Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-t5tsf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-03T02:19:40.322Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Age as Artefact: On Archaeological Authenticity

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 January 2017

Cornelius Holtorf  and
Tim Schadla-Hall
Cornelius Holtorf
Affiliation:
University of Göteborg
Tim Schadla-Hall
Affiliation:
University College London
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Authenticity is frequently seen as crucial in archaeology. In this paper, we examine the nature of authenticity and question by implication whether so much attention should be given to determining the actual age and thus the genuineness of archaeological objects. We show that numbers of authenticated objects are potentially fakes. There is an acceptance that many archaeological sites and reconstructions are not actually really old, although the acceptability of this view depends on one's flexibility towards the concept of authenticity. It is clear that the public does not necessarily put the same value on genuineness as do archaeologists. We suggest that certain aspects of the past have always been a potentially renewable resource. We suggest that a more relaxed approach to genuineness and authenticity is acceptable today and is already accepted by the public as consumers of the past.

En archéologie, on a souvent accordé l'authenticité une importance primordiale. Dans cet article, nous examinons la nature de l'authenticité et nous nous demandons s'il est réellement nécessaire d'accorder autant d'importance la détermination de l'âge réel et donc de l'authenticité des objets archéologiques. Nous demontrons que bon nombre d'objets authentifiés sont potentiellement des faux. Il est admis qu'un grand nombre de sites archéologiques et de réconstructions ne sont en fait pas réellement anciens, ce point de vue dépend toutefois de la flexibilité de chacun vis à vis du concept d'authenticite. Il est clair que le public ne valorise pas l'authenticité de la meme façon que les archéologues. Nous suggérons que certains aspects du passé ont toujours été des ressources potentiellement renouvelables. Il semble aujourd'hui qu'une définition plus large de ce qu'est l'authenticite est acceptable et a déjà adopteé par le public en tant que consommateur du passé.

Zusammenfassung

Zusammenfassung

Authentizität wird in der Archäologie oft als besonders wichtig angesehen. In diesem Beitrag untersuchen wir die Natur von Authentizität und stellen implizit in Frage, ob Altersbestimmungen und Echtheitsbeweisen wirklich so viel Aufmerksamkeit geschenkt werden sollte. Wir zeigen daß eine Anzahl authentisierter Objekte potentielle Fälschungen sind. Es wird heute akzeptiert, daß viele archäologische Stätten und Rekonstruktionen nicht wirklich alt sind, obwohl der Grad der Akzeptanz davon abhängt, wie flexibel man hinsichtlich des Konzeptes der Authentizität ist. Es ist klar, daß die Öffentlichkeit Echtheit nicht unbedingt den gleichen Wert zumißt wie es Archäolog(inn)en tun. Wir meinen, daß die Vergangenheit, oder jedenfalls bestimmte Aspekte der Vergangenheit, schon immer eine potentiell erneuerbare Ressource gewesen ist. Wir behaupten, daß heute eine unverkrampftere Einstellung gegenüber Echtheit und Authentizität akzeptabel ist, und daß sie von der Öffentlichkeit – den Konsumenten der Vergangenheit – bereits akzeptiert ist.

Keywords

authenticitycultural heritagepublic archaeologyreproduction
Type
Articles
Information
European Journal of Archaeology , Volume 2 , Issue 2 , 1999 , pp. 229 - 247
Copyright
Copyright © 1999 Sage Publications 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bagnall, G., 1996. Consuming the past. In Edgell, S., Hetherington, K. and Wade, A. (eds), Consumption Matters: the Production and Experience of Consumption: 227–247. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Bale, J., 1999. Art world corrupted by £250 fakes. The Times, 13 February 1999.Google Scholar
Bazelmans, Jos, Dommelen, Peter van, Kolen, Jan and Shanks, Michael, 1994. A ruined past: experience and reality. An archaeological dialogue with Michael Shanks. Archaeological Dialogues 1: 56–76.Google Scholar
Benjamin, Walter, 1992 [1936]. The work of art in the age of mechanical reproduction. In Benjamin, W., Illuminations: 211–244. London: Fontana. Also available at http://pixels.filmtv.ucla.edu/gallery/web/julian_scaff/benjamin/benjamin.html (accessed 14 March 1999).Google Scholar
Blatherwick, S. and Gurr, A., 1992. Shakespeare's factory: archaeological evaluations on the site of the Globe Theatre at 1/5 Anchor Terrace, Southwark Bridge Road, Southwark. Antiquity 66: 315–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bowman, M., 1994. The commodification of the Celt: New Age/Neo-Pagan consumerism. In Brewer, T. (ed.), The Marketing of Tradition; Perspectives on Folklore, Tourism and the Heritage Industry: 143–152. Middlesex: Hissarlik Press.Google Scholar
Bowsher, J., 1998. The Rose Theatre: an Archaeological Discovery. London: Museum of London.Google Scholar
Chippindale, C. and Gill, D.W.J., 1993. Material and intellectual consequences of esteem for Cycladic figurines. American Journal of Archaeology 97: 601, 659.Google Scholar
Cleere, Henry (ed.), 1989. Archaeological Heritage Management in the modern world. One World Archaeology, vol. 9. London: Unwin Hyman.Google Scholar
Cohen, Eric, 1988. Authenticity and commoditization in tourism. Annals of Tourism Research 15: 371–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cope, Julian, 1998. The Modern Antiquarian: a Pre-millennial Odyssey through Megalithic Britain. London: Thorsons.Google Scholar
Eco, Umberto, 1990 [1986]. Fakes and forgeries. In Eco, U., The Limits of Interpretation: Ch. 12. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Fees, Craig, 1996. Tourism and the politics of authenticity in a North Cotswold town. In Selwyn, T. (ed.), The Tourist Image: Myths and Myth Making in Tourism: 121–146. Chichester: Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Gilbertson, D., 1984. Late Quaternary Environments and Early Man in Holderness. BAR 134. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports.Google Scholar
Gurr, A. 1997. Shakespeare's Globe: a history of reconstructions and some reasons for trying. In Mulryne, J.R. and Shewring, M.R. (eds), Shakespeare's Globe rebuilt: 27–47. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Harbison, P., 1975. Guide to the National Monuments in the Republic of Ireland. Dublin: Gill and Macmillan.Google Scholar
Hewison, Robert, 1987. The Heritage Industry. London: Methuen.Google Scholar
Hewison, Robert, 1991. Commerce and culture. In Corner, J. and Harvey, S. (eds), Enterprise and Heritage: Crosscurrents of National Culture: 169–177. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Holtorf, Cornelius, 1992. Der Stein. Eine Dokumentation über den Menhir von Tübingen-Weilheim. Photocopied report.Google Scholar
Holtorf, Cornelius, forthcoming. Is the past a non-renewable resource? In Layton, R., Stone, P., Thomas, J. (eds), The Destruction and Conservation of Cultural Property. One World Archaeology Series. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
ICOMOS, 1966. International Charter for the Conservation and Restoration of Monuments and Sites (The Venice Charter). Available at http://www.icomos.org/docs/venice_charter.html (accessed 15 March 1999).Google Scholar
Jokilehto, Jukka, 1995. Authenticity: a general framework for the concept. In Larsen, K.E. (ed.), Nara Conference on Authenticity. Proceedings of the Conference in Nara, Japan, 1–6 November 1994: 17–34. Trondheim: Tapir.Google Scholar
Kaiser, David, 1998. Stonehenge. American style. 3rd Stone 32: 31–32.Google Scholar
Karlsson, Hakan, 1998. Re-Thinking Archaeology. GOTARC Serie B. Göteborg: Göteborgs universitet, Institutionen för arkeologi.Google Scholar
Larsen, Knut Einar (ed.), 1995. Nara Conference on Authenticity. Proceedings of the Conference in Nara, Japan, 1–6 November 1994. Trondheim: Tapir.Google Scholar
Larsen, Knut Einar and Marstein, Nils (eds), 1994. Conference on Authenticity in Relation to the World Heritage Convention. Proceedings of the Preparatory Workshop in Bergen, Norway, 31 January–2 February 1994. Oslo: Riksantikvaren.Google Scholar
Lowenthal, David, 1985. The Past is a Foreign Country. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lowenthal, David, 1989. Art and authenticity. In Lavin, I. (ed.), World of Art: Themes of Unity in Diversity: 843–847. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania University Press.Google Scholar
Lowenthal, David, 1994. Criteria of authenticity. In Larsen, K. E. and Marstein, N. (eds), Conference on Authenticity in Relation to the World Heritage Convention. Proceedings of the Preparatory Workshop in Bergen, Norway, 31 January–2 February 1994: 35–64. Oslo: Riksantikvaren.Google Scholar
Lowenthal, David, 1995. Changing criteria of authenticity. In Larsen, K. E. (ed.), Nara Conference on Authenticity. Proceedings of the Conference in Nara, Japan, 1–6 November 1994: 121–135. Trondheim: Tapir.Google Scholar
Maccannell, Dean, 1973. Staged authenticity: arrangements of social space in tourist settings. American Journal of Sociology 79 (3): 589–603.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neidhardt, Markus, 1998. Das Geschmeyde unserer Ahnen. Katalog Juli 1998. Nidderau: Replikate and Schmuckdesign Markus Neidhardt.Google Scholar
Petzet, Michael, 1995. ‘In the full richness of their authenticity’ – The test of authenticity and the new cult of monuments. In Larsen, K. E. (ed.), Nara Conference on Authenticity. Proceedings of the Conference in Nam, Japan, 1–6 November 1994: 85–99. Trondheim: Tapir.Google Scholar
Randsborg, Klavs, 1993. Kivik. Archaeology and iconography. Acta Archaeologica 64 (1).Google Scholar
Riegl, Alois, 1982 [1903]. The modern cult of monuments: its character and its origin. Oppositions 25 (Fall 1982): 21–51.Google Scholar
Rieth, Adolf, 1967, Vorzeit gefälscht. Tübingen: Wasmuth.Google Scholar
Schadla-Hall, R.T., 1989. Tom Sheppard: Hull's Great Collector. Beverley: Highgate Publications.Google Scholar
Schadla-Hall, R.T., 1999. Shakespeare's Globe – ‘as faithful a copy as scholarship… could get…’, ‘… a bit of a bastard…’. In Stone, P.G. and Planel, P.G. (eds), The Constructed Past: Experimental Archaeology, Education and the Public: 216–226. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Shanks, Michael, 1992. Experiencing the Past. On the Character of Archaeology. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Shanks, Michael, 1995. Archaeological experiences and a critical romanticism. In Tusa, M. and Kirkinen, T. (eds), Nordic TAG. The Archaeologist and His/Her Reality. Report from the fourth Nordic TAG conference Helsinki 1992: 17–36. Helsinki Papers in Archaeology 7. University of Helsinki: Department of Archaeology.Google Scholar
Shanks, Michail, 1998. The life of an artefact in an interpretive archaeology. Fennoscandia Archaeologica 15: 15–30.Google Scholar
Shanks, Michael and Tilley, Christopher. 1987. Re-Constructing Archaeology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sheppard, T., 1932. Fact and Fiction in Geology. Hull Museum Publications 179. Hull: Hull Museum.Google Scholar
Thomas, Julian, 1993. Authenticity, temporality and the past. Manuscript of a lecture prepared for the University of Wales, Lampeter.Google Scholar
Trigger, Bruce G., 1989. A History of Archaeological Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Trotzig, Gustav, 1998. As good as old/new: problems of adjusting the modern archaeological heritage to modern society. Paper given at the WAC Inter-Congress, Brač, Croatia, May.Google Scholar
Tunbridge, J.E. and Ashworth, G.J., 1996. Dissonant Heritage: the Management of the Past as a Resource in Conflict. Chichester: Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
von Droste, Bernd and Bertilsson, Ulf, 1995. Authenticity and World Heritage. In Larsen, K.E. (ed.), Nam Conference on Authenticity. Proceedings of the Conference in Nara, Japan, 1–6 November 1994: 3–15. Trondheim: Tapir.Google Scholar
Wheeler, R.E.M., 1943. Maiden Castle, Dorset. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Wilson, J., 1997. The Great Globe itself: Sam Wanamaker's ‘Shakespeare's Globe’. Antiquity 71: 738–744.Google Scholar