Letter: What we may learn from antiquities
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Sir: With regard to the Royal Academy's exhibition of the George Ortiz antiquities, James Chesterman's attitude (letter, 12 February) that 'antiquities are often repetitive and even more often of crass workmanship' entirely ignores the most valuable aspect of such finds, namely the information about the contexts from which they have been removed.
In the case of Syrian glass perfume bottles, for example, it is almost certainly the grave in which they were originally deposited. The loss in such cases includes all information on grave type, associated skeletal remains, , composition of grave groups and the patterns of association and the distribution of wealth and social position, as well as the physical loss of any commercially less attractive objects from the tomb.
While the confused state of the laws relating to the discovery of portable antiquities in this country allows considerable ambiguity, this is not the case in many of the countries from which objects reach the 'art market'. They have been excavated illegally and smuggled out of their countries of origin. In view of the consequences of such trade in encouraging further looting, it is irresponsible to ignore the difference between archaeological materials and prints, drawings and paintings which have been in continuous circulation since their creation.
Yours faithfully,
ANDREW SHERRATT
Linacre College
Oxford
12 February
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
0Comments