
</p>
<p><span style="color: #808080;"><strong><span style="font-size: 10pt;"><span style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">Program</span></span></strong></span></p>
<p><span style="text-decoration: underline;"><span style="color: #808080;"><strong>Paper Presentations</strong></span></span></p>
<p><span style="color: #808080;"><strong>Naby Avcıoğlu</strong> (Columbia University’s Global Center / Institut d’Études Politiques – Paris)<br /> — <strong>Pseudo-morphology of an ‘Ottoman’ album or archival guff?</strong></span></p>
<p><span style="color: #808080;"><strong>Stefanie Baumann</strong> (Université Paris VIII – Paris)<br /> — <strong>On hysterical documents. </strong><strong>How Walid Raad’s project "The Atlas Group Archives" approaches the notions of authenticity, documents and the archive</strong></span></p>
<p><span style="color: #808080;"><strong>Sinan Çetin</strong> (Bilgi Üniversitesi – Istanbul)<br /> — <strong>Ambiguity of bibliography on books in Ottoman Turkish: Özege and the materiality of collecting books</strong></span></p>
<p><span style="color: #808080;"><strong>Christine Jungen</strong> (Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique – Paris)<br /> — <strong>Altérations à la marge : l'émergence du faux dans les interstices d'un document</strong></span></p>
<p><span style="color: #808080;"><strong>Clara Lamireau</strong> (École des Hautes Études en Sciences Sociales / Orange Labs – Paris)<br /> —<strong> </strong><strong>Réparation et maintenance des prières écrites dans les églises catholiques parisiennes: la fabrication des cahiers d'intentions</strong></span></p>
<p><span style="color: #808080;"><strong>Adam Mestyan</strong> (Central European University – Budapest)<br /> — <strong>The Shape of the fake – Archival narratives and digital images </strong></span></p>
<p><span style="color: #808080;"><strong>Arzu Öztürkmen</strong> (Boğaziçi Üniversitesi – Istanbul)<br /> — <strong>Between folklore archives and historical ethnography: Skepticism on orality in historical writing</strong></span></p>
<p><span style="color: #808080;"></span><span style="text-decoration: underline;"><strong><span style="color: #808080;">Discussants</span></strong></span></p>
<p><span style="color: #808080;"><strong>Marc Aymes</strong> (Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique – Paris)</span></p>
<p><span style="color: #808080;"><strong>Francis Chateauraynaud</strong> (Ecole des Hautes Études en Sciences Sociales – Paris)</span></p>
<p><span style="color: #808080;"><strong>Benoît Fliche</strong> (Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique – Paris / Institut Français d’Études Anatoliennes – Istanbul)</span></p>
<p><span style="color: #808080;"><strong>Cengiz Kırlı</strong> (Boğaziçi Üniversitesi – Istanbul)</span></p>
<p style="text-align: left;"><span style="color: #808080;"><strong>Yael Navaro-Yashin</strong> (University of Cambridge – Cambridge)</span><strong><br /></strong></p>
<div style="text-align: left;"><span style="color: #808080;"><span style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;"><strong>Archives and Collections at Work: Forgery Scenes</strong><br />How does the fake operate within the collection? As several scholars have shown, forgers and critics, i.e. authenticating and forging, are intimately connected, however involuntary this collaboration may be.<a href="#_ftn1">[1]</a> All the same, forgery depends on authenticity criteria developed by the collectors themselves. Even more crucially, forgery seems to emerge as the very result of a “collection effect.” Bessy and Chateauraynaud have stressed, while dealing with art collections, how the latter allow “forgers [to] imagine lacks, create variants, devise periods, themes, landscapes or portraits never painted by the original artist: they turn the collection against itself, by stirring up doubt as to its completeness.”<a href="#_ftn2">[2]</a> Forgers thus negatively reveal what the collector’s endeavor is all about: an affection for eclecticism, a desire for completeness, a sequencing based on the collector’s arbitrariness. All these moves, while providing us with keys to understand the collection, also release the possibility of its counterfeit.</span></span></div>
<p><span style="color: #808080;"><span style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">In many regards, the archiving process sharply contrasts with the collecting business. While collecting implies to intentionally look for and select a cluster of items, archiving entails no such an <em>a priori</em> search, but a reception: no choosing, but a sorting (which may even require some disposal). Archive documents, therefore, exist within their <em>context</em> of production-cum-reception as part of a series, while collector’s pieces, come to existence when being attributed an amount of similarity or common characteristics with respect to other, already collected items.</span></span></p>
<p><span style="color: #808080;"><span style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">This dividing line between archives and collections, however, blurs, when one observes how archival series are indeed constituted into a whole. Such is for instance the case in Middle and Near Eastern countries, where <em>archive collections</em> abound: e.g., the documents collected on the Lebanon war, the oral archives collection initiative in Palestine, or the gathering of a <em>mahakim shara‘i</em> registers collection in Jordan. Besides, archiving and collecting processes share the same concern to itemize objects into a series, in order to ascertain their authenticity and guarantee aesthetic (or even moral) propriety.. Archives, in other words, can also be subject to a “collection effect,” as is the case regarding the lack of documents (and the urge to make up for it) and their institution in material and temporal series.</span></span></p>
<p><span style="color: #808080;"><span style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">Our aim is to scrutinize fakes and forgeries as operators that <em>develop</em> (in a quasi-photographic sense) how archival regimes are put to work. What are the criteria of adequacy, convenience, similitude and reference on which forgers could play? Besides studying how forgeries emerge as a result of intentional, proven falsification, one needs to account for the range of uncertainties that the collection effect brings about: what about unique items, for which no <em>simile</em> holds? To what point can documents be altered and transformed without getting “falsified”? How does the fake operate within specific frames of authority and contingency? We will try to identify what agencies of forgery a collection may harbor on its fringes, in its interstices—as well as, on occasion, at its very heart. Key to our approach, then, is to investigate how these operations, ranging from falsification to deception and illusion, could bespeak a domestication of the fake as well as a renewal of it.</span></span></p>
<span style="color: #808080;"><span style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;"><br clear="all" /></span></span> 
<hr />
<p><span style="color: #808080;"><span style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;"><a href="#_ftnref1">[1]</a> See Anthony Grafton, <em>Forgers and Critics: Creativity and Duplicity in Western Scholarship</em> (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1990).</span></span></p>
<p><span style="color: #808080;"><span style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;"><a href="#_ftnref2">[2]</a> Christian Bessy, Francis Chateauraynaud. <em>Experts et faussaires. Pour une sociologie de la perception</em> (Paris: Métailié, 1995), p. 131 (our translation).</span></span></p>