06 044373 (bc/t) 14/5/04 10:10 am Page 205

Comment

S O C I A L AG E N C Y A N D T H E
C U LT U R A L VA L U E ( S ) O F
T H E A RT O B J E C T

◆ FRED MYERS
New York University

In different, distinctive ways, the essays in this volume can be seen to

combine two strands of recent work on the anthropology of art – with
the category ‘art’ partially under erasure – as they survey the problem
of indigenous art within settler states. We are, of course, indebted to
Nelson Graburn for the first real move in this direction. In his original
edited collection (Graburn, 1976), Graburn both drew attention to this
category of material culture and also gave it theoretical significance as
‘Fourth World art’, insisting that some of its most salient characteristics
were comprehensible only through exploration of the distinctive social
contexts of its production and circulation. The thrust of these essays, in
that tradition, lies with the potential of complex object forms (objects,
art, performance) to address strategically the complex boundaries
between indigenous and non-indigenous people and cultures within
settler societies. The essays refer specifically to the circumstances of
Canada, but their historical and geographical ramifications extend more
broadly and their interest as instances of the analysis of Fourth World
arts is great.
The first strand of the current work in the anthropology of art –
commemorated for me in the title of the collection’s original American
Anthropological Association Panel ‘Beyond Art/Artifact/Tourist Art’ –
evokes the Primitivism debates around and after the Museum of
Modern Art’s 1984 exhibition. Responding to ”’Primitivism’ and 20th-
Century Art’, these debates were cogently articulated in James
Clifford’s well-known review (1985) and his subsequent essay ‘Collect-
ing Art and Culture’ (Clifford 1988a). The second strand of current work

Journal of Material Culture Vol. 9(2): 205–213

Copyright © 2004 SAGE Publications (London, Thousand Oaks, CA and New Delhi)
[DOI: 10.1177/1359183504044373]www.sagepublications.com 205
06 044373 (bc/t) 14/5/04 10:10 am Page 206

J o u r n a l o f M AT E R I A L C U LT U R E 9 ( 2 )

acknowledges the bouleversement offered by my late friend Alfred Gell

in Art and Agency (1998), in his insistence on the agency of material
culture. Gell notably argued that a specifically anthropological approach
to art must take a philistine approach and consider primarily the work
done by art objects as indices of agency and effective in mediating social
relationships.
The denaturalizing of the western category of ‘art’ – if not the recog-
nition of art as a historically constituted and specific social formation –
is a central feature of both interventions. Appropriately, then, the
identification of art with aesthetics, or even ‘beauty’, is left behind in
these articles and attention directed to the ironies, disjunctures and
convergences put into motion by the intercultural circulation of in-
digenously produced objects. Here, the form of objects is addressed
analytically not simply as an expression of a universal or even culturally
specific aesthetics, but as situated in the mediation of complex intercul-
tural and interpersonal political circumstances. As Kenneth Burke (1973)
once aptly put it, ‘Symbols are strategies for encompassing situations.’
‘Critical and imaginative works’, he wrote, ‘are answers to questions
posed by the situation in which they arose . . . These strategies size up
the situations, name their structure and outstanding ingredients, and
name them in a way that contains an attitude towards them’ (Burke,
1973). Object form, similarly, may be regarded as a strategy for engaging
the historically specific circumstances of intercultural circulation.
Graburn’s essay looks to the history of Inuit art’s creation and
development in the Canadian north. Far from a simple expression of
indigenous aesthetic practices, Inuit art represents the hybrid collabor-
ation of numerous agents, within and beyond the Native community, just
the sort of interaction that raises the suspicions of collectors of an ahis-
torical ‘authentic Primitive art’. Ostensibly a consideration of the
supports for Inuit art, the essay draws attention here to a range of
external agents involved in its history, and especially to the role of the
artist-entrepreneur James Houston in the formation of Inuit art. This is
a role reminiscent of the activities of similar outside agents who
sustained indigenous arts in Australia and elsewhere (see Myers, 2001,
2002). Graburn’s focus is not so much on the centrality of any particu-
lar agent or on the resulting authenticity or inauthenticity of Inuit sculp-
ture, but rather with the different ideas of material and expressive
culture that were available and deployed by these agents and their
relevance to varying political (and cultural) policies.
Interestingly, he portrays the shift in the Canadian government’s
interest in Inuit artistic production from an initial interest in commodi-
ties providing economic support in place of direct welfare to a post-
Second World War need to assert Canada’s status internationally as ‘a
generous, tasteful, paternalistic modern territorial power’. This stance,

206
06 044373 (bc/t) 14/5/04 10:10 am Page 207

Myers: S O C I A L A G E N C Y A N D C U LT U R A L VA L U E S

articulated in support for the art and its use in gifts and exhibitions
worldwide, addressed a rivalry with the US and a need to convince the
major Cold War protagonists that Canada was a ‘true Northern power’.
These constellations of interest define value in material objects, repre-
senting distinctive and changing regimes of value, but the essay
addresses itself equally to Gell’s charge that analysts should look to
agency in objects and their form. The essay directs us to Inuit art as a
collaborative production, its existence a testimony to (and an objectifi-
cation of) the participation of Inuit artists with outside agents. Concomi-
tantly, the Inuit have gained income and self-confidence from running
cooperatives, but their visibility as ‘artists’ (rather than mere commodity
producers) has raised their standing within and outside Canada and has
laid the basis for the credibility of forms of Inuit sovereignty within
Canada. Surely, this perspective on the circulation of indigenous arts –
moving significantly beyond the stale debates about authenticity and
appropriation – suggests the productive potential of viewing these
objects as distributed agency whose success is accorded back to those
who made them. Graburn’s example illustrates the complex way in
which indigenous art can simultaneously proclaim difference or distinc-
tiveness from the surrounding nation-state and also express that nation’s
identity within the world of nations. Objects, with their multivalent
potentials, seem uniquely able to carry out such symbolic projects.
Charlotte Townsend-Gault’s focus on the circulation of Northwest
Coast aboriginality in evanescent form – crest designs on copper-colored
tissue paper, stylized killer whales on canvas tote bags – makes the case
that these are ‘declarations that are also disguises’. Withholding while
giving (modifying Annette Weiner’s famous 1992 discussion of ‘keeping-
while-giving), these forms and their makers make tangible (i.e. they
objectify) a recent shift in Native/non-Native relations and Canadian
multiculturalism. The properties of glistening, copper-colored tissue, she
argues, convey and transmute something about coppers (like crests,
markers of social transactions on the Northwest Coast), and in this sense
they are not simply a degradation of the emblematic idea of the copper
for Northwest Coast people. These forms – the miniature, the mimetic,
the mechanically reproduced – are not just the inauthentic; they are not
simply commercial kitsch.
In a brilliant and subtle analysis of the meanings embodied in the
evanescent forms, Townsend-Gault explains the complicated stances
performed in these extensions of indigenous presence. Against the sense
that extreme circulation is the worst situation, they provide (1) an agency
disturbing to the spectatorial regime intrinsic to ‘not-yet post-colonial
relations’, a regime of display in which ‘conflicted political relations
were subsumed into looking relations’. (2) Further, as a form of action,
the visual deflects attention from or masks conflicts present. In this

207
06 044373 (bc/t) 14/5/04 10:10 am Page 208

J o u r n a l o f M AT E R I A L C U LT U R E 9 ( 2 )

regard, her essay is similar to Jennifer Kramer’s concept of ‘figurative

repatriation’ in this collection. This circulation is not just a mask, or
should it be said that ‘masking’ is also a form of presentation, a form of
being visible and therefore present? Indeed, the metaphor of the ‘mask’
surely resonates with traditions of masking in the Northwest Coast, of
performing identities of power.
It seems, however, that insisting on presence through the visual
might not be adequate to reclaim indigenous presence and being.
Townsend-Gault’s insight takes seriously the potentials that come from
interrupting the dominance of the visual, and she stakes a particular
claim for the indigenous value of the other sensuous modes deployed by
the evanescent forms. If over-privileging of the visual is understood as
constitutive of the reduction of indigenous peoples, then movements to
the sensuous and immediate could provide an arena for the more confi-
dent expression or indication of indigenous identities and epistemolo-
gies. These forms also work against the domination of the visual,
reinstating this sensorium, reprivileging touching, smell, and in this
mode they reflect on the intensified circulation of forms of mechanical
reproduction.
The specific forms of objectifying Native presence imply a particu-
lar form of agency: not grand things, not public things. Aboriginality is
being insinuated into private and public spaces through the very ordi-
nariness of the support (T-shirts, business cards, flyers), denying ‘extra-
ordinariness’ and radical difference. Townsend-Gault analyzes these
forms as ‘defeating both the declaration of difference and the desire for
it’. These forms circulate broadly across the boundaries of Native and
non-Native, making ‘evident full native participation in the modes of
display, promotion and marketing of late capitalist liberal democracy’. At
the same time, its insubstantial and transmuted form maintains limits,
protecting renewed definitions of aboriginality. This embodiment of an
agency and of an enchantment suggests the complex field of cultural
production in which the Native position is articulated, a Bourdieuian
stance in which the magico-religious is held in reserve but its presence
indicated.
Unfortunately, Francesca Merlan’s essay could not be included in
this collection. Its presence in the original panel was instructive about
the contingencies of indigenous presence and provided an example
outside the Canadian context. This paper was addressed to the tension
evoked by the promotion of Aboriginal cultural production to the status
of art, a subject I also made central to my own recent book (Myers, 2002).
In this situation, the old category of ‘primitive art’ has broken down and
many insist on Aboriginal art’s modernity and contemporaneity. But,
Merlan asked, can this formulation work? Can Aboriginal art be simply
another modern art in Australia? This is to ask in another way about the

208
06 044373 (bc/t) 14/5/04 10:10 am Page 209

Myers: S O C I A L A G E N C Y A N D C U LT U R A L VA L U E S

inclusion of indigenous people’s cultural forms within the settler nation-

state.
In answering this question, Merlan proposed the utility of the well-
known Durkheimian dichotomy of mechanical and organic solidarity
(famously presented as modes of integrating similarity and difference)
to capture tensions that coexist in the simultaneously familiar (art) and
different (Aboriginal) imperatives of work like that of the artist Jimmy
Pike. This move is reminiscent of James Clifford’s (1988b) own
discussion of two tropes in ethnography – familiarization (humanism)
and transgression (surrealism).
The difficulty of placing Aboriginal art in western categories of
recognition should not be underestimated, and in this sense the paper
provided a parallel to Graburn’s. The key to Merlan’s paper is implicit
– the placement of Aboriginal art is a placement (indexical, iconic) of
indigenous people themselves. Merlan noted first a finding of common-
ality (they have art) across cultural difference, which she sees as a trope
of mechanical solidarity, or integration through likeness. She writes that
the explicit state recognition of Aboriginal people/art as part of a
culturally appropriate indigenous economy has accompanied the
advance of Aboriginal art to the center of Australian art (but I would
assert further that the latter actually depended on the former). These are
not mere categories, but they are related through distinctive properties
of the art market and tourism.
This mechanical solidarity coexists with an organically solidary role
in which the difference between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal is pre-
served. The deployment of this Durkheimian scheme is very productive
in demonstrating the problem. Put otherwise, the mechanical solidarity
inclines towards an aesthetic recognition while organic solidarity implies
non-Aboriginal recognition of the distinctive value these objects have
within an Aboriginal social reality. This dichotomy, she shows, has impli-
cations for the way in which economic success is evaluated – as chal-
lenging the symbolic power of otherness, the co-presence of Aboriginal
culture within modernity remains or becomes even more unsettling.
In yet another parsing of intercultural space, Jennifer Kramer’s essay
– aimed at repatriation and concerns about cultural property – seems to
draw its inspiration from her reading of Robert Houle’s formulation of
‘artist-warriors’. The term refers to indigenous artists trained in the
western traditions ‘who are brave enough to create art works which
respond to and appropriate the language of the western art world’. Their
work is displayed in western museums and art galleries, ‘hostile terri-
tory’ where they challenge the conceits and power structures that have
long constrained indigenous culture.
Kramer’s discussion sheds light on how this space of settler nations
is actively engaged, although one cannot help noting how hybrid the

209
06 044373 (bc/t) 14/5/04 10:10 am Page 210

J o u r n a l o f M AT E R I A L C U LT U R E 9 ( 2 )

solution is – so closely linked to notions of the historical avant-garde (see

Burger, 1984) and transgression. Kramer presents First Nation artist-
warriors who refuse the space of ‘primitive/traditional’ or nothing as
engaged in ‘figurative repatriation’ in the artistic activity of constructing
themselves and their work in relationship to masterpieces of the past –
claiming these as theirs, even if their work is different – refusing to
accept the difference imposed on their work by categories like ‘primi-
tive’, ‘tourist’ and so on. For First Nations cultural producers, these
categories have been a lived and constraining reality.
In these terms, Kramer argues that physical repatriation is problem-
atic, in accepting the terms of the colonial relationship. To this end, she
cites Gloria Cranmer-Webster’s statement that ‘the Kwakwaka’wakw
Nation does not need their cultural objects repatriated in order to dance
them, since they have artists making new material for the spiritual health
of the community’. Instead, they need objects repatriated ‘to rectify a
terrible injustice which is part of our history’ (Cranmer-Webster, 1995:
141, quoted by Kramer in this volume). Genuine repatriation requires
something more – a reconciliation, being heard by the non-Native
community. The impasse is resolved through what she calls ‘figurative
repatriation’. This is a move Gell would have appreciated, locating a form
of agency in the shaping of objects and performances – indeed, in seeing
objects as performative. This perspective helps to clarify the space and
strategies of First Nation artists, and with an interesting twist. The twist
is that First Nation artist-warriors expose themselves to the risk of
negative non-Native reception, but they also engage these Others in their
‘performance’ of their identities. In this performance lies the potential
of fostering intercultural relationships, rather than simply cleaving them
through taking back objects. There is also, perhaps, a resonance with
another genre of performance, the potlatch, which also required an
audience to legitimate the performers’ claims to being.
Kramer’s analysis relies heavily on the discursive and the trope of
‘warriors’ and ‘risk’. While this is no doubt the language of the partici-
pants, in light of Gell’s shift to agency, this border crossing of the artists
has another aspect – less fully addressed by Kramer. As her invocation
of Judith Butler suggests, perhaps there is another dimension of hybrid-
ity in these activities. It is not the self-work of the artist-hero that we
regard here, but a production of identity through performance. We might
look for a connection between Judith Butler’s and Marilyn Strathern’s
sense of performativity and ask whether these art works are not perfor-
matives like the potlatch – or exchange more generally. Indeed, Aaron
Glass’s essay in this collection points out that a principal feature of the
potlatch has been the use of object circulation to negotiate political
relations. Thus, as we have come to understand it in anthropology for
exchange events, these works perform an identity and recognize an

210
06 044373 (bc/t) 14/5/04 10:10 am Page 211

Myers: S O C I A L A G E N C Y A N D C U LT U R A L VA L U E S

audience, and the maintenance of the relationship is vital to the perform-

ance. Figurative repatriation, then, recognizes and articulates – acts out
– the new and complex reality of indigenous identity in a multi-cultural
Canada.
It is precisely to the discourses of translation, contextualization and
recontextualization that Aaron Glass directs our attention, especially
with the popular framework of cultural property – and its implications.
Discourses surrounding cultural property constitute an emerging regime
of value in which object circulation is constructed. In comparing the
repatriation of cultural property to indigenous groups and the restitution
of artworks taken from Jews by Nazis during the Second World War,
Glass turns to the activity of claiming cultural property as itself a signi-
fying practice, productive of new values, entities and situations. Glass’s
essay begins with the recognition of the power of tangible objects to
encapsulate meaning and value, ‘the capacity to “objectify” such tran-
sient notions as identity, ethnicity, and history’. But his analysis is
directed towards ‘the language of claims’, to the discursive frameworks
in which the claims over objects and their movements are made. This
analysis recognizes the complex semiotic web in which – contra Gell’s
claim (see Keane in press) – objects are embedded, so that repatriation
might become a ‘symbol for the wider goal of [indigenous] self-determi-
nation’ or ‘restitution become a symbol for remembrance’. Indeed, Glass
shows that requests for the return of cultural property almost invariably
involve deployment of ‘a social narrative in which the movement of
objects stands for the story of (a) people’.
Careful analysis of the language of claims reveals a multitude of
terms used in the discourses of object return, and thus a range of ways
in which objects might be made to signify possibilities of redress in
history. Clearly, the term ‘cultural property’ does not constitute a mono-
lithic or unified category. Here the comparison of indigenous and Jewish
claims is productive. Unexpected in some of their connections, the simi-
larities and differences suggested in the metaphors of cultural property
discourse work a very interesting deconstruction of some of the claims
about cultural property. Indeed, the focus on the signifying practices
around repatriation, restitution and loss opens up the space of claiming
itself as a fundamental component of dispute formulation and resolu-
tion. The famous essay on ‘Naming, Blaming and Claiming’ (Felstiner
et al., 1980) demonstrated the way in which cultural categories enter into
claims of loss and restitution; Glass’s discussion of the language of claims
reiterates their presentation of the necessity of finding legitimate frame-
works for injurious experiences in order to articulate a culturally recog-
nized loss against which a claim could be established. The objects
provide a focus for disputes – differences, injuries – to be addressed.
From an emphasis on the language of claims, Glass’s essay views cultural

211
06 044373 (bc/t) 14/5/04 10:10 am Page 212

J o u r n a l o f M AT E R I A L C U LT U R E 9 ( 2 )

property claims as constructed within social fields; as with the Turner-

ian social drama (Turner, 1974), these normative or discursive frame-
works are neither monolithic nor singular. Glass insists, thus, that
‘attention to the discourse surrounding claims for object return reveals
how debates over cultural property involve common contests over the
value of objects and ownership as well as the qualities and boundaries
of social identity’. In this way, the essay breaks away productively from
the essentializations of cultural property and moves towards an under-
standing of the practice of claiming and the process of returning as
strategies to redress historical grievances. Here, Burke’s general
discussion of symbols as strategies for encompassing situations is
informative but reductive in not specifically addressing the semantic
potential of objects to index agency, a property vital to the circumstances
of indigenous people. Glass argues that the process of negotiating return
of objects is particularly significant in that it involves ‘asserting control
over the terms of their own history. Object circulation and ownership
becomes an index of social agency, a focal point for asserting self-
determination and self-control following moments in which identity was
specifically attacked.’ That the claims about property are objectifications
– or performances – of other concerns is deeply illuminated by this. This
leads Glass to argue that we might ‘approach restitution claims as a
process through which both physical objects and social subjects are
discursively constituted, through which historical agency and identity
are claimed and enforced, through which group boundaries are redrawn
and power borrowed’
This is fundamentally part of the contextualization of cultural
property as a site of action and potentially of restoration. Working
through contrasting situations allows the reader to see that cultural
property is at best a mediation of some very complex desires and
agencies. Finally, the importance of metaphor (and language more gener-
ally) suggests the necessity of going beyond Gell’s rejection of the
semiotic in embracing technology as more or less culturally unmediated.

References
Burger, Peter (1984) Theory of the Avant-Garde (trans. Michael Shaw). Minneapo-
lis: University of Minnesota Press.
Burke, Kenneth (1973) The Philosophy of Literary Form. Berkeley: University of
California Press.
Clifford, James (1985) ‘Histories of the Tribal and the Modern’, Art in America
73 (April): 164–77, 215.
Clifford, James (1988a) ‘On Collecting Art and Culture’, in James Clifford The
Predicament of Culture, pp. 215–51. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.
Clifford, James (1988b) ‘On Ethnographic Authority’, in James Clifford The
Predicament of Culture, pp. 21–54. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

212
06 044373 (bc/t) 14/5/04 10:10 am Page 213

Myers: S O C I A L A G E N C Y A N D C U LT U R A L VA L U E S

Cranmer-Webster, Gloria (1995) ‘The Potlatch Collection Repatriation’, University

of British Columbia Law Review, Special Issue Material Culture in Flux: Law
and Policy of Repatriation of Cultural Property: 137–41.
Felstiner, William L.F., Abel, Richard L. and Sarat, Austin (1980) ‘The Emergence
and Transformation of Disputes: Naming, Blaming, Claiming’, Law and
Society Review 15(3–4): 631–54.
Gell, Alfred (1998) Art and Agency. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Graburn, Nelson (1976) Ethnic and Tourist Arts: Cultural Expressions from the
Fourth World. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Keane, Webb (in press) ‘Signs are Not the Garb of Meaning: On the Social
Analysis of Material Things’, in Daniel Miller (ed.) Materiality. Durham, NC:
Duke University Press.
Myers, Fred (2001) ‘The Wizards of Oz? Nation, State and the Making of
Aboriginal Art’, in F. Myers (ed.) The Empire of Things: Regimes of Value and
Material Culture, pp. 165–206. Albuquerque, NM: School of American
Research Press.
Myers, Fred (2002) Painting Culture: the Making of an Aboriginal High Art.
Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Turner, Victor (1974) Dramas, Fields and Metaphors. Ithaca, NY: Cornell
University Press.

◆ F R E D M Y E R S is Professor and Chair of Anthropology at New York

University. He is the author of Painting Culture: the Making of an Aboriginal High
Art (Duke University Press, 2002) and editor of The Empire of Things: Regimes of
Value and Material Culture (SAR Press, 2001). Address: Department of Anthro-
pology, New York University, Rufus D. Smith Hall, 25 Waverly Place, New York,
NY 10003. [email: fred.myers@nyu.edu]

213
06 044373 (bc/t) 14/5/04 10:10 am Page 214

BJH:DAD<N ™ B6I:G>6A8JAIJG:

6GI:;68IH
HijY^Zh^ci]Z]^hidgnd[hX^ZcXZVcYiZX]cdad\n
HZg^ZhZY^idgh/GdWZgi7jY!7ZgcVgY;^ccVcY=Zabji]Ig^hX]aZg
:VX]kdajbZ^ci]ZÈ6giZ[VXihÉhZg^ZhZmeadgZhi]ZjhZd[dW_ZXihVh
gZhdjgXZh^ci]ZhijYnd[i]Z]^hidgnd[hX^ZcXZ!iZX]cdad\nVcYbZY^X^cZ#
GVi]Zgi]VcWZ^c\igZViZY^c^hdaVi^dc!iZX]cdad\^XVadW_ZXihVgZXdb^c\id
WZhZZcVhbViZg^VaZmegZhh^dchd[]jbVcXjaijgZi]Vih]VeZVcYgZÓZXi
^ciZgVXi^dchVbdc\hX^ZcXZ!iZX]cdad\nVcYhdX^Zin#L^i]^aajb^cVi^c\iZmih
VWdjidW_ZXih!Zm]^W^i^dchVcYbjhZjbh^c:jgdeZVcYCdgi]6bZg^XV!i]Z
hZg^ZhV^bhid^c^i^ViZVc^ciZgcVi^dcVaY^hXjhh^dcl]^X]Zbe]Vh^hZhadXVa
bViZg^VaXjaijgZhVcYYgVlhdcgZXZcigZhZVgX]^ci]Z]^hidgnd[hX^ZcXZ
VcYiZX]cdad\n#

:medh^c\ BVc^[Zhi^c\
:aZXigdc^Xh BZY^X^cZ
'%%(gZeg^ci 6jijbc'%%)
>H7C&.%%,),)-% gZeg^ci
+-WaVX`l]^iZ >H7C&.%%,),*+&
^aajhigVi^dch ).WaVX`l]^iZ
'&)eV\Zh VcY-Xdadjg
')*m&-+bb ^aajhigVi^dch
eVeZgWVX` '%%eV\Zh
—'&#.* ')*m&-+bb
eVeZgWVX`
—'&#.*

EgZhZci^c\ IVX`a^c\
E^XijgZh IgVchedgi
Heg^c\'%%)cZl '%%(cZl
>H7C&.%%,),*)* >H7C&.%%,),*(,
*+WaVX`l]^iZ (+WaVX`l]^iZ
VcY&+Xdadjg VcY&(Xdadjg
^aajhigVi^dch ^aajhigVi^dch
'%%eV\Zh '%%eV\Zh
')*m&-+bb ')*m&-+bb
eVeZgWVX` eVeZgWVX`
—'&#.* —'&#.*

JH6XjhidbZghdgYZgY^gZXi[gdbBHJEgZhh!]iie/$$lll#bhjegZhh#bhj#ZYj!
^cXajY^c\hZeVgViZJHZY^i^dchd[hdbZ6giZ[VXihi^iaZh

J@VcYgZhid[ldgaYXjhidbZghdgYZgY^gZXi[gdbi]ZHX^ZcXZBjhZjb!
]iie/$$lll#cbh^#VX#j`$ejWa^XVi^dchdg[gdb<VoZaaZ7dd`HZgk^XZh!L]^iZ8gdhh
B^aah!=^\]Idlc!Hdji]GdVY!AVcXVhiZgA6&)MH!iZa# ))%&*')+-,+*!
[Vm ))%&*')+('('!Z"bV^ahVaZh5\VoZaaZWdd`h#Xd#j`
06 044373 (bc/t) 14/5/04 10:10 am Page 215
06 044373 (bc/t) 14/5/04 10:10 am Page 216