Bryn Mawr College Scholarship, Research, and Creative Work at Bryn Mawr College Classical and Near Eastern Archaeology Faculty Classical and Near Eastern Archaeology Research and Scholarship

1983 Review of Caryatid Mirrors of Ancient : Technical, Stylistic and Historical Considerations of an Archaic and Early Classical Bronze Series, by Lenore O. Keene Congdon Brunilde S. Ridgway Bryn Mawr College, [email protected]

Let us know how access to this document benefits ouy . Follow this and additional works at: http://repository.brynmawr.edu/arch_pubs Part of the Classical Archaeology and Art History Commons, and the History of Art, Architecture, and Archaeology Commons

Custom Citation Ridgway, Brunilde S. 1983. Review of Caryatid Mirrors of Ancient Greece: Technical, Stylistic and Historical Considerations of an Archaic and Early Classical Bronze Series, by Lenore O. Keene Congdon. American Journal of Archaeology 87:279-281.

This paper is posted at Scholarship, Research, and Creative Work at Bryn Mawr College. http://repository.brynmawr.edu/arch_pubs/23

For more information, please contact [email protected].

Caryatid Mirrors of Ancient Greece. Technical, Stylistic and Historical Considerations of an Archaic and Early Classical Bronze Series by Lenore O. Keene Congdon Review by: Brunilde Sismondo Ridgway American Journal of Archaeology, Vol. 87, No. 2 (Apr., 1983), pp. 279-281 Published by: Archaeological Institute of America Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/504947 . Accessed: 07/02/2012 16:55

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Archaeological Institute of America is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to American Journal of Archaeology.

http://www.jstor.org 1983] BOOK REVIEWS 279 graphy? To qualify as useful to the latter group, a site re- is one treatedto an up-to-date considerationof some of the port should be written clearly, organized logically, illus- controversiesthat have heated the literature in years past, trated well, and should contain aids to help the reader sum- such as the urban status of early Jericho, or the role of agri- marize and relate variousfacets of the reportto one another. culture and irrigationin the foundingof the settlement.For Volume 3 scores positively in all regards, yet the nature of an overview of the way in which various parts of the site the subject matter and of the excavation itself is such that relate to one another and to the history of the region, one only the most resolutereader will attemptto digest the more should refer to the many previous,shorter publications and then 500 pages of text and nearly 350 photographicdetails the popular books, Digging Up Jericho and Archaeologyin and line drawings of plans and sections. Problems of com- the Holy Land. prehension are exacerbatedby the unusual number of ar- At the time of the project,Kenyon was at the forefrontof chaeologicalfindspots (phases) and by the number of sepa- excavationarchaeology, as exemplifiedby her carefulstrati- rate trenches (sites) and squares. An index (Appendix D) graphic exposures through the depth of the mound, de- requires 171/2double- pages to list the nearly 1800 signed to answer specific questions about the successionof stages and phases that are describedseparately in the text. events at the site. Her methods, themselves derived from In this listing, as in the text, the phases of each trench are those of Sir Mortimer Wheeler, continue to be emulated treated separately so that, for example, to find the infor- around the world, but she herself was mindful as she wrote mation on strata containing Early Bronze Age material re- the text of still newer techniques and she lamented,for ex- quires looking at the relevant sections of 7 text chapters, ample, that flotation had not been invented in the 1950s. each of which deals with the strata in a trench or set of She defendednot sieving all the soil on the ground that she squares. Overall summaries of the EBA and other periods would never have reachedthe bottom. She is right on both are reservedfor the final volume. scores-much more might have been recoveredby moreme- Owing to the long period of production, during which ticulous methods,but then we might not know the singular time many personswere involvedin draftingthe many com- importanceof this site for the early Neolithic. There is suffi- plicated plans and sections, there are some inconsistencies cient materialleft for anotherexcavation; we may hope that and inaccuraciesin presentationwhich have been corrected an equally astute field technician will one day resume the by the editor in captions to save the time and expense of job where Kenyon left off. redrafting.The result is wholly satisfactoryfor the serious FRANK HOLE reader who will, nevertheless, have to look closely at the DEPARTMENT OF ANTHROPOLOGY small-scale sections. YALE UNIVERSITY The volume contains two reports by specialists, Appen- NEW HAVEN, CONNECTICUT 06520 dix A, by I.W. Cornwall on "The Pre-Pottery Neolithic Burials," and Appendix B, by G. Kurth and D. Rohrer- CARYATID MIRRORS OF ANCIENT GREECE. TECHNI- "On the of the Mesolithic to Chalco- Ertl, Anthropology CAL, STYLISTIC AND HISTORICAL CONSIDERATIONS lithic Human Remains." Appendix C, "Radiocarbon OF AN ARCHAIC AND EARLY CLASSICAL BRONZE Dates," was assembledby R. Burleigh. The text and plates are printed separately, a format that makes it possible to SERIES, by Lenore O. Keene Congdon. Pp. xiv + refer to the figures at the same time as one is reading the 288, 264 photographs in 97 pls., figs. 29, tables 5, relevant text sections. map 1. Philipp von Zabern, Mainz 1981. DM 390. In recent archaeologicalliterature, considerablespace is often given to the rationale-the historicalproblem or theo- Congdon's book, announced several years ago as forth- retical interest-for the excavation.A similar space is often coming, has been a long time in the making. Completedas a devotedto a discussionof the relation between the methods Harvard dissertationin 1963, the text was expanded and used and the salient researchproblems. There is none of this revised by 1968, but the process of updating and reorgani- here. Kenyongives 5 pages of backgroundon previousexca- zation continued until 1976, when the final list of mirrors vations and a few sentences on what she wanted to find. and the bibliographywere set in galley proof. The Preface Rarely in a technicaldiscussion of a phase does she refer to bears a closing date of March 1977, and copies of the book methods, and then only to explain a deviationfrom custom. began to reach librarieslate in 1981. This belaboredgenesis To Kenyon it was self-evidentwhy one wanted to dig Jer- bespeaks the great love of the subject which sustained the icho and, as for her methods,these had been exposed in her author through such prolonged gestation, but it also ex- text, Beginning in Archaeology. plains defectsin the final product. One must bear in mind that volume 3 is strictly focussed Congdonhas cataloguedall the caryatidmirrors that she on architectureand stratigraphy,although it was originally can confidentlyassign to Greece proper or to East Greece. planned to include the artifacts.Thus, the discussionis un- Nos. 1-109 are supported by female figures, 110-13 by enlivenedby descriptionsof the artifactsfound amongstthe male; 114-19 are relatedto the main series but could belong strata and bricks,and still less by any interpretationof func- to Magna Graecian workshops (and in fact many of them tional mattersthat might be inferredfrom the artifacts.Nor recur in the briefer descriptionsof Western mirrorswhich 280 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGY [AJA 87 follow the catalogueproper); 120-34 are miscellaneousfig- with works of majorsculpture, Congdon still dates the Ido- urines at some time identified as mirror caryatidsbut con- lino ca. 420 B.C. (p. 104) and, despiteher female repertoire, sidered questionable. Appendix I-H lists 18 items which often draws her parallels from Richter'sKouroi. could originally have been accessoriesto mirrors,e.g., flying Drapery is not fully exploited for chronologicalclues, Erotes and small animals. Efforts have been made to in- perhaps becauseCongdon's treatment of costumeis ambiva- clude objectsin private collectionsand mirrors now lost or lent. In her Appendixon dress (I-A, p. 107), she draws only of unknown location; the author pleads to be informed of three variant forms for the Ionic and two for the Doric cos- possible addenda. The main items in the Catalogue (nos. tume, and on p. 7 explains the differencesbetween peplos 1-119) are illustrated almost without exception, often in and Doric chiton only in n. 3. But the various entries allow more than one view and in excellent halftones, even when for greater complexity, and items such as a poncho-like the quality of the obtainablephotographs leaves much to be short garment (no. 7A), "a thin shawl formedof two semi- desired. circularpieces" (no.21), and a long diagonal himation (e.g., Although catalogueentries are usually extensive,the sec- no. 27) are mentioned.This reviewerdoes not always agree tion preceding the Catalogue occupies almost half the vol- with Congdon'sinterpretations of the attire, but admittedly ume. The mirrors are reviewed in terms of their possible these caryatidsare often more idiosyncraticallydressed than origin (Egypt); the meaning of the caryatids (goddesses, any of their larger marble sisters and deserve more study possibly Aphrodite, and/or temple attendants and musi- from the specific point of view of . Nos. 37 and cians); the nature and developmentof the componentparts 71 are considered archaistic and dated between 480 and (e.g., base, cradle, brace, disc); techniques;areas of manu- 450; but an elaborate peplophoros-mirrorin Copenhagen facture and distribution; and chronology. The caryatids (no. 93) is acceptedas belonging to the third quarter of the themselves are considered the most significant diagnostic fifth century. I would agree with FKP I (pp. 43-44) that it element, especially since, as the author stresses, detachable is an Augustan imitation of a classical prototype. parts have often been combinedby dealers with non-perti- According to Congdon's classification,caryatid mirrors nent mirrorsto form new "wholes." begin ca. 620 with a remarkableseries of naked female sup- Most informativeand authoritativeis the sectionon tech- ports which persist into the fifth century.Although few mir- niques, based on the author's personal experimentation. rors were made before 550, the appearanceof the "Standing The variety of casting methods exemplified by the compo- Ionic"caryatid at that time quickensthe tempo,with peaksof nent parts of a caryatid mirror would support Congdon's productiontoward the end of the century. New impetus is assertion that these are productsof high quality which re- given around490 by the introductionof the "StandingDoric" quired considerable individual attention. Her suggestion type, but manufacturedecreases after 450, with only one ex- that discs were "water-cast"by pouring melted wax into ample assignedto 425-400 or later. Of regionalworkshops, heated water introducesa new techniqueaccounting for the the Laconian is the earliest and lasts longest (until ca. 480), slight convexityof some surfaceshardly obtainable by man- followed by the more sporadic production of the Eastern ual processes.Although some commentson steel production Greek (ca. 550-450); Corinthian mirrors fall between 540 in antiquity may have to be revised in light of more recent and 520, and a gap separatesthem from a groupof Pelopon- discoveries,this part of Congdon'sstudy may prove of en- nesian caryatidsof tentative attribution("Argive"; "Sikyo- during value. nian"; "Argo-Corinthian"and "Corinthian")which may Regional and chronologicalattributions seem less per- have been spearheadedby Argos. Only two Caryatidsare as- manent. Little objectiveevidence exists, and stylistic assess- signed to the "Attic"group, and two more are consideredre- ment will not meet with general agreement.A virtually si- lated (contrastFKP I and its emphasison Attic workshops). multaneous publication, R. Tolle-Kastenbein's Friihklas- This highly complexpicture would be of greatsignificance if sische PeplosfigurenI (= FKP I, 1981; see review, AJA 86 regional attributions inspired more confidence;Congdon [1982] 139-40), although not specifically concerned with herself admits that some of her caryatidscould be Magna mirrors,includes 61 items also cataloguedby Congdon;yet Graecian;see, e.g., nos. 86 and 88. regional attributionscoincide in only 3 cases. If FKP I has The bookhas sufferedfrom the lack of an English-speak- the advantageof placing mirror caryatidswithin the larger ing editor, and contains an unusual number (for von Zab- contextof contemporarybronzes, Congdon can, to some ex- ern) of typographicalerrors. Nos. 56-57, of unknown loca- tent, corroborateher stylistic analysis through typological tion, are N.M. 14618 and 7622 respectively(FKP I, study of accessories.Yet her drawings charting the evolu- nos. 26b and 26c). Congdonis extremely fair in presenting tion of motifs and shapes of componentparts, although po- her evidenceand has providednumerous tables, indices and tentially helpful, may not be reliable:cf., e.g., p. 93, fig. 15, cross-references;the amount of work expendedin her study drawing of no. 60, with pls. 54-55; or fig. 15 no. 87 with pl. must have been staggering. That her conclusions may be 82. Not only are contourssimplified or altered, but relative challengeddoes not detractfrom the value of having a clear- proportionsare not respected.As for stylistic comparisons ly establishedterminology for the variousmirror parts, and 1983] BOOK REVIEWS 281 a careful technical discussion.The photographicdocumen- sigkeit," confidently invoked as canons, are left floating, tation assembledby the author is impressiveand her corpus without referents. It is an especially serious lack in a study of mirrorswill form the core of all future research. of this nature that there are no chartsor schematicrepresen- BRUNILDESISMONDO RIDGWAY tations of letter forms as postulatedfor differenteras. The notes on items are as an DEPARTMENTOF CLASSICAL AND NEAR EASTERN following particular offered addition to those of A.W. in 101 ARCHAEOLOGY Johnston JHS (1981) 223-24. No. 2: Two of the 3 sherds those BRYNMAWR COLLEGE presented here, labelled(a) and (b), originallybelonged to a singlepot and BRYNMAWR, PENNSYLVANIA 19010 presumablyto the same inscription.The sherd labelled (c) is from a different and of a differentin- INSCHRIFTEN AUF KORINTHISCHENVASEN. ARCHAO- pot preservespart scription.It ought thereforeto have a numberof its own. As LOGISCH-EPIGRAPHISCHE UNTERSUCHUNGEN ZUR for date, K. De Vries advisesme (per litt.) that all 3 pieces, KORINTHISCHEN VASENMALEREI IM 7 UND 6 JH. V. found with abundantand comparativelyhomogeneous con- textual to a time bounded Protoco- CHR., by Fritz Lorber. (Deutsches Archdiologisches pottery,belong by Early rinthian (ca. 720-690) and Middle Protocorinthian Institut. Archdiologische Forschungen 6.) Pp. x + (690-675). No. 4: The printed text does not represent all 46. Gebr. Mann Berlin 138, figs. 59, pls. Verlag, vestigesof lettersshown in the facsimile.No. 5: Add that the 1979. DM 130. inscriptionis a graffito.No. 39: Amongdubious instances of = OY in Corinthian Lorber Humfry Payne, NC (1931), lists 75 Corinthian inscrip- O early orthography, offers that he be tions on vases, none on pinakes or metopes, but he does use hepaKAEogwithout noting may creating thereby an anomalousintrusion of Attic For the Doric the latter as comparanda.R. Arena, "Le iscrizioni corinzie spelling. gen- itive of Of more su vasi" (1967) lists 96 inscriptionson vases and none on "Herakles,"see, e.g., LSJ9 s.v. moment, Lorber elects to believe that 12 927 pinakes and metopes. His curtailmentof evidenceis odd in (improbably) IG might be He thus disembarrasseshis of re- view of his aim, which is a philological commentary. Lor- Megarian. theorizing data and can answerable to the accu- ber's collection numbers 154 inscriptions, most of them, in fractory proceed, only of his own observations and accordance with his title, on Corinthian vases, but including racy (of photographs drawings, let it be and his own for internal also selected pinakes and metopes. His wider selection is remembered) requirements Small wonderthen that in his welcome for itself and useful for the principal theme of his consistency. "Vorbemerkung" he can of his to investigation-letter shapes and lettering styles. (p. 1) speak optimistically applying findings den bisher schwer datierbarenarchaischen Stein- und Lorber, in a catalogue, gives full descriptions of vases and "... Metallinschriften..." No. 40: From own inscriptions. In a concluding essay he expresses faith in the (my italics). my examinationsof this I note that no. 40.2 efficacy of a chronology based on shapes and dispositions of vessel, may possibly be read and that the middle letter of Troilos letters. The essay also includes notes on spelling errors, use YO[UI]OEOL, be a written backwards No. of non-Corinthian letters, the genitive case, the article, may square digamma (3). 82: clear in the has out of the painters' signatures (5, representing 3 painters) and figures Zeta, facsimile, dropped printed text of the of from saga. At the end, he comparespainting styles with let- alphabet. Identification the last two letters is The middle letter of Troilos seems to me tering styles. Indexes follow, listing proper names, other provisional. (again on words, uncertainreadings, nonsense inscriptions,alphabets personal inspection) to be a square digamma (C). Di- in on (three) and non-Corinthiannames. The plates are of good gamma the alphabet the same aryballosis formeddif- but that sort of quality. ferently (F) inconsistencyis not without No. 121: A text some six names Besides pinakes and metopes, Lorber includes much precedents. printed showing has been omittedhere. et al. of this other interesting and valuable material that appears in nei- unaccountably Sarpedon are absent from the ther Payne nor Arena, e.g., nos. 4, 5, 6, 33, 47, 48, 49, 50, inscription accordingly index. 57, 58, 59, 60, 67, 68, 82, 95, 96, 98, 99, 112, 128, 131, Some missing items (again supplementingJohnston) are: 132, 133, 134, 136, 146, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 154. Re- Hesperia 7 (1938) 584, no. 63, fig. 1; REA 49 (1947) 36; grettably, more than half the total number of inscriptions SEG 11.157, 196, 197, 200, 229; 16.237; 22.208; 25.343-45. appear without facsimiles, and of those that Lorber does students well be present, 55 are drawn from others' photographs or pub- Although may wary of using Lorber's constructionsto date Corinthian it lished drawings, not from autopsy. Consequently when inscriptions, is good to have this Lorber makes some fine observation concerning the thick- handsome,well printed collectionof material that ness of a brush stroke or the cursiveness of a letter, a reader is not in its entiretyotherwise easy of access. often has no immediate way of seeing what he means. For ALAN L. BOEGEHOLD the same reason, his persistent criticism of the quality of DEPARTMENT OF CLASSICS Arena's facsimiles does not carry the weight it might. Fur- BROWN UNIVERSITY thermore, notions like "Ausgewogenheit" and "Gleichmdis- PROVIDENCE, RHODE ISLAND 02912