Full text Page 1 of 7

The H.W. Wilson Company/WilsonWeb

AUTHOR: KELLY ELIZABETH YASAITIS

TITLE: Collecting Culture and the British Museum
SOURCE: Curator 49 no4 449-62 O 2006
COPYRIGHT: The magazine publisher is the copyright holder of this article and it is reproduced with permission.
Further reproduction of this article in violation of the copyright is prohibited. To contact the publisher:
http://www.calacademy.org/

ABSTRACT
This article explores the act of collecting from a postmodern perspective by examining the influences of changing
times, places, and persons. Considering the British Museum's stages of development and progress, it discusses the life
of Sir Hans Sloane and how his actions helped determine the museum's original goals for its collection. The early days
of the British Museum provide a clear view into the values of seventeenth- and eighteenth-century British society. The
focus of the museum's collection has changed over the years with the changing views of academics and society. The
museum today still strives to hold knowledge of all things, yet tempers this goal under the pressures of modern
theorists and politics. While still desiring to communicate information about the world from vast and complex
collections, the museum has shifted its focus to answer questions of ownership and entitlement. Explaining national
and world heritage views, the article concludes with a discussion of the ethics of collecting as a primary factor in
today's British Museum collection.

INTRODUCTION
All collecting is done with a specific purpose in mind. Why, for instance, does a child pick up a shiny penny?
Because it appeals to her at that moment. While simplistic, this rationale can describe the origins of many collections.
Someone chooses to acquire an object because of its appeal at that time. What makes something desirable, in that
case? Why would an individual acquire an object, or a series of similar or related objects? What is the sense in
repetition?
Objects acquired on a similar basis--possibly due to shared substance, form, history, or other such quality--become
a collection. One could argue that to collect is to give order and significance to a set of objects; or it may be that
collecting defines the interrelationship among a set of objects. An individual's reason for acquiring a single object
could significantly differ from her reason for accumulating many of the same or similar objects. Pearce states that the
"collection as an entity is greater than the sum of its parts" (1998, 3). As has been said by notable scholars, the act of
collecting reveals ideological, political, and societal influences (Vergo 1989, 2). What is collected is what is deemed
desirable, and what seems desirable is telling of the views and beliefs of a society and its time. To uncover the
reasons for a collection is to undertake a postmodern investigation.
This article will explore the act of collecting using the British Museum as an example. Beginning with the creation of
the British Museum and its initial collections, the article discusses the life of Sir Hans Sloane and how his actions
helped determine the museum's first collecting goals. The scientific aim of his collecting, as set by the society in which
he participated, was to create universal knowledge. The focus of the museum's collection has shifted over the years;
however, we will argue that the museum today still strives for knowledge of all things, yet tempers this goal in accord
with modern theories and politics. National and world heritage views have influenced the ethics of collecting and have
become primary factors in determining an object's desirability.

BUILDING THE ARK

Every collection has an inherent and illustrative subjective element that can be traced to the time and society from
which the collector came (Lubar and Kendrick 2001, 17). Some argue that Noah, with his ark, was the first true
collector (Elsner and Cardinal 1994, 1). In his passion to save what God had created, Noah collected with a desire, a
purpose, and a sense of urgency to preserve all of God's creatures. His gathering of two of every animal and his
loading the animals onto the ark created a collection that, in his mind, represented a microcosm of the entire world.
Pierce has pointed out: "In the West, collecting has long been a strategy for the deployment of a possessive self,
culture and authenticity" (1998, 1). Many colonial powers justified their authoritative presence by creating a sense of
shared identity and legitimacy via the acquisition and control of material culture. The development of human
civilization came to be understood in scientific terms, and understanding evolution and the natural world became a
search for truth. A product of the Enlightenment, the British Museum was created within this ethos.
During the seventeenth century, an interest in scientific inquiry pervaded Western Europe (Lewis 1984, 24). Proper
observation and scientific study of great collections of plants and animals reaffirmed the genius of God's work and the
divine order of the planet. Embracing this approach, many scholars sought to educate by an accumulation of objects
that would illustrate and accelerate humankind's achievement. Many of the world's most influential collections
emerged at this time. For instance, in 1629, John Tradescant and his son put together Tradescant's Ark, a Cabinet of
Rarities that included birds, fish, gems, plants, and other specimens of the natural world (Alexander 1983, 27). Later
purchased by Elias Ashmole, this collection would form the core of the renowned Ashmolean Museum at Oxford.
William Charleton established his own well-known collection of shells, insects, medals, animals, and other such objects
in London in the early 1680s (Alexander 1983, 27). Many aristocratic gentlemen put together private collections of

Electronic
Electroniccopy
copyavailable
availableat:
at:https://ssrn.com/abstract=1661937
http://ssrn.com/abstract=1661937
http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.libproxy.temple.edu/hww/results/results_single_ftPES.jhtml 8/19/2010
Full text Page 2 of 7

both natural and human-made objects that would later become the basis for a number of public museums. As can be
seen, the pursuits of scholarship and education, particularly in the natural world, were highly valued.

SIR HANS SLOANE

Sir Hans Sloane, born in northern Ireland in 1660, grew up surrounded by "cabinets of curiosity" and with a
fascination for the plants and animals inhabiting the countryside. Attending university in London, Sloane studied
anatomy, medicine, chemistry, and botany--the principle subjects of his day (Alexander 1983, 24). He would later
visit the university in Montpellier, France, where he worked with botanical gardens and furthered his scientific
pursuits. Trained as a doctor, Sloane was influential in the Royal College of Physicians and the Royal Society of
London, a sort of natural academy of science. Learned societies were becoming increasingly popular vehicles for
bringing together amateurs and scholars in a mutual pursuit of knowledge. In such groups, Sloane rubbed elbows with
Sir Isaac Newton and other prominent individuals. Perhaps the most significant event in Sloane's life was his decision
to visit Jamaica as the doctor for the Duke of Albemarle. Sloane's travels through the Caribbean allowed him the
opportunity to pick up specimens of plants and animals that many Britons had never seen before. He has been
described as "an early example of the learned traveler who carefully examined the geography and history of a region,
the flora and fauna, and the inhabitants with their customs and trade" (Alexander 1983, 22). Sloane was a well known
naturalist (Alexander 1983, 28).
Upon his return in 1689, Sloane began collecting with a purpose. He brought back over 800 plants and various
animal specimens to England (none of the animals survived the trip) which he then ordered and catalogued with great
precision. Sloane shared both his specimens and his object studies with his colleagues at the Royal Society, as well as
those educated individuals who wished to gain knowledge through observation of the objects. By continuing to
systematically collect natural specimens, Sloane amassed arguably the largest and most extensive single botanical
collection of the time (Alexander 1983, 28). While his primary interest lay in natural specimens, Sloane was also
reported to have collected "artificial curiosities," or what would later be known as the ethnographic collection of
"remote and primitive peoples." Sloane's collection seemed an ideal example of the scholarship of the time. By
gathering as many natural specimens as possible, Sloane could be secure in his ability to observe all manner of
"curiosities" of the natural world. Arguably, in that security was grounded the authority to understand the natural
world (Baudrillard 1994, 10).

SLOANE'S COLLECTION AND THE BRITISH MUSEUM

In Sloane's will, he stated his intent that the collection:

... tending many ways to the manifestation of the glory of God, the confutation of
atheism and its consequences, the use and improvement of physic, and other arts
and sciences, and benefit of mankind, may remain together, and not be separated,
and that chiefly in and about the City of London, where I have acquired most of my
estate, and where they may by the great confluence of people be of most use
(Alexander 1983, 34).

Sloane created various codicils to his will. One of these established a group of gentlemen, known as the Trustees,
who would later become the Board of Trustees. His collection of roughly 71,000 objects, including minerals,
geological, botanical and zoological specimens, was to be offered to the British government for the sum of 20,000
pounds. Should it be refused, the entire collection was to go to "academics overseas," thereby providing for a
continuation of the collection's scientific purpose regardless of its subsequent owner. After much debate, however,
Parliament decided the collection was worth much more than 20,000 pounds, and requested that a much greater sum,
to be raised by public lottery, should be applied to house and maintain the objects (Miller 1974, 44-45).
During Sloane's life, his focus for the collection had been on scholarly research and study, rather than on object
care and conservation. Parliament showed dismay over the deteriorating physical condition of a great number of
Sloane's objects. Another of their principal concerns, expressed in deciding where to keep the collection, was for quick
and proper attention to be paid because the "collections had for far too long been largely unavailable to the
public" (Miller 1974, 50). Combined with security questions, it was decided that the Montagu House, a seventeenth-
century mansion on the site of the current museum, was the most suitable choice, and it opened its doors as the
British Museum on January 15, 1759.
The British Museum was the first secular museum of its kind. It was a museum dedicated to scientific scholarship
and based upon the French Encyclopedists' ideal whereby a single institution could reflect worldly knowledge and
represent the entirety of "human achievement" through its collection of objects (Caygill 1985, 11). Reiterating earlier
concerns over the public's access to the collection, the British Museum Act of 1753 instructed that "[w]hereas all arts
and sciences have a connexion with each other, and discoveries in natural philosophy and other branches of
speculative knowledge, for the advancement and improvement whereof the said Museum or collection was intended,"
the collection is to "be preserved and maintained not only for the Inspection and Entertainment of the learned and
curious, but for the use and benefit of the Publick" (Lewis 1984, 25; Caygill 1985, 12). The Act expressly connected
the term "museum" with the term "collection" and with the term "public" (Lewis 1984, 25). It emphasized the
movement away from princely or aristocratic collections accessible to the select few. The creation of the British
Museum, transforming the princely gallery into an accessible "people's museum," predated the establishment of the

Electronic
Electroniccopy
copyavailable
availableat:
at:https://ssrn.com/abstract=1661937
http://ssrn.com/abstract=1661937
http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.libproxy.temple.edu/hww/results/results_single_ftPES.jhtml 8/19/2010
Full text Page 3 of 7

Louvre as a public museum. It should be noted, however, that until 1800 or so, admission into the museum was very
restricted. Would-be visitors had to apply for admission tickets, then, if selected, come to pick up the tickets and
return later, at the appointed date and time for a limited tour of the collection. On average, the British Museum had
30 visitors a day and no more than 15 visitors at a time for a two-hour tour. The intent, though, was for this to be a
museum that, in housing an encyclopedic collection, would further the public's education in all matters of scientific
knowledge (Wilson 1984, 54).
The Board of Trustees vigorously pursued additions to the collection, despite frequent problems with the museum's
ability to house and store its growing collection. The first antiquities of note were the collection of Greek and classical
objects purchased from Sir William Hamilton in 1772 (British Museum 2004d). The Egyptian collection, including the
Rosetta Stone, came to the museum in 1802, after the British campaign in Egypt that destroyed Napoleon's armies
(Miller 1974, 96). The Parthenon sculptures, known as the Elgin Marbles, came to the museum in 1816. Underlying
each new acquisition was a question of how that object could support the museum's role in educating the public.
Collections already amassed by aristocratic individuals and families formed the primary foundation of the museum,
which was divided into three categories: printed books and prints; manuscripts, commemorative medals, and coins;
and natural and artificial productions (British Museum 2004b). It can be argued that these categories organized how
society at that time saw the structure of learning and the order of collecting. The printed word was of extreme
importance, and the museum's libraries were under constant scrutiny. Additionally, in the collecting practices were
clear reflections of how society perceived the importance of science and a growing awareness of God's evolutionary
scheme.

CHANGING APPEAL
An object's appeal today is heavily influenced by the ethics surrounding its acquisition and the people who
ultimately control its interpretation and exhibition. While still desiring to communicate information about the world
from vast and complex collections, the focus in collecting has shifted somewhat to answering questions of ownership
and entitlement. For instance, there are two primary theories upon which many justifications for collecting, retaining,
and repatriating are often based: the national heritage view and the world heritage view. The national heritage view
(according to Merryman) defines cultural objects as being most significant, and rightfully belonging to the nation or
culture that created them. A group may base its cultural identity in certain objects and believe strongly that those
objects should remain a part of that nation or group--a viewpoint at times referred to as "source-nation
rhetoric" (Merryman 2005, 275).
In contrast, the world heritage view holds that cultural heritage belongs to all of humankind. Individuals who are
not part of the culture that created or originated the object still have an interest, and a right, in its interpretation and
preservation. A number of museum directors maintain the world heritage view when they espouse the idea of the
universal museum. A universal museum, such as the British Museum today, strives to hold collections of objects from
all civilizations in trust for the world. The term "universal" has changed with time. During its early days, the British
Museum was a universal museum in the sense that it had the authority and ability to understand the world. The focus
was on the creation of a complete and absolute knowledge. In slight variation, today's universal museum, although
attempting to house a collection representative of the world, focuses on the idea that cultural property belongs to and
has significance for everyone.

COLLECTING PRACTICES AND INFLUENCES

How the collection is put together shapes the knowledge that is gained from it, since what is collected is what is
valued (Lubar and Kendrick 2001, 29). Today, scholars call not only for an abandonment of the idea of objective
authenticity, but also for a recognition of the way the search for such objectivity, and many other similar pursuits,
shaped early histories and collections (Pearce 1998, 13). A proponent for the national heritage view could argue that a
universal museum indeed houses a very spectacular collection, yet the way objects were acquired results in a
collection that portrays only the collector's perspective of world cultures, not necessarily a true representation of
individual groups and divergent histories. Curtis suggests that universal collections, such as the one housed at the
British Museum, are often the product of white, wealthy, male collectors (2003). As a result, the collection may be
bereft of those groups or histories not found to be interesting or having "artistic merit," such as the daily lives of
women and children.
The early decades of the British Museum provide a clear view into the values of seventeenth- and eighteenth-
century British society. Objects were acquired to add to the museum's scholarly pursuits and to substantiate scientific
rationales. Sloane was noted for his detailed journals and catalogues describing the context of each object's origin.
The museum has been compiling records of its acquisitions almost since the time of its inception (Roberts 1988, 32).
However, the museum held itself accountable in the early years more for the care and condition of its objects and for
allowing public access, not for determining proper ownership and cultural representation.
As compared to Sloane's time, the British Museum now seeks to "represent a comprehensive history of cultural
development," spanning multiple academic fields and national boundaries (British Museum 2004c). The British
Museum argues that it is a universal museum in providing a single place for worldwide cultural comparisons. The
museum does not attempt to be all-knowing, but does hold itself up as an institution fully encompassing the
international scope of today's world (British Museum 2004a). Ideally, the visitor can go to the museum and see all of
humankind's history in a single venue. Recent developments in the museum's policy have allowed this mission to be
carried out in partnerships and joint programs with museums across the globe.
According to Vergo, the idea of a subtext is part of the "new museology" which encompasses both the way
collecting is done and the way collecting is viewed today. The new museology studies museums as their own

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1661937

http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.libproxy.temple.edu/hww/results/results_single_ftPES.jhtml 8/19/2010
Full text Page 4 of 7

"theoretical or humanistic discipline" (Vergo 1989, 3). It allows museums an institutionalized sense of self that shows
they are not only holders of history, but also players and makers of history.
The British Museum, along with most other museums, attempts to evaluate each acquisition to its collection in light
of issues of ownership, object provenance, "ethical collecting," and appropriate or able representation. Instead of
judging a museum by the "'intrinsic' value of [its] collecting," the trend is to look for the impacts of museum programs
on social consciousness (Anderson 2005).
In an ideal sense, political self-consciousness and increased public scrutiny, as well as the recognition that a history
procured and studied by a small elite group is not a complete history, helped push the transition to reflexive collecting
practices. Additionally, many scholars point out the general acknowledgement that "coherent information comes about
only through the systematic study of context--of the associations of things found within the ground where they were
abandoned or deliberately buried" (Renfrew 2000, 19). An object removed from its context, without a full provenance,
is an object removed from its historical significance and its educational insight.
That said, however, the reality is that while recognized, the problem is far from being solved. The past few decades
have witnessed an increasing international debate regarding the looting of archaeological sites, artifact theft, and illicit
trade. Museums are held as role models by many in the collecting world, and yet, many continue to argue that certain
museums, such as the Metropolitan Museum of Art and the Boston Museum of Fine Arts, according to Lord Colin
Renfrew, have not yet adjusted their collecting policies appropriately to combat this trade. Certain high level museum
officials, such as Marion True, formerly of the Getty Institute, are now facing serious legal and public repercussions for
their part in continued dealing with undocumented--and allegedly stolen or looted--artifacts. In comparison, Renfrew
applauds museums that, in strictly "declining to accept recently unprovenanced antiquities for exhibition or for
conservation ... are declining to give tacit acceptance to the looting process" (2003, 3). The problem of unmitigated
looting haunts museums in deciding which objects to accept or acquire and in dealing with varying levels or a lack of
documented provenance.

THE MUSEUM'S COLLECTING POLICY TODAY

The 1970 UNESCO Convention marked a turning point for many in the cultural property debate. Otherwise known
as the Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import and Export and Transfer of Ownership
of Cultural Property, this agreement changed the scope of collecting worldwide by imposing import restrictions on
stolen property and, somewhat more controversially, on property exported in violation of a nation's export laws. After
1970, any antiquity appearing on the market, offered as a gift, or otherwise added to a collection would be seen as
"suspect" without full and documented provenance (Renfrew 2003, 2). In 1998, the Trustees of the British Museum
issued an expanded policy statement on the acquisition of antiquities. Refusing to acquire for its permanent collection
or accept objects for loan that were illegally excavated or exported, the Trustees did recognize that certain minor
antiquities may exist in the market without full documentation and that the museum may, at times, have to use its
best judgment in deciding whether to acquire the object.
In March 2004, new museum guidelines officially changed the museum's policy again. According to Maxwell
Anderson, this policy change is significant because it makes the museum responsible for acquiring only documented
objects, rather than allowing the museum, as was done in the past, to collect any object where there was no evidence
of illegal exportation or acquisition in its provenance. The British Museum's guidelines currently read that the museum
"should avoid acquiring any object that has no secure ownership history, unless there is reliable documentation to
show that it was exported from its country of origin before 1970" (Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport
2000, 295). The museum again reserved an exception to this policy by allowing the curator to use his or her best
judgment with certain minor antiquities, and it acknowledged that, as a national museum, the British Museum is often
the "repository of last resort" for stolen or otherwise illicitly acquired objects. The museum's acquisition of the
"Salisbury Hoard," for instance, began as research into the sale of 22 bronze miniature shields from the British Iron
Age. What the museum's research--and in particular, what Ian Stead's dogged investigation--turned up was the
discovery of one of Britain's most significant Iron Age deposits, and a severe case of looting by "nighthawks," also
known as metal-detectorists who work clandestinely to uncover buried antiquities (Renfrew 2000, 86-87). In
exercising extreme diligence to secure the objects' provenance, the museum uncovered a complicated and intricate
web of illicit deals involving assumed reputable dealers and auction houses. This example, as Renfrew points out, has
a "happy ending" in that the objects were able to be traced to their original context; yet many similar such stories do
not have the same end (2000, 87).The basic tenet of the museum's policy is that acquisitions should not come into
the collection without significant research and questioning as to their origins and provenance.
A recent example of an addition to the museum's holdings, a collection of eighteenth- and nineteenth-century
Native American objects, was purchased by the museum for 650,000 pounds. Discussing the 76 items, the museum
stressed that "[a]ll this material was freely given.... As a result, there is no question of any claims for restitution of
this material" (Furtado 2004, 6). In another recent case, the museum decided to return to the Tasmanian Aboriginal
Centre two cremation ash bundles that had been acquired in Tasmania in the nineteenth century, after a law about
disposition of human remains was changed in 2005, giving the museum legal basis for its actions. The question of
repatriation and the potential return of objects not rightfully owned or possessed by the museum permeates its
acquisition policies. There is an additional ongoing debate over whether the "authenticity" of an object should preclude
its importance and its ability to scholastically add to a museum collection. Such questions reveal the shift away from
assumed scientific authority and justification to a postmodernist reflexivity about what is being collected and for what
purpose.
The museum also recently acquired, at the price of 54, 161 pounds, a pair of gold chocolate cups that had once
been owned by the first Viscount Palmerston (British Museum 2005a). This announcement follows a long line of similar
press releases in which the museum clearly states not only the purchase price, where applicable, of the recent

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1661937

http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.libproxy.temple.edu/hww/results/results_single_ftPES.jhtml 8/19/2010
Full text Page 5 of 7

acquisition, but also the source of the object and any contributing funds. Another recent acquisition, the Staffordshire
Moorlands Pan, was acquired in August 2005 for 112,000 pounds with the help of a Heritage Lottery Fund grant
(British Museum 2005c).
The museum takes careful and deliberate steps to show transparency in its collecting. No longer focusing solely on
the object's scholarly potential or on where to house the objects, the British Museum is involved in self-conscious
examination that shows the move from assured authority in both knowledge and a rightful legitimacy of ownership to
a greater recognition of competing political claims and a history of wrongful possession.

RETAINING ITS COLLECTION

Yet there remains some question whether the British Museum is truly a bastion of ethical collecting. In regard to its
controversial possession of the Elgin Marbles, the British Museum has said that it is the responsibility of the
government to enact legislation for their return, should this return be deemed proper (Select Committee on Culture,
Media and Sport 2000, 399-400). The debate over the Elgin Marbles, as perhaps the most well known example, raises
such doubts.(FN1) In addition, and even where there is no pressing legal question of ownership, proponents of the
national heritage view argue that in today's global communication climate, there exists a fear of increasing
homogenization among nations and peoples. It is understandable, therefore, why "[a]t no other time in our history
has there existed so intense an interest in the preservation of our cultural patrimony" and of our individual, non-
globalized identities (Palmer 1989, 172). In reaction to the increasing number of claims for repatriation, directors of a
large number of museums in 2002 signed the Munich Declaration, a "declaration on the importance and value of
universal museums." The Munich Declaration states that collections are for the benefit of the world and they should
stay in the museums' possession. As quoted by Hugh Eakin for the New York Times, the declaration "argued that
encyclopedic museums have a special mission as treasure houses of world culture, and that today's ethical standards
cannot be applied to yesterday's acquisitions" (BBC News 2002). While acknowledging that repatriation requests
should be considered on an individual basis, the declaration reaffirms the museums' presumption against returning
cultural objects. It goes on to state that those objects that have been "long-held" by museums "have become part of
the museums that have cared for them, and by extension part of the heritage of the nations which house
them" (Bohlen 2002). This seems to raise an interesting point: that the objects, as part of the museum's collection,
have taken on new meaning independent from the reason for which they were collected originally, and in acquiring
this new status, the objects now have a new source nation. Is there room, then, for a national heritage argument to
be made on behalf of the museum wishing to retain its collection?
The British Museum did not sign this declaration, yet its director, Neil MacGregor, says the museum supports it. He
asserts that in order for the museum to fulfill its mission, the museum must retain its collection. While a rather
realistic statement, MacGregor's sentiment touches on the fear that when a museum begins to acquiesce and return
objects, there will be no end to the requests. The "floodgate myth," as it is occasionally termed, has been accused of
being more about a loss of power in interpretation as much as a concern for the objects themselves. As Merryman
explains it, though, when discussing the Elgin marbles, "they [the Elgin Marbles; however, the pronoun could be
expanded to include all cultural artifacts in universal museums] are monuments of human culture, an essential part of
our common past" (Merryman 1985, 1895). Many argue that it is also the museum's role to provide a place for
cultural comparisons, where divergent groups' histories may be studied side by side. As such, it is the museum's
mission to preserve this past, a key principle of the world heritage view and of today's universal museum.

CONCLUSION
The purpose of the British Museum's collection remains to this day the education of the public. Never surrendering
this goal, the museum now attempts to educate with a greater acknowledgement of the existence of different
perspectives and claims on cultural resources. It could be argued that the museum does retain its authoritative
position in society, and as a symbol of learned academia, it still holds some of the assured universal knowledge from
its past. The difference may lie, then, in how the public perceives the museum and its purpose. While many see the
museum as the objective source for information, others question its policies and subtext, aware of the social and
political statements lying beneath the surface of its collections and exhibitions. Vergo argues:

Whether we like it or not, every acquisition (and indeed disposal), every

juxtaposition or arrangement of an object or work of art, together with other
objects or works of art, within the context of a temporary exhibit or museum
display means placing a certain construction upon history (1989, 2-3).

The museum's collecting never stops; gaps will forever remain in its knowledge base and collection pieces (Caygill
1985, 11; Baudrillard 1994, 23). How those gaps are filled, though, will depend upon what objects appeal to today's
collectors and how that appeal is tempered by the political and societal influences of today's collecting culture.
ADDED MATERIAL
Kelly Elizabeth Yasaitis ([email protected]) is a historic preservation specialist with the Advisory Council on
Historic Preservation in Washington, D.C., 6715 West Wakefield Drive, No. C-I, Alexandria, Virginia 22307.
Sir Hans Sloane (1660-1753), in a terracotta bust by Michael Rysbrack (circa 1737). Photo copyright the British
Museum.
The exterior of the British Museum. Photo copyright the British Museum.

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1661937

http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.libproxy.temple.edu/hww/results/results_single_ftPES.jhtml 8/19/2010
Full text Page 6 of 7

The Great Court of the British Museum. Photo copyright the British Museum.
Coffin of Irtyru (ca. 550 BC), the first mummy in the British Museum collections, bequeathed to the museum in 1756
by William Lethieullier. Photo copyright the British Museum.
Man's costume from the Plains, North America, before 1825. Photo copyright the British Museum.
The Palmerston chocolate drinking cups (1700). Photo copyright the British Museum.

FOOTNOTE
1. For the museum's position on the Parthenon sculptures, see the British Museum, Newsroom, Why are the
Parthenon sculptures always in the news?, at
http://www.thebritishmuseum.ac.uk/newsroom/current2003/parsculp.htm .

REFERENCES
Alexander, E. P 1983. Museum Masters, Their Museums and Their Influence. Nashville: The American Association
for State and Local History.
Anderson, M. L. 2005. Head or heart in museum leadership? The British Museum. The Art Newspaper (July-
August). Accessed at http://www.aeaconsulting.com/site/article_britishmuseum.html.
Baudrillard, J. 1994. The system of collecting. In The Cultures of Collecting, J. Elsner and R. Cardinal, eds., 7-24.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
BBC News Online. 2002. Museums thwart artifact claims. (Dec. 9). Accessed Oct. 10, 2005,
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/arts/2558359.stm.
Bohlen, C. 2002. Major museums affirm right to keep long-held antiquities. The New York Times, Dec. 11. Accessed
at http://www.nytimes.com/2002/12/11/arts/design/11RETU.html?8hpib.
British Museum. 2004a. About us. Accessed Dec. 7, 2004,
http://www.thebritishmuseum.ac.uk/aboutus/about.html.
British Museum. 2004b. The departments. Accessed Nov. 8, 2004,
http://www.thebritishmuseum.ac.uk/visit/departmenthist.html.
British Museum. 2004c. Factsheet, the modern collections. Accessed Nov. 8, 2004,
http://www.thebritishmuseum.ac.uk/pd/factsheets/modcoll.html.
British Museum. 2004d. The history of the British Museum. Accessed Nov. 8, 2004,
http://www.thebritishmuseum.ac.uk/visit/history.html.
British Museum. 2005a. News, British Museum acquired the exquisite Palmerston gold chocolate cups. Accessed
Jan. 10, 2006, http://www.thebritishmuseum.ac.uk/news/palmerston.html.
British Museum. 2005b. News, the British Museum in China. Accessed Jan. 10, 2006,
http://www.thebritishmuseum.ac.uk/news/china/html.
British Museum. 2005c. News, rare Roman souvenir is acquired. Accessed Jan. 10, 2006,
http://www.thebritishmuseum.ac.uk/newsroom/current2005/rareroman.ht m.
British Museum Act 1963. 1963. Chapter 24 (Royal Assent 10 July 1963). Accessed
http://www.thebritishmuseum.ac.uk/corporate/guidance/BM1963Act.pdf.
Caygill, M. 1985. Treasures of the British Museum. London: British Museum Press.
Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import and Export and Transfer of Ownership of
Cultural Property. 1970. 823 U.N.TS. 231 (Nov. 1). Accessed
http://www.unesco.org/culture/laws/1970/html_eng/pagel.shtml.
Curtis, N. 2003. Repatriation: A threat or opportunity? The University of Aberdeen newsletter online. Accessed
http://www.abdn.ac.uk/newsletter/issue_22/review_a.shtm (accessed Oct. 10, 2005).
Elsner, J. and R. Cardinal. 1994. Introduction. In The Cultures of Collecting, J. Elsner and R. Cardinal, eds., 1-6.
Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
Furtado, P 2004. Without reservations. History Today 54 (August): 6.
Lewis, G. D. 1984. Collections, collectors and museums in Britain to 1920. In Manual of Curatorship: A Guide to
Museum Practice, J. M. A. Thompson, ed., 23-27. London: Butterworths.
Lubar, S. and K. M. Kendrick. 2001. Legacies, Collecting America's History at the Smithsonian. Washington, DC:
Smithsonian Institution Press.
Merryman, J. H. 2005. A licit international trade in cultural objects. In Who Owns the Past? Cultural Policy, Cultural
Property, and the Law, Kate Fitz Gibbon, ed., 269-289. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
Merryman, J. H. 1986. Two ways of thinking about cultural property. American Journal of International Law, 80
(Oct.): 831-853.
Merryman, J. H. 1985. Thinking about the Elgin Marbles. Michigan Law Review 83 (Aug.): 1881-1923.
Miller, E. 1974. That Noble Cabinet: A History of the British Museum. London: Cox and Wyman.
Moore, K. 1997. Contemporary Issues in Museum Culture: Museums and Popular Culture. London: Leicester
University Press.
Palmer, N. 1989. Museums and cultural property. In The New Museology, P. Vergo, ed., 172-204. London: Reaktion
Books.
Pearce, S. M. 1998. Collecting in Contemporary Practice. London: Sage Publications.
Renfrew, C. 2000. Loot, Legitimacy and Ownership. London: Gerald Duckworth.
Renfrew, C. 2003. Memorandum submitted by professor Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, director, the McDonald
Institute for Archaeological Research. Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport (Written Evidence, 16
December). Accessed at http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200304/cmselect/cmcumeds/59/59we02.htm.

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1661937

http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.libproxy.temple.edu/hww/results/results_single_ftPES.jhtml 8/19/2010
Full text Page 7 of 7

Roberts, D. A. 1988. Collections management systems and practice in United Kingdom museums. In Collections
Management for Museums, D. A. Roberts, ed., 32-53. Cambridge: The Museum Documentation Association.
Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport. 2000. Museums: Acquisition and return, vol. I (HC 371-I) (18 July).
Accessed Oct. 10, 2004, http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm199900/cmsel ect/cmcumeds/371/.
Vergo, P. 1989. Introduction. In The New Museology, P. Vergo, ed., 1-5. London: Reaktion Books.
Wilson, D. M. 1984. National museums. In Manual of Curatorship, A Guide to Museum Practice, J. M. A. Thompson,
ed., 54-58. London: Butterworths.

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1661937

http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.libproxy.temple.edu/hww/results/results_single_ftPES.jhtml 8/19/2010