One important concept in archaeology is that of provenience (also called provenance)--meaning the original location of an artifact, where it was recovered, its context. An artifact found within a grave has a different meaning than one found in a house ruin; a Roman figurine found at a site in Italy has one meaning but quite a different one if found at a site in Mexico. The location of an artifact's recovery, then, adds greatly to its information value. Archaeologists are quite distraught when this kind of information is lost, as a result of sloppy excavation, or worse, because of the artifact was looted from an archaeological site.
The choice of the word 'provenience' for this concept rather than 'provenance' is my particular preference. Andrew Alden (About's Geology Guide) suggests that no geologist would use the word 'provenience' to describe where an artifact originated, and that the commonly accepted word for this concept is 'provenance'. In my idle, completely non-scientific reading, I'm of the opinion that American archaeologists use 'provenience' while Europeans, particularly folks from the UK, use 'provenance'. What the heck, let's find out!
The poll can't tell us where you're from, so feel free to comment if you've a mind to.
The choice of the word 'provenience' for this concept rather than 'provenance' is my particular preference. Andrew Alden (About's Geology Guide) suggests that no geologist would use the word 'provenience' to describe where an artifact originated, and that the commonly accepted word for this concept is 'provenance'. In my idle, completely non-scientific reading, I'm of the opinion that American archaeologists use 'provenience' while Europeans, particularly folks from the UK, use 'provenance'. What the heck, let's find out!
The poll can't tell us where you're from, so feel free to comment if you've a mind to.
Added February 10, 2009: Provenience, Provenance, Let's Call the Whole Thing Off
Comments
Geological provenance seems to differ from archaeological provenience. To the geologist, provenance is where something comes from, where it was before it arrived here. For instance, the pebbles in this conglomerate have a provenance in an ancient mountain range to the east. The provenance of these pebbles tells us something about ancient geography. What you define as provenience is something else: it’s where those pebbles ended up. A Roman coin in the rubble would have an ancient Roman provenance, but its provenience is in the rubble, whether that’s a Roman ruin or the remains of a coin shop.
I do not know whether you are an American or from the UK. However, if you are American you will have noticed the multitude of articles in the newspapers and journals regarding all the ‘fuss’ with the Getty and its implications with the museums in Seattle, Harvard, and others.
I have seen NO use of the word provenience — not even once.
So how can you write that the Americans prefer that to ‘provenance’?
It is my understanding that from a legal standpoint, provenance has an additional, and distinct, meaning from provenience. Where both provenience and provenance refer to the origin of an object, provenance may also refer to the ownership history of an object, presumably since removal from the place of origin. It’s interesting the degree to which this legal concept matches the geological concept noted above: provenance being a reference to an object in motion, provenience being a reference to an object’s resting point.
Maybe the difference is a contextual one. Museums and British archaeologists almost always use “provenance”, while American archaeologists almost always use “provenience”. I think, like lots of English words, there are subtleties of meaning and usage in each of these venues.
I’m American and use “provenance.” But it was introduced to me in grad school by a American scholar of British literature.
I just read a book about archaeology on Crete and the author, an American, made the distinction between provenance–history of ownership–and provenience–where the material was excavated.
I’m a graduate student of museum studies, and we just covered this topic in class. In terms of museums, provenance refers to the history of ownership of an object (e.g., The X Museum has it now, Mrs. Z owned it before that, she got it from Dealer W, and so on). Provenience of an object is: where found, who found it, and when. They are definitely not interchangeable in this context (I should know, if I mix them up tomorrow on my midterm, I’ll be sorry!).
Oddly enough, that’s what we all concluded:
Provenience, provenance, let’s call the whole thing off
I’m an archaeologist in the southeastern US. We use “provenience” to refer to the site from which an artifact came. More often, the term is used to describe a very specific location within a site (i.e., “excavation block D” or “unit N100 E840″).
If an archaeologist used the word “provenance,” it would refer to the history of ownership of an object; however, most archaeologists I know would prefer to leave that in the domain of art historians and museum curators.
I am an american archaeologist, trained in the U.S. The lore surrounding this, which I am not 100% sure is fact, is that this distinction was quite accidental. A typo or mispelling in an early cited journal article became the standard. Only in use has it acquired these legal and contextual differences.
This may be fiction, though. I wish I knew for sure.