American Journal of Archaeology

This article presents the first publication and discussion of an unusual sarcophagus from Aphrodisias that depicts the birth of Dionysos and the infant’s arrival at Nysa. The sarcophagus is remarkable, despite its battered appearance, as mythological frieze sarcophagi represent less than 1% of the total production in Roman Asia Minor, where thus far this sarcophagus imagery is unparalleled. However, even in the metropolitan production of Rome, where mythological frieze sarcophagi are commonplace, this narrative appears on few sarcophagi. I argue that the appearance of this mythological narrative at Aphrodisias pertains more to local circumstances and regional context than to the mythological frieze sarcophagi produced elsewhere.

The Sacred Way connecting the city of Miletos to the sanctuary of Didyma has long been considered one of the best-documented examples of a processional road from the ancient world. Views of the road have become ossified around an orthodox reconstruction of the route, which is assumed to have remained relatively static from the Archaic to the Roman period. A reexamination of the full epigraphic and archaeological evidence, incorporating the latest research in the region, highlights the many gaps in our knowledge and the possibility that the route and identity of the Sacred Way may have changed substantially through time. Computational modeling of the local topography confirms the feasibility of alternative routes and the effect that probable long-term landscape change around Panormos might have had. This article calls for a fresh characterization of the Sacred Way from Miletos to Didyma, which envisages multiple periods of (re)invention and (re)construction from the Archaic period right up to the modern day.

Through an analysis of the ninth- to eighth-century B.C.E. mortuary assemblages from the Queens’ Tombs of Nimrud’s Northwest Palace in Iraq, this article interprets dress elements and ensembles in terms of identity and ideology. The Queens’ Tombs offer the only in situ evidence for royal Neo-Assyrian female dress. The finds, which have never before been studied as comprehensive ensembles, correspond to the few surviving images of Neo-Assyrian queens and greatly expand our evidence for the manner in which a queen’s ideal appearance was constructed and embodied. Considering dress in death, as well as in life and the afterlife, this article proposes a standard, but flexible, queenly ensemble. To facilitate analyses, I present a figural model based on an aggregation of archaeological, art historical, and literary evidence for ideal royal women. I then analyze the dress elements and ensembles as expressions of courtly, queenly, and individual identity. Finally, I interpret queenly dress as an ideological mechanism that manifested imperial power through its materials, style, and iconography. Overall, this article aims to provide a new foundation for more thoroughly integrating the visual and material presence of queens into interpretations of the Neo-Assyrian court and its eternally conceived universe.

The study of maritime trade in Late Bronze Age Greece often focuses on the analysis of imported exotica, which are usually interpreted as luxury goods used by elites to express or entrench social difference. A contextual analysis of exotica from the 12th-century cemetery at Perati does not support the notion that imports from the Postpalatial Aegean fit such an interpretation. I examine the context, distribution, and characteristics of imported objects at Perati and argue that the cemetery was the setting for a wide-ranging array of mortuary rituals that involved the deposition of exotic objects with members of the community across spectra of wealth, age, and gender. Exotica at Perati, instead of indicating elite strategies or economic exchanges, might best be understood as the residue of diverse mortuary beliefs and rituals operative within a culturally heterogeneous resident community.

While some aspects of Arthur Evans’ framework for the Minoan civilization have undergone modification, its main defining characteristics remain widely accepted. We should find the endurance of Evans’ theoretical framework surprising rather than comforting, not least because of the slim empirical and epistemological basis for its formation. This study provides a detailed exploration of the genesis of concepts such as the Minoan palace (or palace-sanctuary), the priest-king, the mother goddess, and the essentially European (non-“Oriental”) character of the Minoans. By situating these concepts within Evans’ narrative project, I try to demonstrate that these are not objective interpretations that flow obviously from the data but rather began life as preconceptions formed by Evans as part of his Eurocentric agenda, well before the start of his excavations at Knossos. His modus operandi was to borrow selectively from theories and ideas (e.g., of race) that were current at the time in order to propagate his idea of Minoan civilization as the earliest in Europe and distinct in nature from other, better-known civilizations of the East (e.g., Egypt, Mesopotamia).

I am honored to serve as the new Museum Review Editor for the AJA. The museum reviews began as a formal feature of the AJA in 2005 but were dormant from 2013 until the spring of 2017. It is a pleasure to participate in their revival. Museum exhibitions and new installations are of central importance to archaeologists. They are both works of scholarship and one of the most powerful ways our field communicates its findings with the wider public. They deserve close and careful examination by specialists.

This is an exciting and challenging time for museums. Directors and curators are working to make their collections accessible to broad audiences while maintaining academic rigor. They strive to negotiate conflicting demands for connectivity and contemplation, to address issues of identity and representation, and to meet difficult financial challenges without compromising their missions. At their best, today’s museums foster exploration, curiosity, empathy, and intellectual inquiry among diverse publics. Archaeological collections and exhibitions have benefitted from this more inclusive approach. Inventive displays, renovated spaces, new technologies, imaginative storytelling, and institutional loans and collaborations have expanded audiences for archaeological collections. At the same time, there are challenges. Collections of antiquities can raise powerful questions about the acquisition and ownership of cultural property, the history of collecting, and the politics of display. Such innovations and challenges make this an especially compelling time for the AJA to cast a critical eye on new installations and exhibitions.

My vision for the museum reviews is that they will cover a broad range of museums and exhibitions that offer important interpretations of ancient cultures and their material remains. I also intend for the museum reviews to be a space for discussion about the public face of archaeology. To that end, I welcome reviews of noteworthy exhibitions that show how archaeological knowledge is produced, that highlight the results of recent archaeological research, that speak to ethical concerns faced by archaeologists and museum professionals, and that engage visitors in innovative ways. I also encourage reviews of important exhibitions that focus on the history of archaeological excavations and collections or the preservation and conservation of archaeological materials. Along with reviews of exhibitions in prominent museums, I welcome reviews of significant new site museums and of notable exhibitions in university and smaller museums. My aim is to draw attention to influential new work as well as emerging trends.

Museum reviews will cover worldwide exhibitions that fit within the journal’s purview as defined by the Governing Board of the AIA, embracing “the art and archaeology of ancient Europe and the Mediterranean world, including the Near East and Egypt, from prehistoric to Late Antique times.” Reviews of exhibitions that address the reception of ancient European and Mediterranean art and archaeology (such as Elizabeth S. Greene and Justin Leidwanger’s review in this issue of Damien Hirst’s recent work) will also be considered. Reviews should offer a balanced and thought-provoking evaluation of an exhibition’s strengths and weaknesses. They should also address the implications of an exhibition for scholars, museums, and public audiences. Comments are encouraged on the value of the catalogue as a permanent record of an exhibition and a work of scholarship. Further guidelines for reviews can be found in the Author Guide on AJA Online.

Museum Reviews follow the AJA’s policy on the publication of recently acquired antiquities (AJA 121 [2017] 2; 109 [2005] 135–36). At a strict minimum, reviews of exhibitions or collections need to acknowledge any objects in those exhibitions or collections acquired since 1973 that do not have a legitimate provenance and that have not received a proper initial presentation. In such cases, reviews should call attention to “how much information and value is lost when an object is illegally removed from its archaeological context” (AJA 109 [2005] 136). The policy is a simple one, but it requires vigilance on the part of reviewers. Here I write from personal experience. In my (very favorable) April 2017 review of the Museo Arqueológico Nacional de España in Madrid (AJA 121 [2017] 333–41), I failed to document the dispute over some of the vases in the Várez Fisa Collection, which have been tied to the antiquities dealers Giacomo Medici and Gianfranco Becchina.1 I am currently investigating the status of the vases and will document it in an addendum to the review in a future issue of the AJA. For my purposes here, however, this example is a powerful reminder (and a painful one for the incoming Museum Review Editor) of the necessity of very close attention to collecting histories.

The plan is to publish quarterly reviews on AJA Online. Synthetic review articles that cover broader topics or trends across multiple institutions or exhibitions will appear in the print fascicles of the journal. A new feature is an online list of current and upcoming museum exhibitions. I welcome input from readers for additions to this list. While the Museum Review Editor typically invites reviews, I also welcome inquiries from potential reviewers as well as ideas and suggestions from readers for reviews or reviewers.

I would like to thank Jane B. Carter, Madeleine J. Donachie, David L. Stone, Isabel Cusack, and Beth Cohen for their encouragement, wisdom, and assistance and to express my gratitude to the College of Wooster for its generous support.

This is a particularly ripe moment for the AJA to critically review museum exhibitions, and I look forward to the discussions that will follow.

Josephine Shaya
Museum Review Editor
Department of Classical Studies
Kauke Hall
The College of Wooster
400 East University Street
Wooster, Ohio 44691
jshaya@wooster.edu

• 1. D. McGill, “Madrid: Indifference is Not an Option,” Looting Matters, 13 July 2010, http://lootingmatters.blogspot.com/2010/07/madrid-indifference-is-not-option.html; F. Isman, “Looted from Italy and Now in a Major Spanish Museum?” Art Newspaper 19 (July/August 2010) 4; F. Isman, “Antichitá: I tesori che l’Italia non rivendica,” Il Messaggero, 21 April 2012, 23.

It has been an interesting and challenging first year as the Editor-in-Chief of the AJA, and I continue to have much to learn. During 2017, we were able to maintain an average of about five months from the date of submission to the date of the initial decision. The interval from the date of submission to the date of publication varies depending on how many times a manuscript must be revised and re-reviewed; the median time to publication for the articles that appeared in volume 121, issue 4 (October 2017), was between 10 and 11 months.

In speaking with colleagues, I have been surprised to learn that some readers of the AJA are not familiar with the AJA e-Update, a monthly email newsletter with links to the journal’s online open access material and a list of the full contents of the latest issue. AJA’s open access content includes book reviews, museum exhibition reviews, and one or two articles from each issue; all of this can be accessed with a click or two via the monthly email. The e-Update is available to everyone, both subscribers to the AJA and nonsubscribers. However, subscribers to the AJA should be aware that they must opt in to receive the e-Update; out of consideration to overburdened inboxes, the AJA does not send the monthly message to subscribers unless they request it. To receive the e-Update, go to www.ajaonline.org/e-update.

A letter from Josephine Shaya, the new Museum Review Editor for the AJA, appears in the following pages. Jo will soon introduce a new section on AJA Online that will provide information about current and upcoming museum exhibitions related to topics within the scope of the AJA (defined by the AIA’s Governing Board as “the art and archaeology of ancient Europe and the Mediterranean world, including the Near East and Egypt, from prehistoric to Late Antique times”). The list will include exhibitions worldwide and give dates, locations, the availability of catalogues, and other pertinent information. Scholars often know about exhibitions planned or current in their own areas of specialization; we hope that many will be interested in shows about other areas of ancient European, Mediterranean, and Near East archaeology.

My previous Editorial Assistant, Michael McGlin, returned to full-time work on his dissertation at SUNY Buffalo. I want to thank Mike for much hard work and dedication. My new Editorial Assistant is Christine Johnston, a specialist in the Late Bronze Age Mediterranean, who lives in Vancouver, B.C., and teaches at Western Washington University.

Jane B. Carter
Editor-in-Chief
44 Beacon Street, 2nd Floor
Boston, Massachusetts 02108-3614
jcarter@tulane.edu