Ethnographic Arms & Armour - View Single Post

Jim McDougall · 2nd May 2009, 08:00 PM

A very interesting topic Ariel, and I agree it does seem disturbing that an obvious reproduction would be displayed in a museum without proper qualification in description. I think everyone is aware of the volume of items from India and China among others that reproduce traditional weapon forms, however I doubt that they are commercially marketed without being aware of the difference between these and the actual antique items. It does not seem possible that museum authorities could possibly consider that items on display could be other than reproductions if they are not indeed authentic.

Many countries have become acutely guarded of thier antiquities in recent decades, and the volume of purloined items held in museums that have been repatriated to the country of their origin is increasingly large. It has been illegal to export antiques out of China as far as I have known for many years, though I do not know particulars, but it seems the constant commercial sales of items advertised as such would draw immediate attention if they were actual antiques.

It seems that most reproduction weapons, in the west at least, are pretty good copies, and in most cases represented as interpretations of the original weapon. Naturally there are unscrupulous enterprising individuals who artificially age and combine composite elements to be sold as original to unwary collectors, and even museums have been burned, but for the most part, such composite items are so described.

I think there is a broad assumption that the public at large may not be considered particularly well versed in identifying antiquities, and that may lead to the placement of certain items as originals. In that sense I would suppose they accomplish the ideal of portraying the weapon originally used as an inspirational display, rather than a commercially for sale item, therefore perhaps considered relatively harmless. That would be the sense I would consider plausible as far as attitude held in these circumstances. As far as the commercial activity, as always..caveat emptor!

All the best,
Jim

2nd May 2009, 08:00 PM	#2
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 10,192	A very interesting topic Ariel, and I agree it does seem disturbing that an obvious reproduction would be displayed in a museum without proper qualification in description. I think everyone is aware of the volume of items from India and China among others that reproduce traditional weapon forms, however I doubt that they are commercially marketed without being aware of the difference between these and the actual antique items. It does not seem possible that museum authorities could possibly consider that items on display could be other than reproductions if they are not indeed authentic. Many countries have become acutely guarded of thier antiquities in recent decades, and the volume of purloined items held in museums that have been repatriated to the country of their origin is increasingly large. It has been illegal to export antiques out of China as far as I have known for many years, though I do not know particulars, but it seems the constant commercial sales of items advertised as such would draw immediate attention if they were actual antiques. It seems that most reproduction weapons, in the west at least, are pretty good copies, and in most cases represented as interpretations of the original weapon. Naturally there are unscrupulous enterprising individuals who artificially age and combine composite elements to be sold as original to unwary collectors, and even museums have been burned, but for the most part, such composite items are so described. I think there is a broad assumption that the public at large may not be considered particularly well versed in identifying antiquities, and that may lead to the placement of certain items as originals. In that sense I would suppose they accomplish the ideal of portraying the weapon originally used as an inspirational display, rather than a commercially for sale item, therefore perhaps considered relatively harmless. That would be the sense I would consider plausible as far as attitude held in these circumstances. As far as the commercial activity, as always..caveat emptor! All the best, Jim