My Friend....List.....
I do not wish to appear rude, but I can't engage further on this topic
for some time.
As it regards your two emails below....
There is nothing in the settlement which refers to the meteorite being
returned or "returned when practicable." This is sheer invention.
And just do you're on the same page, even a rental would put a
financial value on the specimen---which the Grand Ronde said they
would never do.
I have not experienced bad luck as a result of having been caught in
the Willamette imbroglio. My luck or lack thereof is due a life
filled with debauchery. ;-) Seriously, I know you don't mean to be
offensive, Ed, but it is kind of offensive to speculate on the cause
and effect on the trajectory in a person's life---especially when you
know so little of that life. And bad things do happen to good
people, and you must admit it's myopic and ethnocentric for
attribution to bad news and tragedy to be tethered to your beliefs.
In any event, there is now clarity that specimens of the Willamette
meteorite can be owned free and clear without worry of any legal issues.
All best to you, and to everyone....
.....and best of luck!
On Dec 13, 2009, at 3:22 PM, E.P. Grondine wrote:
Hi all -
A couple more points to consider:
1) When considering Willamette, consider how Greece is after the
British Museum for the Elgin Marbles, and Egypt is after the British
Museum for the Rosetta Stone and after the Germans for Nefertiti's
bust. You may not think this applies, but GR is a sovereign nation
as well (that's why they have the casino). Ordinary US commercial
law may not apply.
2) From what I know of practices in the East, about the only use
parts of slices are appropriate for is for wear around the neck on
deer skin strings. I don't know if this holds for the GR peoples. It
might offset the slicing, perhaps Matt may want to contact them
about this possibility as a way out, but only if all that he had
were offered, with cost recovery and any profit used appropriately.
3) Darryl has his view of the GR-AMNH settlement, but it looks to me
like rent, with the main mass to be returned when practicable. I'm
no lawyer, but I feel that AMNH kind of left Darryl in a really bad
spot.
4) As Darryl has already learned, dealing Native American artifacts
can bring "Maeche Katet", really bad luck. That's why experienced
stone artifact collectors never dig graves or village sites, but
rely on field finds or village sites that are being lost to other
causes.
If any of you meteorite hunters ever find a meteorite in what turns
out to be a Native American site during your hunts, perhaps the best
thing to do would be either to leave it there, or make sure it gets
into the hands of the sites current caretakers.
5) As Martin has pointed out, if state or federal laws are put in
place, it could really cripple meteorite recovery and science.
E.P. Grondine
Man and Impact in the Americas
On Dec 13, 2009, at 3:40 PM, E.P. Grondine wrote:
Hi Darryl -
Since the AMNH was built around the Willamette, and it could not be
moved without tearing down the building, the agreement reached seems
reasonable.
But didn't the agreement also include a promise to return the main
mass when practicable?
As for the Portland Oregonian article, you have to consider AIM as
well as the GR leadership. If that is not enough, consider that AIM
has registered chapters and unregistered chapters.
I still feel that the AMNH left you holding the bag, and I wish
everyone the best of luck in coming to a good resolution.
Ed
--- On Fri, 12/11/09, Darryl Pitt <[email protected]> wrote:
From: Darryl Pitt <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Willamette / New Chapter
To: "E.P. Grondine" <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected], [email protected]
, "Adam List" <[email protected]>, [email protected]
, "Steve Dunklee" <[email protected]>, "Jason Utas" <[email protected]
>
Date: Friday, December 11, 2009, 12:49 PM
E.P.,
Steve's explanation is speculation, and I don't agree that
speculating as to possible motives is the way to proceed
here. New problems and misunderstandings will be
created---as if there haven't been enough already.
;-) And while I appreciate your support, it
also really is not accurate to state that future purchasers
are left hanging in the wind.
And so....
BRIEF RECENT LEGAL HISTORY OF THE WILLAMETTE METEORITE --
WITH A NEW CHAPTER FOR WILLAMETTE HISTORY BUFFS
In 1999, the Confederated Tribes of the Grand Ronde filed a
NAGPRA (Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation
Act) claim to have the Willamette meteorite returned to
Oregon. In a written statement, Tracy Dugan, a
spokeswoman for the Grand Ronde explained, "The Confederated
Tribes is shocked that the American Museum of Natural
History insists upon illegally keeping this important sacred
object which belongs to the history and culture of the Grand
Ronde Tribes." It was further written in the NAGPRA
claim, "The only acceptable resolution of this matter will
be through the unconditional repatriation of the Willamette
Meteorite."
In 2000, the American Museum of Natural History did not
address the NAGPRA claim and instead filed a lawsuit in
federal court against the Grand Ronde requesting a
declaratory judgement. In the Museum's claim, it was
stated that this matter does not fit the parameters of a
NAGPRA case.
Months later the parties settled. The meteorite remained
where it was and the Museum provided the Grand Ronde
signage, paid internships and an annual private visit.
In 2007, just prior to the Bonhams auction in which the
crown section of Willamette was being offered, an editorial
appeared in the Portland Oregonian, which stated:
"The Grand Ronde don't have time before this month's
auction to file a claim for return of the piece in Pitt's
possession, but potential buyers ought to beware: There just
might be a lawsuit looming. It would seem to us the
Grand Ronde tribes have an extremely strong case under the
1990 federal law intended to help Native Americans reclaim
cultural and religious objects. Whoever
buys the precious chunk of meteorite should consider
offering a settlement like the museum did. And they should
promise never to cut the sacred piece of Tomanowos."
I was outraged.
1. The Oregonian stated that the "museum offered a
settlement," and nothing could be further from the
truth. The museum sued the Grand Ronde in federal
court in response to the Grand Ronde's NAGPRA claim, and the
Grand Ronde backed off their claim.
2. As the Grand Ronde stated in their NAGPRA claim
that the only solution was the "unconditional repatriation"
of the meteorite, and as this did not occur, how is it that
the largest newspaper in Oregon could state that the Grand
Ronde suddenly had a strong case?
3. The notion of "not having enough time" to file
additional legal action was also fatuous. The Grand
Ronde was aware of my possession of this meteorite specimen
for at least five years. In addition, I publicly auctioned
many other specimens, sales which were extensively covered
by the media--which included statements by the Grand
Ronde--without a lawsuit or a threat of a lawsuit;
4. Who was the Oregonian's source about there not
being enough time to file legal action? It would have
to be someone at the Grand Ronde, right? But the Grand
Ronde stated on their website there would be no legal
action. Could this "editorial" have been phoned in by
a rogue tribe member with clout?
Did I mention that the Grand Ronde is the Portland
Oregonian's largest advertiser?
Two days later the newspaper published an apology for their
false claims and issued a retraction, "The Grand Ronde has
no intention of filing a lawsuit." The Grand Ronde
also stated, "Legal action was never contemplated, and there
will be no action taken."
As the Portland Oregonian attacked me for a "lack of
class," I publicly suggested that given the string of
untruthful statements made by the newspaper, and in light of
the ad revenues provided by the Grand Ronde which enrich the
newspaper, it seemed clear that if the Portland Oregonian
had any class, they would acquire the specimen and provide
it to the Grand Ronde.
The Portland Oregonian made no effort to do so.
All best / Darryl
And now I need to make the effort to not address this any
further for at least the next several months ;-)
On Dec 11, 2009, at 10:43 AM, E.P. Grondine wrote:
Hi Steve -
You may have it, what the GR lawyers and leaders are
thinking. In any case, the AMNH left Darryl hanging in the
wind, AS WELL AS ANY FUTURE PURCHASERS.
PS - Jason, I hope Steve's explanation makes this
clearer to you.
I also hope an honorable and acceptable way out
appears. I hope the AMNH steps up to the plate.
E.P. Grondine
Man and Impact in the Americas
Depth of Field Management | 1501 Broadway Suite 1304 | New York,
New York 10036 | 212.302.9200
______________________________________________
http://www.meteoritecentral.com
Meteorite-list mailing list
[email protected]
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
