As I understand it (I'm not a lawyer, and this isn't legal advice):
Under our common law system, the artifacts belong to the
landowner.  If an archaeologist wants to be sure clear title to a
collection is established, a signed release, or "deed of gift
agreement," transferring ownership of the collection from the
landowner must be executed.  Most of us work for an institution of
some sort, so ownership would normally be transferred from the
property owner to our employer (university, musuem, agency,
company, etc.) or to our client, not to ourselves personally.

How the collection gets handled from then on is a matter of
institutional/client/corporate policy, but in general one would want
to have a procedure to cover loans.  At a minimum, it would be
appropriate for a letter or memorandum to be prepared when
objects are borrowed (loaned) for study elsewhere (e.g., when a
professor retires and moves away).  Even a simple document like
this would include an inventory of the objects being loaned and
would set an anticipated date of return.

For one of our clients, a state DOT, we must get deeds of gift for
collections obtained on private land, even if the state subsequently
acquires the land.  (The artifacts belong to the person who owns the
land at the time of the excavation.)  Up to now, we've generally
gotten releases after the fieldwork is finished, but our client would
like to see us obtain them before we stick shovel in the ground.  I'm
not enthusiastic about this request, because it has always seemed
to me to be advantageous to be able to say to a landowner, "you
own the artifacts; if we find anything we would encourage you to
donate them to the state/state repository so that they will be
available for others to study, but obviously you can't make an
informed choice about this recommendation until you see what we
find."  Most landowners have been willing to sign the agreements.
When they aren't, we send the artifacts back to them once the
report's finished.  Not happily, but we do it, because they own the
artifacts.

I suspect that the question of what intellectual property (including
archaeological collections) belongs to an individual archaeologist
and what belongs to his/her institution is more ambiguous in the
context of a university than it is in the consulting world in which
one is often the employee of a company and is usually working on
behalf of (as an agent for) a client.

--Chris Borstel
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.
East Orange, NJ


Date sent:              Wed, 04 Sep 2002 17:37:20 -0400
From:                   Ron May <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:                Re: Another newspaper article
To:                     [log in to unmask]
Send reply to:          HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY <[log in to unmask]>

> This raises an interesting legal question. Do archaeological
> collections need title to be transferred from one owner to another?
> When an agency or scientist recovers artifacts from a property owner's
> land, do they have an actual title document of ownership? What do
> curation facilities do for title transfer?
>
> Ron May
> Legacy 106, Inc.
>