How does the commercial nature of the UK Fossil Trade affect the ability of natural history museums to maintain and enhance their collections?
Between 2013-2015 while still working in the heritage sector as a tour guide and volunteer curator, I undertook a distance learning masters with the University of Leicester in Museum Stuties, which culminated in a dissertation on the subject of the above research question. This was answered through a literature review, interviews and survey responses from individuals within the museum sector, amateur and commercial fossil collectors and one individual involved in legislative activity around palaeontological site management.
Unfortunately during the course of the data collection phase for this work, I did not collect explicit consent from the various respondents/interviewees for onward publication of their responses, so unlike my previous Masters and Bachelor’s dissertations, I am unable to make this available for wider consumption. While the full dissertation may may be available within the Museum Studies Department of the University of Leicester should you be sufficiently interested, I have reproduced the discussion and concluding sections below.
I should like to revisit this subject in the future, if I am ever in the position to be able to repeat the exercise with greater rigour.
**Following a hard-drive loss in 2016 many of the digital files associated with this work including interviews have been lost**
Discussion and Concluding Remarks
Through the course of undertaking this research it has been interesting to note that despite the image in the popular media regarding the fossil trade (Switek, 2013; Williams, 2013; Fuller, 2014) which often depicts it as if it were a battlefield from the First World War, with two sides entrenched in their positions fighting a grim battle over the few paltry remains of worlds long past, the situation is in reality neither so simple nor its participants so easily categorised. There are academics who are willing to not only consider, but advocate for the open collecting and sale of fossils (Nudds, 2001; Dyke, 2015) but also, as shown by some of the responses to my research questionnaire, commercial collectors who are happy to discuss openly their position, but also willing to advocate for increased funding in museums and reasonable controls and oversight on collecting.
One very prominent theme through this research has been the difference shown between those respondents who live and work under the auspices of the Jurassic Coast World Heritage Site’s recording scheme and those elsewhere in the country. On the WHS there appears to have been sufficient discussion between the stakeholders when forming and distilling the original fossil collecting code, that despite some criticisms of the length of time a given fossil is protected from general sale, everyone involved seems to be largely happy. There are some grave concerns raised by Kevin Page and others regarding what they perceive as a lack of scientific basis to the code, and these should not be ignored by the authorities responsible for the codes management, however despite Pages assertions that the ISJS’ suggested re-categorisation of fossils in the code was ignored, there does not appear to be any evidence of this in the review documents.
The fact that the laws governing fossils, their collection, protection and sale are variously described by the responders to this research as “pretty clear”, “unwieldy”, “antiquated”, “enlightened” and “a mess”, it is pretty clear that the rules in England concerning fossils are either poorly defined in law or not communicated adequately by the organisations charged with their enforcement; weather they enforce them or not.
While there are historic difficulties in managing the sale of cultural artefacts, there do exist schemes such as Treasure Trove and Portable Antiquities Scheme, both of which have been repeatedly shown to have been successful in protecting the archaeological heritage of the UK (Bland, 2005a; Renfrew, 2010; Bland, 2005b). This research has shown that while there is some reticence among commercial parties, their concerns are broadly similar to the concerns expressed by metal detectorists when the Treasure Act was first introduced to parliament by Lord Perth in 1994, in fact, the whole faux-stand-off that exists between palaeontologists, particularly academics, and commercial collectors does mirror the situation in palaeontology prior to the enactment of the Treasure Act. While it may be an expected consequence of the commercial nature of the fossil trade that commercial traders wish to protect their own interests, it seems as though many prejudice the idea of (or in some cases even the discussion of) new legislation as an attempt to neuter their activities and push them out of the science that they love. It does not need to be so, and considering the difficulties in applying the Treasure Act to fossils (not least because of the currently restrictive definition of treasure, which has even proven to be an issue within archaeological circles (Worrell, et al., 2011)), it would require primary legislation – that is to say an Act of Parliament – in order to achieve this, which would allow ample time for commercial collectors, scientists, museum curators, land owners and others to be wholly involved in the drafting of any such legislation in order to achieve the best possible conservation efforts for the UK.
In terms of the author’s personal perspective on the subject, which I have thus far not referenced; I began this research having undertaken eight years in academic and museological settings, and I considered myself to be more on the side of those who would seek greater restrictions than the open collection and trade in fossils. Through the course of my research however I have had occasion to reposition myself to the fence, along with the vast majority.
In conclusion, it appears that the biggest problem facing UK museums when it comes to the UK fossil market is not in fact the commercialisation of palaeontology, the lack of museum funding, or even the lack of official legal status for palaeontological objects; but is instead in the ‘us-versus-them’ nature that any discussion of the topic has been framed.
In closing I should wish to make the call that more engagement and reasonable discussion takes place. As others have said before me (Nudds, 2001; Manning, 2001) the only way to find a solution to this debate is to engage in respectful co-operation and collaboration. I fear however, that despite this, Richard Edmonds words in response to the first substantive question in my interview may prove prophetic in this regard:
“No matter how reasonable your approach is, the issues are led by the extremes”
Further Work
The opportunities to build on this work are many, particularly given the small sample size of this research at five face to face interviews and eleven questionnaire responses, the relative over-representation of the West Dorset area in comparison to the other English Regions and Scotland, and the lack of any Welsh or Northern Irish respondents. I would also consider the lack of any response from the Natural History Museum in London to be a severe handicap for the validity of the conclusions I have drawn above, and would have preferred to have had the opportunity to canvas views from their own staff, particularly as they are undergoing a review of the institutions purchasing policy. If I were to take the time to repeat it, I would attempt to undertake a greater proportion of face-to-face interviews, unfortunately funding constraints prevented this.
References Cited (Full list from the dissertation, not just those reproduced section above)
Barrett, P. M. & Munt, M. C., 2014. Private collections hold back science. Nature, 7 August, p.28.
Basset, M. G. et al. eds., 2001. A Future for Fossils. National Museum of Wales Geological Series, Volume No. 19, p. 156pp..
Bland, R., 2005a. A pragmatic approach to the problem of portable antiquities: the experience of England and Wales. Antiquity, Volume 79, pp. 440-447.
Bland, R., 2005b. Rescuing Our Neglected Heritage: The Evolution of the Government’s Policy on Portable Antiquities in England and Wales. Cultural Trends, 14(4), pp. 257-297.
CITES, 1973. Convention on International Trade in Endgangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora. [Online] Available at: http://www.cites.org/sites/default/files/eng/disc/E-Text.pdf [Accessed 25 March 2015].
Crowther, P. R. & Wimbledon, W. A. eds., 1988. The use and conservation of palaeontological sites. Spec. Pap. Palaeont., Volume 40, pp. 1-200.
Dickens, C., 1865. Mary Anning, The Fossil Finder. All the Year Round, 11 February, pp. 60-63.
Dyke, G., 2015. Fossil collecting should be for everyone – not just academics. [Online] Available at: http://theconversation.com/fossil-collecting-should-be-for-everyone-not-just-academics-34830 [Accessed 10 February 2015].
Edmonds, R., 2011. Review of the West Dorset Coast fossil collecting code of conduct, and recording scheme. 1999-2011, Dorchester: Dorset County Council.
Edmonds, R., Larwood, J. & Weighell, T., 2005. Sustainable site-based management of collecting pressure on palaeontological sites., Peterborough: English Nature.
Fuller, E., 2014. Auctions, Museums and Fossils. [Online] Available at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/errol-fuller/auctions-museums-and-
foss_b_6119982.html [Accessed 17 January 2015].
Harrison, D. & Upton, P., 2002. One of our Dinosaurs is about to go missing. The Telegraph, 15 September.
International Council of Museums, 2013. ICOM Code of Ethics for Natural History Museums. Paris: International Council of Museums.
Joint Nature Conservancy Committee, 1997. Conserving Our Fossil Heritage: Position Statement. Peterborough: Joint Nature Conservancy Committee.
Jurassic Coast Trust, 2012. Review of the West Dorset Fossil Code: Responses to the Consultation. Dorchester: Dorset County Council.
Jurassic Coast Trust, 2012. Review of the West Dorset fossil collecting code of conduct; Summary of consultation, views, issues and actions., Dorchester: Dorset County Council.
Larson, N. L., 2001. Fossils for Sale: is it good for science?. The Geological Curator, 7(6), pp. 219-222.
Larwood, J. G., 2001. Commercial Fossil Trade: Good or Bad for Sites of Special Scientific Interest?. The Geological Curator, 7(6), pp. 223-226.
Law Commission, 1987. Treasure Trove. Law Reform Issues., London: The Law Commission.
Liston, J. J., 2013. Out of China: dinosaur eggs and the law on ‘Kong Long Dan’. The Geological Curator, Volume 9, pp. 545-555.
Manning, P. L., 2001. Partnerships in Palaeontology. In: M. G. Bassett, et al. eds. A Future for Fossils. Cardiff: National Museum of Wales, pp. 91-95.
Museums Association, 2008. Code of Ethics for Museums. London: Museums Association.
No Author, 1990. Looking after ‘Lizzie’. History Today, 1 December, pp. 5-6.
Nudds, J., 2001. Ethics, Science and the Trade: Let’s get together!. The Geological Curator, 7(6), pp. 191-198.
Page, K., 2006. Politics and fossils in the UK. International Subcommission of Jurassic Stratigraphy, Volume 33, pp. 22-25.
Page, K. N. & Wimbledon, W. A., 2009. The Conservation of Jurassic Heritage in the UK – a critical review of the role of governmental organisations and their effectiveness. Volumina Jurassica, 6(1), pp. 163-174.
ProGEO and the International Subcommission on Jurassic Stratigraphy 2011, 2011. Consultation on fossil collecting within the ‘Jurassic Coast’ World Heritage Site, Dorest and East Devon UK: Response by ProGeo and the International Subcommission on Jurassic Stratigraphy 2011, Uppsala: ProGEO.
Prosser, C., 2015. Summary of Evidence: Geodiversity, s.l.: Natural England.
Prosser, C., Murphy, M. & Larwood, J., 2006. Geological Conservation; a guide to good practice, Peterborough: English Nature.
Rauhut, O. W. M., López-Arbarello, A. & Wörheide, G., 2014. Private collections of fossils are a plus. Nature, 28 August, p. 371.
Renfrew, C., 2010. Comment on the Paper by David Gill. Papers from the Institute of Archaeology, Volume 20, pp. 28-29.
Rolfe, I. W. D., Milner, A. C. & Hay, F. G., 1988. The Price of Fossils. In: P. R. Crowther & W. A. Wimbledon, eds. The use and conservation of palaeontological sites. London: The Palaeontological Association, pp. 139-171.
Society of Vertebrate Palaeontology, No Date. Member Ethics; Member Bylaw on Ethics Statement. [Online] Available at: http://vertpaleo.org/Membership/Member-Ethics/Member-Bylaw-on-Ethics-Statement.aspx [Accessed 15 01 2015].
Sole, D. & Etches, S., 2011. Controls on the collecting of fossils. International Subcommission on Jurassic Stratigraphy Newsletter, Volume 32, pp. 20-21.
Switek, B., 2013. On the trail of the dinosaur rustlers. The Guardian, 19 January.
Taylor, M. A., 1988. Palaeontological site conservation and the professional collector. In: P. R. Crowther & W. A. Wimbledon, eds. The use and conservation of palaeontological sites. London: The Palaeontological Association, pp. 123-134.
Taylor, M. A. & Harte, J. D., 1988. Palaeontological site conservation and the law in Britain. Special Papers in Palaeontology, Volume 40, pp. 21-39.
Thompson, S., 2001. ‘Saved from the crusher’: the Conesby Quarry case, Scunthorpe. In: M. G. Bassett, et al. eds. A Future for Fossils. Cardiff: National Museum of Wales, pp. 65-67.
Townley, H. & Larwood, J., 2012a. Managing geological specimen collecting: Wren’s Nest case study, York: Natural England.
Townley, H. & Larwood, J., 2012b. Managing geological specimen collecting: Charmouth case study, York: Natural England.
United States of America v. Erik Prokopi (2012) United States Attorney’s Office.
Williams, P., 2013. Bones of Contention: A Florida man’s curious trade in Mongolian dinosaurs. The New Yorker, 28 January.
Wood, S. P., 1988. The value of palaeontological site conservation and the price of fossils: views of a fossil hunter. In: P. R. Crowther & W. A. Wimbledon, eds. The use and conservation of palaeontological sites. London: The Palaeontological Association, pp. 135-138.
Worrell, S., Mackay, A., Bland, R. & Pitts, M., 2011. The Crosby Garrett Roman Helmet. Archaeology, Issue 116
Benjamin David Brooks 