The Ethics of the Egyptian Antiquities Trade and the Acquisition of Papyri

Caitlin Mostoway Parker, University of Winnipeg, Class of 2020

Abstract

This paper will explore the ethical dilemma of illegally acquired papyri, as well as the illicit trade surrounding it. This includes the issue of papyri without provenance, the destruction, looting and exploitation of archaeological sites where these papyri have been found, and the historically inadequate documentation and conservation of papyri fragments. I will explore the ongoing debate that is centred around the Sappho fragments, the controversial biblical fragment known as P. Oxy 15.1780, and the suspect involvement of Dr. Dirk Obbink, the Green family, and the Museum of the Bible in the acquisition of these undocumented papyri fragments. I will conclude by discussing the role of today’s scholars in the ownership, examination, preservation, and subsequent publication of papyri.

The study of papyri occupies an immensely important role in our understanding of Egypt under Roman rule, but it does not come to us without its own set of consequences and ethical problems. Much of what we know about Roman Egyptian society, culture, administration, and religion has been discovered through the contents of papyri found within the geographical boundaries of what is now modern Egypt. The nature of papyri as evidence is itself highly incidental, as its survival is almost entirely dependent on surrounding environmental conditionsand contingent upon intentional disposal or safekeeping. 1 Parts of the Egyptian desert, notably the Fayyum region, have provided the dry, arid conditions necessary for preservation, and have subsequently yielded many thousands of papyri. 2 Because of these papyri, we are able to peer intimately into the lives of ordinary people whose brief existences would have otherwise been lost to time without the aid of these exceptional environmental circumstances.

In this paper, I will discuss the ethical dilemma of illegally acquired papyri, including the associated illicit trade networks. This includes (but is certainly not limited to) the issue of papyri without provenance; the destruction, looting and exploitation of archaeological sites where these papyri have been found; and importantly, the historically inadequate documentation and conservation of papyri fragments. Alongside this discussion, I will look at the current debate concerning the Sappho fragments, as well as the controversial biblical fragment known as P. Oxy 15.1780. I will then discuss the suspect involvement of Dr. Dirk Obbink regarding the Sappho fragments, the Green family and the Hobby Lobby Corporation as private collectors and sellers, and the Green family’s Museum of the Bible. Lastly, I will discuss the importance of involvement of today’s scholars in the ownership, examination, preservation, and subsequent publication of papyri. These issues are ongoing, and the continuous emergence of new information might one day highlight the different ways in which we as scholars can better tackle them.

The methods in which papyri were acquired, starting in the late nineteenth century, have unfortunately left the academic community embroiled in numerous ethical and legal battles regarding the provenance and rightful ownership of these documents. This decontextualization is the result of excavations that were undertaken throughout the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, where the predominant goal of excavators was to find and remove as many papyri fragments as they could, as quickly as possible, with little to no attention paid to the surrounding archaeological material. 3 A piece of papyrus without any provenance or contextual information greatly diminishes our understanding of not only its place within the archaeological record, but of its textual contents as well. 4 Additionally, many papyri were unintentionally found or destroyed by local farmers, or looted by people who intended to sell them on the black market to travellers or scholars for a quick profit. 5 Oxford papyrological scholars B. P. Grenfell and A. S. Hunt carried out excavations at Oxyrhynchus between 1896 and 1907. 6 The methods they used were self-created and selective, and consequently, their excavations became “less about archaeology than the hunt for papyri.” 7 The separation of papyri from their original physical contexts, as well as their disassociation from other similar fragments and pieces of evidence, has helped create a considerable disconnect between the fields of archaeology and papyrology. 8 Over time, the study of Roman Egypt has separated itself into a number of highly specialized fields — including archaeology and papyrology — which for a considerable length of time operated autonomously. The systematic removal of papyri alone has destroyed countless archaeological sites that can no longer be properly excavated or studied.

The destruction of archaeological sites such as Krokodilopolis, Herakleopolis Magna, and many others are directly linked to the appearance of hundreds of Greek and Coptic papyri on the black market in the 1870s. 9 In the mid 1880s, the beginnings of archaeological research in Egypt were characterized by a general lack of knowledge concerning the overall importance of systematic excavation and archaeological context, which contributed greatly to the destruction of ancient sites. Detailed archaeological reports were not commonplace before the 1920s, and in 1929 Rostovtzeff notes that at numerous Egyptian sites, a large amount of crucial information regarding archaeological context had been lost due to the removal of so many papyri in such a short period of time. 10 Furthermore, site destruction and the subsequent extraction of papyri can be associated with the exploitation of natural resources, namely of a material used as fertilizer called sebbakh. The majority of sebbakh deposits were found concentrated within the confines of ancient cities and their trash heaps, leading to the creation of a mass industry that heavily exploited ancient ruins. 11 Turner notes that this exploitative agricultural industry was the result of colonialism, as well as the Egyptian people becoming aware of their economic potential, and subsequently viewing ancient sites “as a source of ready-made fertilizer.” 12 Although papyri were removed from these sites by farmers and looters — who were unaware of their archaeological significance — they were either discarded, destroyed, or sold into the black market for a quick profit. As Davoli puts it, much of Egypt’s Greco-Roman sites were “sacrificed for the economic progress of the country.” 13 The destruction of these sites — along with the large amounts of papyri associated with them — was not only the product of looting and the illicit antiquities trade, but because of Egypt’s perceived priority of its economy above its archaeology and cultural history as well. 14 Colonialism within Egypt introduced destructive industries into agriculture and infrastructure, which produced jobs for a large portion of the population, but hastened the destruction of many ancient sites. 15 Although legislation attempting to control the sale of antiquities was in place as early as the nineteenth century, a marked lack of available resources made it difficult for governments to effectively uphold these laws. 16 Additionally, because the Antiquities Service in Egypt was under colonial control, the enacted laws only applied to Egyptians, therefore allowing foreigners to easily circumvent regulations. 17 The British elite, who believed that it was their duty to “save” Egypt’s antiquities for the “civilized world,” were ironically the ones who exploited its land and people through industrialization and modernization, putting the very antiquities they wished to save at risk. 18 Aside from the issues created by the removal of papyri from their original contexts, many more were created through their distribution sans documentation to private collections and institutions all over the world.

The dispersal of papyri throughout the globe — whether it be the separation of a collection of fragments related to one another, or the allocation of papyri to subscribers of the Egyptian Exploration Fund based on their monetary contributions — have added to the problems we have today of trying to piece together the provenances and transactional movements of these largely undocumented artifacts. 19 C. M. Sampson points out that between the impossibility of studying a papyrus within its original physical context and the frustrating lack of documentation, we are left struggling to understand the entirety of its significance. 20 Early excavation methods rarely prioritized recording the find spots of artifacts. 21 Although archaeological excavations today are systematic and well-documented, much of the papyri that are currently being studied were discovered at the end of the nineteenth century, and therefore do not have proper documentation. This has proven problematic for scholars, as well as for those involved in determining the legality of such artifacts.

The purchase and publication of papyri without known provenances remains as much of an issue today as it has for the past 150 years. 22 According to R. Mazza, there has been a recent dramatic increase in the number of papyri with no recorded provenance on the market. 23 With the advent of the internet, both buyers and sellers can remain entirely anonymous, discreetly selling goods through e-commerce. This makes it exponentially harder for individuals invested in publication and preservation to determine the legality or authenticity of a papyrus in question. The commercialization of papyri and their nature as a finite resource only found in and around Egypt has created a niche market with a high demand, driving the prices of both licit and illicit sales continuously higher. 24 Shifting to a more contemporary narrative, the involvement of private collectors such as the Green family andthe Museum of the Bible, and of well-known scholars such as Oxford professor Dr. Dirk Obbink, rests neatly within an economy that relies upon the distribution and purchase of these artifacts.

In recent years, the emergence of the Sappho papyrus fragments have led scholars to question the reliability of their editors (namely, Dr. Obbink), as well as the authenticity and accuracy of the information provided by them. 25 The fragments themselves, and the destructive method in which they were removed from the cartonnage that they had originally been part of, are currently entrenched in numerous ethical debates. In the case of the Sappho fragments, Mazza argues that the anonymity of many private collectors poses issues for academics, in that crucial information about these papyri is often withheld from scholars and audiences. 26 This lack of (or reluctance to provide) information in the form of proper provenances and documentation leaves academics unable to verify the legitimacy of these ancient documents, and aids in the degradation of accountability rules and trust-based relationships within academia. 27 Mazza also mentions the general refusal of private collectors to name their trusted dealers, with answers implying that the dealers would risk “losing everything.” 28 If these transactions were legal, there would be no need to worry about losing a job or enduring the consequences of the law. Mazza points out that a trusted dealer who had engaged in a legal transaction would be proud, if anything, “to see their names on the labels and in catalogues.” 29 Many other fragments of papyri have suffered in situations similar to the Sappho fragment, such as P. Oxy 15. 1780 — also known as the Gospel of John.

In the early twentieth century, P. Oxy 15. 1780 was discovered by Grenfell and Hunt within the trash heaps of the ancient city of Oxyrhynchus, and was subsequently published in 1922. Passing through numerous owners since then, the fragment was most recently purchased by private biblical antiquities collector David Green, who also owns the Hobby Lobby Corporation. The Hobby Lobby Corporation is known to purchase artifacts of disputed origin. 30 Mazza notes that this document was probably acquired by Green not for its historical or cultural significance, but for its connections to early Christianity, as well as for the religious significance it held for him. 31 The purchase of papyri by private collectors is problematic to papyrologists and scholars. In private collections, papyri become inaccessible to those wishing to further study and protect them which, in turn, can greatly impact the progress of the field as a whole. At this point, I will turn to the Museum of the Bible, in which the Green Collection — containing the Gospel of John, among others — is housed. Critically, the Museum of the Bible has been accused of withholding information that might pertain to the provenances, authenticity, or past acquisition records of the papyri in question. 32 Mazza questions why the papyrologists who have worked closely with the Green family’s collection in the Museum have not made attempts to join the publicly accessible scholarly discussions of provenance (which can be found on a number of social media platforms) concerning the items in their collection. 33 The withholding of crucial information on the part of private collectors is extremely detrimental to those wishing to further study the papyri, and moreover, makes the entire collection and their curators appear extremely suspicious. If the curators continuously withhold information regarding authenticity and provenance to academics, it leads us to question the existence of such information.

In looking at the aforementioned ethical issues of the illicit papyri trade, we must realize that there clearly is not enough being done on the part of academics, museums, and governing bodies. The relative lack of effort made to obtain as many details as possible regarding provenance and purchase of papyri fragments in the past has become problematic to academics today. This can be partially attributed to the time period in which many of these papyri were received by North American and European collections, when little attention was paid to provenance and documentation. 34 Furthermore, the inadequate documentation of provenance by museums and researchers has affected our ability to properly authenticate — and study — the antiquities in question. 35 Mazza points out that some of her own colleagues believe scholarship should come first, and that they have continued to publish what comes directly from the antiquities market. 36 Such publication fuels the illicit trade and must be curbed. The controversial method in which the Sappho fragments were obtained is also problematic. According to Mazza, the fragments in question were removed from the cartonnage “by dissolving in a warm-water solution.” 37 If the cartonnage disassembly process was properly photographed and documented, we would at least have more information about the origins of these fragments and of the artifact to which they were a part.

However, there are ways in which we can move forward from the many ethical dilemmas that have come to light. Methods such as the digitalization of existing collectionscan be useful for scholars who might not be able to easily access these documents. R. Bagnall proposes the combination of many resources within a single, easy to use internet-based system. 38 While databases exist, they are numerous and all use different methods of categorization, which can be confusing and time-consuming for scholars to utilize. In cases where provenance or context can be ascertained, I believe that these papyri would benefit from repatriation to Egypt, where they can be further studied and displayed, or be loaned (by Egypt) to institutions willing to analyze them. Mazza further argues that all “suspiciously-sourced” fragments should be returned to Egypt, where the appropriate authorities will work with collectors to form an agreement regarding further study, publication and repatriation of these artifacts. 39

In conclusion, and in corroboration with many other scholars, I believe that it is necessary for us to actively question everything about antiquities, specifically papyri, that have an undocumented or disputed past. The antiquities trade has occupied and will continue to occupy a role within the fields of archaeology and papyrology. Although the illegal trade may never be entirely dismantled, academics are certainly able to have a direct impact on its supply. Moving forward, we must do better in protecting these artifacts for future study.

Footnotes

1 Roger Bagnall, Everyday Writing in the Graeco-Roman East (Berkerley: University of California Press, 2011), 33. 2 Paola Davoli, “Papyri, Archaeology, and Modern History: A Contextual Study of the Beginning of Papyrology and Egyptology” The Bulletin of the American Society of Papyrologists 52 (2015), 92. 3 Ibid., 105. 4Ibid., 88. 5 Ibid., 91. 6 Naphtali Lewis, Life in Egypt under Roman Rule (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1999), 3. 7 Traianos Gagos, et al., «Material Culture and Texts of Graeco-Roman Egypt: Creating Context, Debating Meaning” The Bulletin of the American Society of Papyrologists 42 (2005), 177. 8 Ibid., 173. 9 Davoli, 88. 10 M. Rostovtzeff, review of P. Viereck and F. Zucker, Papyri, Ostraka und Wachstafeln aus Philadelphia im Fayum (Berlin 1926), Gnomon 1929, 435-440. 11 Davoli, 94. 12 E.G. Turner, “The Graeco-Roman Branch of the Egypt Exploration Society,” repr. in Oxyrhynchus: A City and Its Texts, ed. Alan K. Bowman et al. (London 2007), 17. 13 Davoli, 97. 14 Davoli, 104. 15 Davoli, 97. 16 Roberta Mazza, «Papyri, Ethics, and Economics: A Bibliography of P. Oxy. 15.1780 (P 39)” The Bulletin of the American Society of Papyrologists 52 (2015), 116. 17 Ibid., 116. 18 Ibid., 116. 19 William A. Johnson, “The Oxyrhynchus Distributions in America: Papyri and Ethics” The Bulletin of the American Society of Papyrologists 49 (2012), 214. 20 C. M. Sampson, (forthcoming) “Papyrology,” in Blackwell Companion to Greek Lyric, ed. L. Swift (Oxford: Blackwell Publishing), 10. 21 Gagos, et al., 175. 22 R. Mazza, “Papyrology and Ethics” Proceedings of the 28th International Congress of Papyrology, Barcelona (2016), 25. 23 Ibid., 19. 24 James G. Keegan, “The History of the Discipline” in The Oxford Handbook of Papyrology, ed. Roger S. Bagnall (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011), 67. 25 Roberta Mazza, “The New Sappho Fragments Acquisition History: What we have learnt so far,” Faces and Voices, January 15, 2015, p.1, https:// facesandvoices.wordpress.com/2015/01/15/the-new-sappho-fragmentsacquisition- history-what-we-have-learnt-so-far/. 26 Ibid., 2. 27 Roberta Mazza, “Provenance Issues: Some Thoughts- Part 1,” Face and Voices, December 6, 2014, p.1, https://facesandvoices.wordpress.com/2014/12/06/ provenance-issues-some-thoughts-part-1/ 28 Ibid., 3. 29 Ibid., 4. 30 Mazza, “Papyri, Ethics and Economics,” 123. 31 Ibid., 125. 32 M. Choat, “Lessons from the ‘Gospel of Jesus’s Wife Affair,” Markers of Authenticity, June 23, 2016, p. 3, https://markersofauthenticity.wordpress. com/2016/06/19/lessons-from-the-gospel-of-jesus-wifeaffair/ 33 R. Mazza, “The Illegal Papyrus Trade and What Scholars Can Do to Stop It,” Hyperallergic, March 1, 2018, p.5, https://hyperallergic.com/429653/the-illegalpapyrus-trade-and-what-scholars-can-do-to-stop-it/ 34 R. Mazza, “Provenance Issues: Some Thoughts- Part 1,” Face and Voices, December 6, 2014, p.2, https://facesandvoices.wordpress.com/2014/12/06/provenance-issues-some-thoughts-part-1/. 35 Ibid., 2. 36 Ibid., 7. 37 R. Mazza, “The New Sappho Fragments Acquisition History: What we have learnt so far,” Faces and Voices, January 15, 2015, p.4, https://facesandvoices. wordpress.com/2015/01/15/the-new-sappho-fragments-acquisition- historywhat-we-have-learnt-so-far/. 38 Roger Bagnall, “Papyrus and Preservation,” The Classical World 91 (1998), 545. 39 R. Mazza, “The Illegal Papyrus Trade and What Scholars Can Do to Stop It,” Hyperallergic, March 1, 2018, p.7, https://hyperallergic.com/429653/the-illegalpapyrus-trade-and-what-scholars-can-do-to-stop-it/.

Works Cited

Bagnall, R.S. 1998. “Papyrus and Preservation.” The Classical World (91): 543- 52. (2011) Everyday Writing in the Graeco-Roman East. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Choat, M. (2016), “Lessons from the ‘Gospel of Jesus’ Wife’ Affair.” Markers of Authenticity:https://markersofauthenticity.wordpress.com/2016/06/19/ lessons-from-the-gospel-of-jesus-wife-affair/ (last accessed on 30 October 2019)

Davoli, P. (2015), “Papyri, Archaeology, and Modern History: A Contextual Study of the Beginnings of Papyrology and Egyptology.” BASP (52): 87–112.

Gagos, Traianos, Jennifer E. Gates, and Andres T. Wilburn. (2005), «Material Culture and Texts of Graeco-Roman Egypt: Creating Context, Debating Meaning.»The Bulletin ofthe American Society of Papyrologists 42, no. 1/4

Johnson, William A. (2012), “The Oxyrhynchus Distributions in America: Papyri and Ethics.” The Bulletin of the American Society of Papyrologists (49): 209–22.

Keenan, J.G. (2009), “The History of the Discipline,” in R.S. Bagnall (ed.) The Oxford Handbook of Papyrology. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 59–78.

Mazza, R. (2014), “Provenance Issues: Some Thoughts –Part 1.” Faces & Voices: https://facesandvoices.wordpress.com/2014/12/06/provenance-issues-somethoughts-part-1/ (last accessed on 31 October 2019). (2015a), “Papyri, Ethics and Economics: A Biography of P.Oxy. 15.1780.” BASP (52): 113–142. (2015b), “The New Sappho Fragments: What we have learnt so far.” Faces & Voices: https://facesandvoices.wordpress.com/2015/01/15/the-newsappho-fragments-acquisition-history-what-we-have-learnt-so-far/ (last accessed on 8 September2018). (2018), “The Illegal Papyrus Trade and what scholars can do to stop it.” Hyperallergic 1 March: https://hyperallergic.com/429653/the-illegal-papyrus-trade-and-what-scholars-can-do-to-stop-it/ (last accessed on 30 October 2019). (2019), “Papyrology and Ethics,” In Proceedings of the 28th Congress of Papyrology, edited by A. Nodar and S. Torallas Tovar, 15–27. Barcelona 1–6 August 2016. Scripta OrientaliaBarcelona: Publicacions de l’Abadia de Montserrat.

Rostovtzeff, M. review of P. Viereck and F. Zucker, Papyri, Ostraka und Wachstafeln aus Philadelphia im Fayum (Berlin 1926), Gnomon 1929, 435-440.

Sampson, C.M. (forthcoming), “Papyrology,” in L. Swift (ed.) Blackwell Companion to Greek Lyric. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.

Turner, E.G. (2007), “The Graeco-Roman Branch of the Egypt Exploration Society,” repr. in Oxyrhynchus: A City and Its Texts, ed. Alan K. Bowman et al. London: The Egypt Exploration Society.