:Provenance, the ownership history of an artifact or work of art, has become one of the primary mechanisms for determining the legal status and authenticity of a cultural object. Professional associations, including museum organizations, have adopted the “1970 standard” as a means to prevent the acquisition of an ancient object from promoting the looting of archaeological sites, which is driven by the economic gains realized through the international market. The Association of Art Museum Directors (AAMD), one of the museum world’s most influential professional organizations, requires its members to list the ancient artworks and artifacts that they have acquired after 2008 that do not conform to the 1970 standard in an online object registry. The study presented here of the AAMD’s Object Registry for New Acquisitions of Archaeological Material and Works of Ancient Art analyzes the extent to which AAMD member museums do not comply with the 1970 standard and, perhaps of greater significance, the weaknesses in the provenance information on which they rely in acquiring such works. I argue that systematic recurrences of inadequate provenance certitude are symptomatic of the larger problem of methodology and standards of evidence in claiming documented provenance. A museum’s acceptance of possibly unverifiable provenance documentation and, therefore, its acquisition of an object that may have been recently looted, in turn, impose a negative externality on society through the loss of information about our past caused by the looting of archaeological sites.

中文翻译：

---

出处：真实、虚假和可疑

：出处，即文物或艺术品的所有权历史，已成为确定文物法律地位和真实性的主要机制之一。包括博物馆组织在内的专业协会已采用“1970 年标准”作为一种手段，以防止通过国际市场实现的经济收益推动考古遗址的获取促进对考古遗址的掠夺。艺术博物馆馆长协会 (AAMD) 是博物馆世界上最有影响力的专业组织之一，它要求其成员将 2008 年之后获得的不符合 1970 年标准的古代艺术品和文物列入在线对象注册表中。此处介绍的 AAMD 考古材料和古代艺术品新收购物品登记处的研究分析了 AAMD 成员博物馆不符合 1970 年标准的程度，或许更重要的是，分析了其出处信息中的弱点。他们依靠获得这些作品。我认为，来源确定性不足的系统性复发是在声称有记录的来源时存在更大的方法论和证据标准问题的症状。博物馆接受可能无法核实的出处文件，因此，它收购了可能最近被掠夺的物品，反过来，由于考古遗址被掠夺导致我们过去的信息丢失，从而对社会施加了负面的外部性。