POISONOUS HERITAGE: PESTICIDES IN MUSEUM COLLECTIONS

Abstract

The use of pesticides in museums began in the eighteenth century and continued until about fifty years ago.Indeed, there is evidence that some institutions were using substances like arsenic as late as the 1960s.Today, though most museum professionals are aware of the danger of these toxins, not all institutions are properly equipped or have procedures in place to ensure the safety of their staff, interns, volunteers, or whoever else may come into contact with these objects.Additionally, objects contaminated with pesticides have been returned to Native American tribes in the wake of the Native American Grave Protection and Repatriation Act.This raises concerns about the risks posed to human health and museums' liability in the event of sickness resulting from pesticide residues.Museum professionals need to know what objects have been treated, and with what.To what pesticides may they be exposed?What are the health risks associated with the most persistent and troubling pesticides, those containing arsenic and mercury?Are there effective means for detecting and mitigating these toxins?How do these poisonous residues affect the fulfillment of NAGPRA?In order to shed some light on these questions, a short survey was created and distributed through the Registrar's Committee of the American Association of ~u s e u m s .The survey respondents in gen&al supported the idea that even if the institution does not have anv evidence of vesticide contamination. it is good vractice to treat the objects as if they were.The risks to human health posed by the f&neriy wiiespread practice of pesticide use is simply too great to ignore.Though this survey may not represent a sample with statistical significance, it does provide a basic understanding of the inconsistency of museum practices across the board.' (Hawks and Makos, Inherent and Acquired Hazards in Museum Objects 2000,31)redefined.The law requires museums to return human remains, funerary objects, sacred objects, and objects of cultural patrimony to the tribes.In recent years, issues have arisen about the possible hazard posed by these objects for the tribes to which they are returned.The presence of pesticide residue and other chemicals on NAGPRA-related objects poses a serious threat to health.This has even led to changes in legislation.In 1996, the following section was added to the NAGPRA legislation to address this issue:The museum official or Federal agency official must inform the recipients of repatriations of any presently known treatment of the human remains, funerary objects, sacred objects, or objects of cultural patrimony with pesticides, preservatives, or other substances that represent a potential hazard to the objects or person handling the object^.^However, does this small amendment to NAGPRA ultimately solve any of the issues surrounding the repatriation of toxic objects?Is it ethical to just inform a tribe that the sacred object may be contaminated and walk away from the problem?No. Objects that are reclaimed under NAGPRA are often reincorporated into religious ceremonies or reinterred in the ground.This poses a threat to not only the people handling these toxic objects, but the environment as well.The ethical responsibilities may depend on the situation and the institution involved.However, when returning a sacred object, stating an object is contaminated and walking away is simply not acceptable.Conservators are keenly aware of the issues surrounding museum objects that have been made toxic, but there are currently very few, if any, effective techniques for eliminating the toxicity of an object.Museum professionals need to know what objects have been treated, and with what.What pesticides are they possibly being exposing themselves to?What are the health 3 Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Regulations, 43 CFR Part 10, Sub Part B $10.10 [elrisks associated with the most persistent and troubling pesticides, those containing arsenic and mercury?Are there effective means for detecting and mitigating these toxins?Can these objects be disposed of?How do these poisonous residues affect the fulfillment of NAGPRA?In this paper I intend to answer these and other questions and I will discuss some practical solutions that museums have adopted to tackle the many problems related to toxicity of museum objects.'' (Hawks and Makos, Inherent and ~cquired Hazards in Museum objects 2000,33) I 1 (Hawks and Makos, Inherent and Acquired Hazards in Museum Objects 2000,32)

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 8 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.