Museums and the Market: When Cultural Institutions Must Sell

An interesting and thought provoking piece has come to my attention recently. It specifically posits the question of what, and to what extent, an established but deeply indebted museum (using Chicago's Field Museum as an example) can sell off previously held collections on the open market. Using the example of the sale of several paintings by Catlin in order to raise proceeds to pay curatorial staff who originally tended the collections, the question of how respectable museums can adapt to times of budgetary stress in an ethical manner comes to mind.

Some have argued for the legal release and sale of artifacts or pieces of artifacts (such as ceramic sherds) in which numerous allegedly identical examples might be found in any one excavation. I would respond by saying that just because two or more objects LOOK the same stylistically does not mean future scientific analysis won't reveal different manufacturing centres, raw material types, or adhering residues that could explain differences in archaeological context. Within the academy, the fields of archaeology and physical anthropology are becoming increasingly focused on methodological advances in "archaeological science" (archaeometry) to breathe new life into old collections or previously curated remains...revealing increasingly minute details of human life history or artifact manufacture, exchange, and use.

Carrying out new excavations successfully (for research purposes) is not only tied to the availability of funds (and thus national, state and local fluctuations in the economy), but also requires a certain degree of luck to find in-tact and well preserved sites before the global antiquities trade claims them. The role of museums and secondary collections in the continuation of global archaeological and anthropological research is therefore not to be underestimated. Selling off already curated items (even with paperwork attached) should therefore be avoided at all costs as, even if this trade would arguably be more "licit," it would still be detrimental to overall scholarly efforts to truly understand and share the past, not just aesthetically "appreciate" it.

Another issue raised is the concept of "donor security" being shaken if it became known that high-profile institutions are being forced to sell or auction off collections. Apparently, if donors get jittery that items they have consigned to museums for long-term safe keeping will now be sold off, and possibly not even returned to them, they will be less likely to donate in the first place. Even in Western countries, where storage space, proper curatorial technique, and security tends to be less of an issue, good intentions will never entirely buffer against ill economic winds.

If the items in questions (e.g. antiquities or fossils) have known or suspected illicit origins, it would seem likely that the economic hardship affecting many of the world's museums would only increase the likelihood of unscrupulous dealers or collectors continuing to do wrong by humanity's past by choosing the "free market" of the no-questions-asked antiquities trade as the final destination for items they no longer want the burden of holding on to. What can be done about this, in relation to the antiquities and fossil trade especially?

It's a tough question, but one that needs practical solutions, barring the sudden generation of revenue from thin air. Will previously free museums have to begin charging entrance fees or levy taxes on acquisitions from private donors? Making "gifts" and "bequests" no longer able to receive tax write-offs could be a start (and would, in my opinion, perhaps make donors more prone to double checking ownership history and documentation). I don't pretend to have a solution readily at hand, but I would love to discuss this topic further. How do YOU think cash-strapped museums can raise revenue without sacrificing too many employees, their ability to provide documented collections for new research, or indirectly fueling the antiquities trade?    

Let's Not Forget the Palaeontologists...

Despite the number of times that archaeologists get confused for palaeontologists (no, we do NOT excavate dinosaur bones), it is easy to overlook the fact that those who do uncover the world's pre-Homo sapiens past often face their own set of illicit smuggling/collecting threats to their work, field sites, and continued integrity as a scientific discipline. This recent article from the New York Times highlights these problems well.

The article details the ongoing illicit excavation and smuggling threat to an immense cache of 40 million year old marine reptile, shark and whale fossils, now being gradually exposed by the elements in Peru's Ocucaje desert, near the south coast city of Ica. Discoveries include "gigantic fossilized teeth from the legendary 50-foot shark called the megalodon, the bones of a huge penguin with surprisingly colorful feathers and the fossils of the Leviathan melvillei, a whale with teeth longer than those of the Tyrannosaurus Rex, making it a contender for the largest predator ever to prowl the oceans." The area is becoming well known to palaeontologists with marine mammal specializations, such as Dr. Christian de Muizon, of the Natural History Museum of Paris, perhaps rivaling parts of Pakistan, long known for its concentration of whale fossils.

However, now that so many nearby, and national, archaeological sites have been/are being looted out, smuggling attention is turning to fossils. Peruvian law classifies fossils along with archaeological artifacts as "national patrimony," and thus special permission is needed for their export. The hyper-remoteness of the region, it's aridity, and the near-complete lack of police presence means enforcement's more or less a pipe-dream. Indeed, many shops in Ica itself sell fossils: shark teeth for from $60-100, with rarer pieces going for higher. I wonder what kind of documentation comes with purchase, or is available upon request to prove that one's new store-bought fossil was excavated according to best palaeontological practice? If that segment of the illicit fossil trade that violates international laws at the behest of greedy dealers is anything like the antiquities trade (and it's clear that it is), I'm guessing the answer is no. According to the article, it's mostly itinerant seaweed harvesters/merchants who collect fossils on their way back from the coast. I would guess that this is not the world's most lucrative profession, thus making the urge to brave tough conditions in the desert a strong one.

According to the article, 2,200 seizures of illicit fossil cargo occurred this year at Lima's airport, up from 800 last year. This could be viewed in one of two ways: does the increase mean illicit smuggling attempts are increasing, or that customs agents are getting better at recognizing fossils and the tell-tale signs of concealed cargo, or both? It's hard to tell. What is apparent is that this is a growing concern, even in this remote region, as the still-impoverished huaqeros (tomb robbers) look for new ways to feed the market. By way of summary, the article linked to above details the rescue of more than one dozen Chimu-era artifacts robbed from a tomb near Conache, with a lawyer now contacted, and police and archaeologists stepping up patrol of the area. Similarly, professional palaeontologists, both local and foreign, must now race against time, the elements, and the criminal underworld to complete expensive field expeditions successfully, when they are fortunate enough to find good specimens of the species they're after. With the palaeontological community aware of the problem, it is now up to ethical local dealers and international buyers to cut off the illicit market at the source, only allowing sale of 'duplicate' skeletal elements from common species with a complete paper-trail and provenance provided. Buen suerte, Peru!