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)
The Met returns three antiquities to Iraq
Source: Manhattan DA New York's Metropolitan Museum of Art has returned three antiquities to Iraq ( Manhattan DA Press Release ). The th...
-
Source: Sotheby's A marble head of Alexander the Great has been seized in New York (reported in " Judge Orders Return of Ancien...
-
If international museums can no longer "own" antiquities either through purchase on the antiquities market or through partage , wh...
-
The Fire of Hephaistos exhibition included "seven bronzes ... that have been linked to the Bubon cache of imperial statues" (p. 1...
No comments:
Post a Comment