The Museum Process. Materializing ancient Greek religion

Matters of Scaleconnotations that so much of the material culture of ancient Greececarries on the one hand, and by the seminal importance the study ofreligion has enjoyed in Classical Studies (Humphreys 2004) on theother. Thus, the perceived significance of religion in ancient Greece,and its apparent absence in museum exhibitions, is a prime incentivefor this article. An analysis of the archaeological museum at Olympiaon the Peloponnese in Greece will serve as an illustrative case study.My main question concerns the perception of religious objects in themuseum space. Through an analysis of the general layout, choice andarrangement of objects on display, and information in exhibit labelsand text panels, it is possible to interpret messages mediated to themuseum visitors.The museum at Olympia, which exhibits the archaeological findsfrom this famous sanctuary site, was built in the 1970s in a modernisticstyle familiar to many archaeological museums in Greece. It replaced anolder nineteenth-century neo-classical building, which today houses anexhibition focused on the ancient Olympic Games from the perspectiveof the athletes. This museum will not be considered in this article,although it can be noted that the narratives conveyed and exhibitiontechniques differ somewhat from those of the archaeological museum.Unlike most museums with ancient Greek material, find contextsand related functional aspects of the exhibited objects are close athand, even though, as we shall see, these are scarcely considered. Theexhibition of the new museum was refurbished in connection with the2004 Olympics and can therefore be said to reflect current exhibitionstrategies of archaeological museums in Greece.Classical archaeology and the museumWhat is mediated in the displays of ancient objects in museums can, toa great extent, be regarded as a reflection of the discursive limitationsof Classical Archaeology as a discipline. Ancient Greek culture is oftendescribed as the epitome of Western heritage, while the museum can beseen as an institutional expression for this heritage. Although the publicmuseum, as we understand it today, relates to its establishment in thenineteenth century, its roots have often been traced to temple repositoriesof ancient Greece and Rome (Lee 1997:385-7; Shaya 2005:423-5).The temple connection was also realized in the early public museums,which were often built to resemble the Greek temple (Saumarez Smith36

The Museum Process1995:243-5). Furthermore, in early collections and displays of antiquities,many objects from ancient Greece and Rome received the statusof exemplary masterpieces. The historically bounded missions of themuseum – collecting, preserving and displaying antiquities – is, thus,of relevance if we are to understand how present-day visitors conceivemuseum exhibitions (Jeffers 2003:108-9).However, in spite of these cultural associations, classical scholarshiphas to a large extent ignored the issue of modern materializations ofancient Greek religion in museums. Indeed there has hardly been anydiscussion of the present status of ancient Greek culture in museumspaces. When museums appear in classical research, usually in the fieldof reception studies, it is their role in the reception of antiquity fromthe Renaissance (e.g. Barkan 1999) until the nineteenth century (e.g.Vickers 1985; Jenkins 1992; Giuliani 2000) that is mainly discussed. Thisis not surprising, since the collecting and display of objects deemed asexamples of fine art from the classical era, such as famous masterpiecesof sculpture (Beard & Henderson 2001:83-4), were seminal for thebirth of public museums in the eighteenth- and nineteenth centuries(McClellan 1994; Bennett 1995; Preziosi 2003). Another area of interestis the highly charged debate on the role of museums in the modernillicit trade of antiquities. The fate of ancient Greek and Roman objectshas received a fair amount of attention in this debate (Boardman 2006;Watson & Todeschini 2006; Rhodes 2007). However, the debate doesnot target the exhibitions themselves. It has therefore had little bearingon what messages the museums choose to mediate in their display ofclassical antiquities.That classical archaeology has traditionally emphasized meticulousartefact analyses implies a close relationship with the museum. Fewstudies have, however, taken present-day museum exhibitions intoconsideration when discussing materializations of the ancient legacy(Newhouse 2005; Plantzos 2011; Siapkas & Sjögren forthcoming). Thisprobably has something to do with the fact that the museum objecthas never had a defining role to play for the classical discipline as ithas had for anthropology (Stocking 1985:6-12; Clifford 1988:222-3;Ames 1992:39-41; Lidchi 1997:187) and art history (Preziosi 2003). Toclassical archaeologists, museums are often regarded as mere repositoriesthat supply researchers with objects to study. Unfortunately, it is asituation that is also reflected in many museum exhibitions, whereobjects are displayed in cases according to well-established art historical37

Matters of Scalecategories based on material and stylistic criteria. Thus, in exhibitionsit is not unusual to find, for example, black-figured vases in one case,red-figured in another and sometimes these are further organizedaccording to regional styles or even after particular artists. By focusingon issues like these the museum seems to address the specialist ratherthan the general public, and in such a setting further interpretationsof various ancient Greek and Roman social phenomena are rarelyconveyed. Furthermore, although religious materializations are centralto analyses in classical archaeology, the topic of how ancient religionis mediated in museums is strikingly absent in research.Generally, museums have a tendency to treat classical antiquitiesas art. A loss of original contexts of the displayed objects may explainthis interest in artistic qualities. However, it is not an entirely tenableexplanation since, as we shall see in the following case study, this is asituation that can also be recognized in museums displaying objectswith well-known archaeological contexts. An explanation shouldrather be sought in the discursive boundaries of traditional classicalarchaeology. To many archaeologists in the classical field the disinterestin archaeological contexts is not seen as a problem. In the words of oneauthority, John Boardman, ‘our museums are full of objects that speakfor themselves, to the public and to scholars, without knowledge of theirexact provenance’ (Boardman 2006:39). In other words, the treatmentof sacred objects as art has often had the consequence that contextsbeyond the museum (Barker 2010:303), which could illuminate thereligious functions of these objects, are obscured in exhibitions.Theorizing religious objects in museumsThe above-described situation in classical archaeology implies a needto develop analytical tools in order to understand museum mediationsof ancient Greek religion. A viable starting-point is to considertheoretical models drawn from anthropology and art history since bothdisciplines have dealt more closely with the museum object, as wellas with sacred objects in museums. Further discussions on the sacredobject in museums can be found in museological studies and, to someextent, in recent religious studies.The main theoretical issue concerns a visual discourse where the displayof sacred objects is seen as a result of Western aesthetic appreciation,understanding, and classificatory systems (Clifford 1988:220-6; Myers38

The Museum Process2004). In essence, the moment religious objects come in contact withthe museum they become objects of art and are defined from a modernperspective (Grimes 1992:423; Lindholm 2002; Côté 2003; Gaskell2003:149-50). They have undergone a process of ‘aestheticization’,which means that they have been ‘respiritualized as aesthetic objects’(Stocking 1985:6). Consequently, the museum process obscures aspectsof faith and belief that were inherent in these objects (Grimes 1990:82-4;Gaskell 2003:150) and gives them new meanings. In contrast to theoriginal sacred context, the objects are now housed in a secular space,although, as we shall see, the museum is a profane place with sacredundertones.Conjectures like these may be found in analyses on displays of non-Western religious material culture, both in the realms of indigenouspeoples (that is in our view primitive religion) (e.g. Catalani 2007, forthe West African Yorùbá people) and in the sphere of world religions(e.g. Guha-Thakurta 2007, for Hinduism). Many of these museumstudies pertain to post-colonial perspectives (e.g. Coombes 1998;Simpson 2001) where the issues being debated concern such questionsas repatriation (Curtis 2003) and how the sacredness, or spiritual values,of displayed objects from non-Western cultures are mediated to themuseum visitors (Grimes 1992). Thus, in anthropological theory, itis the museum object of the ‘Other’ that is often under scrutiny andespecially in its construction from a Western cultural horizon (Stocking1985; Clifford 1988; Myers 2004). It should be emphasized that thematerial culture of the ancient Greeks is deeply rooted in a Westerntradition and the notion of the ‘Other’ may not be applicable in itsentirety. However, drawing on anthropological theory, a tradition inclassical studies has emphasized the otherness of the ancient Greeks(Dodds 1951; Humphreys 1978; Nippel 1990; Detienne 2008). Thus,through anthropological approaches the complexity of museum displaysof ancient Greek religion may be uncovered. While museums considersacred objects of the ancient Greeks primarily as art in a Westerntradition, ancient Greek religion is perceived as something differentin relation to a Christian perspective.The museology of sacred objects has recently also been discussedin religious studies, and in particular from the multifaceted conceptof ‘aesthetics of religion’, or ‘Religionsästhetik’ because the term hasmainly been developed by German researchers (Kugele & Wilkens2011). The concept pertains to anthropological perspectives, since it is39

Matters of Scalethe interface between displayed objects and the museum visitor that isstudied. More specifically, the approach aims at analyzing the interplaybetween modes of sensuous forms of perceptions, symbolic communication,material religion and the media of communication. Focusing onvisual mediations of the different kinds of knowledge embedded inthe sacred object, it is an approach well-suited in analyses of museumobjects. Hence, the term ‘museality’, which concerns production,reception and circulation of knowledge about religion in museums,has emerged as a critical analytical tool (Koch et al. 2011; Kugele &Wilkens 2011). In relation to displays of ancient Greek religion thistheoretical framework can be used to elucidate knowledge conveyedto the museum audience.To understand the display of sacred objects one should also considerdifferent technical aspects of exhibitions. To begin from a moregeneral level means studying the museum space in its entirety. The arthistorian Carole Duncan (1995) introduced a theory concerning theart museum where she interprets the museum as a ritualized space. Thelikening of the museum to a sacred space is not an entirely new idea;art museums have, for instance, been defined as sacred groves (Jeffers2003:108-10). According to Duncan (1995:12-4) the monumentalityof the architecture, the layout and the arrangement of the objects inthe museum prompt the visitors to enact a ritualized performance. Byapplying the idea of ritualized space on the general layout of museumsone can reach an understanding of why sacred objects are displayed asthey are, i.e. they form a constituent part in the ritualized behaviourof museum visitors.Another useful interpretative approach that is of relevance to museumexhibitions is the analytical pair, ‘resonance’ and ‘wonder’, developedby the cultural theorist Stephen Greenblatt (1991), again in connectionwith the art museum. This model is directly related to techniques ofdisplay, where ‘resonance’ suggests that the exhibition connects to differentmeanings relating the role of the object to contexts outside of themuseum walls (Greenblatt 1991:43-9). It could comprise the originallyfunctional contexts, but also the wider cultural connotations of theobjects. For sacred objects of ancient Greece this would, ideally, meanthat multiple meanings in relation to religious practices and belief areexplained in the exhibition. However, the term ‘resonance’ also relatesto an understanding constructed around the museum object, such as arthistorical categorizations, and this is the knowledge most often medi-40

The Museum Processated in exhibitions of ancient Greek religion. The notion of ‘wonder’,on the other hand, concerns the uniqueness, authenticity, and visualpower of the masterpiece (Greenblatt 1991:49-54). The purpose of suchexhibitions is to arouse wonder and in that sense they can historicallybe linked to the wunderkammer of the Renaissance. The experience ofwonder is realized though exhibition techniques, such as lighting andsingular placement in cases. The so-called boutique lighting, whereobjects are flooded by a bright pool of light, is effectively used to stopthe viewer in his or her tracks. As Greenblatt explicitly states, ‘wonder’does not exclude ‘resonance’, and vice verse, and both elements are oftenpresent in the same museum exhibition.The archaeological museum at OlympiaLet us now turn to the case study, the exhibition in the archaeologicalmuseum at Olympia. The Olympia site conveys multiple layers ofcultural significance. Archaeologists define it as one of the four majorPanHellenic sanctuaries of ancient Greece, dedicated to Zeus. Thatis, in ancient times people from different Greek regions visited thesanctuary. Both the archaeological site and the museum should alsobe seen in relation to a modern national and international heritageindustry. From this point of view, Olympia can be defined as one ofthe ‘must-see’ sites in Greece (Shanks 1996:76), and in its capacity as amajor heritage attraction it purposely caters to large tourist-groups.Olympia is a site with exceptionally tenacious life histories, bothantique and post-antique. Its general fame resides in its role as thesetting for the ancient Olympic Games and it is therefore inevitablyconnected with the modern games. The most well-known ritual surroundingthe modern games, the lightning of the flame and subsequenttorch relay to the modern Olympic stadium, is staged within thearchaeological site, by the temple of Hera. This ritual has no ancientequivalent and should rather be seen as a legacy of the Berlin gamesin 1936 when this ceremony was created (Mackenzie 2003:317-9) asa reflection of the assumed cultural affinity between Nazi Germanyand ancient Greece.But, it is not only the site that carries ritual connotations constructedin modern times. The museum itself can also be interpreted as amodern ritual space in accordance to the theory introduced by Duncan(1995) in connection with art museums, even though the museum in41

Matters of ScaleOlympia is classified as archaeological. Indeed, there are many reasonsfor seeing the museum at Olympia as an art museum rather than asan archaeological museum, and in that sense it follows many of thecharacteristics for a ritualized space as Duncan defines it. This notionis enforced both in the layout and in the exhibition. Furthermore, thegeneral introductory text in the entrance hall of the museum informsthe visitor that the excavation is ‘bringing to light again the buildingsof the past together with the sublime works of ancient Greek art thatgrace this museum’. Throughout the museum, the texts presentingartefacts and architectural fragments from the site mainly adopt an arthistorical perspective. Sculpture plays a significant role in the museumand it should be noted that they are displayed solely as works of art.Thus, no religious meanings of the sculptures beyond what gods ormyths they represent are conveyed in the exhibition.Visually, the first view that the visitor encounters when enteringthe museum (Fig. 1) is a large gallery exhibiting the architecturalsculpture (pediments and metopes) from the temple of Zeus, and inthe background a smaller gallery with an illuminated statue of Nike,the goddess of victory. Its placement can be understood in relation tothe notion of authenticity, since this statue is one of the few knownexamples of a supposed original marble-piece from the fifth centuryBCE, i.e. not a later Roman copy. The exhibition reflects a centraltenet in classical studies, namely the issue of original versus ancientFig. 1. The large central gallery in the Archaeological Museum of Olympia inDecember 2006. Photo: Lena Sjögren.42

The Museum Processcopy in the study of ancient Greek sculpture (Marvin 2008:137-67).Classical originals of the fifth and fourth centuries BCE, or copiesclose to lost originals, were deemed as the most valuable examples ofancient art. Authenticity can here be regarded as a cultural construct(Jones 2010:182-3). In this particular museum setting authenticityalso pertains to the experience of wonder. The large gallery with thesculpture from the temple of Zeus resembles a church-like basilicaand offers a focal point, and place, for aesthetic contemplation overthe ancient masterpiece-sculptures. In other words, it is an ideal placeto enact ritualized behaviour.The other galleries of the museum are arranged around this centralhall and they are organised according to a chronological itinerary,starting with the Bronze Age and ending with Late Antique and earlyByzantine times. In that sense, the museum has a clear educationalambition with a focus on the art-historical and architectural developmentof the site. However, two rooms are set apart (thereby rupturing thechronological itinerary): the gallery with the Nike statue mentionedabove and the gallery displaying a statue depicting Hermes with theinfant Dionysus (Fig. 2), another supposed original masterpiece fromFig. 2. The separate room displaying the statue of Hermes with infantDionysos in December 2006. Photo: Lena Sjögren.43

Matters of Scalethe classical era. To enter this room, the visitors have to pass througha corridor where basic information on the statue is given. The statue,which is meant to be admired from a distance, is displayed by itselfwith spotlights highlighting its anatomical features, i.e. in a mannerthat ascribes to the boutique lighting technique. The statue is placedwithin a fence, which further enhances its masterpiece status and anexperience of authenticity and wonder. The two rooms can also be seenin relation to Duncan’s theory of ritualized museum-space; in theircapacities as marked off spaces they call for special attention.Olympia has, thus, been ritualized in different modern contexts.But how are the site’s ancient ritual/religious connotations handled?Returning to the introductory text in the entrance hall, it focuses on thefounding myth for the sanctuary and on tracing the cultic origins of thesite (back to the Early Bronze Age). The focus on myths is reproducedin the central hall, where in short notes the visitors are informed aboutplausible reconstructions of the motifs on the metopes and pediments,as well as cursory descriptions of the depicted myths. But the textsgo no further in presenting the religious significance of these objects.Moreover, it is a presentation that presupposes some prior knowledgeon Greek gods and heroes, since longer explanations of the meaningsof the myths in antiquity are not given.Fig. 3. The gallery of bronze votives in December 2006. Photo: Lena Sjögren.44

The Museum ProcessHow the museum treats sacred objects becomes evident when consideringthe gallery exhibiting a selection of the vast amount of bronzeobjects found at Olympia (Fig. 3). The various text panels refer to theseobjects as offerings, or votive gifts, in the sanctuary. For instance, this ismentioned in two texts presenting bronze figurines and votive tripodsfrom the Iron Age and various offerings from the Archaic period.However, no deeper understanding of the religious properties of theseobjects is presented. Instead, the texts talk about ‘different workshops’and define the objects as ‘categories of art’. It is noted, for instance,that the cauldrons can be divided into five classes according to shapeand technique and descriptions are given of different linear designs tobe found on the objects.Another text panel describes the Archaic history of the sanctuaryfrom the perspective of art, focusing on the different categories ofofferings and on the orientalising style which implied that artists wereinfluenced by eastern elements (although adapting these to a Greekcharacter!). The seventh century BCE is described as a time when:The artists of this period abandoned the monotonous repetition oftraditional types and drew their inspiration from the natural worldas well as the worlds of imagination and myth. The works are nowcrowded with new decorative motifs from the world of plants (lotuses,anthemia and tendrils) and animals (lions and birds), and the world ofmyth (griffins, sphinxes and winged figures), imported from the East.All of these themes, even so, were transformed and acquired their Greekcharacter.No elaborations on the religious meaning or uses of the displayedobjects are to be found. When a more general context beyond theart historical one is mentioned, it concerns the social, political andeconomic importance of the bronze offerings. The museum processhas turned these sacred objects, which once functioned as offeringsin the sanctuary, primarily into objects of art, where it is their artisticqualities that should mainly be admired.The apparent art historical trajectory is further enhanced in theorganization of the exhibition, since the bronze objects in this galleryare placed in different cases arranged according to well-defined categoriesof art; for example: bronze tripods, cauldrons, bronze headsof griffins that were once attachments on cauldrons, bovine and horse45

Matters of Scalefigurines, and helmets. Again, the so-called boutique lighting is appliedto the exhibition, where individual objects in the cases are brightlyhighlighted.There is only one attempt at mediating ancient rituals of the sanctuaryand that is in connection with the ash altar of Zeus (Fig. 4). In aseparate exhibition case, a multitude of bovine clay– and metal-figurinesis displayed together with cauldrons, metal-bowls and clay plates. Thisis not only an exhibition of the actual objects from the area of the ashaltar. The display alludes to rituals performed during the OlympicGames, namely the sacrifice of one-hundred oxen; such as it is describedin the accompanying text:The great altar of Zeus, no trace of which survives today, is believed tohave stood in the space between the Heraion and the Pelopion.According to the traveller Pausanias (V, 18.8-10) the altar was circular orelliptical. It consisted of the “prothysis” (a base with a circumference ofsome 37 m), and the altar proper, which had been formed on top of the“prothysis” by the ashes of the sacrificial animals. The height of the altar,which was conical in shape, is calculated to have been about 7 m.On the fourth day of the Olympic Games, the great sacrifice of a hundredoxen was performed, the hecatomb, in which the thighs of the animalswere burnt on top of the altar.In the thick layer of ash from the altar, which was spread over a largeradius around it, probably in Late Geometric times, the excavators broughtto light a huge quantity of clay and bronze figurines of the Geometricperiod, the votive offerings of the faithful.Discussing the altar, the exhibition case represents not only a rareexample of taking the archaeological context of the objects into consideration;it also tries to convey a religious activity that once took place inthe sanctuary. That the text refers to Pausanias is not surprising sincearchaeologists have used him as an authority when identifying thebuildings of the sanctuary (Habicht 1985, and discussion in Elsner 2010).However, one cannot help wondering how many of the museum visitorsare aware of the large temporal gap between Pausanias and the displayedobjects (the objects are about 700 years older than Pausanias).Thus, the display of sacred objects from the sanctuary at Olympiaconforms to a general museum’s approach, where sacred objects havebasically been turned into art. To recall the anthropologist GeorgeStocking (1985:6), a process of ‘aestheticization’ has taken place. From46

The Museum Processa discursive point of view, the present-day museum exhibition can alsobe regarded as a link to the early German excavations of the site inthe 1870s. At least, the museum’s focus of art historical issues and thereverence of masterpieces should be understood in an historical context.Like many nineteenth-century excavations, the dig at Olympia beganas a project to uncover treasures, in particular monumental sculptureof the classical era, which at that time were deemed as the most prizedartistic works from antiquity (Marchand 1996:80-91).After the initial findings of such masterpieces as the pedimentsculpture from the temple of Zeus, the Nike statue and Hermes withthe infant Dionysus, there was a frustrating halt in the discoveryof sculpture. Instead, thousands of small-finds were unearthed, inparticular, a conspicuous amount of bronze objects. This called fornew archaeological strategies. Olympia was one of the first digs toFig. 4. Exhibition case with material from the Altar of Zeus in the gallery ofbronze votives in December 2006. Photo: Lena Sjögren.47

Matters of Scaleapply stratigraphic methods. The publication of the bronzes by AdolfFurtwängler developed a format that later set the standard for findpublicationsof excavations in Greece; these are characterised by comprehensivecatalogues classifying objects according to formal stylisticcharacteristics. His first publication of the bronzes from 1879 had thetitle Die Bronzefunde aus Olympia und deren kunstgeshichtliche Bedeutung(the bronze finds from Olympia and their art-historical significance) andit is striking that this view is reproduced in the present-day exhibitionon the bronze votives. Tellingly, the archaeological, stratigraphical,approach, which was practiced in the early Olympia excavations, canonly be found in the prehistoric room. While the rest of the museumis purposely aimed at giving the visitors an experience of wonder it isonly logical that an archaeological resonance is projected in this room,since prehistoric Olympia has not been associated with any knownmasterpieces.ConclusionTo conclude, the archaeological museum at Olympia projects differentlayers of dissonance in relation to the ancient religious object. Thatdefinitions of sacred objects often oscillate between archaeology andart complicates how the sacredness of sacred objects is conveyed tomuseum visitors. Modern scholarship has in many cases treated sacredobjects of the ancient Greeks as art (Elsner 1996:515). When consideredas venerable art, objects have received new meanings that are relatedto their role in the museum space. The original religious connotationsare therefore blurred. Instead, focus is placed on admirable artisticqualities, which are thought to be inherent in the objects themselves.When context is mediated it is based on extrinsic classifications of theobjects such as stylistic and typological criteria.Being a secular institution the museum aims, through its display,to mediate objective facts about the past. However, the museum-spacecompels visitors to follow certain behavioural norms that can be likenedto a ceremonial ritual. In that sense, the museum links back to theearly nineteenth-century museums with their visual references to theancient Greek temple. While ritualizing the space in which the objectsare displayed, the archaeological museum at Olympia has at the sametime made the sacredness of the objects invisible. Thus, through anemphasis on ‘scientific’ and artistic aspects, the museum process – from48

The Museum Processexcavation, publication to display – has had a secularizing effect onthe religious objects. In essence, this is not a museum about an ancientGreek sanctuary, but rather a museum about masterpieces fundamentalto our Western heritage.ReferencesAmes, M. 1992. Cannible tours and glass boxes: the anthropology of museums.Vancouver: UBC Press.Barkan, L. 1999. Unearthing the Past: Archaeology and Aesthetics in the Makingof Renaissance Culture. New Haven: Yale University Press.Barker, A. W. 2010. Exhibiting Archaeology: Archaeology and Museum.The Annual Review of Anthropology 39, pp. 293-308.Beard, M. & J. Henderson. 2001. Classical Art: From Greece to Rome. Oxford:Oxford University Press.Bennett, T. 1995. The birth of the Museum: History, theory, politics. London:Routledge.Boardman, J. 2006. Archaeologists, collectors, and museums. In: Robson, E.,Treadwell, L. and Gosden, C. (Eds), Who owns objects? The ethics and politicsof collecting cultural artefacts, pp. 33-46. Oxford: Oxbow Books.Catalani, A. 2007. Displaying traditional Yorùbá religious objects in museums:The Western re-making of a cultural heritage. Library Trends 56:1, pp.66-79.Clifford, J. 1988. On collecting art and culture. In: Clifford, J. (Ed.), Thepredicament of culture, pp. 215-51. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard UniversityPress.Coombes, A. E. 1998. Inventing the ’Postcolonial’: Hybridity and constituencyin contemporary curating. In: Preziosi, D. (Ed.), The art of art history: Acritical anthology, pp. 486-97. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Côté, M. 2003. From masterpiece to artefact: the Sacred and the profane inmuseums. Museum International 55:2, pp. 32-7.Curtis, N. G. W. 2003. Human remains. The sacred, museums and archaeology.Public Archaeology 3, pp. 21-32.Detienne, M. 2008. Comparing the imcomparable. Stanford: Stanford UniversityPress.Dodds, E. R. 1951. The Greeks and the irrational. Berkeley: University ofCalifornia Press.Duncan, C. 1995. Civilizing Rituals: Inside public art museums. London:Routledge.49

Matters of ScaleElsner, J. 1996. Image and Ritual: Reflections on the religious appreciationof Classical Art. Classical Quartely 46:2, pp. 515-31.— 2010. Introduction. Classical Receptions Journal 2:2, pp. 157-73.Furtwängler, A. 1879. Die Bronzefunde aus Olympia und deren kunstgeschichtlicheBedeutung. Berlin: Buchdrukerei der Königliche Akademie der Wissenschaftenzu Berlin.Gaskell, I. 2003. Sacred to profane and back again. In: McClellan, A. (Ed.),Art and its publics: Museum Studies at the Millennium, pp. 148-62. Malden,Mass.: Blackwell.Giuliani, L. 2000. Antiken-Museen: Vergangenheit und Perspektiven einerInstitution. In: Borbein, A. H., Hölscher, T. and Zanker, P. (Eds), KlassischeArchäologie: eine Einführung, pp. 77-90. Berlin.Greenblatt, S. 1991. Resonance and Wonder. In: Karp, I. and Lavine, S. D.(Eds), Exhibiting cultures: The poetics and politics of Museum display, pp. 42-56.Washington, D.C.: Smithonian Institution Press.Grimes, R. L. 1990. Ritual criticism of field excavations and museum displays.In: Grimes, R. L. (Ed.), Ritual criticism: case studies in its practice, essays onits theory, pp. 63-88. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press.— 1992. Sacred objects in museum spaces. Studies in Religion 21:4, pp.419-30.Guha-Thakurta, T. 2007. ”Our gods, their museums”: the contrary careers ofIndia’s art objects. Art History 30, pp. 628-57.Habicht, C. 1985. Pausanias guide to ancient Greece. Berkeley: University ofCalifornia Press.Humphreys, S. C. 1978. Anthropology and the Greeks. London: Routledge.— 2004. The strangeness of gods: Historical perspectives and the interpretation ofathenian religion. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Jeffers, C. S. 2003. Museum as Process. The Journal of Aesthetic Education 37,pp. 107-19.Jenkins, I. 1992. Archaeologists and aesthetes in the sculpture galleries of the BritishMuseum 1800-1939. London: British Museum Press.Jones, S. 2010. Negotiating authentic objects and authentic selves: Beyondthe deconstruction of authenticity. Journal of Material Culture 15, pp.181-203.Koch, A., Meyer, C., Tillessen, P., Wilke, A. and Wilkens, K. 2011. Museumin context. Journal of Religion in Europe 4, pp. 71-101.Kugele, J. and Wilkens, K. 2011. Relocating religion(s) – museality as acritical term for the aesthetics of religion: introduction. Journal of Religionin Europe 4, pp. 7-13.50

The Museum ProcessLee, P. Y. 1997. The Musaeum of Alexandria and the formation of Muséumin eighteenth-century France. The Art Bulletin 79, pp. 385-412.Lidchi, H. 1997. The poetics and the politics of exhibiting other cultures. In:Hall, S. (Ed.), Representation: Cultural representations and signifying cultures,pp. 151-208. London: Sage.Lindholm, C. 2002. Authenticity, anthropology and the sacred. AnthropologicalQuartely 75:2, pp. 331-8.Mackenzie, M. 2003. Athens to Berlin: the 1936 Olympics and LeniRiefensthal’s Olympia. Critical Inquiry 29, pp. 302-36.Marchand, S. L. 1996. Down from Olympus: Archaeology and Philhellenism inGermany, 1750-1970. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Marvin, M. 2008. The language of the muses: the dialogue between Roman andGreek sculpture. Los Angeles: J. Paul Getty Museum.McClellan, A. 1994. Inventing the Louvre: Art, politics, and the origins ofthe modern museum in eighteenth-century Paris. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.Myers, F. 2004. Social Agency and the Cultural value(s) of the art object.Journal of Material Culture 9:2, pp. 203-11.Nippel, W. 1990. Griechen, Barbaren und “Wilde”: alte Geschichte undSozialanthropologie. Frankfurt am Main: Fischerd Taschenbuch Verlag.Newhouse, V. 2005. Art and the Power of Placement. New York: MonacelliPress.Plantzos, D. 2011. Behold the ranking geison: the new Acropolis Museumand its context-free archaeologies. Antiquity 85, pp. 613-25.Preziosi, D. 2003. Brain of the earth’s body: art, museums, and the phantasms ofmodernity. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Rhodes, R. F. (Ed.). 2007. The acquisition and exhibition of classical antiquities:professional, legal, and ethical perspectives. Notre Dame: University of NotreDame Press.Saumarez Smith, C. 1995. Architecture and the museum. Journal of DesignHistory 8, pp. 243-56.Shanks, M. 1996. Classical archaeology of Greece. Experiences of the discipline.London: Routledge.Siapkas, J. and Sjögren, L. Forthcoming (2013). Displaying the ideals of Antiquity.The petrified gaze. New York: Taylor & Francis Routledge.Simpson, M. G. 2001. Making representations: museums in the post-colonial era(Rev.ed.). London: Routledge.Shaya, J. 2005. The Greek temple as museum: The case of the legendary treasureof Athena from Lindos. American Journal of Archaeology 109, pp. 423-42.51

Matters of ScaleStocking G. W. 1985. Essays on museums and material culture. In: Stocking,G.W. (Ed.), Objects and others: essays on museums and material culture, pp.3-14. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.Watson, P., and Todeschini, C. 2006. The Medici Conspiracy: The illicit journeyof looted antiquities – from Italy’s tomb raiders to the world’s greatest museums.New York: Public Affairs.Vickers, M. 1985. Greek and Roman Antiquities in the seventeenth century.In: Impey, O. and MacGregor, A. (Eds), Origins of museums. The cabinet ofcuriosities in sixteenth- and seventeenth-century Europe, pp. 223-31. Oxford:Clarendon.52