What if you bought an artifact in a shop, and then published it as a great discovery?

The earliest bird? Or the latest looting scandal?

Does that sound bizarre and unlikely? That is what paleontologists are doing increasingly, according to a news story in a recent issue of Science ("Authenticity of China's Fabulous Fossils gets new Scrutiny," by Michael Balter, Science 340 (June 7, 2013), pp. 1153-54). A recent paper in Nature announced the discovery of Aurornis, a new species that supposedly resolves many issues about the origins of birds from dinosaurs.

*** Godefroit, Pascal, Andrea Cau, Hu Dong-Yu, Francois Escuillie, Wu Wenhao, and Gareth Dyke,  2013,  "A Jurassic avialan dinosaur from China resolves the early phylogenetic history of birds." Nature advance online publication. ***

The article itself doesn't mention exactly where the fossil was found or how it was excavated. But in the Supplemental Materials the authors admit that it was purchased from a fossil dealer. Oh, and perhaps the proposed dating is off by 35 million years because they had to guess what deposit it came from. As the supposed first bird, this unprovenienced find has made headlines around the world.

Purchased fossil featured in Nature

Evidently the use of purchased fossils has become commonplace in paleontology, to the point where there is now a craft industry in China producing fake fossils. Some scholars propose that any purchased fossil get a CT scan before being published, to prove that it is not bogus. Others think this is going too far.

I am a bit surprised that paleontologists don't seem to think this kind of thing is unethical or at all scandalous. If you transpose this situation to archaeology, it becomes an big ethical issue. Unprovenienced artifacts (frequently looted) are a real problem. Some journals will not publish them, while others do. (Smithsonian Magazine publishes looted objects.) Some archaeologists work with looted objects all the time, whereas others refuse to have anything to do with looted objects. Archaeologists have heated debates about these issues. We have ethical principles that ask us to protect the archaeological record and guard against the commercial sale of artifacts.

The Rosetta Stone

I blogged about this situation a few years ago, where I outlined a proposed scheme that journals could use to evaluate whether to publish objects of questionable provenience. I followed the lead of some papers by Alison Wylie, who writes about the trade-off between benefits to knowledge (what can we learn from the object?) and potential damage to the archaeological record (will publishing this object stimulate looting and the commercialization of the archaeological record?). In general I am firmly set against publishing artifacts that have been looted. But what if some dealer came up with the "Rosetta Stone" of Mesoamerican scripts and sold it to a collector, who offered it for study to an epigrapher? If this allowed the decipherment of, say the Zapotec script, would it be acceptable to publish the object?

Zapotec inscriptions

Wylie, Alison

1995 Archaeology and the Antiquities Market: The Use of "Looted" Data. In Ethics in American Archaeology: Challenges for the 1990s, edited by Mark J. Lynott, and Alison Wylie, pp. 17-21. Society for American Archaeology, Washington, DC.

1996 Ethical Dilemmas in Archaeological Practice: Looting, Repatriation, Stewardship, and the (Trans)formation of Disciplinary Identity. Perspectives on Science 4:154-194.

Sorry about the hiatus in posting. I am finishing up three hectic weeks of lab work in Toluca, Mexico, and madly finishing up a paper I will present in two weeks.

Television shows celebrate looting

This is an excerpt from an email sent to SAA members by President Fred Limp:


"Late last week the SAA Board was informed that there are two TV series planned that promote and glorify the looting and destruction of archaeological sites. They are American Diggers and Diggers. The first is scheduled for Spike TV and the other for National Geographic TV. As past SAA President Bob Kelly wrote in a recent e-mail in response to American Diggers, "This shameless and shameful program will glorify and promote the mindless destruction of archaeological sites in the U.S." 

SAA and other groups, such as SHA, have already prepared and sent strong letters condemning both of these programs to the production companies, networks, and others. Copies of the SAA letters can be found on the SAA website (http://bit.ly/w2MHJM, and http://bit.ly/wzT7IA). The letters provide details on why we are so concerned. Up to this point Spike TV has not responded to the public outcry. Leadership of National Geographic, however, has indicated that, while they are unable to stop the showing tomorrow on such short notice, they will place a disclaimer into the show that speaks to laws protecting archaeological and historic sites. They are also willing to enter into discussions with the archaeological community to determine how to raise awareness of the impacts of the use of metal detectors for treasure hunting. We will advise you of developments in this area."


Earlier today, Peter Peregrine (President, Society for Anthropological Sciences) sent around the following update:

"It appears that National Geographic Channel has pulled their show—at least it no longer shows up on its website (though repeats of the episodes aired yesterday are still scheduled for Friday).  I heard through the grapevine that legal action might be initiated in the case of the artifact collecting done at the Old Montana State Prison (state owned and a National Register property) during the first episode that aired, as it seems the SHPO was not informed of that work and no permit was issued."

Does anyone recall what happened with the SAA and eBay several years ago? eBay was (and is) selling antiquities, and many archaeologists were boycotting the service (I still am). I don't remember what official actions, if any, were taken by the SAA, AIA, etc.

Smithsonian magazine published looted artifacts

The May 2011 issue of Smithsonian Magazine has an article about the Maya site of El Mirador (Brown, Chip,  2011,  Lost City of the Maya. Smitsonian 42(2 (May)):36-49.). The article includes photographs of several spectacular Maya polychrome vessels (p. 45) that apparently are not from the site. In fact, we have no idea where these vessels are from; they lack provenience. In a post on the Aztlan listserv today, Karen Bruhns identifies these vessels as unprovenienced, looted, objects.

In a subsequent email, she notes that at least one of the vessels are from the notorious "November Collection" of looted Maya art that caused a stir when it was exhibited in a number of U.S. museums in 1998 (New York Times article). This collection was featured in the very interesting and enlightening paper on archaeologists and looters by John Dorfman:

Dorfman, John   1998    Getting Their Hands Dirty? Archaeologists and the Looting Trade. Lingua Franca 8(May-June):28-36.

One might expect that magazines by and for wealthy art dealers might publish looted objects without a second thought. But Smithsonian Magazine is supposedly a legitimate source of news about natural history and related topics, associated with the premier museum in the U.S. Their inclusion of photos of looted objects is deplorable, a real ethical lapse.

For some context on the antiquity trade and its negative impact on the archaeological record, see these blogs:  Looting Matters blog, Illlicit Cultural Property blog,  or some of these works:

Atwood, Roger
2004    Stealing History: Tomb Raiders, Smugglers, and the Looting of the Ancient World. St. Martin's Press, New York.

Brodie, Neil, Morag M. Kersel, Christina Luke, and Kathryn Walker Tubb (editors)
2006    Archaeology, Cultural Heritage, and the Antiquities Trade. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.

Brodie, Neil and Colin Renfrew
2005    Looting and the World's Archaeological Heritage: The Inadequate Response. Annual Review of Anthropology 34:343-361.

Renfrew, Colin
2000    Loot, Legitimacy and Ownership: The Ethical Crisis in Archaeology. Duckworth, London.

Publishing Looted Material

I was thinking about this issue while driving through the Sonoran desert today, and I can't resist the opportunity to post from Navojoa, Sonora! When will I have another opportunity like this?

Back when I was Book Review Editor for Latin American Antiquity, the editorial board was interested in having more detailed and explicit guidelines about whether or not to publish articles that may describe or analyze looted or unprovenienced objects. The SAA (publisher of LAA) is pretty strict about this, in contrast to journals such as Mexicon, who regularly put a photograph of a pretty object from a private collection (almost certainly looted) on their cover, and who have no qualms about publishing looted objects

The LAA board asked for a volunteer to draft some guidelines on publishing questionable objects, and since I regularly teach this topic in seminars I offered to do put together the first draft. What I did was take the ideas of Alison Wylie and put them into a checklist kind of format. I submitted my draft, and the board promptly forgot all about it. But I think these issues are important and should be discussed more widely. So here are the guidelines I put together:

Notes on the publication of unprovenienced objects.

Michael E. Smith, Revised draft, 10/4/2006 LAA-LootedObjects-REV.doc

These are some of the considerations that can be taken into account in evaluating whether to publish objects without secure archaeological provenience. This list supplements the SAA’s Principles of Archaeological Ethics and Editorial Policy by providing concrete examples to help editors and reviewers evaluate individual cases. They are based on the general approach to the use of questionable data described by Wylie (1995, 1996).

Under each category, options are listed in a rough rank order, from good at the top (no barriers to publishing) to bad (there should be serious reservations about publishing the object).

A. Initial Rcovery of the Object

• Excavated or collected though documented legitimate archaeological methods.
• Excavated or collected through poorly documented or undocumented legitimate archaeological methods.
• Obtained through unknown methods.
• Obtained through looting.
• Obtained through illicit sale or theft from a legitimate archaeological collection.

B. Transport to Another Country

• Exported with valid government permission
• Permanent export permit
• Temporary export permit
• Exported without valid government permission:
• Date of the export (in relation to laws and international conventions) ?
• Exported by a scholar or official
• Exported by a dealer or collector

C. Present Location

• Federal or state government facility (in whatever country)
• University or college
• Major public museum
• Small private museum (is the object likely to be deaccessioned ?)
• Private collection
• Commercial art dealer/gallery

D. Public Knowledge of the Object

• Has been published fully
• Located in a public facility
• Its existence is mentioned in a publication
• Never been published

Some text from Wylie 1996:179

The burden is on individual researchers “to justify their weighing of benefits and costs in quite concrete and local terms. For example, those who endorse the publication of looted data will bear the burden of demonstrating, with reference to specific contexts of practice, not only that they are operating within the law and that the data they would salvage offer insights which cannot be gained by any other means, but also that their use of these data does not, in fact, put archaeological resources at greater risk of destructive exploitation than they already face.”

Wylie, Alison

1995 Archaeology and the Antiquities Market: The Use of "Looted" Data. In Ethics in American Archaeology: Challenges for the 1990s, edited by Mark J. Lynott, and Alison Wylie, pp. 17-21. Society for American Archaeology, Washington, DC.

1996 Ethical Dilemmas in Archaeological Practice: Looting, Repatriation, Stewardship, and the (Trans)formation of Disciplinary Identity. Perspectives on Science 4:154-194.