The time has come for the curatorial staff of the St Louis Art Museum to demonstrate that they have authenticated the documentation relating to the acquisition of the Egyptian mummy mask. The museum authorities need to explain how the Egyptian object formed part of the Kaloterna collection at exactly the same time that it was also in Egypt.
One of the lawyers acting for SLAM indicated that the museum did not wish to own a "stolen" object. So, putting aside the legal decision, how confident is the curatorial team that the mask was not stolen? And if, on balance, they decided that it was "stolen" from an archaeological store in Egypt, then there is an ethical obligation on the museum to return it.
Is it time for the Director and Trustees of SLAM to make a public statement?
Discussion of the archaeological ethics surrounding the collecting of antiquities and archaeological material.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Two lots withdrawn from Bonham's sale
Becchina Archive Source: Christos Tsirogiannis. Dr Christos Tsirogiannis has identified two lots that were due to be auctioned at next week...
-
Source: Sotheby's A marble head of Alexander the Great has been seized in New York (reported in " Judge Orders Return of Ancien...
-
Tarentine funerary relief Source: Metropolitan Museum of Art The Manhattan DA has provided limited details about the recent return of antiqu...
-
If international museums can no longer "own" antiquities either through purchase on the antiquities market or through partage , wh...

1 comment:
Above all, let them demonstrate that there actually was a "Kaloterma collection" and how that object crossed the Iron Curtain to end up in Switzerland.
Post a Comment