• Home
  • Blog
  • CV
  • Publications
  • Papyrological Resources
  • Contact

P.Oxy. 11.1351: From Oxyrhynchus to the Green Collection

5/20/2015

8 Comments

 
PictureSource: www.facebook.com/museumofthebible
This third-fourth century Greek parchment fragment containing a few partial verses from Leviticus 27 was discovered in Oxyrhynchus and published by Grenfell and Hunt in 1915. I was unaware that this fragment belonged to the Green Collection until an image of it was posted as an "artifact of the day" on the Museum of the Bible's Facebook page. Interestingly, this fragment has a problematic history. In the early 20th century, it was donated by the Egyptian Exploration Fund (now Society) to Crozer Theological Seminary (now Colgate Rochester Divinity School). But this institution ultimately deaccessioned the item. In June 2003, it was sold at a Sotheby's auction for a whopping $36,000 USD. Unfortunately, universities and museums sometimes sell off some or all of their items in order to raise money. Most recently, P.Oxy. 15.1596, a papyrus fragment of John, was deaccessioned by the Pacific School of Religion and sold to an American private collector (full story here). Anyway, the little parchment fragment now in the Green Collection was part of a larger lot of papyri sold on Sotheby's back in June 2003, and scholars debated the sale. Robert Kraft, professor emeritus at the University of Pennsylvania, had this to say (originally posted on the PaleoJudaica blog here; slightly edited below):


"It may be of interest to the paleojudaica site that a problematic precedent has been set (or perhaps merely expanded) by the auction on 20 June 2003 of 29 published papyri fragments from Oxyrhynchus, including P.Oxy. 1351 LXX Leviticus, that had been donated in the early 20th century to Crozer Theological Seminary (now part of Colgate Rochester Divinity School) by the Egyptian Exploration Fund (now the Egyptian Exploration Society). The materials were divided into 9 lots, and brought a staggering total of $646,000. The most prized piece in terms of bids was P.Oxy. 1780, from the Gospel of John, which went for $350,000. The tiny parchment Leviticus fragment brought "only" $30,000 [correction: $36,000]. The names of the successful bidders are unknown to me. 

Fortunately, not only were all these papyri already published in the P.Oxy. volumes, but they had recently been included in the American Theological Library Association "Cooperative Digital Resources Initiative" and thus can be viewed publicly on the internet -- http://www.atla.com/digitalresources/ (Search the DataBase, Limit by Collection, check off Oxyrhynchus Papyri and "Submit," keyword "Oxy," click on descriptions and images). The images and descriptions can even be offloaded ("Save As"). 

The situation was discussed at some length on the PAPY scholarly electronic list, and some late attempts to stop or delay the sale were addressed both to the sellers (the Trustees at Colgate Rochester Divinity School -- the Library that housed the fragments apparently was not complicit in the sale) and the legal department of the agent (Sotheby's in New York City). Egyptian Exploration Society officers issued a statement that emphasized the intent of EES that the materials were for public use, through museums and libraries. I'm not aware that the Egyptian authorities were apprized of the situation or issued any statement, although it could be argued that ultimately, this is Egyptian property. Some have questioned the right of a not-for-profit institution (CRDS) to sell to the highest bidder materials obtained by "donation" from a not-for-profit organization (EEF). It clearly seems to be a "moral" issue, even if its "legal" status remains murky; and a very questionable precedent!"

This is a good example of how artifacts can "move" on the market. They leave a museum, exchange multiple hands, and sometimes they simply disappear. I suppose the good thing in this case is that the item is now in a public museum, which was the original condition of donation by the Egyptian Exploration Society (EES). Several questions remain, however. Who bought the item from Sotheby's? From whom did the Green Collection buy the fragment? Does the EES approve of the artifact's relocation? Should it, in fact, be returned to the EES? Will scholars be given access to the fragment for research purposes? And a related question: will the Green Collection ever deaccession any of its items, and if so, how will they do it? 
8 Comments
Greg Matthews
05/21/2015 7:43am

I wish you scholars would stop using the word "deaccession". We all know what it really means (these days at least).

Reply
Peter Head
05/21/2015 12:28pm

I wonder about some of the initial assumptions here Brice. The EES gave out artifacts and manuscripts in exchange for financial support and subscriptions from institutions. So there was money and patronage involved from the very beginning. (I'm not sure there was ever any instruction about being in a public museum.)

By the way P. Oxy 1780 is also now in the Green Collection.

Reply
gregg schwendner
05/21/2015 5:09pm

Peter is right about there being quid pro quo in the distribution of texts by EES.

Reply
Roberta Mazza
05/21/2015 6:24pm

As you can see from the EEF/EES memorandum, donations to funders were intended for public display and education http://www.ees.ac.uk/userfiles/file/EES_MoA2008%20MEM%20ONLY.pdf
See also one of my last posts bout recant episodes with links to official statements from the EES current president (https://facesandvoices.wordpress.com/2015/05/03/another-oxyrhynchus-papyrus-from-the-egypt-exploration-fund-distributions-sold-to-a-private-collector/). Deaccession is euphemism for selling for profit as reminded above by G. Matthews. I appreciate that institutions may be in financial troubles these days, but this practice goes against the EES legacy as stated in the document above, especially when sellers do not take care of important clauses about public access and other matters.

Reply
Brice C. Jones link
05/21/2015 9:46pm

Peter and Gregg, no one denies this. But it is clear that the EES sold objects for *public* display.

Reply
Gregg Schwendner
05/22/2015 12:47am

Maybe you should have a look at the article below before drawing too many conclusions based on what the revised charter EES says. It is very different from what appears to have been actually done in the early 20th century. The most startling is the donation of P.Fay. 5 to an individual.
http://www.bu.edu/arion/files/2010/03/Schork-Papyrus1.pdf

Reply
Brice C. Jones link
05/22/2015 9:49am

Gregg, can you clarify who is assuming and what is being assumed? As for Peter’s earlier point and the issue of P.Fay. 5: In the article you linked to above (which I do not have time to read in full at the moment), it is abundantly clear that almost all of the initial distributions were made to public universities and institutions:

Ivy League universities, Hamilton College, Vassar College, John Hopkins, the Smithsonian Institute, the Universities of Chicago, Cornell, Michigan, Illinois, Western Reserve, Wellesley and Mount Holyoke Colleges, General and Union Theological Seminaries, McCormick in Chicago, Pierpont Morgan, Metropolitan Museum of Art, Muhlenberg College, Crozer Theological Seminary, Toledo Museum of Art, Southern Methodist University, Pacific School of Religion, Bonebrake Theological Seminary, St. Louis Art Museum, and more.

The EEF sold only to one individual: “Now, a final return to the extremely cold case of the stray Homeric papyrus from the Fayum. Its circumstances are *singular* because this fragment sent to William C. Winslow was the only item, out of a pool of about three thousand, ever assigned to an individual—the rest went to universities, museums, libraries, seminaries, and schools” (p. 40).

And according to the article, “Winslow wrote a brief announcement of the gifts and a summary of each allotment from London. The conclusion to his first paragraph underscores an essential public-relations aspect of the international bequest: ‘Any donor of a special sum towards the explorations can accomplish a double pleasure: **aid the cause of science, and add to the collections of the museum or university of his choice'** (p. 32).

So, it seems pretty clear that from the beginning the EEF sold items for public display, to aid the cause of science. This may need to be the subject of a new blog post. I will reach out to the EES for more information also.

Reply
Roberta Mazza
05/22/2015 11:17am

Schork's article (incomplete and inexact on more than one point) must be read in the light of W.A. Johnson, “The Oxyrhynchus Distributions in America: Papyri and Ethics”, BASP 49 (2012) 209-22. I believe that everyone would agree that distortions and individual bad behaviours are not the examples to follow. The memorandum is very clear on the principles, as re-stated recently by C. Naunton. I believe that anyone of us would agree that public access and professional, sustained conservation of papyri and artefacts must be guiding any decision about eventually selling them for profit (i.e. translation of the hypocrite administrative term "deaccession").

Reply

Your comment will be posted after it is approved.


Leave a Reply.

    Archives

    May 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    February 2015
    January 2015
    December 2014
    November 2014
    October 2014
    September 2014
    August 2014
    July 2014
    June 2014
    May 2014
    April 2014
    March 2014
    February 2014
    January 2014
    December 2013
    November 2013
    October 2013
    September 2013
    August 2013
    July 2013
    June 2013
    May 2013
    April 2013
    March 2013
    October 2012

    Categories

    All
    Ancient History
    Book Reviews
    Ebay Antiquities
    Egypt
    Historical Jesus
    Name That NT MS
    News
    Notes On Papyri
    Online Resources
    Textual Criticism
    Varia

    Enter your email address:

    Delivered by FeedBurner

© Brice C. Jones 2015. All rights reserved.