Reconstructing a chain of ownership

Provenance is proved by a chain of documents linking the work to its successive owners. Each missing link is a zone of uncertainty. The tribunal examines the whole with particular attention to the consistency and authenticity of the documents.
A good provenance file combines primary sources (invoices, inventories), secondary sources (catalogues, articles) and testimony. It is presented in the form of a chronological table.
This page details the types of evidence, their value and how to organise them.
Provenance evidence in figures
Source: Registry of the OIMAP Arbitral Tribunal.
Primary sources
Primary sources are the most reliable: deeds of sale, invoices, receipts, probate inventories, wills, insurance policies, gallery ledgers, correspondence, shipping labels, customs reports. They are put in the file as originals or certified copies.
Their authenticity may be challenged: the tribunal may ask for the original, have the paper or ink examined, or hear the curator of the collection. Digital copies are accepted if their source is identified.



Secondary sources and images
Exhibition and sale catalogues, catalogues raisonnés, press articles, photographs of rooms or studios help to place the work at a specific moment. A photograph from 1932 showing the work on a drawing-room wall is a solid indication, subject to authentication.
Written or oral testimony from people who know the history of the work is taken into account, but with caution. It must be precise, dated and corroborated.
Organising the file
An effective file takes the form of a chronology: date, event, owner, source. Each line refers to a numbered document. Gaps are flagged and explained rather than passed over in silence.
A five-page summary note, written by a historian, makes reading easier. Documents in a foreign language come with a translation. The tribunal may set a case-management meeting to organise production.
Useful sources
National archives, the holdings of auction houses and galleries, art libraries, insurers' archives, databases of spoliated property and the OIMAP Registry are the main sources. Several are digitised and accessible remotely.
The Registry keeps up to date a guide to the most useful sources, by country and period, and can direct the parties to independent historians.
Value of the evidence
| Evidence | Value | Point to watch |
|---|---|---|
| Old invoice | Strong | Authenticity of the document |
| Inventory | Strong | Precise description of the work |
| Old photograph | Medium to strong | Identification of the work |
| Sale catalogue | Medium | Link with the exact work |
| Testimony | Weak to medium | Precision and corroboration |
Milestones
- Collect
Archives, private collections.
- Authenticate
Documents.
- Organise
Chronology.
- Analyse
Gaps.
- Present
Brief.
Check the documents



Digital file or originals

Digital
Certified copies- Ease of transmission
- Quick consultation
- Authenticity to be guaranteed
Common use.

Original
Physical documents- Maximum probative value
- Material examination possible
- Risk of loss
For key documents.
Building your file
- Search
Archives.
- Collect
Copies.
- Authenticate
Check.
- Classify
Chronology.
- Write
Summary.
Documents to look for
An archivist

« A two-line receipt, found in a box of correspondence, made it possible to confirm twenty years of ownership. Small scraps of paper often make the difference. »
Vocabulary of evidence
- Primary source
- Original document.
- Chain of ownership
- Succession of owners.
- Case management
- Preparation of the file.
- Corroboration
- Confirmation by other evidence.
Frequently asked questions
Are the archives accessible?
Depending on the countries and collections.
May I ask the tribunal for help?
To appoint a historian.
Are photos enough?
Rarely on their own.
Where can I see the decisions?
See Decisions.
Useful documents
Contacts

See the decisions
Image credits (16)
- The Antechamber of the Palace of Justice, Paris, Charles Meryon (1855) — Cleveland Museum of Art, CC0 1.0
- Plaque (1500s–1600s) — Cleveland Museum of Art, CC0 1.0
- Sketches in Belgium and Germany, Volume I: Hall of Justice of the Magistrates du Franc, Bruges, Louis Haghe (1840) — Cleveland Museum of Art, CC0 1.0
- Nuova pianta di Roma data in luce da Giambattista Nolli l’anno MDCCXLVII, known as La Pianta Grande di Roma, Giovanni Battista Nolli (1748) — Cleveland Museum of Art, CC0 1.0
- The Judgment of Solomon and Esther before Ahasuerus (pair), Dirk Vellert (c. 1530) — Cleveland Museum of Art, CC0 1.0
- Seal Color Box (1662–1722) — Cleveland Museum of Art, CC0 1.0
- The Calumny of Apelles, Giorgio Ghisi (1560) — Cleveland Museum of Art, CC0 1.0
- Nuova pianta di Roma data in luce da Giambattista Nolli l’anno MDCCXLVII, known as La Pianta Grande di Roma, Giovanni Battista Nolli (1748) — Cleveland Museum of Art, CC0 1.0
- Dr. James Stuart; Mary Campbell Stuart, Gilbert Stuart (c. 1815) — Cleveland Museum of Art, CC0 1.0
- The Triumph of Mordecai, Lucas van Leyden (1515) — Cleveland Museum of Art, CC0 1.0
- Seal Color Box (1662–1722) — Cleveland Museum of Art, CC0 1.0
- The Pyramid of Cestius, Rome, Michiel van Overbeek (c. 1650–80) — Cleveland Museum of Art, CC0 1.0
- Arrival of the "Southern Barbarians" (c. 1600) — Cleveland Museum of Art, CC0 1.0
- Chemin de fer de Toulouse à Bayonne. Pont de l'Aran (en trois arches de 17m d'ouverture chacune). Situation des travaux au 21 juillet 1861, Édouard Baldus (1861) — Cleveland Museum of Art, CC0 1.0
- Seven Jeweled Mountain (late 1800s) — Cleveland Museum of Art, CC0 1.0
- Mercury (Budha), from a Mandi Astrology Series, Sanju (c. 1810) — Cleveland Museum of Art, CC0 1.0
Cleveland Museum of Art · CC0 1.0
Provenance disputesWho is the rightful owner? Principles, evidence and TAO decisions when the origin of a work is contested.›
Principles of provenance disputesTitle to property, good faith, acquisitive prescription and international standards: what the tribunal applies on provenance.›
Provenance decisionsA few anonymised TAO decisions on provenance: inheritances, old thefts, spoliations and equitable solutions.›