No need to flame, you've identified a very complicated problem quite well! The c
onsiderations
you question transcend historical/prehistoric labels, especially here in the Arc
tic where the
distinction among the artifacts is less evident.
        The dilemma you pose revolves around the difference in perception betwee
n museums with
collections primarily viewed as art, and those that view their collections as re
search
oriented, though with a recognition of the artistic value of some objects in the
 collections.
I should reveal at the outset that I am an archaeologist and I manage a primaril
y research
oriented collection at a state funded university museum.

Tim and Amy Marshall wrote:
>
> Archaeologists will tell you that artifacts in and of themselves have no
> intristic value. These are the same people who get upset when salvors and
> other pot-hunters attempt to sell these same things to the highest bidder.

        This is not quite correct. Archeological materials have no monetary valu
e other than the cost
of replacement necessitated by insurance considerations. The "upset" over "pot-h
unters" and
public sale of artifacts is not a contradiction, as you imply. Rather our concer
n derives from
the loss of contextual data and the encouragement such sale provides to those wh
o would
continue a practice, which, in most cases, is illegal.
>
> snip...

>                                          ... In all my museum classes that
> ran through Deed of Gift, loans, etc., my professor always told us that it
> is unethical for an interested museum person to affix some kind of value to
> an artifact in the collection or possible donation. Is that still true?

        Yes, indeed! A museum official cannot set value for potential museum col
lections without
introducing an unacceptable conflict of interest. This is long established profe
ssional
ethics. Museum officials must establish value for existing in-house collections,
 for insurance
purposes, but in-coming collections, or "out-house" collections cannot be apprai
sed by museum
staff.


>       In the end, don't you really need some kind of appraiser certification t
o make
> it all above board and legal?
>
        It depends on the nature of the collection and institutional policies. O
ur situation here in
Alaska is a good case in point. We have numerous collections that encompass both
archaeological and ethnological materials as well as collections of overtly "art
" objects,
that is, objects produced as art by contemporary makers.
        The strictly archaeological materials have no intrinsic monetary value;
their value only
exists as sources of data in scientific collections. Devoid of their contextual
data they are
merely "stones and bones." However, because of the unique situation in Alaska in
 which Alaska
Natives can sell archaeological artifacts dug from their own lands, many of the
archaeological
specimens also have a market value that fluctuates depending on the nature of th
e piece and
the current state of the collector market.
        In terms of the museum and management of the archaeological collections,
 we cannot take the
market value of the objects into consideration, since we value the collections f
or insurance
purposes only, based on the cost of replacement, and we cannot ethically or lega
lly sell
collections. For the majority of the collections, replacement constitutes mounti
ng another
archaeological project to excavate a similar site and replace the collection.
        In terms of archaeological materials with market value, this is much mor
e difficult. In most
cases the objects are irreplacable; we cannot re-excavate sites and acquire new
objects, due
to current land ownership considerations. We also cannot purchase these objects
on the open
market, for ethical, legal and economic reasons. Ironically, the objects in the
museum's
collections that have external market value, have NO monetary value to the museu
m, since we
cannot sell them, and cannot replace them by excavation or purchase. (Donation i
s another
consideration, which is limited, since most donated collections do not possess s
ufficient
provenience data to make them scientifically desirable.)
        Many museums have never successfully resolved this dilemma, falling back
 on a combination of
replacement and market value to satisfy the insurance industry. In reality, if a
ny of our
collections are lost through theft or accident, there is little that can be done
 to actually
restore the collection. In those cases where insurance settlement has been achie
ved, the money
is often applied to other ends than replacing irreplacable collections, another
dilemma, since
the institution then benfits from the loss of its collections. As always, the be
st insurance
is adequate security procedures and safety and environmental controls.

        Michael A. Lewis
        Archeology Collections Manager
        University of Alaska Museum