There is as it turns out-a secondary context or secondary deposit. For example, if someone were to excavate our museums and find a Egyptian statue in situ in a vitrine, this would be a secondary context, with the primary context being the original Egyptian location of this statue. There are a few tools we can use to see if we're dealing with a secondary context though. First, we can look at the object itself; cheap goods like inexpensive and easily disposed of pottery is much less likely to be transported than high-end prestige goods. In addition, things like broken tools and other damaged utilitarian objects may often not be transported. We can also look at context both stratigraphic and geological. If an artifact is in a stratigraphic layer that most objects of it's type are not in that is a clue that we have a secondary context; likewise if it is in a different place than most other artifacts of its type it is again likely indicative of a secondary context. For example, if a cylinder seal with a design normally found in Syria were to be found in Iran it would be pretty likely that it was made in Syria and taken at some point to Iran. When looking at this, it often helps if we can find evidence of toolmaking or workshops at specific sites. Last, we can look beyond individual artifacts to see the distribution of artifacts across sites. When an archaeologist associates a particular artifact with a particular civilization or culture they're not doing it based on only one site; they're looking across a wide range of sites to see where similar artifacts or assemblages(for example, certain kinds of arrows often being found alongside a specific pottery type) are found.