Displaying Archaeology
values, methodologies, and varying notions of authenticity
Author:
Supervisor:
Emily Cavanagh
Gert-Jan van Wijngaarden
MA Mediterranean Archaeology
July 01, 2016
Abstract
Is there a right or a wrong way to display an archaeological object? By outlining the various players involved in the management of these items, and through the identification of museum typologies present in the Western
world, this paper will discuss the ethical principles that these institutions are confronted with. The role of authenticity and aesthetics significantly affects
the way these objects are treated and viewed, and this classification is in large part dictated by experts in the field. Interviews conducted with museum representatives in the Netherlands helps to support the assertion that there
are differences among institutions, and that the ethical principles in place should be adhered to in consideration of valuable anthropological material so that the public’s understanding of our historical past is not fabricated.
Table of Contents
I. Introduction:
A Look at TEFAF
……….
4
I.I Defining Fine Art ………..……..……….……… 9
II.
Methodologies ……….……….
13
II.I Authenticity
……..……….…
13
II.II Aesthetics
………. 16
II.III Value
………..…
18
III.
Participants ………..………
20
III.I The Museum
……….
25
III.II The Archaeologist
……….…
28
IV.
Display ………..
31
IV.I Discussion
………
35
V.
A Code of Ethics ….………...……...….
41
VI.
Conclusion ………..…...….…
44
VII.
Appendix ………....……
49
VI.II Vincent Geerling
………....…… 50
VI.III Réne van Beek
………..…..….. 54
VI.IV Ruurd Halbertsma
………....………
60
Chapter 1
Introduction: A Look at TEFAF
This year marked the 28th anniversary of the European Fine Art Fair (TEFAF) held in
Maastricht, the Netherlands. The event is regarded by many as the world’s leading art exhibition, and is one of the only fairs dedicated to the sale of Old Master’s and antiquities. Spanning over a period of ten days, the fair provides the opportunity for over 275 art dealers and various galleries to showcase their wares to an international audience.
On March 20th 2016, the final Sunday of TEFAF, I attended the crowded Maastricht
Exhibition & Congress Centre (MECC) and was welcomed by many professionals of a multifarious nature. Exhibits were crowded with eager guests hoping to make last minute purchases and to visually absorb as much as the final hours of the event would allow. Red stickers dotted the labels accompanying many objects, an indication of their recent acquisition. My attendance was leisurely driven, for a personal interest in objects of antiquity and fine art was incentive to purchase a ticket several weeks in advance. And what a thrill it was. Cruising the stalls among the elite and various international art collectors representing unique, and authentic objects. This thought however, had me stop in my tracks. In the final stages of obtaining a Master’s degree in Mediterranean Archaeology, where weeks are spent discussing cultural artefacts from an anthropological perspective, and an elective entitled Archaeology, Museums and the Public with lectures on authenticity and display tactics, how is it that I can use this word so loosely to describe the diversity of objects present? Maybe in part because the word was constantly recurring throughout the fair, utilized for descriptive purposes to emphasize the quality and the one-of-a-kind status of a work. Or perhaps, the thought was purely a result of contemporary influence, after all authenticity is a cultural construct.1 It can be
dictated by our perception of an object, and vice versa.
Considerable public interest in notions of authenticity is a relatively recent concept,2 and
is largely confined to the Western world. The presence of the term at TEFAF frequently
appeared in connection with ancient artefacts and those of a historical nature, including works on paper. Perhaps this is because antique art and objects of antiquity are sometimes seen as a static commodity, one that is no longer produced, and therefore is becoming harder to buy.
1 Lindholm 2008: Introduction
Once I considered this notion, I began to question how and why these objects were represented as such, and what major players were involved in the process.
figure 1. The European Fine Art Foundation in Maastricht, the Netherlands. 2016. (TEFAF www.axa-art.lu) A major shift in art market trends over the last few years has effected the selection of objects offered for sale at the exhibition. This is partially due to a shortage in museum-quality paintings and the shifting tastes of collectors.3 Since its conception in 1988 the annual fair has focused
primarily on the sale of antiquities and objects of history. Now a variety of “Classical Modern and Contemporary Art, Photographs, Jewellery, Twentieth Century Design and Works on Paper”4 are displayed and are available for purchase. An increased demand for contemporary
art objects has undoubtedly influenced the presence of vendors, as exhibiting galleries go through a very selective process undertaken by TEFAF committee members. In 2015 a selection of contemporary artists were featured in a small exhibition curated by Sydney Picasso,5 but this
year for the first time, an entire contemporary art section was added to the showroom floor. The presence of this new art inevitably corresponds with a recent surge on the art market which
3 Reyburn 2010
4 TEFAF Maastricht 2015: Introduction 5 Perlson 2016
since 2010 has been making record sales in the area of contemporary and modern art.6 These
observations have led me to question what the role of antiquities is today, on the market and in the public sphere. The purpose of this paper is not to negate the role of these objects in support of contemporary imagery, but rather to shed light on changing trends and the ethical role of the institution, or more specifically, the participants involved. A press release courtesy of TEFAF gives mention of museum involvement, claiming that “scholarship is at the heart of TEFAF, which annually attracts international museums who are active throughout the fair.”7 The fair
provides an opportunity for institutions such as the Rijksmuseum and the Boston Fine Art museum to add to their collections, but how do museums such as these cope with changing market trends?
In a world where the demand for more current or recent works is increasingly rising, it is interesting to observe how the role of archaeological objects has changed on the market and in the hands of the museum institution. Ancient artefacts themselves have always been of particular interest because they cannot be made anew, and thus they maintain their inherent value. As the TEFAF demonstrates, these objects are still coveted and successfully sold, alongside an escalated price amalgamating said objects with contemporary market standards. However, as this changing trend reveals, the 21st century has witnessed a major shift in power
dynamics as the current age of innovative design and new technologies is rapidly increasing and replacing the historical object.
Today, an object’s aesthetic and market value is of greater importance than the understanding of the contexts in which an object was created and viewed.8 A result of the
changing trend, the presence of archaeological artifacts at such fairs exemplifies their
collectability as objects of high art, on a much greater scale. Western criteria of what identifies an object as high art have been part of the art historical cannon for decades, beginning in the mid-16th century when the first academic school known as the Accademia e Compagnia delle Arti
del Disegno was founded in Florence.9 Since then, the standards of fine art have been studied
and made identifiable by academia, specifically . Objects of antiquity, specifically those
originating from Egypt, Classical Greece and Rome, are praised by aestheticists for they uphold the criteria imposed by the Academy.10 Certain artifacts are marketed to validate their status of
6 McAndrew 2010; Ehrmann 2011 7 TEFAF Maastricht 2016: Press Release 8 Scott 2006: 629
9Hughes 1986: 3
importance, in order to compete with the current age. In this regard the consideration placed on these culturally significant items is great. Much discussion has been allotted to topics of
authenticity, aesthetics and value in consideration of cultural objects, creating a potentially harmful system where objects of historical significance are regarded more for their superficial aspects, and as a result the information projected may not be factually true. Sarah Scott comments on the dangers of this system in her article entitled Art and the Archaeologist, by “reflecting on the history of approaches to ancient art we can demonstrate the limitations and dangers of interpretative frameworks in which aesthetic value is prioritized above all else.”11
In instances where archaeological objects act as historical sources rather than coveted collectables, a look at the criteria utilized by experts in the field can help to explain this dichotomy. The treatment of these objects will be discussed in more detail in the following chapters, but first it is essential to understand how objects of archaeological significance have transformed alongside trends in museum collecting. It was between 1800-1840 that museums of antiquity gained immense popularity in the Western world.12 Most museums evolved from
private entities and emerged from small collections of a particular focus pertaining to the interests and passions of the individuals who began the collection and into a broadly defined collection existing in order to serve the public.13 The museum today holds a public service role
as an educational institution, and the archaeological museum is at the centre of this critical responsibility as a depot of historical heritage. The museum acts as a repository of cultural artifacts, as a preserver of various cultures and traditions. Through the display of material remains, the museum provides insight into the past and the evolutionary developments of society. Most major Western museums have accumulated a collection of ancient art from around the world, and as previously stated, objects from ancient Egypt, Classical Greece and Rome are most coveted.
Although there is an obvious contrast as the old competes with contemporary art objects, the public is still engaged with objects of cultural history. As Ian Russell comments in his article on psychoanalysis and group identity in archaeology, there appears to be a
psychological necessity for archaeological materializations; performed in excavations, exhibitions and transcribed in text, by the public, as “large groups and individuals consume
11 Scott 2006: 629
12 Impey and MacGregor 1985: Introduction 13 Barker 2010: 294
archaeological objects as icons to fulfil modern psychological desires for identity.”14 Visibly
there is a constant interaction between people’s senses and the physical world. The active nature of objects lies in their ability to elicit and channel particular sensory responses on the part of people.15
When it comes to the role of archaeological objects in the museum institution, a lot has been written about their historical significance and understanding the greater context of past societies.16 Recently, especially in the 21st century, objects of aesthetic value are generally
displayed as art rather than as archaeological objects, standing alone with little accompanying text.17 As Chippindale and Gill elaborate: “An interest in ancient things has been, and is,
directed by two modern concerns. Connoisseurship we define as esteem for, and appreciation of, beautiful artifacts, especially those that seem to fall into the domain of the fine and
decorative arts. Archaeology we define as the study of past societies by means of their surviving material remains. The two concerns overlap when it comes to those material remains of past societies that are regarded as beautiful.”18
This report will delve into the role of the archaeological object in the following chapters, touching on the concept of authenticity, aesthetics, and value and overall their pivotal
contribution in tactics of display. This is a topic worthy of investigation for in the West words such as ‘art’ are used to designate objects of particular sensory value in our culture, although not all cultures have a category of art. To use the words of Chris Gosden, “notions of art and aesthetics have long been part of archaeological discussions, but few, if any, of these discussions focus on the links between objects, embodied experience and the senses. When discussions of art and aesthetics do take place in archaeology they often have an untheorized look to them and revolve around issues of typology, dating and the transmission of style.”19 These words act as a
departure point for the following sub-chapter, which examines the meaning of fine art and how it pertains to archaeological material.
14 Russell 2006: 193
15 Gosden 2002: 165
16 Barker 2010; Honour and Fleming 2005; Vickers 1985; Ziff 1953 17 Scott 2006: 629
18Chippindale and Gill 1993: 601-602 19 Gosden 2002: 163
I.II Defining Fine Art
A question that academics have been confronted with for centuries, is whether or not
archaeological artefacts can, or should, be considered art objects.20 Some archaeologists argue
that when an ancient object is considered fine art it is deprived of its historical significance,21 for
once an object is deemed an aesthetic entity, its integrity is harmed. Understandably, aesthetics play a large part in the judgements of fine art. Judgements of beauty and aesthetics first
developed during the Enlightenment period, with the German philosopher Immanuel Kant providing a first look at quality, morality, beauty and form in his work Observations on the Feeling of the Beautiful and Sublime (1764) and later in the Critique of Judgment (1790). In this text Kant reflects that aesthetic judgments are based on an individual’s subjective feelings, however when appreciating beauty, aesthetic responses are quite universal.22 Kant also distinguishes the
beautiful from the sublime. Whereas what is appealing about a beautiful object is relatively evident, the sublime is somewhat indescribable and mysterious. The sublime is a less concrete entity, for it may take shape in the natural environment through storm clouds or an awe-inspiring phenomenon. In this way the sublime is connected with the cognitive mind and although it may be applied to a physical object, enhancing its impression on the viewer, it’s occurrence does not take the form of an object, but instead is related to ideas of reason.23
Kant’s contribution influenced later generations of philosophers and art critics, such as Clive Bell and Clement Greenburg who would write in favour of new artists and styles, and thus the knowledge and understanding of these variables grew to include new creative typologies. A diversity in art and its various forms stemming from the late nineteenth- early twentieth centuries are especially present in the Western world. Modern art, and to a greater extent Contemporary artwork of the current decade will emerge in the form of almost anything. Take photography for example, an eighteenth-century technological invention which was used to reflect the everyday, including the documentation of social and political occurrences, only emerging as a fine art medium when used as a creative juxtaposition.24
Of course, the appreciation of art and its various forms is dependent on individual taste. According to David Hume, yet another philosopher of the eighteenth century writing on behalf
20 Freeland 2001: Introduction 21 Scott 2006
22 Beardsley 1981 23Matthews 1996: 166
of naturalism and aesthetics, an understanding of taste is dependent on one’s education and experience. Hume thought that “men of taste acquire certain abilities that lead to agreement about which authors and artworks are the best. Such people, he felt, eventually will reach a consensus, and in doing so, they set a ‘standard of taste’ which is universal.”25 Although
Hume’s perspective is relative to the individual, an issue arises as, according to Hume’s
definition, ‘good taste’ is rather elitist. Experts can differentiate works of a high quality but only because their values have developed through cultural indoctrination.26 This perspective negates
those without an art historical education whom are fully capable of recognizing and appreciating a work of fine art. So although education and experience may enhance an
individual’s understanding of art and aid in the development of their personal taste, it doesn’t explain why certain objects are classified as fine art.
One thing that remains clear, is that once an object is deemed beautiful it fits into an art historical category. This trajectory has expanded to include objects of contemporary ingenuity and conceptual fortitude, allowing for varying standards of critique to be applied. Although this has little to do with ancient artefacts conceived decades ago, its influence impacts the way these objects are represented today. As aesthetician Paul Ziff identifies, “So long as art remains what it has always been, something changing and varied, so long as there are artistic
revolutions, the phrase “work of art,” or some equivalent locution, will continue to be used in many ways.”27 This is quite a general definition of fine art, but it explains how objects
unmotivated by aesthetic principles have acquired such a title.
Preceding our contemporary acceptance and understanding of Modern and Contemporary art, philosophers of art, such as Monroe Beardsley focused on the aesthetic experience. Beardsley laid claim that “an artwork is an arrangement of conditions intended to be capable of affording an experience with marked aesthetic character – that is, an object (loosely speaking) in the fashioning of which the intention to enable it to satisfy the aesthetic interest played a significance causal part.”28 He expands this description somewhat elaborately,
but maintains the position that in the course of art history, artworks and aesthetic objects tend to be the same. But what if we leave aesthetics aside? After all, a ceramic vase originating from Classical Greece and on display in a museum setting to be observed, studied and admired, was
25 Freeland 2001: 9
26 Ibid, 10 27Ziff 1953: 67 28 Beardsley 1981: xix
made to serve a domestic purpose29 is quite peculiar when put in a new context. How did Greek
vases come to be admired as objects of fine art? It is true that Classical vases demonstrate artistic merit through figure painting and fine craftsmanship, for the Greeks were the first aestheticians, concerned with beauty they followed what was considered objective principles of art.30 However, the appearance of early aesthetic principles is apparent in Classical sculpture
and monuments of the time, not necessarily with daily household items such as ceramic vessels, and Beardsley’s stance that an artwork is anything belonging to some art form, negates objects that are ‘mechanically or accidentally produced instances of an art kind would not in his opinion, be artworks.”31 Except, is a kylix not a useful tool for drinking? An amphora a useful
storage container? What’s the significant difference between an everyday household item of the 21st century, take a ceramic coffee mug for example, and an ancient Greek drinking vessel? Are
they not mechanically created for functional purposes, with decorative attributes? A coffee mug would certainly not be classified as an object of fine art, even in today’s welcoming and all-encompassing art market.
This is where historical significance plays a part, or more specifically the age of an object. I would argue that age plays an even greater role than that of aesthetic judgement, in the
classification of fine art, however determining the age of an object is still somewhat subjective, as it is often dictated by an individual’s knowledge of a certain period and is thus susceptible to expert judgement. Our understanding and appreciation of ancient artefacts has largely
developed in the last century, and as a result, the appreciation of antique objects has grown significantly, as great value is placed on objects of a historical nature.32 In the academic
discipline, art historians, archaeologists and anthropologists differ on what they think should be called a ‘work of art’ and what should be called an ‘artifact.’33 With this in mind, consensus does
exist among these scholars in consideration of historical significance, which also rests among museum professionals working on behalf of these artefacts. A standard museum collection today is designed to include all objects that are prized and collected, whether or not they were originally designed to be useful. Ancient coins, lanterns, weaponry and even instruments such as tweezers, are archaeological materials currently being exhibited as art objects alongside high Classical sculpture.
29 Ziff 1953: 65
30 Bychkov and Sheppard 2010: Introduction 31 Beardsley 1981: xxi
32 Timberlake 1997: 130 33 Bator 1982: 284-285
These artefacts are treated as such because of their value and age, morphing into artful curiosities, or objects of fine art. The occurrence of this does rely on the persons involved in the presentation of these objects, and will differ depending on the institution. The questions that immediately arise then, are the how and why archaeological artefacts are deemed fine art objects, and what factors influence this categorization? Evidently this classification is not absolute to include “archaeological artifacts as objects of art” versus “archaeological objects as sources of historical information,” for it is much more substantial than that. What will unfold in the following chapters is how objects such as ethnographic artefacts are represented when on view to the public.
Many individuals influence our perception of objects and are involved in their circulation and continuous life span. Which players determine the classification of
archaeological objects, and by what methods and approaches are these objects displayed and emphasized? In order to understand the value placed on these artefacts, an investigation into the major players involved in the art world is necessary. Therefore, the discussion in this thesis will continue by identifying the major players and their role in the art world. Furthermore, through the conduction of interviews with participants involved in the acquisition, sale and display of ancient objects, this dissertation will uncover the varying perspectives of these players, and the opposition faced in the consideration of these categories. Our perception of art is a praxis: its study must go through psychology, through economics (the art market), through anthropology and architecture (where objects are placed).34 Considering the incomprehensible
weight of such a task, this paper will approach merely a fragment of the debate while offering the first comparative study approaching the opposing viewpoints concerning aesthetics, authenticity and value of archaeological objects among academic archaeologists and museum institutions. Moreover, this paper will investigate the methodologies by way of which these viewpoints are produced and the way different viewpoints relate to each other.
Chapter II
Methodologies
Many theorists have attempted to identify a universal system to critique categories of fine art.35 What appears to be the indisputable truth is that although art standards exist they are
not ubiquitous and are prone to subjectivity. Some recognized criteria adopted in the early twentieth century includes such generalizations as; ‘agreeableness,’ ‘similarity to natural objects,’ and ‘lasting’ qualities.36 As one might imagine contention between varying parties is
subject to develop when implementing such criteria. What is certain is that an understanding and appreciation of these aspects is learned over time through familiarity and experience; such as learning to play a musical instrument increases one’s ear for music.37 These conditions in the
art world can be applied most specifically to tangible objects; as aesthetic judgements are largely a result of conditioning. An increasing familiarity with certain styles or typologies will increase an individual’s positive associations with said object. This could lead to partiality on behalf of some objects as opposed to others. This is one of the main reasons that our notions of aesthetic, authenticity and value are subject to change, as despite the universal standards in place, interpretations of such are rarely homogenous.
As theorists discuss methods of criteria, participants in the world of fine art apply their own areas of expertise. Contingent on following a strict set of rules, which of course depends on the individual, their motives and their background, how do these players apply said criteria? What methodologies are imposed by the elite?
II.I Authenticity
When we view something as authentic it almost immediately becomes significant and special.38 We inherently perceive objects labeled as authentic to be exceptional, but what exactly
does the term mean? The Oxford English Dictionary defines authentic as it applies to a
document, artefact or artwork as “having the stated or reputed origin, provenance, or creator; not a fake or a forgery,” while being “genuine and true,” and made in a “traditional or original
35 Beardsley 1981; Ziff 1953; Farnsworth 1926 36 Ibid
37 Freeland 2001: 9
way.”39 The definition also mentions that an object is authoritative and rare and can also be
identified philosophically, as denoting an emotionally appropriate, significant and purposive mode of human life.
It wasn’t until the 1970s that criteria of authenticity and integrity emerged.The working document prepared for the first session of the World Heritage Committee was issued in 1978, where previously the initial evaluation criteria including the “test of authenticity” was developed in 1976.40 Although it is more defined, the authenticity debate is a complex and
controversial one. Legal documents such as the Nara document on Authenticity of 1994 have been established to address issues of authenticity, in an effort to synthesize a broader
understanding of cultural heritage and relative values when evaluating cultural property. While interest in authenticity has been present for centuries, evaluation criteria and a general
understanding of what constitutes the use of the word has lagged far behind.41
Antiquities become part of these debates when they are discovered by archaeologists in situ. However, their integrity is threatened in many instances when archaeological sites are disrupted. The abundant use of the term authenticity at fairs such as TEFAF might explain the need of the art industry to appeal to the collector while inducing a sense of security. According to Andrew Potter, the term evokes financial importance, which may bias collectors to acquiring recent works of art where provenance can be proven more easily.42
Determining the genuineness of an artefact is imparted by specialists, and at art fairs the practice of examining objects pre-sale is known as vetting. TEFAF alone invites over 175
international experts to examine the authenticity, quality and condition of all objects offered for sale.43 Although there are strict guidelines followed by vetting committees at art fairs today,
definitions of authenticity in the arts are in constant negotiation among experts, for it remains an elusive concept44 that differs cross-culturally. Its notable presence in the Western museum is
a reflection of modern values including preconceived concepts of what is genuine and special. This is often emanated by ancient objects in a museum setting, for they emanate a certain aura unique to objects of history.
39 OED 2016: Authentic
40 Stovel 2007: 22 41 Ibid
42 Potter 2010: 9
43 TEFAF Maastricht 2015: Vetting 44 van Wijngaarden 2008: 125
Today modern museums live in the public eye. Not only is the museum institution universally the largest tourist attraction in the world,45 they are constantly in the media. As a
result, whenever a major acquisition takes place, it is usually a very public affair. Even small institutions garner much attention, when acquiring objects of repute.46 When a major
acquisition or an object already in a museum’s permanent collection, turns out to be a fake or forgery the institution receives even greater media attention, albeit of a negative character. Infamous institutions such as the British Museum, the Louvre and the Metropolitan Museum of Art have all had their fair share of publicity nightmares. The ‘restoration of the Elgin marbles’ in the 1930s left the 500BC marbles “deformed,”47 and the Louvre’s acquisition and display of a
fake antiquity, Saitaphernes’ Golden Tiara, caused great embarrassment to the institution at the turn of the century.48 So, how do these items enter the museums undetected? And how are they
treated?
As discussed in an interview with Samuel Sachs, concerning authenticity, the author commends the role of the museum, stating that “museums have an obligation to the public to be reasonably certain about what they buy.”49 Even if they are not buying with public money, they
are putting it on public display as an educational tool. And they are maintaining a certain level of both expertise and quality in their judgment. Expertise on the part of the scholars is
extremely important to museums; such expertise includes that of their own curators as well as of scholars who work in universities or sometimes scholars who are dealers . . . museums rely on reliable dealers.”50 In an interview with Vincent Geerling, the antiquities dealer mentions a
major shift in museum acquisition practices since the early 2000’s. Confident in the authenticity of the objects in his collection, he encounters difficulty when objects don’t have corresponding documents prior to 1970. This is mostly a result of corresponding provenance, as a lack of such might suggest the not-so-legal acquisition of an object according to the laws of UNESCO 1970 regarding the prohibition and prevention of illicit import, export and transfer of ownership of cultural property.51 When asked about presence of fakes and forgeries on the antiques market,
Geerling responds by saying; “there are many on the market for sure, and you learn the hard way. I will not say I have bought many forgeries but I have. The trick is you have to find out if it is a forgery
45 Kirshenblatt-Gimblett 1998 46 Fabrikant 2005
47 Smith 1999 48 La Niece 2009: 330
49 Sachs and Spencer 2004: 106 50 Ibid: 107
before you offer it for sale. It would be very embarrassing if you offer an item and someone comes back saying you sold them a forgery. That is the last thing you want to happen. So, if it happens you were too eager to buy. It happens now and then, and if any museum person that buys claims that he has never bought a forgery, it is not true. He might not have found out that it is a forgery, but…”52 As discussed
previously, not all museum professionals possess the necessary aptitude to identify falsities in historical objects. But what about the museum archaeologist? Archaeologists are first and foremost scholars, specialists in specific disciplines with practical experience and knowledge of historical contexts, many of which work alongside academic museums. Archaeological
discoveries, including the remnants of towns and villages, provide insight into the lives of the ancients, as excavated materials act as non-renewable resources that provide contextual
evidence of past times. Do archaeologists assist in the authentication of artifacts in a museum’s collection, or are the objects treated differently as they become objects of aesthetic value. The distinction between archaeological artefacts as academic sources of information and as art objects only really appears in academic institutions, and therefore these institutions are liable to exhibit an archaeological record.
The authenticity of material culture is crucial in determining the past. As underpinned by the famous art scholar Denis Dutton, “Everyone recognizes that the proper identification of an art object as genuine or forged is crucial as regards to monetary value, that forgery has moral implications, that there are more important historical reasons for wanting to distinguish the genuine from the faked art object.”53 The acquisition, conservation and practical esthetics of an
object must be considered in any regarded institution and presented accordingly, otherwise that said institution is presenting an inaccurate portrayal wrought with historical fiction. I would argue that the way in which a cultural object is treated in terms of its aesthetics, value and display impacts the way authenticity is imparted, and that the archaeologist’s lack of input in the modern museum ensures that objects are consistently misrepresented.
II.II Aesthetics
The term aesthetic derives from the Greek aesthēsis, referring to looking or perceiving objects of interest.54 Since its inception the term has evolved to include objects that emanate
beauty and are appealing to the senses. A highly influential figure in the history of modern
52 Geerling 2016: Interview 53 Dutton 2003
aesthetics is eighteenth-century scholar J.J. Winckelmann who emphasized the ideal unity of Greek sculpture.55 Since then, objects of antiquity are often regarded for their rarity and
superior craftsmanship, whereas they had previously been neglected by aestheticism. As illustrated in Chapter I.II, aesthetic judgments are largely a result of social
conditioning.56 When it comes to archaeological objects that are deemed aesthetically pleasing,
evidently morphing into art objects, it is important to recognize that our Western values have shaped these objects in such a way. These objects that we cherish for artistic qualities are often ancient household items or common funeral offerings made for functionality or as idols. These objects that can fit in a museum setting and can be distributed widely from a single source, evoke a very different effect from temples and ancient sites which people have to visit in order to experience them.57 Perceiving something as aesthetic comes from the attachment of value we
place on the sensory experience of objects or events.58 Not surprisingly, many scholars have
criticized the use of aesthetics in the anthropology of art. Take Cycladic figurines for example. These small objects gained immense popularity in the early to mid-twentieth century, having previously fallen outside the ideal Greek canon59 as outlined by J.J. Winckelmann and his peers
of the Renaissance period. Their popularity among collectors rose as Western art evolved to include the aesthetic elements of minimalism. Today Cycladic figurines are included in all museum collections of ancient sculpture, as they now symbolise an aesthetic ideal previously dismissed as oddities.
Since these objects have been deemed aesthetic and valuable, they have universally become aesthetic and valuable. This appreciation is completely distinct from the aesthetic appreciation of the past, where Classical sculptures and figurines were typically coloured.60 The
‘restoration of the Elgin marbles’ as previously mentioned, was an attempt to make them whiter61 and conform to modern tastes. Changes in Western standards has effected the way
objects such as the Cycladic figurine are considered and in turn the way that these objects are exhibited and contextualised. The figures were first perceived as inadequate, so the intellectual context of the first acquisitions circulated around archaeology rather than artistic status.62
55 Scott 2006: 631
56 Farnsworth 1926: 325-326 57 Gosden 2001: 165
58 Sharman 1977: 178
59 Chippindale and Gill 1993: 602-603 60 Hendrix 2003
61 Smith 1999
Aesthetic judgements originate subjectively until they are introduced into the canon and are universally accepted. Aesthetic suggests that an item is visually appealing, it is typically used alongside the terms artistic and beautiful to express admiration for objects that appear skillfully designed.63 This is a pressing issue, as “claims on behalf of pure aesthetics may threaten claims
on behalf of scholarship.”64
Museums will often value the aesthetic quality of an object over context, thus often context is lacking.65 Professor Jerome Stolnitz suggests in his text Aesthetics and Philosophy of Art
Criticism, that aesthetics should be studied empirically. If this is the case, is there room for archaeological input? Can the two live in tandem? When discussions of aesthetics take place in archaeology, “they often have an untheorized look to them and revolve around issues of typology, dating and the transmission of style.”66 An archaeologist might find an object
fascinating due to its historical properties, creating an appealing visualization simply from a deep and scientific understanding of the objects history and cultural significance. Even public opinion is apt to find an object more interesting once context is provided. A common black glaze bowl might not be of particular interest until someone mentions it’s unique design or unusual colouring which might separate it from other objects of its type. This one of a kind status can be deemed by the scholar, adding significance and value to the artifact.
Aesthetics can also be dictated through the ways in which objects are exhibited. The act of putting a bronze cooking vessel (with missing fragments) in a showcase may provide artistic merit to a household item. Museums have the power to effectively transform objects67 and the
ways in which they choose to do so significantly impact our interpretation of these objects.
II.III Value
Authenticity and aesthetic can be paired together when determining an objects value. An object’s value can be represented by its monetary worth or its inherent status. There are rough guidelines universally accepted to aid in the identification of valuable objects, but the details are subject to the specialist involved.68
63 Stolnitz 1960: 21 64 Bator 1982: 295 65 Scott 2006 66 Gosden 2001: 163 67 Ibid
Consummate quality is coveted and museums may value objects regardless of their worth. The public’s fascination with history and historical objects has highly influenced the excavation of various sites in the Mediterranean and thus shaped the modern museum collection. The scale of trade in ancient art is immense, and as the value placed on objects increases, the fragility of archaeological sites are at risk.69 The integrity of the antiquities market
is thus put into question, as the financial value of an art object may take precedence over veracity and archeological proof. A growing emphasis on curatorial context in the museum setting has influenced collecting practices and value. Sarah Scott comments on the significance of Greco-Roman sculpture and ceramics in the museum institution, stating that “it is clear that the treatment of certain forms of material culture such as art – with the application of art
historical methods of analysis – lend status and market value to a range of objects, most notably the sculpture and ceramics of Classical Greece and Rome.”70 These objects are highly valued
today both artistically and commercially. Until recently, the history and discovery of an ancient artifact was a crucial entity in determining its value. By acting as a monument to societal values, the museum notably emphasizes its most esteemed objects. Visitors to the museum are
constantly reminded of Greco-Roman origins, as the purpose-built museum asserts the influence and aesthetic quality of classical patrimony. In consideration of these methodologies, how do participants in the field consider these concepts, and what level of attention do they allot to these variables? The following Chapter will discuss the stakeholders involved in consideration of archaeological objects, before zooming in on several participants and its effects on cultural property.
69 Scott 2006: 628
Chapter III
Participants
The age of the connoisseur has expanded from a group of experts in the field of taste and expertise in the area of fine art, into a large group with many participants. The objective of this chapter is to identify those involved in the realm of antiquities, and to hone in on the major players shaping our public perception of archaeological objects in the world of fine art.
A comprehensive typology of the contributing agents operating in the art world is lacking71 therefore, instead of observing a hierarchy or critiquing art world supremacy, the
following discussion will proceed with an unbiased outlook on the various participants having shaped our Western point of view on historical and ancient artefacts, in a somewhat
chronological manner. The first question to address is whether there are elements or criteria that can be used universally to discern experts from non-experts. Unlike many working
professionals, art experts are not subject to any licensing system, and many lack official
qualifications.72 There are appraisal programs and memberships available for anyone hoping to
become involved in the art industry, offering various forms of training and certificates. Typically, all that is required for those entering the industry is a formal education in the arts, which is sometimes valued higher than practical experience because knowledge gained by experience, although valuable, is very difficult to gauge.73
James Shanteau, a psychologist and scholar from Kansas State University, has done extensive research on the topic of expertise and the various criteria for identifying players.74 His
research makes the claim that the best experts are the best performers75 and that social
acclamation by one’s peers establishes one as an expert.76 According to the work of Arora Payal
and Filip Vermeylen, the process of identifying the true art expert is a contentious and debatable topic. What remains universally true however, is that an art connoisseur makes authoritative decisions based on their “ability to distinguish and discriminate between subtle
71 Arora and Vermeylen 2013a: 196 72 Levy 1991: 600
73 Du Boff 1976: 986
74 Arora and Vermeylen 2013b; Shanteau et al. 2002 75 Shanteau and Weiss 2014: 447-457
and not so subtle differences within an artistic oeuvre.”77 In consideration of this criteria in
association with the work of Shanteau and in combination with some general observations, the following list should be applied when discerning an art expert:
• Instills trust among clients
• Social acclamation in the art world – being recognized among one’s peers. • Formal education
• An area of specialization • Ability to assess quality
The Auction House
In an increasingly globalized art market, the auction house holds great power and even greater responsibility in that they operate within strict guidelines to ensure the quality and genuineness of the objects offered for sale.78 Client satisfaction is of utmost importance as the institution
relies on its clients to provide objects of historical and cultural significance in order to sell said objects to clients eager to add to their collections. Larger auction houses such as Christie’s and Sotheby’s are known to extend financial services to valued clients in the form of guarantees, advances, sales-related loans and term loans79 which act to secure a consignment or investment
purchase.
The last thirty years has witnessed major growth in the auction industry, evolving into a multibillion-dollar business.80 Its popularity and elevated status in the last decade is a result of
the mainstream financial investment community,81 as art becomes an increasingly popular
investment opportunity. International investors are using the auction house as a trading platform. Financial reports such as the TEFAF Art Market Report of 2014, which states that the global art market reached its highest ever-recorded level financially, establish the strength of the art market from an economical perspective, but many wonder when the bubble will burst.82
London and New York act as major depots for auctions, but the market is active in many cities worldwide. Sales are open to the general public and are often accessible through online platforms with certain categories of fine art attracting major attention in the twenty-first
77 Arora and Vermeylen 2013a: 200 78 Charney 2009: 202
79 McAndrew 2010 80 Ibid; Charney 2009: 203 81 McAndrew 2010 82 Helmore 2016
century, specifically Modern and Contemporary art pieces. Antiquities are present but on a much smaller scale as they are becoming increasingly rare in comparison to the abundant Contemporary art sector which is in constant production. Art specialists, conservators and auctioneers act as players in the auction house industry, often with a background in art history and business.
Antiquities departments have been shrinking in the last century due to legal issues commonly faced by private collectors and dealers when buying and selling.83 The relatively
recent phenomenon which demands for documented provenance of ancient objects has created tension for owners who simply failed to keep records of their objects.84 Separate legislations
exist such as the UNESCO Convention; Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES); Convention on Cultural Property Implementation Act of 1983;85 among many
others (see Pearlstein for a full overview). With this in mind, buying at auction is generally an easier solution for private collectors, dealers and museums as it removes the ‘headache’ governing the purchase and sale of Ancient Art.
The Dealer
Art dealers emerged in the late seventeenth century where, following the advent of specialized art auctions,new firms focusing on international art dealing developed. 86 Across western
Europe works of art developed into commodities, and patrons began to see the economic advantage of participating in the early modern market. A rising demand for artworks by the middle class led professional art dealers to connect the artist and the collector in a widening and complex art world, as their commercial expertise was instrumental for the successful probing of foreign markets.87
In the last century the role of the art dealer has changed. Previously, high priced art would be sold to private collectors directly from art dealers, whereas the market today sees the auction house on top, acting as a natural ally to the collector, and inviting dealers to showroom floors to buy at auction and compete with their clients for artefacts.88
83 Spencer 2012
84 Pearlstein 2012 85 Ibid
86 Payal and Vermeylen 2013a: 202 87 Rasterhoff and Vermeylen 2015: 141 88 Annamma and Sherry Jr. 2003: 165
Today the art dealer is in competition with many facets of the art industry.89 Not only
are players such as art advisors also working directly with clients, but also through media and networking sites that inform the collector of current trends and available works. Some dealers will play to this advantage, and those that do are usually so affluent that they can make and break market trends. This occurrence is notably in the contemporary art market, where art is abundant and often created for an affluent audience indifferent to the fact the paint might not be dry. Dealers typically operate out of their own galleries or private offices, and are very active publicly, attending many gallery openings and art fairs in order to gain insight into new trends. By attending exhibitions and museum openings, art dealers can gather information on the interests of museums and their acquisition policies. For, like many players in high art, the art dealer is primarily a sales person.90 Those that are successful are expert socializers, building
personal relationships with their clients and advising them on purchases. Although dealers hold great influence in the market, maintaining ultimate control over the price and sale of an object, this side of the market is one of the most difficult to quantify,91 as transactions are
maintained confidentially, unlike the highly published sales results of auction houses. The exclusivity of such a profession also makes it difficult to characterize the various methodologies applied in the authentication and valuation process.
Curator / Art Director
Playing an essential role in this system is the museum curator. The research and experience necessary to produce a successful and honest display inside a museum is carried out by curators, often chosen to mount exhibits based on their expertise in certain subject matter. “Curatorial decisions catapult an object from obscurity to international acclaim because of the research that is done. Scholars specify that since the late twentieth-century, curators are exposed to criticism toward museum practices for their interpretation of ancient objects.92 Others
commenting on the various shifts in the last century remark on the demanding and
comprehensive role of the museum director, which now fills the position of scholar, curator, manager, negotiator and entrepreneur.93 Whatever the title role of this individual may be, the
89 Annamma and Sherry Jr. 2003: 165 90 Tanner 2010: 52
91 McAndrew 2010 92 Jones 1993: 202-203 93 Karp and Levine 1991
person in charge of curating an exhibition at a museum displaying archaeological objects, is fundamental to this discussion, and we be addressed in the following chapter.
Art Collector
Art collectors were the original connoisseur’s. They have evolved into the many enterprises and professions recognized today. In this regard, the valued patron, most specifically that of the antiquarian (a collector of antiquities) deserves mention as they play a central role in the art market. In the field of Classical studies connoisseurship has been an active participant in art historical development and production since the Renaissance.94 Some recognized antiquarians
include Thomas Howard otherwise known as Lord Arundel (1585-1646)95 and Thomas Bruce,
Lord Elgin (1766-1841),96 whose passion to collect Greek and Italian art helped to spur interest
and spread antiquities across Europe.
Others
Arguably the largest player of all in the art market, in the grand scheme of things, is that of the artist. However, the recognition of the artist is a rather contemporary concept and is not applicable in the context of this paper, for its presence in the field of archaeology is rather minimal. Other players participating in the world of antiquities include that of the art conservator, the art lawyer, specialist insurers (such as AXA fine art) and independent operators. Some are recent to the scene, and others are so specialized that they deserve their own category. Art lawyers for example encompass a wide range of cultural heritage protection including copyright, theft, restitution and various legal issues. These stand-alone institutions have developed specifically to serve the art market,97 but are not active participants in the way
that artefacts are viewed, displayed, authenticated and valued.
Some scholars give mention to entirely new experts in the field, having appeared rapidly since the advent of social media.98 There is an increased tension between popular and high
culture as this new method of social communication has enabled art world amateurs to
94 Vickers 1985: 226 95 Ibid
96 Gould 1984: 26-32 97 McAndrew 2010
participate in the debate, potentially threatening the authority of conventional art experts. The appearance of this new phenomenon, which some suggest threatens the very livelihood of the connoisseur, for the pool of actors involved in the decision making process regarding art quality and knowledge has expanded greatly,99 is searching for justification. While the digital age may
contribute to the methodologies imposed by major players, the consideration of the art amateur acting digitally does not contribute to the discussion between the archaeologist and the
institution. The virtual amateur does not meet the criteria of an expert as identified previously. There may be vigorous discussion about artefacts through online forums and blogs, and although they can often affect prices, they do not fall under the criteria of expert. The power of authority belongs to the auction house, the art dealer, the museum and their resources. All these players both minor and major, cross paths in their profession. It is this professional engagement that has helped shape today’s standards of what constitutes fine art, a discussion this will resume shortly.
So, how can one be sure that an expert is capable of making a valid evaluation? While there is no doubt that auction houses, dealers, critics and gallerists perform a crucial function in the art markets of Western society there is an absence of public involvement, as objects are held and researched almost exclusively.100 Furthermore, as mentioned previously, many art experts
lack official qualification in their field. It is still possible to obtain a diploma in Art Law without going to law school, the Institute of Art Law operating out of the United Kingdom advertises courses that are “open to both lawyers and non-lawyers. Applicants should either hold a recognised law degree or possess relevant experience in the field of art or antiquities.”101 Again
reference to experience is mentioned, and required, but what is the criteria used to gauge this? The lack of licensing standards and the allotted flexibility in the market, attention must be paid to the academic institution and the major players involved.
III.I The Museum
The term ‘museum’ derives from the Ancient Greek Μουσεῖον or Mouseion which denotes a building or temple dedicated to the muses.102Today, the museum acts as a repository of cultural
99 Arora and Vermeylen 2013a: 201 100 Karp and Levine 1991
101 Institute of Art & Law 2016 102 Findlen 1989: 59
artefacts, and is essential for democratic populations.103 Museums represent the vanguard of
public policy concerning acquisitions and preservation, inviting audiences worldwide to observe and discover the many aspects of human history. The role of the public museum is to present audiences with an insight to historical traditions and culture by exhibiting objects and providing context.
The nature of the museum arose following the late sixteenth-century development of cabinets of curiosities or the kunstkammer,104 whose major purpose was established by individuals
interested in the study and comparison of various natural and historical objects. Travelers and scientists collected on their journeys across Europe, eager to examine and comprehend the various objects assembled along the way. Early examples of these ‘natural’ collections, or those of a scientific origin, originated across Italy and Europe in the second half of the sixteenth-century. The private collections of naturalists including that of famed botanist and zoologist Ulisse Aldrovandi (1522-1605), Michele Mercati (1541-1593) and Ferrante Imperato (1525-1615), helped to kick start the non-aristocratic symbolic collections of the Medici.105 The introduction of
visual art in this instance, into the collection of the Italian scholar, instead sprang from the desire to connect with the natural world.
The university of Leiden, the Netherlands, opened two museums as early as 1575 with one acting as a physic garden and the other an anatomy theatre.106 As collecting became a hobby
for many academics, the kunstkammer became a way of displaying fine and decorative works of art, establishing the status of an individual. These collections grew rapidly in the seventeenth century, eventually evolving into the first universal museum. The earliest archaeological museums were by-products of these research labs, or cabinets, and developed as a means to promote the arts and sciences while making them accessible.107
Collections lie at the heart of the museum, helping to separate certain collections from others and defining the institution as a cultural deposit. According to anthropologist Alex W. Barker of the University of Missouri, “Museums were once the primary venue for
archaeological research,” and although this has changed over the course of the twentieth-century, museums are still recognized by many as the main institutional connection between
103 Place, Zangrando, Lea and Lovell 1974: 283 104 Impey and MacGregor 1985: Introduction 105 Olmi 1985: 5-6
106 Schupback 1985: 170 107 Pearce 1995: 371-372
archaeology as a disciple and wider society.108 Although a shift has occurred, as the role of the
archaeologist has expanded and museum reservoirs have grown, the museum remains a powerful force in the communication of archaeological information.109
The definition of a museum, according to the International Council of Museums (ICOM) is that of a “non-profit, permanent institution in the service of society and its development open to the public, which requires, conserves, researches, communicates and exhibits the tangible and intangible heritage of humanity and its environment for the purposes of education, study and enjoyment.”110 Types of museums will vary from large institutions, covering many
categories, to those focusing on specific subjects. The Allard Pierson museum in Amsterdam, the Netherlands is an academic museum. It got its name from professor of classical archaeology at the University of Amsterdam, Allard Pierson (1831–1896). “This former clergyman was invited in 1877 to occupy the chair of Aesthetics, Art History, and Modern Languages at the newly founded university. His passion for antiquity, fuelled by his travels to the Mediterranean
area, led to his assembling a collection of plaster casts from 1877 to 1895.”111 The presence of
archaeological material does appear in other ‘types’ of museums. There are art-oriented museums such as the British Museum, the Metropolitan Museum of Art or the Louvre, which have no relationship to archaeological find-spots.112 Then there’s the historical or technically
oriented museums. Those that rely entirely on archaeological find spots include the Acropolis Museum in Athens, and the Gallo-Roman Museum of Tongeren. These categories of museum help to define today’s plethora of display tactics, and no matter the platform, they are all involved in the display of archaeological objects.
Museum’s focused on archaeology are inherently focused on issues of authority and authenticity, which have been apparent since the very beginning of the institution,113 however
not all members of a museum’s staff are valid authorities. Those collecting on behalf of the museum “will have varied motives, policies and methods for collecting art, and many public institutions may have certain political, social or cultural policy agendas.”114 This is important to
consider when analyzing the museum institution, as the dichotomy between them is evident among collections.
108 Barker 2010: 294
109 Ibid 110 ICOM 2013
111 Allard Pierson Museum 2016 112 Van Wijngaarden 2015 113 Barker 2010: 298 114 McAndrew 2010
Players participating in the museum institution are of particular relevance as their interests differ from those in the art market. Competition still exists on the market when objects of historical significance appear, but the museum often maintains a vast collection of property obtained over generations which are sometimes subject to legal issues and restitution claims. Today these institutions take caution, as roughly eighty percent of antiquities on the market in 1990 “had been excavated and exported illegally.”115 The pressure on art dealers to supply
“museum quality” objects is intensified, as restitution claims occur from host countries
demanding the return of illegally exported items, such as the Euphronios krater acquired by The Metropolitan Museum of Art116 and returned to Italy in 2008.
Certain questions stem from the exploration of archaeological objects in the museum, such as what methods are taken for display, and what are the criteria used by the museum curators or archaeologists responsible for the presentation of such objects?
III.II The Archaeologist
Archaeologists, generally, nowadays do not contribute to the marketing and distribution side of things, but they are responsible for discovering and identifying objects.117 Archaeologists work
globally to uncover and study the lives of our ancient past through material culture. The knowing archaeologist will recognize the information immanent in an object, and be able to recognize or apply context from this information. Evolving similarly to the first museum, archaeologists began as private scholars, frequently collecting artefacts of interest. As Stephen Dyson discusses in his work In Pursuit of the Past, the museums contributed to the development of Classical archaeology and vice versa.118 The British Museum is one example of a museum
having obtained excavated material following expeditions to the Mediterranean119 in the
nineteenth-century, such as the Elgin Marbles and the Bassae frieze (which will be discussed later, pp.33).
In the nineteenth-century the generalist archaeologist was recognized as such,and, as François Djindijan explains in his article on the role of the archaeologist, the transition from a continent-wide collector into a less extensive and local specialist appeared in the early 20th
115 Dyson 2009: 225 116 Ibid, 226 117 Djindjian 2012: 54 118 Dyson 2009: 316 119 Ibid
century following the generational and demographic collapse of the First World War. 120 This
historical moment affected the archaeologist’s permanent role, from a continent-wide collective interest into a regional, and less extensive one.121 In the 1980s the role of the archaeologist
became recognizable as being divided into a series of specializations.122 Various sub-fields of
archaeology include archaeo-zoology, geo-archaeology, palynology, pedology, ceramology, funerary archaeology, archaeo-geography and palaeo-history,123 among others. The many facets
under an archaeological framework is of great importance, but the role of the museum archaeologist is of particular interest here. The museum archaeologist can be associated with any of the specializations previously mentioned, but they differ because in the sense that they must also consider how they are presenting artifacts to a wider audience.
The process of acquiring ancient objects for export has become increasingly difficult. The transportation of archaeological objects is dependent on the country of origin, and is often under strict regulation. Many archaeologists today focus on the on-site research initiatives allotted by host countries.124 This ensures that objects uncovered in regular excavations stay in
their country of origin, without being subject to trade or sale. Artifacts of interest uncovered in the Mediterranean remain at ‘site museums’ and for this reason, archaeological museums in the Western world face difficulty in acquiring new works to their collections.
Archaeology encompasses many facets but inevitably focuses on ancient societies
through the study of surviving material remains. Aspects of archaeology comprising the bulk of surviving material consists of human and animal remains, masonry and fragmentary ceramic sherds. However, as mentioned previously, the modern collector is increasingly involved and the connoisseur is an appreciator of the fine and decorative arts. As Chippindale and Gill
speculate, these “two concerns overlap when it comes to those material remains of past societies that are regarded as beautiful.”125 This discussion will continue in the next chapter by
addressing the variations between archaeological displays through ethical practice. “Archaeologists have to endeavor to transcend modernity and encourage the ‘heritage consumer’ to actively participate with the objects of the past in a continually interpretive
120 Djindjian 2012: 54 121 Fagan 1996: 292 122 Djindjian 2012: 54 123 Ibid 124 Fagan 1996: 233; Djindjian 2012 125 Chippindale and Gill 1993: 602
exchange rather than simply being passive recipients of socially constructed notions of identity.”126
When it comes to the museum and the archaeologist, there are several common denominators participating in the overall function and display of cultural artefacts. As previously outlined, there are many figures that spearhead today’s fine art world. It is when we enter the museum space where the many stakeholders involved may contribute to the display and the authenticity of display, in consideration of archaeological objects, a concept that differs from person to person and is dependent on educational background and experience of the individual. So, what are the motivations of these individuals and how and why are these decisions made? Who holds the power? The following Chapter will identify two participants in the Netherlands on behalf of two Museums, before a discussion of the displays tactics utilized by the individual takes place.
Chapter IV
Display
The previous chapter discussed a brief history of the museum as a concept. Having derived from a collecting incentive into a great public facility, museums today encompass a wide variety, and “exhibitions are placed in museums that differ in age, collections, content, target audiences, national and regional orientations, and ambitions.”127 In the code of ethics
formulated by the American Association of Museums, “the present scope of museums is to provide a service to the public, by means of collecting, preserving, exhibiting and educating with materials that are owned, borrowed, and/or fabricated for these ends.”128 Western
museums largely abide by this platform, but what is crucial is how they differ and why. Museum institutions have become more visitor focused in the last century, and some of the larger museums have veered towards a corporate management model in their daily
operations.129 This is understandable considering the non-profit status of the institution, which
enforced by organizations such as ICOM, in an increasingly competitive market. The actions of a certain player or institution is dependent on the individuals involved and their objectives. These actions however, are not exclusively up to the individual, for each player operates in an institutional context, the contexts of which are always changing. The above identifications act as a guideline to the industry and those involved. It is clear that both the museum institution and the archaeologist have ways of authenticating and valuing objects, but how do they do so?
Perhaps less palpable than the methodologies listed in Chapter II, but of utmost
importance in the discussion of archaeological objects in the museum, is the way archaeological objects are displayed. Museums are well curated, and the acquisition of items for a museum’s permanent collection is often well organized and the result of strategic choices.130 If an object of
interest can be acquired to enhance the museums antiquities department, for example, great measures may be taken to acquire such an item. But what if the object doesn’t suit other items in the collection? What methods will be taken to shape an object? Even when an object requires conservation work, shouldn’t it remain clear what part of the object has been retouched? Many
127 Karp 1991: 11
128 Brida, Disegna and Scuderi 2014: 519 129 Desvalleeés and Mairesse 2010: 7 130 Ibid
