![]() 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
5/21/2015 12:43:03 am
I wish you scholars would stop using the word "deaccession". We all know what it really means (these days at least).
Reply
Peter Head
5/21/2015 05:28:07 am
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.)
Reply
gregg schwendner
5/21/2015 10:09:42 am
Peter is right about there being quid pro quo in the distribution of texts by EES.
Reply
Roberta Mazza
5/21/2015 11:24:38 am
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
Reply
5/21/2015 02:46:14 pm
Peter and Gregg, no one denies this. But it is clear that the EES sold objects for *public* display.
Reply
Gregg Schwendner
5/21/2015 05:47:29 pm
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.
Reply
5/22/2015 02:49:07 am
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:
Reply
Roberta Mazza
5/22/2015 04:17:26 am
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
December 2020
Categories
All
|