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)
Two lots withdrawn from Bonham's sale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...

No comments:
Post a Comment