Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-v9fdk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-09T01:18:36.024Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Provenances: Real, Fake, and Questionable

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2019

Patty Gerstenblith
Patty Gerstenblith*
Affiliation:
DePaul University College of Law, DePaul University, Chicago, United States; Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract:

Provenance, the ownership history of an artifact or work of art, has become one of the primary mechanisms for determining the legal status and authenticity of a cultural object. Professional associations, including museum organizations, have adopted the “1970 standard” as a means to prevent the acquisition of an ancient object from promoting the looting of archaeological sites, which is driven by the economic gains realized through the international market. The Association of Art Museum Directors (AAMD), one of the museum world’s most influential professional organizations, requires its members to list the ancient artworks and artifacts that they have acquired after 2008 that do not conform to the 1970 standard in an online object registry. The study presented here of the AAMD’s Object Registry for New Acquisitions of Archaeological Material and Works of Ancient Art analyzes the extent to which AAMD member museums do not comply with the 1970 standard and, perhaps of greater significance, the weaknesses in the provenance information on which they rely in acquiring such works. I argue that systematic recurrences of inadequate provenance certitude are symptomatic of the larger problem of methodology and standards of evidence in claiming documented provenance. A museum’s acceptance of possibly unverifiable provenance documentation and, therefore, its acquisition of an object that may have been recently looted, in turn, impose a negative externality on society through the loss of information about our past caused by the looting of archaeological sites.

Type
Article
Information
International Journal of Cultural Property , Volume 26 , Issue 3 , August 2019 , pp. 285 - 304
Copyright
Copyright © International Cultural Property Society 2019 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

BIBLIOGRAPHY

AAMD. 2008. “Report of the AAMD Task Force on the Acquisition of Archaeological Artifacts and Ancient Art,” revised. https://aamd.org/sites/default/files/document/2008ReportAndRelease.pdf (accessed 6 June 2019).Google Scholar
AAMD. 2013. “Guidelines on the Acquisition of Archaeological Material and Ancient Art.” https://aamd.org/sites/default/files/document/AAMD%20Guidelines%202013.pdf (accessed 6 June 2019).Google Scholar
Brodie, Neil J. 2014. “Provenance and Price: Autoregulation of the Antiquities Market?” European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research 20: 427–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brodie, Neil, and Sabrine, Isber. 2018. “The Illegal Excavation and Trade of Syrian Cultural Objects: A View from the Ground.” Journal of Field Archaeology 43, no. 1: 74–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campbell, Peter. 2013. “The Illicit Antiquities Trade as a Transnational Criminal Network: Characterizing and Anticipating Trafficking of Cultural Heritage.” International Journal of Cultural Property 20: 113– 53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feigenbaum, Gail, and Reist, Inge. 2012. “Introduction.” In Provenance: An Alternate History of Art, edited by Feigenbaum, Gail and Reist, Inge, 1–4. Los Angeles: Getty Publications.Google Scholar
Field Museum of Natural History. 1971. “Policy Statement Concerning Acquisition of Antiquities, Curator.” Museum Journal 14, no. 4: 232–35.Google Scholar
Gerstenblith, Patty. 2007. “Controlling the International Market in Antiquities: Reducing the Harm, Preserving the Past.” Chicago Journal of International Law 8: 169–95.Google Scholar
Gerstenblith, Patty. 2013a. “The Meaning of 1970 for the Acquisition of Archaeological Objects.” Journal of Field Archaeology 38: 364–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gerstenblith, Patty. 2013b. “Enforcement by Domestic Courts: Criminal Law and Forfeiture in the Recovery of Cultural Objects.” In Defending Aphrodite: Enforcing International Cultural Property Law, edited by Francioni, F. and Gordley, J., 150–74. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gerstenblith, Patty. 2016. “The Legal Framework for the Prosecution of Crimes Involving Archaeological Objects.” US Attorneys Bulletin 64, no. 2: 5–17.Google Scholar
Gerstenblith, Patty. 2017. “Implementation of the 1970 UNESCO Convention by the United States and Other Market Nations.” In The Routledge Companion to Cultural Property, edited by Anderson, J. and Geismar, H., 70–88. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gerstenblith, Patty. 2019. Art, Cultural Heritage and the Law, 4th ed. Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press.Google Scholar
Gill, David W. J. 2016. “Thinking about Collecting Histories: A Response to Marlowe.” International Journal of Cultural Property 23: 237–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Joyce, Rosemary A. 2012. “From Place to Place: Provenience, Provenance, and Archaeology.” In Provenance: An Alternate History of Art, edited by Feigenbaum, Gail and Reist, Inge, 48–60. Los Angeles: Getty Publications.Google Scholar
Joyce, Rosemary A. 2013. “When Is Authentic? Situating Authenticity in the Itineraries of Objects.” In Creating Authenticity: Authentication Processes in Ethnographic Museums, edited by Geurds, Alex and van Broekhaven, Laura, 39–57. Leiden: Sidestone Press.Google Scholar
Kersel, Morag M. 2007. “Transcending Borders: Objects on the Move.” Archaeologies 3, no. 2: 81–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
La Follette, Laetitia. 2013. “The Trial of Marion True and Changing Policies for Classical Antiquities in American Museums.” In Negotiating Culture: Heritage, Ownership, and Intellectual Property, edited by La Follette, Laetitia, 39–71. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press.Google Scholar
La Follette, Laetitia. 2017. “Looted Antiquities, Art Museums and Restitution in the United States since 1970.” Journal of Contemporary History 52, no. 3: 669–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
La Follette, Laetitia. 2018. “The Impact of the 1970 UNESCO Convention on Unprovenanced Etruscan Artifacts in the United States.” Selected Papers in Ancient Art and Architecture 4: 75–92.Google Scholar
Levine, Jane A. 2009. “The Importance of Provenance Documentation in the Market for Ancient Art and Artifacts: The Future of the Market May Depend on Documenting the Past.” DePaul Journal of Art, Technology and Intellectual Property Law 19: 219–33.Google Scholar
Lyons, Claire. 2016. “On Provenance and the Long Lives of Antiquities.” International Journal of Cultural Property 23: 245–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marlowe, Elizabeth. 2013. Shaky Ground: Context, Connoisseurship and the History of Roman Art. London: Bloomsbury Academic.Google Scholar
Marlowe, Elizabeth. 2016. “What We Talk about When We Talk about Provenance: A Response to Chippindale and Gill.” International Journal of Cultural Property 23: 217–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mescher, Elizabeth. 2018. “Institutional Transparency, Databases, and Policies: The NAAMWAA Registry and Ethical Acquisitioning of Archaeological Material and Ancient Art.” MA thesis, School of the Art Institute of Chicago (copy on file with author).Google Scholar
Norman, Naomi. 2005. “Editorial Policy on the Publication of Recently Acquired Antiquities.” American Journal of Archaeology 109: 135–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Penn Museum. 1980. “The Pennsylvania Declaration.” Expedition 22: 3. http://www.penn.museum/documents/publications/expedition/PDFs/22-3/The%20Pennsylvania.pdf (accessed 6 June 2019).Google Scholar
Salisbury, Laney, and Sujo, Aly. 2009. Provenance: How a Con Man and a Forger Rewrote the History of Modern Art. New York: Penguin Press.Google Scholar
Vikan, Gary. 2016. Sacred and Stolen: Confessions of a Museum Director. New York: Select Books.Google Scholar
Watson, Peter. 2002. “The Investigation of Frederick Schultz.” Culture without Context 10: 21–26.Google Scholar