-187-

GEOLOGICAL CURATORS’ GROUP - December 2001

THE GEOLOGICAL CURATOR

VOLUME 7, NO. 6

CONTENTS

PAPERS FROM THE GEOLOGICAL CURATORS' GROUP SEMINAR ONTHE COMMERCIAL TRADE: ETHICS VERSUS SCIENCE - THE UNIVERSITY OF MANCHESTER, 23 MAY2001

GUEST EDITOR: JOHN R. NUDDS

FOREWORDby J.R. Nudds..........................................................................................................................................................189

ETHICS, SCIENCE AND THE TRADE: LET'S GET TOGETHER!by J.R. Nudds..........................................................................................................................................................191

FRONTIERS TO SCIENCE: FREE TRADE AND MUSEUM ETHICSby T.P. Besterman..................... .............................................................................................................................199

THE TRADE IN BRAZILIAN FOSSILS: ONE PALAEONTOLOGIST'S PERSPECTIVEby D. Martill..........................................................................................................................................................211

FOSSILS FOR SALE: IS IT GOOD FOR SCIENCE?by N.L. Larson..................... .............................................................................................................................219

COMMERCIAL FOSSIL TRADE: GOOD OR BAD FOR SITES OF SPECIAL SCIENTIFIC INTEREST?by J.G. Larwood......................................................................................................................................................223

PHONEY STONESby M. Davies..................... .............................................................................................................................229

GALLERY REVIEW

DINOSAUR ISLE PULLS 'EM IN!by T. Curtis.............................................................................................................................................................231

BOOK REVIEW......................................................................................................................................................233

-188-

Henleys Medical has long been recognised as a leadingname in the healthcare industry and now boasts over 50years service and expertise in an increasingly competitivemarket.

After many years supplying only the health service,Henleys’ healthy stock levels and competitive pricinghave greatly assisted with their sales growth in otherindustries, opening many new areas of business. From acatalogue of over 6000 products as diverse as disposableslippers and resealable bags to electronic capital equipment,it is not surprising that their customer base has spread fromthe health service alone and now includes, amongst manyother organisations, museums and associated services/organisations.

Henleys’ products most pertinent to readers of TheGeological Curator include: a complete range of reaseablebags in varying sizes and gauges, with or without writingpanels or overprinted to your own specification; boxes forpresentation and/or display of contents, manufactured inclear polystyrene and available in nine sizes with internalpartitions available for some; self-adhesive labels producedto your own specification with a permanent, peelable orwater soluble adhesive. For samples and/or more detailedinformation contact Henleys Medical Supplies Ltd.,FREEPOST BBT 48, Welwyn Garden City, AL7 1BR.Tel: 01707 333164 Fax: 01707 334795.

3rd March 2000Julie Rhodes

-189-

THE COMMERCIAL TRADE: ETHICS VERSUS SCIENCEFOREWORD

by John Nudds

The papers published here in this volume of TheGeological Curator form a thematic set on thecommercial trade in fossils and were originallypresented at a one-day GCG Conference held on 23rdMay 2001 at The University of Manchester. The ideafor such a conference initially stemmed fromdiscussions between staff at The Manchester Museumover the rights and wrongs of a museum acquiringunique and scientifically important palaeontologicalspecimens, when it could not always be proved thatthose specimens left their country of origin entirelylegally. Which was more important – the ethics or thescience?

The appearance of the "Ethics Column" in theMuseums Journal provided a further impetus, andwhen Steve McLean asked me if I would help toorganise a GCG conference on this theme, I graspedthe opportunity, first to explore the views of thegeological curatorial community, and second,hopefully, to draw up some guidelines orrecommendations for curators faced with such adilemma.

The May 23rd Conference was very well attendedwith around 60 participants in total, representing allsides of the argument, including museum curators,research scientists, the Museums Association, andmany commercial dealers and professional collectorsfrom the UK and USA. Discussion was heated (!),but surprisingly there seemed to many observers tobe a remarkable consensus between scientists, dealersand a majority of curators, in favour of a free tradewith few restrictions. The Museums Association,however, took a very different view, defending thehigh moral and ethical ground.

But was the attendance at the conference reallyrepresentative of the UK geological community andof the grass-roots GCG membership ? There havebeen claims that it was not and that only those withradical views spoke out, many of whom were notmembers of the GCG.

To attempt to answer this question, and to gain a realconsensus, it was decided by GCG Committee topublish these Proceedings and distribute them quicklyto all GCG members and to invite comment. A GCGWorking Group has been formed which will considerall responses to these Proceedings and, based on theviews expressed, will then offer advice to the UKGovernment Advisory Panel on Illicit Trade.

So please respond! Do you follow faithfully theCodes of Ethics published by the Museums’Association, or do you embrace the radical concept of"Rescue Purchase" as suggested elsewhere in thisvolume? What is the answer to the "Rosetta StoneDilemma" as discussed on page 194 and 207?

If you have views on these issues it is vital that wehear from you. Please send your comments to theGCG Chairman, Tom Sharpe, Department of Geology,National Museums and Galleries of Wales, CathaysPark, Cardiff, CF10 3NP; e-mailtom.sharpe@kelston.globalnet.co.uk.

The Geological Curators’ Group wishes toacknowledge the financial support of English Nature,the Geological Society and JNCC in the organisationof the conference and the publication of theseProceedings.

John Nudds Manchester, September 2001

The Geological Curator 7(6) [2001]

-190-

-191-

ETHICS, SCIENCE AND THE TRADE: LET'S GET TOGETHER!

by John Nudds

Introduction

For most of my career, until very recently, I havebeen a bit of a purist when it came to the commercialfossil trade - not exactly against it, but all the same,a bit uneasy about it. My attitude underwent a totalsea change, however, in 1999 when I first attendedthe Tucson Gem and Mineral Show. What I saw hereand the people that I met, totally transformed myview of the fossil trade and my attitude towards it.The Tucson "Main Show", takes place over 4 days,Thursday to Sunday, at a huge Convention Centre indowntown Tucson, where the top mineral and gemdealers, and some fossil dealers, trade the very bestspecimens at the very top prices, mostly to rich,private collectors or jewellers. This is not the placeto spend your money - there are no bargains to be hadhere.

Several years ago, the dealers, it seems, decided thatprior to the Main Show they would also trade amongstthemselves, in their hotel rooms, mostly on a wholesalebasis. So evolved the "Satellite Show", officially theArizona Mineral and Fossil Show, which is nowbigger and far more extensive than the "Main Show",taking over numerous hotels and marquees throughoutTucson for more than 2 weeks. Three main hotels areinvolved. For fossil dealers, the Ramada Inn is theplace to be. For 2 weeks over 100 dealers in this hotelalone, turn their hotel bedrooms into fossil shops andadorn the lawns with marquees.

In terms of just sheer numbers, you will see moreexquisite, top-range, museum-quality specimens inthe Ramada Inn than we have in our galleries here atManchester and more than you will see in mostmuseums in the UK. This year alone there was a 5

metre ichthyosaur from China, wonderfully preparedby Terry Manning and Chris Moore. There was acomplete Protoceratops from Mongolia, a juvenileankylosaur from Mongolia, White Sea Ediacara fromRussia, spiny trilobites from Morocco, as big asdinner plates, iridescent ammonites from Alberta,and dinosaur eggs of all shapes and sizes in theirhundreds, literally.

But more impressive you will see fossils which you'venever seen before and which you have never imagined.Before I went to Tucson, I thought I knew pretty wellwhat to expect from the fossil record. I'd been aprofessional geologist for 25 years, I'd been to mostmuseums in the UK and to many in Europe andalways seen the same assemblages, which we learnedat University - the shelly faunas of the Cambrian,trilobites and graptolites of the Lower Palaeozoic,Devonian fish, Lower Carboniferous corals, UpperCarboniferous plants, mammal-like reptiles of thePermian, ammonites of the Jurassic for example. Butin Tucson in 1999 I saw new wonders - the bizarreChengjiang fossils from southern China - the LowerCambrian equivalent of the BC Burgess Shale -priapulids, enigmatic arthropods, anomalocarids,medusoids, soft-bodied brachiopods etc. You won'tsee these in many European museums. There areLower Cretaceous birds from Liaoning Province,only discovered in 1994, the same site that laterturned up the feathered dinosaurs. You will seeenormous, elongated dinosaur eggs, laid by tarbasaurs,the Chinese cousins of T. rex, huge palm fronds fromthe Wyoming Green River Eocene Shales. And atthis year's show - Argentinian dinosaur eggshell,with fragments of embryonic dinosaur skin preservedon the inside.

Nudds, J.R. 2001. Ethics, science and the trade: let's get together. The GeologicalCurator 7(6): 191-198.

John R. Nudds, Manchester University Museum, Oxford Road, Manchester M13 9PL,U.K. Received 12th September 2001.

-192-

There are many others. Every year new finds turn up.And it appears that we've been missing out. Ourcollections are no longer representative. But it'smore worrying than that because these new findsdon't stay on the market forever. David Green tellsme that with new mineral finds, they will appear onthe market, be around for a year or two, and thendisappear - mostly into the hands of private collectors,and if you don't get in on the act straight away, thechance has gone - you'll rarely see that find on saleagain - and if you do, it'll be at a very inflated price.Its the same with fossils. How long will the Chinesebirds be available? Maybe we've seen the last of themalready as a new law was passed in Liaoning Provinceon 1st March of this year preventing their removal.According to my Chinese sources, specimens exportedbefore March 1st 2001 are legal, but how manyEuropean museums managed to acquire specimens ofthese birds? And will the Argentinian egg withembryonic skin ever appear again at Tucson?

In 1999 I was travelling back from Japan to Chinawith a Canadian coral colleague, Paul Copper, ofLaurentia University, one of the world's leadingspecialists in ancient reefs. He knew that I washeading for Guilin in southern China and had beenthere himself. He told me of the "InternationalTourist Commodity Market" which specialised infossils and minerals, and of the wonders he had seenthere - he particularly enthused over theconglomerations of Stringocephalus, the Devonianbrachiopod, joined in huge, sculptured colonies likemussel banks and wished he could have bought one."Its up to you guys to get hold of these things", heimplored me - by "you guys" meaning "museums"."If you don't grab them now, you'll never see themagain".

So what's the problem. Let's get out there and buy.But museums are not doing this. When David Greenand I first went to Tucson in 1999 we were toasted atthe Black Hills Institute 25th Anniversary party asbeing the first European academics to attend theshow. I don't suppose that's entirely accurately byany means, but the point was made. Virtually all theclientele were dealers or private collectors. A fewNorth American museums are usually present, butthat's about it. So its easy to see what's happening.All these rare goodies are disappearing into the handsof private collectors and not getting into publicmuseums. One dealer told me at that party in 1999,"we have the best collectors, the best preparators andare becoming the best educators. We look to thefuture, to new fossils to discover. You, in your dustymuseums, with your drawers of dusty specimens lookonly to the past". Its true. We love making databases

and history files and doing "collections research",but many of us are in danger of dealing with a deadcollection.

So why are we not out there in numbers buying at thetrade shows? Its not simply a question of money. Weare facing resistance from two distinct camps.

Ethics

The first objection to the fossil trade is an ethical oneand comes from the museologists. Their ethics arepresented in the Codes of Ethics produced by theEthics Committee of the UK Museums Association[MA] (Museums Association 1999). There is muchin this Code which is admirable, although mostlycommon sense, but Articles A.5, A.6 and 2.6 all statethat, "museums should not accept...any object thathas been ... exported from its country of origin ... inviolation of that country's laws". The Code of Ethicsalso suggests that museums should be bound by thespirit of the 1970 UNESCO Convention on the "meansof... preventing the illicit import ... of culturalproperty" (UNESCO 1970). The UK is not at themoment signed up to the UNESCO agreement, butthe Museums Association Code of Ethics endorses itand would have us bound by it just the same. Inaddition, to tighten the grip, the UK MuseumRegistration Scheme, which requires museums to beregistered in order to qualify for many governmentgrants, also now requires that statements regardingillicitly removed material be incorporated into theacquisition policy of every registered museum in theUK. This requirement is based on the MA Code ofEthics.

There are two quite different reasons why specimensmight leave their country of origin illegally, and inboth cases the museologists have muddled the fossiltrade with the trade in antiquities which has resultedin serious misconceptions and misunderstandings.

Firstly, it seems that the international trade inantiquities deals largely with material which hasbeen illicitly collected from its country of origin.This includes looting of temples, grave robbing,tomb-raiding etc. The looters, to cover their tracts,will falsify the provenance, and so there exists amongmuseologists a perceived relationship betweendoubtfully provenanced specimens and the illicittrade. And so, through their various publications(Museums Association 1999; Brodie et al. 2000) theMA museologists are, quite rightly, hoping to stopthe trade in such illicit antiquities as a means ofstopping the original looting. This is fine forantiquities.

-193-

But, please don't tar the fossil trade with the samebrush. In the fossil trade such looting or stealing offossils is pretty rare. Of course we all know of somewell-known examples where pillage of importantsites, sometimes protected sites, has gone on byunscrupulous commercial collectors, but I reallybelieve that this kind of looting is very rare in relationto the vast majority of fossils on sale at trade showswhich have been legitimately collected. I also thinkthat such looting of fossils, when it does occur, ismore often done by private individuals for their owncollections - one rarely sees such specimens offeredfor sale. So, MA please take note - looted material isnot a major constituent of the fossil trade in the waythat is for antiquities.

But, if we are honest we do know that many of thefossils seen at trade shows such as Tucson, even ifcollected legitimately, have left their country of originillicitly, not through illicit collecting, but quite simplyby the country in question imposing an export ban onfossils. Brazil, for example, bans export of all naturalscience material, both fossil and extant, and yetnumerous, beautiful Santana/Crato fish and insectsetc are regularly to be seen in Tucson (see Martill,this volume).

My own area of interest is China - and for two yearsI have been researching Chinese law governing exportof fossils. Invertebrates seem to be OK for export,but certainly a 1983 Chinese law prohibits export of"fossil vertebrates and humanbeings of scientificvalue". In typical Beijing fashion the word "value"leaves this law ambiguous and open to interpretation,but certainly many valuable Chinese vertebrate fossilsare to be seen at Tucson.

Morocco presents a similar situation. A Tucsondealer specialising in Moroccan fossils (Palaeofactsof Fallbrook, California) told me earlier this year,"Morocco is constantly changing its laws, dependingon the current Minister in charge. One time onlypolished material could be exported, crinoids etc.were banned. Now crinoids are OK, trilobites areOK, but Eocene skulls for some reason are suddenlybanned. They're out of their minds".

So if we abide by the MA Code of Ethics we areprevented from acquiring for our collections anymaterial from these countries and many others. Whatdo we do? We stand idly by and watch these newfinds disappear into private collections and our dustymuseums still look to the past. We deny access to allof this new material and knowledge to our public. Isthis what we are about? Besterman (this volume, p.200) may reject the title of the GCG seminar ("Ethicsversus Science"), but he misses the point; the strict

application of the MA Code of Ethics is clearlypreventing research on much available material.

If we examine the countries which enforce such a banon export of natural science material it is often thedeveloping countries and often those with oppressiveregimes which do so. The developed, enlightenedcountries usually have a freer attitude to the movementof scientific objects and knowledge. Are we righttherefore to support such oppressive regimes and torespect their ban of free movement of scientificmaterial and knowledge, as the MA Code of Ethicswould seem to insist ?

I think not, and here is the second misconception ofthe museologists. The MA Code of Ethics is fine ifapplied to cultural heritage, i.e. to arts and fine arts,to archaeology and ethnology, to antiquities. Everycountry has the right to retain its cultural heritage andto resist its export, because culture pertains to thatcountry. China has every right to keep its terracottasoldiers at Xian. But geological heritage, and theinformation that goes with it, knows no nationalboundaries. Besterman (this volume, p. 203) arguesthat because scientific theory is fashioned by humans,it is a part of culture, but that is not the argument. Thepoint is that fossils are not part of the developedculture of the country in which they happen to havebeen preserved; there is nothing distinctively"German" about Archaeopteryx, anymore than thereis anything "English" about the "Dudley Bug". Theevolution of life did not take cognizance of today’spolitical boundaries.

The MA Code of Ethics was, of course, written,mainly, by cultural heritage curators; the majority ofthe active membership of the Museums Associationis made of arts and cultural heritage curators and notof scientists, certainly not of palaeontologists. Theyhave written a Code for their own subject area, whichis good, but which is not always applicable to ourown. I believe that the MA Code of Ethics, insofar asit deals with international trade, is preaching thewrong ethic to palaeontology.

More sensible, and more workable for us, would be amore flexible attitude towards the commercial tradein fossils, whereby every case is treated on its ownmerits, rather than by a strict regime of rules, standardsand regulations. In this regard I introduce here theconcept of "Rescue Purchase", whereby apalaeontologist, on recognizing a new or uniquespecimen for sale, be allowed to use professionaljudgement to purchase that specimen, even though itmay have left its country of origin illegally. I am notsuggesting that you purchase such a specimen withinthat country of origin, however tempting, for to then

-194-

export it would be smuggling, an illegal act, andwould put you at risk. But if you recognize such aspecimen at a trade show, at Tuscon or Munich, forexample, when it has already left its country oforigin, by whatever means, you should be allowed topurchase it and to place in a public institution whereit can be researched and published. Not to do so isonly to condem that specimen to obscurity and to loseit for science.

This is, I suppose, analogous to the argument of "lastresort", which is discussed by Brodie et al. 2000 (seealso Besterman, this volume, p.207, for discussion ofthe "Rosetta Stone Dilemma"). Besterman (ibid.)rejects the idea on two counts; the first that there is nopoint in a palaeontologist importing such a uniquefossil into the UK since publication of that specimenin a reputable journal requires that it be deposited inan appropriate institution, and that no reputablemuseum will accept such an ethically contaminatedspecimen. Maybe not in the UK, but we can safelydeposit such a specimen in many museums in Europethat are not handcuffed by the MA or by UNESCO.(Palaeontology, after all, knows no internationalboundaries !) Besterman (this volume) and Brodie etal. (2000) also reject the "Rosetta Stone" argumenton the grounds that the "number of Rosetta Stonescan be counted on … the fingers of one hand". Not so– in Tucson this year I was shown, by a Chinesedealer, a little fossil bird which had a clear anddistinct bony, reptilian tail. This was no forgery orcomposite, for with the specimen was provided an x-ray showing unambiguously that the skeleton had notbeen tampered with. The price was $11,000 and ithad probably been smuggled out of China. Topurchase it would have been bad ethics, but to publishit would not be bad science – here, perhaps, was the"missing link" that Archaeoraptor was not.

Of course it is not always the developing countriesthat enforce such bans. British Columbia, for example,bans all collection of fossils from the Burgess Shaleby anyone other than the ROM, who currently have a10 year permission, granted by the National ParkAuthorities, to collect. Fossils are common at theBurgess Quarry - as you walk up the last few metresof the Packhorse Trail to the Walcott Quarry youtread on perfect trilobites, sponges, molluscs etc. Butyou face severe penalties, like the impounding ofyour vehicle and a $30,000 dollar fine, if you aretempted to slip a fossil into your rucksack and arecaught by the Park Rangers. When the ROM's 10-years are up there will be no more collecting atBurgess allowed by the Park for 50 years.

Alberta is even more strict - all fossils (as "historicalobjects") belong to the Crown! And so, in the

badlands, where dinosaurs are very common, muchgoes uncollected and decays as summer temperaturesof 30˚ are followed by winters of minus 30˚. I thinkthis is a scandal - as Peter Larson has said, "fossilscan only be conserved if they are collected".

The museologists will also warn us that many of theseoppressive countries have been known to hand outpretty severe penalties to anyone caught smugglingfossils. Peasant farmers in China are becomingexperts in collecting fossils and know what sells well.They can make far more from quarrying their landthan they can from farming it, but it risks prisonsentences, or worse, if caught. The museologistswould argue that by buying from this trade, we onlyserve to exacerbate this situation. Of course wedeplore such atrocities by these oppressive regimes,but because museum buyers form such a tinypercentage of the trade (see Larwood, this volume, p.223), our actions in the real world have no effectwhatever on this situation. If we refrain from buyingpurely on these grounds, we are burying our heads inthe sand - the trade from these countries will carry onregardless of our high moral stand – all that wesucceed in doing is denying such material to ourmuseums, to our public and to science.

And there are further dangers. At the moment, we canignore the MA Code of Ethics and at least remainwithin the law. Any material which reaches Tucson,for example, however it got there, we can buy andbring into the UK with no import restrictions. Wecan, if we chose, go against the MA Code of Ethicsand the UNESCO agreement and acquire such materialfor our museums. And I know some curators anddirectors in the British Isles who are quite relaxedabout doing this. I quote Phil Doughty, commentingon Ulster Museum's purchase of Kazakhstan dinosaurremains, "... we had some suspicions, but if webought the material, at least it would be in a publiccollection". This is "Rescue Purchase" in action.

However, on the 14th March 2001, an announcementfrom Westminster committed the Government bothto signing the 1970 UNESCO Convention and tointroducing legislation that would make it illegal toimport into the UK any material which has left itscountry of origin in violation of that country’s laws(DCMS 2001 p.3; see also Davies, this volume). Inthe case of the UNESCO agreement, the definition ofcultural property does includes "objects ofpalaeontological interest" (UNESCO 1970, Article1a)". At the moment, thank goodness, there are noplans to include palaeontological material in the newcriminal offence (M. Davies pers. comm 2001), andpresently it only applies to material valued at morethan £39,600 ! But we must strive to resist any future

-195-

inclusion of fossils in the criminal offence, and toargue the case to the powers that be for a more relaxedand flexible attitude from museums towards the fossiltrade so that scientifically significant material can belegally acquired by the scientific community andmade accessible to all.

Science

I think that most research palaeontologists, in the UKwould agree with my sentiments and agree that allfossil material for research must be accessible to us,from whatever country it was collected. Not manyresearchers worry about such ethical niceties - ourmain concern is to get hold of the material and do theresearch. These same research scientists are, however,not always happy with the material being collectedby the commercial trade.

And so the second objection to the fossil trade that thedealers often meet is a scientific one. There is anarrogant feeling amongst some researchers that onlythey, the professional research palaeontologists,should have the right to collect fossils. It is a viewwith which I can sympathise. I have been an academicand worked in universities for all of my life as aresearch palaeontologist. There are various issues.

The first objection is that the commercial collectorsare removing the primary database - i.e. the specimensthemselves. In my own discipline of fossil corals,and in the field of invertebrates in general, there islittle problem - most invertebrate groups are commonenough as fossils to supply the scientists, commercialcollectors, amateur collectors and anyone else. And,moreover, trade in invertebrates and the prices whichthey command, makes them less attractive. This iswhy, in the UK, the majority of researchpalaeontologists (the typical members of thePalaeontological Association for example) are quiteuntouched by the commercial trade, because the vastmajority of them work on invertebrate fossils.

Of course, it is usually in the field of vertebratepalaeontology that we come across the scientificobjections to commercial collectors and dealers. Herespecimens are larger, more recognisable by non-specialist buyers, and command big prices. But theyare also much rarer and sometimes very rare. Howmany complete skeletons of T. rex have ever beenfound? (See Larson, this volume).

The scientific objection is much more prevalent inNorth America than it is in the UK. I quote RobertHunt (University of Nebraska), "I become saddenedby what I see in many commercial shows, particularlythe shows in Tucson and in Denver. You do seevertebrate fossils that are scientifically significant,

fossils that will only be found in a century, on displayto the highest bidder. Many times those fossils, whenthey're sold at the meetings, are never seen again andwe all know that there's a tremendous loss ofinformation". Mark Goodwin (University ofCalifornia) says, "I just bristle at the thought of ourfossil heritage being available for sale to the highestbidder".

Of course there are far more dinosaur workers inNorth America than we have on these shores, and,moreover, the numbers of dinosaurs for thecommercial dealers to collect is far greater. TheMontana badlands are just as rich as neighbouringAlberta in dinosaur fossils, and the relaxed collectingrules of the United States (if its on private land,anything goes) means that the State is easy pickingfor the commercial collectors. But some scientistshave objected. Jack Horner has not always been atease with what he saw as competition on "his patch",but as Rene Vandervelde of Canada Fossils pointsout (pers. comm. 2000), "there are enough dinosaursin Montana for Jack and for Canada Fossils to collectfor a hundred years".

And Vandervelde’s words surely point to a simplesolution to the scientists' objection. If we, thescientists, would only talk to the collectors, we cansurely come up with an agreement, whereby thecommercial collectors are allowed free reign to collectand to trade any common material - there are, afterall, hundreds of skeletons of ceratopians andhadrosaurs in the badlands of Montana - whilst anyrare, new or unique material is offered first to ascientific institution at a reasonable price. Manyresponsible collectors do this already, I know, andmany museums have such arrangements with theirlocal collectors. Canada Fossils, for example, havefound 2 new dinosaurs, a new ammonite, 3 new fish,a new squid etc. All type specimens are in museumsand have been described by scientists. Perhapspalaeontologists should stop moaning, and start raisingmoney to buy these fossils from the private sector.

This is surely a better solution than simply attemptingto ban private collecting which is what the Society ofVertebrate Paleontology in the US would like to do.The SVP would like to see laws passed that help todeflate the fossil demand by making it illegal toexport vertebrate fossils from the US, and thatreinforce the sanctity of public lands againstcommercial fossil exploration. But this, in my view,would pose the most serious threat to the science ofpalaeontology as it would encourage in the US afossil blackmarket where illegal traders will attemptto cover their tracks. I quote Robert Hunt again, "Iffossils are collected illegally, if data is not accurate,

-196-

if specimens are reported to come from Wyoming,but in fact they really come from Montana, then ... wecan't trust that data. And once we can't trust the data,we can't trust the science that comes from that data".In other words we would put palaeontology in exactlythe same situation that the antiquities trade is presentlyin.

A second objection commonly heard from thescientists is that the commercial collectors are alsoremoving the secondary database - that is theassociated scientific knowledge and information thatgoes with the actual specimen. That they will take theskull and leave the post-cranial behind, for example.Or more commonly, take the skeleton and leave theassociated information - the taphonomy, thestratigraphy, the diagenesis, the palynology etc. Iquote Jack Horner, "The kinds of data that we're nowcollecting...includes not just the dinosaurs, buteverything else. And if people just go in and take thepretty stuff out, that ruins what we're trying to do.You can have commercial collectors that are veryscrupulous, that are collecting data at their own sites,they're keeping good records, they do the preparation,they mount specimens, they sell them somewhere toa museum, and its all accessible. There's nothingwrong with that. But if I'm out collecting and someonecomes out and digs up a dinosaur that I've got half outof the ground, well that's irritating."

Many commercial collectors are responsiblecollectors, and I can point to the Tenontosaurus,bought by this museum two years ago from BarryJames of Pennsylvania, via Glenn Rockers ofPaleoSearch in Kansas. The purchase includedgastroliths and cycad seeds, recovered from thestomach, and two tiny Deinonychus teeth embeddedin the neck vertebrae. Perhaps some scientists wouldnot have spotted these? I would go even further in thecase of the Black Hills Institute of GeologicalResearch - Peter and Neal Larson are perhaps thebiggest professional dealers in the US, but they arealso scientists in their own right and have manypublications to their name. Again this is only aquestion of education. If the scientists would onlytalk to the collectors we can tell them what we wantcollected - and often they are far better equipped thanus to do the job.

The third objection from the scientists relates to someof the practices that the commercial collectors anddealers use. These range from the innocent to thefraudulent and the Tucson Show is often described as"buyer beware". At the bottom of the scale is simplerepair of a specimen - gluing together broken parts -nothing wrong with this, of course, we do it in our

museums and have whole departments of conservatorsto help us.

But from repair we go on to restoration, a slightlymore sensitive practice. Examples might be theadding to the tip of a broken dinosaur claw to make itappear complete, or in mineralogy it might be thepolishing of a damaged mineral face. Our specimenof Confuciusornis has part of the skull and breastbone restored, expertly by Terry Manning. I think itis accepted in the museum profession that restorationis perfectly acceptable as long as the restorers tell uswhat they have done and that there is no intent tofraud. Beware, however, that some restoration mightdestroy scientific information -the tip of the dinosaurclaw may have been broken during combat.

From restoration it is a small step to deliberate forgery.Some fossils at Tucson are highly restored. Parts areadded from other fossils or even carved from matrixto make them look more complete. The Moroccansare very good at it. Many of the spiny trilobites fromMorocco are carved or at least have carved additions.A notice on display at Tucson in 1999 warned buyersthat 80% of Moroccan fossils were forgeries. Butagain it is a question of what is the intent. At Munichlast year, Mandy Edwards and I were examiningunder a handlens some spiny Moroccan trilobites.The Moroccan dealer recognised that we werepalaeontologists and admitted quite openly that whilethe pygidium was genuine, the spines had been carved,and the whole thing had then been coloured for effect.He said that if we wanted real specimens he wouldshow them to us. Of course they were much moreexpensive, but he openly explained that his carvedspecimens were done for the general public whosimply want something that looks good and have nointerest in how real it is. It was refreshing to see suchan honest attitude and I guess, therefore, his intentwas not fraudulent.

Other examples include composite specimens - forexample, using the pygidium and cephalon of differentspecimens or even different species (!); sticking asmall ammonite into the protoconch of a largeammonites (again often a different species) tocomplete the spiral; in mineralogy, sticking crystalsonto matrix; colour enhancement in minerals usingoils; colour bleaching in minerals to give transparentcrystals, as with the Chinese red quartz. Thesepractices are only fraudulent if there is an intent todeceive, and if we, the scientists, disapprove of certainpractices, again we only have to talk to the dealers totell them what we want and what we don't want. Atthe moment the dealers are selling largely to a non-scientific public, who are often totally unconcerned

-197-

about the scientific accuracy of their purchases, andmuch more interested in how good it looks on theirmantlepiece. The dealers will prepare their specimensaccording to the market.

Of course I do not deny that there are dealers who dointend to deceive and who deliberately sell forgedfossils. Listen to these words e-mailed to me by TimRowe, Regents Professor at The University of Texas,"In addition to illegally exported specimens, I wouldwarn anyone planning to purchase specimens thatfossil forgeries abound, and that they can be difficultto detect. I visited the Tucson Show last year and sawcountless examples of cosmetic alteration aimed atinflating the specimen's commercial value. Somespecimens bearing high price tags were entirely carvedor fabricated from synthetic materials, and thecraftsmanship was sufficiently skilled to fool someprofessional museum staff".

From forgery, which has a deliberate intent to deceive,its only a small step to reproduction, which hasperfectly good intentions. In the UK we are all usedto Stuart Baldwin's fossil reproductions, used fordecades now in many university departments forteaching, and in the US the Black Hill Institute makessuperb research-quality casts of teeth, claws, skullsand whole dinosaur skeletons for sale to museumsand universities. I don't think anyone would object toany of these practices.

Next we must look at the practice of preparation. Ihave never quite established why the trade uses theterm "preparator", whilst the museums use the term"conservator". Perhaps the former does suggest doinga bit more than just conserving what nature haspreserved. Perhaps the professional preparator ismore prepared to enhance a specimen to make it looka little bit better than it really is? Perhaps thepreparators should be wary of over-preparation tothe extent that the specimen almost becomes anobjects of art-decor? Again its a question of intent.Art-decor is fine in itself if that's what it is intendedas. Many examples are regularly on sale at Tucson ofexotic carvings from rock, especially fromfossiliferous rock.

The final practice that scientists often object to in thetrade is the choice of materials used in preparation.Our Tenontosaurus, superbly excavated and mountedwas, nevertheless, done using a super cyanoacrylateglue, and the lower jaw glued to the steel armature isgiving me difficulties now that I want to cast the jaw.But Barry James, who prepared our dinosaur, wasamazed when I questioned this practice. To him, theonly consideration was to use the best glue, the onewith the strongest bond. That we, as scientists, might

want to reverse the process never entered his thoughts.I don't blame Barry for this attitude - or any of theprofessional preparators for this. I blame us, thescientists and the conservators - who never talk to thepreparators and have never explained the reasonswhy all conservation should be reversible. Manyprofessional conservators think its appalling whatthe professional preparators do - but why don't theytalk to the preparators and tell them?

How many conservators in the UK are aware of"PaleoBond" range of products? Sold and promotedwidely at Tucson as, "developed and field tested bypaleontologists for paleontologists", and useduniversally in North America by professionalpreparators and collectors as the wonder-product forfossil collection and restoration - the range includesadhesives in various viscosities from the penetrantstabilizer at 2 cps through a variety of glues (40-1500cps), to "Jurassic gel", at 80,000 cps, a vaseline-like gel used to bridge cracks and gaps. There is alsoa non-CPC activator which instantly hardens all theadhesives. I've used it in the field and it is wonderfulstuff for instantly repairing damage to bones duringcollection, but the adhesives are are cyanoacrylates,in other words, super-glues.

UK conservators will probably hold up their hands inhorror, but also in the PaleoBond range is a debonder,a water-carried solvent that supposedly removes theadhesive. However, Lorraine Cornish of the NHMtells me that she tested this product some years agoand the solvent is only partly successful. Once theglue has been on for some months it becomes resistantto solvent attack and advised against using it onspecimens. Also, does it have any long-term effecton the specimen? Perhaps it is all right for field useif it is immediately removed when back in thelaboratory - but this is a classic case where we canhelp each other and learn from each other.

Conclusion

In conclusion, to the museologists I would say, pleasedon't impose cultural heritage ethics on thecommercial trade in fossils, which unlike antiquitiesare most usually collected perfectly legitimately andare therefore only ever "illicit" when they may havecome out of an unenlightened country which hasplaced an unreasonable ban on their export.Remember also that fossils do not relate culturally tothe country in which they were preserved (in the waythat a Japanese ivory or Peruvian pottery, for example,does). We have our own ethics which dictate thatscientific knowledge should be freely accessible byall.

-198-

And to my fellow scientists I would say, talk to thedealers, talk to the collectors and preparators, form arelationship with them, tell them your concerns, tellthem about over-preparation, tell them which gluesetc. not to use, tell them what you want to collect andhow you want it collected, and make agreements withthem whereby they will give you first offer on anythingnew or special, and they will go out there and collectfor you. We have much to learn from each other. We,the scientists may arrogantly think that we have a lotto teach the trade, but equally the trade has an awfullot to teach us, because often we have been left farbehind.

And finally, we must decide where the GeologicalCurators' Group stands in all of this - how do we asgeological curators fit between the museologists andthe scientists? That must be the outcome of thisconference. No doubt there will be curators that havecome from both camps, but let's make a start - let's gettogether!

References

BRODIE, N., DOOLE, J. AND WATSON, P. 2000.Stealing History: the Illicit Trade in CulturalMaterial. 60 pp. MacDonald Institute forArchaeological Research, Cambridge, UK.

DCMS 2001. "Government signs up to UNESCOconvention – Howarth: ‘Important step to tackleUK’s Illicit Art and Antiquities trade’ ". 5 pp.Department of Culture Media and Sport NewsRelease, London, 14 March.

MUSEUMS ASSOCIATION 1999. Code of Ethics(second edition). 20 pp. The Museums Association,London.

UNESCO 1970. Convention on the Means ofProhibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Exportand Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property.United Nations Educational, Scientific and CulturalOrganisation, Paris.

-199-

FRONTIERS TO SCIENCE:FREE TRADE AND MUSEUM ETHICS

by Tristram P. Besterman

Introduction

This paper was prepared for a seminar which resultedfrom a number of conversations with colleaguesconcerning the standards that should be applied whenan institution like The Manchester Museum becomesinvolved with those who trade in fossils. It soonbecame apparent that perspectives differed. If, as weconcluded, these positions represent a polarity ofopinion in the wider scientific and museumcommunities, it seemed sensible to arrange a seminarat which the issues could be openly debated.

At the outset, I would like to put down some markerson my own position. The first is that there is nothingethically wrong with a museum buying from the tradeper se. The purchase of specimens from commercialsuppliers has a long and reasonably honourabletradition, and our national collections would be muchthe poorer had a healthy relationship betweenmuseums and commercial collectors and dealers notexisted. The entrepreneurial activities of the greatnineteenth century fossilist, Mary Anning, are welldocumented (Torrens 1995). Anning collected the

fine specimen of Plesiosaurus macrocephalus in 1830,from whom William Willoughby purchased it a yearlater for 200 guineas. The species was named byWilliam Buckland in 1836 and described in 1840 byRichard Owen (Owen 1840). This is an example ofa species new to science that entered the scientificliterature whilst in private hands, and which, happily,ended up in a public collection at the Natural HistoryMuseum. However, Milner (1997) has warned ofother specimens in private hands that were publishedby Owen which cannot now be traced. The dilemmaof including material in private hands was faced byConybeare and De la Beche when they published onichthyosaurs and plesiosaurs a decade or so beforeOwen (Taylor and Crowther 1997, p.19). The debateabout publishing material in private collections todayhas been well rehearsed in the pages of thePalaeontological Association's Newsletter during1996 and 1997, with opinions surprisingly polarisedon the issue. The trade may be a part of the problembut does not seem to the author to be the cause of it.

We may lament it, but the existence of a free marketin legally acquired palaeontological material is

Besterman, T.P. 2001. Frontiers to science: free trade and museum ethics. TheGeological Curator 7(6): 199-209.

There is nothing inherently wrong about museums purchasing specimens from commercialdealers who act honestly and in good faith. Indeed, a significant amount of thetaxonomically important material in the UK's great public collections has been acquiredin this way. Doing business with the trade does, however, carry risks, and there are manyways in which the unwary curator can be ripped off by an unscrupulous dealer. Apartfrom fakes and forgeries, the most pernicious and damaging aspect of the trade is in illicitmaterial. Museums should respect the laws of countries which seek to protect fossils aspart of their cultural patrimony. This ethic is enshrined in international convention andin the ethical codes that apply to UK museums both at an individual and institutionallevel, through the UK's Registration scheme. The UK is about to become signatory to the1970 UNESCO Convention, which outlaws the international illicit trade in culturalproperty, and will create a new law to criminalise such activity. This paper argues thecase for accepting UNESCO's inclusion of fossils in the definition of cultural property.The more relaxed ethic of some academic palaeontologists compared with the ethicalstandards of mainstream geological curators in the UK should be addressed by draftinga protocol, whose standards should be developed in consultation between curators,academics, and reputable representatives of the trade and third world countries fromwhich most illicitly traded fossils originate.

Tristram P. Besterman, The Manchester Museum, Oxford Road, Manchester M13 9PL,U.K. Received 12th September 2001.

-200-

arguably not of itself an ethical issue, provided thatnormal standards of scientific methodology anddocumentation have been followed in excavating anddeveloping the specimen. John Nudds ascertainedthat this was the case and ensured that the acquisitionmet The Manchester Museum's institutional standards(Manchester Museum 1997) when he negotiated thepurchase of Tenontosaurus for the Museum's newFossils Gallery in 1999. The qualifier, 'arguably', isused because it is undeniably the case that thelegitimate trade in fossils does both create and nourisha commercial market in which most museums lackthe resources to compete. As Shelton (1997, p.151)pointed out, "Generally, once fossils are caught up inthe market loop, they are unlikely to be acquired byany but the largest museums. Most US museumscannot compete in the financial arena with commercialdealers". The advent of selling on the internet (Figure2) is further fuelling the commercial trade in fossils,both expanding and feeding an increasingly insatiablemarket. Reconciling the benefits of palaeontologicalentrepreneurship of the Anning variety, whichproduces important new discoveries on the one hand,with the loss to science of important material thatdisappears into private collections on the other, isclearly a challenge to the palaeontological community.Sometimes the 'loss' is only temporary, when, as withAnning's plesiosaur, the specimen eventually makesits way into a public collection.

So, in one sense, I reject the title of the seminar,implying as it does, that the commercial tradeinevitably pits ethics against science. It doesn’t needto, any more than ethics are compromised when an artgallery buys a fully provenanced painting at auction.

Buyer beware

So let me put down a further marker, that of caveatemptor, (buyer beware). No one should be in anydoubt about the divergent purposes of a trader whodeals in fossils to make a profit, and a curator/scientist who acquires fossils for learning. This is apoint that is made clearly in the GCG Guidelines forthe Curation of Geological Materials (Brunton et al.1985, pp. A10 and A12). Further practical guidanceis set out in "Buying in the market: a checklist formuseums", published by the Museums Association(MA 2000). If this distinction in purpose is merelystating the obvious, it is not done as a value judgment.For after all, the dealer, scientist and curator are allmaking a living out of fossils: they simply do so bydifferent means. There are good and bad curators andscientists, just as there are good and bad dealers. Onepurpose of this paper is to distinguish that which isgood from that which is bad in the ethical standards

that should be applied in practice by the sciencecurator.

As the caveat emptor dictum reminds us, the marketplace in fossils is just like any other market place: ithas many traps for the unwary. The curator/scientistshould be cautious about their relationship with thetrade even when not closing on a deal. Traders cangain significantly from an association with a reputablemuseum, and so curators should be on their guard toensure that the reputation of their own institution isnot compromised by association with a trader whosestandards have more in common with a back streetsecond-hand car dealer than a reputable high streettrader. A dealer in fake Moroccan trilobites may wellrecognise the expertise of a professional from areputable institution, and offer them the real thing (ata price). That same dealer can then trade on thatassociation as he cons the next poor sap into buyingphoney fossils. Even when associating with traderswho stick by the rules, and who seem to be offeringgreat benefits to the museum, just remember thatthere’s no such thing as a free lunch!

Bad ethics produces bad science

So the ethical issues really kick in when dodgy goodsare on sale. Dodgy goods come through dodgytraders and from collectors who are either ignorant ofthe law, or who deliberately flout it. Any curator orscientist who is prepared to deal with such people andsuch material is acting unethically. And my contentionis that bad science equates with bad ethics. Goodscience can only be founded on sound ethical practiceat every step from specimen origination, research andcuration to interpretation and publication. The historyof palaeontology is littered with disasters where thissimple principle has been either stupidly forgotten(by gullible curators and scientists) and deliberatelyabused (by rapacious con-men). From PiltdownMan, so-called ‘Eoanthropus dawsoni' (a compositefake created early in the last century from an orangutanjaw-bone and human skull fragments supposedlyfrom the Pleistocene gravels of Sussex) to the slightlyless spectacular, but much hyped ‘Archaeoraptorliaoningensis’ trumpeted by The National GeographicMagazine early this century as a 125 million year oldfeathered theropod dinosaur. The latter was, ofcourse, nothing of the kind: this so-called ‘missinglink’ was also a composite fossil faked up from atleast three different species onto a single slab fromLiaoning in China.

Kevin Padian at the University of California atBerkeley published an essay on this whole sorryepisode on the Internet (Padian 2000). He has someinstructive insights, which are worth quoting:

-201-

"Why," he asks, "are specimens altered by Chinesevillagers in the first place …? The answer is thatthere’s a huge international market in the sale ofvertebrate fossils. 'Archaeoraptor' is such aspecimen. It was apparently illegally smuggledfrom China; any so-called export papers, even ifsigned by local authorities, are regarded as invalid(fossil dealers tell me that they are easy toarrange)" (Padian 2000, p. 3).

One small, albeit rather belated, glimmer of ethicalgood practice illumines this otherwise woeful tale.Padian continues:

"Our Chinese colleagues are extremely upset aboutthe loss of these fossils from China throughcommercial sale. In April 2000, Storrs Olson,curator of fossil birds at the Smithsonian’s NaturalHistory Museum, refused to allow the'Archaeoraptor' specimen in the door for a pressconference, until an agreement had been reachedto return the specimen to China. Happily, it hasnow been returned." (Padian 2000, p. 3).

Had the over-enthusiastic purchaser on behalf of theDinosaur Museum in Utah applied such a rigorousethic at the Tucson Gem and Mineral Show, and hadThe National Geographic Magazine also refused tohave anything to do with an illicitly smuggledspecimen, let alone hype it before the normal peerreview processes expected of a serious scientificjournal had been applied, none of this embarrassingfiasco would have occurred.

There can be no better example of the Bad Ethicsequals Bad Science principle.

So how do we distinguish good from bad ethicalpractice? Where are these standards codified andhow are they implemented and enforced? At thisstage, let me define a few terms.

The illicit trade and public museums: somedefinitions

First, what do we mean by the illicit trade? For thepurposes of this paper, I shall paraphrase the term asit is used in the Report of the Ministerial AdvisoryPanel on Illicit Trade (Palmer 2000) published byEngland’s Department of Culture, Media and Sportin December 2000:

"The illicit trade involves those who import, dealin or are in possession of any cultural object thatwas stolen, illegally excavated or removed froma site contrary to local law or exported from itscountry of origin contrary to that country’snational laws."

The issue of whether a fossil can or should be includedin the notion of a ‘cultural object’ is a matter to whichI will return later. I also think it important to definewhat I mean by a ‘public museum’. Any museum inthe UK that has a formal, publicly accountableconstitution, a long term purpose and is ‘Registered’with Resource (the UK’s Council for Museums,Archives and Libraries) is one that safeguards andmakes accessible collections held in trust in thepublic domain. As far as palaeontological collectionsare concerned, in this definition one can includenational trustee museums such as the Natural HistoryMuseum and the national museums in Edinburgh,Cardiff and Belfast; many university museums suchas those in Cambridge, Birmingham, Manchester andOxford; and the many local authority museumsthroughout the UK. I do not include researchcollections that are held in university academicdepartments administered outside such formalstructures. They may be the focus of importantresearch whilst their academic progenitor is in post.But with one or two notable exceptions, suchcollections are notoriously vulnerable to the whim ofindividuals and their departments, and rarely haveinstitutionally robust procedures and policies tosafeguard specimens and make them accessible to thewider scientific community in the longer term.

No museum and no collection exists in isolation.Museums, natural history collections and dare I say,even science itself, are social constructs to enable usto describe and comprehend the observable world. Itfollows that they exist to serve society. It is alsoaxiomatic that such constructs, be they in the arts,humanities or the sciences, provide an insight into thecreative workings of the human mind as well as theworld around us. The social context of a museum maybe local, regional, national or international. No matter.Museum ethics codify the principles that underpin animplicit social contract that permits curators to act asthe guardians of society’s interest. The ethicalstandards put into practice by a curator in Hove mayimpact on a child in Brighton, an academic inCalifornia or a farmer in Liaoning. So, let us examinesome of these codified standards, starting at theinternational level.

Internationally agreed standards formuseums

The International Council of Museums expects itsmembers to abide by and uphold its Code ofProfessional Ethics (ICOM 1986). On the illicittrade it is unequivocal:

"The illicit trade in objects… encourages thedestruction of… sites… and contravenes the spirit

-202-

of national and international patrimony. Museumsshould recognise the relationship between themarket place and the… destructive taking of anobject for the commercial market and mustrecognise that it is highly unethical for a museumto support in any way, whether directly orindirectly, that illicit market.

"A museum should not acquire whether bypurchase, gift, bequest or exchange, any objectunless the governing body and responsible officerare satisfied that the museum can acquire a validtitle to the specimen or object in question and thatin particular it has not been acquired in, or exportedfrom, its country of origin… in violation of thatcountry’s laws.

"So far as biological and geological material isconcerned, a museum should not acquire by anydirect or indirect means any specimen that hasbeen collected, sold or otherwise transferred incontravention of any national or…natural historyconservation law or treaty of the museum’s owncountry or any other country…" (ICOM 1986,para 3.2).

The ICOM Code also addresses the ethics of fieldcollecting:

"Museums should assume a position of leadershipin the effort to halt the continuing degradation ofthe world’s natural history… resources…

"…All planning for…field collecting must bepreceded by… consultation with both the properauthorities and any interested museums oracademic institutions in the country or area of theproposed study sufficient to ascertain if theproposed activity is both legal and justifiableon… scientific grounds. Any field programmemust be executed in such a way that all participantsact legally and responsibly in acquiring specimensand data, and that they discourage by all practicalmeans unethical, illegal and destructive practices."(ICOM 1986 para 3.3).

Also at international level, there is the UNESCOConvention on the Means of Prohibiting andPreventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer ofOwnership of Cultural Property adopted at its GeneralConference in Paris in 1970. The year is significant,because it is now taken as a datum line on the statusand treatment of illicit material. The Conventiondefines ‘cultural property’ as any property…

"…specifically designated by a State as being ofimportance for archaeology,… history,… art orscience and which belongs to the followingcategories:

"a) Rare collections and specimens of fauna,flora, minerals and anatomy and objects ofpalaeontological interest;" (UNESCO 1970,Article 1 (a)).

The convention describes the impact of the illicittrade on the country of origin:

"The States Parties to this Convention recognisethat the illicit import, export and transfer ofownership of cultural property is one of the maincauses of the impoverishment of the culturalheritage of the countries of origin of such propertyand that international co-operation constitutesone of the most efficient means of protecting eachcountry’s property against all the dangers resultingtherefrom." (UNESCO 1970, Article 2 para 1).

So how are these international principles andsomewhat aspirational standards reflected in the legalframework of the UK?

Currently, the 1970 UNESCO Convention has nostatutory status in the UK, although its essentialprovisions are applied by Registered museums in theUK (see the definition of a ‘public museum’ aboveand the section below ‘A first world museum ethic:the USA and UK’). However, on the 14 March 2001,the Arts Minister, Alan Howarth, announced inWestminster that this situation was about to change.He publicly committed the UK Government to signingthe 1970 UNESCO Convention and to introducinglegislation that would make it "a criminal offencedishonestly to import, deal in or be in possession ofany cultural object, knowing or believing that theobject was stolen, (or) illegally excavated…" (DCMS2001 p.3).

These two important developments, which will havea profound impact on cleaning up a disreputable tradein the UK, resulted from the recommendations of theMinisterial Advisory Panel on Illicit Trade (Palmer2000). This Panel, under the energetic chairmanshipof Professor Norman Palmer, a specialist incommercial law at University College London, wasin turn established as a direct result of the publicationearlier in 2000 of the hard-hitting report StealingHistory: the Illicit Trade in Cultural Material, (Brodieet al. 2000). This report was commissioned jointlyby the UK Museums Association and ICOM-UK.

Fossils as cultural property?

The primary preoccupation of these recent reportsand initiatives to stem the hugely remunerative flowof illicit material through the UK is undoubtedly artand antiquities. Where, then, does this leave fossils?Is palaeontological material, as the product of ‘natural

-203-

processes,’ in a different ethical category fromartefacts as the product of human creativity, as somewould claim? Certainly this has been argued byClements (see Taylor and Harte 1988, p.39), whostated in discussion that "I object strongly to thenationalistic notion of British fossils; they are part ofa global heritage…". This is a view echoed by Martin(1999, p. 114), "…fossils are probably not 'cultural',and if they are ever anyone's property, once in thepublic domain they, and the information they carry,belong to the international scientific community, intrust for everyone". Taylor (1999, p. 126), however,suggests that this view reflects a particularly academicperspective. He rejects the academic position, statingthat "…I remain unconvinced about the merits ofhaving research collections of Scottish materialscattered all over the world as historical markers forthe research interests of now-departed researchers.The same aims can be achieved by keeping thespecimens in the collections of Scottish museums".This echoes the argument made forcefully by Rolfe(see Taylor and Harte 1988, pp39-40), who, indiscussion, noted that the best material should neverbe removed from its source area, since it would bebest appreciated there by locals and visitors.

Within their definition of cultural material, agreedinternationally, both ICOM and UNESCO includefossils, as explained above (ICOM 1986, UNESCO1970). If the detail underlying the recommendationsof Norman Palmer’s Panel is accepted, then theapplication of the law to enforcing the UNESCOConvention in the UK will be with reference to adefinition of ‘cultural object’ that corresponds withthat set out in a European Union Directive, whichincludes "Collections of historical, palaeontological,ethnographic or numismatic interest" valued at"£39,600". (Palmer 2000 Annex E)

This somewhat bizarre rag bag of apparentlyunconnected cultural collections with a price on theirhead contrasts with archaeology, on the same list, atno. 1, which deals with individual objects irrespectiveof any consideration of financial value, as products ofboth sites and collections.

Such a distinction between an excavatedarchaeological object and a fossil I believe to bespurious and invidious, and does science a disservice.Both a fossil and a pottery shard provide verifiable,material evidence, in which context is a vitallyimportant and integral part of our understanding ofthe past.

Science, culture and national patrimony

Science has always been, and will always be, amanifestation of cultural activity. The pursuit of

systematic, verifiable explanations of naturalphenomena is a product of the human mind whosemethodologies have evolved over time and space. Toargue that the preoccupations of science standsomehow independent of other forms of culturalactivity is to admit of a false premise. From the studyof the universe to the interaction of subatomicparticles, and from the palaeoecology of the BurgessShale to the mapping of the human genome, the rawmaterial of science does have an existence independentof human intervention. But the mathematical modelsand scientific paradigms with which we seek to furtherour understanding of such phenomena are humanconstructs. Quantum theory and cladistics may be thestuff of science, but they are no more than theintellectual tools fashioned by humans to prise openthe secrets of the universe. There is no logicaljustification, then, for suggesting that ‘science’somehow stands apart from and above what definesus as cultural beings. This is not just an issue ofprofessional ethics: it is also one of personal morality.By what authority, then, can any scientist worthy thename, claim that he has the right to act above the lawor to disregard the normative ethical values of society?

There is then the claim that fossils, as naturalspecimens, transcend notions of national patrimony.As Padian says in his essay, "…in the end nobodyowns it; everyone owns it" (Padian 2000, p. 10). Evenwhen refracted through the scientist's lens, this notionseems merely a variation of the nineteenth century"property is theft" polemic of Pierre-Joseph Proudhon(Kelley and Smith 1994, p.13). It's curious how it'susually someone else's property that we seem happiestto question. Again, there is more that unitespalaeontology with the world of art and antiquitiesthan divides it on this point. The Tate Gallery mayown the keys to the door of the gallery in whichRodin's 'The Kiss' is housed, but the work is regardedby the art world as part of an international patrimony.When the Taliban blew up two ancient statues of theBuddha in Afghanistan in March, it was the subject ofan international outcry and triggered the interventionof the Secretary General of the United Nations. Theconcept of international patrimony co-existing withthe notion of national ownership is well establishedin cultural domains other than the scientific. Theclaim by palaeontologists that fossils (even the mosticonic, like Archaeopteryx) are somehow different,just doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

The scientist who espouses the notion of a kind ofpan-global palaeontology that recognises no nationalclaims or borders is in practice working against notonly international treaties, but also against egalitarianprinciples. For, most of the illicit trade in fossils andartefacts is from poor third world countries to the

-204-

affluent first world. Stealing History is forthright onthe point:

"…it is a one-way trade. Cultural objects areillicitly moved from south to north, from east towest, from third and fourth worlds to the first, andfrom poor to rich. There is no countervailingflow." (Brodie et al. 2000, p.12).

A third world perspective: Brazil

I am surprised that it was considered appropriate toconvene this conference without a speaker from anyof the third world countries which are being strippedof their palaeontological heritage through the illicittrade. I believe this to be a serious omission, for itwould be salutary for us to hear their voice. Of themany countries that suffer large-scale and continuingpalaeontological plunder, perhaps the two which aremost prominent are China and Brazil. Knowing thatDavid Martill was to give the perspective of a non-Brazilian scientist on the Brazilian fossil trade, I felta moral obligation to attempt to represent the viewsof some Brazilian palaeontologists in this debate.The issues revolve around the buoyant market infossils stolen from the Santana and Crato formationsof the Araripe Basin in north-east Brazil, and thenillegally exported to be traded in North America andEurope.

These limestones, of early Cretaceous age, yield anextensive and important vertebrate and invertebratefauna, superbly preserved. The vertebrate specimens,particularly of fish, are attractive to dealers as so-called 'décor fossils'.

Let us start by considering the protection affordedunder Brazilian law to these fossils and to fossiliferoussites. Article 1 of a law passed in 1942, and still inforce, states that all fossiliferous deposits are theproperty of the State. It is illegal for anyone to extractfossils without the prior permission of the NationalDepartment of Mineral Production, with the exceptionof Brazilian museums and universities. According toDr Alexander Kellner, a palaeontologist in the nationalmuseum in Rio de Janeiro, "since the Department hasnot issued any collecting permits for fossils, all thefossils that are available for sale, both within andoutside Brazil have a de facto illegal status." (pers.comm.).

Kellner has told me that there is also a regulationpassed by the Brazilian Scientific Council in the mid-nineties, which requires that:

• all scientific fieldwork undertaken in Brazil bya non-Brazilian scientist must be conducted inpartnership with a Brazilian scientist who has

recognised scientific credentials in the relevantfield of study;

• the appropriate documentation must becompleted and submitted to the Scientific Councilfor prior approval; and

• all holotypes and taxonomically significantspecimens must remain in Brazil and be depositedin an accredited institution.

This is the regulatory framework in Brazil. Anyscientist or museum from another state that choosesto undertake research in Brazil or wishes to acquirefossil material from Brazil has, as explained above,an ethical obligation, under international treaty, tocomply with the expression of a state's legitimateintent to protect and retain control over its naturalpatrimony. The Brazilian authorities do occasionallyintercept and confiscate illegal shipments, but such isthe scale of the problem, that they do not have theresources to police these rules effectively.

So, yes, admittedly it may be possible to buy aBrazilian fossil fish from a market stall in Rio, orfrom a dealer in Tucson, but if a scientist knows thatit is stolen property, and taking it out of the countryis illegal, how then can that be justified? Let us saythat the palaeontologist's expert eye picks out aspecimen with a hitherto undescribed characteristic,which s/he reckons may be of great significance toscience. The palaeontologist buys it, on those grounds,rather than let it fall into the hands of a privatecollector, or into the backpack of a tourist who won'trecognise its scientific value. Our intrepid scientistbears it back in triumph to England, where, aftercareful study s/he attempts to publish a description.Ah, but here's the rub: a condition of publication inany reputable scientific journal is that all describedand figured material must be registered and depositedin an appropriate, permanent institution, with thestaff and facilities capable of ensuring theirconservation and future reference in perpetuity: i.e. apublic museum. This fulfils a basic tenet of science,that published research must be verifiable. Theeditorial policy of the science journals of first choiceis quite unequivocal on this point (e.g. Journal ofVertebrate Palaeontology 1996). And what reputablemuseum will accept such illicit material into itscollections? If the International Codes of Botanicaland Zoological Nomenclature are properly appliedby the editors of science journals and the ethicalstandards related to acquisition properly applied bymuseums, the palaeontologist who tries to cut ethicalcorners for the so-called good of science will find thats/he has a problem on his or her hands. For that muchprized but illicit specimen can only be published and

-205-

brought into the public domain by following one oftwo routes. Either it must first be repatriated to anappropriate institution in the country from which itwas illegally removed, or, if it has been intercepted,it may be deposited by HM Customs and Excise in aUK museum, when the source cannot beunambiguously identified.

Before leaving Brazil, it is instructive to listen to thepersonal views of two eminent Brazilianpalaeontologists:

Alexander Kellner (pers. comm.):

"The region where the Santana Beds outcrop isvery poor. The local people who exploit theseresources are not regarded here as thieves. Thesepeople make very little money, even with thefossil trade. The profits go to the middle man.There is a German fossil dealer in Nova Olinda,a small town in the State of Ceara, who wasrecently discovered by the police to have a stockof over 2,000 specimens. He pays less than 10cents (US) for one fossil insect, which may besold on for as much as US$1,000 to both privatecollectors and to museums.

"There is always a loss of scientific data withillicit fossils. Precise details of stratigraphy andlocation are lost.

"Scientists in other parts of the world should beaware that there is a palaeontological communityin Brazil, which is actively studying fossils.Scientists elsewhere should be aware that theillicit fossil from Brazil that is on their table couldbelong to the same taxon that is being currentlystudied by Brazilian scientists.

"Furthermore, palaeontologists in Brazil opposethe illegal export of fossils because it diminishesthe chance for us to prepare good palaeontologicalexhibits for the people of Brazil. Because wehave the disadvantage of working in a nation withsevere economic difficulties does not givescientists from richer nations the right to use theirsuperior spending power to remove fossils fromBrazil and thereby hinder the development ofpalaeontology in this country."

This is echoed by Ismar Carvalho (pers. comm):

"It is very common for foreign scientists frommuseums and universities in the US, Japan andEurope, to buy directly from the poor workers ofthe Santana do Cariri and Crato counties. This isa problem of complete loss of intellectual integrity.The researchers who buy these fossils do notknow the provenance or the geological context ofthe material. They destroy the opportunities for

developing sustainable economic growth basedon eco-tourism. And perhaps worst of all, theyencourage the destruction of the thin layer of soilin this area and contribute to the pollution ofsmall rivers in this semi-arid environment.

"Despite the presence of many Brazilianuniversities researching in this region, and animportant local museum (Museo dePalaeontologia de Santan do Cariri), the respectthat we receive seems to be typical of that shownby the First World to the Third World. Ourperception is that they think we deserve nothing,and that our cultural heritage should be controlledby those who have the money to provide the mostrapid access to information."

The picture is clearly a complex one, and depicts astory that has other sides to it. The bulk of fossilfishes that are illegally sold by the local "fishermen"(as they are colloquially known in Brazil) no doubtbelong to a very small number of well-documentedspecies, so what is the significance of their loss topalaeontology? If Brazil were to be relaxed aboutthem, how do they filter the catch to ensure the bigones don’t get away? Where would that leave theprinciple of cultural patrimony which they have aright to defend? Some of Brazil’s palaeontologicallysensitive sites are worked for the constructionindustry, so our first world ideas of site protection aredifficult to apply in a country with great economicproblems.

The views of the Brazilian scientists, quoted above,provide an instructive comparison with thosepresented elsewhere in these proceedings by DavidMartill, who has extensive personal experience ofcollecting such material in the field in Brazil. I findunacceptable and indefensible the argument advancedby some during the debate on 23rd May 2001, that theendemic corruption alleged in a Third World countryof origin justifies the suspension of the standards ofbehaviour expected of a scientist in the First World.The remedies don't seem to be too difficult to identify:the establishment of appropriately negotiated researchpartnerships between, say UK and Brazilian scientistscould draw upon the resources of the comparativelyaffluent UK to publish Brazilian fossils to the benefitof both the international scientific community andBrazilian science and culture. This should be done inways that comply with national laws and regulationsand with international treaty obligations.

Similar principles apply in China. The main differencethere is that, in contrast to the rather more relaxedattitude of the authorities in Brazil to the nefariousactivities of local people, in China, the retribution of

-206-

the State visited on local people can be swift andterrible. In February last year, three men were executedfor stealing 15 Tang Dynasty murals from a museumin Liquan, Shaanxi province (Doole 2000, p 8). Thatsame month, in Liaoning, the very region that isproducing so many new Lower Cretaceous beasts,four suspects were reportedly arrested trying to sellantiquities (Doole 2000, p 8). How can a museumcurator or scientist in the west square the temptationto purchase an illicitly traded Liaoning fossil withtheir conscience, knowing that they are conniving ina deadly trade at the other end of which is a local whowas paid a pittance to put his freedom or his very lifein jeopardy?

A first world museum ethic: the USA andUK

So how do national codes of practice for museums inthe USA and UK measure up to the kind of standardsthat I advocate? Both are consistent with the ICOMCode and the 1970 UNESCO Convention.

In the USA, the American Association of Museums(AAM), through ethical standards publishedsuccessively in 1978 and 1991, outlaws the illicittrade, which it equates with the destruction of sites.

"Illicit trade in objects encourages the destructionof sites, the violation of national exportation lawsand contravention of the spirit of patrimony.Museums must acknowledge the relationshipbetween the market place and the initial and oftendestructive taking of an object for the commercialmarket. They must not support that illicit market.

"The distinctive character of museum ethicsderives from the ownership, care and use ofobjects, specimens and living collectionsrepresenting the world's natural and culturalcommon wealth. This stewardship carries with itthe presumption of rightful ownership…Thus themuseum ensures that:

• acquisition, disposal and loan activities areconducted in a manner that respects the protectionand preservation of natural and cultural resourcesand discourages illicit trade in such materials"(AAM 1991, p.12).

In the UK, the Museums Association (MA), definesand articulates ethical standards for museums inBritain through its published Codes of Ethics (MA1999) and Ethical Guidelines (MA 1996). Thesesimilarly prohibit museums from accepting on loan,acquiring, exhibiting or even researching, an illicititem. Museums are also expected to abide by theprinciples of the 1970 UNESCO Convention, as well

as the 1995 UNIDROIT Convention, which isprimarily concerned with issues of restitution.

The MA's current Code of Conduct for People whoWork in Museums, adopted in 1996, is explicit on thesubject of illicitly obtained objects:

"Museums should not accept on loan, acquire,exhibit or assist the current possessor of, anyobject that has been acquired in, or exported fromits country of origin…in violation of that country'slaws." (MA 1999, p. 7).

The Code goes on to exhort museums to take accountof the principles of the 1970 UNESCO Convention,as well as the 1995 UNIDROIT Convention, which isprimarily concerned with issues of restitution.

The MA Ethics Committee is currently merging thehitherto separate institutional and individual Codesinto a new and fundamentally re-considered Code ofMuseum Ethics. This places the social purpose of themuseum at the heart of its philosophy. The new Code,which will be published early in 2002, articulates 10key principles, two of which are particularly relevantto this discussion.

"Society can expect museums to:

5. ACQUIRE ITEMS HONESTLY ANDRESPONSIBLY

Museums develop collections using long-termplans that are socially responsive. They rejectitems with dubious provenance.Museums…adhere to acquisition policies…Theseaddress issues of context and legitimacy ofacquisitions, due diligence…Items are acquiredon the basis that they will be retained in the publicdomain.

All those who work for or govern museums shouldensure that they:

• Exercise due diligence when considering anacquisition…Refrain from acquiring any item ifthere is any suspicion that the current owner is notlegitimately able to transfer title or to lend.

• country of origin…in violation of that country'slaws or any national or international treaties.

• Comply not only with treaties which have beenratified by the UK Government…but also upholdthe principles of the …1970 UNESCO and 1995UNIDROIT treaties…

• Refuse to acquire, display or researchunprovenanced items that may have been looted,unless there is reliable documentation to showthat they were exported from their country oforigin before 1970." (MA 2002, Section 5).

-207-

"Society can expect museums to:

8. SUPPORT THE PROTECTION OFNATURAL AND HUMAN ENVIRONMENTS

Collections in museums represent the richdiversity of the world's natural and humanenvironments…They contribute to sustainableeconomic activity and benefit local and widercommunities.

All those who work for or govern museums shouldensure that they:

• Value and protect natural…environments.Prevent abuse of places of scientific…importance.Uphold appropriate national and internationalconventions and treaties on protection ofnatural…environments, whether or not they havebeen ratified in the UK." (MA 2002, Section 8).

These principles are further embedded in theprofessional standards expected of UK museumsthrough the national Registration scheme. This schemedefines the minimum standards with which a museummust comply in order to qualify for inclusion on thenational Register of approved museums. The schemeand criteria were drawn up and previouslyadministered by the UK Government's advisory bodyon museums, the Museums and Galleries Commission(MGC), which was abolished in April 2000, when itssuccessor, ‘Resource’ (the Council for Museums,Archives and Libraries), came into being. Resourcenow administers the national Registration scheme.All reputable museums in the public domain in theUK are on the Register, a precondition for receipt ofgovernment and other major grants, including fundingfrom the National Lottery. Amongst the conditionsfor gaining full registered status is the requirementthat the museum must have a formally approvedAcquisition and Disposal Policy, which must includethe following provisions verbatim:

"a) The museum will not acquire, whether bypurchase, gift, bequest or exchange, any object orspecimen unless the governing body or responsibleofficer is satisfied that the museum can acquirevalid title to the item in question, and that inparticular it has not been acquired in, or exportedfrom, its country of origin (or any intermediatecountry in which it may have been legally owned)in violation of that country's laws.

"b) So far as biological and geological material isconcerned, the museum will not acquire by director indirect means any specimen that has beencollected, sold or otherwise transferred incontravention of any national or internationalwildlife protection or natural history conservation

law, or treaty of the United Kingdom or any othercountry, except with the express consent of anappropriate outside authority." (MGC 1995, p.13,Manchester Museum 1997, pp. 12 and 14).

In summary, the conduct of museums in the UK issubject not only to the laws that prevail in England,Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. They are alsobound by the administrative conditions of theregulatory systems under which they operate, andthey elect to abide by the standards of professionalethics which have been developed by the museumsprofession over the last 25 years. Under thesecircumstances, there is no point in importing a fossilinto the UK if it has been stolen and/or illegallyexported from its country of origin, since its scientificvalue cannot be realised if no reputable museum willaccept a specimen that is contaminated ethically andlegally through its means of appropriation.Palaeontologists who are aware of such issues areentitled to seek to change the law and to campaign tochange the ethical and other administrative protocolsby which UK museums operate, wrong though Ibelieve they would be to attempt to do so. In themeantime, however, they have no right to breach thelaw or flout such regulatory standards.

Some concluding thoughts

There can be no doubt about the ethical position ofthe governing bodies and professional staff in UKpublic museums when faced with the illicit trade infossils. They want no part in it. Legally they maysoon not have much choice, though the position ofpalaeontology in the proposed new legislation isadmittedly ambiguous. Long experience ofprofessional ethics in practice as well as in theory,teaches that there are often difficult judgements to bemade when making ethical choices. To help us makeinformed decisions, we need a clearly articulated setof over-arching principles to navigate by. That iswhat the national and supra-national codes andconventions provide. If their interpretation andapplication to some areas of current scientific practicerequires clearer definition and discussion, then thisdebate is timely and welcome. Differences ofperspective and opinion on standards of openness,honesty and integrity are issues that must be addressedby palaeontologists in partnership with the museumscommunity.

As this paper tries to demonstrate, there is no moralor scientific justification for a scientist or curator toride roughshod over the national laws of individualstates. However, there is the argument of 'last resort',which is explored by Brodie et al. 2000. Forarchaeology, the 'Rosetta Stone Dilemma', poses the

-208-

question of the choice faced by a curator who isoffered (by a shady dealer) a tablet with no provenance,on which is inscribed two texts, one in a knownlanguage, the other in a language that has alwaysbaffled scholars. It is the unique key to understandingan ancient civilisation. Does he refuse to have anythingto do with it and thereby pass up the scholarlyopportunity of a lifetime, or does he suspend ethicalprinciple and give in to his scholarly instincts? StealingHistory warns us to be cautious about the RosettaStone argument: "The number of Rosetta Stones canbe counted on one finger, and the number of equivalentitems on the fingers of one hand." (Brodie et al. 2000,pp. 46 - 47.) Manus Brinkman, the Secretary Generalof ICOM, is even more scathing and condemns thenotion of a 'museum of last resort.' Can it really beargued that every fossil with a hitherto undescribedcharacteristic is the palaeontological equivalent ofthe Rosetta Stone?

It seems to me that one of the most useful and lastingbenefits that could flow from this debate is for researchpalaeontologists and museum curators to worktogether with representatives of the prime sciencejournals to develop 'Guidelines for Due Diligence inPalaeontology'. This must be done in consultationwith colleagues overseas. These Guidelines wouldarticulate the issues and standards expected in theconduct of field work, the acquisition of fossils fromall sources including the trade, loans of fossils betweenresearch institutions, their research, publication andlong-term disposition. The purpose of the guidelineswould be to balance the interests of scienceinternationally with the interests of individual nationstates as enshrined in international treaty, and toharmonise the practices of palaeontologists workingboth within and outwith the museum sector.

To those who say, but we already have publishedrules and agreed standards, both in museums and inthe science journals, I would suggest the fact that weneed this debate is symptomatic of a discipline that isfar from united on the issues. Practices differ aswidely as the values of its practitioners. What wemust agree, therefore, is an ethical foundation onwhich to build the quality of science that will standthe test of time.

Acknowledgements

The author is indebted to a number of colleagues whosupplied information and advice, which provedinvaluable in the preparation of this paper: Dr AngelaMilner, Keeper of Vertebrate Palaeontology at theNatural History Museum in London; Dr MichaelTaylor, Curator of Vertebrate Fossils, NationalMuseums of Scotland in Edinburgh; Dr Philip

Manning, Keeper of Geology at the YorkshireMuseum in York; Dr Alexander Kellner, AdjunctProfessor, Palaeovertebrate Sector of the Departmentof Geology and Palaeontology, Museo Nacional,Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil; DrIsmar de Souza Carvalho, President, SociedadeBrasiliera de Palaeontologia. To all these I record mythanks.

References

AAM 1978. Museum Ethics. American Association ofMuseums, Washington, USA, 31 pp.

AAM 1991. Code of Ethics for Museums. AmericanAssociation of Museums, Washington, USA, 16 pp.

BRODIE, N., DOOLE, J. and WATSON, P. 2000.Stealing History: the Illicit Trade in CulturalMaterial. MacDonald Institute for ArchaeologicalResearch, Cambridge, UK, 60 pp.

BRUNTON, C.H.C., BESTERMAN, T. and COOPER,J. 1985. Guidelines for the Curation of GeologicalMaterials. Geological Society of LondonMiscellaneous Paper 17, 210 pp.

DOOLE, J. (ed.) 2000. Looting in China. Culturewithout Context: the Newsletter of the IllicitAntiquities Research Centre, Issue 6, 23 pp.

DCMS 2001. Government signs up to UNESCOconvention – Howarth: ‘Important step to tackleUK’s Illicit Art and Antiquities trade’. Departmentof Culture Media and Sport News Release, London,14 March 2001, 5 pp.

ICOM 1986. Code of Professional Ethics.International Council of Museums, Paris, 18 pp.

JOURNAL OF VERTEBRATE PALAEONTOLOGY1996. Editorial Policy and Procedures. 2 pp. http://www.vertpalaeo.org/jvp/policy_and_procedures.html.

KELLEY, D.R. and SMITH, B.G. 1994 (eds). What isProperty? After Proudhon, P-J. 1840. Quest'ce quela Propriété? Cambridge University Press, 225 pp.

MA 1996. Acquisition: Guidance on the Ethics andPracticalities of Acquisition. Ethical GuidelinesNumber 1. The Museums Association, London, 4 pp.

MA 1999. Codes of Ethics (second edition). TheMuseums Association, London, 20 pp.

MA 2000. Buying in the market: a checklist formuseums. The Museums Association, London, 1 p.

MA in press. Code of Museum Ethics. The MuseumsAssociation, London, 21 pp.

MANCHESTER MUSEUM 1997. Acquisition andDisposal Policy. University of Manchester,Manchester, 23 pp.

MARTIN, J. 1999. 'All legal and ethical? Museums andthe international market in fossils'. In Knell, S.J.

-209-

(ed.) Museums and the Future of Collecting, 112-119. Ashgate Publishing, Aldershot, Hampshire,UK and Brookfield, Vermont, USA.

MGC 1995. Registration Scheme for Museums andGalleries in the United Kingdom: RegistrationGuidelines. Museums and Galleries Commission,London, 23 pp.

MILNER, A. 1997. Specimens in private collections -editorial responsibilities. Palaeontology AssociationNewsletter 33, 15.

OWEN, R. 1840. A description of a specimen of thePlesiosaurus macrocephalus, Conybeare in thecollection of Viscount Cole. Transactions of theGeological Society London (2nd series) 5, 515-35.

PADIAN, K. 2000. Feathers, Fakes and Fossil Dealers:how the Commercial Sale of Fossils Erodes Scienceand Education. 10 pp. Coquina Press http://palaeo-electronic.org.

PALMER, N. 2000. Report of Ministerial AdvisoryPanel on Illicit Trade. Department of Culture Mediaand Sport, London, 72 pp.

SHELTON, S.Y. 1997. The effect of high market priceson the value and valuation of vertebrate fossil sitesand specimens. In Nudds, J.R. and Pettitt, C.W.(eds). The Value and Valuation of Natural ScienceCollections. The Geological Society, London.

TAYLOR, M.A. 1999. 'What is a 'national' museum?The challenges of collecting policies at the NationalMuseums of Scotland'. In Knell, S.J. (ed.). Museums

and the Future of Collecting, 120-131. AshgatePublishing, Aldershot, Hampshire, UK andBrookfield, Vermont, USA.

TAYLOR, M.A. and CROWTHER, P.R. 1997.Specimens in private collections – editorialresponsibilities (2) Palaeontology AssociationNewsletter 33, 19-21.

TAYLOR, M.A. and HARTE, J.D.C. 1988.Palaeontological Site Conservation and the law inBritain. Special Papers in Palaeontology 40, 21-39.

TORRENS, H.S. 1995. Mary Anning (1799-1847) ofLyme; 'the greatest fossilist the world ever knew'.British Journal of the History of Science 28, 267-268.

UNESCO 1970. Convention on the Means ofProhibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Exportand Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property.United Nations Educational, Scientific and CulturalOrganisation, Paris 1970.

-210-

-211-

THE TRADE IN BRAZILIAN FOSSILS:ONE PALAEONTOLOGIST’S PERSPECTIVE

by David Martill

An almost unbelievable tale

In 1990, Dr (but then plain old Mr) Phil Wilby and Iwere working in Brazil on the soft-tissue bearingfossil fishes of the famous Santana Formation in theChapada do Araripe, north eastern Brazil. Dr PauloBrito of Rio de Janeiro had specifically asked us tolook out for ‘baby’ fishes. These were of interest tohim for his ontogenetic studies on the aspidorhynchidfish Vinctifer. Phil and I quickly discovered thatsmall, or juvenile fishes were rather rare in the Santananodules, and that there appeared to be a lower limit tothe size of fish that could initiate concretiondevelopment. Thus we only found baby fishes whenthey occurred in mass mortality assemblages ofhundreds, or even thousands of individuals, or wherea small fish lay next to larger fish that did initiateconcretion formation. We collected several excitingconcretions in which a large fish had two or threesmaller ones by its side, though sadly we found noyoung specimens of Vinctifer smaller than 200 mm.

Back then Wilby and I were based at the OpenUniversity and we prepared our samples for shipmentto the Milton Keynes campus. The most scientificallyimportant specimens were carried in our rucksacksand we prayed that the airlines would not be too hardon us. TAP and VARIG were great and only BritishAirways ever charged for excess baggage (just one ofthe reasons why I try to avoid travelling with theworld’s most pompous airline). Where we had bothhalves of a concretion we carried one half and shippedthe other.

Shipped specimens had to pass through customs inRio. Our authorisation documents issued by theDNPM in Fortaleza were in order, and the boxes wereleft for shipment. One box arrived without problem,but the other failed to arrive. When Brazilian customsofficers are in doubt about fossils the specimens aresent to the DNPM palaeontological office, which justhappens to be based in Rio, rather than Brasilia.Apparently there were some problems with one ofour boxes and it was despatched to the DNPM’spalaeontological office for inspection. We never sawthat box again.

Time moves on

In 1994 I took up a position at the University ofPortsmouth continuing my researches on Brazilianfossils. Portsmouth had a small collection of Brazilianfishes in a display cabinet, while lecturer MikeChaplain had a rather nice specimen on his desk as aconversational piece. It was particularly noteworthyas it contained a fine fish with three small fishes in adistinctively shaped concretion. Mike explained thata student who had bought the fossil at a market whileholidaying in Rio had given it to him. I explained toMike the importance of ‘baby’ fishes and he loanedme the specimen for a period.

Serendipity rules OK

Sometime later Dr Wilby visited Portsmouth to presenthis findings on Solnhofen fossils at a Palaeontological

Martill, D. 2001. The trade in Brazilian fossils: one palaeontologist's perspective. TheGeological Curator 7(6): 211-218.

The Santana and Crato formations of the Araripe Basin are a prolific source ofexceptionally well preserved mid Cretaceous fossils. Fossils are collected from the CratoFormation as a byproduct of quarrying activity, but those from the Santana Formation aremined commerically. The commerical trade in Brazilian fossils is illegal, but the tradeflourishes. Despite occasional attempts to stamp out the trade, widespread corruptionallows its continuity. A legitimate case can be made for the legalisation of the fossil tradethat would be of benefit to the international scientific community and to the localcommuinties where the fossils are found.

David Martill, Department of Geology, University of Portsmouth, Burnaby Building,Burnaby Road, Portsmouth, PO1 3QL, U.K. Received 5th October 2001.

-212-

Association research seminar on fossil Lagerstätten.On entering my office he noted the concretion withthe baby fishes and simply commented, "Oh, so thesecond box finally arrived". I explained that thisspecimen was nothing to do with the missing box, andthat the specimen was not mine, but a gift from astudent. But Wilby was adamant, and indeed, theconcretion is the counterpart to the specimen hebrought back to the UK and used in his Ph.D. thesis.So how did the specimen get from our box to a marketstall in Rio?

This is just one of many enigmas, and curious littlecameos to unfurl during my years of work in Brazil.Trivial though it is, it serves to demonstrate thatcorruption operates at all levels and not just at thepresidential levels that Latin American countrieshave become synonymous with. Such petty corruption,remarkably, and certainly without design, hasunintentionally resulted in one of the most importantadvances in our knowledge of Cretaceous vertebratepalaeontology and palaeoentomology sincepalaeontology began. The fossil flora and fauna ofthe Chapada do Araripe offers the best opportunity toinvestigate a Mesozoic ecosystem. No other depositoffers the diversity of palaeoflora and fauna andquality of preservation in such abundance. And all ofthis rides on the back of one of the largest and longestsurviving fossil smuggling operations in existence.

More preamble

By now, most palaeontologists should be aware thata thriving, but illegal trade in Brazilian fossils exists,especially those from the now famous Crato andSantana formations of the north eastern states ofCeará, Piaui and Pernambuco (Farrar 1999). Thefossils come mainly from the western end of theChapada do Araripe, and are collected around Jardim,Porteiras, Sao Philipe and Santana do Cariri. Here Ipresent a view; my own, of the commercial trade infossils from the Araripe and Val do Cariri regions.These views have developed over the last fifteenyears during months of fieldwork in the Chapada,where I have worked with Brazilian scientists andgovernment officers. I have met illegal fossil diggers,visited safe houses where the fossils are stored, talkedwith the middlemen, and looked down the barrels oftheir guns. I have incurred the wrath of some whohave tried to link me with the fossil trade. I have metwith British and German dealers to see the scale ofthe operation at the European end, and I have metwith European museum curators who have boughtBrazilian fossils in the full knowledge that they wereillegally exported. I have also visited the area withinvestigative journalists from national newspapers. I

was told many intriguing stories of high-levelcorruption and the connivance of academics, butunfortunately few people were willing to stand upand be counted. To protect the anonymity of thediggers, dealers, smugglers and those selling fossilson the international market I have avoided usingnames wherever possible. Some examples arerelocated for similar reasons.

My views on the trade are often discordant with thoseof other palaeontologists, and attempts have beenmade to link my name in the Brazilian press withEuropean fossil dealers for which arrest warrantshave been issued in Brazil. To those people I take thisopportunity to raise two fingers in the time-honouredsalute attributable to historic archers opposing theFrench, rather than that attributed to Sir WinstonChurchill.

The region, its geology and its fossils

The Chapada do Araripe is an elevated plateau of redsandstones and conglomerates underlain by a variedsequence of clays, sands, limestones and evaporitesof Mesozoic age (Martill 1993). The plateau isapproximately 150 km east to west and about 50 kmnorth to south and extends across the southern borderof Ceará and Pernambuco, and also encroaches on asparsely populated part of Piaui. The region thuscomes under the jurisdiction of three state authorities.However, for the purposes of geological research andexploitation, it comes under the auspices of oneorganisation, the Departmento Nacional Produçao deMineral (DNPM). The main office for the north eastof Brazil is located in Fortaleza, but a small officeand museum is situated in Crato, at the foot of theChapada and close to the action. The staff here areresponsible for monitoring mining and other resource-related activities in the region, including theexploitation of the fossil beds of the Santana andCrato formations, and they have the full authority ofBrazilian law, being able to make arrests. Theseagents may carry arms. On a tour of the region withone DNPM officer we entered property armed merelywith a Government ID badge. But when visiting thefossil digging regions the agent accompanying mealways wore his revolver.

Two geological formations in the Chapada are highlyfossiliferous and represent fossil conservationLagerstätten. Indeed, fossils are so abundant in thenodules of the Santana Formation, that this depositalso constitutes a concentration Lagerstätten (Martill1999). The fossil assemblages are diverse and includevertebrates and invertebrates in an excellent state ofpreservation, usually fully articulated, threedimensional, and often with soft tissue preservation

-213-

and stomach contents (Maisey 1990, Martill 1988,1991).

The Santana Formation is particularly well-knownfor its diverse fish fauna (some 23 species) (Brito etal. 1998, Brito and Martill 1999), but it also yieldspterosaurs (circa 10 species in seven genera -Tapejara , Tupuxuara , Cearadactylus ,Brasileodactylus, Tropeognathus, Coloborhynchus,Santanadactylus) (Kellner and Tomida 2000), turtles(2-3 genera), crocodiles (2 genera) and dinosaurs(Irritator, Santanaraptor and at least two unnamedtaxa) (Frey and Martill 1995, Martill et al. 1996,Kellner 1999). All occur in early diagenetic carbonateconcretions in the Romualdo Member (Martill 1988),a deposit that crops out discontinuously around theChapada for approximately 300 km.

The slightly older Crato Formation yields an equallyabundant and diverse fauna in the Nova OlindaMember limestones that are exploited commerciallyfor building and ornamental stone between the smalltowns of Santana do Cariri and Nova Olinda, and forcement manufacture at Barbalha (Martill and Frey1998). The fossil assemblage here includes a diverseflora, often of complete plants (including roots, stems,leaves, fruiting bodies), an insect fauna (Grimaldi1990), other terrestrial arthropods (Wilson and Martill2001), fishes (Davis and Martill 1999), pterosaurs(Frey and Martill 1994, Martill and Frey 1998, 2000),lizards, turtles and amphibians. Isolated feathers alsooccur (Martill and Filgueira 1994). Although slightlyflattened, the Crato Formation fossils are neverthelessexceptionally well preserved and may even showevidence of soft tissue preservation. Pterosaursprovide among the most spectacular examples ofthis: remarkable fossils of tapejarids preserving theirsoft tissue head crests have been found (Martill andFrey 1998, Campos and Kellner 1997). A fossil bird,preserved with its feathers intact, is also known(Martill pers. obs.) but is presently of unknownwhereabouts. It is thought to be in a private Japanesecollection, after several European museums felt unableto buy it.

Fossils from the Santana Formation nodule beds(Romualdo Member) can easily be found in fieldbrash, in stream sections where they may dominatethe boulders of the river bed, and in natural exposureswhere deeply incised valleys penetrate the Chapada.The fossiliferous nodules have been known sincepioneering naturalists visited the region in the early1800s (e.g. Spix and Martius 1828-31), though theywere first considered scientifically by Agassiz (1841)after specimens were shipped back to England byScottish botanist G. Gardner (Gardner 1841). Local

Brazilian farmers now excavate mines on the outcropof the nodule beds to obtain fossils for the commercialmarkets, and in some places these mines may reachdepths of ten metres, and be laterally extensive.Fossils from the Crato Formation limestones on theother hand are obtained mainly as a by-product of theornamental stone industry. Hundreds of small quarrieshave been opened as family businesses to sell stone tolocal cutting yards. These operations are labourintensive, with every slab of rock excavated beingexamined, and thus hundreds of fossils are discoveredeach day. New insect taxa are being discovered sofrequently that palaeoentomologists are struggling tokeep pace with the descriptive effort required to putthem on record.

It is apparently illegal to collect vertebrate fossils inBrazil without permission of the DNPM, and it isillegal to export them without authorisation. The lawis still unclear, but it is most likely that if you havebought a Brazilian fossil from a European or NorthAmerican fossil dealer, it has been obtained illegally.It is not possible at present to obtain a licence for theexport of fossils unless they are for scientific research.

No Brazilian organisation has published an accountof how a licence might be obtained to collect fossilsin Brazil for scientific research, while letters of mineto the DNPM palaeontological office in Rio remainunanswered. It is thus unclear as to which authorityshould be approached to obtain a licence for thecollection and removal of Brazilian fossils. For myown research, which began in the field in 1988, Ivisited the Fortaleza offices of the DNPM and wasgiven authorisation, while the Crato office producedthe necessary documentation. At no time did I everhave to show my authorisation on leaving Brazil,though I was stopped and searched on severaloccasions. The presence of fossils in my baggage didnot appear to be of importance to the customs officers.

Brazilian fossils offered for sale in the shops andfossil trade fairs of Europe, Japan and North Americahave usually been collected by very poor people,usually displaced farm labourers, who dig fossils ordig ornamental stone and accidentally find fossils asa means of supplementing a meagre income. They areoften organised into gangs by middlemen who‘employ’ the diggers and then sell the fossils on toEuropean dealers who visit the region or to Braziliandealers based in Sao Paulo.

Several safe houses exist in the small towns aroundthe Chapada where freshly dug fossils are storedprior to export. These are good places to search forrare or unusual pieces, and a visit to one of thesehouses may save a fossil from possible destruction.

-214-

Those fossils considered to be of little scientificvalue (decisions are made sometimes on the basis ofsize, and many new insects and spiders slip throughthe net) and therefore considered to be of littlemonetary value, are treated badly. In the case offossils from the Crato Formation, these are usually invery bad condition by the time they end up on themarket stalls. From these safe houses the fossils areeither sent to the dealers in Sao Paulo, or sent to oneof the ports for shipment overseas. Many fossils goout packed in liquor boxes, while others go in trucksand are covered with coconuts. It is great fun to travelon the backs of such trucks, and to watch the driverspass bribes of local produce to the police at the stateborder checkpoints.

So why all the effort? At outcrop, a complete, fullyarticulated fish in a nodule can be bought from afossil digger for less than five dollars. A largeCladocyclus (up to 1 m long) can sometimes bebought for as little as $40. From middlemen based inthe towns of Santana do Cariri or Porteiras prices arehigher. Indeed, the asking price may be higher thanthe price on a market stall in Rio de Janeiro, as themiddlemen believe that, being European, you arefilthy rich and can afford inflated prices. Prices of thesame fossils in the European fossil shops varyconsiderably. By way of some examples, I have beenoffered coelacanths for as little as $5 from the fossildiggers, but seen them on sale for $3,000-4,000 inEurope. I was offered a pterosaur lower jaw for $20,though all the teeth had been prepared off, and apartial pterosaur wing for $100. A nodule with somebones was offered to me for $100. The bonesrepresented a new species of dinosaur. I was offereda turtle for $1,000 by one of the local middlemen, andsaw the very same specimen, after preparation, in aGerman fossil shop for $10,000 (enhanced value inpreparation). Complete pterosaurs sell for much more.Some are selling for $100,000 or more.

Many of the fossils that are collected for commercialpurposes are of common species and are of littlescientific value on their own. Indeed, fossils are soabundant that the common species such as the fishesDastilbe, Tharrhias and Rhacolepis could be viewedas a commercial resource to be used for earningforeign currency, or for educational supply (Dastilbeis so common that every school on Earth could haveone - perhaps two or three).

Active collecting of the common fossils reveals therarer as well as the scientifically more interestingspecimens (I do not equate rarity with scientificimportance). In the past rare species were thrown inwith the common species, and astute palaeontologistscould often obtain exciting new specimens simply by

looking at the fossil stalls of the Ipanema Thursdayhippie market in Rio de Janeiro. What a great way todo field work. Presumably some specimens wouldhave become less exciting as the effects of a spliffwore off!

This was in the 1970s and early 1980s and predatedthe big renaissance in palaeontology. The market ismore sophisticated now, and rare and exceptionallyhigh quality specimens are extracted by the middlemenof the Chapada who are well able to recogniseimportant material.

Ethics

Should palaeontologists be buying such fossils? Dopalaeontologists have an ethical question to answer?The digging of fossils by the inhabitants of the Val doCariri represents an opportunity to earn a living. Thefossil diggers work hard under hot and sometimesdangerous conditions. They might be being exploitedby the middlemen, but the alternative is no work, nomoney and therefore real deprivation. The middlemenof Santana do Cariri do not appear to be getting fat. Ihave been visiting the area for nearly 15 years and allof the middlemen I have come into contact with stillseem as poor as they ever were. Most are taxi driversas well as fossil dealers, and their taxis are notupmarket BMWs. But the dealers in Sao Paulo aregetting rich, and so are the European, Japanese andAmerican dealers. Fossils are getting out of Brazil bythe truckload, presumably because of corruption.There are some fifteen small towns and villageswhere fossil digging is undertaken. Some gangs ofdiggers move from one location to another, and if thepolice in one state begin a crack down, the diggerssimply cross the border.

A dealer confided in me that her fossils are shippedout of a port in the north, whereas another had hisfossil fishes smuggled into the UK in barrels ofamethyst. Clearly Brazil leaks like a sieve. No doubtthe customs officials in Brazil are overworked as theyare anywhere else in the world, and quite probablythey wonder what all the fuss is about. After all, it’sjust a bunch of dead fish. The DNPM office at Cratohas a room stacked to the ceiling with fossil fishsequestered by federal agents from dealers and marketstalls in Fortaleza. There is no room for any moreconfiscated fossils, and no one has done anythingwith those that have been sequestered anyway.

Should museums buy these fossils?

Yes, of course. The trade in tourist fodder fossils hasbeen going on for decades, and long before scientistsgot on the Brazilian bonanza bandwagon. The

-215-

osteological studies of Patterson (1977) and Forey(1977), and the early studies of Martill (1988) were inpart dependent on fossils bought by tourists anddonated to museums. (The first specimens I workedon were traded by swapping belemnites from theOxford Clay; fifty belemnites = one fish.) Ifpalaeontologists do not buy the scientificallyimportant fossils then one of two things happens. Thefossil may end up in the collection of a member of thegeneral public who doesn’t recognise the scientificworth of a specimen and puts it on his TV as anornament. Then when he dies it gets thrown into theskip along with the rest of the material that he collectedover his life. The second thing that might happen isthat an arch rival may buy the specimen, and beat youto palaeontological fame and glory. But ifpalaeontological fame and glory is your motive, thenmake sure not to follow in the footsteps of StephanCzerkas who landed severe egg on his face when hepurchased an allegedly illegally exported compositedinosaur from China (Simons 2000).

If we refuse to buy specimens simply because theyhave been collected illegally, or exported illegally,then the trade will either dry up completely as theprofit margins narrow, or the price will go up as suchfossils become rarer. Of course, you may find thatyour government has signed up to one of the treatiesthat make the purchase of such exports illegal at thepoint of sale. Then the decision has been made foryou. You cannot buy the fossil without bringing yourinstitution into disrepute. You must kiss it goodbyeand see a scientifically important piece disappear,perhaps forever.

At its simplest, if the tourist market for Brazilianfossils disappears then the exciting discoveries willnot be made. There will be no fossils for anypalaeontologists, Brazilian or European.

Every new Santana pterosaur or dinosaur discoveredin Brazil has been an accidental consequence of apoor Brazilian farmer trying to earn some extra cashby selling a fossil fish or digging stone. Science wasjust plain lucky that the farmer dug out a nodule witha pterosaur rather than a fish, or that the fossil wassaved from the saw of the stone yard.

What about contextual information?

Locality or horizon data is rarely recorded with thespecimens when collected by the Braziliancommercial fossil diggers. Even when advertised ascoming from Santana do Cariri, a fossil can be fromas far afield as Araripina, a distance of nearly 100 km.Although something of an imprecise black art, it ispossible to ‘guess’ the locality of a concretion by

certain aspects of its texture, colour and by thepreservational style of enclosed fossils. But iscontextual information so important? For thosespecimens used for anatomical and biomechanicalstudies (the Santana Formation nodule pterosaurs are3D and when extracted from the concretion, can bereconstructed as complete skeletons) it is of littleimportance to know that the specimen came fromSantana do Cariri, Jardim or Araripina. For systematicstudies, cladistic analysis does not require the inputof stratigraphic or locality data to resolve questionsof relationship. Of course, contextual information isof importance when trying to reconstruct ancientecosystems and variations in faunal diversity bothtemporally and spatially. But in such studies by farthe most important signals come from the commontaxa which field palaeontologists can go and collectthemselves. Rare or unique specimens add little tosuch studies.

A main concern is that the fossil diggers simplycollect concretions. Those parts of the fossil thatextend beyond the margins of the concretion gouncollected. Indeed, they are destroyed duringcollection. Although such bones would be crushedflat, they are nevertheless important. The fossil diggerscertainly do not collect in a scientific manner. Butthis problem could be addressed. Another importantconcern is that of preparation. Once a concretion hasbeen collected it is carried to a safe house and prepared(I have seen some prepared in the field), usually verycrudely. Some concretions are split perfectly intopart and counterpart, but the fossil preparator willstill add some chisel marks so that it looks as thoughhe has put some work into the job. This nasty habitdoes tend to remove fins from some wonderfulspecimens. At least one European dealer has tried torectify this by buying the nodules before preparation,and has even gone to the expense of training some ofthe farmers as preparators to avoid such ‘vandalism’.This system works to the advantage of the fossildigger, while the dealer runs the risk of buying herfossils blind.

Will an embargo by museums prevent theplunder of the Chapada fossil sites?

Probably not. There is a thriving tourist fodder fossiltrade, and it would be churlish to try to persuade JoePublic of the World not to buy a fossil at a souvenirstall in Rio de Janeiro. Brazilian fossils are even soldin Morocco on roadside stalls in the Atlas Mountains(Martill pers. obs. 2000). If museums in Europe,America and Japan stop buying the spectacularspecimens, then the material will simply go intoprivate collections.

-216-

There are some cases whereby collections of Brazilianfossils in museums have become impressivelysubstantial. The huge collection of Brazilian fossilsin the American Museum of Natural History, NewYork has been dual accessioned with the DNPM inRio. How did the AMNH acquire such a large andspectacular collection? By gift from benefactors whohad been to Brazil? Was the museum to say no to theoffer of such gifts? Hardly.

Brazilian fossils should be studied byBrazilian scientists.

Brazilian fossils should be studied by Brazilianscientists. This is the clarion call of at least somepalaeontologists as reported in recent Braziliannewspaper articles. Such calls could be considered asnothing more than sentimental claptrap, or, moremenacingly, as expressions of xenophobia. Eitherway, it is a call that has no place in modern science,and will, in the long term, alienate Brazilianpalaeontologists. Fossils should be studied by thosemost motivated to study them, and hopefully, by thebest brains available regardless of nationality.Brazilian palaeontologists have been happy to receivefunding through international organisations, andshould be happy to see Brazilian fossils studied bythe international community at large.

One argument used by advocates of Brazilian fossilsfor Brazilian palaeontologists is that the high pricespaid by rich institutions in North America, Europeand Japan prevents Brazilian scientists from workingon Brazilian fossils, and prevents Brazilian institutionsfrom obtaining them for their own collections. Yep,I guess that’s right. I can’t argue with that. Life canbe such a shit can’t it. But hang on. IS this the reality?I see Brazilian scientists travelling all over the worldworking on fossils from Brazil and other countries.After all, Brazil is not a third world country; it’s afirst world country for a significant elite and growingmiddle class. It’s just the poor sods at the bottom whomiss out, but then they do in the USA and the UK aswell.

Brazilian scientists regularly visit Paris and the NHMwhile palaeontologists from the Natural HistoryMuseum of Rio de Janeiro were in Toulouse at thePterosaur Symposium in 2001 and went on to visitGermany to view the Karlsruhe collection. Brazilianpalaeontologists also visit Japan and certainly workon fossils from other countries. Palaeontologists fromthe DNPM visit New York while postdoctoralpalaeontologists are researching at Bristol Universityand I have a Brazilian Ph.D. student studying here inPortsmouth. (He currently has loans of specimens

from the UK, USA, Sweden and Germany.) MethinksBrazilian palaeontologists are as international as areNorth American and European palaeontologists. So,does the illegal export of fossils from Brazil preventBrazilian institutions from obtaining excellent qualityspecimens? Well, of course it must, for those fossilsthat get out. But recently the DNPM has acquiredsome very nice specimens. The skull of the pterosaurTapejara with soft tissue head crest (Campos andKellner 1997) and the theropod dinosaursSantanaraptor and Angaturama (Kellner 1999), forexample, are all new acquisitions. I doubt that any ofthese was actually discovered and collected by apalaeontologist. Every time the federal authoritiesintercept an illegal tranche of fossils they must surelyput the good ones in the national collections. Unlessof course, such fossils find their way back on to theinternational market (see above). This might not bethe ideal way to obtain material, but it must be thecheapest. It certainly would be more expensive tostage a palaeontological excavation and run the riskof not finding anything. Let the illegal guys dig thefossils, then confiscate a few for your own museums.

Some of my reasoning may seem fatuous, oversimplistic, and verging on the naïve, but I am not thatnaïve. I know that some of the dealers are bad guys.When big money is involved some people get nasty,very nasty. At least one Brazilian palaeontologistthat I know of has received life-threatening calls andPhil Wilby and I have been at the end of their guns.I know that corruption operates at so many levels thatthis trade isn’t going to get stopped. However, thetrade could end up in the control of just one or twomen, and this might not be a good thing. If scientistsrefuse to buy fossils for self-righteous reasons theywill be cutting off their noses to spite their faces.After all, body stealing for budding surgeons andanatomists in the 19th century was a very necessaryroute to the advancement of medical knowledge.Let’s start supporting the commercial dealers. Weshould lobby governments to get the internationaltrade liberalised, legitimised and legalised whereverpossible. Even the Chinese are unable to suppress thetrade, and just look at their penalties. Hanging peoplefor collecting fossils is not the palaeontology I wantto be involved with. Neither is the American way ofpersecuting dinosaur collectors such as Peter Larsonby the FBI.

I make the following observations and pleas forchange.

1. Brazilian fossil diggers are not criminals. Theyare poor people trying to earn a living underdifficult circumstances. Most are very friendly,

-217-

kind hearted souls, and they have always treatedme generously. Buying fossils provides a marketthat keeps these people fed when crops fail.

2. The middlemen are Brazilians, and not big badNorth American, European or Japanese dealers.Most of these guys would prefer that the tradewas legalised so that they could legitimise theirbusinesses. But being on the wrong side of thelaw brings them into contact with other marginals,and exposes them to blackmail and bribery bycorrupt officials.

3. Some fossils in the Chapada do Araripe are socommon that it would be difficult to conceive ofa reason to want to protect them as any sort ofobject of natural/cultural heritage.

4. In Brazil rare and valuable fossils only come outof the ground as a consequence of digging forcommon ‘tourist fodder’ fossils or as aconsequence of stone mining. Licensedcommercial dealers could increase this output.

5. Organised palaeontological excavations wouldnot obtain as many of the rarer fossils as thecommercial collecting does. Organisedpalaeontological excavations, however, are to bewelcomed.

6. The Chapada do Araripe represents such a largeresource of fossiliferous nodule beds andplattenkalk limestones that areas could besanctioned for conservation while other areascould be opened up for commercial exploitation.

7. Museums and other organisations from overseascould be invited to operate scientific excavations.Licences could be offered for sale. This wouldearn the DNPM revenue that could be utilised tosupport studentships and travel for Brazilianpalaeontologists.

8. Licences could be granted to commercial dealers.

9. Commercial dealers could be invited to trainBrazilian fossil diggers as preparators as acondition of their licence. Such activity would bea boost to the economies of several small Braziliantowns currently suffering employment difficulties.Other conditions of licence could be applied,such as the surrender of some types of fossil, or agiven number of fossils per year. Penalties forfailure could be invoked.

10. Museums with important collections of Brazilianfossils might like to adopt a dual accessioningsystem that allows Brazilian palaeontologists totap into a resource that has ‘leaked’ from theircountry.

11. A successful ban on commercial fossil collectingin the Chapada do Araripe will result in no fossilsof any importance reaching the scientificcommunity, Brazilian or otherwise, unless theBrazilian Government is prepared to putsignificant funding into palaeontological researchexcavations (it surely can think of better things tospend its money on). In a global climate ofprivatisation Brazil should look to commercialfossil dealers to develop the Chapada do Araripefossil grounds for both scientific and commercialgain. It does not make economic sense forgovernment money to be spent on halting thetrade in fossils to then have to spend more moneyfunding palaeontologists to excavate the fossilsthat would have come out of the ground for free.

12. A commercial system could be self-policing.Licence holders would be quick to suppress anynon-licensed fossil collecting activity.

13. At least one stone operator in Nova Olindadestroys all the fossils that his men encounter toavoid the possibility of any trouble with theauthorities. So, that’s what happens when youlegislate to protect fossils. C’est la vie.

Acknowledgements

Since my first visit to the Chapada do Araripe in 1988I have been greeted with kindness from most of thepeople I have met there. Even those that held me togunpoint were friendly when they realised I was notthere to arrest them. When I have walked across milesof drought stricken caatinga and agreste I have hadmy rucksack filled with fresh avocados and mangoes,and have been offered water (often of a muddy browncolour). Some of the people who have brought fossilsto me have been to prison for practising their trade. Atleast one palaeontologist has died as a result of akiller bee attack and many have acquired strange andcolourful diseases. I have been lucky so far, havingescaped with little more than giardia and milddysentry. During my down days the people of NovaOlinda have fed me and taken care of me. In Crato theofficers of the DNPM have allowed me office spaceand arranged transport and permission to visitimportant localities. Staff at the Regional Universityof the Val do Cariri (URCA) have helped me to obtainmaps and send emails. Many of the middlemen whopass fossils to the rich western dealers and the dealersof Sao Paulo, have let me have fossils at remarkablycheap prices, even when rich German dealers havebeen in town. Many of the stone workers have givenme fossils for nothing. To all of these people I saythank you.

-218-

References

AGASSIZ, L. 1841. On the fossil fishes found by MrGardner in the Province of Ceará, in the north ofBrazil. Edinburgh New Philosophical Journal 30,82-84.

BRITO, P.M. and MARTILL, D.M. 1999. Discovery ofa juvenile coelacanth in the Lower Cretaceous, CratoFormation, Northeastern Brazil. Cybium 23, 209-211.

BRITO, P.M., MARTILL, D.M. and WENZ, S. 1998. Asemionotid fish from the Crato Formation (Aptian,Lower Cretaceous) of Brazil: palaeoecologicalimplications. Oryctos 1, 37-42.

CAMPOS, D. and KELLNER, A.W.A. 1997. Short noteon the first occurrence of Tapejaridae in the CratoMember (Aptian), Santana Formation, AraripeBasin, Northeast Brazil. Anais da AcademiaBrasileira de Ciências 69, 83-87.

DAVIS, S. and MARTILL, D.M. 1999. Thegonorhynchiform fish Dastilbe from the LowerCretaceous of Brazil. Palaeontology 42, 715-716.

FARRAR, S. 1999. Cretaceous crimes that fuel thefossil trade. Times Higher, Nov. 5th 1999, 18-19.

FOREY, P.L. 1977. The osteology of NotelopsWoodward, Rhacolepis Agassiz and PachyrhizodusDixon (Pisces: Teleostei). Bulletin of the BritishMuseum (Natural History), Geology Series 28, 123-204.

FREY, E. and MARTILL, D.M. 1994. A new pterosaurfrom the Crato Formation (Lower Cretaceous,Aptian) of Brazil. Neues Jarhbuch für Geologie undPalaeontologie, Abhandlungen 194, 379-412.

FREY, E. and MARTILL, D.M. 1995. A possibleoviraptorosaurid theropod from the SantanaFormation (Lower Cretaceous, ?Albian) of Brazil.Neues Jarhbuch für Geologie und Palaeontologie,Mh. 1995, 397-412.

GRIMALDI, D. 1990. Insects from the SantanaFormation, Lower Cretaceous, of Brazil. Bulletin ofthe American Museum of Natural History 195, 5-191.

KELLNER, A.W.A. 1996. Fossilized theropod softtissue. Nature 379, 32.

KELLNER, A.W.A. 1999. Short note on a new dinosaur(Theropoda, coelurosauria) from the SantanaFormation (Romualdo Member, Albian),northeastern Brazil. Boletim do Museu Nacional,Nova Serie, Rio de Janeiro, Geologia 49, 1-8.

KELLNER, A.W.A. and TOMIDA, Y. 2000.Description of a new species of Anhangueridae(Pterodactyloidea) with comments on the pterosaurfauna from the Santana Formation (Aptian-Albian),northeastern Brazil. Natural Science MuseumMonographs 17, 1-135.

MAISEY, J.G. 1991. Santana Fossils: an illustratedatlas. Tropical Fish Hobbyist Publications Inc.Neptune City.

MARTILL, D.M. 1988. Preservation of fish in theCretaceous of Brazil. Palaeontology 31, 1-18.

MARTILL, D.M. 1989. The Medusa effect:instantaneous fossilization. Geology Today 5, 201-205.

MARTILL, D.M. 1993. Fossils of the Santana andCrato Formations, Brazil. PalaeontologicalAssociation Field Guides to Fossils 5, 1-158.

MARTILL, D.M. 1997. Fish oblique to bedding in earlydiagenetic concretions from the Cretaceous SantanaFormation of Brazil – implications for substrateconsistency. Palaeontology 41, 1011-1026.

MARTILL, D.M., CRUICKSHANK, A.R.I., FREY, E.,SMALL, P.G. and CLARKE, M. 1996. A newcrested maniraptoran dinosaur from the SantanaFormation (Lower Cretaceous) of Brazil. Journal ofthe Geological Society, London 153, 5-8.

MARTILL, D.M. and FILGUEIRA, J.B.M. 1994. Anew feather from the Lower Cretaceous of Brazil.Palaeontology 37, 483-487.

MARTILL, D.M. and FREY, E. 1995. Colourpatterning preserved in Lower Cretaceous birds andinsects: the Crato Formation of N.E. Brazil. NeuesJahrbuch für Geologie und Paläontologie, Mh.1995, 118-128.

MARTILL, D.M. and FREY, E. 1998. A new pterosaurLagerstätte in N.E. Brazil (Crato formation, Aptian,Lower Cretaceous): preliminary observations.Oryctos 1, 79-85.

MARTILL, D.M. and UNWIN, D.M. 1989.Exceptionally well preserved pterosaur wingmembrane from the Cretaceous of Brazil. Nature340, 138-140.

PATTERSON, C. and ROSEN, D.E. 1977. Review ofichthyodectiform and other Mesozoic teleost fishesand the theory and practice of classifying fossils.Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History158, 81-172.

SIMONS, L. M. 2000. Archaeoraptor fossil trail.National Geographic, Oct. 2000, 128-132.

SPIX, J.B. and MARTIUS, C.F.PH. 1828-1831. Reise inBrasilien in den Jahre 1817 bis 1820. Munchen.

WILSON, H. and MARTILL, D.M. 2001. A newjapygid dipluran from the Cretaceous of Brazil.Palaeontology 44, 1025-1032.

-219-

FOSSILS FOR SALE:IS IT GOOD FOR SCIENCE?

by Neal L. Larson

Introduction

People love to collect everything from rocks andflowers to antiques and art. It is the nature of peopleto be amazed by things in the world and to want toown a part of it. For everything that people collectthere is, and always has been, someone selling thosethings to make a living.

Fossils have interested humans since history began.Fossils have been found all over the world, from theBritish Isles to the deserts of Egypt, from themountains of India to the Great Plains of NorthAmerica and everywhere in between. Fossils havebeen collected, traded, sold, and even revered asmagical, medicinal, and spiritual. In some placesthey have even been used in place of money. Fossilsare regarded by some to hold the key to the future, andby others to be merely evidence of the past.

History

One of the earliest, and best-known fossil dealers wasa lady from Lyme Regis named Mary Anning. Marywas the daughter of Richard Anning, a fossil dealerwho sold fossils to visitors to the area. From the late1700s through the early 1800s she and her familymade a living collecting and selling numerous marinefossil finds from the southern coast of England. Herclients were dukes and barons who thought itfashionable to collect fossils. She collected and soldthe first identified skeleton of an ichthyosaur to TheBritish Museum of Natural History for £23. They notonly purchased that specimen, but many other reptileand cephalopod fossils she later collected. Becauseof her discoveries many new specimens wereintroduced to science, and as a result many scientific

papers were written regarding them. It is also saidthat from her remarkable business came the well-known tongue-twister, "She sells sea shells by the seashore". The practice of selling fossils was clearlyacceptable and common knowledge two hundredyears ago.

From the 1870s through the 1890s two well-knownAmerican palaeontologists, Professor Edward DrinkerCope and Dr Othniel Charles Marsh, made fossilcollecting in the American west a serious business.Both men paid collectors to find fossils for them, andeach had large field crews out earnestly collectingand actively competing against each other. Sometimesthings got out of hand, and if they could not collect allof the fossils from a site, they would destroy whatwas left so that the other would not be able to collectthem. The bribery and stealing was so bad that thecollectors felt they had to carry guns to protectthemselves from their competitors. Apparently payingfossil hunters to find and collect fossil specimensworked; the two men found and named more fossilsthan any other palaeontologist before or since.

From 1867 until the 1960s the Sternberg familycollected and sold fossils to museums around theworld for a price. The father, Charles H. Sternberg,collected for Professor Cope in the 1870s and in the1880s for Cope’s adversary, Dr O.C. Marsh. Charlesalso taught John Bell Hatcher, one of the greatAmerican palaeontologists how to collect fossils.Hatcher collected extensively and sold his finds toinstitutions such as Yale Museum, the SmithsonianInstitute and the Carnegie Museum. Charles passedhis passion on to his sons and they joined the familybusiness collecting vertebrate fossils. The family’sexpeditions led them to Kansas, Wyoming, Montana

Larson, N.L. 2001. Fossils for sale: is it good for science? The Geological Curator 7(6):219-222.

Neal L. Larson, Black Hills Institute of Geological Research, Inc., P. O. Box 643, 217Main Street, Hill City, South Dakota 57745, USA. Received 12th September 2001.

-220-

and Canada, where they collected fish, reptiles,mammals and dinosaurs for various museumsthroughout the world. The Edmontosaurus mummiesat the American Museum of Natural History in NewYork, and at Senckenberg Museum in Frankfurt, aresome of the more famous fossil specimens that werecollected and sold by the Sternbergs.

In 1912 the family moved to Canada where theycollected dinosaurs along the Red Deer River for theCanadian National Museum in Ottawa. They workedfor the Geological Survey of Canada, University ofAlberta, University of Toronto, the ProvincialMuseum of Edmonton, and dozens of other institutionsproviding fossils and expertise in preparation. Partsof these collections also later became the nucleus forthe Royal Tyrrell Museum of Palaeontology inDrumheller, Alberta, Canada. By 1916 Charles andhis son, Levi, worked primarily for the British Museumof Natural History, collecting fossils of dinosaursfrom the badlands of Alberta. Son Charles M. decidedto continue working for the Canadian institutions,and his son, George, went out on his own collectingin the American west and in Patagonia for the FieldMuseum. Later in life George went back to Kansaswhere the family had begun and helped establish theSternberg Museum in Fort Hayes, Kansas. Thisparticular family of professional palaeontologistswas responsible for providing thousands of rare,previously unknown, and well-prepared fossils tomost of the museums throughout Europe and NorthAmerica for more than 100 years. Without their driveto find new fossils, their knowledge as geologists,and their abilities as collectors and preparators, thepalaeontological and scientific world may not haveadvanced to the stage that it is today.

The late Jurassic lithographic limestone in southernGermany, north of Munich, has been mined forcenturies for use as building stone, slate, tiles andlithographic plates. The miners noticed that therewere fossils in the rock and sold them separately asfossil specimens. These fossils soon became popularwith some of the locals and as early as 1781 it wasnoted that the prices of these fossils were subject toinflation. Pieces consistently brought ever higherprices as collectors kept adding to their collections.Many of these collections were sold or donated toform the nuclei for many museums throughout Europe.In 1861 the first link between birds and dinosaurs,Archaeopteryx, was found in the lithographiclimestone at Solnhofen. This extremely importantspecimen was sold to the British Museum for anenormous sum of £700. Since that time fossils haveremained popular and the public has been quite awareof them.

Fossils from the Posidon Shale of Holzmaden inGermany, were sold as early as 1668. By the 1890’sBernard Hauff, a miner and collector of these fossils,started marketing completely prepared slabs of theseearly Jurassic marine vertebrate and invertebratefossils to museums and collectors worldwide. Hispreparation laboratory and gallery were stocked withreptiles, pterosaurs, fish, crinoids and ammonites forsale to the public. Most of the more unique fossilsfrom this site were purchased by museums anduniversities for display and research. The fossils thatMr Hauff collected and prepared are still some of themost spectacular specimens from this locality thatare exhibited in museums in the world.

Business, families and individuals are not the onlyones that have sold fossils. Between 1900 and 1906Barnum Brown, a paid collector for the AmericanMuseum of Natural History, collected threeTyrannosaurus rex skeletons for the museum. Twoof the specimens, including the type specimen, weresold by the museum. The type specimen now residesat the Carnegie Museum of Natural in Pittsburgh, PA,and the other skeleton is at the Natural HistoryMuseum in London. The third, and most completeskeleton of T. rex was retained and is on display at theAmerican Museum of Natural History in New York.

At the South Dakota School of Mines’ Museum ofGeology in Rapid City, South Dakota, Dr C.C. O’Haraand Dr James D. Bump built one of the finestpalaeontological museums in the upper Midwest.They collected so much material that they needed away to dispose of some of it. They opened a rockshop in Scenic and a gift shop at the Museum ofGeology, where they sold many of the abundant,common vertebrate and invertebrate fossils whichthey collected. In this manner they were able to helpfinance their digs and expeditions so they couldcollect more specimens for research and display inthe museum. This method enabled them to collectmore material and find homes for it so it would notweather away or take up important museum storagespace.

Ongoing

In a manner reminiscent of the early palaeontologists,today’s professional palaeontologists, otherwiseknown as commercial or private collectors, are skilledin fossil collecting and preparation. They have creatednew methods to make fossil preparation faster, betterand safer for the fossils. They have assistedmanufacturers with the designing of new products forcleaning, gluing and preserving of fossils. Althoughmany of these professional palaeontologists do not

-221-

have degrees, their love and dedication for thediscovery of fossils is real. Because of the time spentin the field and laboratory, the knowledge and skill ofthese collectors may be more advanced than that oftheir academic counterparts. They also seem to havethe drive and the determination of the old-timepalaeontologists, like the Sternbergs and the Hauffs.These private palaeontologists work long and hard inthe field and in the preparatory laboratory to providemagnificent prepared and unprepared fossilsspecimens for museums, universities and privatecollectors the world over. And, they do it at a fractionof the cost that a museum could do it for. They alsomake tens of thousands of specimens available forscientists to examine for research each year thatwould otherwise not be seen. Most of these researchspecimens are donated by the "commercial"palaeontologists to scientific institutions.

Allen Graffham of Geological Research in Ardmore,Oklahoma, has been providing fossil specimens forsale since 1956. His company has been one of themajor suppliers of educational and museumspecimens. He has donated thousands of specimensfor scientific research and has been responsible forfinding more than 100 new species of fossils. He alsohas a family and genus of crinoids and more than 20other species of fossils named after him. AllenGraffham helped pioneer the mechanized preparationof crinoids and trilobites with some of the firstcommercial uses of the air brade (air abrasive) unitsand the use of an electric engraving tool.

Black Hills Institute of Geological Research has beenproviding quality prepared fossil specimens since1974. We employ some of the finest preparators inthe world. Preparators at the Institute have refinedthe art of fossil preparation through the use ofpneumatic tools. We have also trained dozens ofother fossil preparators who now work in the US,Canada, Europe and Asia. Our techniques were evenadopted by the Field Museum for the preparation of"Sue", the T. rex. Specimens prepared by our staff areon display and used in research in most major museumsthroughout the world. Black Hills Institute continuesto be innovative in the mounting, preparation,moulding, casting and collecting of fossils. Our staffare also responsible for the discovery of many newspecies, genera, and families of fossils, as well as thepublication of scientific papers and books onpalaeontology.

The sale of fossils to museums is common. Mostmajor palaeontological museums acquire many oftheir specimens from the professional commercialpalaeontologists. Some examples of sales to museums

are as follows. The Royal Tyrrell Museum ofPalaeontology, Drumheller, Alberta, contracted withBlack Hills Institute and others to provide most of therest of the specimens for exhibition. The new NorthAmerican Museum of Ancient Life, Lehi, Utah,obtained literally all of their exhibits from commercialentities like Western Paleo Laboratories, Black HillsInstitute, Triebold Paleontology, Chase Studios andothers. The Saurier Museum, Aathal, Switzerland,was created entirely by Siber & Siber, a for-profitmineral and fossil company. The North CarolinaState Museum of Natural History, Raleigh, NorthCarolina, purchased their centrepiece, anAcrocanthosaurus atokensis skeleton, from BlackHills Institute and Geological Enterprises. The FieldMuseum, Chicago, Illinois, acquired their starattraction, "Sue" the T. rex, from Sotherby’s, anauction house in new York. The National ScienceMuseum in Tokyo, Japan, built a major new fossilexhibition in which all their specimens were purchasedfrom businesses like Canada Fossils, Black HillsInstitute, Leonhart and Partner, and TrieboldPaleontology. The Children’s Museum, Indianapolis,Indiana, is contracting to acquire completely prepareddinosaur specimens from Cliff and Sandy Linster,Black Hills Institute, Canada Fossils and others.Finally Manchester University Museum in the UK,purchased their gallery centre-piece, Tenontosaurustilletti from PaleoSearch of Kansas.

These museums, and many more, acquire fossils fordisplay and research from the many differentprofessional palaeontologists. Often the specimensbecome the focal point and the major attractions ofthose museums. A case in point is the recent discoveryfrom Liaoning, China. This fossil find includesdinosaurs, birds, insects and fish, most with soft partspreserved. This site includes the finest preserveddinosaurs with "feathers" and internal organs. Thesediscoveries were fuelled by the capitalistic drive tomake money. It was the farmers, trying to make a fewextra dollars, who made these discoveries. As aresult the new finds have changed everyone’s ideasabout the origins of birds. And we have learned atremendous amount about one particular part of theCretaceous.

The business of selling fossils is not limited todinosaurs. The state of Wyoming has sold fossilleases in the rich Green River Formation ofsouthwestern Wyoming for many years. From thissite are the extremely abundant fossil fishes of themiddle Eocene. The fauna not only has fossil fishes,but also abundant plants, mammals, reptiles andbirds. This site is one of the richest fossil lakedeposits in the world. The state retains possession of

-222-

the rare vertebrate fossils, but allows the lease-holderto sell the common fish fossils. In this mannerthousands of rare fossils have been found andpreserved for research and display.

Likewise, in Brazil, the discovery of pterosaurs andinsects from the commercial fossil fish localities hasgiven scientists a new look at these winged wonders.These specimens would probably have never beendiscovered if not for the entrepreneur trying to makea better living for his family. A majority of these rareimportant palaeontological finds are made by thefarmers and villages who are trying to find specimensto sell in the market place to tourists, geologists andpalaeontologists.

In Madagascar, Indonesia, Russia, Kazakhstan,Pakistan and elsewhere, new fossil discoveries arebeing made not by the academics, but by peopletrying to make a living. As a result, thousands of newdiscoveries are being made and palaeontologists areseeing more incredible fossils than ever before. Mostof these fossils would probably lie undiscoveredwithout the efforts of private enterprise. There arefewer than 1,500 academic palaeontologists employedin the entire world, and they cannot cover the millionsof acres of landmass present on the Earth.

Conclusion

The science of palaeontology is a partnership ofacademic, amateur and commercial palaeontologistswho need to rely on each other. Without scientistsand amateurs, commercial collectors would have noone to sell their fossils to. And scientists rely onamateurs and professionals in the industry to makenew and exciting discoveries, assist with fieldworkand lead the way for preparation in the laboratory.The professional commercial palaeontologist is alsoable to provide museum exhibits more economicallythan can be done by any other group.

The benefits of acquiring material from theprofessionals are many. Businesses collect manymore specimens than the scientific community couldever hope to find. Purchasing fossils is often moreeconomical for the scientist than for the scientist tocollect the fossils. Often scientists are invited to helpthe commercial palaeontologist by assisting on theexcavation. They are often allowed to keep what theyneed for research. The commercial collecting offossils means that more fossils will be found, collectedand saved from the ravages of weather. This alsomeans that more fossils will become available forstudy and display. Having fossils for sale makessense to all involved.

We all know that fossils that are not collected aredestroyed by the elements of nature. Working togetherwe can save more fossils and improve the recovery ofcontextual information. Together we can preserveour ability to collect and to transfer them without fearacross political boundaries. Fossils are the life-bloodof palaeontology. Without the amateurs and thecommercial palaeontologists, it would truly be a deadscience.

Recommendations

I give below some recommendations for museumswho wish to work with the palaeontologicalprofessionals. Work with the people that love fossilsand not with the people who only love money; yourinstitution will usually spend less and the science willbenefit more from this relationship. Work with theprofessionals that provide site and specimeninformation and who are interested in the science.Give credit where credit is due for the recovery of thespecimen and the site. This will help to create a closebond between the researcher and the discoverer. Co-operation with the professional palaeontologists willopen doors and make the museum’s designers’,researchers’ and preparators’ jobs much easier.

Acknowledgements

I thank Peter L. Larson for his extensive ideas,comments and editing. I also thank Brenda Larson,Marion Zenker and Robert A. Farrar for editing andcomments. I thank the GCG and the AmericanAssociation of Paleontological Suppliers for fundingmy trip to Manchester to be part of this conference.

References

BARTHEL, K.W., SWINBURNE, N.H.M. andMORRIS, S.C. 1990. Solnhofen, a study inMesozoic palaeontology. Cambridge UniversityPress, Cambridge, 236 pp.

GAYRARD-VALY, Y. 1994. Fossils: evidence ofvanished worlds. Henry N. Abrams, Inc., NewYork, 192 pp.

HAUFF, B. and HAUFF, R.B. 1981. Das HolzmadenBuch.136 pp. Repro-Druck GmbH, Pleidelsheim,Germany, 136 pp.

LANHAM, U. 1973. The bone hunters. ColumbiaUniversity Press, New York, 285 pp.

PSIHOYOS, L. and KNOEBBER, J. 1994. Huntingdinosaurs. Random House, Inc., New York, 267 pp.

ROGERS, K. 1991. The Sternberg fossil hunters – adinosaur dynasty. Mountain Press Publishing Co.,Missoula, 288 pp.

-223-

COMMERCIAL FOSSIL TRADE:GOOD OR BAD FOR SITES OF SPECIAL SCIENTIFIC INTEREST?

by Jonathan G. Larwood

Introduction

In England there are approximately 4,000 Sites ofSpecial Scientific Interest (SSSIs) of which around1,450 are either notified on geological grounds aloneor include a notified geological interest as well as abiological interest. It is the responsibility of EnglishNature, as the government's statutory advisor onnature conservation, to designate and advise on themanagement of these SSSIs.

Between 1977 and 1990 the Geological ConservationReview (GCR) provided a systematic assessment ofBritish geology (Ellis et al. 1996) and selected acomprehensive network of key geological sites. Over3,000 sites were considered to be nationally importantin understanding British geology and it is these GCRsites that have formed the basis for geological SSSIsthroughout Britain. The GCR selection processidentified key fossil vertebrate, invertebrate and plantlocalities, as well as key stratigraphical sites from thePrecambrian to the present. In England 226palaeontological GCR sites were identified togetherwith over 1,000 stratigraphical GCR sites (Larwoodand King 2001).

Palaeontology is therefore a core interest of thegeological SSSI network. Achieving the correctmanagement of the site-based fossil resource is crucialto maintaining this network.

Larwood, J.G. 2001. Commercial fossil trade: good or bad for Sites of Special ScientificInterest? The Geological Curator 7(6): 223-226.

Key palaeontological sites throughout England are designated and protected as Sites ofSpecial Scientific Interest. This provides legislative protection against damage whetherfrom threatening development or inappropriate fossil collecting. English Nature hasestablished guidelines, outlined in this paper, on the management of site based fossilresources that reinforce the need for a responsible and sustainable approach. As with allaspects of fossil collecting commercial trade can be both negative and positive. Theimpact of this trade on the site resource is discussed particularly in the light of recentexperience and initiatives in Dorset, on the Somerset Coast, in Humberside and Yorkshire.On balance the positive impact of commercial trade outweighs the negative – though thishas very much relied on the co-operative willingness of the collector, researcher andmuseum.

Jonathan Larwood, English Nature, Northminster House, Peterborough PE1 1UA, U.K.Received 12th September 2001.

Establishing best practice

Fossil collecting has often been viewed as acontentious activity, particularly where commercialtrade is involved. The conservation ofpalaeontological sites has been much debated andtwo conferences The use and conservation ofpalaeontological sites (Crowther and Wimbledon1988) and most recently, A future for fossils (Bassettet al. 2001)) brought together interested parties todiscuss key issues around fossil collecting, includingcommercial trade. For sometime English Nature, andits predecessor the Nature Conservancy Council, hasbeen engaged in establishing clear policy and practicalguidelines on the management of fossil collecting.

In 1992, the leaflet Fossil collecting and conservation(English Nature 1992) was published and widelydisseminated. This set out clearly why fossil collectingis important, what can be gained from fossil collectingand the principles of responsible fossil collecting.This leaflet, together with existing guidelines andadvice (e.g. Geologists' Association's GeologicalFieldwork Code and the Geological Curators' Group'sThumbs-up guide to collecting), provided the basisfor English Nature's Position statement on fossilcollecting (English Nature, 1996) (see alsowww.english-nature.org.uk) which was establishedafter wide consultation within the geologicalcommunity. The position statement, one of a series

-224-

produced by English Nature on all aspects of natureconservation, sets out clear policy and guidance onfossil collecting. Tailored to SSSIs it can be equallyapplied to any fossil locality.

Two principles are central to the position statement.Firstly, responsible fossil collecting is an importantpart of the conservation of sites with a fossil interest.Secondly, fossil collectors are treated equally (thatis, without prejudice), whether amateur, research orcommercially orientated; all collectors can make acontribution to palaeontology, but at the same timeall can damage the site-based fossil resource.

It is, however, essential that all collectors act in aresponsible and sustainable manner (Larwood andKing 2001). In simple terms, collectors should adaptthe scale of collecting to the available resource(whether extensive or finite in nature), should collectonly from loose material and collect onlyrepresentative specimens, make appropriate records,should, wherever necessary, establish permission tocollect and clear agreement of ownership and,wherever possible, ensure that scientifically importantspecimens are acquired by museums or equivalentinstitutions.

Commercial fossil trade and its impact onSSSIs

The commercial market for fossils is well establishedand has been since the first fossils were found.Whether for simple exchange or sale, fossils havealways had a commercial value largely based on theiraesthetic appeal, rareity and their value to science.The fossil collections of most museums will containsubstantial elements that have in some way beentraded whether purchased from individuals, at auctionor from commercial dealers.

Fossils today can command truly phenomenal prices,the sale of 'Sue', the T. rex, achieving $8.36 millionat Bonham's in 1997. A recent review of U.S. naturalhistory auctions (Forster 2001) showed that between1996 and 1998 the New York based auctioneersPhillips held four major natural history auctionstotaling sales of approximately $2.1 million of whichalmost $1 million was from the sale of fossils. Asmay be expected more than 50% of sold fossilsoriginated from the USA with Germany, Morocco,China and Russia being the other most popularcountries of origin. Fossils from the UK representedless than 0.5%. Virtually all the specimens wereauctioned into private ownership.

The market demand for fossils is therefore great andthe potential price-tag high but what effect does this

commercial market have on the site-based fossilresource in England?

Negative

Collecting for commercial gain can result in sitedamage due to over collecting and targeted collectingwith the removal of specific fossil-bearing units fromfossil localities. It can also lead to the loss ofscientifically important specimens from the availablepublic domain - specimens going into privatecollections being effectively lost to science.

It is English Nature's responsibility (Weighell 2001),through use of it legislative powers under the Wildlifeand Countryside Act, 1981 (and subsequent revisions),to promote good practice and to establish strongworking relationships to reduce and prevent suchdamaging activity on SSSIs.

It is often difficult to distinguish site damage whichis specifically for commercial gain or the result of theobsessive and unscrupulous collector. For example,it is likely that over collecting from inland JurassicInferior Oolite SSSIs in Dorset and Somerset iscommercially driven, but this is difficult to prove.On the Isle of Wight there has been a long tradition ofcommercial collecting and in recent years theownership of a number of fossils has been contestedand the long-term fate of a number of scientificallyimportant specimens remains uncertain. Actualdamage to the site-based resource is difficult todemonstrate (the rapidly eroding coastline iseffectively a continually renewed resource), but theremoval of Iguanodon tracks and foot casts hasdepleted the educational resource at certain localities,though it is unclear once more whether this was forcommercial gain.

More clear-cut has been the targeted collecting of theLower Jurassic Caloceras Beds of Doniford Bay,part of the Somerset Blue Anchor to Lilstock CoastSSSI (Webber 2001). The attractive iridescentaragonitic shell preservation of Caloceras andPsiloceras ammonites from Doniford has lead to acommercial demand for these specimens. Theresultant damage, mainly in the early to mid 1990s,has affected approximately 65% of the exposedCaloceras Beds. Notably, of the few UK specimenssubmitted to Phillips (Forster 2001), a pair of mother-of-pearl ammonites from the Lower Lias of Somerset,England, were successfully auctioned for $350 in1997. Since the mid-1990s increased local awarenessand vigilance, plus the co-operation of commercialcollectors has successfully curtailed any large scalecollecting from the SSSI.

-225-

Positive

Trade in fossils has always been important to thescience of palaeontology. Most museumpalaeontological collections have been establishedby purchase of specimens or collections, many fromcommercial dealers. Mary Anning, collecting fromthe Dorset Coast in the 19th century, sold many newand rare finds to museums and other collectors andcommunicated her discoveries to some of the leadinggeologists of her time. The trilobite Calymeneblumenbachii (known as the "Dudley Bug") from theWenlock limestones of the Wren's Nest NationalNature Reserve in the West Midlands, was widelytraded by quarrymen in the 18th and 19th centuries,with fine examples now being found in museumsthroughout the world.

It is clear that the purchase of specimens has alwaysbeen actively pursued. Osborne's (1998) accounts ofthe discovery and fate of ten reptiles from Yorkshirein the 18th and 19th centuries demonstrates themuseum desire to purchase prize specimens for theircollections in what was already a global market.Does the trade in fossils and activities of thecommercial collector still contribute to the furtheranceof science?

Conesby Quarry SSSI, near Scunthorpe, Lincolnshire,exposes the Lower Jurassic (Sinemurian) FrodinghamIronstone. This yields a particularly well-preservedand diverse invertebrate (and occasional vertebrate)fauna. As well as being of high scientific value fine,chamositic, preservation gives a high aesthetic appealto the ammonites from the Frodingham Ironstonewhich gives them a high commercial value.

At the end of its working life Conesby Quarry hasnow been infilled (sections have been retained for theSSSI). Prior to infill in 1990 agreement was reachedbetween two commercial collectors, the land ownersand the local North Lincolnshire Museum over thecollection of specimens in advance of infill(Thompson 2001). This was essentially a commercialenterprise in which the professional collectors wereable to sell specimens collected. At the suggestion ofthe collectors two provisos were agreed. Firstly, anyrare specimens (selected by the museum) would bedonated to the local museum and secondly, amateurcollectors would be allowed to collect from the sitewithout charge.

Approximately 100 specimens were donated to themuseum including a previously unrecorded multi-armed starfish. Though specimens were not purchasedby the museum the establishment of a commercialenterprise and the open co-operation of the collectors

benefited both museum and science in a fashion thatwould not otherwise have been achieved.

In more recent years wider co-operation in achievinggood site-based conservation is now also beingachieved. This is best represented on the Dorsetcoast which today remains the most collected area inBritain and has the highest number of local commercialcollectors. Virtually the entire length of this rapidlyeroding coast is designated as SSSI and, togetherwith the East Devon Coast, is currently proposed asa potential World Heritage Site. In 1997 the WestDorset Fossil Collecting working group wasestablished (all stakeholders including commercialcollectors were involved) to look at the fate ofscientifically important fossils, the ownership offossils and the safety of digging within cliffs andlandslides. From the working group sprang avoluntary Code of Conduct (Edmonds 2001) providingguidance on good practice (which carefully managescollecting practices) and, perhaps more importantly,a Fossil Recording Scheme in which collectors recordfossils of key scientific importance with theunderstanding that British museums should be giventhe first opportunity to acquire specimens. Recordsare maintained by the Charmouth Heritage CoastCentre and can be viewed at www://members.aol.com/charhercen/page16html

The Code and Recording Scheme are based on avoluntary and positive approach which only worksthrough the co-operation of those involved. Thelocal collectors have been central to achieving thisand have actively adopted the Code and participatedin the Recording Scheme. The Recording Scheme isaimed at bringing collector, museum and researchertogether to increase communication and adding toour knowledge and understanding of Dorset's fossilresources.

The Dorset example is now being followed on theYorkshire Coast where, as part of the Dinosaur CoastProject, local collectors (including commercial) havebeen involved in establishing collecting guidanceand the development of a second recording scheme.

Weighing it up

As ever, there are two sides to the coin. On one side,damage to geological SSSIs can result from collectingfor commercial trade. On the other, commercialcollectors can make a positive contribution to theconservation of geological SSSIs and the furtheranceof scientific study.

In ten years English Nature has established clearguidelines on the management of site based fossil

-226-

resources promoting the principles of responsible(and sustainable) fossil collecting as an essential partof the conservation of geological SSSIs. Over thisperiod the co-operative relationship with thecommercial collector has strengthened and they havebeen closely involved in the establishment of, andparticipation in, collecting codes in key regions -Dorset and Yorkshire.

There is still a need for greater communication andco-operation between all groups involved in theconservation and use of fossil resources. Much hasbeen done to establish good site based conservationof fossil resources raising awareness amongst allthose involved in the management and use of SSSIs.There does, however, need to be a better link with themuseum and researcher as an end beneficiary ofsuccessful site conservation.

Part of the success of the Dorset Recording Schemewill be the interest shown by museum and researcherin the specimens recorded by the collectors. Moredialogue and interaction between these groups isrequired to identify more clearly the needs of eachgroup. Acquisition by museum is also problematic asmuseums (certainly in the UK) are often unable topurchase specimens with a high market value.Ultimately this may undermine the success of theresponsible collecting ethic as scientifically importantspecimens, as demonstrated by the Phillip's auctions,will largely end in private, inaccessible collections.But rather than an argument against commercialtrade this is perhaps an area for museums to addressin discussion and debate with the commercialcollector. Is it feasible to have more co-operativeventures such as Conesby described above or couldcommercial collectors be paid for their expertise interms of excavation and specimen preparation? Thereis no straight-forward answer but there is experienceto build on. One of the next tasks of the West DorsetFossil Working Group is to address these problems inrelation to the recording Scheme and its long-termsuccess.

English Nature's aim has been to discourage andprevent the negative (damage to the scientific interestof SSSIs) and encourage and promote the positive(enhancement of the scientific interest of SSSIs).Despite the fact that there will always be commercialcollectors who ignore any guidance or legislativerestriction, the existence of a commercial trade, onbalance in England, is currently more positive thannegative. Over the last ten years the recorded instancesof site damage from collecting (for whatever reason)have declined as one hopes the willingness to adopta more responsible approach has grown. Theestablishment of co-operative collecting codes and

recording schemes provides a strong foundation onwhich to increase the mutual trust between allinterested groups, achieve good conservation of fossilsites and increase our palaeontological knowledge.

References

BASSETT, M.G., KING, A.H., LARWOOD, J.G.,PARKINSON, N.A. and DIESLER, V.K. (eds).2001. A Future for Fossils. National Museum ofWales, Geological Series No. 19, Cardiff, 156 pp.

CROWTHER, P.R. and WIMBLEDON, W.A. 1988.The use and conservation of palaeontological sites.Special Papers in Palaeontology 40, 1-200.

EDMONDS, R. 2001. Fossil collecting on the WestDorset Coast: a new voluntary code of conduct. InBassett, M.G., King, A.H., Larwood, J.G.,Parkinson, N.A. and Diesler, V.K. (eds). A Futurefor Fossils, 46-51. National Museum of Wales,Geological Series No. 19, Cardiff.

ELLIS, N.V., BOWEN, D.Q., CAMPBELL, S., KNILL,J.L., McKIRDY, A.P., PROSSER, C.D., VINCENT,M.A. and WILSON, R.C.L. 1996. An Introductionto the Geological Conservation Review. GCR SeriesNo 1, Joint Nature Conservation Committee,Peterborough.

ENGLISH NATURE 1996. Position statement onfossil collecting. English Nature, Peterborough, 2pp.

FORSTER, M. 2001. Fossils under the hammer: recentU.S. Natural History auctions. In Bassett, M.G.,King, A.H., Larwood, J.G., Parkinson, N.A. andDiesler, V.K. (eds). A Future for Fossils, 98-105.National Museum of Wales, Geological Series No.19, Cardiff.

LARWOOD, J.G. and KING, A.H. 2001. Conservingpalaeontological sites: applying the principles ofsustainable development. In Bassett, M.G., King,A.H., Larwood, J.G., Parkinson, N.A. and Diesler,V.K. (eds). A Future for Fossils, 119-125. NationalMuseum of Wales, Geological Series No. 19,Cardiff.

OSBORNE, R. 1998. The Floating Egg: episodes inmaking geology. Jonathan Cape, London, 372 pp.

THOMPSON, S. 2001. 'Saved from the crusher': theConesby Quarry case, Scunthorpe. In Bassett, M.G.,King, A.H., Larwood, J.G., Parkinson, N.A. andDiesler, V.K. (eds). A Future for Fossils, 65-67.National Museum of Wales, Geological Series No.19, Cardiff.

WEBBER, M. 2001. The sustainability of a threatenedresource: Lower Jurassic Caloceras Beds ofDoniford Bay, Somerset. In Bassett, M.G., King,A.H., Larwood, J.G., Parkinson, N.A. and Diesler,V.K. (eds). A Future for Fossils, 108-113. NationalMuseum of Wales, Geological Series No. 19,Cardiff.

-227-

WEIGHELL, T. 2001. Palaeontological conservation -the role of the government agencies. In Bassett,M.G., King, A.H., Larwood, J.G., Parkinson, N.A.and Diesler, V.K. (eds). A Future for Fossils, 18-24. National Museum of Wales, Geological SeriesNo. 19, Cardiff.

WILDLIFE AND COUNTRYSIDE ACT 1981(amended 1985 and then in 2001 under theCountryside and Rights of Way Act). HMSO,London.

-228-

-229-

PHONEY STONES

by Maurice Davies

Introduction

I was asked to speak at the seminar only at the lastminute,as the last speaker, and to look briefly at theconclusions of the Ministerial Advisory Panel onIllicit Trade, on which I sit. As it turned out, most ofthe factual material I intended to present was coveredby Tristram Besterman in his characteristicallythorough paper (see Besterman, this volume), so Iwon’t repeat the details of the conclusions of theadvisory panel and other bodies here.

Ethical standards

During the seminar I was extremely alarmed by thearrogant and greedy attitudes of several other speakers- views apparently supported by some members ofthe audience. With this in mind, I rewrote thebeginning and end of my talk at the last minute andthat is what I think it will be most useful to presenthere.

It may be that the papers published here are morecircumspect than the talks that were delivered at theseminar. If that is the case, the language of myresponse to them may seem a little excessive. But I,and at least a few other seminar participants, wereoutraged by what some speakers said.

As one friend said to me after one talk (in which thespeaker said he had to break local laws on fossilcollecting so that he had new material to research inorder to further his career) at least Lord Elgin offereda ‘public benefit’ defence of his removal of theParthenon Marbles. But, like a professional Italiantombarolo (grave robber), the speaker came across ashaving no concern for any benefit other than his own.The phrase that has stuck most vividly in my mindfrom his talk is, "why should I give a shit about

ethics". I’ll be interested to see if he expresses thatsentiment in his written paper. It strikes me that eventhe sleaziest London antiquities dealer would nolonger say something like that in public, and wouldbe pretty careful about saying it in private.

According to my notes of the day, John Nuddsexpressed a similar view, although in the context ofa far more thoughtful talk. Nudds stated, "not manyresearchers worry about such ethical niceties - ourmain concern is to get hold of the material and do theresearch". In his talk Nudds clearly and honestlypresented the geologist’s dilemma: in a nutshell, lotsof previously unknown specimens are on sale on theopen market and scientists see it as their job toresearch them. However, the specimens’ origins areunclear and they may have been excavated or exportedillegally. In my hastily rewritten talk I noted that I amnot qualified to judge the ethics of university-basedacademic research, but I am clear about the museumethics in this case. I argued that while it may beappropriate for some scientists to work on suchmaterial, it was not acceptable for museums, andmuseum staff, to get involved.

I said to delegates that if, in spite of today’s tales ofimmorality, exploitation, fraud, violence and generalcriminality and deceit, any of you in museums arethinking of lowering your museum’s ethical standards,or your personal ethics, then don’t. I hazard that if thetales and attitudes we heard before lunch wereattributed on record to a museum curator or director,then public pressure, not museum-sector pressure,would end their career in public service.

University-based academics (by which I meant thoseoutside university museums) can perhaps continue tobe so selfish, in the way that until recently our doctorsretained our children’s organs without proper consent.

Davis, M. 2001. Phoney Stones. The Geological Curator 7(6): 229-230.

Museums staff should uphold the highest ethical standards and not research illicitspecimens. To possess illicitly removed specimens may, in some cases, represent acriminal offence of handling stolen goods.

Maurice Davies, Museums Association, 24 Calvin Street, London, E1 6NW, U.K.Received 1st October 2001.

-230-

However, museums do not exist to allow individualemployees to further their own careers and researchreputations come what may. They have a clear mandateto uphold the highest standards. In a largely secularsociety it is not wholly fanciful to say, as many do,that museums are the 21st century’s churches andtemples, and curators are the priesthood.

People still trust museums. Indeed, museums aresome of the few remaining trusted public institutions.In return for this trust people expect museums andtheir staff to have high standards and show ethicaland moral leadership. Breaking the public’s trust willhave a huge cost for museums. At an avaricious level,the right of museums to things such as lottery fundingdepend on public support. But most importantly, afailure to meet generally agreed ethical standards, letalone the law, will lead to a long-term decline inpublic support and a consequent long-term decline inmuseums as public institutions.

Criminal offence

At the end of the seminar there was considerablediscussion about whether geological specimens arelikely to be covered by the proposed new criminaloffence of dishonestly importing, dealing or being inpossession of any cultural object, knowing orbelieving that the object was stolen, illegallyexcavated, or removed from any monument or wreckcontrary to local law. For technical reasons, it looksas if individual geological specimens will not becovered by this new law (although collections abovea certain value will be).

However, it’s worth making the point that much ofthe trade in illicit geological specimens is already acriminal offence in the UK and the USA. It is acomplex area of law (and I am no lawyer), but as faras I understand it, if the specimen concerned originatesfrom a country where illegal removal or export of ageological specimen is defined by that country’slaws as theft, then it will sometimes be possible tosecure a criminal conviction for theft in an English(or American) court. This will depend on the precisedetails of the illicit removal and the way in which thelaws of the country of origin interact with the laws ofthe England (or America). There have been severalcriminal convictions along these lines in England andAmerica for the illicit removal abroad of culturalproperty and there seems to me a strong possibilitythat a dealer in illicit geological material, or even apurchaser of such material, could be convicted oftheft or handling stolen goods in an English orAmerican court. To flirt with illicit geological materialalready brings some legal risks, as well as beingethically unacceptable.

-231-

GALLERY REVIEW

DINOSAUR ISLE PULLS 'EM IN!:DINOSAUR ISLE, SANDOWN, ISLE OF WIGHT, ENGLAND

by Tony Cross

Last August saw the opening of the new, improved,purpose-built Dinosaur Isle “attraction” in Sandownon the Isle of Wight. It replaces the 75 years old siteon the restricted first floor of the small local library.

Tha change of name does not really bother me. If youare going to re-package an old museum, albeit withsuperb fossil collections, it is obviously a bit of agamble for the Local Authority. I suppose it mighteven be regarded as evolution.

But what a transformation! A gleaming, silver-skinnedbuilding, the front of which hints at a pterosaur,contains essentially two galleries. One is tunnel-like,with traditional cased museum displays andinformation panels, taking the visitor back in time tothe Cretaceous. The other, cavernous by comparison,with an adjacent ‘goldfish bowl’ preparation area,deals with the Wealden - the time of the dinosaurs onwhat is now the Isle of Wight. The fossils of thesebeasts are the jewels in the crown of this area, one ofthe classic areas of British geology.

It is difficult to get visitors to appreciate, and hopefullyunderstand, geology let alone palaeontology or even

palaeoecology! So how do you generate interest in acollection of small shells and bits of bone? The Isleof Wight Council (IWC) has obviously got the answer.

Firstly, arrange for the BBC to screen a block-busterseries. Follow it up a little later with a televised “dig”on your coastline. A couple of months afterwardsopen a £2.7m attraction next in a seaside location atthe height of the holiday season and chargecommercial admission fees!

Cynical or not, how else might one explain twentythousand visitors over ten days in a hot Augustagainst an enviable sailing programme in Cowes, theyachting capital of Britain?

The IWC deserves the success of the new venture astourism is the lifeblood of this magnificent islandmoored off the Southcoast of England.

Mind you, as a local, I think I would be a bit miffedto swop a free museum for a paying attraction.Especially after having paid for it already through myCouncil Tax and after the Millennium Commissionhad given grant aid to the tune of £1.3m and

Figure 1. View of the Dinosaur Isle complex.

-232-

sponsorship had been given by local ferry operator,Wightlink!

I think it is one thing to charge tourists who do notcontribute directly to IWC taxes, but islanders mightwell expect more than have to purchase season ticketsat £12. No doubt attendance figures “out of season”will be the judge of that.

The building is different, the displayed material isgenerally good, although it is the dinosaurs that stealthe show. I would have liked to see more made of theother material - the labels were fine for the geologistbut a little more interpretation may help the moregeneral visitor. Slick displays by Haley Sharpe ofLeicester develop the storyline of local curator MartinMunt and there is a lot of good stuff. A guide bookmay well reduce the need to read the many textpanels, so perhaps they can be replaced in time?

As a typical family group we explored the museumhaving first sought identifications of fossil materialwe had found. We appreciated the time the curatorspent with us in a first-floor education room lookingat our vertebrate finds. It was one of the quieter dayshe explained, but it still looked pretty busy to us.

Most of the ‘interactives’ are in the Wealden area andour children delighted in pressing buttons, feeling the

contents of boxes and opening the lids of smells thatthe dinosaurs may have experienced! All of this, withlife-size reconstructions of five local dinosaurs andwith the cacophony of dinosaur-like noises thatreminded me of a monkey house at feeding time. Pitythe poor preparator working in the “goldfish bowl”lab in the same area!

The animated Neovenator was an obvious hit withvisitors, but few children were waiting to bephotographed in front of the glass-fronted casecontaining the real skeleton.

It was a great place to visit; we appreciated the air-conditioning too but why did this not extend into thesales area? After making their purchases (likeeveryone else seemed to be doing) and having an icecream on the grass outside, our children were keen togo to the beach on the other side of the road. I wentback in for another look – well, one visit was notenough.

The Museum of Isle of Wight Geology is dead. Longlive ‘Dinosaur Isle’ and may it prosper in it's newguise as an “attraction”.

Tony Cross, Curator, The Curtis Museum and AllenGallery, Alton, Hants, U.K. 11th September 2001.

The Geological Curator 7(6) [2001]

Figure 2. An Iguanodon considering lunch.

-233-

BOOK REVIEWS

Green, Owen R. 2001. A Manual of Practical Laboratory andField Techniques in Paleaobiology. Kluwer AcademicPublishers, 538pp. Hardback. ISBN 041258980X. Price:£85.00.

This manual is aimed at those geo-scientists who are involved inthe collection and preparation of palaeobiological specimens.

Apart from an ‘Introduction’ and ‘References Appendix’ it isbasically divided into two sections, ‘Field Techniques’ (pp 20-61) and the significantly larger, ‘Laboratory Techniques’ (pp64-449).

The ‘Introduction’ provides the reader with an outline of thepracticalities involved in the collection of specimens in the fieldand the necessary procedures for bringing them into thelaboratory. This section contains a number of useful flowdiagrams and tables which will help the reader to structure andtimetable these tasks.

Section II, ‘Field Techniques’ is divided into five chaptersbeginning with collecting methods for both macro andmicrofossils. The following chapters deal with the preservationof the specimens in the field and staining techniques fordetermining the carbonate mineralogy. The final chapter in thissection covers the important subject of documentation as well aspacking and transportation.

Section III, ‘Laboratory Techniques’ is divided into five parts,beginning with an introduction which included how to set up alaboratory facility. This covers everything from design to healthand safety considerations. The various conservation andpreparation methods used for unstable and recent material arealso discussed here. ‘Physical Procedures’, ‘ChemicalProcedures’ and ‘Analytical Procedures’ follow and make upthe bulk of the publication. These are sub-divided further tocover a wide range of techniques familiar to most geo-scientists.Each method is supplemented by references so that the readercan make an informed choice and proceed with all the necessaryinformation. The fifth and final part of this section is ‘Exhibitionof Fossil Material’ which includes replication techniques andphotography.

The ‘References Appendix’ is an important section which dealsextensively with health and safety as well as suppliers,documentation and other technical information such asconversion data and formulae.

The division of this publication into a number of well-structuredsections and sub-sections make it easy for reference. Althoughmore diagrams would be useful, the procedures are simplypresented with health and safety information suitably highlighted.

This manual has managed to fill a gap in the market, which hasexisted for several years. In the last few decades developmentsin palaeobiological field and laboratory techniques have generallybeen published as booklets or papers. Green has successfullybrought these together here, to produce what will be valued bymany as a standard reference on this subject.

Jill Kerr, Natural Science Conservator, Ulster Museum, BotanicGardens, Belfast BT9 5AB, Northern Ireland. 19th December2001.