.
St. Louis Art Museum attorney David Linenbroker said the museum does not "have any interest in possessing a stolen object" and "We're confident we're the rightful owner". He adds: "We've been facing all this innuendo for years".
St. Louis Art Museum attorney David Linenbroker said the museum does not "have any interest in possessing a stolen object" and "We're confident we're the rightful owner". He adds: "We've been facing all this innuendo for years".
Well, now many more years have passed and very little information has come to light about these circumstances. There is no evidence that Mr Aboutaam actually did dig out the documents underpinning a half-million dollar deal done just a few years previously. We still know nothing more about this mysterious Swiss citizen Charly Mathez, and about his claim that the object was already in Brussels as early as 1952. The problem here for SLAM is that this does not tally with what Judge Autrey states in his opinion rejecting the US government's claims. Even this hyper-sceptical judge states that he accepts (as the basis for further discussion):
the Mask was excavated at Saqqara, Eqypt, in 1952, placed in storage in Saqqara following its excavation where it remained until 1959, and then was “packed for shipping” to Cairo, Egypt, in preparation for an exhibit in Tokyo,Japan. The complaint further states that the Mask was “received by police guards” in Cairo in July of 1959, but instead of traveling to Tokyo, it remained in Cairo until 1962 when it was transferred back to Saqqara. The verified complaint further states that the Mask was removed from Saqqara in 1966 and “traveled” to Cairo in “box number fifty-four,” the “last documented location of the Mask in Egypt.” The complaint then goes on to state that in 1973, an inventory was taken of box number fifty-four, whereupon it was discovered the Mask was “missing.” The complaint states, “The register did not document that the Mask was sold or given to a private party during the time frame of 1966 to 1973.”Placing these two accounts together, we find that a claim is made that in 1952 the same object was both in a Brussels showroom as well as being in Saqqara when exhibits were being packed for a Tokyo exhibition. Now I think it hardly likely that the Egyptians would have packed the wrong mummy mask in 1959 - they had a register with photos showing what it looked like. It was verified as being in that box in 1966. So Mr Charly Mathez was either very much mistaken about which female nineteenth century mummy mask he saw, or he is telling a lie.
