Forgive my cynicism (unfortunately derived from observation of the illicit antiquities market), but there are certainly ways in which papyrologists could work with looted scrolls and still feel themselves technically within the AIP guidelines. For example, a papyrologist in a country which has not implemented a cooperative agreement with Egypt could work on a scroll without breaking Egyptian law in the sense that Egyptian law does not govern activities external to that nation. Of course this is specious reasoning, but we’ve seen similar kinds of behavior in other arenas of the world of antiquities.
As for Professor Nikolaev’s suggestion that it would be practically impossible to fake the fragment, I would say that first of all, the motive is clear: there’s plenty of money to be made and spread around a dedicated team. For raw materials, all you need is a small scrap of ancient papyrus with nothing on it (surely cheap and not that hard to find — see forgeries of ancient coins for the same process), and a handwriting expert who could produce the letters seen on other scrolls (likewise not so hard to find). As for the poetry, should we regard the previously-unknown word forms as the real deal? What about the appearance of a name previously known? The meters used in Sappho’s poems are well-published, but there’s not so much of her work preserved, so the audience is probably prepared to accept some things that don’t fit what we know…
I want to be clear that I am making no claims at all about the anonymous owner’s scroll’s authenticity or lack thereof. Without *real* provenance info (not “from an old German collection, findspot unknown”), we will probably never know for sure, which will be a real shame if the piece truly is authentic. I also make no claims about Obbink’s conscious complicity in any wrongdoing. But I’ll end on this note: the comments by philologists here who accept Obbink’s publication of this piece, at least so far without provenance, as well as his conclusions as they appear in the draft article and the news media, form an impressive example of the power of a powerful scholar’s name alone to legitimate an antiquity which cries out for intense scrutiny of its origins. This is, quite frankly, something to be worried about. It also shows the desire for any little bit more of something held in esteem, regardless of potential consequences. How much looting are people (really, deep down) willing to accept if it gets us a few more lines of Sappho, or Pindar, or Bacchylides, I wonder? Given what we know from countless examples about the corruption associated with the antiquities market and the large sums of money which change hands over pieces such as these, I think there’s room for plenty of soul-searching.
It’s been a week. I’m tired of hearing from Obbink’s defenders saying we just need to wait him to give answers to some incredibly simple questions — let’s hear from the man himself.