Earlier this month, San Francisco’s Mexican Museum found itself at the center of controversy after Mission Local ran a story with a misleading headline suggesting that most of the museum’s pre-Hispanic collection was “insignificant or fake.”

Mission Local’s story was the sole source cited in stories by numerous media outlets across the United States and internationally, all of them describing the collection as lacking in value.

Museum representatives insist the controversy is a misunderstanding. The negative media coverage was based on a misreading of an analysis of the preliminary assessment of the museum’s pre-Hispanic collection, which includes approximately 1,700 pieces.

Eighty-three pieces were preselected for the permanent collection as being of “museum quality,” while the rest were classified as “unauthenticated.”

In archaeological terminology, “inauthentic” and “unauthenticated” have very different meanings. “Inauthentic” refers to confirmed reproduction, or forgeries, while “unauthenticated” means inconclusive—that further analysis is required before a final determination can be made.

Media outlets, used the terms interchangeably, alleging that the artifacts listed in the study as “currently unauthenticated” (about 96 percent of the pre-Hispanic collection) were “fake” or “otherwise lacking in value.”

“One of the recurring causes I’ve found in these misunderstandings comes from the usage of two different languages, an academic one, and a journalistic one,” said Eduardo Perez de Heredia, an archaeologist with Mexico’s National Institute of Anthropology and History and author of the study.

“For some reason, the report was inaccurately cited by press to support erroneous conclusions, without consulting me about it.”

SF Gate reported that most of the objects in the collection were “either forgeries or cannot be authenticated,” while El Pais, a newspaper from Spain described the collection as suitable “for throwing in the trash.”

“There’s been some misunderstandings … that pieces that were not selected for the permanent exhibitions have no value, but we never said that. It’s not on my report,” said Perez de Heredia during a recent press conference.

Andrew Kluger, chairman of the board for The Mexican Museum, held a press conference to address the controversy.

“It spread like wildfire,” Kluger said. “The fact that all other pieces were not authentic is absolutely incorrect… Those pieces just have to go through a process.”

The report by Perez de Heredia, obtained by Mission Local from an anonymous source, was also only preliminary. It does not include a final list of found forgeries.

In the report, which the museum shared with El Tecolote, only two artifacts are described as being definitively confirmed reproductions, though it is expected that further analysis could find more, something not uncommon for museums all over the world.

From community organization to world-class museum

The Mexican Museum, founded by artist Peter Rodriguez in 1975, started as a small community nonprofit. In its early effort to amass as large a collection as possible, the museum welcomed all donations, even those that could not be immediately authenticated.

It has grown considerably since. In 2012 it became an affiliate of the Smithsonian Institution, the largest museum and research complex in the world, a partnership that includes strict guidelines for the assessment of artifacts.

To ensure compliance with national museum standards, the Mexican Museum contracted Sari Bermudez, who served as Mexico’s Minister of Culture under former president Vicente Fox.

“All of these Mexican-Americans who started this museum did it out of so much love for their culture,” Bermudez told El Tecolote. “So everybody decided to bring in what they could, but now the time has come to evaluate all of this.”

Bermudez has been tasked with assessing the museum’s six permanent collections: pre-Hispanic; Colonial, Popular (also known as “folk art”); 19th Century; Modern; and Contemporary & Chicano. Together they add up to approximately 14,000 artifacts.

Bermudez is enlisting a variety of experts to examine each collection, and brought Perez de Heredia to conduct the first preliminary examination of the pre-Hispanic collection, which spans 2,000 years of history and includes objects from north, central and South America.

As mentioned in his report, Perez de Heredia “conducted during six days a physical examination of the collection,” a time span too brief to conduct definitive dating analysis on 1,700 pieces. The report recommends a more comprehensive follow up using more precise dating techniques, like thermoluminescence.

Bermudez clarified that the 83 pieces preselected by Perez de Heredia are considered masterpieces, but this doesn’t mean the other pieces lack value.

“What he said was that 83 pieces … are of superb quality, they’re masterworks. There’s more pieces that were used in everyday life …some needed to be restored… other pieces were very good pieces but … were not grand works of art,” Bermudez said.

Pieces not selected for the final collection will be used for educational purposes. Artifacts that are determined to be high-end forgeries can be brought to schools for demonstrations, where original pieces would be too delicate to take outside of the museum.

“I think that the real story is that over 80 pieces are considered great pieces, great masters,” Bermudez added. “Usually to find such high quality pieces outside of Mexico is already surprising.”

Perez de Heredia clarified: “We have a lot of pieces that aren’t suitable for the permanent collection. But that doesn’t mean that it’s false or not worth studying. All museums have a primary selection and have a basement with pieces that would never get exhibited. That doesn’t mean that all the rest aren’t of value.”

A final authentication of all collections is estimated to take 18 months, and must be completed before the museum moves from its current location in Fort Mason to a new building in Yerba Buena in 2020. The new venue—the last remaining space in the Yerba Buena Gardens Art District, will feature 60,000 square feet of exhibition space.

“Personally, I’m somewhat saddened about so much unnecessary misinterpretation, which put the collection in a negative light, when in reality, it has many high quality pieces,” Perez de Heredia said.

“This is the work of the people of San Francisco,” said Bermudez. “It’s their struggle … we will know if we passed the test the day of the opening, that’s when we will know if we’ve turned it into an international museum.”

Story by: Mabel Jiménez