I have been sent a series of questions to consider prior to a workshop this coming week. Among them was this: Which agencies are best placed to interdict trafficking?
I would only like to comment on classical material. But it seems to me that there is a huge difference between being 'best placed' and actually taking action. The hundreds of objects that have been returned from North American public and private collections are a reminder that these examples of archaeological material have crossed several international frontiers: say, from Italy to Geneva; from Geneva to London; from London to New York. Yet there has been free movement through customs and other checks.
The high profile 'seizures' have been the initiative of the Italian authorities. Should it be up to 'source' countries alone?
So how do we answer the question?
Discussion of the archaeological ethics surrounding the collecting of antiquities and archaeological material.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Another Bubon Head Returns to Türkiye
Source: Manhattan DA A bearded head from the Santa Barbara Museum of Art (inv. 1971.51.2) has been returned to Türkiye [ press release ]. Th...
-
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...
-
The recent public announcement that the Hellenic Ministry of Culture has requested the return of three antiquities from the Michael C. Carl...
No comments:
Post a Comment