The Curator, the Fax and the Mummy Mask

I remain puzzled by the St Louis Art Museum. It seems that less than one year after acquiring the Ka-Nefer-Nefer mummy mask (the one with the name erased from the hand), a distinguished Egyptologist from a major international museum faxed a member of the curatorial team at SLAM drawing attention to the link with Saqqara.

It also seems that another museum-based Egyptologist encouraged the leadership team at SLAM to contact the Egyptian Supreme Council of Antiquities (SCA), in part because it was known that the archaeological store at Saqqara had been 'disturbed'.

The leadership team at SLAM will need to explain how they responded to this information. Or did they wait until Zahi Hawass contacted SLAM's director of February 14, 2006?

Ka Nefer Nefer Mask: a review of its acquisition

I have now reviewed the available correspondence and memoranda for the acquisition (and related due diligence process) of the Ka Nefer Nefer mask purchased by the St Louis Art Museum. There is clearly new evidence that has not been discussed before and that did not appear to form part of the legal cases that concluded in 2014.

I am grateful to numerous colleagues who have assisted in pointing me to leads - and for making helpful comments.

The key questions are as follows:
a. What was the reported collecting history of the mask as known at the point of acquisition by SLAM?
b. How was the emerging collecting history (and documentation) verified?
c. How did SLAM curatorial staff respond to the February 1999 revelation that the mask had been excavated at Saqqara? Did they contact the Egyptian SCA?
d. Did SLAM curatorial staff contact Dr Zahi Hawass and the SCA when allegations were made about how the mask surfaced?
e. When was the identifying personal name removed from the hand on the mask?

SLAM and the SCA

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.