The Papyrus Fragment about Jesus’s Relations: Cambridge comment

I note that Tyndale House in Cambridge has issued a helpful comment by Simon Gathercole on the newly-surfaced papyrus fragment ("Did Jesus have a wife?"). Gathercole makes the point, contra the New York Times, that this fragment is not a gospel and should be known as the fragment about Jesus' relations "since there’s no evidence that it was called a gospel and the text mentions at least two family members".

Christian Askeland has commented on his blog, "Evangelical Textual Criticism", from the International Association of Coptic Studies in Rome where the fragment was presented. Askeland suggests that the fragment "looks like a fake".

The Gospel of Jesus' Wife from an old German collection

Harvard Divinity School has provided information about a fragment of papyri in an anonymous private collection ("The Gospel of Jesus's Wife: A New Coptic Gospel Papyrus"). The Harvard website helpfully informs us "Nothing is known about the circumstances of its discovery, but it had to have come from Egypt".

Readers of LM will not be asking certain questions. Why is nothing known about its discovery? When was the fragment found? Where was the fragment found? What else was found with it? When did it leave Egypt (if Egypt was where it was found)?

What about the collecting history? Again, the Harvard website tells us more:

Nothing is known about the circumstances of its original discovery or early ownership, but there are some clues about its modern history. The earliest documentation about the fragment is a letter from the early 1980s indicating that Professor Gerhard Fecht from the faculty of Egyptology at the Free University in Berlin believed it to be evidence for a possible marriage of Jesus. It now belongs to an anonymous private collector who contacted Karen L. King at Harvard Divinity School for help in identifying its contents.

Will the Fecht letter be made public? Has the handwritten letter been authenticated? (Fecht died in December 2006.)

Who is the present anonymous collector?

The New York Times (Laurie Goodstein, "A Faded Piece of Papyrus Refers to Jesus’ Wife", September 18, 2012) has a bit of publicity for the fragment. It tells us

The collector acquired it in a batch of papyri in 1997 from the previous owner, a German. It came with a handwritten note in German that names a professor of Egyptology in Berlin, now deceased, and cited him calling the fragment “the sole example” of a text in which Jesus claims a wife.

Who was the previous German owner? Was the person a dealer or collector? What is the documentation for the sale?

Professor Karen L. King has been invited to prepare the fragment for publication in Harvard Theological Review. Some journals would not allow the publication given the fragment's obscure collecting history. The publication will no doubt help to add to the fragment's value prior to its acquisition by a proposed new owner.

Professor Roger Bagnall, director of the Institute of the Ancient World (ISAW) in New York, makes an important observation about the fragment:

The piece is torn into a rough rectangle, so that the document is missing its adjoining text on the left, right, top and bottom — most likely the work of a dealer who divided up a larger piece to maximize his profit, Dr. Bagnall said.

In other words Bagnall thinks that a much larger papyrus fragment was cut up to provide this piece that can be flouted as a great discovery (and no doubt a wonderful acquisition from some undiscerning institution).

There are a number of legitimate academic concerns about this newly surfaced fragment, and it is hoped that King will be addressing these prior to any proposed publication.

The Cleveland Drusus without a "slam-dunk paper trail"

Source: Cleveland Museum of Art

Newsweek has reviewed the recent criticisms of Cleveland Museum of Art's acquisition of the apparently recently-surfaced portrait of Drusus ("Who Owns Antiquity?; Two U.S. museums wrestle with the provenance question", September 17, 2012). The acquisition is defended by the director, David Franklin, who accepts that "the 2,000-year-old marble head didn't come with a slam-dunk paper trail proving that it could not have been illegally unearthed since the time of the UNESCO convention".

Newsweek should have explored the sale in Paris. How reliable is the reported collecting history that attempts to place the Drusus in Algeria?

Franklin felt this oral history gave him enough to run with: "We did as much if not more than anyone could have done to research this object ... If all the arrows are pointing in one direction, you can make a reasoned assumption," he says. The inevitable risks that this assumption might turn out wrong are balanced, he feels, by the open access that scholars and visitors now have to this wonderful work of art.

Cleveland is clearly now admitting that there is no verifiable and authenticated documentation for the head.

Franklin makes his appeal to James Cuno's Who Owns Antiquity? Perhaps he needed to read some of the reviews to understand the weakness of his position. I would draw Franklin's attention to the perceptive comments made by Dr Roger Bland of the British Museum.

Crosby Garrett helmet to go on show

The Crosby Garrett helmet is to go on display at the Royal Academy in London from 15 September.

It will form part of an exhibition called bronze. It will be interesting if all the details of the find and the so-called conservation emerge as part of the show.

Operation Totem: English heritage related crime

I have discussed the shortcomings of the Portable Antiquities Scheme in the Papers of the Institute of Archaeology. One of the concerns was under-reporting of finds by metal-detectorists.

I note that Operation Totem has yielded a "catch" in Lincolnshire ("Lenient sentence given to metal detecting thief", Horncastle News August 29, 2012).

A metal dectector enthusiast has been convicted of theft in so-called ‘nighthawking’ trips in the Horncastle area. [The individual from Yorkshire] faced nine allegations of theft between January 1 and July 8 2011, one allegation of going equipped for theft on June 5 and two allegations of possession of criminal property at his home on July 8. 

He denied all the offences but was convicted of eight offences of theft and of going equipped for theft by District Judge John Stobart at Skegness Magistrates Court last week.

More detail is given:

After a police raid at his home in July 2011, police found a large quantity of objects  - brooches, coins, pins and seals - two of which were found to have precious metal content in excess of 10 per cent which should have been declared as treasure to the Coroner. 

It also transpired that between July 2010 and May 2011, [the main] advertised 56 items on E-Bay and had sold approximately 30 of them. He had also entered the items referred to in the charges on to the UK Detectors database for recording finds. He stated they had all been found in May 2011 by him in Lincolnshire.

I notice that the other report from Horncastle ("Police send clear message sent to illegal nighthawkers", August 29, 2012) claims that the police worked in partnership with English Heritage "who were able to provide the support and advice on aspects of heritage-related crime". Sergeant Booth who led the investigation is quoted at length:

“Operation Totem was introduced to deal with concerns raised by members of the farming community who were suffering from persons illegally using metal detectors on their property. 

“This was resulting in significant damage to crops and the loss of unique historic artefacts.  

“A great deal of work was carried out by the officers involved in the operation to bring offenders to justice and to send out a clear message that illegal metal detecting and heritage crime will be taken seriously. 

“Many people seem to hold the opinion that metal detecting is a harmless hobby and feel that they have a right to roam and use their equipment at will, where they like, without permission or any likelihood of facing the consequences of their illegal actions. 

“While there are many responsible people who legitimately enjoy metal detecting with the permission of land owners, while using the proper channels to register and dispose of items that they may find, there are a small minority who persist in operating outside the law.”

I note that it is English Heritage taking a lead against English "heritage-related crime".

Fortuna and the unnamed gallery

Source: MiBAC

In December 2011 Humana announced that it would be returning two statues to Italy. These had apparently been purchased from an unspecified New York dealer of antiquities. Who was that dealer?

This matters. This month we have seen a major North American museum (that has already had to return antiquities to Italy) renewing its policy of acquiring recently surfaced archaeological material.

Is the same New York dealer associated with this new material? If the dealer is associated, this is likely to damage the museum's claim that it has conducted a rigorous due diligence search.

Excavations matter in Norfolk

Caistor-St-Edmund © David Gill, 2012

It was good to visit the excavation outside the walls of the Roman town of Caistor-St-Edmund just outside Norwich. The stratified (and undisturbed) finds will help to reveal the history of the site.

I am reminded that the site was receiving weekly "nighthawking" raids as reported in the 2009 survey (see earlier comments).

Advocates of a so-called "licit market" in antiquities have yet to grasp the importance of objects excavated in a scientific manner.