Ethical debate: Donors
In October 2005, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) published due diligence guidelines for collecting and borrowing cultural material. The guidelines map out procedures to follow when acquiring items of cultural property originating from outside the UK.
Now donors who cannot provide adequate documentation may be asked to sign a sworn affidavit. Are we expecting too much from our donors?
The committee that worked on the guidelines did consider the view that relationships with donors might be strained by a museum's need to seek documentation or affidavits. In some cases potential benefactors may be leading scholars or collectors who may have worked closely with the museums for many years.
Such people may be aware that in the 1970s and 1980s they were collecting on just the same terms as the museums that now seem to be quibbling over their proposed gifts. But times have changed, and museums must operate within the current rules. The committee took the view that the ethical position must be maintained, even at the cost of jeopardising long-standing relationships. It is hoped this can be explained to donors.
With minor antiquities, the rules recognise that unprovenanced items may have lost provenance details innocently, which may allow a little flexibility. But the overall view of the profession was that the loss of important collections and offence given to donors - should it come to that - was a price that had to be paid.
Nick Mayhew, deputy director, Ashmolean Museum, Oxford
I chaired the group that put together the new DCMS guidelines on avoiding illicit artefacts. As we worked on them it became clear that museums have to follow the highest possible standards. Museums have national and international responsibilities; they act for society as a whole, and acquire items for the long term.
This means they have to meet the letter and spirit of national and international law and ethics. With potentially illicit items, that means being extremely cautious. There's a lot of loot on the market and in private collections, and the international consensus is that museums must not acquire it - or even exhibit it.
Museums have to ask all the right questions and demand proof of the answers, which might mean an affidavit. And museums have to be brave enough to say no if there is any risk of acquiring anything dodgy, even if that risks offending a potential donor.
This means much significant (but looted) material cannot be acquired by museums. Views may change in a decade or two if society wants museums to include past cultures that are represented only by illicit artefacts. But even if that happens, UK museums should never again behave as saviours of another country's culture, without that country's agreement.
Maurice Davies, deputy director, Museums Association
Now donors who cannot provide adequate documentation may be asked to sign a sworn affidavit. Are we expecting too much from our donors?
The committee that worked on the guidelines did consider the view that relationships with donors might be strained by a museum's need to seek documentation or affidavits. In some cases potential benefactors may be leading scholars or collectors who may have worked closely with the museums for many years.
Such people may be aware that in the 1970s and 1980s they were collecting on just the same terms as the museums that now seem to be quibbling over their proposed gifts. But times have changed, and museums must operate within the current rules. The committee took the view that the ethical position must be maintained, even at the cost of jeopardising long-standing relationships. It is hoped this can be explained to donors.
With minor antiquities, the rules recognise that unprovenanced items may have lost provenance details innocently, which may allow a little flexibility. But the overall view of the profession was that the loss of important collections and offence given to donors - should it come to that - was a price that had to be paid.
Nick Mayhew, deputy director, Ashmolean Museum, Oxford
I chaired the group that put together the new DCMS guidelines on avoiding illicit artefacts. As we worked on them it became clear that museums have to follow the highest possible standards. Museums have national and international responsibilities; they act for society as a whole, and acquire items for the long term.
This means they have to meet the letter and spirit of national and international law and ethics. With potentially illicit items, that means being extremely cautious. There's a lot of loot on the market and in private collections, and the international consensus is that museums must not acquire it - or even exhibit it.
Museums have to ask all the right questions and demand proof of the answers, which might mean an affidavit. And museums have to be brave enough to say no if there is any risk of acquiring anything dodgy, even if that risks offending a potential donor.
This means much significant (but looted) material cannot be acquired by museums. Views may change in a decade or two if society wants museums to include past cultures that are represented only by illicit artefacts. But even if that happens, UK museums should never again behave as saviours of another country's culture, without that country's agreement.
Maurice Davies, deputy director, Museums Association
