---
Sept. 19th Class Notes
---

Sept. 19th

# Class Notes

Museums and Collectors:
Provenance (easy to fake), send materials to himself to have an invoice. vs provenience

Keep an eye out for 1970 = UNESCO, law anything taken out of ground had to remain in the country of origin. A lot of documents had to be faked, and would say time before.

When did your country ratify the 1970’s unesco law of antiquities.

# Free Writing:

It’s interesting that some countries have different import and export laws, so it can make an object go from illegal to ‘legal’ in the antiquities market. They could claim that it came from ‘fake’ collections that in actuality do not exist or museums could put it up for auction, get auction number and buy it ‘back’ themselves, so it creates a ‘fake’ pedigree for the artifact. Often because these artifacts were stolen or looted.

In the U.S. have laws that state must prove where exactly it came out of the ground which is extremely hard to prove.

Looting declined in 1970s cause of the increase in forgery after UNESCO laws passed. Import and export laws different in different countries make it difficult to stop looting and the illegal trade of antiquities. With the example of the Riace Bronze Statues, the fisherman found them in international waters, so therefore following the rule in the U.S. of new cultural patrimony laws, claim ownership of origin is where the modern found spot is. Therefore, Italy technically can’t claim it. So is it ethical??

I feel like this is the problem between whether museums and archaeologists are on the same side so to speak.

Ungrounded vs grounded artifacts. In a lot of museums there’s almost no description of where it was found, or the cultural context it was found in, or was influenced by, and this is a very important problem missing. I think the problem lies with enchantment, fascination, and curiosity surrounding the appeal of artifacts and the need to own it. Politics and colonial power definitely play into this context. Therefore, museums tend to overlook the contextual background and methodological archaeological practices that are central to not only crediting the background history of the object, but also understand the object in its cultural, social and political context at the time. Museums are omitting entire fractions of history.

Marlowe argues that there’s a discrepancy in regards to a statue’s historical interpretation depends on knowledge of its ancient context. Ancient settings shape meanings of Roman Art.

# Continuation of Class Notes:

Antiquities, drugs and international crime.

Sarah Bond from the university of Ioha = problem of bad archaeology has large consequences.

Archaeology always operates in a crisis mode. Need to move to an enchantment model.

Pseudoarchaeology.

The narrative of object biography.

Feminist digital cybersecurity.

# Digital:

bit.ly/2MLr1DG = add url's to your notes on this collective class page. Put link of notes on communal page.

Then create own note - collect url's you like specifically, then click book vew = notebook.

finds.org.uk = click the link - virtual, code & extract automatically ten's of thousands of data.

API = Application, Programming, Interface

# Recorder from In-class Discussion Group:

The law isn’t well defined, it's inconvenient. The main constraint on museum collections isn’t law, but is challenged with other museums and collectors. How much is legal?? What are the ramifications of this??

The Marble Figurines, they say you took it from us, but the British museum argues that they are 'simply' keeping it safe. What do you do with this?? The question is not just that Greece wants it back, because the museum could house it, however, it creates a cyclical problem of fighting between museums themselves. (This could stem from the colonial need to for power and posession. People need to own things for themselves) This links back to the idea of those Bronze Age figurines first seen as barbaric but with the rise of minimalism and simplicty, an interest turned towards them simply becase they were popular and everyone wanted them.

The form of this statues is wrong, they stationed them as standing up, however, they were initially laying down. Its based on popularity and sociability and politics of the time present in marble bronze figurines. They were first regarded as barbaric and primitive statues, when intially the public viewed them as ugly. Then with the increase of modern art, peoples ideas of 'beauty' were sculpted and re-defined.

UNESCO says this is what should do. The problem is the council can't actually force people to sign up for things. For Example: The council proposed everyone sign up for official Indigenous recognition. However, four countries who didn’t sign it was because they were still currently oppressing Indigenous peoples in their respective states. This links with the idea that you can't force archaeologists in their walls to do so. (Ideal situation)
Want people to come to museum = colonist power.
What about the laws pertaining to collections in war time??? Human remains in own borders.

Nation to nation relationship. Government body comes into play. There's a demand coming from museums and collectors, like individual but the nation demands the popularity.
Documentation, also have border patrol responsibility. (Which becomes even more complicated)
How is one supposed to discover these pieces and know. Not every country has same policies, want them enforced, or out-source trained in that policy.

Conspiracy theory=inconvenient for rich and powerful, these people don't want these rules enforced.
Private things, can get away through these loopholes on imported and exported goods.
Laws are fool proof or well organized. Is this every truly possible???

Put up artefact on aution display in London Stockholm. They would then buy it at this auction house, because it then creates a value for that artefacct and a 'pedigree' = now have faslifiation papers.
Where does the responsibility lay?? The auction house to figure out the seller identity and uthenticity of them and their artefact.

How corrupt are museums??? And what are the rights of the person finding it?? What is the obligation of that person??? Is it clearly laid out? The problem lies in people’s different perspectives and sociological back grounds that influence their morals and ethics based around the cultures their immersed in.

For example: the Statue, while legal cases in Italy between two nations, statue went to a whole bunch of places. Italy took it off the list, cause if it went then it might not come back due to importing and exporting laws, so they decided to 'keep it safe'. Is this right???

What credentials do they have as collectors, what is the distinction, are they allowed to import and export?? This could be because of money, the sense of opportunity, (Take non-legal roots).
Funds criminal enterprise. People aren’t going to do practice run, if already know routes are fruitful.

Another business for criminality. When shipping a big qauntity, what’s to say if one gets ‘misplaced’. Museums, curators is it their job to value the historical background and ensure authenticity then?

The mandate is to inform people. But then how well executed is it, if its missing its historical context. Should they put it on display and put energy, resources and time to figure out where it really belongs.

This is the difference between successful and ethical businesses. This lies with problem of increased demand of museums puting, we would say unnecessary burdens on collectors to fill those demands. Then by consequence, this leads to an increase in forgery and illegally imported and exported antiquities.

It all comes down to this colonial desire for power and need to own things, rather than the authenticity of its origin.

Fabricated documents and anonymous collectors= cycle of laundering. Smash into pieces, make more money and each individual piece gets its own provenance.