, environmetally sensitive and possessing deep wisdom). Balderdash! Any society curious enogh about other cultures and rich/powerful enough to acqure artefacts , did it with gusto! Turkish museums are filled with European trophies including the sword of Stefan cel Mare . The Russian Tsars built the Hermitage for their acquisitions, and our Nihon-to colleagues salivate at night over their Koto katanas taken to the US by veterans of WWII. Japanese, in exchange, buy Van Goghs. Taiwanese museums are filled with the goods from China taken there by Chang Kai-shek (those that were not, were destroyed during the Cultural Revolution by Mao's goons). Objects of art from any culture were sold, re-sold, taken af war trophies, stolen and found innumerable times over the centuries. Our only hope to see them preserved 1000 years from now is to place them in professional museums, not to surrender them to their tribal shamans. Had it not been for the Western museums, most ethnographic artefacts would have beed destroyed, lost and damaged by the elements in their natural habitats. These Kenyan sticks would have rotted long ago had they stayed with the tribal witch doctors. If a creator society wants, they can borrow the artifacts from other museums. But the idea that all Nigerian swords belong to Lagos, all Michelangelos to Rome, all Russian icons to Moscow and all statues of Buddha to Bangkok strikes me as absurd.

18th April 2006, 02:20 AM	#9
Titus Pullo Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 123	Yes, I seem to be sharing your view on the cultural values from different cultures...especially religeon. I think it helps you understand and learb about yourself better by studying the important values behind each items, religeons, and other items. Especially, religeon is very important because true logic and wisdom can only be found in your heart...only in love. Why? Because when you have no respect for anything you tend loose focus on the objectivity...like when you are angry or prejudice, you tend to think what you want to think. For instance, people who have no respect for beer might kill himself drinking death. You a lot of young people partying and drinking excessively,thinking they'll be ok. You need to have respect...having a cool head...and that comes from your heart and love for life, people and the culture.

18th April 2006, 04:11 AM	#10
ariel Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 5,503	Titus, Come over, I'll take you to our local microbrewery and guarantee that after 3 glasses your heart will be filled with the most selfless love for the entire universe! Then, after an urgent trip to the loo, the love dissipates. Start all over. Yin, yang, yin, yang.... Very Zen-ic....

18th April 2006, 06:24 AM	#11
yuanzhumin Member Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Ex-Taipei, Taiwan, now in Shanghai, China Posts: 180	Hello Interesting discussion. I don’t want to get involved in the debate of colonization, or its goods and wrongs. And believe me, I'm far from being a utopian or an anti-imperialist guy. I think what we are talking about here is above all political considerations. It's about being fair and having a certain notion of sharing. Sharing : The fact that all Nigerian swords belong to Lagos, all Michelangelos to Rome, all Russian icons to Moscow and all statues of Buddha to Bangkok strikes me as absurd as it can be. Yes, that's why I think artpieces should be shared with others, mostly when we have so many of them from all around the world that are stored in western museums without being displayed for ages and often will never be, because of space or budget issues. I'm thinking, by the way, that these sticks had more risks to get rotten in the underground where they were kept in England than in the hands of the people that value them. And if they are lost in a war, or in a natural catastrophy, this is their destiny after all. Look at the Bamyan buddhas in Afghanistan. What could we do ? On the other way, I think we did a great job in Cambodgia to help them save and recover their khmer patrimony. So instead of not doing anything, why shouldn’t we share part of the western collections with the other countries and even returning them sometimes when the items are coming from abroad ? In which conditions it could be done, this is another debate, but the principle is there: it’s possible to share. Now, there may be also few western art pieces abroad, in the Middle East, in Asia or in other parts of the world. But very often they are found in the private collections of very rich people, and more seldomly found in public museums. In Taiwan, for example, there is one museum, yes, where you can find western paintings and art works, but it has been founded by one of the richest man on this island. The guy could have kept its masterworks for himself but no, he wanted to SHARE its personal collection with the public. Talking about Turkey, it is a country that had a long history with Europe to such an extent that it is waiting to get inside the European Union. So nothing extraordinary to the presence of European artworks in Turkey or in Russia. But what about all the other countries ? In the Far East, in South America, in Oceania ? Take Africa, is there any Michel Angelo in the African museums ? They don’t even have their own stuff that is already, most of the time or for the best pieces, in western museums. That’s the reason why I think the story of these sticks going back to their people is nice. It’s a very little drop in the bucket, but it’s nice. Being fair : There is something else important to underline. It is the fact that these sticks were stolen in a violent episode. These were not items that were discarded after being used or collected innocently. These sticks were stolen while they were still full of the power entrusted to them by the people that used them. So they have a symbolic value that gives to them and to their return a very special significance, I think. Wouldn't it be normal to ask for the return of the original documents of the American Constitution if they were stolen or would you think that they are only old papers just good to be thrown away ? Concerning the National Palace Museum in Taiwan, where there are so many pieces from China, there are very different ways to see the situation: - * if you are a chinese communist : you think these pieces have not left the country as they are in Taiwan that is, the communists insist, still a part of China. - * if you are from the Kuomintang (Nationalist Party): you think these pieces have not left the country because they are in Taiwan that is also, for the Kuomintang people, a part of China, only the definition of their China being different. - * if you are a taiwanese independantist : you think most of these pieces are coming from a foreign country, China, and should go back there if only the Chinese could put away the 800 missiles that they have turned on Taiwan. Another possibility would be to give part of the collections to the Japanese museums in exchange for most of the Taiwanese aboriginal artifacts collected in their museums. What do you think ? Greetings, yuanzhumin

18th April 2006, 07:39 AM	#12
Tim Simmons Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: What is still UK Posts: 5,806	In my heart I feel there may be a case for the return of some artifacts on diplomatic and moral grounds. After all, some efforts have been made to return stolen art from the worlds most recent conflicts. If I was in charge of the British Museum I would not want to be the one who set the precedent.

18th April 2006, 12:34 PM	#13
ariel Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 5,503	Yuanzhumin, I loved your argument about China/Taiwan! Yes, a lot of "ownership' is in the eyes of the (be)holder. And the British museum may, indeed, be in trouble. Elgin's stones from Greece, treasures of the Peking Summer Palace ( BTW, do you know that it was looted and destroyed by Lord Elgin, the son of the Elgin's stones guy? Heredity, heredity....). British Crown contains Koh-i-Noor, a giant diamond taken by the Brits as a part of indemnity after the Sikh War, etc, etc, No matter what, most valuable antiques will always be concentrated in the hands of rich and famous ( states or individuals). And, yes, it is a pity that museums have so little exhibition space.The only solution is exchange exhibitions.

19th April 2006, 07:16 PM	#15
Tim Simmons Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: What is still UK Posts: 5,806	The British Museum has far more important things in my mind than the Elgin marbles, various treasures equivalent to the UK crown jewels from some sea board countries, taken within the last 110 years. I could well see this as a cause for concern in the "modern" world "global village", but as I said if I were the boss I would not sign the paper and I think that will always be the case of the person lucky enough to become the boss.

19th April 2006, 11:04 PM	#16
katana Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Kent Posts: 2,653	With the continual advance of modern, industrial society encroaching onto the lands and lives of tribal members, (Africa, Borneo, Tibet etc.) their established cultural lives are being seriously eroded. New generations are adapting or are forced to adapt to modern ethics and lifestyle, much of the wisdom and knowledge of their ancestors will surely be lost as the 'old ways' are forgotten. This I feel is a sad state of affairs . Perhaps you could argue that museums and collectors would become the 'custodians' of their cultural history. And by doing so, would educate others and preserve their heritage. But, generally the driving force behind many museums and dare I say, some collectors is an economic one. Obtaining 'treasures' legally or otherwise, for the purpose of increasing the number of the paying guests (museum), for prestige (museum/collector) or to sell on for profit (collector). Articles 'stolen' as war trophies is an obvious grey area, after all many countries' borders have changed due to conflict, yet it is rare for the vanquished to expect to regain land lost after a war. Whether this is morally wrong is down to the individual and the circumstances. But as Darwin points out, it is (unfortunately) 'survival of the fittest'. I also agree that many poorer (economically) countries seem to have corrupt regimes, whom, would surely sell, any returned 'national treasures' for personal gain. Depriving their own people of their heritage and the country's property. I hope that if decisions are made about the return of artefacts to their rightful heirs, they are based on moral judgement, and are individually assessed on their merits. It is important that these 'treasures', whether they are 'sticks' or a Chinese jade death mask, are preserved, and available for research or viewing. If man forgets where he came from... how will he know where he’s going..... Who would have thought that an article about the return of 'some sticks' would stir such debate.......

19th April 2006, 11:10 PM	#17
fernando (deceased) Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Portugal Posts: 9,694	If man forgets where he came from... how will he know where he’s going..... Amen

20th April 2006, 06:46 PM	#19
katana Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Kent Posts: 2,653	QUOTE : I will not indict the Dealer/Collector as he advances his collection by selling and acquiring ; IMO most "Dealers" do not get rich . There are many more efficient ways to accumulate wealth than selling antique arms . Rick In general I totally agree, but there is a very small number of unscrupulous dealers of Antiquities that are actively involved in under-hand methods to procure their items. Bribery, site/grave robbing is not uncommon. Apparently, the information provided in several documentaries (last year) support this. South America was the main example. Various newly discovered sites were 'looted' before archaeologists had any chance of excavating. It seems that the 'stolen' items are 'supplied' cheaply and then 'sold on'. The items, because they are illegally obtained, cannot be publicly displayed and have no provenance and yet they are still purchased by unethical collectors, whom are totally aware of the article's illegality. In this particular case we are talking objects often made of solid gold, jade etc. This causes two major problems, 1 the sites are often 'vandalised' to remove the articles, causing a loss of data for the archaeologist. And 2. The loss of these items,which would allow further insight into the history and culture of these ancient civilisations. QUOTE: I also believe the Collector can be instrumental in keeping interest in these artifacts alive providing he is willing to share and he maintains his collection unlike many museums that are constrained by a budget . Rick. I couldn't agree more

20th April 2006, 08:54 PM	#20
Rick Vikingsword Staff Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 6,290	Sad but true ; grave robbers have existed since time immemorial .

20th April 2006, 09:14 PM	#21
Tim Simmons Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: What is still UK Posts: 5,806	I am sure at a certain level there is a dark side to dealing in antiquities including weapons just as there is with things like precious stones. Some collectors with the means will always be able to say I want one of those "now". At least since the mid 20th the idea of keeping human museum relics like the bones and skulls of the last Tasmanians and other folk is over. A disgraceful episode in British colonial history.

21st April 2006, 01:33 AM	#24
Rick Vikingsword Staff Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 6,290	Depraved .

21st April 2006, 03:47 AM	#25
Andrew Member Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: USA Posts: 1,725	The practice of dissecting and plasticizing cadavers is not new. Scientists first did this for educational purposes. I believe the Mutter Museum in Philadelphia, USA, has displayed some of these original examples. Needless to say, this precedent does not excuse the practice of grave robbing (even in the name of science), nor the purient interest generated therefrom.

21st April 2006, 04:30 AM	#26
ariel Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 5,503	There is a major difference in the use of cadavers for educational/scientific purposes and contorting a dead body to twist the Hula Hoop for $40 a pop. Students in medical schools are taught respect for the dead body and gratitude to the donor. No levity is allowed or tolerated. Studies of skeletons of native people is important for anthropological purpose; having finished the measurements and having created computer-controlled plastic copies, the bones are returned to the tribe if requested. Buying corpses from the Third World countries to create an anatomic Disneyland is abhorrent and no justification can be advanced for this sacrilege. The unspoken "mitigation" that those people were " natives" and, horror of horrors, poor strikes me as the worst example of racism and denial of humanity. Would anybody in his right mind take his kids to such a show? This is NOT science and NOT education! I am surprised that there is no legal action yet to ban these "exhibitions". It is currently in New York, the world capital of liberalism and political correctness.

21st April 2006, 07:18 AM	#28
Tim Simmons Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: What is still UK Posts: 5,806	wow! I was not thinking of the "freak show" more the late 19th cent cataloguing and dubious science carried out on people new to Europeans. This I am sure was the forefather of ideas of eugenics and the ultimate disaster that led to. Or am I just loosing my grip .

21st April 2006, 08:44 AM	#29
yuanzhumin Member Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Ex-Taipei, Taiwan, now in Shanghai, China Posts: 180	Well, should we advocate for the return of these " artpieces " to Europe or China? The body artist is Gunther Von Hagens, from Germany, but it is said that some of the corpses are coming from China (they have a lot of death row prisoners there to help supply) where he maintains a center for plastination of the bodies. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gunther_von_Hagens

21st April 2006, 12:07 PM	#30
ariel Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 5,503	Now we know where he got his genes from....At 12,000 euros a day,he must be a multimillionaire by now. There is an unofficial ban in the scientific community on all studies done by the German scientists during WWII that involved prisoners: these papers are just not cited. Some time ago, at a meeting, a colleague from France did show some microscopy pictures from that era and casually noted that the materials were obtained from concentration camps. I confronted him; he apologized and left the meeting right away.