You are on page 1of 16

ANDROMACHE GAZI

‘Artfully classified’ and ‘appropriately placed’:
notes on the display of antiquities in early twentieth-century Greece

Μνήµη Αγγελικής Πιλάλη-Παπαστερίου

T HE POLITIC A L A ND IDEOLOGIC A L processes which, • This development was checked to a great extent after
in the course of the nineteenth century, shaped the domi- 1909.4
nant ideological credo in Greece, according to which clas- • I am interested in examining the degree to which
sical antiquities acquired the status of symbolic national the ideological inheritance of the nineteenth century
capital have been thoroughly analyzed by research.1 De- continued to exert influence during the transition to the
spite considerable discrepancies, nineteenth-century mu- twentieth.
seum displays reflected and reproduced this ideological
orientation by offering visitors a reading which presented
antiquities as fine-looking objects and unquestionable ‘the Society established a museum in …’.
national emblems.2 Evident in several aspects of civil life The development of museums
and reflected in official ideological apparatuses, museums
included, this form of ancestor worship was powerful By the end of the nineteenth century, all major museums
enough to survive until the beginning of the twentieth in Athens5 had been established and important regional
century, despite the fact that some ‘cracks’ in the model museums6 had been built. Subsequent efforts concentrated
were beginning to appear as early as 1897. on the creation of a series of small, provincial museums to
At the beginning of the new century Greek archaeologi- house antiquities in various regions in the country. The
cal museums were blooming: new museums were being new century began with a flurry of activity. In 1900, four
founded, museum practices stabilized and permanent museums were founded: Ancient Corinth, Thera, Chalkis
staff was appointed. Did this improvement in museum and Mykonos, while the follow-up was equally impressive.
practices also reflect some kind of transition to a different From 1903 to 1906, a total of nine museums were built, at
ideological model of the management of antiquities and, a rate of three per year, thus:
consequently, of their display?3 This is the main question 1903: Nafplion, Delphi, Chaeroneia
on which this paper focuses. More specifically, I am inter- 1904: Delos, Thebes, Herakleion
ested in examining how the official rhetoric concerning 1906: Lykosoura, Corfu, Tegea
antiquities prevailing during the first decade of the twen- 1908: Thermon, Volos
tieth century was incorporated, maintained and repro- 1909: Argostolion
duced within the corresponding museum ‘narrations’. A total of 16 museums in nine years (1900-1909) is an
I shall focus on the time period between 1900 and 1909 impressive record. This was due to the fact that the Ar-
because: chaeological Society at Athens (henceforth the ‘Society’)7
• It was an especially prolific period in the development concentrated most of its efforts on building archaeological
of archaeological museums. museums, an involvement which led to the systematization

3rd S U PPL E M E N T, AT H E N S 2 0 0 8 67

despite the fact that a significant number Over a period of ten years. of the 16 new museums built during that period. Greek archaeological museums 1900-1909 Tegea by geographical distribution. pean countries affected their work in Greece (a topic to mination of excavations at a site (or while excavations were which we shall return). the objective of found- ing museums. were housed in new buildings erected for this specific pur- Delphi and Herakleion. in new buildings. in other words. It would therefore be interesting to assess to what that there was significant advance planning regarding the extent their contact with display practices in other Euro- creation of museums in situ – generally following the ter. It is sufficient to ary Greek administration – and the Argostolion museum note that. a specific type of floor plan was commonly used which con- Archaeological Greek State sisted of two galleries on either side of an antechamber. mainly in Germany. some museums. a fast pace of devel- of them continue to be relatively inaccessible even today. in the city’s Anglican church). 1908 Thermon Volos (+ private Museum construction was generally completed in a short funding) period of time. Greek archaeological museums 1900-1909 majority of archaeologists organizing displays during this by funding body. The discussion of displays organized during this period 68 ΜΟU S E IO BE N A K I . Some museums were therefore created which from the very But what can we learn from this flowering of museums beginning had only a slim chance of attracting significant about the ideological management of antiquities and. therefore. Indeed. It should be noted here that the Table 1. opment. Indeed. Society 1900 Ancient Urban centres Archaeological sites or nearby Corinth Thera Ancient Corinth Thera Chalkis Delphi Chalkis Mykonos Delos Mykonos Nafplion Chaeroneia 1903 Nafplion Delphi (+ private funding) Thebes Lykosoura Chaeroneia Corfu Tegea 1904 Delos Herakleion (Cretan State + Herakleion Thermon private funding) Volos Thebes Argostolion (Kephalonia) 1906 Lykosoura Corfu Table 2. by numbers of visitors. extension. involving great activity on the part of the Society. their counterparts in other European countries). A S I N G U L A R A N T I Q U I T Y ANDROM ACHE GA ZI of museum practices during that period. we have 16 new of these sites were located in isolated areas. period had studied in other European countries. their display? tiquities remained. still on-going). all in all. the latter being founded by the pose and distinguished by a rather spare architectural style Independent Cretan State with financial support from the (which becomes especially evident when compared with Society. The collection and preservation of an. The demanding tasks of classifying and 1909 Argostolion exhibiting antiquities followed. It is clear century. undertaken by archaeolo- (Kephalonia) gists primarily from the Society but also from the state’s Archaeological Service. With the exception of two museums housed in pre-existing public buildings (the museum at Nafplion The displays which was housed in the Vouleftiko – an eighteenth-centu- ry mosque converted to assembly rooms by the revolution. the museums of this period 14 were created by the Society and only two by the state.8 Some of them were even sent specifically to Nine museums were located in urban centres and seven visit museums in Italy at the beginning of the twentieth on archaeological sites or nearby (see Table 2).

glass-covered cases made of oak include the large extent to shake off the strictly repository character of most part of the heirlooms.C E N T U R Y G R E E C E ‘Artfully classified’ and ‘appropriately placed’: notes on the display of antiquities in early twentieth-century Greece must also include certain museums that had been built earlier. Herakleion. He finds were often displayed in show-cases. Antonios Keramopoulos reported: ‘I daurus. These are the museums at Epidaurus (where the display was set up by Panayiotis Kavadias9 between 1905 and 1909) and at Syros (organ- ized during the same period by Nikolaos Politis.14 while regarding the organized (for example. tion material used and generally placed according to their cally and historically important finds’. Post card from Herakleion Archaeological Museum. 2). As regards the remaining tion given by Stephanos Xanthoudidis16 regarding the mu- exhibitions. The general rule followed for the display of antiquities was cal and typological classification of collections and their that of classification based on chronology and typology ‘proper’ display was achieved in most cases. or even. It is extremely difficult to arrive at comprehensive con. Alternatively. although there were a number of tures reported in the collections of the National Museum. Despite considerable disparities. provincial museums that were more or less systematically 2725 were displayed in galleries. clusions concerning the appearance of exhibitions during this period. as they were marked by significant variation and heterogeneity. that of the museum in Volos. A R C H A E O L O G Y A N D H E L L E N I C I D E N T I T Y I N T W E N T I E N T H . Epi. Frequently a typological classifi- cation implied that sculptures might be exhibited in one gallery. How were antiquities displayed? finds were presented according to their provenance and subsequently classified chronologically or typologically.10 then in charge of archaeology in the Cyclades on behalf of the Greek state). however. the common requirement for chronologi. the museums at Olympia. while many more [heirlooms] previous periods. museum at Thebes. the availability and appropriateness of point of view’. In general. Thebes. Argostolion). for example. but nevertheless felt the need to justify their display and Interpretation was minimal. the antiquities displayed were generally After that. Smaller of the Mycenaean gallery at the National Museum. A reflection of this dimensions.13 spaces. Thus the early years of the century were a busy time as regards the setting up of displays. 1) is also typical: ‘More than one 1. dis- 3rd S U PPL E M E N T. but whose displays were organized during the first decade of the twentieth century. finds were classified according to the construc- ‘the finest of the rescued’. To begin with. Volos and. of the 5000 sculp- to attract most attention. financial difficulties. less commonly according to a thematic order.17 2. The National Museum continued jects as possible. preconception can be seen in the report by Valerios Stais12 In one case. there was a tendency to display as many ob- technical equipment. For example. two comments can be made: seum at Herakleion (fig. We shall also consider the work by Kavadias at the National Archaeological Museum in Athens (hence- forth the ‘National Museum’) as well as that of Konstanti- nos Kourouniotis11 at the Ancient Olympia Museum. arranged ac- characterized them as of secondary importance to visitors. ca. counted 4471 clay vases therein displayed’. are also displayed in a dignified and artful manner’. and vases in another. We will return in various combinations (e. chronology-typology or to this later. This was due to a variety of factors such as the relative importance and anticipated popularity thus added: ‘very interesting however from an artistic of each museum.g. cording to the type of material (fig. Tegea. Frequently.15 The informa- to a lesser extent. ‘all of the archaeologi. 1. 1910. lack of staff and shortages of In addition. AT H E N S 2 0 0 8 69 . they managed to a hundred large. in 1907.. typology-chronology). the display cri- written in 1909 on works displayed beneath the showcases terion was the degree of preservation of the finds. Delphi. Fig.

24 Ure and Barrows espoused the views of Italian archaeologist Paolo Orsi who had ex- cavated a number of cemeteries in Sicily and propagated a new excavation rationale. Ure would write in 1934: ‘It is due to him that the complete 70 ΜΟU S E IO BE N A K I . 1922 (photo: Ure Museum. in a man- ner much ahead of his time: ‘The gifts to the dead of each grave. built in 1904-1905. according to which the entire Fig. view of showcase with vases from Ritsona graves.23 the excavator at Ritsona along with Ronald Barrows. skeletal remains included. the names of the galleries on the walls and plaster casts. Archaeological Museum.’22 For the exhibition of the finds at Ritsona. in ancient Mykalysos. context. unit and not only those that seemed to have exceptional aesthetic merit (as had been the usual practice until that Fig. Keramopoulos organized the display so that all the contents of a grave. He wrote: ‘Upon the walls we inscribed some notices toward the general understand- ing of the kind and importance of the ancient finds in each room’. The work of Apostolos Arvanitopoulos18 at the museum of Volos is an example of such an approach. Keramopoulos displayed the finds from the excavations at Ritsona. 1546). No care was taken to praise the archaeological con- text. using the concept of archaeological Reading University). The quantity and quality of informational material was related to the size and importance of each museum.25 Likewise. 3).20 Of course. were displayed together on shelves (fig. a funerary monument was reconstructed in order to show how the ste- lae were placed in ancient times he noted: ‘we proceeded to the reconstruction of a funerary monument’. namely the museum at Thebes. even the bones of the dead. time). The person in charge was Antonios Keramopoulos. information signs. Thebes. 3. Keramopou- los collaborated with Percy Ure. no. nor does a reproduction help much if it is not interpreted to the visitor. which acted as visual aids. Nevertheless. A S I N G U L A R A N T I Q U I T Y ANDROM ACHE GA ZI plays were rounded out with plaster reproductions and with painted depictions. are all displayed together. On the upper floor.19 When in the foyer of the museum. The most complete exhibitions from this perspective were to be found at the National Museum. undated (photo: American School of Classical Studies at Ath- contents of each individual grave ought to be studied as a ens. here we have an example of what we might name ‘visitor provision’. Ancient Corinth. but organized mainly in 1909. a simple label inscribed on a wall does not provide much in the way of enlightenment or ‘understanding’ of the ‘impor- tance of antiquities’. Archaeological Museum. East room. with one possible exception.21 The display on the ground floor of the building did not deviate from the norms of the era. clay or metallic. 2. however. Corinth Annex. where supporting material included catalogue numbers.

were probably researchers rather than the public.33 ‘and for the decent placement of the others’. Archaeological Museum.31 ‘they were artfully classified’. The exhibits were. The temptation to fol- low the easy and unscientific course of exhibiting only the showpieces and keeping the mass of material out of sight is even now not always resisted in some quarters. had a sense of the ghastly impression given by the uniform alignment of the works (fig. of course. in order to ensure that the stelae were rescued. in ‘harmony’ with the Museum. an expression found throughout relevant texts of the time. who in 1909 organized the display of the in- scribed stelae of Demetrias27 at the museum in Volos.32 ‘they were appropriately placed’. 226. antiquities were presented as timeless Fig. such as Arvani- topoulos. 1900s What exactly constituted this notion of suitability and (source: Gärtringen & Wilski 1904. Athens.26 The benefi- ciaries of these efforts. Archaeological Museum. fig. it would have been in vain and comically ambitious to pursue a more appealing or opulent basing of them’. National Archaeological Museum. as a rule. Some archaeologists. 6. north-east corner of the century. AT H E N S 2 0 0 8 71 . 4). and was the normal procedure twenty-five years ago’.’29 It should be noted here that the exhibition of antiquities in chronological order became a legal requirement under the terms of the 1885 Decree Concerning the Organiza- tion of Athenian Museums : ‘Museum antiquities should be […] classified in the rooms […] according to the various periods of art history’. though. 6) and aesthetically appropriate displays: ‘Care was taken in order for the ancient finds to occupy a position merited by the symmetry and harmony of the surround- ing area and the neighbouring classes (sic). however.28 Finally. An attempt datable probably before 1906 (photo: National Archaeological to create ‘suitable’ exhibitions. 4. arranged in a linear fashion (fig. room XIII. there was a clear tendency to create harmonious (fig. at the dawn of the twentieth century? 3rd S U PPL E M E N T. was part of this ideological framework. fig. At that time. ‘sacred heirlooms’. Volos. 5): ‘This system of basing stelae upon successive pedestals in a row is admittedly tedious and generally unrefined. as cultural treasures. Was this still the case though. in line with the view that they were first room. and indisputable values. 26). 1909 (source: Arvanitopoulos 1912. A R C H A E O L O G Y A N D H E L L E N I C I D E N T I T Y I N T W E N T I E N T H . 5.34 ‘decently and appropriately placed’. sculpture room. Thera.35 Fig. I quote: ‘for the appropriate and decent placement of the ancient finds’.30 The same decree also required the ‘decent’ display of antiquities. as is clear from Keramopoulos’ accounts. However.C E N T U R Y G R E E C E ‘Artfully classified’ and ‘appropriately placed’: notes on the display of antiquities in early twentieth-century Greece finds from each of our graves are exhibited as a unity in the cases of the museum at Thebes. harmony? It was. 16). Photographic Archive). historical and artistic value of the finds. a legacy from the nineteenth Fig.

the protagonist grabs the ends of a piece of Thus. which was the resort to be questioned. tive of the vitality with which the ancestor worship of the lowing year after Greece’s ‘humiliating’ defeat by Turkey nineteenth century continued to thrive. among other language. which would become the demoti- with painstaking effort by an amateur archaeologist who cists’ main forum of expression. the wall. In both works the poet showed the continued to exercise its influence. However. but indica- pride. The usefulness of antiquity to modern life began to of boosting national self esteem. as well as how archaeological displays in other contemporary folk culture. these incidents epitomized the ideology of national ‘purity’ a desire to ‘re-examine everything from scratch’. A telling detail is that. Main trends in displaying antiquities. and the resignation of the prime minister leaving a trail of blood. mis criticized the tendency to adopt ancient Greece as the modern Greeks’ only heritage.36 and which could only be based on a relationship with classi- their efforts to redefine a sense of national identity. this pride was severely dented the fol.37 The cal Greece. captions. an ancient sculpture. in his attempt to avoid the entered what K. during this same period then places it in the middle of his home. Ion Dragou- European countries were being organized. though. In 1901. the dismissal of the archbishop. o Theme (rarely) And yet at precisely the same time.g. More precisely. In it. and eleven dead. That generation was marked by introspection. we must shed some light on The King’s Flute published in 1907 and 1910 respectively. the pub- • Concern for aesthetics and harmony lication in the newspaper Acropolis of excerpts from the Bible translated into demotic Greek led to a violent reac- Table 3. an attempt to The historical and ideological context stage a performance of Aeschylus’ Oresteia translated into demotic Greek incited the wrath of student groups. A S I N G U L A R A N T I Q U I T Y ANDROM ACHE GA ZI To answer this question. may thus symbolize something much deeper. to a renegotiation of the relationship with antiq. Two years later. ‘the era of subservi- • Minimal information (e. at the turn of the twentieth century Greek soci- embroidery – material symbol of his time – which hangs on ety was caught between two different ways of thinking. Extreme reactions to be sure. In the same vein. 1903 also marked the publication of published in 1904. The despair over the perceived loss of a ‘pure’ search for the identity of the Greeks led. Dimaras called its ‘heroic’ era. and simultaneously reflected the new critical attitude vis-à-vis the use of antiq- assess to what extent the legacy of the nineteenth century uity in modern Greece.39 This attempt to discern finds’ what was relevant and valuable to the present in each past • As many objects as possible era would mark the beginning of what Kitromilides40 has • Classified according to characterized ‘the era of ambivalence’. that is the attempt o Chronology and typology o Provenance to reappropriate antiquity as a subsidiary medium of sym- o Material bolic expression in the age of modernity. We must similarly complementarity of the Greeks’ diverse pasts (the ancient examine how archaeology was developing in Greece at Greek and the Byzantine) when creatively synthesized with the time. falls and kills its the demotic language movement gathered momentum and owner. evoked every time there was need. the ideological character of the era. in 1897. led to In 1896 the first Olympic Games of the modern era took new conflicts with the police and the deaths of another place in Athens resulting in an increased sense of national three people.42 Andreas Karkavitsas’ allegorical novel The Archaeologist Interestingly.43 falling statue. namely despair at the loss of the only valid mechanism uity. in 1903. This trend was expressed symbolically in classical antiquity. thereby alienating modern • ‘The finest of the rescued’ Greeks from their living tradition and distorting their un- • ‘All of the archaeological and historically important derstanding of their overall past. things. inscriptions on the ence’ – a phrase cored once again by Kitromilides – 41 that wall) is the uncritical elevation of antique models to the status of • Reconstruction or addition of missing pieces unquestioned normative authority in the age of Romantic • Linear spatial arrangement Neoclassicism. tion from students. was drawing to a close. discovered the periodical Noumas.38 Kostis Palamas’ Dodecalogue of the Gypsy and fighting on two fronts with language providing the major 72 ΜΟU S E IO BE N A K I .

and the University. they also involved a ered as a prelude to classical civilization. which could not be satisfied teenth-century terms and carried with it strong national through the traditional schemes put forward by intellectu. The issues at stake concerned twentieth century.48 The fate of Prehistoric archaeology. Thus other facets of Hellenic civilization say that Greek people ‘rightfully consider these works to be could be explored. the idea of the had been temporarily exhibited in the Ministry of Edu- nation’s historical continuity from ancient times to the cation two years earlier. then. welcomed the participants to the temporarily with the adoption of katharevousa (or pure First World Archaeology Conference in Athens: ‘For you language) as the official language of the state by the Greek foreigners the love for and study of Antiquity is not only a Parliament. as national continuity but also a sign of national unity. In 1911 the struggle would ease University of Athens.46 reformist attempts were not in fact antagonistic chaeology had very often played the role of the ‘patriotic to the dominant ideological model. Nowhere was this more evident than dominate and lend great ideological and social value to in the case of archaeology as will be shown below. views of the state.52 ety found itself caught up in a clash between traditional Essentially. further constitutes a patriotic duty’. As Leondaritis has sug. as is clearly reflected in sitions in government. We classical antiquities.51 involved the restoration of monu- taking an active interest in education. the the words with which Spyridon Lambros.44 same. and as ‘carrying the torch of progress’. Greeks and foreigners’ and he went on to established. new archaeological law expanded the notion of protection tions. those who opposed it the same holds for major restoration work undertaken at saw themselves as ‘the guardians of the nation’s traditions’. the Parliament. while in 1899 the In 1904.57 Archaeological Society was founded. it is not a universally accepted language was not only a proof of surprising that ‘the selective “rectification” of the past’. two Byzantine archaeology was not embraced by the main- different national ideologies squaring up to one another stream of Greek archaeology until the early decades of the in an aggressive fashion. For us Greeks it To sum up. connotations. at the turn of the century Greek soci. above all a patriotic enterprise. In 1903. AT H E N S 2 0 0 8 73 . as the need for and at Ancient Corinth.C E N T U R Y G R E E C E ‘Artfully classified’ and ‘appropriately placed’: notes on the display of antiquities in early twentieth-century Greece battlefield. which could be placed discipline of the nation’. however. at Delphi. In fact. the ‘national intellectuals’53 par excellence and that ar- gested. archaeology was understood in nine- ideas and new social needs. In the words of Fletcher. The quarrel would assume national propor. in 1884 the Christian the most invaluable heirlooms of their ancestral glory’. excavations were mainly carried out those who supported demotic language saw themselves at classical sites such as Delos. the Acropolis. Ioannis Svoronos56 wrote: ‘The present – Konstantinos Paparrigopoulos’ seminal work [Ministry] was transformed into a place of pilgrimage for History of the Hellenic Nation – had become firmly all the Athenians. the editor of the magazine Musée Georges 3rd S U PPL E M E N T. with the exception of anything which could be consid- titudes towards the past and its uses.54 At the same time the emphasis within a traditional-ethnocentric scheme that was highly on the superiority of the classical past continued to pre- resistant to reforms. the Church. demotic ments to their assumed original condition by suppressing language aspired to become a mechanism for a general later historical phases. The ‘purists’ on the other hand Moreover.49 In practice. For example. at the temple of Apollo at Bassae Both sides put forward patriotic claims. By Kotsakis has termed it.50 Within this context. reform of Greek society. was much the sense of national self esteem. Indeed. the practice of archaeology was still seen as had the benefit of political power as they held critical po.55 Four of the many eloquent exam- in archaeology understood within this context? ples are cited here. Tegea and Thermon. A R C H A E O L O G Y A N D H E L L E N I C I D E N T I T Y I N T W E N T I E N T H . Let us not forget that archaeologists were als or other social agents of the era. at. concepts of society and education. Nowhere was this more clearly seen must then ask ourselves here: than in the language used to describe antiquities. a study of language is revealing as ideologies always leave language traces: ideologies in language are always ideolo- How were antiquities and the role outlined gies about something. referring to the finds from Antikythera which At the dawn of the twentieth century.45 scientific need but a life pleasure as well.47 In practice however wider and deeper than the language question. Dean of the Law. as it clearly involved demands for change much to include Byzantine antiquities.

ex- This was the official rhetoric and the prevailing attitude amined. recognized as an element of the past. as expressed in other areas usually residual elements are about experiences. worship is indeed remarkable. within which may find Williams’ influential discussion of archaic.64 The archaic. of cultural life. A S I N G U L A R A N T I Q U I T Y ANDROM ACHE GA ZI Fig. Rome. is where we find ‘Seized by a strange sensation. Museo Capitolino. Nikolaos Politis characterized antiquities as century Greek museums. as if you were in a sacred place. in understanding of antiquity and a strong tradition of clas. other words it is incorporated into the present.60 Ten figures stand upright within glass cases’. lighten your footsteps. Toudouze described his visit to the museum of the Acropo. concerned in the beginning. 8. The residual. 7. in the prologue to the catalogue of sculptures kept Greek archaeology in a state of theoretical and inter- of the National Museum.’59 approach so ‘self-evident’ and ‘self-contained’ that it has In 1908. The inheritance of the nineteenth century was an element which has been fully formed in the past but indeed significant: the orientation towards an idealized continues to function as an active agent in the present. 108). The deep-rooted perception ens. 5967). no. Here.63 Then again. Instinctively. 7) as follows: archaeology which continued to be ideologically oriented to the era of subservience. values 74 ΜΟU S E IO BE N A K I . one Museum] also became […] a sacred shrine. room VI Fig. you for suitable and appropriate display with which we were lower your voice. on the other hand. to be observed.58 Researchers have already analyzed the historical and ideological need for such an orientation in nineteenth- In 1906. Athens. The era of ambivalence. Acropolis Archaeological Museum. he says. you walk from room to the explanation for the obsession with the requirement room. therefore. did not yet find fertile ground in Greek lis (fig. This has been an greatness and appeal of our ancestors. or even on occasion to be consciously revived to the antiquities during the first decade of the twentieth in a deliberate way. the silence deep. is that which is wholly pilgrimage’. Georgios Kastriotis wrote: ‘[the pretative stagnation even in later years. Although sicism.61 If the persistence of this ap- ‘sacred relics of Ancient Artistry’ and the Ephors of An. […] But here is the miracle: an exceptional room. an of museums as places of religious pilgrimage where antiq- entire room […] to whose centre you approach […] quietly. the Philosopher’s Hall after 1904 (source: Fougères 1912.62 one should remember the tiquities as ‘zealous men […] having as their only religion long tradition of classicism and of the view of archaeology the adoration of the marbles which speak loudly about the as history of art in Greek archaeology. proach seems overwhelming. re- collected treasures of ancient art […] are exposed to the sidual and emergent elements in the formation of culture adoration and admiration […] of all those who make the elucidating. uities are venerated as sacred relics and serve as objects of as if you were afraid of perhaps desecrating a holy place. is century. (photo: Foto Alinari.

ident in the case of antiquities.69 depend upon ordering them stylistically and/or chronologically was the an acceptance that the objects embody a very particular main form of explanation. dominated the display of antiquities. a proposition that could encourage examination. vases. In this way exhibitions detach the antiquities found their place in exhibitions. Post card from Herakleion Archaeological Museum. they are often incorporated into it as active agents in the present. same classification that was made visible to the visitor’. new practices and relationships. Objects were grouped – chronologically or archaeological methodology of the time. Pearce reminds us. large number of excavation finds.66 As Morris observes. recording. legitimate. axiomatic and. the aesthetics of the objects rather than on information. especially to Germany. There are other issues though which are worth ex- amining here. ca. as has been shown above. ogy was exhibited as history of art with the emphasis on coins. particularly visible in was also reflected in the publication of a series of corpora Germany.68 A scale excavations. which studies or for further education. 1910. the worship of objects and of typological less structured space would present knowledge as a propo- order. the classicist tradition.) or museum catalogues. stylistically analyzed and systematically classified. they may constitute an alternative or a complete antithesis to the dominant culture. A R C H A E O L O G Y A N D H E L L E N I C I D E N T I T Y I N T W E N T I E N T H .67 kind of symbolic power with universal aesthetic appeal. and this is offered to the visitor not as an interpretation lected. It is important to remem- nineteenth. First. obvious. Knowledge was presented to the visitor ence their own display work in Greece? as certain. This trend of the time Moreover. Archaeologists were exclusively occupied with the sition rather than a fact. it could be argued that emergent elements such as demoticism or a sympathetic approach to Byzantium could not in fact displace more archaic or even residual elements of ideology. emergent elements are about new meanings and values.C E N T U R Y G R E E C E ‘Artfully classified’ and ‘appropriately placed’: notes on the display of antiquities in early twentieth-century Greece and meanings which may not be accommodated within the dominant culture.65 This was the time of large. ultimately.g. as shown above – according to strict criteria should return to another point already mentioned above: and displayed in a linear fashion (fig. after being col. and Exhibitions of this type. AT H E N S 2 0 0 8 75 . suitable for the creation Archaeology and archaeological displays in late of a sense of order and security. we typologically. object has its place. particularly ev. But the time was not yet right for this. 9. taxonomy and publication of a further thinking. categories of artefacts formed the objects of analysis. According to this epistemological model. count for the climate of ideological rigidity. either for their corresponds to a knowledge classification model. namely the deeply rooted ancestor worship of the nineteenth century. In light of the above. the object from its context in time and in space and offer it to character of displays in all European museums of the time the visitor as ‘objectified value’. Second. Indeed. Archaeol- for various categories of antiquities (e. but as a ‘matter of faith’.early twentieth-century Europe ber that this was an era when the process of knowledge transmission was not very different from that of knowledge The period 1870-1914 has been characterized as ‘époque acquisition. sculpture. it is interesting to comment on the ways in which the morphology of displays reflected the was taxonomic. What did they encounter can be compared to a classification table in which each there in terms of museum displays and how did this influ. Finally. This strongly in the early twentieth century many Greek archaeologists linear approach with respect to the management of space travelled abroad. etc.70 3rd S U PPL E M E N T. 8). One could argue that this linearity encourages a simple and soothing reading of the past. This may ac- Fig. it is exactly this aspect which I have found useful for purposes of discussion in this paper. in other words ‘what the expert knew was the de l’archéologie flamboyante’.

’73 the displays of the period 1900-1909. Museums continued to act primarily as stor- time were perceived by the broader public. and the (albeit that almost no other European museum director has scant) descriptive signs. proceed with according to the models of research and taxonomy used greater confidence to certain conclusions regarding the by the discipline at the time. remains open managed to accomplish. is an excellent illustration of the display ideals Chatzidakis: ‘additions which facilitate the uninitiated in of the era. is indicative: of complementary materials (such as those praised by Caro in his letter to Chatzidakis). written in tion is given to this type of uninitiated visitor in the form 1911 to Chatzidakis. despite improvements at the level of museographic practices. some thought was given to the ‘un- overflowing (fig. as ancestral heirlooms and as objets d’art.74 template found throughout Europe. We can. a final question not previously simply repository character of previous periods. to the successful use of space and to the In conclusion meticulous additions which facilitate the uninitiated in comprehending antiquities. For example. The display was by the experts’. however. Thus. The third is Caro’s comment in the letter to Herakleion. that of the archaeological museum of researchers. A S I N G U L A R A N T I Q U I T Y ANDROM ACHE GA ZI These elements characterized the majority of exhibi. however. For if we are able to truly ap. many displays surpassed the In light of the last sentence. The first concerns the classification visitors was classified according to the specialists’ knowl- 76 ΜΟU S E IO BE N A K I . Display practices became more systematic. the museum was considered a good initiated’ visitor. to further investigation. The primary objective of Greek archaeology was the dis- The existing data is insufficient to formulate a reliable covery and collection of antiquities and their preservation argument regarding the way in which the displays of the in museums. when he re- considerations and forget the differences in scale between ported that beneath the showcases were displayed works the Greek and other European museums. above. Caro. while addressed is posed: To whom were the museums and dis. The first archaeological museum in Herak. a public not made up of ‘knowledgeable’ example. others went on to be considered exemplary. 9). of the Ritsona finds into groups. we owe this […] to your […] exemplary and highly visible display of those treasures. Nonethe- plays of the period addressed? less antiquities continued to be displayed as treasures. comprehending antiquities without impeding their study leion was built between 1904 and 1907. The linear and taxonomic manner in which the archaeologists themselves perceived displays which followed were inevitable. of secondary importance: ‘very interesting. deputy director of the archaeologists or other aesthetes. age areas.75 in other words ‘interesting’ for A final example. preciate […] the unique Cretan treasures. painted reproductions (such ‘With no flattery. an artistic point of view’. And yet. ‘so as a scientist may tions in European museums from the eighteenth century study and understand safely which vases are contempo- onwards.72 Despite the fact that the display was to specialists. however. Displays. As I argued above. a well-known It is clear – if only implicitly – that museums were geared scholar of the time. I must congratulate you on a project as those at the museum in Epidaurus). although it has not been had been discovered by archaeologists and were arranged carried out methodically. If we omit practical The second concerns the words of Stais. the Museums for whom? ideological model did not change. displays of this type are found in the early stages I shall use three indicative quotations on which I have of museum development when whatever was presented to already commented. As discussed museums and displays. atten- German Archaeological Institute in Athens. the display phi. without impeding their study Let us therefore attempt a comprehensive assessment of by the experts. organized in 1907 by Iossif Chatzidakis.71 Thus the Greek model was consistent with the rary to what dolls’. from losophy itself did not change. also functioned to a large extent research into press reports of the time does not provide as storage cases for objects. Thus they included whatever especially illuminating evidence. A letter from G. too. The issue.

76 it was exactly the materiality and in those years. In continued unchanged even into the late twentieth century. For the purposes of this discussion the term ‘display’ kindly offered me access to it. the work done must be acknowledged as physicality of antiquities. A R C H A E O L O G Y A N D H E L L E N I C I D E N T I T Y I N T W E N T I E N T H . given the meagre resources appeal. In the case of Greek archaeology it was enough to This may help us to understand the ideological rigidness bring antiquities to light and exhibit them to the public. There were being as ‘a matter of faith’. available and the massive technical and other difficulties as Hamilakis suggests. it would be unfair to end on this note. their tangible nature and aura significant. indicated important material on the old Thebes museum and 3. Skopetea ‘display’ is a far more general term. It has been persuasively argued that. tions of many archaeologists of those earlier generations. Tolias 2004.77 This certainly seems to be the case with archaeology. agazi@otenet. It is worth noting the exceptional diligence of of authenticity which endowed them with such enormous those archaeologists. which such as Hamilakis 2007. this way. rated into and reproduced through museum displays. no explanation was required. Hamilakis & Yalouri 1996. they are exposed to the ‘admiration’ of all those the fact that the character of displays in some museums who make the ‘pilgrimage’ and the like. Gazi 1994. from an ideological Andromache Gazi point of view. Indeed.gr A BBR EV I ATION Praktika: Πρακτικά της εν Αθήναις Αρχαιολογικής Εται- ρείας (Proceedings of the Archaeological Society in Ath- ens). the Greek nineteenth century was especially Department of Communication. AT H E N S 2 0 0 8 77 . The relevant literature is vast so I shall restrict myself to based on the semantic differences between the terms in Eng- citing some of the most influential or recent pieces of research lish.C E N T U R Y G R E E C E ‘Artfully classified’ and ‘appropriately placed’: notes on the display of antiquities in early twentieth-century Greece edge. Kotsakis may be attributed to both a ‘display’ and an ‘exhibition’. Ν OTES * Special thanks are due to Dr Victoria Sabetai for having 2. so there was no need for interpretation. Media & Culture long. 5) and may refer 1988. period 1900-1909 remained conservative. of the first decade of the twentieth century and explain But since the symbolic quality of antiquities as national why Greek archaeological museums and displays in the emblems was a given. which may be defined sim- ply as ‘the showing of objects’ (Burcaw 1983. Voutsaki 2003. Kotsakis 2003. 1991. plays were based on an underlying acknowledgement that Yet. Gazi forthcoming. It is important to remember that truths’ of the nation. which is confirmed by all the sup- symbolic power and exalted them to the status of ‘material porting evidence we have. The distinction made here is 1. is used rather than ‘exhibition’. It is no wonder they were presented to museums were being built at an average rate of two per year the visitor as self-evident and legitimate. Gazi 1993. ending only in 1922 with the Asia Minor Catastro. Thus. 3rd S U PPL E M E N T. the official rhetoric and the dominant ideological we will perhaps recognize the pioneering nature of the ac- perception of archaeology and antiquities were incorpo. If. finally. Dis. we consider appeal. Let us remember the wording also efforts to introduce new museographic elements and used: antiquities ‘speak loudly’ about ancestral glory and some type of ‘provision’ for visitors. Lowenthal 1988. Leaving the antiquities possessed a symbolic power with universal aside the question of ideology. Shanks 1996. as seen above. Panteion University phe. their importance and that displays were organized without delay. as the relevant Greek term έκθεσις is a neutral one.

In fact. esp. Greek archaeology owes to him gists and his removal from the Society and the Service in 1909 the first surface surveys in Macedonia in the thirties. Panayiotis Kavadias (1850-1928) was one of the most ens and Rome. that the majority of Greek philolo- Herakleion Museum. Berlin and Halle. The chief components of such an exhibition are oral and written tradition. Antonios Keramopoulos (1870-1960) studied philology the Archaeological Service. His field work included the large and archaeology in Athens. Miles et al. started the publication of the Αρxαιολογικόν ∆ελτίον (Archaeological Bul. 22. preservation and study of antiquities in Greece ever since. seum and the Epidaurus Museum. myths and legends. Stephanos Xanthoudidis (1864-1928) was an exception- Its role was especially crucial during the 19th c. mainly in the north. Keramopoulos 1917. The Archaeological Society was established in Athens in 15. he undertook the curatorship of the vase. and small objects collections at the National Museum in 1887. 18. in Greek museums are more appropriately entitled ‘displays’ 11. letin) in 1885 and worked on the systematic organization of 21. A S I N G U L A R A N T I Q U I T Y ANDROM ACHE GA ZI ‘to an individual exhibit. Fol- scene in Greece by occupying various crucial posts: Secretary lowing the work of Tsountas he excavated Neolithic sites and of the Archaeological Society (1895-1909. the Sparta Mu. Petrakos 1987b). chaeology in Athens. excavations on the Acropolis and those at the sanctuary of Professor of Archaeology at the University of Athens and mem- Epidaurus. in 1909 he founded the Greek 1988. early presentations of archaeology Folkore Society (Kyriakidou-Nestoros 1978. Professor at the University of Athens from tion’ (Miles et al. is 1882. Vienna. Ambitious and kos 1987a. Xanthoudidis 1927. where he also brought to light the eral Ephor of Antiquities (1885-1909). The beginning of the twentieth century was characterized in the Archaeological Service. Konstantinos Kourouniotis (1872-1945) studied ar- and this term will therefore be used throughout this paper. 78 ΜΟU S E IO BE N A K I . Archaeological Museum and the Epigraphic Museum. diachronic continuity plays which explore a particular theme and sub themes through of Greek civilization from antiquity to the present as evidenced objects arranged in ordered sequences and supported by inter. history. Ephor of the Archaeological Service olis Museum. ληνική Εγκυκλοπαίδεια 15. Αρχαιολογικόν ∆ελτίον 1915. 7. among 17. the Acrop. Sabetai 2006. and German pedagogy exercised a heavy influence on the Greek educational system for a very long time (see. ‘Exhibition’. archaeology into classics. He worked in the Archaeological Service and restless by nature. the Academy of Athens (1926). 99-110). 10. Berlin. Jena and Munich. he excavated in many parts of his becoming increasingly unpopular with his fellow archaeolo- Greece. figurine Museum. 27 below. On Ure’s biography see Sabetai 2004a. 1. Apostolos Arvanitopoulos (1874-1942) studied in Ath- 9. Politis used both historical and comparative methods in a much more specific term which usually refers to a series of dis. Munich and Paris. In 1907 he started teaching folklore a concept or a story line (Alexander 1979. Göt- 5. 6. He set up the first displays in 19. Stais 1909. Eleftherios Venizelos. 1912-1920). 183-89). the Acropolis Museum and the National Museum. Nikolaos Politis (1852-1921) was the leading folklorist of his time and generally acknowledged as the founder of the 23. where he continued the work of Chatzi- gists also studied in German Universities (Kakridis 1996. κβʹ). as part of his archaeology courses. Namely. linguistics and folk studies. group of exhibits or an entire exhibi. Πάπυρος-Larousse-Britannica was recalled from Crete to undertake the reorganization of the 35. he managed to dominate the archaeological was later appointed Professor at the University of Athens. see also Mnemosyna 1938-40). He had a long career 4. 319). served as Ephor of Antiquities by uprisings aimed at curtailing royal power and reforming the in various places and held the post of director of the National political life of the country. After the culmination of these at. 22. 38-39). discipline in Greece. painted gravestones of Demetrias (see n. 1988. order to demonstrate the uninterrupted. 125 n. He studied was sponsored by the Society for studies abroad in 1899 (Petra- Classics in Athens and Archaeology in Munich. Keramopoulos 1909. The predominance of the German model in the study Education and served the Cretan Archaeological Service for of Classics remained unchallenged throughout the nineteenth many years. 228. 12. 108-11. 28. others. 428). Note. 80. Πάπυρος- ogy at the University of Athens (1904-1922) and member of Larousse-Britannica 10. in folk songs. He was actively involved in the Association of the Friends of 8. (see Petrakos al figure in Greek scholarship as his activity expanded beyond 1987a. In light of this. one of he became a member of the Academy of Athens (Μεγάλη Ελ- the most important figures in the history of modern Greece. 186). dakis (Detorakis 1978. Gen. he was the first Greek archaeologist who prominent figures in early Greek archaeology. From 1923 to 1928 he was the Director of the century. Arvanitopoulos 1912. 4. Kastriotis 1908. Such as the Ancient Olympia Museum. 20. (Petrakos 1987a. 103). His authoritarian and high-handed manner led to ber of the Academy of Athens. 186). 1837 and has greatly contributed to the safeguarding. and other manifestations of pretative aids. 82-84. 175-76. Dimaras 1988. state (Dakin 1972. for instance. monuments in Thessaly. 282-84). Valerios Stais (1857-1923) studied Classics in Bonn. Professor of Archaeol. the National Archaeological Museum. excava- tion. 13. tingen. 283. 43. 14. on the other hand. the Numismatic Museum and the Epigraphic from 1885. 16. 156. In 1926 tempts in the 1909 ‘Goudi coup’.

Kotsakis 2003. 54. 63-93. 38. See Petropoulos 1978. characterized by high academic quality Politis 2006. tive analysis of the issues involved in the language question is 64. Published in Politis 1907. see Voutouris 58. Orthodoxy 41. 156. Voudouri 2003. 7 December 1885. 61. 51. for 2001 offers an elucidating analysis of the political implications. Kotsakis 2003. Papahatzis 1954. offered by Stavridi-Patrikiou 1999. 45. 3rd S U PPL E M E N T. 27-28. 5. legislation related to the protection of antiquities. Stais 1907. Collignon & testimonies. 2006 for an illuminating account. Stais 1909). Arvanitopoulos 1928. 42. 94. ers (from within which they were unearthed by Arvanitopou- los). Kitromilides 2003. 62. Praktika 1907. Sabetai 46. Tsountas’ discussion of the similarities of the Neolithic many of these stelae are particularly significant for the study of palace with the Doric temple of the classical era is an indicative ancient Greek painting (Arvanitopoulos 1909a. 142. Praktika 1907. 49. 29. see also Stavridi-Patrikiou 2000 on the wider and interrelated ideological and social as. 53. 67. BC and was also made clear in the title of the Christian and Byzantine were later reused as building material in the construction of tow. it was more than anything else an cient Thessalian cities. argues (121) that the sacralization of antiquities was nurtured 40. 57. 43. 55-58. On his return to Athens he was appointed director of the 36. 52. 65) as most of which date from the second half of the 3rd c. 131. Even then. 55. See also Hamilakis 2007. 10-11. Svoronos 1903. 28. see 25. Sabetai 2006. Between 1890 and 1909. 86. Cf. 159. London and Berlin to continue his 35. 27. 60. A very instruc. Toudouze 1904. 167-68. Arvanitopoulos 1928. 64-65. Dimaras 2000. the veneration of Western Hellenism. 48. 67. 59-76. Kotsakis 2003. (Svoronos 1889. 31. for example. 34. example (Kotsakis 1991. The lack of interpretation in Greek archaeology is dis- 44. 32. 63. AT H E N S 2 0 0 8 79 . Oikonomos 1927. sociations of the demotic language movement. 101-15. Voutsaki 2003. Dimaras 1988 remains the ultimate source of original Kavadias 1895. this volume. Cited in Kalpaxis 1990. See Morris 1994. Fletcher 1977. Museum which was founded in 1914 in Athens. studies in numismatics with a grant from the Greek Govern- ment. 33. 76). 65. 121-27. Praktika 1905. cussed by Kotsakis 1991.C E N T U R Y G R E E C E ‘Artfully classified’ and ‘appropriately placed’: notes on the display of antiquities in early twentieth-century Greece 24. see also Voudouri forthcoming for a discussion of how the sense of national identity is reflected in 26. Ioannis Svoronos (1863-1922) studied law in Athens. A R C H A E O L O G Y A N D H E L L E N I C I D E N T I T Y I N T W E N T I E N T H . Hamilakis 2007. esp. pressed in literature. 48. Government Gazette Aʹ. 13. 22-23. 11-29. he further 39. 398. Gazi 1994. Apart from being important monuments in themselves. Yanoulopoulos 1999. 47. 57. Demetrias-Pagasae was one of the most important an. 30. and later went to Paris. Gazi 1993. Yalouri 2001. however. The issue of national identity and how it should be ex. Kitromilides 2003. See Diamandi. The relevant bibliography is vast and reference to it would exceed the scope of the discussion here. of an ideological national canon see Caftanzoglou 2001. Xanthoudidis 1927. 23. 50. Gazi forthcoming. see also Gazi 1999 on the repercussions of this on museum displays. Leondaritis 1983. 63. It is renowned for its painted gravestones archaeology of Christian religious art (cf. Kastriotis 1908. On the role of ‘national intellectuals’ in the formation 113. the religious properties of the nation and its rituals. 48. 6. See Frangoudaki 2001. sides. 171. Couve 1902. 37. Kotsakis 2003. 39-40. See Malouchou-Tufano 1998. Romaios 1909. Οn the legal protection of Byzantine monuments. 46-48. cf. He left a voluminous of the intellectual milieu which nurtured this generation see corpus of publications. 250-51). with its icons and ceremonies. Quoted in Sabetai 2006. 4-8). Étienne 1990. seven catalogues of various collections of the Na- and discusses the sense of national identity as perceived by both tional Museum in Athens were published (Kavadias 1890-92. Keramopoulos 1908. Praktika 1906. Frangoudaki 66. Gazi 1999. by diverse tendencies e.g. was fiercely debated among well-known intellectuals and writers of the time. For an interesting account Numismatic Museum at the age of 26. 59. Williams 1977.1885. 322. Kastriotis 1896. 17. Moschonas 2005. See Sabetai 2001. instance. where he describes Greek archaeological museums as ‘temples of the nation’.11. 56. 2006. 6. See Kotsakis 1991. 5-12. 65. 179. Royal Decree of 25. On Burrows’ biography see Sabetai 2004b. 22.

Gazi A. Past and Present (London). 203. Fougères G. only in 1908 with an exhibition illustrating aspects of Greek and Roman 74.) Greece in Transi- της ελληνικής ζωγραφικής. τη.Βιβλιογραφικά. Cf. Étienne R.Th. Gazi A. no. 1979: Museums in Motion: an Introduction Elliadi M. 45-53. 1983: Introduction to Museum Work (Boul. σών (Athens). preface. Thera (Berlin). Mnemosyna 1938- 70. Μέρος Βʹ: Κατάλογος των tion: Essays in the History of Modern Greece 1821-1974 εν τω Αθανασακείω Μουσείω Βόλου aρxαιοτήτων. Iossif Chatzidakis (1848-1936) studied medicine in Ath- ens and then continued with classics in Germany and Paris. & Cartledge P. (eds). Αρχαιολογία και Τέχνες 73. 283. (London). the Herakleion Museum (Elliadi 1933.-June). Vlahos 1989). Hamilakis Y. 22. 50-69. everyday life at the British Museum (Smith 1908. Frangoudaki A. President of the Association of the Friends of Education from 68. 2001: Η Γλώσσα και το Έθνος 1880- Arvanitopoulos Α. Ιδεολογικές αφετηρίες – πρακτικές προ- Dakin D. played. 71. Athens). (ed. & Étienne F. view 1(1). von H. 1993: Archaeological Museums in Greece 1829- der). δευτέρα και τρίτη αίθουσα γραπτών στηλών Παγα. Βιογραφικά Greek Archaeology (London). 1909: The Display of Archaeology (unpublished PhD Caftanzoglou R. 2007: The Nation and its Ruins: Antiquity. 77. 1912: Athènes (Paris). in 19th and early 20th century Greek museums. Leicester University). 1912: Ανασκαφαί και έρευναι εν Θεσ. 28. 1904: Stadtgeschichte von Παγασών (Athens). in: Koumoulides J. 122. . 29 May 1911. Peponis & Hedin 1982. 1977: Cultural and intellectual development γραπτών στηλών των Παγασών και σύντοµος ιστορία 1821-1911. γλώσσα (Athens). Μέρος Αʹ: Η σηµασία των Fletcher R. 1928: Γραπταί Στήλαι ∆ηµητριάδος. 24. 107-71. 88. 1883 to 1899. 2001: Στη σκιά του Ιερού Βράχου. Gärtringen. perhaps for the first time. Τόπος thesis. Praktika. Museological Re- Cambridge). would be attempted. Gazi A. Archéo- Arvanitopoulos Α. 1994: Archaeological Museums and Displays in Clogg R. 76. Displaying archaeology – exhibiting ideology χνίας (9th edition. Jenkins 1986). 1972: The Unification of Greece 1770-1923 σεγγίσεις. 75. and Modern Identities: towards a Critical History of Detorakis T. 218-29. 72. 1978: Στέφανος Ξανθουδίδης. to the History and Function of Museums (Nashville). Αθανασά. Hamilakis 2007. 1988: Η µεταρρύθµιση που δεν έγινε (Ath. 1940. Πρώ. Εκατό χρόνια αγώνες για την αυθεντική ελληνική σαλία. 2000: Ιστορία της νεοελληνικής λογοτε. Voutsaki S. forthcoming: Sacred fragments decently dis- Dimaras K. Κeramopoulos 1909. A S I N G U L A R A N T I Q U I T Y ANDROM ACHE GA ZI 67. & Couve L. 157. 8. Chatzidakis greatly advanced the cause of Cretan archaeology and helped in the foundation and organization of 69. 1933: Crete. Pearce 1992. 79. (London) 153-71. (1829-1909). και µνήµη στα Αναφιώτικα (Athens). Cited in Νέα Εφηµερίς Αʹ. Stais 1909. Arvanitopoulos A. κειον Μουσείον εν Βόλω. 1990: La Grèce Antique. Pearce 1990. Κρητολογία 6 (Jan. R EFER ENCES Alexander E. Gazi A. in: Dimaras A. Morris 1994. Clogg 2002. logie d’ une Découverte (Paris). 80 ΜΟU S E IO BE N A K I . 1909: Θεσσαλικά Μνηµεία. A first approach. 1999: Η έκθεση των αρχαιοτήτων στην Ελλάδα ses Peints du Musée National d’ Athènes (Paris). 2002: A Concise History of Greece (2nd edition. Burcaw E. A deviation from the formal chronological approach 73. 1980. Ancient Monuments ens). Greece 1829-1909. Collignon M. & Wilski P. 1902-1904: Catalogue des Va.

Percy Neville (1879-1950). Thebes. ιστορική και αρxαιολογική (3rd edition. The Dictionary of British της νεοελληνικής κοινωνίας (Athens) 27-36. Η εικόνα του ελληνικού πολιτισµού στη Moschonas S. Greek Past. Kakridis F. The Impact of Classical Greece on κλαδικόν Ηµερολόγιον (Hermoupolis) 158-62. Ure global heritage. 1983: Ελληνισµός και ∆ιεθνισµός: πο. chaeology in Greece.). & Hedin J. 1978: Η θεωρία της ελληνικής Sabetai V. European and Classical Identities (Amsterdam) 47-53. 1982: The layout of theories in the Kavadias P. 1 (Αthens). The Dictionary of British Classicists. 2001: Corpus Vasorum Antiquorum.). Ιστορικά δοκίµια για µια µη θεω- Theory in Europe (London) 65-90. 1994: Classical Greece: Ancient Histories and κληρονοµιάς. λογικής Εταιρείας. ρητική θεωρία (Athens) 142-72. 1998: Η αναστήλωση των αρχαί. Το sity of Reading. The ‘Past’ in Medieval Kitromilides P. Κριτική ανάλυση (Athens). in: Todd R. tural Study (Leicester). Archaeological Museum. Keramopoulos A. in: Chrysos E. Numismatique 3. & Yalouri E. Από άποψη Κατάλογος των Γλυπτών (Athens). Peponis J. and Modern Greek Culture (Malibu) 163-76.ac. Κυ- ma M. nes). δίδου – Ιωσήφ Χατζιδάκη 1938-40 (Herakleion). 1996: Η γερµανική διαχείριση της ελληνικής Morris I. Papahatzis N. Ιδεολογικοί και βιωµατικοί άξονες 1920).B. Modern Greek attitudes toward the Classics. 1837-1987 (Athens). 1927: Jean Svoronos 1863-1922 (Bibliog- Kalpaxis Th. et al. 1986: Greek and Roman life at the British Mu. http://www. (ed. (ed. Kyriakidou-Nestoros A. Museum: a Retrospective” at the Ure Museum. 2005: Ιδεολογία και γλώσσα (Athens). 21-25. Petrakos V. λιτική ιδεολογία.rgd. 2004a: Ure. Impact of Classical Greece on European and Classical Sabetai V. Περιγραφικός κατάλογος (Athens).uk/Ure/history/ 3rd S U PPL E M E N T. Todd R. 1978: The Modern Greek State and the τίον. 1990: Archaeological Curatorship (Leicester). (Athens) 25-40. έργο της εν Αθήναις Αρχαιολογικής Εταιρείας και της ford). Burrows and Percy N. 118-29. The 318-23. Praktika. 1954: Η περιοxή του Βόλου.). 1909: Το αρχαιολογικόν µουσείον Θη. Petrakos V. et al. Pearce S. Αρχαιολογική Εφηµερίς. (ed. Classicists. 2006: Ronald M. raphie Détaillée). Παναθήναια Θʹ (15/30 September 1909) 282-83. Politis A. Museums Journal 82(2). 1 (London) 130-31.C E N T U R Y G R E E C E ‘Artfully classified’ and ‘appropriately placed’: notes on the display of antiquities in early twentieth-century Greece Archaeology and National Imagination in Greece (Ox.). Κατά.). Volos). in Boeotia. Keramopoulos A. 9H 3.). in: Haags. et al. Hamilakis Y. in: Haagsma M. Kotsakis K. A R C H A E O L O G Y A N D H E L L E N I C I D E N T I T Y I N T W E N T I E N T H . Ένας νέος κόσµος Modern Archaeologies (Cambridge). AT H E N S 2 0 0 8 81 . Αρχαιολογικής Υπηρεσίας (Athens). 1992: Museums. in: λαογραφίας. (London). Lowenthal D. 1908: Οδηγός των ∆ελφών (Athens). 1890-92: Γλυπτά του Εθνικού Μουσείου. Pearce S. in: Αποτυ- Greek archaeology. 1988: Classical antiquities as national and Sabetai V. γεννιέται. 67-69. Archaeological πώµατα του χρόνου. 3-22. 1988: The Design of Educational Exhibits capital in modern Greek society. in: Hodder I. Αρχαιολογικόν ∆ελ. 1987a: Η εν Αθήναις Αρxαιολογική Εταιρεία. 2004b: Burrows. Kastriotis P. 25-197. Η ιστορία των 150 χρόνων της. 1990: Αρχαιολογία και Πολιτική Ι. fasc. 1 (London) 993-94. 1991: The powerful past: theoretical trends in στην τελευταία δεκαετία του 19ου αιώνα. in: Tsaousis D. Keramopoulos A.). Antiquity 62. (eds. 1896: Εθνικόν Αρxαιολογικόν Μουσείον. Politis N. λογος περιγραφικός (Athens). Ronald Montagu (1867- – Eλληνικότητα. (ed. (ed. 2003: Ideological aspects of contemporary ar. Leondaritis G. 1996: Antiquities as symbolic Miles R. 1909: Κατάταξις εν τω Μουσείω.). 1908: Γλυπτά του Εθνικού Μουσείου. 726-35. in: Zeugolis T. γερµανική επιστήµη κατά τον 19ο αι. Objects and Collections: α Cul- Kavadias P. (ed. 1895: Catalogue des Musées d’Athènes (Athè. Natural History Museum. (eds). Mnemosyna 1938-1940: Μνηµόσυνα Στεφάνου Ξανθου- seum. Journal International d’Archéologie Σαµιακά Αρχαιολογικά 1850-1914 (Herakleion). vol. vol. 1907: Αρxαιολογικά. Jenkins I. 2006: Μια επισκόπηση της πνευµατικής ζωής Kotsakis K. Antiquity 70. 125. 1987b: Ιδεογραφία της εν Αθήναις Αρxαιο- βών. Ελληνισµός Sabetai V. Univer- ων µνηµείων στη Νεώτερη Ελλάδα (1834-1939). 2003: From subservience to ambivalence. Kastriotis P. lecture delivered at the colloqium “The Ure Mallouchou-Tufano F. 1917: Θηβαϊκά. Oikonomos G.B. Petropoulos J. (ed. in: Vryonis S. Greece: Identities (Amsterdam) 55-70. Romaios Κ.

Svoronos N. 1908: A Guide to the Exhibition Illustrating tities: towards a Critical History of Greek Archaeology Greek and Roman Life (London). Local Claim ens). Le Musée 1. 1907: Marbres et Bronzes du Musée National Voutouris P. tledge P. Ο ελληνισµός (Athens) στον 19ο αιώνα.. (London). M. in: Voutsaki S.). 1999: “Η Ευγενής µας Τύφλωσις. (ed. & Car- (1830-1880) (Athens).). 2003: Archaeology and the construction of Stavridi-Patrikiou R. in: Voutouris P. (eds).”.pdf. σιο λειτουργίας των αρχαιολογικών µουσείων (Athens). 1927: Χάνδαξ – Ηράκλειον. N. πρόβληµα (2nd edition. εκπαίδευση και πο. Voudouri D. Toudouze G. σεις (Athens) 114-28. 1909: Collection Mycénienne du Musée National 1899. l’Acropole d’Athènes. 19-25. Vlahos N. 1989: Ο Ιωσήφ Χατζιδάκις µεταξύ Μήλου 82 ΜΟU S E IO BE N A K I . Μια φιλολογική διαµάχη του Stais V. Constructions of Greek Past: Identity and Historical Svoronos. Xanthoudidis S. Μηλιακά Γʹ. 1999: Γλώσσα. gen) 231-55. του 1897 έως τη µικρασιατική καταστροφή (Athens). Stais V. Yalouri E. (London). Το θεσµικό πλαί- rience of a Discipline (London). Ιστορικά nes. λιτική (Athens). Ιδεολογικές και αισθητικές αναζητή- Stavridi-Patrikiou R. A S I N G U L A R A N T I Q U I T Y ANDROM ACHE GA ZI Sabetai_2006. (eds). La métamorphose des rui. 2000: ∆ηµοτικισµός και κοινωνικό the past in 19th century Greece. Όψεις του εθνικού προβλήµατος στην Ελλάδα in Greece and national identity. νοκεντρικοί εγκλεισµοί. 1904: Les statues peintes du musée de Yanoulopoulos Y. 2001: The Acropolis: Global Fame. 2004: Usages et abus de l’hellénisme en Grèce. 1903: Το εν Αθήναις Εθνικόν Μουσείον (Ath. & Giorgis G. 2006: Κοσµοπολιτικά ανοίγµατα και ελλη- (Athens). (ed. in: Hokwerda H. 1870-1914. 1988: Το “Πρότυπο Βασίλειο” και η Μεγά. Shanks. Skopetea E. Athens). 1996: Classical Archaeology of Greece: Expe.. Voudouri D. 273-300. 1889: Η κλοπή του εν Αθήναις Νοµισµατικού Consciousness from Antiquity to the Present (Gronin- Μουσείου (Athens). και Κρήτης. Voutsaki S. Εξωτερική πολιτική και “εθνικά θέµατα” από την ήττα Tolias G. Ancient Monuments and Modern Iden- Smith C. forthcoming: Legal protection of antiquities λη Ιδέα. Williams R. L’ influence des découvertes archéologiques sur les σηµειώµατα (Herakleion). in: Basch S. 1977: Marxism and Literature (Oxford). arts et les lettres (1870-1914) (Paris) 72-83. 2003: Κράτος και µουσεία.