In pre-modern times, the purity, authenticity, and standardization of goods was subject to official supervision and social negotiation; for instance, meat, spices, and medicine were inspected for safety, and linen or woollen cloth for quality control. Guilds and authorities regulated the production and composition of goods and ordered inspections. Motives such as product safety and consumer protection went hand in hand with the regulation of markets and competition, and were linked to norms such as purity, good order, subsistence, or public health.
At the same time, the production of materials and goods that gave the impression of being of higher quality, or were made of more precious materials, or that imitated the characteristics of rare and foreign goods were key drivers of commercial innovation. In some places, this was fostered by entrepreneurial activities or princely support, but in other places it evoked protest from authorities and craftsmen. The imitations were not always cheap substitutes for high-quality goods that could thereby reach a wider range of consumers. On the contrary, as can be seen in the case of European porcelain, these imitative materials and objects were able to occupy the luxury segment.
The quality of goods was confirmed through authentication practices; for example, by carrying out public inspections and labelling the goods. The required merchandise knowledge, which had probably always been part of the training of craftsmen and merchants, was increasingly recorded in and communicated in writing. However, quality controls were more concerned with impurities and contamination than with plagiarism and counterfeiting. Although (sometimes spectacular) forgeries were condemned as such, the adoption and appropriation of motifs and production techniques were not prohibited in the sense of copyright. Rather, privileges were intended to ensure the exclusivity of goods and attempts were made to keep the knowledge of new production techniques under lock and key. Even imitative materials were not necessarily considered a flaw. It was only after the idea of intellectual property gained importance in the 18th century, and mass production advanced with industrialisation, that imitations were increasingly disqualified as worthless imitations and surrogates.
Based on purity, imitation, and adulteration, it is possible to examine what problems a diversifying and globalising world of goods posed and what regulatory efforts resulted from this. The conference therefore addresses central questions of material culture and consumer research, including the regulation of competition, the potential for innovation, and changes to the concepts of quality and originality. We welcome proposals for papers from all disciplines working on pre-modern European and globally entangled material culture and consumption that address, for example, the following aspects:
- Purity and adulteration of goods (including food, medicines, dyes, textiles): Which goods were affected, which actors were involved, which practices occurred? What kind of knowledge was available about material purity and authenticity, especially in the case of global goods? What did purity and adulteration mean from the actors’ point of view?
- Imitations, surrogates, forgeries (e.g., of global goods, luxury goods, materials, natural products, antiques/antiquities): What forms of appropriation, imitation, or forgery appeared? Which transfers enabled them and who was involved? How did the claimed purity and/or authenticity of global goods relate to the acceptance of local imitations?
- The relationship between material and non-material purity (e.g., purity laws, defamation of minorities): What role did purity, authenticity, and conformity play in the maintenance of social order? What social norms were linked to the quality of goods? Who accused whom of impurity and adulteration, and in which contexts?
- Concepts of (material) originality and authenticity (discourses on authorship, plagiarism, imitatio and aemulatio): What criteria were formulated for the authenticity of goods? Who distinguished the original from the forgery and how? What legitimacy did imitation and re-creation have? What discourses were associated with the imitation of goods, ranging from exclusive rarities to serial production?
- Practices of regulation, control, and authentication: Which actors and institutions controlled the quality of goods and what conflicts of norms resulted from this? How was the quality control of goods negotiated? What did this mean for the balance of power between actors? How were competition and the free market evaluated in opposition to regulation and privilege?
We welcome proposals from colleagues working as curators and restorers and would also like to encourage doctoral candidates to present thematically relevant projects.
Proposals in German or English are requested by 30 June 2024 by e-mail to Ansgar Engels and Julia Schmidt-Funke (fnzgeschichte@uni-leipzig.de) in the following form:
- Abstract (approx. 1500 characters)
- Short curriculum vitae with key publications
For presenters, we will reimburse accommodation costs and travel expenses for a 2nd-class train journey. A subsidy for air travel can be granted by arrangement.