Using case studies to examine the decision-making process for cleaning ethnographic objects

The traditional distinction between museum dirt and ethnographic dirt, and the corollary that museum dirt can and should be removed while ethnographic dirt must be left in place, is no longer valid. In reality it is not always possible to tell the difference; even if it is possible it may not matter; and it may be desirable to remove both or neither. The possible removal of information and the desire to represent the object and its makers accurately must also be taken into account. In addition to the interests of curators and educators, Native consultants often play a role in decision-making. Examples are given of objects in several categories: (1) post-collection deposits which can be removed; (2) deposits of uncertain origin, where curatorial knowledge is of special importance and the issue of cultural misrepresentation may arise; (3) pre-collection deposits of cultural significance which should be left in place; and (4) problems of inherent vice, caused by a combination of ethnographic residue and post-collection environment, requiring removal of material deliberately applied or rellecting use. The discussions leading to the decision to clean or not to clean are described. This decision often involves compromise between preservation of information, prevention of further deterioration, potential for damage during treatment, and the possibility of cultural misrepresentation. A minimalist approach is usually safest; simple rules are not adequate. The ability to balance the needs of the objects with the wishes of curators and consultants is one of the hallmarks of a professional conservator, and requires training and experience. All conservators of ethnographic objects need an understanding of anthropology, especially as it was practiced during the late 19th and early 20th centuries, when most collections were assembled. The ability of conservators to communicate what they do has become an essential professional skill.