Archaeology Magazine - January 1973 - 52

ARCHAEOLOGICAL

The

Field

NEWS

Museum

For several years Chicago's Field Museum has been concerned about the
scientific,ethical, legal and diplomatic
problems involved in acquiring new
specimens.The Museum demonstrated
this concern when it agreed, in 1970
along with twenty-eight other United
Statesmuseums,to observecertainstandards in makingbiologicalfieldcollections
to insure international cooperation in
research and to safeguard the existence
of rare species.
The Museumalso has recently established similar standards with respect to
the acquisitionof archaeologicalmaterials. It has become one of the few
museums in the country to take such
steps. The others are the University
Museum, University of Pennsylvania,
Philadelphia; the museums associated
with Harvard University; the University Museum, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale; the Thomas Burke
Memorial Washington State Museum,
Seattle; the Peabody Museum, Salem,
Massachusetts;Arizona State Museum,
Tucson; Utah Museumof Natural History, Universityof Utah, Salt Lake City
and the Oriental Institute, University
of Chicago.
The situation in the national and
internationalmarketfor this materialhas
reached the point of crisis.Dangerously
large quantitiesof primitiveand ancient
artifacts are now being stolen or looted,
at times in a quasi-legalfashion,smuggled, and sold at high prices. If this
marketcontinuesto operateon its present
scaleand in its presentrapaciousmanner,
it will soon succeedin obliteratinglarge
segmentsof mankind'scultural heritage.
Althoughthe marketfor anthropological,
ethnographic and artistic objects also
stands in need of rigorous regulation,
the trafficin archaeologicalobjects- the
so-calledantiquitiestrade- is the market
most dangerouslyout of control.
When the antiquitiestrade is illicitwhen the objects being sold have been
illegallyexcavated or illegallyexported
fromtheir countryof origin- the activity
is entirely indefensible. Furthermore,
whether illicit or not, trafficin archaeologicalobjects is ethicallydubious. Proponents of the antiquities trade often
52

Takes

a Stand

on

the

argue that some objects have such importance that they ought to be removed
from supposedlyirresponsiblehands in
their country of origin, and deposited
safelyin collectionsin Europeor America.
This argumentis invalid.Suchconsiderationsdo not justifydespoilinga nation of
its finestmonumentsto the past. Finally,
the looting of archaeological sites is
scientificallydisastrous.The cupidity of
dealers and collectorshas led to such
extensivedestruction of many archaeological sites that no information about
those sites survivesor can even be salvaged, except for the trivial information
contained in the objects removed. The
most seriousrecent destructionhas been
in Middle America, Peru, the Middle
East, South and Southeast Asia, and
the United States.
The museumprofessionis not innocent
of responsibilityfor this situation. Although the number of ancient objectsin
private hands is very great, the museums
of Europe and the United States have in
the past playeda central, indeedcritical,
part in the developmentof the antiquities
trade through their willingness(a) to
authenticateobjectsfor public sale; (b)
to pay, or advisepotentialdonorsto pay,
extremelyhigh pricesfor the objectsthey
do acquire; and (c) to receive through
gift or bequest objects of uncertain or
illicit origin. In this manner museums
have assumedthe positionof guarantors
and price leadersin a market that would
otherwise be markedly less profitable
because of the prevalence of fraud
and speculative investing.
The Field Museum, therefore, has
adopted several policies,some of which
are a codificationof existing practices
and someof which are new.Their intention is to make certain that the Museum
doesnot inadvertentlyacquireillicitantiquitiesand to promotethe reductionand
regulationof the antiquitiesmarket.

Antiquities

Trade

of the Museumofficialor committeeresponsiblefor its acquisitionto have been
exported legally from its country of
origin, (b) Further, the Museum will
refuse to acquire objects in any case
where the responsibleMuseum official
or committee has reasonable cause to
believe that the circumstancesof their
recoveryinvolvedthe recent unscientific
or intentional destruction of sites or
monuments.These restrictionsshall also
apply to archaeologicalobjectsexcavated
in the United States, (c) "Acquire"shall
include acquisitions through purchase,
gift or bequest. "Country of origin"
meansboth "countryof ultimateorigin,"
when the objects in questionhave been
recentlytransportedacrossseveralinternational boundaries, and also "country
of intermediateorigin,"when appliedto
objects anciently transported and then
depositedin an archaeologicalor historical context, (d) This Museum policy
shall be taken into account in determining whetherto acceptloansfor exhibition
or other purposes.
2) This Museumpolicyshallapplyespecially to objects of appreciablemarket
value. The pedigreesof such items will
be subjected to particular scrutiny.Regardlessof value, however,no archaeological or cultural object of any kind
will be acquired unless the responsible
Museumofficialor committeeis satisfied
as to the legality of its exportationand
the circumstancesof its recovery.
3) The Museum will hereafter acquire
no questionableobjectsexcept thosethat
can be demonstratedto have left their
country of origin before the approved
date of this document. The same date
shall applyas to the acquisitionof objects
reasonablybelievedto have been illegally
or unscientificallyexcavated within the
United States. The responsibleMuseum
official or committee shall be entitled,
however, to utilize the principles contained in this PolicyStatementin deterPolicy Statement
mining whether to acquire any object
On July 17, 1972,the Field Museumof reasonably believed to have been imNatural Historyin Chicagoadopted the properly exported or recovered before
following formal statement of policy: that date.
1(a) The Museumwill not acquire any 4) The Museumhas for many years rearchaeological or ethnographic object fused to appraise archaeologicalobjects.
that cannot be shownto the satisfaction Extendingthis policy,the Museumshall
Archaeology Magazine - January 1973

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of Archaeology Magazine - January 1973
