I take great heart from the continual discovery of new things, even amongst the detritus of what is held and known, we have much to discover.
That the Ashmolean assumed the Scots relic was a cast of theirs, speaks volumes both for indexing (or lack of it) and assumed supremacy of the Ashmolean over other historical collections.
> That the Ashmolean assumed the Scots relic was a cast of theirs, speaks volumes both for indexing (or lack of it) and assumed supremacy of the Ashmolean over other historical collections.
Why would the Ashmolean assume, without evidence, it was a super-rare original which happened to from the same period as the Ashmolean's piece? A cast seems much more likely to me, but I don't work in that field. Do you? Maybe I just don't understand some context.
My reading is: because it says theres so few of the tablets from this time period, they assumed the other museum couldn't possibly have an 'undiscovered' one?
If you were the art gallery of Wales, and I was the art gallery of scotland, no: assuming only your art provenance is valid and no other gallery can establish it is exceptionalism.
If you are the art gallery and I am some random with a prior cleaning job for a rich dead person who just happens to claim I have a van gogh, sure: good initial assumption. That's not exceptionalism, it's caution based on experience
> This small stele or plaque was donated to the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland in 1887 or 1888 by Alexander Wood Inglis. There is currently no information on how he acquired it.
I assume he (or the previous owner) acquired the stele by the same means the marbles of the Parthenon were acquired.
That the Ashmolean assumed the Scots relic was a cast of theirs, speaks volumes both for indexing (or lack of it) and assumed supremacy of the Ashmolean over other historical collections.