Separate the object’s date from its gift

The Ashmolean identifies its Standing Figure of the Buddha as EAOS.26, a grey-schist sculpture 95 centimetres high, attributed to northern Pakistan around 200 CE. Its credit records a gift from Miss Barlow in 1913. These dates refer to different stages: the museum’s proposed ancient dating and a documented modern collection event. The public account also describes surviving flecks of gold around the mouth and chin. That is a useful condition observation, but it does not itself identify an excavation. Keep the material, object number and exact scope of the regional attribution together, then treat the gift as one point from which further custody research can begin.[1]

Identify the custody evidence

The British Museum’s panel The Visit of Indra, 1880.69, provides a second example. Its record describes schist, a second–third-century date and a Gandhara production attribution, while its Found/Acquired field gives only Pakistan. The acquisition note traces the panel from the India Museum and says an old inscribed stand and a blue catalogue slip record an earlier Royal Asiatic Society gift. Those are identified sources for part of its modern history, not an independently inspected excavation record. The entry’s associated-place field and its production and acquisition fields should remain distinct. The museum catalogue also cites Zwalf’s 1996 sculpture catalogue; that underlying volume was not consulted here.[2]

Keep different catalogue fields distinct

Penn Museum’s search guide offers useful definitions for recording these distinctions. An object number identifies a museum item; an Other Number can preserve a field number or older collector’s reference. Site identifies an archaeological excavation location, while Locus narrows a find context, such as a building or tomb. Manufacture Location addresses where an object was made, which can differ from where it was used or found. Applied to the two sculpture records, this encourages a precise research note: preserve the supplied identifier and field label, record which stage of the object’s history it concerns, and leave an absent excavation context unresolved.[3]

Sources & notes

Source records include access dates and, where known, limits on what was examined. Checks used AI assistance; independent human or specialist review has not been completed.

  1. Ashmolean Museum, University of Oxford. Standing Figure of the Buddha, EAOS.26 ↗institutional object catalogue · Source date: publication date not established · Locator: Actual complete collection-highlight body and final object block: northern Pakistan, c. AD 200, grey schist, height 95 cm, Miss Barlow gift 1913; body observation about gold flecks. Accessed 2026-11-01.Actual complete institutional body inspected. Only object identification, material/date, condition observation and gift credit are used; the linked deeper catalogue, physical sculpture and donor papers were not read. The page’s religious/caste and universal iconographic-origin claims are excluded.Return to Separate the object’s date from its gift, paragraph 1 ↑
  2. British Museum, Asia department. The Visit of Indra, panel 1880.69 ↗institutional object catalogue · Source date: publication date not established · Locator: Actual cached complete record fields: Production date/place; Findspot; material; associated places; Acquisition name/notes citing old stand/blue slip; bibliography Zwalf 1996, no. 221. Accessed 2026-11-01.The search reader exposed the actual full institutional record body, including complete acquisition notes, which was inspected. A later direct open returned 403; no additional body was inferred from that failure or a short snippet. Museum statements remain attributed; no physical stand/slip or Zwalf 1996 book was independently inspected. Same-object mirrors and incorporated catalogue description share a conservative whole-work reservation.Return to Identify the custody evidence, paragraph 1 ↑
  3. Penn Museum, University of Pennsylvania. About Collections Search: field definitions ↗institutional catalogue-field guidance · Source date: publication date not established · Locator: Actual complete Searchable Fields table: Object Number; Other Number; Place Name/Provenience; Site; Locus; Manufacture Location; Credit Line. Accessed 2026-11-01.Actual complete relevant institutional table inspected. These are Penn’s definitions, used as a comparison method, not a claim that the other museums use an identical database schema. No Penn sculpture or unpublished record was examined.Return to Keep different catalogue fields distinct, paragraph 1 ↑
Help improve this entry. Suggest a correction with a source.
Record PH-COL-0053 · English edition · human review not performed