Those of us who are concerned about the status of the papyrus fragments regarding their status as archaeological artifacts rather than simply evidence for new poetry by a famous writer tend to have backgrounds in field archaeology and cultural heritage management. I know I am concerned about the journal’s editorial policy in particular–major archaeological journals like the AJA do not permit the publications of newly-surfaced finds with no provenance. What astonished me most about this story is how papyrology seems to be a bit behind the curve as far as such policies go.
It’s not only incumbent upon the individual scholar to make these ethical calls about such material, but the journal needs to be a check as well. I can empathize with Dr. Obbink, excited about the prospect of new Sappho fragments, perhaps unaware of material cultural policies given his expertise in the literary world, and not pausing to consider the implications of widespread looting in Egypt and the market for illicit antiquities.
The journal in question has also published the controversial Fordham mosaics. So rather than calling out an individual scholar, I am more concerned with ZPE’s policies concerning such objects with murky, troubling provenance.
↧
Comment on Discussing the New Sappho poems by Francesca Tronchin
↧