Indian (NA) artifacts auction

[Ahriman238]

By Simon Moya-Smith, Staff Writer, NBC News

An auction of 25 Native American ceremonial masks, headdresses and other items, including an altar once owned by the late actor Vincent Price, will proceed in Paris despite attempts by the United States and opponents to halt the public sale.

A judge in Paris ruled Tuesday that the sale of the items, which originate from the Hopi and San Carlos Apache nations, did not violate French law.

In a last-ditch effort to halt the auction, U.S. diplomat Mark Taplin sent a letter Saturday to Paris auction house EVE requesting that the auction be postponed until the "provenance" of the sacred artifacts could be evaluated and possibly repatriated back to the tribes.

"The embassy made this request on behalf of the two tribes so that they might have the opportunity to identify the objects, investigate their provenance and determine whether they have a claim to recover the items under the 1970 Unesco convention on the export and transfer of ownership of cultural property, to which France is a signatory, or under other laws," the embassy said in a statement to the Guardian.

Jean-Patrick Razon, French director of Survival International, a nonprofit indigenous rights organization, told NBC News that the coming auction is a "violation of the beliefs" of Native American cultures.

"This sale is blasphemous," he said in statement. "It is time for the buyers to acknowledge that monetization of such kinds of sacred objects is immoral."

In April, a Parisian judge approved the sale of 70 ceremonial "kachina," or spirit, masks after the Hopi Nation took French firm Neret-Minet Tessier & Sarrou to court. Amid international opposition of the auction, including an appeal by actor Robert Redford, the judge ruled that such items are not protected under French law.

The masks eventually fetched around $1.3 million, though some of the masks have since been returned to the Hopi Nation, Indian Country Today reported.

Since 1990, the United States has enacted federal laws forbidding the sale and trade of Native American ceremonial and funerary items.

In the current sale, the 25 Native American artifacts, which allegedly date back to the 19th or early 20th century, will be auctioned Monday and Tuesday along with a Zuni altar that used to belong to the late Hollywood actor Vincent Price, The Associated Press reported.

Pierre Servan-Schreiber, legal counsel for the Hopi Nation in France, said he longs for the days when indigenous peoples' ceremonial objects are no longer relegated to collector's items.

"One day soon, we will finally be able to debate before the court on a very simple question: can really anything be bought and sold?" he said in statement. "Are there not certain objects which by their nature cannot be considered as simple artifacts but as sacred objects which must be returned to the people who created and worship them?"

The EVE auction house did not respond to NBC's request for comment.

I admit, there's a certain novelty to someone else giving even less shits about Native American culture than most Americans. To say nothing of being anything like the good guys in any situation involving Natives. Really, though, when you can't be as respectful as the US government, you have some issues.

[PKRudeBoy]

Depends on how the artifacts came into the sellers possession. Just because some group considers something 'sacred' doesn't mean they are the only ones who get to make decisions regarding it. It's not like if I owned a Christian relic and decided to auction it I would have to consult the Vatican first.

[mr friendly guy]

PKRudeBoy has it right in regards to depending on how the artifacts came into their possession in the legal sense. Generally artifacts taken illegally after a certain date must be returned to their country of origin due to some treaty most countries have signed. This wouldn't apply to artifacts looted before, for example a Frenchmen tried this as well auctioning Chinese artifacts looted by French soldiers in the 19th century. IIRC it was the partner of some fashion designer or somewhat.

The question should be, is it ethically correct to give it back irregardless of the law if it can be shown the artifact was taken by force or one party was coerced into giving it up.

[Broomstick]

I admit, there's a certain novelty to someone else giving even less shits about Native American culture than most Americans. To say nothing of being anything like the good guys in any situation involving Natives. Really, though, when you can't be as respectful as the US government, you have some issues.

As shocking as the concept is, governments and societies can change how they regard others and how they conduct themselves. The trend since the 1960's has been towards greater respect of Native rights and culture in North America and this is one of the outcomes of that trend. Greater respect for the rights of small societies should be encouraged.

[Patroklos]

I also would like to know how these got away from the tribe in the first place. One thing I have noticed about contemporary community members attempting to rebuild a depressed, dying or dead culture is they often ascribe more relevance to the trappings left behind than those who made them/owned them hundreds or however many years ago. This is a mix of knowing this is a poriton of what very little remains, a genuine feeling of ownership via cultural links, and also a good bit of cherry picking/mary suing/idolizing their ancestors in some cases. This goes for NAs to those clinging to Gaelic culture in Ireland to Quebec French nationalists and everyone in between. The fact is Native Americans traded their crafts and even "sacred" items all the time (not unlike pretty much every culture on earth) when it suited their purposes.

I don't know what the case is with these items. If they are the loot from some cavarly pacification mission they should certainly be returned if a direct ownership lineage with group of NAs who are party to the case can be established. If a tribal leader legally traded these for food, horses, bribes (I would be sympathetic if this was the reason they changed hand actually, unfair coersion is probably not hard to argue in many cases), land rights, operating cash, debt settlement or anything else on a feely decided basis these ancestors are out of luck.