In "1993-94 [Ernst-Ulrich Walter] recovered the statue's remaining fragments" from the Leutwitz estate (p. 54).
Yet Lucia Marinescu claims, in a 2004 publication, that she saw the statue in 1992.
Why did Michael Bennett fail to address this significant discrepancy? Why did Marinescu claim in a letter (September 2003) that she saw the statue in 1994? Or did Bennett misquote Marinescu's letter?
What is the evidence for due diligence?
Perhaps the Cleveland Museum of Art could release the letter and place it on its website for public scrutiny.
Discussion of the archaeological ethics surrounding the collecting of antiquities and archaeological material.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Part of the Cycladic Corpus of Figures?
(2024) When you go to a museum to see an exhibition of ancient artifacts you expect them to be … ancient. You have been enticed into the sho...
-
Source: Sotheby's A marble head of Alexander the Great has been seized in New York (reported in " Judge Orders Return of Ancien...
-
The Fire of Hephaistos exhibition included "seven bronzes ... that have been linked to the Bubon cache of imperial statues" (p. 1...
-
Courtesy of Christos Tsirogiannis There appears to be excitement about the display of 161 Cycladicising objects at New York's Metropolit...
No comments:
Post a Comment