The statement by the EES that some 120 papyri fragments from its collection are missing is raising concerns in the academic community. 19 of the fragments have been identified in a public museum and a private collection in North America, and these will apparently be returned to the EES.
There are questions that need to be answered. What authenticated documentation was supplied with the sale of the papyri? What due diligence was undertaken? Who had access to the EES collection?
why has the acquisition of papyri fragments been seen as different from that of antiquities? Are they not seen as part of the archaeological record?
Discussion of the archaeological ethics surrounding the collecting of antiquities and archaeological material.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Lions from the archaic Panionion
Source: MMA In 1992 three terracotta antefixes decorated with the heads of lions were acquired by New York's Metropolitan Museum of Art ...
-
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