tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8972497915033440413.post1312022081042739616..comments2024-03-20T18:15:41.858+00:00Comments on Looting Matters: Michael Brand on the "Orphans"David Gillhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13164794689385933318noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8972497915033440413.post-90977907474518873582008-03-25T21:42:00.000+00:002008-03-25T21:42:00.000+00:00Gerardthank you for this observation. I will prepa...Gerard<BR/>thank you for this observation. I will prepare a fuller response in a separate posting.<BR/>DavidDavid Gillhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13164794689385933318noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8972497915033440413.post-80213601933532905552008-03-25T19:40:00.000+00:002008-03-25T19:40:00.000+00:00In 'The Medici Conspiracy' (2007), Chapter 15 (The...In 'The Medici Conspiracy' (2007), Chapter 15 (The Puzzle of the "Orphans"), Watson and Todeschini refer to '(T)he acquisition of vases in fragments - "the sale of the orphans" as Pellegrini puts it...' <BR/><BR/>It is clear throughout the chapter that by 'orphans' they mean 'vase fragments' - and in particular, vases separated into fragments and later reassembled as part of the trafficking in looted antiquities. <BR/><BR/>This is at variance with the definition of 'orphans' proposed by Michael Brand, who has presumably read the Watson & Todeschini text, and I feel this is an ambiguity that needs clearing up, especially as the Pellegrini definition refers to a specific and serious crime, "making it more difficult for countries such as Italy to mount claims for these objects." (Ibid., Ch. 22, p.341) <BR/><BR/>Any further confusion of these issues is surely to be deplored.Gerardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10163401678432646200noreply@blogger.com