Museums’ Acquisition Policy
October 14, 2009
As publicly-funded bodies whose directors are accountable to central governments, European museums have to be especially careful when offering to purchase any items. In the litigious world of today, museums are often the target of groups who try to make political capital out of the fact that ancient artefacts and human remains from a variety of cultures are housed in these buildings for public display.
With the 19th century vogue for collecting among the gentry and wealthier citizens, several very important collections were established which have been sources of knowledge for subsequent generations of students. In the 20th century, especially in mainland Europe, in the turmoil of war many objects were removed from captured cities, both by the Axis powers and by the Soviets; it would be naive to think that the western Allies never indulged in this practice.
Before acquiring objects, musuems are now required to carry out ‘due diligence’, similar to what happens when one corporation offers ambien to acquire another. The aim of this process is to establish the ownership of the objects to be acquired, and to avoid embroiling the museum in any expensive, long-running, legally complex or politically embarassing disputes.
The guidelines in force in the United Kingdom are quite comprehensive, requiring the donor/seller to supply information concerning the known history and provenance of the object, including:
- • name of discoveror
- • date and place of discovery
- • circumstances of discovery
- • history of sales and catalogue listings
- • any relevant involvement by the authorities (e.g. Treasure Valuation Committee)
The donor/seller must sign a written statement confirming that he/she is the absolute beneficial owner of the object(s), free from third party claims and encumbrances, and offering to sell or donate the same to the museum, and that any information provided as to the provenance of the object(s) is correct to the best of his/her knowledge, information and belief. This applies even if the museum is not paying for the item, but is receiving a gift.
The curator of the receiving museum or institution must also be very careful, making a corresponding signed statement to the effect that he/she has made reasonable enquiries in respect of the acquisition (and summarizing them) and that there is no reason in the DCMS guidelines for combating illicit trade (October 2005), nor in the museum’s own acquisition policy, not to make the proposed acquisition.
The curator is obliged to look at the following areas when considering the proposed acquisition:
- • to examine at first hand and to consider the type of item and likely place of origin
- • to take expert advice in areas outside the the curator’s own expertise
- • to determine whether the item was lawfully exported to the United Kingdom in the case of items sourced from abroad, and to check whether the export of the item was in line with the regulations of the country of origin, and other cultural property legislation applicable at the time the item was exported.
- • to evaluate the account given of the provenance (including export) of the item provided by the owner
- • to consider whether any specific permissions are required from the country of origin
- • If in doubt do not proceed
Critically, failure of the curator to satisfy him/herself on any of these points means that the acquisition should not go ahead, and if he/she believes a criminal offence may have been committed, to report the matter to the Police.
These requirements obviously place a burden of responsibility on the seller, who will be obliged to provide detailed information about the source of the object, and on the museum staff members who decide to acquire.
Nighthawking at Rendlesham
October 14, 2009
‘Nighthawking’ is the illegal metal-detecting of sites and theft of finds, usually conducted under cover of darkness.
It is not only illegal, since it usually involves trespass, criminal damage and theft, but also highly destructive on sites which are of great importance to our understanding of the past. Until a site is ‘scheduled’ (officially recognized as of national importance, and designated as such) there are no penalties for removing material with the landowner’s permission. But many important sites are unrecognized – precisely because the thieves are looting them covertly and want to keep the locations secret.
Recent media coverage of a pending prosecution has highlighted the problem of Rendlesham, Suffolk, a site mentioned by Bede in the Historia Ecclesiastica Gentis Anglorum (III.22) as mansio rendili, the ‘house of Rendel’ or in old English Rendles ham, still the name of a village in east Suffolk. Bede’s mention of the site is in connection with the baptism of an East Saxon king during his stay with an East Anglian king. The implication is that Rendlesham was a royal site in the mid-7th century, and that it was an appropriate location for kings to entertain royal guests – a royal feasting hall, accommodation buildings, service buildings and an early church would seem to be the minimum one would expect to find here.
Despite such written documentation, the Rendlesham site has never been identified on the ground, and therefore it has never been scheduled. However, local landowner Sir Michael Bunbury applied to the County Council Archaeological Service about his Naunton Hall estate and the damage done to his property by nocturnal metal-detectorists. The area has been targetted based not only on Bede’s evidence, but also the 19th century find of an Anglian urn burial at Haw Hill, and the results of a fieldwalking survey conducted in 1982 prior to the erection of a new barn. The Woodbridge-based Sutton Hoo Society pledged financial support for a new survey of the area of the estate and extensive fieldwork was begun in October 2008. While this work was in progress, the site was attackd on several occasions. Sir Michael Bunbury was able to provide information to the local police which resulted in the arrest of five men – one local and four from outside the county.
Part of the importance of the Rendlesham site is in its association with King Rædwald, the East Anglian Bretwalda or overlord of all southern Britain, who is still the best candidate for the burial in Mound 1 at Suton Hoo. Bede relates the story of Rædwald’s conversion to Christianity and how he erected an altar to Christ in his existing temple to the heathen gods: as a polytheist, the king would have seen no conflict in this, but the monotheist Bede heartily disapproved. Rendlesham therefore has the potential to offer a great deal of information about the conversion of the English from the old religion to the new – with all the implications for social and economic change which this entailed.
Because Rendlesham is so important, it is to be hoped that whoever is convicted of the crime of looting the site is dealt with harshly as an example to others. Failure to offer a meaningful deterrent in this high-profile case will be construed as encouragement by the looters.
The Sutton Hoo Society can be found here
The Staffordshire Hoard
October 14, 2009
The discovery of a hoard of gold and silver in a field near Lichfield in September 2009 made headlines all around the world. Some reportage took the view that the find would re-write English history by showing that the country was rather wealthy in the Early Anglo-Saxon period (circa 400-650 AD). Other journalists expressed the finder’s surprise and joy at making a metal-detecting find which would surpass all others in monetary value.
One point which was generally overlooked in all the media interest in the finder’s personal circumstances (middle-aged and unemployed, using his detecting as a form of exercise and a hobby) and the likely sum he will receive as a reward (‘seven figures’ as Dr. Kevin Leahy, the PAS officer, put it) is that the hoard represents military fittings – not whole swords and shields as might be expected from a battle site, but just the gold and silver fittings from them. This must suggest that the pieces were removed deliberately – and often with some force – from weapons and collected for disposal.
The decorated objects all bear Style II decoration which puts them in the date-range 550-650 AD in England. Lichfield was a major centre of Mercian power in the 7th century and a menace to its neighbours and rivals – East Anglia, Northumbria, Wessex and the tiny Welsh kingdoms to the west. The hoard does not tell us much about weapons and warfare in the 7th century – but it does shed some light on the relationships among the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms and their neighbours on the Continent and in Scandinavia.
Until the discoveries at Sutton Hoo in 1939, the general view was that the Anglo-Saxons were an impoverished and unimpressive people. That view could no longer be maintained with the unearthing of the royal treasure ship, but it was still possible to argue that the king’s barrow was exceptional and his wealth was derived from family links with Sweden. The new hoard demonstrates clearly that the material recovered from Sutton Hoo was not exceptional in 7th century England, and may not have been the finest workmanship around at that time. A re-evaluation of the wealth and craftsmanship of the Anglo-Saxons generally – not just the Sutton Hoo and Prittlewell finds – will have to be undertaken once the hoard is published.
