From resemblance
to responsible evidence.
A transparent method for describing, comparing and documenting Buddha images without endorsing sellers or certifying their objects.
Four different levels of evidence.
In studying a Buddha image, an observed physical feature, a museum catalogue entry, a regional historical study and a seller’s account answer different questions. A strong attribution begins by keeping them separate, with their dates, sources and limits.
| Level | Appropriate use | Not established by itself |
|---|---|---|
| Direct observation | Describe the precise image: gesture, form, base, marks, dimensions, wear and visible repairs. Note when it was photographed. | Date, cultural origin, or maker. |
| Object-specific record | Cite a museum accession, dated record, verified examination or earlier image that can be matched to the exact object. | A complete chain of custody, unless the record actually documents one. |
| Regional scholarship | Explain the Tai Lue, Lan Xang or Lanna context and documented stylistic comparisons.[1][2] | That a lookalike came from the same workshop. |
| Market or oral account | Preserve the source and wording of the claim, labelled as testimony or tradition. | Independent verification of antiquity, consecration, or supernatural effects. |
The object’s importance in someone’s devotional life should be treated respectfully without replacing evidence with assertion.
Match the exact object, not the silhouette.
ICOM’s Object ID standard emphasises a recognizable record with dimensions, materials, marks and photographs.[11] ICOM CIDOC also recommends identity views that document details rather than relying on a single attractive photograph.[13]
Photograph all accessible sides.
Front, rear, left and right sides, base and close-ups of distinctive marks or repairs. Do not dismantle a fragile mount or remove patina.
Record a scale and measured dimensions.
State the unit and whether a measurement includes a base or protective casing. Record the weight only if safe.
Keep original photographs.
Retain original files and dates where available. Identify any crop, colour adjustment, background removal or reconstruction.
Transcribe inscriptions carefully.
Describe what is visible without inventing missing characters. An inscription should be evaluated in its palaeographic and historical setting.
Separate the comparison images.
Record the collection number for the comparison and never imply the comparison certifies the piece under study.
Document exactly what a certificate establishes.
Identify the issuer, document number, issuance date, object photographs, and precise words used in the opinion. Verify the document with the issuer using an independently located official channel. Note whether the opinion covers material, iconography, probable date, or some other question.
Separate that opinion from ownership history, legal title, export permission and permission to publish an image. One document rarely establishes all of these. A certificate for one photographed object cannot be transferred to a similar-looking item.
City of Dawn does not issue certificates or provide individual valuations or endorsements.
Rules before publishing a real artefact photograph.
Confirm subject and source.
Require a specific museum or collection record, or qualified evidence tied to the exact object. Record the attribution verbatim and distinguish a scholarly opinion from a verified fact.
Confirm image rights separately.
Record the photographer or rights holder, permitted reuse terms, source URL, credit requirements, and any changes to the file.
Assign an honest category.
Use “documented museum object,” “object-specific assessed example,” “regional comparison,” or “illustration.” No unverified object should be silently promoted to the first two categories.
Record and disclose uncertainty.
Document conflicting dates or classifications, missing provenance, and what further study would be needed. Material uncertainty means no definitive caption.
Provide a correction path.
State the source record and route evidence-based challenges to Reports and corrections. Current reporting prepares a local file only; it does not submit it.
Examples of careful wording.
| Unsupported statement | Safer evidence-aware wording |
|---|---|
| “300-year-old Phra Chai Chiang Rung worn in war” | “Seller describes the image as Phra Chai Chiang Rung and claims an early date; no dated provenance or military-use record supplied.” |
| “This museum Buddha proves mine is authentic” | “This museum record provides a stylistic comparison only. It does not determine the identity or authenticity of another object.” |
| “Certificate proves it is genuine gold and an antique” | “Identify the certificate issuer and scope, confirm its object photographs match, and independently assess metal and dating claims if they fall outside its stated opinion.” |
These fictional examples demonstrate distinctions in language. They are not descriptions of actual sellers or claims about any named object.
An evidence checklist to keep with your notes.
The downloadable checklist records object identification, claims and counter-evidence, image rights, and remaining uncertainty. It works offline and is not uploaded or reviewed by City of Dawn.
Plain-text, local-only working record. Not a certificate or appraisal.
Source framework.
- IntroductionAséanie 14 (2004), pp. 151–164
- The Tai Polities in the Upper Mekong and Their Tributary Relationships with China and BurmaVolker Grabowsky · Aséanie 21 (2008), pp. 11–63
- Ownership / Collecting HistoryGetty · Categories for the Description of Works of Art
- Object IDInternational Council of Museums · Documentation standard
- Recommendations for Identity PhotographsICOM CIDOC · Fact Sheet 3