Talk:Provenance
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
If anyone is here to read this, I'd replace everything on the 'Provenance' page with the following.
Provenance is evidence provided to demonstrate the correctness of a description given to an entity.
Stuff about archaeology belongs in the archaeology department and stuff about art fakes belongs in the art fakes department. Stuff about the provenance of scientific research belongs in the scientific method department, and so on. All in my opinion, of course.
Comments? Regards, Nick.
Ignore the above, I've rewritten the article covering (I hope) all of the points in what was there before in a neutral voice, corrected the definition and added a little. More work is needed though. Regards, Nick --81.86.134.253 10:16, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
I added the info about the "Ancient looting" of artefacts, and the In situ 'finds' of items, a fossil(for example), that is a "derived" fossil. I think you redid the wording exquisitely. My hats off to you. MMcAnnis6.3.55.1 22:39, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Provenience
It would improve the article if this alternate term were moved from the bottom to the top of the article, since it is in part a variation of the same concept. --Ludvikus (talk) 03:56, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Literature
An editor has nade a distinction between manuscripts and literature, claiming that only the former have a provenance. Although I understans where 9s)he's coming from, I cannot agree with his or her mere striking out of the term literature, because: here is an exact quote from a Merriam-Webster's:
"the history of ownership of a valued object or work of art or literature"
- Well, I suggest you ask Messrs Meriam & Webster how a work of literature can have a provenance. And, while you're at it, whether most archaeological finds are well described as "valued object"s. Personally I use the OED. Johnbod (talk) 02:47, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
- I see where you're going, but I think you're bending over backwards to accomodate a not-very-good definition. A book is still not a work of literature, though one may be printed in it, and actually rare books are one area where provenance is least important, as they are uneconomic to fake, and their ownership history is rarely recorded in full. Unless, that is, it is an "association copy", signed by the author, or a famous owner, but that is rather different. The vast majority of archaeological finds have no monetary value, being broken bits of pottery and the like, but their provenance is still important. Ditto fossils. The OED defines it as "The fact of coming from some particular source or quarter; source, derivation", which is suitably broad, I feel. Johnbod (talk) 03:01, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
- We both were writing & posting at the same time - but you pressed Save page before me & wiped me out. Not wanting to repeat myself (in my mind) let me just observe that the Gutenberg printing-press is about 450 years old, whereas literature (which previously was presserved, aside from memory) in manuscripts. Accordingly, more that 450 years ago a work of literature could only be authenticated by exploring the manuscript's provenance. --Ludvikus (talk) 03:12, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
- I see where you're going, but I think you're bending over backwards to accomodate a not-very-good definition. A book is still not a work of literature, though one may be printed in it, and actually rare books are one area where provenance is least important, as they are uneconomic to fake, and their ownership history is rarely recorded in full. Unless, that is, it is an "association copy", signed by the author, or a famous owner, but that is rather different. The vast majority of archaeological finds have no monetary value, being broken bits of pottery and the like, but their provenance is still important. Ditto fossils. The OED defines it as "The fact of coming from some particular source or quarter; source, derivation", which is suitably broad, I feel. Johnbod (talk) 03:01, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
- In the above, you confuse objects of value with objects having a monetary value. --Ludvikus (talk) 03:18, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
- No, I think the definition is just badly phrased; they are clearly thinking of art, antiques etdc. Johnbod (talk) 03:23, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
- In the above, you also confuse literature with a particular printed book. --Ludvikus (talk) 03:21, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
- Consider the fake, Hitler Diaries. Do you mean to to tell me that the issue Provenance has no bearing on this hoax of literature - or if you prefer, the world of letters - merely because the text is made available in the printed form, rather than in its manuscript form? --Ludvikus (talk) 03:28, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- The discussion centred precisely on the provenance of the manuscript, which was shown to use the wrong ink etc, and not to have been found in a crashed Nazi plane. The authorship was also plausibly argued not to be Hitler's too, but that was not a provenance issue, precisely because that could be judged from the printed text alone. Johnbod (talk) 03:39, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
-
- I regret that by the broadest meaning of the term, we must call the Protocols of the Elders of Zion literature. That being so, I am interested in the provenance of this plagiarism. Have I made a mistake in my language usage in that regard? --Ludvikus (talk) 03:33, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
-
- Not if it refers to a manuscript - otherwise "authorship" is better. I'm not sure it wqas a plagiarism either - if so it was a reverse of the usual kind. "Forgery" covers it better.Johnbod (talk) 03:39, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
- Here I must correct you - it has been conclusively established in 1921 that the text was also a plagiarism. The text from which about 40% of it was lifted is known to have been written by one Maurice Joly. This work was written in French, in the 1860's, and is entitled: The Dialogue in Hell Between Machiavelli and Montesquieu. But the fake was first published in 1903 in Russian and in the Russian Empire. --Ludvikus (talk) 03:54, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
- This item is actually useful for us to consider. The problem it poses is that the alleged manuscript remained in the possession of the individuals who perpetrated the hoax, and the witnesses - such as those who testified, or submitted affidavits, in 1935, in the Bern Trial, were not the most reliable. Furthermore, the alleged manuscript has disappeared a very long time ago. Nevertheless, the question of Provenane is appropriate, is it not, even if we cannot establish it? --Ludvikus (talk) 04:02, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
- Here I must correct you - it has been conclusively established in 1921 that the text was also a plagiarism. The text from which about 40% of it was lifted is known to have been written by one Maurice Joly. This work was written in French, in the 1860's, and is entitled: The Dialogue in Hell Between Machiavelli and Montesquieu. But the fake was first published in 1903 in Russian and in the Russian Empire. --Ludvikus (talk) 03:54, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
- Not if it refers to a manuscript - otherwise "authorship" is better. I'm not sure it wqas a plagiarism either - if so it was a reverse of the usual kind. "Forgery" covers it better.Johnbod (talk) 03:39, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
