Provenance... or "Who really cares?"

In class we discussed whether or not it is ethical for Archaeologists or academics to use artefacts without provenance in their research and published papers. In the case of Renfrew, using unprovenanced items in his study and publishing it in a “coffee table” book may have resulted in legitimizing the Cycladic figures that his friends had acquired.

Personally, I believe that although some artefacts may not have provenance or provenience, it does not mean they should be discounted and not studied. As I have mentioned, I believe this creates a sort of “elitist” antiquities market, wherein only those objects which have been discovered through archaeological findings are given any value. I think that if Renfrew had not used the unprovenanced items he would have been neglecting his responsibility as an academic. As mentioned in class, knowing that 2 out of 20 students represent something does not say anything about the whole. Although the exact history may not be known about an object, it should still be used, studied and admired – regardless of how it was found.

This argument becomes a slippery slope, especially if you start to think hypothetically. Let’s say for instance, someone found “the holy grail” and removed it from where they found it, sold it to a dealer, and then academics had the chance to see it and realized what a remarkable object it is and how it needs to be studied. I find it really hard to believe that in a case such as that archaeologists and academics would just turn a blind eye and say “too bad”. Obviously this is a fictional example, and is a bit absurd but – really? I think academics become their own worst enemies because they start to create prejudices within their own field. If it’s all about knowledge and the discovery of the past, I would think that they would want to study every object, regardless of its context.