rhelg ihcontext with Archaeology (Chippindale looting destructive archaeological of result the a probably for al. very where and et cry heritage of opaque sale rallying is the against history petition object’s a to an order in is voice collective context’ pejorative its mobilise the to with without profession prefixed ‘Archaeology often is it ‘illicit’. archaeology in adjective discussed is trade antiquities the When Introduction Stevenson Alice artefacts excavated legally of sales commercial addressing antiquities: conflicted and antiquities Conflict oi hpe.Tefis lt10,ble s‘h raueo aae’( Harageh’ of St treasure (AIA) ‘the America’s as of billed ∗ Institute 160), Egyptian Archaeological of (lot the lots first of two The offered behalf London, Chapter. on house, Louis sale auction Bonham’s for 2014, antiquities October 2 On ontecuaeo acinloig(..Renfrew (e.g. looting sanction histories collection or documented encourage without material not of do acquisitions museum and sales profile opie ru ftaetn esl n nadsle eelr;tescn (lot second the jewellery; silver inlaid and vessels travertine of group a comprised iwt aia rnprny n ihaflxblt htalw rhelgsst naein engage to archaeologists allows that basis. a case-by-case flexibility with a a established on with be dialogues and to critical transparency, need principles radical the stewardship to in that heritage view more therefore, cultural leaves argue, of frequently would permitted possession that I and that but ownership present. system nations, the a concerning foreign ‘partage’, answers by of than material we questions legacy excavated however, and legally problem history of this complex export addressing the the In confront stewardship. to and have ethics also of terms in profession the transactions. nycriyn pcfi uto os u sas oetal naigtermntr value, monetary their inflating potentially not also itself. now is archaeology but (Gill is of substantially lots, sometimes practices, sale auction archaeological the specific clear-cut: professional certifying less only through far accrued is context, that (e.g. area market Documented another the into on value surface commercial to continue Tsirogiannis findspots & without Gill objects although success, some itiuinadrpouto naymdu,poie h rgnlwr spoel cited. properly is work original the provided medium, any in reproduction and distribution ANTIQUITY omn trbto iec ( licence Attribution Commons C niut ulctosLd 06 hsi nOe cesatce itiue ne h em fteCreative the of terms the under distributed article, Access Open an is This 2016. Ltd, Publications Antiquity hsatcesest rn teto oti su n osgetpsil epne from responses possible suggest to and issue this to attention bring to seeks article This C ereMsu fEyta rhelg,MltPae odnW1 B,U (Email: UK 6BT, WC1E London Place, Malet Archaeology, Egyptian of Museum [email protected] Petrie UCL 2001 039(06:2926doi: 229–236 (2016): 349 90 Brodie ; ∗ 2011 2006 ) .Ta apin oee,myhv eitiue h egtof weight the redistributed have may however, campaign, That ). http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .Tevclcmag ftels eaet nueta high- that ensure to decade last the of campaign vocal The ). 2011 25) hs r fe ea,btehclyproblematic, ethically but legal, often are These 52–53). : 229 2000 Brodie ; ,wihprisursrce re-use, unrestricted permits which ), tal et 10.15184/aqy.2015.188 . 2006 )hashad iue1 Figure ),

Debate Alice Stevenson

162) was a travertine headrest (Bonhams 2014: 144–49, 151). Both derived from second-millennium BC assemblages excavated by teams working for Flinders Petrie’s British School of Archaeology in Egypt (BSAE) during 1913–1914. The former was removed from auction following the Metropolitan Museum of Art’s intercession and a private sale for an undisclosed sum, while the latter exceeded its estimated price at auction and went into private hands. These objects have precise provenance documented through published accounts (Engelbach & Gunn 1923)andfield notes (Figure 2). Such records allowed one academic—who also catalogued the material on behalf of Bonhams (2014: 148)—to build a compelling biography of these objects prior to their appearance on the market (Bianchi 2013a & b), raising uncomfortable questions concerning the role of scholars in enhancing the commercial value of objects for the antiquities trade, consciously or unconsciously (Brodie 2011). The BSAE’s finds were originally exported in accordance with Egyptian laws that allowed those with an excavation licence to receive half of the discoveries, or the equivalent value, after the Cairo Museum’s first selection (Khater 1960). Figure 1. Inlaid jewellery from Harageh tomb 124 (UCL Once in London, the BSAE divided the Petrie Museum of Egyptian Archaeology negative 1055). finds between public institutions, as per their regulations (BSAE 1905: 8–9). The St Louis AIA, as one such sponsor, was allotted a share on the understanding that these were for a public institution. Their sale a century later contravenes that original agreement, albeit an agreement that seems not to have been documented in ways that stand up to legal scrutiny today. It was on ethical grounds, therefore, that a joint statement from UCL’s Petrie Museum of Egyptian Archaeology and the Egypt Exploration Society (EES) was issued, condemning the actions of the St Louis AIA (Stevenson & Naunton 2014). There was, nonetheless, a general academic and professional acquiescence surrounding the sale. Several commentators in social media noted that the auction was not illegal and, as Pitts (2014) pointed out, that the St Louis lots were in fact one of the few that day that did not technically contravene UNESCO’s 1970 international ‘Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property’ treaty: more than 150 other lots did. For other observers, the sale was not even C Antiquity Publications Ltd, 2016

230 uemo gpinAcaooyarchives). Archaeology Petrie Egyptian (UCL 124 of Harageh Museum for record Excavation 2. Figure such of value commercial the enhance that “activities and (AIA time antiquities” that undocumented at ethics in of code AIA’s the that given unethical, nert fteojcsi olne sue steei urnl oitrainllegal international no currently is there hands. private as in the assured property Moreover, cultural longer sale. for in ownership’, commercial no accessible of of ‘obligations is material no outcome make objects protection, guaranteed and the a domain. save not of private collectors simply the integrity many into is disappearing this that of ways, claimed risk various been at them has puts it block themselves, Although objects auction archaeological the the on For fronts. put several being on problems acute raise sales These problem house auction The h gp xlrto ud rts a ocdi aiu ei ult (Kennedy outlets media via various procured in antiquities voiced as was Protest such Fund. histories, Exploration Egypt excavation the documented had Many antiquities. wesi.Smlry i er ale,Crsi’ oda syinrle eoe yA.H. by removed relief Assyrian an sold Christie’s (Russell private of earlier, Layard into removal room years the sales to six the from led Similarly, disappeared archaeologists ownership. items local other from the Pressure but material, academia. prehistoric in British debated not was it yet h uto rc ece tta iewstehgetee adfra niut.Canford antiquity. an for paid facilities. ever sports government. highest its Ottoman-Turkish expand the to then was proceeds time the the that through used at issued reached price permit legally, auction removed 1846 The seemingly an was monument by the evidenced as thwarted as was bid legal their but protested, 1997 nbhl fCnodSho,Bunmuh h rq government Iraqi The . School, Canford of behalf on ) oflc niute n oflce antiquities conflicted and antiquities Conflict 231 91(Morley 1911 ot mrcnpteyadEgyptian and pottery American South coli nln odiscleto via collection its ( sold Sotheby’s in School Charterhouse 2002, In has controversy. sparked material documented archaeologically Government. legal Mexican of the threat from action its the times despite three value, almost estimated American for sold vessel of Maya School Quirigu the at of Archaeology, aegis the under working teams, Morley’s Sylvanus by urn Ek seated Alb Monte Zapotec from documented a block: from auction York AIA New Bonhams’s on Louis placed were St excavations, care the the in of again artefacts, Mesoamerican well-documented for which provision marketed. in was material no archaeological scenario was a There objects”. ti o h rttm httesl of sale the that time first the not is It two November, 12 on later, month A Chuah 2002 fg ae(o 5) excavated 156), (lot vase effigy C 1997 1935 ,icuigpre-Columbian including ), niut ulctosLd 2016 Ltd, Publications Antiquity n(o 4)adaMaya a and 149) (lot an ´ nydnucd“trade denounced only ) Ashmore ; uig1910– during a ´ 2007 2002 .The ). ),

Debate Alice Stevenson

More broadly, the legal status of such archaeological sales confers an air of legitimacy to the antiquities trade, giving the impression that it is completely licit (Dietzler 2013). This is amplified when museums purchase through sales, laudably rescuing artefacts from disappearing into unregulated private ownership on the one hand, but simultaneously leading auction houses to trumpet their status as legitimate, high-end brokers between clients and esteemed museums on the other. Yet however one looks at it, this is a ‘grey trade’, and the reality remains that illicit antiquities, lacking detailed ownership histories, are just as likely to be offered at the same sales (Watson 1997;Bowman2008; Brodie 2011: 409). The steep premiums that these auctions achieve continue to be attractive sources of revenue. In recessions and times of austerity, this market appeal potentially destabilises the certitude that museums are long-term repositories, and fundamentally threatens public trust in them (Steel 2015). For example, while none of the sellers cited above are accountable in the way that museums or similar institutions are supposed to be, the widely condemned sale in July 2014 of an ancient Egyptian statue by Northampton City Council at Christie’s (sale 1541, The exceptional sale) shows that even things held in public trust are not necessarily safe from disposal via commercial auction (Heal 2014). The statue was sold to an overseas private buyer for the exorbitant sum of £15 762 500, and the museum lost its accreditation from Arts Council England. Whereas academic pressure on curators was previously intended to ensure that museums did not acquire archaeology without context (Renfrew 2006), could museums be now increasingly looking to dispose of archaeology with context? Inflated auction prices additionally garner considerable media attention and headlines, reducing archaeological finds to an economic value and undermining archaeologists’ attempts to promote more meaningful engagements with the past. Most seriously of all, these high prices and their media profile fuel powerful market forces that ultimately drive the pillaging of archaeological sites across the world (Gill 2010:6,2014; Hanna 2013). It is a lucrative trade for status- and profit-driven individuals, but it is not lucrative for source communities (Brodie 1998;Bowman2008: 232). It is these groups who live in proximity to archaeological sites that stand to lose the most—not just in the short-term, but also in the long-term touristic potential of sites—especially in countries where there is political and economic instability such as Egypt, Syria, Libya and .

Complex histories There are clear reasons then for critiquing the antiquities market, but countering instances where the products of legal archaeological work become financial assets is not always straightforward. This lack of clarity is largely due to the multiple routes by which objects have circulated from the field to the auction house, networks of exchange that are often poorly understood. If we are to have a dialogue and dissuade those that wish to sell archaeological heritage on the open market, it is necessary for archaeologists to be transparent about the history of their discipline and the legacy of collections procured during the nascent development of the subject. In the UK, the absence of government-backed exploration meant that British fieldwork abroad was dependent upon both private patronage and public funding. This financial imperative placed an onus upon excavators to recover finds worthy of sponsorship, and C Antiquity Publications Ltd, 2016

232 gis ea ae falacaooial rcrdies oercn ocpulstosof conceptualisations recent More items. procured priority, archaeologically equal all of of sales statements surely (Wylie legal proscriptive articulate against are identity to difficult however, professional itself is, it our discipline distributions, finds to archaeological the integral may by are and constructed they towards sales, responsibilities as was of stewardship sorts our value Yet these AIA. whose the addressing to objects of position means similar a effective in an themselves find undocumented offer in currently market not the against do position finds, robust a taking while the departments, Louis at university St discussed the was when branch avoided Louis 2015 subsequently St but the (AIA meeting, resigned of board annual charter AIA 2015 the aftermath January revoke the to AIA in only action national was It that sold. were event care their this by in made objects of the decision AIA, the the of of condemnation chapter their Louis St despite the 2014, in discovered AIA national the As stewardship of question A (Robson agreements partage resulting through assent, sites field popular from and objects scientific of both 2014 diaspora gain wide to a pressure in under were archaeologists mhssdta xaae aeilwsfrpbi eet o rvt rfi (BSAE profit private not benefit, public for was material excavated that emphasised (Sparks exploration atg eentawy eand n h ar Museum’s Cairo the and retained, garner always to not incentives were partage as instance, or For (Stevenson gifts applied. discovered support private equally financial material for or further tokens the absolute feasible not considered that was were were sentiment objects ‘duplicate’ the partage the public, administered Although the today. has who benefit legally transfer should those sales of many of conditions challenge intentions any to original difficult of it documentation making and piecemeal, however, survived signed were contracts No eil rmwrsfrehcldbt htpri st akeslso aeb-aebasis. case-by-case a on construct sales to tackle to profession us archaeological permit that the debate requires ethical acquired for legally position frameworks of ethical sale flexible a public reinvigorate Such the to in finds. opportunities houses auction new archaeological of are involvement the there discourage heritage; to of debate circulation the to attitudes accountability” a admits adopt that can communication (Marstine We of possible. “mode wherever transparency”—a ownership artefacts “radical archaeological private of of to position transference then the and resist this territory to that commercial however, ability into current argue, our would from I detract anachronistic. not seem does might ago? agreement Cuno century-old decades (e.g. a hands assumed upon sometimes private is into than problematic disposed more those far is from partage from room, of artefacts legacy sale archaeological The the those to distinguish circulated have collections we too Should these public and market. institutions, antiquities public as the well through as hands private in been always have (Piacentini mid-1970s the until objects eetees h euain fognstosta diitrdteeoperations these administered that organisations of regulations the Nevertheless, ie hsbcgon,bsn hleg oslssc sta fee yteS oi AIA Louis St the by offered that as such sales to challenge a basing background, this Given ) ieie aycretehclgieie fohrpoesoa ois uem and museums bodies, professional other of guidelines ethical current many Likewise, b). Stevenson ; 2011 4—nwihw cnweg ohps alnsadprevious and failings past both acknowledge we which 14)—in : 2014 2013 .Cmeca osdrtoshv ogudrindarchaeological underpinned long have considerations Commercial ). 2015 ). oflc niute n oflce antiquities conflicted and antiquities Conflict ) h I r o drsigterehclfaeok (AIA frameworks ethical their addressing now are AIA The a). 2014 2011 .Ee bet htrmie nCiofollowing Cairo in remained that objects Even ). 233 62) h euti htacaooia finds archaeological that is result The 26–28). : 1996 al eVente de Salle .Gvntemxdlgc of legacy mixed the Given ). C niut ulctosLd 2016 Ltd, Publications Antiquity sdt elexcavated sell to used laissez-faire 1905 2008 tal. et ). ).

Debate Alice Stevenson archaeological ethics, however, envision them not as stringent guidelines, but as a contingent form of negotiating politics and as a means of formulating an effective dialogue (Meskell & Pels 2005;Scarre&Scarre2006:3;Beaudry2009), which may allow us to address the sales through radical transparency and open dialogue. When reassessing guidelines, the Society for American Archaeology’s third principle is a particularly apropos departure point (Wylie 2005: 54): Whenever possible they [archaeologists] should discourage, and should themselves avoid, activities that enhance the commercial value of archaeological objects, especially objects that are not curated in public institutions, or readily available for scientific study, public interpretation, and display (SAA 1996). I would appeal, therefore, to professional and archaeological societies to re-examine and debate their ethical stances with regard to both the sale of archaeological heritage more widely and the nature of the profession’s relationships with auction houses. This might not mean denouncing all forms of interaction, given the debateable function of auction houses in facilitating the transfer of heritage from private hands to public museums, but these should be considered more carefully and critically on a case-by-case basis. A second approach is to account for the whereabouts of the products of past excavations by making transparent the distribution of objects. A current AHRC-funded project, ‘Artefacts of Excavation’, is attempting to do just that for the finds from a century of British fieldwork in Egypt (Stevenson & Libonati 2015). This is not simply an information-gathering exercise. Rather, one of its aims is to give non-specialists enough information to make connections between objects and histories for themselves, thereby reanimating the narrative potential of ‘orphaned’ artefacts. This is important because in both the sales of the St Louis material and the Northampton statue, the fact that material was in storage was considered to be one, albeit short-sighted, justification for its disposal. There is no reason, especially in the digital age, for storage to be misconstrued as synonymous with inaccessibility. As stewards of the past, we do ourselves a disservice if we disregard the material legacies of past excavations and their latent potential for modern academic and public interpretation. The concern over the legal sale of archaeological heritage might be seen as a histrionic reaction to what is currently a small-scale problem against the burgeoning trade in undocumented antiquities. Yet this is itself a reason to be more vocal in denouncing the few instances in which archaeological heritage is placed on the market: not only have we a strong case to make (e.g. Dillon 2015), we also have a moral obligation. These are objects excavated by colonial nations in foreign countries whose own resources are now frequently over-stretched tackling looting that is itself being undertaken for the first-world market. We should be responsible and accountable on their behalf for material we excavated and exported.

Conclusion The antiquities market thrives on attaining the highest possible price for objects. It is simply not an appropriate conduit for transferring archaeological heritage, and auction houses should not be the middlemen for the disposal of material that was to remain in public trust. Private, discrete sales between museums or institutions are not being condemned here. Of C Antiquity Publications Ltd, 2016

234 B A ethics of codes the review to force task AIA 2015b. – Society. Louis AIA-St. the and AIA The 2015a. – I rhelgclIsiueo mrc.1997. America. of Institute Archaeological AIA B ohm.2014. Bonhams. Harageh. of treasure The 2013b. — B B Acknowledgements stand. a take must hitpe ano,SehnQik n lc ilasfrhlfldsusoso hs sus n othe to and issues, Libonati, References these Emma on Griffith, discussions suggestions. Simon helpful and Morton, insights for their Williams Thomas for Alice Carruthers, reviewers and two William Quirke Antonaccio, Stephen Carla Naunton, Christopher to grateful am I demand creates illicit still and former Licit the of Brodie world. sale (cf. too the latter commercial is the around the for it as the sites importantly, decoupled, of archaeological more be profile and cannot but, public antiquities museums communities disappear the in source for can held high that for trust only elite high the not the room, and is for auction profession price assets the The archaeological as territory. in paraded private performed are unregulated is antiquities into that acquired commercialisation legally of which circus in public the is concern RODIE OWMAN IANCHI EAUDRY SHMORE 72.Lno e ok Springer. York: New & London 17–29. archaeology historical (ed.) of Gaimster handbook International D. & Majewski T. in archaeology, ihu Context Without acse 0Otbr2015). October 30 (accessed http://www.archaeological.org/news/aianews/19082 at: Available standards. professional and 2015). October 30 (accessed http://www.archaeological.org/news/aianews/18283 News 2015). October 30 (accessed http://www.archaeological.org/news/advocacy/130 ethics Bonhams. Missouri. Louis, http://dx.doi.org/10.5913/0065-9991-49-1-19 Egypt in Center Research American http://dx.doi.org/10.9783/9781934536414 Anthropology. and Archaeology of Museum Pennsylvania Guatemala http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1043986208318210 Justice Criminal ‘grey’ antiquities. the in and market sites archaeological at looting culture: .19.Pt h ormiddlemen. poor the Pity 1998. N. , ..21a rmatm tHrght St to Harageh at tomb a From 2013a. R.S. , ..20.Ehclise nhistorical in issues Ethical 2009. M.C. , eray21.Aalbeat: Available 2015. February 2 , vial at: Available . .20.Tasainlcie against crimes Transnational 2008. B. , .2007. W. , hldlha nvriyof University Philadelphia: . niute,2Otbr2014 October 2 Antiquities, 4 225–42. 24: :7–9. 3: gpinArchaeology Egyptian eteetacaooya Quirigu at archaeology Settlement ora fContemporary of Journal I News AIA 2014 oflc niute n oflce antiquities conflicted and antiquities Conflict ora fthe of Journal .Frteeraos uem n rhelgclinstitutions archaeological and museums reasons, these For ). 9 19–31. 49: pi 2015. April 1 , 3 15–16. 43: London: . Culture oeof Code AIA : a, ´ 235 01 ogna eflos h cdm n the and academy The bedfellows? Congenial 2011. – Treadwell L. Robson, E. in mirrors, and Smoke 2006. – D B the of autoregulation price: and Provenance 2014. – C 1905. Egypt. in Archaeology of School British BSAE C hites 04 h xetoa ae21.Sl 1541. Sale 2014. sale exceptional The 2014. Christie’s. D E NGELBACH RODIE UNO HIPPINDALE ILLON IETZLER Justice trade. antiquities Oxbow. objects cultural collecting of politics (ed.) Gosden C. & rts colo rhelg nEgypt. in Archaeology of School British niute rd:mvn eodtedefinitional debate. the beyond moving trade: antiquities rneo nvriyPress. University Princeton heritage ancient our of battle http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10610-014-9235-9 Research market? antiquities College. year eleventh the of Report Florida. trade antiquities 2006. (ed.). coe 2015). October exceptional-sale-london-july-2014/ vial at: Available http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0940739101771184 Property Cultural of history. Journal quantitative International a in steps first world: .H C. Archaeology http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12117-012-9182-0 .2008. J. , . ..K M.M. N., , .21.Editorial. 2015. S. , AMILTON .21.O ognzdcie nteillicit the in crime’ ‘organized On 2013. J. , 7 408–37. 27: rnsi raie Crime Organized in Trends ,R.&B.G 0 427–44. 20: ,C.,D.W.J.G 1:1–2. 119: h wsatqiy uem n the and Museums antiquity? owns Who rhelg,clua eiae n the and heritage, cultural Archaeology, http://www.christies.com/sales/the- 01 olcigteClassical the Collecting 2001. . C ansil:Uiest rs of Press University Gainesville: . niut ulctosLd 2016 Ltd, Publications Antiquity ERSEL ora fCneprr Criminal Contemporary of Journal h wsojcs h tisand ethics The objects? owns Who ora nCiia oiyand Policy Criminal on Journal UNN ,C.L ILL mrcnJunlof Journal American 1923. . odn University London: . ,E.S rneo (NJ): Princeton . UKE Harageh LATER &K.W.T –4 Oxford: 1–14. : 6 329–42. 16: acse 30 (accessed & London: . 0 1–31. 10: UBB

Debate Alice Stevenson

GILL, D.W. 2010. The portable antiquities scheme and ROBSON,E.,R.HORRY,J.J.TAYLOR,S.J.TINNEY & the treasure act: protecting the archaeology of S. ZAMAZALOVA´. 2014. : materialities of England and Wales? Papers from the Institute of Assyrian knowledge production. Available at: Archaeology 20: 1–11. http://oracc.org/nimrud (accessed 30 October http://dx.doi.org/10.5334/pia.333 2015). – 2011. Context matters: compliance and the RUSSELL, J.M. 1997. From Nineveh to New York. The antiquities market. Journal of Art Crime 6: 52–56. strange story of the Assyrian reliefs in the Metropolitan – 2014. Context matters: the so-called Crosby Garrett Museum & the hidden masterpiece at . Helmet. Journal of Art Crime 11: 53–59. New York: Yale University Press. GILL,D.W.&C.TSIROGIANNIS. 2011. Polaroids from SAA Society for American Archaeology. 1996. Principles the Medici Dossier: continued sightings on the of archaeological ethics. Available at: market. Journal of Art Crime 5: 27–33. http://www.saa.org/AbouttheSociety/Principles ofArchaeologicalEthics/tabid/203/Default.aspx HANNA, M. 2013. Looting heritage: losing identity. Al (accessed 30 October 2015). Rawi 5: 22–25. SCARRE,C.&G.SCARRE. 2006. Introduction, in HEAL, S. 2014. MA condemns sale of Sekhemka statue. C. Scarre & G. Scarre (ed.) The ethics of archaeology: Available at: http://www.museumsassociation.org/ philosophical perspectives on archaeological practice: news/11072014-ma-condemns-sale-sekhemka 1–13. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. (accessed 30 October 2015). Sotheby’s. 2002. The Charterhouse collection: the property KENNEDY, M. 2002. Charterhouse treasures go to of Charterhouse, sold by order of the Governing Body: auction as academics rail. The Guardian,27July London, Tuesday 5 November 2002. London: 2002, p. 9. Sotheby’s. KHATER, A. 1960. Le regime juridique des fouilles et des SPARKS, R.T. 2013. Publicising Petrie: financing ´ antiquit´es en Egypt. Caire: Institut Franc¸ais fieldwork in British Mandate Palestine d’Archeologie´ Orientale. (1926–1938). Present Pasts 5(1). MARSTINE, J. 2011. The contingent nature of the new http://dx.doi.org/10.5334/pp.56 museum ethics, in J. Marstine (ed.) The Routledge STEEL, P. 2015. Organisations set out stall on unethical companion to museum ethics. Redefining ethics for the sales. Museums Journal 115(2): 7. twenty-first century museum: 3–25. London & New York: Routledge. STEVENSON, A. 2014. Artefacts of excavation: the collection and distribution of Egyptian finds to MESKELL,L.&P.PELS. 2005. Introduction: embedding museums, 1880–1915. Journal of the History of ethics, in L. Meskell & P. Pels (ed.) Embedding Collections 26: 89–102. ethics: 1–26. Oxford & New York: Berg. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jhc/fht017 MORLEY, S.G. 1935. Guide book to the ruins of STEVENSON,A.&E.LIBONATI. 2015. Artefacts of Quirigua. Washington, D.C.: Carnegie Institution excavation. Egyptian Archaeology 46: 26–29. of Washington. STEVENSON,A.&C.NAUNTON. 2014. The loss of PIACENTINI, P. 2011. The dawn of museums and antiquities from public collections. Available at: photography in Egypt, in P. Piacentini (ed.) Egypt http://ees.ac.uk/news/index/279.html (accessed 30 and the pharaohs. From conservation to enjoyment: October 2015). 5–43. Milan: Skira. WATSON, P. 1997. Sotheby’s. The inside story. London: PITTS, M. 2014. Antiquities sales: it’s a funny old Bloomsbury. world. Available at: https://mikepitts.wordpress. com/tag/harageh/ (accessed 30 October 2015). WYLIE, A. 1996. Ethical dilemmas in archaeological practice: looting, repatriation, stewardship and the RENFREW, C. 2000. Loot, legitimacy and ownership. (trans)formation of disciplinary identity. London: Duckworth. Perspectives on Science 4: 154–94. – 2006. Museum acquisitions. Responsibilities for the – 2005. The problems and perils of an ethic of illicit traffic in antiquities, in N. Brodie, stewardship, in L. Meskell & P. Pels (ed.) M.M. Kersel, C. Luke & K.W. Tubb (ed.) Embedding ethics: 47–68. Oxford & New York: Archaeology, cultural heritage and the antiquities Berg. trade: 245–57. Gainesville: University Press of Florida.

Received: 6 January 2015; Accepted: 7 April 2015; Revised: 28 April 2015

C Antiquity Publications Ltd, 2016

236