Caveat Emptor and the Met’s Native American Collection

The concept of caveat emptor—Latin for “let the buyer beware”—is highly relevant to the controversy surrounding the Metropolitan Museum of Art’s (Met) collection of Native American artifacts. This principle suggests that buyers (or in this case, museums acquiring artifacts) must exercise due diligence before making a purchase, as the responsibility for verifying authenticity and legality falls on them.

The ProPublica article highlights that many of the Native American artifacts in the Met’s collection, particularly those donated by Charles and Valerie Diker, have incomplete or missing provenance records. Under caveat emptor, the museum should have conducted thorough research before accepting or displaying these objects. By failing to do so, the Met has placed itself in an ethically and legally questionable position, particularly concerning the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), which mandates the return of certain cultural artifacts to Indigenous tribes.

Furthermore, the Met’s alleged practice of displaying items as loans rather than permanent acquisitions suggests an attempt to sidestep legal obligations, which conflicts with the spirit of caveat emptor. Ethical institutions should take extra precautions to avoid acquiring looted, stolen, or culturally sensitive items—failure to do so can lead to legal battles, reputational damage, and strained relationships with Indigenous communities.

On the flip side, while caveat emptor applies to the Met, caveat venditor—“let the seller beware”—is equally important for individuals or collectors selling Native American art. Sellers should ensure that artifacts have clear provenance and are not subject to repatriation laws before offering them to institutions. If the Dikers or other donors did not fully vet the origins of their collection, they bear some responsibility for any ethical or legal challenges the Met now faces.

Key Takeaways

·      Due diligence is essential: The Met should have investigated the provenance of each artifact before accepting them into its collection.

·      Legal and ethical risks exist for buyers: Acquiring artifacts without proper documentation can lead to repatriation claims and reputational harm.

·      Sellers also have responsibilities: Those selling or donating cultural items must ensure they are doing so legally and ethically.

The Met’s case serves as a cautionary tale for museums, collectors, and donors, emphasizing that the burden of responsibility in acquiring and displaying cultural heritage should not be ignored.

https://www.bia.gov/service/nagpra

https://https://www.propublica.org/article/the-met-museum-native-american-collections