Executive Order 11593

Executive Order 11593
Title	Executive Order 11593
Issued by	Richard Nixon
Date signed	May 13, 1971
Subject	Federal preservation of cultural property

Contents

Executive Order 11593 was a 1971 presidential directive issued by Richard Nixon to promote preservation, protection, and cataloging of cultural property in federal custody. It responded to growing attention from organizations such as the National Trust for Historic Preservation, the Smithsonian Institution, and the National Archives and Records Administration about federal stewardship of archaeological, historical, and artistic collections. The order interacted with statutes and initiatives involving the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, the Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979, and international instruments influenced by the Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict.

Background and context

The order arose amid policy debates involving Richard Nixon, the National Endowment for the Humanities, and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation concerning federal holdings in agencies such as the Department of the Interior, the Department of Defense, and the Department of Justice. Influences included advocacy from institutions like the American Institute for Conservation, the Metropolitan Museum of Art, and the Library of Congress, and scholarship by figures associated with the National Gallery of Art and the Getty Conservation Institute. International concerns were shaped by events involving the UNESCO programme and responses to conflicts like the Yom Kippur War and earlier experiences from the World War II era, prompting comparisons with directives debated during the tenure of presidents such as Harry S. Truman and Dwight D. Eisenhower.

The order directed federal agencies including the General Services Administration, the National Park Service, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation to identify, inventory, and maintain collections of works of fine art, archaeological materials, and historical artifacts. It called for cooperation with the National Gallery of Art, the Smithsonian Institution, the National Archives and Records Administration, and state offices like the State Historic Preservation Offices to establish inventories consistent with practices promoted by the American Alliance of Museums and standards exemplified by the Getty Conservation Institute. Agencies were instructed to consult with professional bodies such as the American Institute of Architects, the American Anthropological Association, and the American Historical Association regarding conservation priorities.

Implementation involved coordination among the National Park Service, the General Services Administration, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, and the Department of Defense to create inventories, appoint curators, and set protocols for loans and deaccession guided by policies from the Institute of Museum and Library Services and practices at the Museum of Modern Art. The Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Federal Trade Commission were involved where provenance, trafficking, or fraud implicated Interpol networks or bilateral agreements with ministries such as the Ministry of Culture (France) and institutions like the British Museum. The National Archives and Records Administration expanded cataloging efforts while the Library of Congress worked with the American Library Association to refine archival descriptions.

The order strengthened federal stewardship affecting collections at the Smithsonian Institution, the National Gallery of Art, the Metropolitan Museum of Art, and regional museums like the Art Institute of Chicago and the Los Angeles County Museum of Art. It influenced archaeological practices related to sites referenced by the National Register of Historic Places and cooperation between federal agencies and state repositories such as the Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission and the New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation. Its influence extended to debates involving repatriation cases with tribes represented by the National Congress of American Indians and institutions including the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology and the Bureau of Indian Affairs.

Legal scholars at institutions like Harvard Law School, Yale Law School, and the Georgetown University Law Center debated the order's relationship to statutes including the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 and later statutes such as the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act. Congressional committees including the United States Senate Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs and the United States House Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs examined compliance and budgetary implications for agencies like the General Services Administration and the National Endowment for the Arts. Litigation and administrative reviews referenced precedents from cases argued before the United States Supreme Court and appeals before the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.

The directive shaped later federal policy frameworks including the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, the expansion of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, and institutional practices at the Smithsonian Institution and the National Archives and Records Administration. Its legacy is visible in partnerships among the Institute of Museum and Library Services, the Getty Conservation Institute, and international bodies such as UNESCO and ICOMOS. Scholars at the College of William & Mary, the University of Pennsylvania, and the University of California, Berkeley have traced its influence on museum ethics, conservation science, and repatriation policies into the 21st century.