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)
Loan to the Metropolitan Museum of Art returned to Libya
Source: Manhattan DA A marbled head of a veiled woman has been returned to Libya after being placed on long-term loan to New York's Metr...
-
Photo: Becchina Archive Source: Christos Tsirogiannis An Attic black-figured amphora attributed to the manner of the Princeton painter has b...
-
Source: Sotheby's A marble head of Alexander the Great has been seized in New York (reported in " Judge Orders Return of Ancien...
-
James Cuno's Who Owns Antiquity? has received a series of critical reviews . Cuno has now responded on the Princeton University Press ...
No comments:
Post a Comment