Culturegrrl looks at some of the long-term loans in the Met's sumptuous new Greek and Roman galleries. It's not quite clear to me from the post whether she's trying to imply that there's something unusual or not proper about their presence there ("That's because these 'permanent galleries' are not entirely permanent:
Quite a few of the finest pieces are, in fact, on temporary loan.") It is, in my experience, a perfectly normal practice, one that the Met itself generously partakes in by lending works from its own collection to other institutions around the country on a long-term basis. That said, there are truly some amazing objects currently featured in those galleries, ones that make me itch to get down there as soon as possible (which won't be too soon, alas.)
That said, let me offer an answer to Lee's concluding question regarding the Euphronios Krater, still in New York for a limited time:
And, as I told you
on WNYC earlier today, don't forget to say a fond farewell to the
celebrated Euphronios Krater (down the hall, to the northwest of the
new galleries), which has a one-way ticket to Italy next year. It
embodies an important argument of the archaeologists---that we lose
important information about an object when it is taken from the ground
by non-professionals whose motive is profit, not scholarship: As the
Met's label tells us, one of the puzzles about the krater is why "an
enemy of the Greeks should be featured on such a large and fine vase
produced by one of the leading Athenian artists." Would archaeological
context have given us some clues?
We'll never know.
Well, in strictly technical sense, this is true. We don't know what was in whatever grave site the krater was found in, so we can't rule out that it might have had some lessons to teach us about the vase. But let me hazard that while we may never have absolute knowledge, the answer to the question of whether archaeological context would have given us some clues to the meaning of a detail of the subject matter of the vase is "Sadly, no." The krater, like so many other vases, was almost certainly a relic of the trade between Greece and Etruria. The context in which it was found was quite different from that in which it was created, and would be very unlikely to yield answers about its iconography and meaning in its original context. It wasn't found there. Etruria, from my understanding, gained its Athenian pots generally through trade. But perhaps Italy should do an exhaustive inventory and then return all Greek antiquities acquired by the Romans after the sack of Syracuse? The sanctity of archaeological context demands no less.
(I'm kidding, of course, and in fact generally take a very strong stand against the illicit antiquities trade. But there are limits to the arguments that can be made against it.)