Can archives lie?

Abstract

A nefarious plot of forgery and fame that shocked the world in 1996.[1] A hidden tunnel of dubious origin that baffled Kingston’s historical experts in 2009.[2] But how could the world of British counterfeiting possibly collide with Kingston’s local mysteries? For Queen’s annual I@Q Conference, I would love to present a research poster answering just that. The key to both cases lies in the importance of archival evidence to uncover misinformation both large and small. In the modern day, historians are constantly surrounded with conflicting arguments and many have relied on archival evidence to settle debates and quell misinformation. But are archives always reliable? Can archives lie? To best address these questions, my poster would engage with both the theoretical aspect of archival diplomacy and the practical side. It would expand upon the key examples mentioned previously and analyse the historical use and abuse of archives in the name of stopping misinformation. Therefore, such a poster would be significant because it would explore the ambivalent position of the archival record and expose the dangers of archival manipulation at an international level. A tale of ingenuity, the case of the Staffordshire art forgeries revolved around the infiltration of leading archives and planting of false documents to bolster the legitimacy of counterfeit paintings.[3] The uncovering of such a plot shocked artists and archivists alike and suddenly cast doubt on the reliability of the archival record. On a much smaller scale, a similar archival debate was battled out in Kingston with intriguing results. [1]Rodney G.S Carter, “Tainted Archives: Art, Archives, and Authenticity,” Archivaria 63, no.1 (2007), 75-86. [2]Rodney Carter, email message to author, February 14, 2023. [3] Carter, “Tainted Archives,” 79-80.