| Athena Review, Vol. 4, No. 3 | | |
Editorial: The meaning of provenience is archaeological context
| | | | |
|
Two similar-sounding terms with a critical difference in meaning,
provenance vs. provenience, lie at the center of the current
controversy over the antiquities trade and the looting of
archaeological sites. This controversy often sets archaeologists at
odds with museums and art dealers. In hopes of helping to clarify these
matters, the current issue of Athena Review presents a discussion from several perspectives.
Provenance (accent on the first syllable), a term
used by museums and dealers, basically means the sequence of ownership
of an item, while provenience (accent on the second) is the exact find
spot or site location, as used in archaeology. Determining the sequence
of ownership of an artifact is of prime legal concern to buyers and
sellers of antiquities, since artifacts acquired from a country after
it has passed laws forbidding the export of antiquities gives an
artifact contraband status. Yet determining the exact find spot of a
desired item has been often of far less concern to antiquities buyers
across the board, from individuals to museum committees.
Archaeologists have a decidedly different attitude
toward provenience, regarding it as primary information in the form of archaeological context, and a key
problem about the antiquities trade. As several articles and case
studies in this issue demonstrate, the provenience or exact find spot
of an artifact is essential to its historical identification or
interpretation. Meanwhile, it is actually in the interests of looters
and black market dealers to disguise provenience.
Thus, in the case of Maya monumental sculpture with
inscriptions, as Christina Luke discusses (pp.46-54), a portion of a
carved stela may be looted from a Maya site (perhaps crudely detached
with a chainsaw) for sale to the antiquities market. It is normal for
the looters (often local laborers who get paid little for their spoils)
and the middlemen selling the item to disguise or eliminate information
on the provenience, since such looting is illegal. When the stela
segment reaches a museum, the fragment will likely be displayed as an
integral piece, with no mention that it has been looted from a
particular site, and perhaps only a vague attribution such as
“Maya carved stela from the region of ___”. As various case
studies in this issue demonstrate, for the museum representative or
collector who buys such a piece, it is often more convenient not to
know the provenience. The devious means taken by black market dealers
to disguise provenience create a climate of disinformation. For
the archaeologist, historian, or museum visitor, meanwhile, essential
information — the provenience or source location of the artifact
—has been irretrievably lost in the process.
Others feeling the loss, of course, include citizens
of the country from which the piece was illegally removed. As Michele
Miller describes in her introductory article (pp.18-26) some countries
including Italy and Greece have begun in the last few years to
aggressively prosecute individuals — ranging from looters and
black market dealers to museum curators — involved in the illegal
antiquities trade. This has led, especially in the case of Italy and
the ongoing detective work of its art theft squad, a branch of the
police or Carabinieri, to the recovery of hundreds of artifacts in the
past few years. Examples from several major museums in the US and
abroad are featured in three case studies (pp.31-44). These focus on
how the Carabinieri and other agencies have actually determined the
provenience, or source locations, of certain celebrated artifacts with
disguised sources, sold through the antiquities market in the past two
decades.
The overall problem is complex, because many local
people make their living from either looting or the sale of
antiquities. The latter aspect, presented in the paper by Julie
Hollowell (p.55-65), is of extreme interest — the legal artifact
trade in Alaska by individuals of the native cultures themselves
(Eskimo and Aleut). Here, ivory carvings from as early as 1500-2000
years ago from the Old Bering Sea culture, are recovered — and
legally traded — along with more modern Eskimo carvings
(including more than a few forgeries). One of the underlying points of
the article is that legalization of some aspects of the antiquities
trade is one way to eliminate the virulent effects of the black market
(such as the destruction of provenience to foil detection).
Two other articles in this issue cover the Archaic
or aceramic period in Puerto Rico, and the evolution of Greek and Roman
theaters in ancient Thrace and Moesia (Modern Bulgaria). Angel Rodiguez
(pp.66-71) details the use of large mollusk shells as tools by archaic
coastal cultures in the Bahia las Cabezas in northwestern Puerto Rico.
Stiliyan Stanimirov (pp.72-80) traces the evolution of the Graeco Roman
theater from its origins as a setting for performed tragedies and
comedies, to an increasingly spectacle-oriented venue in Roman times,
culminating in the arena with gladiatorial contests.
This article appears on page 1 in Vol.4 No.3 of Athena
Review.
..
|
|
| Athena
Review Image Archive™ Main
index of Athena Review
Copyright © 2005-2019 Athena Publications, Inc.
(All Rights Reserved). | | |
.
|