The Object of Archaeology: From “Marbles” to the Archaeological Landscape
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.18688/aa188-8-66Keywords:
Commagene, Lycia, Mount Nemrud, modern museum, antiquarianism, early archaeology, archaeological landscapeAbstract
Although the history of antiquarianism and the antique object amongst its material of study go way back, with the emergence of modern archaeology and the modern museum in the 19th century antiquities, the objects of interest for a narrow circle of learned cognoscenti up to that time, gained mass appeal and were transformed into archaeological objects and museum displays. From bits and pieces of sacred and quotidian artifacts to intact tombs, from broken colossal statues to architectural fragments, everything that was ferociously dug by “early archaeologists,” often away from the museums they would be put on display, became archaeological objects. Building parts, architectural sculptures, structural and decorative elements, all of which were once parts of immovable wholes and specific locales have become free-floating “marbles” detached from their places and associated with the individuals who “discovered” them, as in the case of the (in)famous Elgin or Canning marbles, and were transported over long distances as portable artifacts to become objects of display in museums.
In our paper we trace the changing nature of the archaeological object alongside conservation policies by dwelling on two distinct Anatolian examples, those of Lycia and Commagene. The southwestern region and ancient civilization of Lycia was “discovered” by British explorer Charles Fellows at the beginning of the 1840s whose persistent appeal to the trustees paid off with the transportation of substantial amount of material to the British Museum, which were known as Xanthian marbles back then. In contradistinction, although earlier explored by Karl Sester and Otto Puchstein and about to be excavated by Karl Humann, the Mount Nemrud, part of the southeastern Anatolian region of ancient Commagene, was taken over in 1883 by Osman Hamdi, the authoritative director of the Ottoman Imperial Museum who vehemently fought against the exportation of archaeological material outside Ottoman territory. How did these two different attitudes to ancient sites and the archaeological object impact the later histories of these sites? We also look at the current situation, particularly the details of the project developed by PROMET PROJE for Commagene.
References
Bann S. The Inventions of History: Essays on the Representation of the Past. Manchester, Manchester University Press Publ., 1990. 246 p.
Brijder H. Nemrud Dagi: Recent Archaeological Research and Preservation and Conservation Activities in the Tomb Sanctuary on Mount Nemrud. Boston; Berlin, De Gruyter Publ., 2014. 696 p.
Cezar M. Sanatta Batıya Açılış ve Osman Hamdi. İstanbul, Anadolu Sanat Yayınları Publ., 1995. 805 p. (in Turkish).
Eldem E. Le voyage à Nemrud Dağı d’Osman Hamdi Bey et Osgan Efendi (1883) Récit de voyage et photographies publiés et annotés par Edhem Eldem. Varia Anatolica XXIII, 2010. 100 p. (in French).
Hamdy Bey O.; Osgan Effendi Y. Le tumulus de Nemroud-Dagh. Voyage, description, inscriptions avec plans et photographies. Constantinople, F. Loeffler Publ.,1883. 102 p. (in French).
Harmanşah Ö. Cities and the Shaping of Memory in the Ancient Near East. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press Publ., 2003. 351 p.
Report of the Commissioners Appointed to Inquire into the Constitution and Government of the British Museum with Minutes of Evidence. London, Will. Clowes Publ., 1850. 823 p.
Schnapp A. The Many Dimensions of the Antiquary’s Practice. Antiquarianism and Intellectual Life in Europe and China, 1500–1800. Ann Arbor, University of Michigan Publ., 2012. 426 p.
