Voit lisätä twiitteihisi sijainnin, esimerkiksi kaupungin tai tarkemman paikan, verkosta ja kolmannen osapuolen sovellusten kautta. Halutessasi voit poistaa twiittisi sijaintihistorian myöhemmin. Lue lisää
Ah, that most fun of emails, "Dear Museum, could you please supply me with the provenance of <thing> and <other thing>, ideally back to at least 1973?" Taking all bets* on how hard they ghost me! *Not actually taking any bets; you bet on things that are UNcertain!
For those unfamiliar with the rules here, a 1970 UNESCO Convention, to which the USA was a party, set 1970 as the grandfathering line for antiquities, after which for possession of cultural heritage objects to be legal, you need to be able to show that it was imported legally...
...with the consent of the country of origin. Generally, a museum ought to have either 1) a chain of possession to a point before 1970(ish) OR 2) a chain of possession that is legal at each step back to the original, post-1970 recovery of the object.
Many archaeological journals, most notably the AJA, have begun asking authors to confirm the provenance of any object they discuss in the article and won't normally publish articles featuring unprovenanced objects as a way to try to discourage the antiquities black market.
Thus both my question to >Museum< and my suspicion that they will respond to my question by not responding to my question and pretending I never sent it, no matter how many times I do. Hopefully I'm wrong, but if I'm not, you can rely on me to slag >Museum< by name on twitter.
I've worked a bunch in museum collections, and one of the consistently weirdest/most disappointing surprises was seeing how thin the provenance information on file usually was
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.
