It is now clear that curators at SLAM knew that the Ka Nefer Nefer mummy mask (but with name removed) was the one excavated (with name intact) at Saqqara when they were informed by an Egyptologist in February 1999. I remain puzzled by the apparent lack of contact with the Egyptian Supreme Council of Antiquities (SCA). Why did SLAM contact the Cairo Museum in 1997 (prior to the purchase) in preference to the SCA?
Were the authorities at SLAM ever advised to contact the SCA? Was that advice heeded?
There are continuing questions about the depth of rigour in the due diligence process both pre and post the acquisition of the mask.
Discussion of the archaeological ethics surrounding the collecting of antiquities and archaeological material.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Another Bürki object returns to Italy
Source: MMA A psykter column-krater attributed to the Troilos painter was deaccessioned by New York's Metropolitan Museum of Art in June...
-
Source: Sotheby's A marble head of Alexander the Great has been seized in New York (reported in " Judge Orders Return of Ancien...
-
Source: ICE. There are times when you wonder if there is a lack of imagination when it comes to naming operations but 'Mummy's C...
-
Detail of the Sophilos dinos © David Gill The Sophilos dinos in the British Museum has been reconstructed from approximately 50 fragments. I...

No comments:
Post a Comment