Cultural heritage with a dubious or disputed provenance

Written by: Josephine Munch Rasmussen Published: 1/10/2025

For researchers studying ancient societies, the archaeological context and origin of objects are crucial for analysis and interpretation. However, cultural artefacts that are traded on the antiquities market often lack proper documentation, though they tend to have complex or contentious ownership histories. This entails particular ethical and methodological challenges for researchers who wish to work with these materials.

About the author: Josephine Munch Rasmussen is a researcher at the Norwegian Institute for Cultural Heritage Research (NIKU).

About The Researchs Ethics Library (FBIB). This article is a part of The research ethics library, offering specialised articles on topics linked to research ethics, written by a large number of different experts and professionals. It also includes articles on relevant Norwegian laws and international guidelines. Taken as a whole, FBIB shall serve as an introduction to key topics in the area of research ethics. Each article contains additional links to further resources.

Its purpose is to help engender reflection and debate, rather than to create an encyclopaedia or provide universally applicable answers.

The perspectives and viewpoints presented in the FBIB articles do not necessarily reflect those of The Norwegian National Research Ethics Committees; all authors are responsible for their own perspectives.

Introduction

Cultural heritage encompasses all historical traces of human culture. Whether tangible or intangible, it can potentially have a value as a source of identity, belonging and self-expression, as well as knowledge about ancient societies and individuals. Research into the ancient past involves examining a wide array of cultural heritage artefacts that have survived to the present day. This article focuses specifically on physical cultural heritage, often referred to as cultural artefacts. In academic fields that deal with such cultural-historical material, the archaeological context and origin of the artefacts are crucial for analysis and interpretation. Therefore, from an archaeological perspective, it is not just the artefact in itself that matters, but also the circumstances surrounding its discovery. For example, a clay vessel found in a grave probably held a very different significance from one uncovered in the remains of a kitchen. The interpretation of the find is shaped by the other objects and structures that form its archaeological context. Many cultural artefacts that are available to researchers come from the antiquities market. These objects often have complex or contentious ownership histories, which in turn presents particular ethical and methodological challenges for researchers who wish to work with these materials.

Inscribed artefacts

A notable example of this type of artefact is the so-called «magical bowls», clay vessels inscribed with Assyrian incantations from the Babylonian period (e.g., Hunter 1996). Around two thousand of these bowls are known, but only a small number come from documented archaeological sites or contexts. It could be argued that such inscribed archaeological artefacts can have significant value as sources of knowledge, even if the exact circumstances of their discovery remain uncertain. Experts on this material have therefore tended to regard the textual content of these artefacts as more important than their archaeological context. The reasoning here is that, as long as the text can be read, it provides valuable insights into the past. This perspective, which has for example been dominant among Assyriologists and cuneiform specialists (e.g., Owen 2009), stands in contrast to the widespread view among groups such as archaeologists, who stress the importance of archaeological sites and contexts for interpreting archaeological discoveries (Kersel and Rutz 2014). In a similar, critical vein some textual scholars have pointed out that the focus on textual content in manuscript and textual studies has often led researchers to overlook ethical concerns about the origins or ownership of these artefacts (see, for example, Justnes 2019; Mazza 2019; Korsvoll 2023.) The significance of manuscripts as physical cultural artefacts and their importance as cultural heritage for contemporary societies has attracted limited attention in these fields (e.g., Lied 2023). Researchers working on artefacts of unknown provenance have usually been trained in academic environments and institutions that themselves hold such materials in their collections (e.g., Wirth and Rasmussen 2023).

Restricting publication to prevent illegal trade

Differing attitudes towards researching artefacts with unclear provenance (ownership and origin history) are also reflected in the ethical guidelines for handling and publishing archaeological finds across various disciplines. Organisations such as the European Association of Archaeologists; American School of Oriental Research; World Archaeology Congress, and Society for Biblical Archaeology have all established standards in this area. In recent years, many academic fields and journals have introduced stricter requirements for publishing material that might be illegal, smuggled or recently looted. A notable example is the International Association of Papyrologists. With the exception of artefacts deemed to have been found before 1970, most publishers’ guidelines recommend not publishing or announcing archaeological materials in cases without clear documentation of legal provenance. The 1970 cut-off date corresponds to the UNESCO Convention of 1970, which introduced measures to prohibit and prevent the illegal import, export and transfer of ownership of cultural artefacts. However, the effectiveness of this form of restrictions, and the convention on which they are based, is disputed. Issues such as falsified provenance, lack of enforcement and the complex burden of proof are some of the reasons why the 1970 cut-off date and the associated UNESCO framework have had a limited effect in curbing the trade of looted cultural heritage (Desmarais 2015; Kuzma 2019). Critics have also pointed out that continued reliance on 1970 as the reference date does little to promote ethical considerations, as it merely fulfils the bare minimum required by law. Moreover, it reinforces the legacy of colonialism and imperialism, which historically denied source countries and communities the right to establish their own regulations regarding the stewardship of archaeological cultural artefacts (Gerstenblith 2023).

Protecting cultural heritage

What is considered important and valuable cultural heritage often depends on one’s perspective and position. Formally, the value of cultural heritage and its legal protection are defined by national laws. In Norway, cultural heritage is defined and regulated under the Norwegian Cultural Heritage Act. International conventions also govern cultural heritage of universal value, establish requirements for its protection during conflicts and work to prevent illicit trade and unlawful transfer of ownership rights of cultural heritage. In times of war and conflict, cultural heritage is especially vulnerable, either as collateral damage or as a deliberate targets of acts of war and wanton destruction. The special international protection afforded to cultural heritage during conflicts can be seen as a recognition of its value, a privilege not always extended to other civilian targets, and furthermore raises concerns about the problematic exploitation of cultural heritage values (Rafii 2023).

Spectacular destruction vs. devastating demand

The deliberate and spectacular destruction of cultural heritage often generates substantial attention. While such acts are typically met with condemnation, they can also be used as tools for propaganda or mobilisation. In conflicts characterised by widespread human suffering, the outrage over the destruction of cultural artefacts can sometimes give the impression that the international community attaches greater importance to cultural heritage than to the lives of those affected in these conflict zones. Compared to other forms of destruction of cultural heritage, targeted destruction tends to be well-documented and widely publicised. Examples include the Islamic State’s destruction of Assyrian statues in Mosul in 2015 and the Taliban’s demolition of the giant Buddha statues in Bamiyan, Afghanistan, in 2001. What is less widely known, however, is that both the Islamic State and the Taliban also exploited cultural heritage sites for commercial purposes and financial gain (e.g., Almohamad 2021).

Demand for archaeological artefacts, manuscripts and antiquities on the international markets is a major driver of looting at archaeological sites around the world. In times of crisis, regulatory social structures often collapse, creating opportunities for organised crime to exploit (Farchakh-Bajjaly 2008). Archaeological sites, sanctuaries, temples, burial grounds and monuments are especially vulnerable. Looting and theft from cultural heritage sites are widespread and cause irreparable devastation. Investigating this type of crime is particularly challenging, not only due to its international and cross-border nature, but also because it is usually difficult to prove that objects were obtained through, for example, illegal excavations. This also makes art and cultural artefacts ideal tools for laundering money, including profits from other criminal enterprises.

The market for looted cultural heritage is usually far removed from its source. Consequently, cultural artefacts from archaeological sites, museums and institutions in conflict zones often end up in the hands of private collectors and institutions far away from the areas affected by conflict (Brodie 2006, 2017). In Norway, private collections have also been found to include artefacts looted in more recent times, including pieces from Afghanistan and Iraq. The Norwegian Schøyen Collection has been the subject of repatriation claims after it was revealed to contain cultural artefacts recently looted and smuggled from countries like Iraq (Glørstad 2022).

Academia’s role

Many academic disciplines and institutions that have traditionally studied and acquired cultural heritage artefacts and antiquities were established within, and reflect, colonial and imperialist power structures. Eurocentric perspectives influence not only recruitment into many of these fields but also what is considered a relevant focus for research (Gad 2019; see also Blouin 2022). It is not uncommon for private collectors and cultural history museums to regard themselves as better custodians of cultural heritage than the countries and communities where these artefacts originate. This attitude reflects a certain historically dominant ideology when it comes to ownership over cultural heritage (Sheikh 2023). This perspective is also often reflected in the way collectors of antiquities and cultural artefacts portray themselves as «saviours» of cultural heritage, even in cases where the devastating effect of their activities has been documented (Hardy 2021; Rasmussen and Justnes 2021).

The economic value of cultural artefacts is closely tied to their perceived historical significance. For some cultural artefacts, this value is quite obvious, or they possess an appearance or aesthetic quality that makes them attractive as items for purchase. For other artefacts, the historical or scientific value is less obvious, particularly to those without specialised expertise. Especially with archaeological material, and even more so with seemingly unassuming artefacts featuring inscriptions, expert knowledge is essential to uncover and convey their significance and value. In many cases, a specialist is needed to interpret the artefact and confirm its authenticity. Auction catalogues, where the value of artefacts is usually supported by references to respected scholars in the field for antiquities, highlight this dependency on expertise. Arguably, the art and antiquities market is wholly reliant on specialist expertise. This relationship is nothing new – there is a long-standing tradition of mutually beneficial collaboration between collectors and academic experts (Brodie 2011; Press 2023). Through these close relationships, academics can gain access to scientifically valuable materials, while collectors and market participants depend on experts to authenticate and validate cultural artefacts. This in turn boosts the artefacts’ market value. In this way, academic experts may inadvertently help legitimise and launder artefacts with a dubious or disputed provenance (Prescott and Rasmussen 2020).

Forgeries and scientific validity

Research on cultural artefacts with a dubious or disputed provenance has received significant criticism, centring on two key ethical concerns. The first relates to the social, economic and cultural harm caused by the loss of cultural heritage, which disproportionately affects communities directly impacted by such looting and destruction. The second issue relates to the risks for researchers and academic institutions when dealing with looted cultural artefacts with an unknown or dubious or disputed provenance. Researchers who in good faith or uncritically incorporate artefacts with a dubious or disputed provenance into their empirical datasets risk producing poor-quality results and findings that lack scientific validity. A notable example here is the case concerning supposedly «biblical» manuscript fragments that turned out to be modern forgeries. This issue arose with fragments believed to be part of the «Dead Sea Scrolls», which surfaced in the 2000s and were later exposed as forgeries. Not surprisingly, the revelation of these forgeries not only diminished demand but also caused the once sky-high prices for «Dead Sea Scroll» fragments to plummet. The uncovering of forgeries, such as in the Dead Sea Scrolls datasets often sparks a crisis for everyone involved, whether they are owners, sellers, researchers or other stakeholders. Some have attempted to authenticate and thereby «rehabilitate» questionable archaeological manuscripts through various forms of scientific testing. For owners or researchers who for various reasons are unwilling to investigate an artefact’s provenance or authenticity, perhaps to avoid uncovering a contentious ownership history, laboratory analysis may seem like a convenient short-cut. However, a fundamental flaw in this approach is that forgeries created with genuine archaeological components can yield results consistent with expected datings, even though the artefact as a whole is fabricated. One method of attempting to deceive laboratory tests involves adding inscriptions to an authentic archaeological artifact, either by engraving or using ink made from charcoal or carbon derived from an archaeological hearth. An extensive analysis of the «Dead Sea Scroll» fragments housed at the Museum of the Bible in Washington, D.C., revealed that several forgeries had been crafted using authentic archaeological materials (Loll 2019).

Training and practices in transition

Ancient materials with an unknown, dubious or disputed provenance tend to pose significant challenges for researchers using them as a source to study ancient contexts. If the material is authentic, its presence on the art and antiquities market is highly unlikely to be lawful. It is probably either a cultural artefact removed from its country of origin through historical or recent looting, or a falsified or otherwise altered piece. Whatever the case, these materials are unreliable and problematic sources for studying ancient contexts.

The growing body of provenance research and the ongoing debates about ethics and methodology in fields like manuscript studies indicate that both research practices and the related academic training are currently changing. However, accommodating critical provenance research in these disciplines is not without obstacles. Many academic communities have traditionally relied on collectors and market players involved in the trade of cultural artefacts for the funding of positions and research projects. Early-career researchers, especially those still establishing themselves, often face a difficult balancing act between publication constraints and ethical guidelines on one hand, and traditional academic practices and priorities on the other. All fields involved in researching prehistoric and ancient contexts need to engage in critical discussions about provenance. When researching cultural artefacts and publishing findings, it is essential to examine not just their ancient history but also their more recent past and, importantly, their ownership history (Brodie, Kersel, and Rasmussen 2023).

References

Almohamad, Adnan (2021). «The Destruction and Looting of Cultural Heritage Sites by ISIS in Syria: The Case of Manbij and Its Countryside.» International Journal of Cultural Property 28 (2): 221–260.

Blouin, Katherine (2022). «Ancient texts and conference cocktail party: Some uncomfortable truths and personal thoughts.» Everyday orientalism. March 7. https://everydayorientalism.wordpress.com/2022/03/07/ancient-texts-and-conference-cocktail-party-some-uncomfortable-truths-and-personal-thoughts/

Brodie, Neil (2006). «The plunder of Iraq’s archaeological heritage, 1991-2005, and the London antiquities trade.» I Brodie, N., Kersel, M.M., Luke, C. and Tubb, K.W. (eds), Archaeology, Cultural Heritage, and the Antiquities Trade. Gainesville, FL: University Press of Florida, 206-226.

Brodie, Neil (2011). «Congenial bedfellows? The academy and the antiquities trade.» Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice 27(4): 408‑437

Brodie, Neil, Kersel, Morag M. and Josephine Munch Rasmussen (eds.) (2023). Variant Scholarship: Ancient texts in modern contexts. SidestonePress https://www.sidestone.com/bookviewer/9789464270457

Desmarais, France (ed.) (2015). Countering Illicit Traffic in Cultural Goods: The Global Challenge of Protecting the World’s Heritage. ICOM International Observatory on Illicit Traffic in Cultural Goods. Rapport https://icom-luxembourg.lu/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/Countering-Illicit-Traffic-in-Cultural-Goods-The-Global-Challenge-of-Protecting-the-Worlds-Heritage.pdf#page=27

Farchakh-Bajjaly, Joanne. 2008. (2008). «Who are the looters at archaeological sites in Iraq?». In Rothfield, L. (ed.), Antiquities Under Siege: Cultural Heritage Protection after the Iraq War. Plymouth: AltaMira Press, 49-56.

Gad, Usama A. (2019). «Papyrology and Eurocentrism, Partners in Crime.» Eidolon. Special Issue on the Papyrus Theft. Nov. 8. https://eidolon.pub/papyrology-and-eurocentrism-partners-in-crime-8a2778908e59

Gerstenblith, Patty (2023). «Setting the standard: the 1970 standard and ethical codes of archaeological organizations.» Levant, 55(3), 262–274. https://doi.org/10.1080/00758914.2023.2272397

Glørstad, Håkon (2022). Report with assessment and recommendations concerning objects impounded at Martin Schøyen’s residence August 24, 2021, Museum of Cultural History, University of Oslo. https://www.regjeringen.no/en/dokumenter/report-with-assessment-and-recommendations-concerning-objects-impounded-august-24-2021/id2903280/

Hardy, Samuel (2021). «Conflict antiquities’ rescue or ransom: The cost of buying back stolen cultural property in contexts of political violence.» International Journal of Cultural Property. 28. 1-22. 10.1017/S0940739121000084.

Hunter, Erica C. D. (1996) «Incantation Bowls: A Mesopotamian Phenomenon?» Orientalia, 65 (3): 220–33. http://www.jstor.org/stable/43078132. Accessed 26 Mar. 2024.

Justnes, Årstein (2019). De falske fragmentene og forskerne som gjorde dem til Dødehavsruller. Cappelen Damm Akademisk: Oslo

Korsvoll, Nils Hallvard (2023). «Disciplinary Pitfalls: How Good Philology Can Mask Bad Provenance». I: Brodie, Neil; Kersel, Morag M. and Josephine Munch Rasmussen (eds.) Variant Scholarship: Ancient Texts in Modern Contexts. Sidestone Press. https://www.sidestone.com/openaccess/9789464270457.pdf

Kuzma, William (2019). «Potentiating Loopholes: How Erratic and Piecemeal Implementation of the 1970 UNESCO Convention Has Failed to Protect Cultural Antiquities» Columbia Journal of Law & the Arts 42 (4): 501–518.

Lied, Liv I (2023). «Someone else’s manuscript: the ethics of textual scholarship». I: Brodie, Neil; Kersel, Morag M. and Josephine Munch Rasmussen (red.) Variant Scholarship: Ancient Texts in Modern Contexts. Sidestone Press. https://www.sidestone.com/openaccess/9789464270457.pdf

Loll, Colette (2019). Museum of the Bible Dead Sea Scroll Collection. Scientific Research and Analysis. Art Fraud Insights. https://museumofthebible.cdn.prismic.io/museumofthebible/8ee1c3b3-8398-481a-bc7a-4da593c38728_MOTB-DSS-Report-FINAL-web.pdf. Accessed 7 June 2022.

Mazza, Roberta (2019). Papyrology and Ethics. Proceedings of the 28th Congress of Papyrology; 2016 August 1-6; Barcelona. Barcelona: Publicacions de l'Abadia de Montserrat, Universitat Pompeu Fabra; 2019. 15-27. https://repositori.upf.edu/bitstream/handle/10230/42017/02_Roberta_Mazza.pdf

Owen, David.I. (2009). «Censoring knowledge: the case for the publication of unprovenanced cuneiform tablets.» I: Cuno, J. (ed.), Whose Culture? The Promise of Museums and the Debate Ove Antiquities. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 125-142.

Prescott, Christopher and Josephine M. Rasmussen (2020). Exploring the «Cozy Cabal of Academics, Dealers and Collectors» through the Schøyen Collection. Heritage, 3 (1): 68-91. doi: 10.3390/heritage3010005

Press, Michael (2023). «The French Connection: Charles Clermont-Ganneau and the Antiquities Trade Network in the Late Ottoman Levant». Journal of Ancient Judaism 14 (2): 196-221 https://brill.com/view/journals/jaj/14/2/article-p196_3.xml

Rasmussen, Josephine M. and Årstein Justnes(2021) «Tales of saviours and iconoclasts. On the provenance of 'the Dead Sea Scrolls of Buddhism’.» Acta ad archaeologiam et artium historiam pertinentia, 32(18 N.S.): 125–146. doi: 10.5617/acta.9023

Rutz, Matthew T. and Morag M. Kersel (eds.) (2014). Archaeologies of Text: Archaeology, Technology, and Ethics. Oxbow Books: Oxford

Sheikh, Mehreen (2023). The Schøyen Case: How the Western Hegemony Still Upholds. Daily Art Magazine, 18 July. https://www.dailyartmagazine.com/the-schoyen-case/

Wirth, Christa and Josephine M. Rasmussen (2023). «The value of forgeries for historical research» I: Brodie, Neil; Kersel, Morag M. and Josephine Munch Rasmussen (eds.) Variant Scholarship: Ancient Texts in Modern Contexts. Sidestone Press. https://www.sidestone.com/openaccess/9789464270457.pdf