Dr Christina Riggs, lecturer in Art History at the University of East Anglia (UEA), has written a comment piece on the loss of archaeological material from the Cairo Museum during the recent demonstrations ("We've been here before", THE February 24, 2011, 28). She chides the archaeological blogosphere for not commenting specifically on the protests. (At the same time, should academic blogs stray from their main purpose of commenting on archaeological material?)
Riggs makes an interesting observation:
Riggs does not not explore the contemporary market in Egyptian antiquities, or consider the material and intellectual consequences of the desire to own such objects.
The damage to objects in the Cairo Museum should not distract us from the primary concern of seeking the safeguarding of these internationally significant objects and their archaeological contexts.
Riggs makes an interesting observation:
Egyptology websites, discussion lists, even Facebook groups have circulated updates about suspected looting, and several organisations have issued statements calling for the protection of Egypt's antiquities. Ironically, such statements come on the heels of vigorous US and European rejections of Egyptian requests to repatriate objects, including some granted to foreign excavators before the 1920s.She appears to be alluding to the legal action being taken by the St Louis Art Museum (SLAM) to prevent the seizure of the Egyptian mummy mask known to have been excavated at Saqqara, and the Egyptian claims on the bust of Nefertiti in Berlin.
Riggs does not not explore the contemporary market in Egyptian antiquities, or consider the material and intellectual consequences of the desire to own such objects.
The damage to objects in the Cairo Museum should not distract us from the primary concern of seeking the safeguarding of these internationally significant objects and their archaeological contexts.
Comments