We then find an expression of the same sort of divergence of opinion which we tend to meet with in scholars who study the past through so-called "addressed sources" (ie those with pictures and writing on them which were created to impart information):
However, AnneMarie Luijendijk, the Princeton University expert whom King consulted to authenticate the papyrus, said the fragment fit all the rules and criteria established by the International Association of Papyrologists. She noted that papyrus fragments frequently don't have a provenance, simply because so many were removed from Egypt before such issues were of concern. She acknowledged the dilemma about buying such antiquities but said refraining from publishing articles about them is another matter. "You wouldn't let an important new text go to waste," she said. 
For these people the trashing of archaeological deposits and sites to get stuff out to put on the market is not an important issue, perhaps things like context and associations are not for her and her fellow classicists "important information"?   I really do not follow the logic, that though she'd not buy one herself, she'll collaborate with those who do?