Replicas and Forgeries
Chris Rohr
Western Governors University
Replicas and Forgeries
Fakes, forgeries and replicas have been created for centuries. Determining the difference between them has been an issue of growing importance. Hundreds of books have been written on the subject and there are professions and organizations built around determining the true nature of an object. For the purposes of this paper and object may be a work of art, a document or an artifact. A replica is a copy of an original object that is not presented as the original. The replica is not considered the original even if it is made of the same materials and constructed in the same fashion as the original object. A forgery or a fake is a copy of an object that is represented as the original object. The forgery or a fake is not considered the original even if it is made of the same materials and constructed in the same fashion as the original object. According to some experts determining the authenticity and originality of an object is becoming more and difficult “...we have become so immersed in the world of mediated representations that we can no longer tell the difference between authentic and the artificial” (Knight & Long, 2004, p. 2). The differences which separate replicas from forgeries or fakes are deception in representing the object, altering the value of the object and the intent in the creation of the object.

The intent to deceive the true representative nature of an object is at the center of determining if it is a forgery or a replica. The deception can be as simple as misrepresenting the identity of the artist or craftsman. Jones (1990) reports that immigrants from the country of India have been making Native American artifacts and selling them as “hand-made by authentic Indians” (p.16). The statement is accurate; however, it is intentionally deceptive in that the accepted context of the word Indians refers to Native Americans and not people from the country of India.

Deception in representing the object may not always involve a new version of the object. The whole realm of conservation and restoration can be used to represent the object as something other than its true nature. Condition of an original object can be very important to a collector. Most conservation to objects consists of cleaning, repair of visible damage, reinforcement of weak structures and reconstruction of severely damaged or missing sections of the work. If this work is documented and known to the potential buyers of the object it may change how the object is viewed. No matter how good the craftsmanship the additions and repairs of a restorer may be viewed as forgery of an object. Savage (1963) warns his readers about dishonest restorers, “But restoration done for the purpose of deceiving a buyer into thinking that an object is in better condition than it is must always be fraudulent” (p.274).

The original fake has been an area of much controversy in the art and archeological world. It is know that original objects have been copied and reproduced for centuries. Research has found some reproductions have come to be valued as greatly as original works of art (Haskell & Penny, 1998). To determine if objects are replicas, fakes or forgeries it is necessary to see if the intent was to be deceptive about the true nature of the object. The concept of original and copy have changed over time. It is well documented that Renaissance masters sold paintings done by their assistants as if they had done the work themselves. “In this case the masters’ originality meant the individuality and novelty of the artistic idea and style, as well as his supervision of the execution” (Radnóti,1999, p.52). The intent of the artists is somewhat different when viewing some of the recent South American pottery. The pottery created today is from the same raw material and the artists are using the same molds that were used 3000 years ago. Stanish observers the profit from forgeries is greater than finding and selling originals. “The short answer is that many of the primary "producers" of the objects have shifted from looting sites to faking antiquities“(Stanish, 2009). The difference between the renaissance masters and the South American potters is intent to deceive. The masters sold the objects as their creative work and the South American potters sell theirs as forged pre-Columbian artifacts.
The original, the forgery and the replica carry with them a perceived value. The value can be discussed in terms of culture, style, impact or influence on other artists and of course the monetary value given to an object. It has become difficult to separate the monetary component from the objects. Savage (1963) viewed the art-market as the acceptable vehicle for the transfer and evaluation of objects; “…, but the art-market is even more essential than before because it is the only way of assessing value” (p.243). The value of objects has been an important factor for many collectors. There are entire industries devoted to assessing value to objects like homes, cars, art, artifacts and memorabilia. The original object in the best condition is usually the most prized and the most expensive. Art, artifacts and memorabilia have grading systems of quality and condition that directly relates to the value of the objects. This is where the forger and dishonest restorer can take advantage of the buyer.

An article in Forbs magazine covers many examples of the financial loss experienced by collectors these people purchased what they thought were original work and found later to have been taken. In addition to the financial loss there is the problem of thousands of fake and forgeries in the position of the Federal agencies. Many of these will be sold at auction as replicas (Athineos, 1997).

Misrepresentation of forgeries has been used to alter cultural perceptions and validate false claims. This alters the value of the forgery as it may have legal or cultural meaning. Researches of documents from the Middle Ages have shown European land grants were forged to transfer property (Craddock, 2009, p.1). This type of forgery was done to validate false claims. According to Jones objects and documents were created to establish credibility. Jones states “There is evidence here of medieval longing for direct contact with Christ and his saints, met by apocryphal letters (61,62) and bogus relics(64,65)” (Jones, 1990, p.79). Some researchers observe that questionable artifacts connect people with persons and events.” The faith endures that things, unlike words do not lie” (Lowenthal, 1992, p.95).
Objects are often created with the intent to be used for education or preservation purposes. Replicas are often created as teaching tools and a way to understand how objects were made. It is now common to find interactive educational activities that use replicas to let people know how ancient objects looked and felt. The replicas are often associated with exhibits currently on display. An early example of a museum interactive activity was the Spanish Armada ship in the National Maritime Museum. Visitors to the museum were allowed to walk through the captain’s cabin, the ships galley and sections of the ship’s deck. They could pick up and handle replica objects. The structured tours had children measure daily rations for the crew as well as examine navigational charts and instruments. Anderson (1989) observed, “The purpose of these activities was to develop basic scientific and mathematical concepts directly related to the replica materials on board the ship” (p.360).

Museums and schools often bring in subject experts who teach how objects were made.
The construction of replicas is a common way to find out how objects were made. Graham Taylor is a master potter and has been working as an experimental archaeologist for over 30 years. Taylor works closely with Universities and museums to recreate objects based on ancient fragments. Taylor‘s knowledge of the material, construction method and processes of ancient potters “result in pots which are as close to the originals as possible” (Taylor, 2009).

A recent example of a replica made for preservation was the replacement head of an Egyptian statue. The original head of Amenhotep III was removed from Egypt in the late 19th century. It eventually became the property of the British National museum. An international team started to reconstruct the site of the heads origin in Egypt. Due to the condition of the original head and the outdoor location of the reconstructed statue, the British National museum had an exact replica of the head created out of the same material (Hammond, 2009). The head will be preserved and can continue to be studied.

Keeping up with the Joneses has been a driving force for centuries. The demand for original and replica objects is not immune to this force. According researchers it is possible to see the numbers of fakes and forgeries increases in relationship to famous archaeological finds (Craddock, 2009). As the general public becomes aware of famous objects the demand for similar objects increases. Research has shown that the public does not always want original quality objects. Replicas of inferior workmanship are often purchased as long as they look similar to the originals. These objects are often found in boutiques and kink-knack shops. Craddock (2009) has coined the term ‘shamtiques’ (p. 642) to identify replicas created to look like antiques. Not all replicas have been created using inferior material and workmanship. Research has shown in France and Italy during the 16th and 17th century sculpture castings and copies were common. Objects owned by important social and political figures were copied and sold because it was fashionable to have this type of statuary (Haskell & Penny, 1998, p.79). The objects were copied so careful that the original artist’s signatures were included with the finished product. Some researchers argue that the ancient copies should be considered as originals. “The surviving versions where copes because of the constant looting the originals may have been lost to damage” (Haskell & Penny, 1998, p.100). The identification of an original object has been complicated by the misrepresentation of high quality copies. It is not known how many objects in museums and private collections were actually created as replicas. Stanish comments on this problem of authentication. “The experts who study the objects are sometimes being trained on fakes. As a result, they may authenticate pieces that are not real” (Stanish, 2009).
The intent in the creation of objects is not just for monetary gain. It has been show that the intent is often related to the culture and beliefs of the intended recipients. Ancient forged objects which have had strong followings include unicorn horns, gold transformed from lead and the original crown of thorns worn by Christ at the crucifixion. More modern examples are the faked Lusitania medal, the, the Cottingley Fairy pictures, The Kensington Runestone. The faked Lusitania medal was a propaganda tool used to anger US and British citizens right before World War I. It was a supposedly the medal given to German sailors who sank the civilian liner Lusitania on 7 May 1915 (Jones, 1990, p.74). The Cottingley Fairy pictures were faked by 2 young girls in 1918 showing them with fairies. Originally it was intended to amuse the girl’s friends. When some adults discovered the photos they had them evaluated. These photos where validated by many famous individuals and helped to fuel the Theosophist - Spiritualist movement of the 1920’s (Cooper, 1982). The Kensington Runestone is a 200 pound slab of sandstone with Nordic writing. The Kensington Runestone was found in a farmer’s field and has been used as evidence that the Vikings explored the new world as far as Minnesota (Michlovic, 1990 p. 105).

The differences which separate replicas from forgeries or fakes are many and varied. How an object is represented is often a driving factor in the evaluation the object. False representations include authorship, origin and hiding repairs or changes to the object. The deception in representing the object is often is linked to altering the value of the object. The change in value of an object may be for financial gain, credibility or to support cultural beliefs. The intent in the creation, alteration along with the representation of the object will determine if it is a replica, a forgery or a fake.

References
Anderson, D. (1989) Learning History in Museums. International Journal of Museum Management and Curatorship, 8, 4, 357-368.
Athineos, D. &, Flanagan, W. G. (1997) The boom in fakes. Forbes, 159, 200-203.
Cooper, J. (1982)"Cottingley: At Last the Truth." The Unexplained, No. 117, pp. 2338-40. Retrieved 9/03/2010 from http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/cooper.htm
Craddock, P. (2009) Scientific investigation of copies, fakes and forgeries. Burlington MA:Butterworth-Heinemann.
Hammond, N. (2009) Amenhotep III statue rises again. www.timesonline.co.uk. Retrieved August 19, 2010, from http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/court_and_social/article5827034.ece
Haskell, F., & Penny, N. (1998) Taste and the antique: the lure of classical sculpture, 1500-1900. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Jones, M. (1990) Fake?: The art of deception. Berkley CA: University of California Press.
Knight, P., & Long, J.(2004) Fakes and forgeries. Newcastle upon Tyne, UK: Cambridge Scholars Press.
Lowenthal, D. (1992) Counterfeit Art: Authentic Fakes?. International Journal of Cultural Property 1,1 p. 79-104.
Michlovic, M. (1990). Folk Archaeology in Anthropological Perspective. Current Anthropology 31, 11 p. 103–107.
Radnóti, S. (1999) The Fake: Forgery and its Place in Art. Boston, MA: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.
Savage, G. (1963). Forgeries, Fakes and Reproductions: A handbook for the Art Dealer and Collector. New York, NY: Frederick A. Praeger, Inc.
Stanish,C. (2009) Forging Ahead. Archaeology, 62, 8.
Taylor, G. (2010) Making Medieval. Potted History. Retrieved August 18, 2010, from http://www.pottedhistory.co.uk/