{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.020468801584681413, 'fraction_numerical': 0.003301419610432486, 'mean_word_length': 5.516129032258065, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Knowledge, Ethics, and Power: Publishing African Objects Without Clear African Provenance

In light of current debates surrounding collecting histories and possible restitution of cultural heritage, it is not a stretch to say that our field is in the midst of a significant self-reevaluation. This journal is no exception. African Arts currently has no policy requiring authors to document the provenance of objects addressed in its pages, although the editorial consortium has initiated the adoption of a set of standards. While unease over publishing works of questionable provenance is not new, the concern is a particularly vital one for African Arts, which publishes scores of high-quality color images in each issue, both online and in print. The recent publication in African Arts of a Research Note spurred discussion among the journal’s editorial boards. The essay focuses on archaeological ceramics identified as Bura and includes nineteen full-color photographs of the objects, whose provenance is unclear. They are held in private collections, which the author keeps anonymous. Organizations concerned with artworks, cultural heritage, and antiquities such as the College Art Association, African Studies Association, and Archaeological Institute of America maintain guidelines that adhere to the 1970 UNESCO Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property. Our discussion raised concerns ranging from adopting a blanket policy regarding the provenance of cultural property to whether such a policy would apply to objects other than antiquities, thereby excluding objects in museum collections that do not have clear African provenance, which is commonplace. This Dialogue therefore addresses issues related to publishing material of unclear African provenance and what establishing guidelines could mean for this journal and the field. The much-lamented death in late December, 2019, of Sidney Littlefield Kasfir, the journal’s longtime Dialogue editor, had left us with without leadership for this discussion. Therefore, as a member of the UNC editorial board, I solicited commentaries from archaeologists, curators, and art historians in Africa, North America, and Europe. I am grateful to the contributors to this Dialogue who so generously met our spring deadline even though it coincided with the COVID-19 pandemic’s worldwide upheaval. Their contributions grapple with difficult issues, such as knowledge sharing, ethical imperatives, unequal power dynamics, transparency, and interpretive control. Together they cohere around a few fundamental questions: Whose interests are (or are not) served by publishing such material? What are the consequences of our actions, and what does it mean to accept or reject those repercussions? Because there is much at stake in how we answer these questions, the editorial boards welcome further responses to this topic for publication in upcoming issues. THE DILEMMA OF UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES