I quote from the AIP guidelines (link in Prof. Walsh’s post above):
§3: “That all members observe scrupulously not only the laws applicable to them in their home countries, including those implementing the UNESCO convention, but also the laws of Egypt and other countries from which ancient textual artifacts come”.
§12: “That papyrologists who identify material for sale or held in private collections as having been stolen from Egyptian museums or magazines should so advise its owner and urge the owner to return it to the Egyptian authorities; they should not assist in the marketing of such material in any way”.
Therefore it does not seem to me that the AIP condones looting in any way, any more than any other criminal activity. Even on the hypothesis that the Sappho papyrus was illegally excavated from a site rather than a “museum or magazine” (thus falling outside §12) and then illegally exported, this nonetheless certainly falls under §2. This said, if the AIP decided to amend §12 so as explicitly to include excavations it would clearly be even better.
Again, I am not saying that the provenance of this papyrus must certainly be crystal-clear in some way that only Dr Obbink knows. Like everybody else on this discussion board, I simply don’t know. The matter must certainly be investigated; if something illegal has been carried out, then it must be rectified; I hope that all relevant details will be published and that all those involved – Dr Obbink first and foremost – will fully cooperate with any investigation that may take place.
What I found disconcerting was how easily misdeeds appeared to be supposed – both at the origin and on the editor’s part – despite, at present, the absence of any real evidence for or against this notion. Personally, I feel that before publicly calling into question a person’s integrity, one should need something more than doubt and suspicion. But this is, again, only a personal opinion.
My apologies for taking your time.