by Siorna McFarlane

Provenance is the ‘essence of archaeology’, (K. Tubb)

without which nothing new can be identified about the past (C. Renfrew).

Provenance is a key concept in archaeology and one of the major bones of contention between professional archaeologists and members of the public who practice metal-detecting, or deal in antiquities.

What is it?

The term provenance refers to the location of an object in a specific area (Stead. 1998: 125). Connected to this idea is the archaeological anxiety over the loss of context implicit in the illicit antiquities trade. While the term provenance refers to the find spot, the context encompasses the information which can be deduced from the arrangement of objects in the ground. This information is likely to take the form of an item’s function, reason for deposit and chronology (Stead.1998: 139), along with environmental information such as pollution levels and climate conditions from the surrounding soil (Brodie et all. 2000: 9).

During a thorough archaeological excavation, these ideas provide the nerve centre for understanding the environment of the period and the human constructs behind the objects. In a way, context and object should no longer be separated from one another (Vitelli quoted in Brodie. 2002: 9), as the information they provide in conjunction enables archaeology to become a versatile process of examination; where the potential for new scientific and theoretical disciplines enables the information to be reprocessed to provide interpretation for present and future generations (Tubb. 2001: 108). 

Why is this important?

The importance of these moral claims can be seen through the 1970 UNESCO Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property. The Convention states that cultural property is one of the basic elements of civilisation and its true value can only be appreciated in relation to the fullest possible information regarding origin, history and traditional setting (O’Keefe. 2000: 2). With the ratification of the Convention by Britain in 2002, a giant step forward was taken to recognise and prevent the loss of information through theft, clandestine excavation, and illicit export which destroys this information (O’Keefe. 2000: 33). Since the concept of context can not be laboured enough for archaeologists (Tubb. 1995: 258), it is not surprising that metal-detectorists who do not declare their finds, or dealers who trade in illicitly excavated items, are viewed in a negative light (Stead. 1998: 126). 

Non Provenanced Objects

An increasingly common archaeological assertion is that all objects without provenance should be regarded as looted (Renfrew. 2000: 11). Dealers, buyers and archaeologists should accept that without concrete proof of an object’s original location, there is always the potential that the object was illicitly taken from the ground (Tubb. 2001: 111). Accepting this concept would remove the confusion in the antiquities trade between licit and illicit material, which has become hopelessly intermingled (Brodie. 2002b: 185). The concept has also been advocated by the International Committee of Museums (ICOM), which has set guidelines for obtaining new material based upon this premise. The revised guidelines do not forbid museums to accept items without a provenance (ICOM. 2000-2003: 3.2), but it is becoming increasingly common for museums to adhere to these procedures for accreditation and funding in the United Kingdom.  

Further Reading

Brodie, N, Doole, J and Renfrew, C. 2000. Stealing History: The Illicit Trade in Cultural Material. McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research: Cambridge.
 

Brodie, N. 2002. Introduction. In (eds.) Brodie, N and Tubb, K.W. Illicit Antiquities: The Theft of Culture and the Extinction of Archaeology. Routledge: London.1-23. 

 
(ICOM) International Committee of Museums. 2000-2003. Professional Code of Ethics. http://icom.museophile.org/ethics_rev_engl.html

 
O’Keefe, P.J. 2000. Commentary on the UNESCO 1970 Convention on Illicit Traffic. Institute of Art and Law Ltd: Leicester.

 
Renfrew, C. 2000. Looting Legitimacy and Ownership: The Ethical Crisis in Archaeology. Gerald Duckworth & Co. Ltd.: London.

 
Stead, I.M. 1998. The Salisbury Hoard. Tempus Publishing Ltd: Stroud, Gloucestershire

Tubb. KW and Brodie, N. 2001. ‘ From Museum to Mantelpiece: The Antiquities Trade in the United Kingdom’. In (eds.) Layton, R. Stone, P.G. and Thomas J. Destruction and conservation of Cultural Property. Routledge: London. 102-117.

 
Tubb, K.W. 2002. ‘Point, Counterpoint’. In (eds.) Brodie, N and Tubb, K.W. Illicit Antiquities: The Theft of Culture and the Extinction of Archaeology. Routledge: London. 280-301.

 
Return to Contents