Classical Archaeology Research Articles

Troy on Display: Scepticism and Wonder at Schliemann’s First Exhibition by Abigail Baker

Reviewed by: Troy on Display: Scepticism and Wonder at Schliemann’s First Exhibition by Abigail Baker Michele Ronnick Troy on Display: Scepticism and Wonder at Schliemann’s First Exhibition. By Abigail Baker. London, UK and New York, NY: Bloomsbury Academic, 2020. Pp. xii + 263. Hardback, $115.00. ISBN: 978-1-78831-358-2. For those of us (and I include myself) who are still agog over the more than remarkable trajectory of Heinrich Schliemann’s life and career, we might in jest blame it all on Frank Calvert (1828–1908). If Calvert’s eye had not been drawn to the hill of Hisarlik, Schliemann in his quest to find Troy might well have remained digging at Pınarbaşı (17). Dr. Baker is assistant keeper of archaeology at the Great North Museum in Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK, and this book is based on a chapter, “Troy in London ” (131–137), from her 296 page thesis titled “Ancient Narratives in the Modern Museum: Interpreting Classical Archaeology in British Museums,” which was written at Birbeck College, University of London under the supervision of Dr. Caspar Meyer in 2015 (http://bbktheses.da.ulcc.ac.uk). It is a close study of the objects Schliemann brought from Troy and displayed at the South Kensington Museum in an exhibit that opened on January 28, 1877 and lasted until early 1880. The display was Schliemann’s response after being rebuffed by the British Museum which did not want to buy his objects (the $50,000 price tag was seen as too expensive) nor give them a short-term display, since exhibits at the British Museum were restricted to items in the Museum’s own collection. His arrangements resulted in one of the first “popular” museum shows. It was a “blockbuster” before the term was coined decades later to describe a show which took the world by storm, namely, “The Treasures of Tutankhamun” which opened on March 29, 1972 and ran to December 31, 1972 at the British Museum. When Schliemann’s show closed in early 1880 his collection left London for a three-year display at the Royal Museum in Berlin. The only other major exhibit in London on Troy occurred only recently when “Troy: Myth and Reality” went on display at the British Museum from November to March, 2020. Dr. Baker shows us the care with which Schliemann staged his exhibit, revealing a clear and calculating intent on his part to persuade the viewers that his views on Troy were the correct ones. Schliemann “had dragged Troy from myth to the [End Page 253] headlines” (2) and his manipulative showmanship rivalled that of his American contemporary P.T. Barnum (1810–1891). “He became an instant sensation. . .visitors poured into the Museum’s recently completed South Court” where they encountered “case after case of strange-looking pottery, crumbling metalwork, stone tools and thousands of spindle whorls” (2). There they experienced a “point of crisis at which people who knew only the imagined Troy of text” were confronted with “Schliemann’s material Troy” (5). His exhibit shook people’s “confidence in philological approaches to the ancient world” (5). The audience began to wonder began “what sort of truths” could be found “in an epic poem,” (16), and if Schliemann’s Trojans and their crude pieces of pottery were in fact Homer’s Trojans, then people would need to stop romanticizing the characters of the Iliad. Thus, the Victorians’ focus on texts shifted to a focus on objects and they were drawn “into contemporary debates about the relationship between Europe and Asia” or East versus West (163). One of the last reports published about the exhibit came from the British-American natural scientist Edward Waller Claypole (1835–1901), then teaching at Antioch College in Yellow Springs, Ohio. “Dr. Schliemann’s collection of antiquities was one. which I was most desirous to see,” but after seeing a group of flat pebbles that Schliemann called “Minerva Ornaments” he felt that Schliemann was “trespass[ing] not a little beyond the due limit of the imagination when applied to science” (“Minerva Ornaments,” Nature, July 1880, 193). Dr. Baker has successfully shown us that “Troy with its untrustworthy excavator, archaeological complexity...

Babken Arakelyan

It is not easy to gather and organise your thoughts in order to write about an individual that had a significant impact on your professional and (partially) personal life. Babken Arakelyan was exactly that person for me, the author of these lines.Much has been written about the life and accomplishments of Academician, Professor Arakelyan. In fact, he was worthy of all that. This scholar, a student of the noteworthy Armenologist, Orientalist, Director of the Hermitage, Hovsep Orbeli, composed many valuable works regarding the history and culture of Classical and Medieval Armenia. For decades, he was in charge of the excavations of Garni, Armavir, Artashat, and other sites. He was also the founder of the Institute of Archaeology and Ethnography NAS RA, taught for many years, and was the supervisor of dozens of dissertations. Armenia’s school of Classical archaeology was formed through his efforts. However, there is no need to list all the accomplishments of this meritorious scholar’s fruitful life in detail here, since that is accessible on the NAS RA official website. I would more likely stress out all of Babken Arakelyan’s personal qualities that characterised him especially as a TEACHER.

Studies on Roman coin finds from the Central European Barbaricum in the Institute of Archaeology of the Jagiellonian University – an overview

A direct successor of the oldest tradition of academic archaeology in Poland, the Institute of Archaeology of the Jagiellonian University ranks among the leading research centres with respect to studies on the influx of Roman coins into European Barbaricum. The interest in Roman coinage at the Jagiellonian University pre-dates archaeology and can be traced back to the 16th century and the professors of the Kraków Academy (the name of the university at that time) Maciej of Miechów (1457–1523) and Stanisław Grzebski (1524–1570). In the 19th century, Roman coins discovered in the vicinity of Kraków attracted the interest of Jerzy Samuel Bandtke (1768–1835). However, the time when this area of research enjoyed particular development falls to the last years before WWII and the post-war period. A significant role in this respect was played by researchers either representing the JU Institute of Archaeology, like Professors Rudolf Jamka (1906–1972), Kazimierz Godłowski (1934–1995), and Piotr Kaczanowski (1944–2015), or those cooperating with the Institute like Professor Stefan Skowronek (1928–2019). Their activity laid the foundations for today’s research on the finds of Roman coins and their inflow into the territories of the Roman Period Barbaricum. Currently, this area of studies is within the focus of two of the departments of the Institute of Archaeology: the Department of Iron Age Archaeology and the Department of Classical Archaeology. The intensification of research on the inflow of Roman coins owes much to the Finds of Roman coins in Poland and connected with PL project, carried out in 2014–2018 under the leadership of Professor Aleksander Burshe, with important contributions provided by a group of scholars from the JU Institute of Archaeology. Despite the conclusion of the project, studies on the inflow of Roman coins will continue.12345

Os artefatos arqueológicos podem jogar?

Destaca a utilização de elementos arqueológicos no campo digital e a influência dos jogos eletrônicos no tocante à teoria arqueológica. Analisa os estudos acerca da cultura material em espaços imateriais, elucidando o que seriam os pixels e de que forma eles estão inseridos na vida humana e, por conseguinte, na Arqueologia. Tem por objetivo compreender as variadas formas que o patrimônio arqueológico se apresenta em contextos palpáveis e não palpáveis. O estudo de caso pauta-se em um jogo arqueológico desenvolvido pelo Laboratório de Arqueologia Romana Provincial da Universidade de São Paulo intitulado “O Último Banquete em Herculano”. Finaliza com uma reflexão sobre a aplicação da teoria ciberarqueológica no contexto do jogo arqueológico apresentado como estudo de caso.

Increasing International Perspectives in Theoretical Roman Archaeology

The editorial of this second issue of the Theoretical Roman Archaeology Journal (TRAJ) celebrates diverse and innovative topics related to Roman theoretical studies and reflects upon new ways to stimulate more international participation in the Theoretical Roman Archaeology Conference (TRAC). The data collected on the attendance demonstrates that Roman studies are becoming more diverse with delegates travelling from 27 countries. The guest editors of this edition consider how formative education differs in both Italy and the UK and how this may affect the accessibility of Roman studies. Moreover, the increasing homogenisation of Roman Archaeology Conference (RAC) and TRAC has been considered and it is suggested that in order to allow the two conferences to grow further, we need to develop a more constructive dialogue. The guest editors here seek to address these issues in order to encourage a better level of international contribution and attendance, as well as to consider the discussion of theory within RAC and whether jointly organised sessions may be productive.

Університетська археологія міжвоєнного Львова через призму пам'яткоохоронного законодавства 1928 року

Field archeological activity of Lviv University during the interwar period is considered through the site protection legislation of the Second Commonwealth. There were two archaeological chairs at the university during the period under study – one of prehistory and one of classical archaeology. In fact, the Chair of the prehistory served as site protection institution. All reports of archaeological finds were sent at the same time to the conservator Zbigniew Hornung and to the heads of the chair. So, archaeologists of the University, depending on their scientific interests, visited these sites. The most active field research was conducted by T. Sulimirski and M. Smishko, and some field activity was also carried out by K. Żurowski, H. Cehak and others. During the period of 1928–1939 a huge number of sites were discovered and explored in the western part of Ukraine. Among them Mali Gribovychi and Kulchytsi in Lviv region, Stopchativ, Trach, Komariv and Bukivna in Stanislaviv region are worth to mention. Most of them are burial sites. First of all, they were reflected in addition to publications in the documents of “Office of Conservation of Lviv Voivodeship”. These are permissions, brief information reports and short notes about finds from different locations. At the same time, documents which confirmed conducting of field studies by the Chair of the Classical Archeology were preserved. Taking into account that the main area of interest of the Chair was ancient civilizations, its employees carried out much less archaeological studies on our territory. However, almost every year E. Bulanda, K. Majewski and I. Startchuk obtained permission for excavation or surveys. The joint work of both Chairs deserves special attention. For example, in summer of 1937, surveys were carried out on the territory of Borshchiv powiat (district) with the participation of young archaeologists M. Smishko, I. Starchuk and other employees of the Chair. The expedition was quite successful and its results have been published in Lviv journals, in particular in “Eos”. Key words: reform of 1928, site protection legislation, Chair of the Prehistory, Chair of the Classical Archeology, permission on field researches, burial sites.

Authority and How to Attain It: Pausanias, Description of Greece and Archaeological Excavations at Olympia

One of the key products of archaeological work, the clear disciplinary distinction separating it from amateur curiosity or lucrative treasure hunt, is the text. Not only it stands at the end of almost every archaeological endeavour, text in its various forms often presents the source of fieldwork: archaeological excavations are preceded by (repeated) reading of previously written landscape, either represented through old travelogues, or through recent reports from archaeological surveys. In short, fieldwork and text are dialectically linked: fieldwork practice and texts mutually intertwine, confirm and (re)shape one another. Therefore, along with “founding fathers” of the discipline, some texts may also posses authority – achieved over time, confirmed, or lost.
 Opposed to the authors and works of the classical canon, Pausanias and his Description of Greece were not of noble origins, that would secure the position of indisputable authority in the field of classical archaeology. Therefore the reputation of the author and his work was built – through confirmations and refutations – in the very landscape of Greece, primarily through archaeological fieldwork. During the 19th century Description of Greece served as a kind of travel guide for researchers to the long-abandoned sites and grand archaeological discoveries, such as Schliemann in Mycenae. The Erechteion in Athens is today known by the name given to the temple by Pausanias. His authority, built in the field of classical archaeology, spread out of the domain of the discipline: on the grounds of the data from the Description of Greece and the esteem of its author, the administration of the new independent Greek kingdom started changing the Slovene, Albanian, Turkish or Italian toponyms in its territory. The excavations at Olympia – the case-study presented here, speak most eloquently about the mutual intertwining of archaeology and Description of Greece. On the one side, the years-long excavations, enabled by the decades-long diplomatic struggle for the licence, deepened the understanding of the work of Pausanias, but on the other side, the fieldwork practice has also changed, as well as the epistemological foundations of classical archaeology. The aim of this paper is to point once more to the inseparable ties linking practical and interpretive aspects, i.e. fieldwork and study in archaeology.

Revealing the mysteries of the Chora of Metaponto

The series of volumes edited by Joseph Carter on the rural landscape around the Greek colony of Metapontum in southern Italy represent a slow but steady revolution in the field of Classical studies. This latest addition to the series presents the results of excavations at the rural site of Pantanello, near modern Metaponto, first launched by the Institute of Classical Archaeology of the University of Austin in 1974. At that time, Classical archaeologists concentrated almost entirely on urban contexts, especially temples and public buildings. Rural sites were of interest only if they featured in the literary sources. To initiate fieldwork at an anonymous rural location such as Pantanello, where only some roof tiles and stone blocks were visible, was therefore a courageous undertaking for a young scholar such as Joe Carter at that time. That fieldwork, however, has proved to be seminal, not only because of the broad range of data that have been brought to light by Carter and his international team, but also because of the meticulous publication of the results in a series of high-quality volumes that have set a new benchmark. The volume under review, The Greek sanctuary at Pantanello, comprises three sub-volumes, totalling 1678 pages.

E. R. VON STERN AND THE CREATION OF THE NORTHERN BLACK SEA SCHOOL OF CLASSIC ARCHAEOLOGY

Ernst R. von Stern (1859—1924) was one of the prominent historians of antiquity in the late XIX — early XX century, who participated in the development of Classic archaeology of the Northern Black Sea region.
 The article discusses the role of E. R. von Stern in the creation of the school of Classic archaeology, which was based on the Novorossiisk University in Odessa and the Odessa Society of History and Antiquities, in particular the museum of that society, as well as the contribution of E. R. von Stern in education of native archaeologists and historians.
 R. von Stern, having considerable experience in teaching, understood the importance of educating young professional personnel. As a result, due to a long and systematic work, E. R. von Stern was able to create a scientific school of his followers.
 Among the students of E. R. von Stern were those who later became well-known scholars, connecting their lives with history and archaeology. In particular, the scientific career of B. V. Farmakovskyi (1870—1928), an outstanding archaeologist, a long-term researcher of Olbia, was largely formed thanks to the pedagogical talent of E. R. von Stern.
 The most known students of E. R. von Stern, except B. V. Farmakovskyi, were also M. I. Mandes (1866—1934), E. G. Kagarov (1882—1942) and M. F. Boltenko (1888—1959).

Art and Archaeology

Attributes are fundamental to the study of classical archaeology, just as they are to the discipline of art history at large. When it comes to identifying figures on an Attic vase – or for that matter the subject of a medieval fresco, Renaissance canvas, or Neoclassical statue – scholars regularly rely on the associative value of objects. Consider the ease with which we recognize ‘Heracles’ on the grounds of a club or lionskin; observe, too, how often a spiked wheel is understood to signal ‘St Catherine’, or a golden key to betoken ‘St Peter’. In all these scenarios, viewers have learned to ‘read’ certain objects in certain culturally conditioned sorts of ways. Despite their non-verbal medium, attributes come to function almost like textual labels: inserted within the field of visual representation, they inscribe an identity, narrative backdrop, or semantic context; they anchor the project of critical interpretation – and in doing so take on a significatory logic of their own.

The Diversity of Classical Archaeology

The Diversity of Classical Archaeology

Lysimakhos ve Belevi: Arkeoloji’nin Bitmeyen Mücadelesi ve Etkileşime Dair Bazı Düşünceler

Ozet: Bilindigi gibi unlu Ephesos antik kenti, Messogis (Aydin) Daglari’nin kuzey yamaclarinda insa edilen gorkemli bir anit mezara (mousoleium-maoussoleion) ev sahipligi yapar. Yerlesimden yaklasik 14 km. kuzeydoguda, Belevi Koyu yakinlarinda bulunan bu unlu yapi arkeoloji dunyasina kazandirildigi 20. yuzyilin baslarindan itibaren bilim insanlarinin, ozellikle Klasik Arkeoloji dunyasinin ilgisini cekmektedir. Bu calismamizda soz konusu antik yapiya deginilmekte ve Anadolu olu gomme geleneklerinin en guzel referanslarindan birisini olusturan anitin, Gec Klasik’ten Hellenistik Doneme gecis surecinde Makedon hanedanlarinin mucadelesine konu olan bu cografyadaki onemi ve anlami degerlendirilmeye calisilmaktadir. Mimari, buluntu envanteri, arkeolojik kronoloji, literatur baglaminda uzun yillardir yapilan nitelikli arastirmalarin konusunu olusturan mausoleionun Hellenistik Donem olasi sahibi ya da kimin icin yaptirilmis olabilecegi unlu Diadokh Lysimakhos’un kariyerinde ele alinmaya calisilmakta ve dogu etkisine dair Persli-Paphlagoniali Kralice Amastris figuru’nun rolu degerlendirilmektedir. Abstract: As it is known, the ancient city of Ephesus is home to a magnificent mausoleum (mousoleium-maoussoleion), built on the northern slopes of the Messogis (Aydin) Mountains. This famous building which located about 14 km northeast of the settlement, near the village of Belevi, has attracted the attention of scientists, especially the Classical Archeology world since the beginning of the 20th century when it was introduced to the archeology world. In this study the monument, which is one of the most beautiful references of the Anatolian burial customs, is tried to be evaluated and mentioned in terms of its importance and meaning in this geography which is the subject of the struggle of Macedonian dynasties during the transition period from Late Classical to Hellenistic Period. Of the ancient structure that constitutes the subject of long-term qualified researches by means of it’s architecture, inventory, archeological chronology and in the context of literature, it’s possible owner in the Hellenistic Period or for whom it was built is tried to be considered in the career of the famous Diadokh Lysimakhos and the role of Perisan-Paphlagonian Queen Amastris figure on the eastern influence is to be evaluated

Documenting ancient anthropogenic signatures by remotely sensing the current vegetation spectral and 3D patterns: A case study at Roman Porolissum archaeological site (Romania)

The landscape at the Roman Archaeological Site from Moigrad-Porolissum, Romania, is nowadays mostly forested. But how did it look during the Roman period (106–275 AD)? Also, how can multispectral imagery and laser scanning be combined more effectively to detect the signatures of ancient sub-surface archaeological remains? This study employed WorldView2 satellite and LiDAR (Light Detection And Ranging) data to explore current remotely sensed vegetation and terrain proxies. These helped identify past anthropogenic signatures embedded within the landscape for reconstructing the ancient engineered environment. The spectral vegetation and terrain patterns revealed 227 marks (36256.22 m) relevant for the historical landscape, of which 182 correspond to ancient sub-surface features. In open landscapes, the two techniques had equivalent results, while LiDAR provided better detection rates in shrubland patches and forests. Their successive application is an advantageous strategy for optimizing costs. The satellite imagery is employed first, followed by the density analysis of the results, while the more expensive laser-based data collection can be focused on the problematic or promising areas. The vegetation and terrain marks revealed the intricate and extensive ancient defensive system that extended on over 24.5 km2. Their strategic functions, requiring visibility between and around them, suggest large-scale deforestation (probably over 1 km around the structures). Thus, in contrast to the present forest dominance, it appears that in the 2nd and 3rd centuries AD, at Porolissum there was an anthropogenic open landscape covering over 2158 ha, with urbanization and intense military activity on 198.76 ha.

The Functions and Use of Roman Coinage

Abstract In this publication Fleur Kemmers gives an overview of 21st century scholarship on Roman coinage for students and scholars in the fields of ancient history and Roman archaeology. First, it addresses the study of numismatics as a discipline and the theoretical and methodological advances of the last decades. Secondly, it provides guidelines for how to consult numismatic reference works, including those available online. Recent scholarly approaches and insights in the functions of Roman coins as both vehicles of political communication and instruments for state payments are critically assessed. Furthermore, the publication reviews the evidence for a conscious monetary policy on the part of the Roman authorities. Finally, the impact of Roman expansion and imperialism on monetisation and coin use in Rome´s Empire is discussed.

Postnationalism and the Past: The Politics of Theory in Roman Archaeology

European archaeology faces two significant challenges: the intractability of old national narratives about the past, combined with the resurgence of reactionary populism, and the need to update the toolkit of social archaeological theory to meet the challenges presented by the current global political climate. The theory of postnationalism offers one way of addressing both the present political situation and the need to rejuvenate archaeological theory to meet this danger—it provides both a warning of how nationalism continues to influence research and an entreaty for archaeology to embrace its political nature. By exploring the history of scholarship and politics in Roman archaeology in Romania and the public reception of Roman studies in Britain through the lens of postnationalism, this paper argues that while the past has always been and always will be political, archaeology as a discipline is at a watershed moment—archaeologists must become unapologetic political actors.

A conversation with Alain Schnapp

On 13 November 2017, Yannis Hamilakis, Felipe Rojas, and several other archaeologists at Brown University engaged in a conversation with Alain Schnapp about his life and career. Hamilakis and Rojas were interested in learning about how Schnapp’s early academic and political interests intersected with the history of Classics and classical archaeology in France, Europe and elsewhere in the world, and also about the origins and current aims of Schnapp’s work on the history of archaeology and antiquarianism and the cross-cultural history of ruins. Schnapp and his interlocutors began by discussing Schnapp’s formative years and the intersections between archaeology and politics in mid-20th-century France. Their conversation turns to the role of individual scholars, specifically classicists and archaeologists, in the momentous social events in Paris in 1968. The final part of the dialogue concerns Schnapp’s contributions to the history of archaeology and the possibilities of engaging in the comparison of antiquarian traditions.

From the Editor

Next article FreeFrom the EditorStephanie L. BudinStephanie L. Budin Search for more articles by this author PDFPDF PLUSFull Text Add to favoritesDownload CitationTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints Share onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditEmailQR Code SectionsMoreHello, Readers! This summer brings a new and fascinatingly diverse issue of Near Eastern Archaeology to your mail-box or in-box (or both). The word “diversity” has been seeing a lot of use in the Humanities and Social Sciences lately. Usually it refers to the ethnic make-up of a student body, or the racial make-up of a faculty, or some such combination of human capital. In this instance, however, “diversity” refers to the range of times, places, methodologies, and topics of significance within the over-arching category of Near Eastern archaeology. Most basic to this field is digging, and in this issue we have two articles on what came out of the ground from such “dirt archaeology.” A magnificent hoard of silver and jewelry from Bronze Age Megiddo graces the pages, giving a taste of ANE aesthetics and elite (if perhaps atypical) storing practices. Much later in time is evidence for Greek influence in the religion of Roman Ashkelon, specifically a cult of Dionysos the Releaser in local funerary cult (“grapes and panthers and bottles, oh my!”)Objects make up half the story of the ancient Near East; the other half is words, a field often associated with philologists. But writing, “words that stay,” must also be appreciated for its physicality, and the cross-over between iconography and epigraphy is never so strong as with hieroglyphics. In a study of the tomb of a Middle Kingdom functionary named Henenu in Thebes, we get the opportunity to see in practice modern techniques of Egyptian paleography, from the study of different “hands” and the processes of rendering official inscriptions to the modern practice of creating databases.Digging in the dirt gets us so far. Lately, there has also been a focus on digging in museums. A recent trend in studying dinosaurs is “Drawer Paleontology”— going through the thousands of shelves and files and cases of bones dug up throughout the century to see what was found and hidden and that now may shed new light. A longstanding meme in classical archaeology was that the greatest discoveries of the century would be when someone went through the apothekê (basement) of the Thebes Museum in Greece. All due respect to Thebes, but such a find has come to light closer to home in Philadelphia, where two stunning Punic stelae from North Africa emerged from the basement of the University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology. An even greater basement emergence occurred in New York at the Metropolitan Museum of Art, when the Cesnola collection of Cypriot Art was granted its lovely new exhibit space. How that collection was gathered and became the foundation of the Met’s international prestige in the Gilded Age is another of this issue’s topics.Finally, one might ask to what end archaeology, if not for the edification, understanding, and preservation of the present. Thus here we present the ongoing restoration of a medieval shrine to the biblical patriarch Joseph, including the research that went into understanding its manifestations throughout history and the methods now being used to preserve this priceless cultural artifact for posterity.From Egypt and Israel to Philadelphia and New York; from the Bronze Age to the Gilded Age to the Silicon Age. Near Eastern archaeology has a breadth and range that covers the globe, really, allowing us to understand where we came from, how we got to where we are, and how to persevere into the future. More likely than not, the answers are in the basement. Next article DetailsFiguresReferencesCited by Near Eastern Archaeology Volume 82, Number 2June 2019 A journal of ASOR Article DOIhttps://doi.org/10.1086/704707 Copyright 2019 American Schools of Oriental ResearchPDF download Crossref reports no articles citing this article.

Construction of the racialised and colonised other: global comparatives in imperial and colonial archaeology

Whereas Sarr and Savoy (2018) focus on artefacts taken from various African countries after 1885, Incidental archaeologists, considers “the first four decades of the French conquest and pacification of Algeria under the authority of the French military Government General” (p. 24). Throughout the volume, Effros presents a convincing argument in which the social history of military infrastructure lays the groundwork for the future of the French civilising mission. She is clear about the magnitude of the task that the book is engaged in; it provides links between early French archaeologists and epigraphers and their place within the development of the disciplines. It also considers the ways by which romanticised narratives, created by French officers, about the classical archaeology of Algeria led to irresponsible destruction of antiquity, violence against local resistant populations and classifications that became constitutive of colonial archaeological interest and practice.

The Roman Amphitheatre of Chester, Vol. 1, The Prehistoric and Roman Archaeology. By T. Wilmott and D. Garner. Chester Archaeological Excavation and Survey Report 16. Oxbow, Oxford, 2018. Pp. xxvi + 509, figs 334. Price: £30.00.isbn 9781785707445 (bound); 9781785707452 (e-book).

The Roman Amphitheatre of Chester, Vol. 1, The Prehistoric and Roman Archaeology. By T. Wilmott and D. Garner. Chester Archaeological Excavation and Survey Report 16. Oxbow, Oxford, 2018. Pp. xxvi + 509, figs 334. Price: £30.00. isbn9781785707445 (bound); 9781785707452 (e-book). - Volume 50

Art and Archaeology

Change is what keeps the study of classical art and archaeology in business. The stories that we tell of ancient material culture – about form, function, and modes of response – are premised on the continuities that we trace, no less than on our evidence for rift or rupture. In each case, historical analyses ofhowthings developed coalesce with critical attempts to explainwhythey did so. Answers shuffle and shift. But the project of describing and interpreting change remains constant.