Karen Heege mentioned that her hypothetical archaeologist and museum
officials had a verbal agreement as to the disposition of the artifacts,
but did not specify the details of the agreement.  Anyway, I must concur
with Mary Ellin D'Agostino, that, in the absence of a written transfer of
ownership, artifacts belong to the owner of the site as part and parcel of
his customary property rights.  Of course, ownership of artifacts
certainly may be transfered by written agreement or may be loaned
indefinitely.
 
As to the question of who may be the proper curator of the collection,
there is no definite answer.  One would hope that that decision would be
arrived at through the cooperation of both parties, based on what is best
for the collection.  Ideally, the party most able (with the
greatest amount of financial resources, staff expertise, with proper
storage facilities, with access to archaeological tools and methods, able
to ask the right research questions, etc., etc.) should do the work.
 
The university may be most qualified to perform the work and produce a
report.  When the work is completed, however, it would probably be in
everyone's best interests to return the artifacts to the museum--providing
they can properly curate them--for public exhibition and interpretation.
Although a local artifact study collection may be a useful tool for
university teaching, universities have no business stuffing their attics
and basements with 'treasures.'  Let us be true to our profession; we are
interested in extracting information, not things, from sites.  A scholarly
synthesis of the information is necessary, but the highest and best use is
making that information accessible and relevant to the public.  In this
hypothetical (?) case, there is no excuse not to return the objects to a
museum capable of interpreting them and willing to do so.
 
Bottom line, get an amicable written agreement.  If the relationship
between the museum and university is at all antagonistic, then the
situation is untenable.  In the absence of written agreement, it would
seem that the museum could yank the collection away when ever it desire--
little incentive for an archaeologist to undertake an exhaustive study,
nor would it serve the ultimate interests of the museum or public.
 
Tim Dennee
Alexandria Archaeology