American Journal of Archaeology

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGY

THE JOURNAL OF THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL INSTITUTE OF AMERICA

Volume 106 • No. 3 July 2002 ARCHAEOLOGICAL INSTITUTE OF AMERICA 2002

OFFICERS Nancy C. Wilkie, President Jane C. Waldbaum, First Vice President Ricardo J. Elia, Vice President for Professional Responsibilities Naomi J. Norman, Vice President for Publications Cameron Jean Walker, Vice President for Societies Jeffrey A. Lamia, Treasurer Hector Williams, President, AIA Canada

HONORARY PRESIDENTS Frederick R. Matson, Robert H. Dyson, Jr., Machteld J. Mellink, James R. Wiseman, Martha Sharp Joukowsky, James Russell

GOVERNING BOARD Karen Alexander Dorinda J. Oliver Elizabeth Bartman Kathleen A. Pavelko Mary Beth Buck Alice S. Riginos Eric H. Cline John J. Roche Michael Cosmopoulos Lucille Roussin Susan Downey Anne H. Salisbury Neathery Batsell Fuller Joan Schiele Kevin Glowacki Catherine Sease James R. James, Jr. John H. Stubbs Charles S. La Follette Kathryn A. Thomas Richard Leventhal Barbara Tsakirgis Jodi Magness Patty Jo Watson Carol C. Mattusch Robyn M. Webby Francis P. McManamon Michael Wiseman Andrew M.T. Moore Robyn Woodward

TRUSTEES EMERITI

Richard H. Howland Norma Kershaw

PAST PRESIDENT

Stephen L. Dyson

Jacqueline Rosenthal, Executive Director Leonard V. Quigley, of Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, General Counsel

MEMBERSHIP IN THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL INSTITUTE OF AMERICA AND SUBSCRIPTION TO THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGY The American Journal of Archaeology is published by the Archaeological Institute of America in January, April, July, and October. Membership in the AIA, including a subscription to AJA, is $112 per year (C$162.40). Student membership is $64 (C$92.80); proof of full-time status required. A brochure outlining membership benefits is available upon request from the Institute. An annual subscription to AJA is $75 (international, $95); the institutional subscription rate is $250 (international, $290). Institutions are not eligible for individual membership rates. All communications regarding membership, subscriptions, and back issues should be addressed to the Archaeological Institute of America, located at Boston University, 656 Beacon Street, Boston, Massachusetts 02215-2006, tel. 617-353-9361, fax 617-353-6550, email [email protected]. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGY

THE JOURNAL OF THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL INSTITUTE OF AMERICA

EDITORS R. Bruce Hitchner, University of Dayton Editor-in-Chief Marni Blake Walter Kevin Mullen Editor Electronic Operations Manager Paul Rehak & John G. Younger, University of Kansas Co-editors, Book Reviews

ADVISORY BOARD Susan E. Alcock Kenneth W. Harl University of Michigan Tulane University Roger Bagnall Sharon C. Herbert Columbia University University of Michigan Larissa Bonfante Ann Kuttner New York University University of Pennsylvania Joseph C. Carter Claire Lyons University of Texas at Austin The Getty Research Institute John F. Cherry John T. Ma University of Michigan Oxford University Stephen L. Dyson David Mattingly State University of New York at Buffalo University of Leicester Jonathan Edmondson Ian Morris York University Stanford University Elizabeth Fentress Robin Osborne Rome, Italy Cambridge University Timothy E. Gregory Curtis N. Runnels Ohio State University Boston University Julie M. Hansen Mary M. Voigt Boston University College of William and Mary

Naomi J. Norman, ex officio University of Georgia

EDITORIAL ASSISTANTS

David Rich, Krithiga Sekar THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGY, the journal of the Archaeological Institute of America, was founded in 1885; the second series was begun in 1897. Indexes have been published for volumes 1–11 (1885–1896), for the second series, volumes 1–10 (1897–1906) and volumes 11–70 (1907–1966). The Journal is indexed in the Humanities Index, the ABS International Guide to Classical Studies, Current Contents, the Book Review Index, the Avery Index to Architectural Periodicals, Anthropological Literature: An Index to Periodical Articles and Essays, and the Art Index.

MANUSCRIPTS and all communications for the editors should be addressed to Professor R. Bruce Hitchner, Editor-in-Chief, AJA, Archaeological Institute of America, located at Boston University, 656 Beacon Street, Boston, Massachusetts 02215-2006, tel. 617-353-9364, fax 617-353-6550, email [email protected]. The American Journal of Archaeology is devoted to the art and archaeology of ancient Europe and the Mediterranean world, including the Near East and Egypt, from prehistoric to late antique times. The attention of contributors is directed to “Editorial Policy, Instructions for Contributors, and Abbreviations,” AJA 104 (2000) 3–24. Guidelines for AJA authors can also be found on the World Wide Web at www.ajaonline.org. Contributors are requested to include abstracts summarizing the main points and principal conclusions of their articles. Manuscripts, including photocopies of illustrations, should be submitted in triplicate; original photographs, drawings, and plans should not be sent unless requested by the editors. In order to facilitate the peer-review process, all submissions should be prepared in such a way as to maintain anonymity of the author. As the official journal of the Archaeological Institute of America, AJA will not serve for the announcement or initial scholarly presentation of any object in a private or public collection acquired after 30 December 1970, unless the object was part of a previously existing collection or has been legally exported from the country of origin.

BOOKS FOR REVIEW should be sent to Professors Paul Rehak and John G. Younger, Co-editors, AJA Book Reviews, Classics Department, Wescoe Hall, 1445 Jayhawk Blvd., University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas 66045-2139, tel. 785-864-3153, fax 785-864-5566, email [email protected] and [email protected] (please use both addresses for all correspondence). The following are excluded from review and should not be sent: offprints; reeditions, except those with great and significant changes; journal volumes, except the first in a new series; monographs of very small size and scope; and books dealing with the archaeology of the New World.

THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGY (ISSN 0002-9114) is published four times a year in January, April, July, and October by the Archaeological Institute of America, located at Boston Uni- versity, 656 Beacon Street, Boston, Massachusetts 02215-2006, tel. 617-353-9361, fax 617-353-6550, email [email protected]. Subscriptions to the American Journal of Archaeology may be addressed to the Institute headquarters in Boston. An annual subscription is $75 (international, $95); the institutional rate is $250 (international, $290). Membership in the AIA, including a subscription to AJA, is $85 per year (C$123). Student membership is $40 (C$58); proof of full-time status required. International subscriptions and memberships must be paid in U.S. dollars, by a check drawn on a bank in the U.S. or by money order. No replacement for nonreceipt of any issue of AJA will be honored after 90 days (180 days for international subscriptions) from the date of issuance of the fascicle in question. When corresponding about memberships or subscriptions, always give your account number, as shown on the mailing label or invoice. A microfilm edition of the Journal, beginning with volume 53 (1949), is issued after the completion of each volume of the printed edition. Subscriptions to the microfilm edition, which are available only to subscribers to the printed edition of the Journal, should be sent to ProQuest Information and Learning (formerly Bell & Howell Information and Learning), 300 North Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48106. Back numbers of AJA and the Index 1907–1966 may be ordered from the Archaeological Institute of America in Boston. Exchanged periodicals and correspondence relating to exchanges should be directed to the AIA in Boston. Periodicals postage paid at Boston, Massachusetts and additional mailing offices. Postmaster: send address changes to the American Journal of Archaeology, Archaeological Institute of America, located at Boston University, 656 Beacon Street, Boston, Massachusetts 02215-2006.

The opinions expressed in the articles and book reviews published in the American Journal of Archaeology are those of the authors and not of the editors or of the Archaeological Institute of America.

The American Journal of Archaeology is composed in ITC New Baskerville at the offices of the Archaeological Institute of America, located at Boston University.

The paper in this journal is acid-free and meets the guidelines for permanence and durability of the Committee on Production Guidelines for Book Longevity of the Council on Library Resources. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGY

Volume 106 • No. 3 July 2002

ARTICLES Mark Wilson Jones: Tripods, Triglyphs, and the Origin of the Doric Frieze 353

Anne Marie Carstens: Tomb Cult on the Halikarnassos Peninsula 391

Glenn R. Storey: Regionaries-Type Insulae 2: Architectural/Residential Units at Rome 411

NEWSLETTER Stephen H. Savage, Kurt Zamora, and Donald R. Keller: Archaeology in Jordan, 2001 Season 435

REVIEWS Review Articles John J. Shea: Synthesizing the Paleolithic 459 E. Marianne Stern: Glass Is Hot 463

Book Reviews Henderson, The Science and Archaeology of Materials: An Investigation of Inorganic Materials (E. Ferrara) 472 Hather, Archaeological Parenchyma (K. Flint-Hamilton) 473 Pollard, ed., Geoarchaeology: Exploration, Environments, Resources (A.M. Rosen) 474 Bawden and Reycraft, eds., Environmental Disaster and the Archaeology of Human Response (R. Young) 475 Rautman, ed., Reading the Body: Representations and Remains in the Archaeological Record (B. Arnold) 476 Dietler and Hayden, eds., Feasts: Archaeological and Ethnographic Perspectives on Food, Politics and Power (C. Palmer) 477 Hickmann and Eichmann, eds., Studien zur Musikarchäologie. Vol. 1, Saiteninstrumente im archäologischen Kontext, and Hickmann, Laufs, and Eichmann, eds., Studien zur Musikarchäologie. Vol. 2, Musikarchäologie früher Metallzeiten (T.J. Mathiesen) 479 McManus, ed., Archaeological Displays and the Public, 2nd ed. (S. Moser) 481 Piccarreta and Ceraudo, Manuale di aerofotografia archeologica: Metodologia, tecniche e applicazioni (J.W. Myers) 482 Dickers, Die spätmykenischen Siegel aus weichem Stein: Untersuchungen zur spätbronzezeitlichen Glyptik auf dem griechischen Festland und in der Ägäis (O.H. Krzyszkowska) 483 Lichtenberger, Die Baupolitik Herodes des Grossen (S.G. Schmid) 484 Invernizzi, Sculture di metallo da Nisa: Cultura greca e cultura iranica in Partia (S.D. Bundrick) 485 Litvinsky and Pichikian, The Hellenistic Temple of the Oxus in Bactria (South Tajikistan). Vol. 1, Excavations, Architecture, Religious Life (in Russian) (J.D. Lerner) 486 Held, Milesische Forschungen. Vol. 2, Das Heiligtum der Athena in Milet (A.M. Carstens) 487 Bentz and Dehl-von Kaenel, Corpus Vasorum Antiquorum. Deutschland 73: Göttingen, Archäologisches Instituts der Universität 2: Korinthische und etruskische Keramik (H. Thomasen) 488 de Grummond and Ridgway, eds., From Pergamon to Sperlonga: Sculpture and Context (E. Kosmetatou) 489 Damaskos, Untersuchungen zu hellenistischen Kultbildern (J.M. Barringer) 491 Haselberger, ed., Appearance and Essence: Refinements of Classical Architecture: Curvature (L.F. Ball) 492 Oliver, ed., The Epigraphy of Death: Studies in the History and Society of Greece and Rome (P.J.E. Davies) 494 Larese and Sgreva, Le lucerne fittili del museo archeologico di Verona, and Chrzanovski and Zhuravlev, Lamps from Chersonesos in the State Historical Museum Moscow (H. Williams) 496 Ridgway, Serra Ridgway, Pearce, Herring, Whitehouse, and Wilkins, eds., Ancient Italy in Its Mediterranean Setting: Studies in Honour of Ellen Macnamara (L.R. Brody) 497 Haynes, Etruscan Civilization: A Cultural History, and Camporeale, Gli Etruschi: Storia e civiltà (S.J. Schwarz) 498 Coralini, Hercules Domesticus: Imagini di Ercole nelle case della regione vesuviana (I secolo a.c.–79 d.c.) (L. Richardson, jr) 500 Hoff and Rotroff, eds., The Romanization of Athens, and Fentress, ed., Romanization and the City: Creation, Transformations, and Failures (J.C. Anderson, jr.) 501 Blázquez, Los pueblos de España y el Mediterráneo en la antigüedad: Estudios de arqueología, historia y arte (B. Goffaux) 502 Guerrero Ayuso, Arquitectura y poder en la prehistoria de Mallorca (B. Chapman) 503 Themelis, ed., Πρωτυαντιν Ελεθερνα, Τµας I, 2 (J.L. Rife) 504

BOOKS RECEIVED 507 Tripods, Triglyphs, and the Origin of the Doric Frieze MARK WILSON JONES

Abstract Conventional wisdom sees the origin and the The standard wisdom on the origins of the Doric order early development of the Doric order, and hence revolves around the doctrine of petrification, by which a the Doric temple as a whole, as the fruit of con- previously established timber vocabulary came to be per- structional logic mediated by aesthetic experience. petuated in stone once society acquired the means to build in this material. While the petrification doctrine The triglyph frieze is such a paradigm of this way of takes its authority from the Roman architect-writer thinking that merely to raise the question of sym- Vitruvius, and finds support from parallel processes ob- bolic content might appear to be rhetorical or po- servable elsewhere in the world, it none the less copes lemical in intention. inadequately with the archaeological realities of Greece The possibility for conveying meaning in Greek in the late Geometric and early Archaic periods. In particular, the form, size, and placement of the triglyphs in sacred architecture is instead seen to reside ei- the frieze are not necessarily demanded by the logic of ther in the way temples relate to the landscape, timber construction and the configuration of early temple an idea popularized by Vincent Scully in his book superstructures. The Earth, Temple and the Gods,1 or in the sculpture A growing number of scholars accordingly challenge associated with friezes, pediments, and acrote- the Vitruvian consensus, whether by tracing the Doric 2 frieze back to Mycenae, Egypt, the Orient, and idioms of ria. Standing proud as they do against the back- pattern making in Geometric art, or by arguing for sym- drop of mountains, or high up on a promontory bolic modes of interpretation. After briefly reviewing or acropolis, Greek temples lend themselves to these approaches, this paper presents connections be- readings that emphasize the role of structure and tween triglyphs and tripods, ritual objects of consider- nature. It is well to be aware, however, just how able significance for early Greek cultural and religious life. The formal characteristics of tripods and representa- much such perceptions are conditioned on the tions of tripods find echoes in the generic compositional one hand by the loss of sculpture, paint, and mis- structure of the triglyph. Depictions of multiple tripods cellaneous paraphernalia, and on the other by alternating with decorative motifs recall the rhythmical modernist architectural theory promoting con- disposition of the triglyph and metope frieze, while cer- structional rationalism as the proper basis for tain small-scale details on bronze tripod legs find coun- 3 terparts in non-canonic types of triglyph. The conclud- design. ing section initiates a debate over the explanation for the doctrine of petrification these affinities by exploring the significance of the tripod and its many associations: as aristocratic gift with Mainstream opinion on the rise of the Doric or- heroic overtones, as agonistic prize, as oracular instru- der is conditioned by the doctrine of petrification, ment, as Apolline symbol, as the Greeks’ ultimate votive by which the formal characteristics of a timber sys- offering. Some of these themes can strike chords with Greek temples, so there thus emerges the possibility that tem came to be canonized in stone. This idea is the triglyph frieze was invented to articulate visually the directly attributable to a famous passage (4.2.2) by programmatic concerns of their builders.* the Roman architect-writer Vitruvius:

* After occasional bouts of speculation related to this topic now with more evidence—including Barbara Barletta, Malcolm going back to 1993, I was fortunate to be awarded a grant in Bell, Jim Coulton, Michael Djordjevitch, Gottfried Gruben, 1997 from the British Academy to carry out research in Greece. Thomas Howe, Manolis Korres, Dieter Mertens, Margaret Miles, The British School at Athens provided invaluable hospitality Catherine Morgan, and Joseph Rykwert. I would also like to and assistance on this and subsequent visits, and I am grateful thank Martin Schäfer for courtesies beyond the call of duty at to the National Museum in Athens for permission to study and the German Archaeological Institute in Athens, as well as Sophia photograph artifacts in its collection. Fledgling hypotheses Diamantopolou and Ida Leggio for valuable research assistance were presented to half a dozen local chapters of the Archaeo- in Athens and Rome respectively. logical Institute of America in the academic year 1997–1998, 1 Scully 1969. and over the years I have also benefited from lively discussions 2 For a critical review of the significance of sculptural pro- with many scholars and friends—often failing, it must be said, grams, see Knell 1990. to convince them of the merit of the ideas presented here 3 Howe 1985, esp. 29–50; Forster 1996.

353 American Journal of Archaeology 106 (2002) 353–90 354 MARK WILSON JONES [AJA 106 So it was that ancient carpenters, engaged in build- structures to ones in stone. Models of houses and ing somewhere or other, after laying the tie-beams so other types of building datable to between the eighth that they projected from the inside to the outside of and sixth centuries are sometimes articulated in ways the walls, closed up the space between the beams, and above them ornamented the coronae and ga- that could plausibly express the ends of timber mem- bles with carpentry work of beauty greater than usu- bers.5 Vitruvius’s theory also explains the basic char- al; then they cut off the projecting ends of the beams, acter of Doric forms: brittle and prismatic, very much bringing them into line and flush with the face of the the product of the saw, the plane, and the chisel. walls; next, as this had an ugly look to them, they Indeed, the appeal of the petrification doctrine has fastened boards, shaped as triglyphs are now made, on the ends of the beams, where they had been cut persuaded many commentators to extend it to parts off in front, and painted them with blue wax so that of Doric temples not explicitly treated by Vitruvius. the cutting off of the ends of the beams, being con- Thus the guttae, the little conical stubs on the un- cealed, would not offend the eye. Hence it was in derside of the mutules, are the memory of timber imitation of the arrangement of the tie-beams that pegs or dowels; the diminution in width toward the men began to employ, in Doric buildings, the device of triglyphs and metopes between the beams. top of column shafts is a rationalization of the shape of tree trunks (cf. Vitr. 5.1.3); the concave flutes styl- Vitruvius then went on to deal in a like manner ize the grooves made in the process of fashioning with mutules, the projecting brackets in the geison timber trunks into circular posts using an adze, and course surmounting the frieze (4.2.3): so forth. The literature on Greek architecture contains dozens of such speculations, a representative Later, others in other buildings allowed the project- graphic summary being that by Josef Durm repro- ing principal rafters to run out till they were flush duced here (fig. 1).6 with the triglyphs, and then formed their projections into simae. From that practice, like the triglyphs from The petrification doctrine remains popular de- the arrangement of the tie-beams, the system of spite significant obstacles, however. On detailed in- mutules under the coronae was devised from the pro- spection only the mutules convince in terms of tim- jections of the principal rafters. Hence generally, in ber construction, corresponding well with rafter- buildings of stone and marble, the mutules are carved ends in terms of position, rhythm, shape, and incli- with a downward slant, in imitation of the principal rafters. nation. The most characteristic component of the Doric order is unquestionably the triglyph frieze, As a unique ancient testimony, this passage de- yet paradoxically it is precisely this feature that is mands serious consideration. But it must also be re- the most difficult to reconcile with the petrifica- membered that the bulk of the sources on which tion doctrine. By contrast with mutules, the physi- Vitruvius based his account date from the fourth to cal configuration of triglyphs positively contradicts the second centuries, that is to say well after the ap- a timber origin. Triglyphs run around both ends pearance of the Doric order in the seventh century and flanks of rectangular buildings, whereas con- B.C.4 The text could well represent post-rationaliza- structional logic anticipates beams only on one or tion rather than straightforward reporting. Yet even the other, and certainly not meeting on an arris at if it may bear unkind comparison with Rudyard Ki- the corner. Triglyphs from the Archaic period are pling’s “Just So” stories, Vitruvius’s version of events far too big and too frequently spaced to mimic beam none the less sounds believable on several counts. ends.7 Before the adoption in the Hellenistic peri- Unambiguous examples of petrification can be found od of horizontal tie-beams to cope with the lateral in disparate architectural traditions, notably those thrust generated by more substantial spans, the tim- of China, India, and Lycia, the latter being relatively berwork of Greek temples had just two main com- close to the epicenter of Doric architecture in the ponents: primary timbers, or purlins, running par- Peloponnese. The seventh century B.C. was indeed allel to the ridge of the roof, and above these, sec- a period of transition from predominantly timber ondary rafters sloping with the pitch of the roof.8

4 Wesenberg 1986, 1996, esp. 2. fer load from the ridge beam, see Hodge 1960. 5 Schattner 1990, esp. 167–77, 190; Markman 1951; Schatt- 8 Before the Hellenistic period tie-beams may have seen ner 1997. some use in Etruria as early as 500 B.C., probably in a form that 6 Durm 1910, fig. 233. For a review of the literature, see Howe as yet did not exploit the full potential of the truss principle. 1985; Weickenmeier 1985, and for a recent endorsement of This advance appears to have been essentially a local develop- the beam-end theory, see Holmes 1995, 36–7; Korres 2002, 6. ment, see Turfa and Steinmayer 1996, esp. 8–18 (the dimen- 7 This is a frequently voiced complaint. For some compara- sions of the Capitoline temple at Rome, however, are likely to tive measurements, see Holland 1917, esp. 142–6. Large cross be far smaller than generally thought, see Stamper 1998– beams were only needed in the interior (at less frequent in- 1999). For the alternative possibility that the truss was pio- tervals than that implied by the rhythm of triglyphs) to trans- neered in Sicily, see Klein 1998. 2002] TRIPODS, TRIGLYPHS, AND THE ORIGIN OF THE DORIC FRIEZE 355 Early peristyles were generally so narrow as to require rafters alone (and hence mutules when pet- rified?). What is more, all the timberwork associated with the roof typically lay above the level of the frieze.9 Nor does there exist a convincing constructional rationale for the detailed resolution of the triglyph, with the canonic three chamfered verticals and horizontal capping piece. In part inspired by Vitru- vius’s description of composite beams (trabes com- pactiles) in Tuscan temples,10 one body of opinion judges the chamfered recesses to be the legacy of the joints between three slim beams.11 But where they survive, cuttings for beams are more or less square; ancient architects were evidently only vaguely or sporadically aware of the structural effi- ciency of beams with a rectangular section, and then only at a relatively late date, in Hellenistic or Ro- man times.12 For these and other reasons there have been numerous attempts to trace the origin of the triglyph by applying the concept of petrification in ways that avoid the faults of Vitruvius’s specific model. Ap- peal has been made to remote ancestors in the shape of windows or window bars (a theory conso- nant with two passages by Euripides, but which Vit- 13 14 ruvius explicitly refuted), structural stub-piers, Fig. 1. Derivation of the Doric entablature according to and colonnettes associated with a clerestory system Josef Durm. Top, hypothetical archetype in timber or even an entire second story.15 Another school of construction; bottom, marble temple of the classical period. thought, most clearly formulated in the mid 19th (Durm 1910, fig. 233) century by Viollet-le-Duc, regards the tectonic character of the Doric vocabulary as a para-evolutionary of sustaining the continuity that a para-evolution- response to building not in wood but rather in ary development demands. While it is true that ar- stone.16 chaeology now tends to show that the Greek “Dark Most of the proposals just alluded to are frankly Ages” were not as dark as was previously thought, it too fantastical to warrant countering in detail, and still shows that Doric emerged relatively suddenly, in any case this has been done in specialist litera- representing not the culmination of a gradual pro- ture.17 Many proposals are predicated on a lengthy gression but a quantum leap. As J.J. Coulton ob- developmental phase involving successive muta- serves, “earlier clay models of houses and temples tions and improvements. But from the 11th to the show no more indication of the Doric order than 7th centuries there is unlikely to have existed the any primitive building would,” while when they do social, cultural, and economic framework capable arrive, “the forms making up the Doric order ap-

9 This is another common complaint, see, e.g., Cook 1951, the metopes as openings, see von Gerkan 1948–1949. Cf. 51; Roux 1992, 155. Skrabei 1990. Regarding the implications of terminology, see 10 Vitr. 4.7.4. Hellmann 1992, 263–4; Corso and Romano 1997, 452–6. 11 De Angelis D’Ossat 1941–1942; Ferri 1968; Stucchi 1974, 14 Guadet 1909, fig. 242; Gullini 1974. esp. 114–7; Rykwert 1996, 187. 15 Zancani Montuoro 1940; Richard 1970; Beyer 1972; cf. 12 Hodge 1960, 92–3; Coulton 1988, 147. Although tripar- Dakaris 1988. Mallwitz (1981, esp. 93–5) espouses a variant on tite beams in later stone temples do exist (e.g., the architrave this theme with his proposal that the peripteros originated as a of the Parthenon peristyle), this responded above all to the sort of lean-to porch or veranda added on to a rectangular core. need to reduce the weight associated with this material. 16 Viollet-le-Duc 1990, 40–65. For championship of an ori- 13 Euripides, Iph. Taur. 112–114, Orestes, 1371–1372; Vitr. gin in stone, see also Bötticher 1874, 1–14, esp. 14, 204–13. 4.2.4; Washburn 1918, 1919; Demangel 1931, 1946, 1949; Roux 17 Succeeding articles typically refute salient preceding opin- 1992, esp. 159; Peschken 1988, 1990. One way of reconciling ion; for critical comparison of various types of theory, see Howe both Vitruvius’s leads is to equate triglyphs as beam ends and 1985; Weickenmeier 1985; Barletta 2001. 356 MARK WILSON JONES [AJA 106 pear ready developed.”18 Triglyphs or proto-triglyphs Alternatively, Vitruvius gives reason to identify the made of wood have been attributed to the temple first Doric building as the Temple of Hera at her of Poseidon at Isthmia and that of Apollo at Ther- sanctuary near Argos,24 although seventh-century mon, yet no physical evidence exists to show that Doric elements have yet to turn up in excavations these are not simply figments of the excavators’ there, except for a capital from another structure, imaginations.19 On the basis of the fragmentary re- the so-called north portico.25 mains recovered below the standing Temple E at Selinunte, simple stone projections in the frieze theories of influence have been reconstructed for its predecessor (Tem- If the objections cited undermine the petrifica- ple E1). It is tempting to interpret these as mono- tion doctrine, at least in its most literal manifesta- glyphs, as it were, precursors of triglyphs proper, tions, the challenge is to find a better explanation but the evidence is tenuous and the date not nec- for the “ready developed” Doric forms. One intrigu- essarily as early as the seventh-century one proposed ing proposal sees in the scansion of triglyphs and by Giorgio Gullini; until adequate supporting doc- metopes an offshoot of one of the most basic formu- umentation is published it is impossible to draw las of Geometric art: horizontal friezes punctuated any definite lessons.20 by bands of vertical stripes framing decorative and Given the absence of firm evidence consistent with perhaps figural or narrative scenes.26 In fact pottery an evolutionary development, there is growing sup- experts often call these bands “triglyphs” and the port for the theory that, whether or not it was created fields they contain “metopes.” In my assessment a in wood, the Doric order was invented or brought predisposition to conceive of friezes as a series of together in a relatively compact period of time, prob- orthogonal repetitive elements is indeed likely to ably around the third quarter of the seventh centu- have been inherited from Geometric practice, but ry.21 After a phase of invention and experimentation by itself this seems insufficient to account for the emerged the core of what was later to become the particular configuration of the triglyph. canonic Doric vocabulary. This vocabulary, presum- Other theories of influence presume that early ably, was then consolidated in a series of temples, Greek architects must have adapted already estab- which include the earliest known examples in the lished architectural vocabularies. The chief candi- new style, those (of Hera?) at Monrepos, of Apollo at dates are the advanced building cultures of Myce- Aegina, and of Artemis on Corfu.22 The prime locus nae, the Near East, or Egypt, which the Greeks of for this development is likely to have been the north- the eighth and seventh centuries could either have eastern Peloponnese, especially Corinth or Argos. rediscovered on their own soil, or have known from Corinth is the favored candidate on account of its their now more extensive contacts abroad.27 The leadership in both the manufacture of roof tiles and Doric capital can convincingly be traced back to in the technology of stone construction (easily Mycenae,28 as can fluted shafts. The Orient was the worked soft stones are common in Corinthia). In probable source for motifs such as the palmette and addition, Pindar seems to attribute the city with the the gorgon (which appear in some early metopes), invention of the sculpted pediment, this being an- the Aeolic capital,29 and perhaps certain masonry other key component of the monumental temple.23 techniques too.30 On another tack, there is undeni-

18 Coulton 1988, 30–50, esp. 38–9 (with quotes cited). For the older temple of Aphaia at Aegina and the so-called H- accounts of the architecture of the 10th–7th centuries, see architecture on the Athenian Acropolis. Drerup 1969; Mazarakis Ainan 1997; Barletta 2001, 21–53. 23 Pindar, Ol. 13.21–22; cf. Pliny, HN 35.151–152. In sup- 19 For Isthmia, see Broneer 1971; Gebhard and Hemans port of a decisive Corinthian contribution, see Cook 1951, 52; 1992; for recent research on Thermon, see Kuhn 1993; Papa- 1970, 19; Lawrence 1983, 125; Rhodes 1987; Østby 1997. For postolou 1995. the possibility of a west Greek origin, see Howe 1985, 367–8. 20 Gullini 1980, 1985, 423–35; Barletta 2001, 58, 174–5, n. 4. 24 Vitr. 4.1.3; for qualified recent support, see Østby 2000; 21 Cook 1951, 1970; Howe 1985, esp. 370–2. Barletta (2001, Barletta 2001, 154. This option implies a slightly earlier date, 54–82, esp. 79–82) argues that different components of the the second quarter of the seventh century. order could have emerged piecemeal and that this need not 25 Amandry 1952, 229–31. For the sanctuary and its temple, have been complete until two or more decades into the sixth see Waldstein 1902–1905; Strøm 1988; Pfaff 1990; Billot 1997. century. 26 Laum 1912; Cook 1951, 1970. For general accounts of this 22 For Monrepos documentation is still limited, see Schleif idiom, see Coldstream 1968, 1977; Schweitzer 1971. et al. 1939–1940, 75; Bookidis 1967, 4–5; Strøm 1988, 187–9; 27 On Greek interest in Mycenaean monuments, see Cold- Mertens 1989, 434–5. For Aegina, see Hoffelner 1999, esp. stream 1976; Morris 1988; Antonaccio 1995. 15–45. These two temples precede better known Doric build- 28 Wesenberg 1971, esp. 49–62; Karageorghis 1971. ings, including the Artemesion at Corfu, the Apollonion at 29 Wesenberg 1971, 63–86; Shiloh 1979; Betancourt 1977. Syracuse, and the old tholos and the monopteros at Delphi, 30 Sharon 1987; Ratté 1993. 2002] TRIPODS, TRIGLYPHS, AND THE ORIGIN OF THE DORIC FRIEZE 357 ably something in common between the massing many fine set-pieces in Georgian Bath, are an early of early Doric peristyles and those of pharaonic example.36 In spite of warnings to the contrary by buildings such as the funerary temples at Luxor, specialists of antiquity,37 a recent wave of interest is and although shafts with convex flutes were more manifest in several books by established architec- typical, some Egyptian examples have concave tural historians including John Onians, George “Doric” ones. Having had champions as early as Hersey, and Joseph Rykwert.38 As regards the triglyph, the 18th century,31 in recent years the Egyptian however, none of these authorities have much to cause has been taken up again.32 In his overview of say. Onians keeps silent on the subject and Rykwert the problem, however, Erik Østby cogently con- accepts a variation of the beam-end theory;39 Her- cludes that the Greeks acquired from Egypt chief- sey alone embraces this element within his central ly the aspiration to monumentality using stone, thesis, one based on the idea that etymology holds along with the certain consequences of a propor- the key to meanings the orders acquired in antiq- tional and technical nature.33 But whatever the uity.40 He sees this acquired meaning as rooted in impact of pre- or non-Greek influence, once again the act of sacrifice, temples being assemblages of the triglyph frieze is the hardest part of the Doric sacrificial victims and related paraphernalia. In order to account for. Only the split-rosette Myce- particular Hersey reads the glyphs of the triglyph, naean frieze, as exemplified by that from the Trea- which Vitruvius says the Greeks called meroi or sury of Atreus, offers a compelling potential pre- thighs, as the thighbones of goats and oxen, or rather decessor.34 thrice-cloven thighbones since triglyphos can mean This is not the place to evaluate the extensive thrice-recessed, thrice-sculpted, thrice-cut.41 It is arguments in favor of petrification on the one hand true that thighbones figure prominently in Hom- and theories of influence on the other.35 Perhaps eric sacrifice,42 a fact that earlier had led Sandro the solution lies not in any single theory, but rather Stucchi to propose that the triglyph friezes found a sort of melting pot into which went multiple in- on some altars might be interpreted as stylized gredients—including petrification, constructive bands of bunched thighbones.43 But would Greek logic, pattern and influence, as well as other con- architects and artists have transformed organic anat- cerns—and out of which came a new synthesis. Yet omy in such a geometrical fashion? Without some the nature of this synthesis, which was of such im- ancient representation of triglyph-like thighbones portance for the future development of Western to bridge the gap, the idea fails to take on substance. architecture, eludes us without some fresh insight. The only scholar to invoke visual material bear- I suggest here that the tripod, an object of consid- ing on a symbolic interpretation of the triglyph was erable symbolic importance for Greek religious and Robert Demangel in his series of eight articles on civic life, is the key to the specific configuration of the origins of Doric published between 1931 and the triglyph. 1949 (mostly in the Bulletin du Correspondance Hellé- nique). He developed a dual interpretation of the the orders as symbolic form triglyph, one that overlaid the window theory dis- The interpretation of the classical orders as sym- carded by Vitruvius with a symbolic intention.44 bolic form is hardly new; the idiosyncratic ideas Demangel traced the triglyph back to Minoan, Egyp- penned by John Wood the Elder, the architect of so tian, and Oriental images of portals and windows

31 Caylus 1756, esp. 308. The theory gained ground in the 37 Burkert 1988, 34. 1820s, when both Champollion and Sir Charles Barry drew 38 Onians 1988, 1999, esp. 9–43; Hersey 1988; Rykwert 1996. Egyptian “proto-Doric” to the attention of a wider audience, Another book offering a symbolic reading of Greek architec- the former apparently coining the term; see Howe 1985, 45; ture, Wujewski 1995, only came to my attention as this article Barletta 2001, 18. went to press. 32 Hölb 1984, 1–18; Howe 1985, 299–334. 39 Rykwert 1996, 182. 33 Østby 2001; I thank Erik Østby for giving me this in manu- 40 Hersey 1988, 3. script form. On the indigenous character of the Greek tem- 41 Hersey 1988, 30–1. ple, see also Ginouvès 1989. 42 See Iliad, 1.36–42. Cf. Burkert 1966, esp. 104–5; 1983, 34 For another split-rosette frieze from Tiryns, see Dörpfeld 1985, 55–9; van Straten 1995, esp. 122–7, 141–4. 1935, 1, Abb. 52, and Holland 1917, 126 for a list of examples. 43 Stucchi 1974, 115, n. 150. Stucchi’s thinking is curiously Cf. Bowen 1950; Ditlefsen 1985. selective, for he pursued a structural/evolutional reading of 35 I will be tackling this debate in greater depth elsewhere. triglyphs on temples. For triglyph altars, see Orsi 1919, 687– For previous discussion, see Howe 1985; Weickenmeier 1985; 715; Schleif et al. 1939–1940, 63–9; Yavis 1949, 138–9; Roux and now Barletta 2001. 1953, 117–23; Rupp 1975, 274; Mertens 1991, esp. 190–1. 36 Wood 1741. 44 Demangel 1931, 1937, 1946, 1949. 358 MARK WILSON JONES [AJA 106 framing sacred trees and/or sacred pillars (fig. 2). and a separate removable bowl or cauldron on top, But none of the illustrations Demangel supplied and the so-called tripod-cauldron in which the presents a striking parallel with triglyphs.45 three legs were integral with the vessel, usually being bonded to its perimeter using a variety of techniques, depending on the materials used. These included stone, terracotta, wood, and metal, of which bronze and gilded bronze (and sometimes solid silver or gold) were the most prestigious; composite materials were used too, notably stone or timber tripods covered with decorative bronze sheets.46 Tripod-stands were widespread in the Mediterra- nean from the Bronze Age down to Roman imperial times.47 Squat stone tripod-cauldrons datable as far back as the third millennium are known from the Near East.48 In Greece, however, metal was the material of choice for large-scale use—in terms of both number and size—of the cauldron form from the Geometric to the Hellenistic periods. These tripod-cauldrons are the prime focus of the present inquiry and are the intended subject when the word tripod is used by itself.49 An example from the Geo- metric period is illustrated in figure 3. tripod friezes Analogies between tripods and triglyphs appear in various guises; the most convenient starting point is the conception of regular friezes. Immediate connections are made by two architectural friezes of Hellenistic date, the first from the Monument of Fig. 2. Precursors of the trigylph according to Robert Lysicrates in Athens, and the second from a villa on Demangel. Top, Mesopotamian symbolic motifs; bottom, the island of Samos. The very function of the first Egyptian hieroglyphics. (Demangel 1937, figs. 1–2) building was to display aloft on the crowning finial a (lost) bronze tripod prize awarded at one of the My own interpretation also rests on visual images, choregic competitions in Athens, which explains but ones that, unlike Demangel’s, are both copious the presence of a run of stylized tripods disposed and thoroughly Greek. These images present anal- in pairs between the Corinthian capitals (fig. 4).50 ogies between triglyphs, some types of tripods, and These tripods have no chamfered elements as do representations of tripods. Before discussing these triglyphs, and instead bear many features absent on connections in detail, I begin with a brief review of triglyphs: the bowed cauldron, the disc-like han- the physical characteristics of the source objects them- dles on top of the cauldron, the lower horizontal selves. bar and the lion-paw feet. There is yet considerable Tripods divide into two main types: the so-called common ground, however: the straight, vertical, and tripod-stand, comprising a three-legged support regular arrangement of the legs of the individual

45 There is, however, a tantalizing bridge in the shape of a 49 The following is a selected bibliography on the bronze seventh-century stone frieze from Chania, Crete, which fea- tripod-cauldron of the Geometric and Archaic periods: Darem- tures a tripartite vertical motif created by a standing female berg and Saglio 1877, 474–82; Furtwängler 1890, the section divinity framed by a temple portal. See Beyer 1976, Taf. 44.2; “Die grossen Dreifüsse,” 75–93; Benton 1934–1935; Riemann Felten 1984, 19, no. 1, Taf. 1.1. For portals framing betel motifs, 1956, col. 861–88; Willemsen 1957; Schweitzer 1971, 164–85; see Di Vita 1998. Weber 1971; Rolley 1977, with a useful summary of preceding 46 Stevens 1951; Touloupa 1991. research on 15–23; Maass 1977, 1978, 1981; Strøm 1995. For 47 For Bronze Age tripod-stands, see Catling 1964, 1984; tripods (mostly) from later periods, see Amandry and Ducat Matthäus 1985. For Archaic and Classical examples, see Riis 1998. 1973; Amandry 1987, 1997; Wilson 2000, 198–235. For fur- 48 Buchholz 1963. For a pair of stone tripod-mortars in the ther references, see Sakowski 1997. museum at Thebes probably from the seventh century, see 50 The chief study of the building is Bauer 1977. Pharaklas 1970. 2002] TRIPODS, TRIGLYPHS, AND THE ORIGIN OF THE DORIC FRIEZE 359 late Hellenistic triglyphs with a variety of superim- posed motifs, so the Samos example might testify merely to the desire to relax and enrich established canons by means of such devices.52 The present task is to assemble parallels between triglyphs, tripods, and representations of tripods not too distant in time from the consolidation of the Doric order in the second half of the seventh century. In order to facilitate this task, as well as to address issues discussed in the conclusion, 100 different tripod representations are catalogued in the appendix. Consider now the ancestor of the friezes just cited in an artistic topos disposing multiple tripod images, beginning with examples from the eighth century.53 Some show rows of tripods next to one another, without intervening elements, as in a frieze painted on the neck of an amphora in the Athens National Museum.54 Some show rows of tripods divided by groups of vertical bands or stripes, as in the case of a cup (fig. 6) and a kantharos from the same museum.55 A krater in Paris intermixes these two conditions.56 Then there are several vase fragments with two tripods placed side by side, as on Fig. 3. Bronze tripod-cauldron of the Geometric period from part of a pithos found at Tenos.57 Since many later Olympia, ninth–eighth centuries B.C., ht. 65 cm. (Olympia, Archaeological Museum, B 1240; neg. DAI Athens, no. 74/ complete vases exist that depict two tripods (figs. 58 59 1108) 7–8), three (fig. 9), or even five as either closed groups or as parts of larger scenes,60 such pairs may tripods, and their subordination to a decorative have been self-sufficient. However, a longer run of frieze at high level. By contrast, the frieze from Sa- tripods and a frieze-like treatment is probable for mos (fig. 5) consciously exploits the affinity between at least some earlier fragments. tripods and triglyphs;51 it is hard to be sure whether The parallelism between triglyphs and the the objects in question are more one or the other. groups of vertical stripes so commonly used as frieze Is this essentially a Doric frieze, with the triglyphs dividers in the Geometric period suggests that any- rendered like tripods, or is it a tripod frieze in- thing placed in between such stripes, such as the fused with Doric qualities? tripods illustrated in figure 6, must equate with These examples are not valid guides to the ratio- metopal decoration.61 It might seem that tripods nale behind the invention of the Doric frieze cannot have had connections to both metopes and around three centuries earlier. There are, after all, triglyphs at the same time, but it is important to

51 Tölle-Kastenbein 1974, Abb. 75–6; Rumscheid 1994, where they would seem to contradict a triglyph-tripod associa- Taf. 55. tion. However, it is also possible that the architect knew of 52 For the range of Doric expression in this period, see Pens- some sort of link (perhaps via a treatise?), and either misinter- abene 1993; Ortolani 1997. Famous examples are the triglyphs preted it, or wished in some way to “play” with it. For a recon- with bull protomes belonging to the Stoa of Antigones at Delos, struction of this frieze and its setting, see Fraisse and Moretti dating probably to the third quarter of the third century B.C. 1998. For a photograph, see Webb 1996, fig. 116. (see Webb 1996, 22), and those with applied ritual objects 53 Benton 1934–1935, 74–130, esp. 102–8; Sakowski 1997, belonging to the propylon of Claudius Appius Pulcher at Eleu- 265–6. sis (mid first century B.C.). A triglyph with a bouquet of pop- 54 Cat. no. 4; cf. Sakowski 1997, FR-3. pies and crossed batons of myrtle, and another with a ceremo- 55 Cat. nos. 6, 7. nial vessel (plemachoe) have been built, along with accompa- 56 Cat. no. 1. nying metopes, into the 13th-century Little Metropolitan 57 Cat. no. 22; cf. cat. no. 2. Church (Panayia Gorgoepikoos) in Athens. For their attribu- 58 Cat. no. 71, 70; cf. cat. nos. 27, 29, 34, 52, 53, 67, 71. tion to the inner propylon to the Eleusinion, see Miles 1998, 59 Cat. no. 31; cf. cat. no. 29, 35, 36. 89–91. Although these may be Hadrianic in date, they proba- 60 Cat. no. 33. bly echo Hellenistic models. In addition the frieze of the Prosk- 61 See n. 52 for comments about the Delos proskenion enion of the theater at Delos has tripod motifs used decora- frieze. tively in the metopes of a Doric frieze, that is, in a position 360 MARK WILSON JONES [AJA 106 tions, tripods were probably first chosen as metopal subjects. When rendered in two dimensions, and flattened out in keeping with prevailing modes of abstraction, the individual legs became vertical stripes, whereupon it may be presumed that some artists grasped the idea of using the tripods themselves as scene dividers.62 Indeed, the number of tripod representations that divide, frame, or beat out a rhythm increases in the seventh century. This can be seen on a pitcher (oinochoe) from Kerameikos, which is datable to around the first quarter of the century (fig. 10). Three robust tripods of the same size and design take up the entire height of the main register. In between them are motifs of varied character: a horse head, a geometrical design, and a composition of whorls and spirals. The notion of a triglyph-metope alternation is apparent despite the distortions associated with the curving profile of the vase. More compelling architectural parallels are pro- Fig. 4. Monument of Lysicrates, Athens (ca. 330 B.C.), detail. Note the frieze of tripods running as if in a continuous loop vided by three intriguing examples of tripod friez- behind the capitals. (Neg. DAI Athens, no. 75/1878) es, the first of which dates from the second half of the seventh century. This frieze ran around the bel- realize that eighth-century examples occur in non- ly of a large relief vase (pithos) that now stands re- or pre-architectural contexts. At this early stage the constructed in the Archaeological Museum of Her- key innovation was the use of representations with- aklion, Crete (fig. 11). The frieze shows riders on in patterns that previously had been predominant- horseback and chariots, along with subordinate fig- ly abstract. As prestige objects with heroic associa- ures and motifs, punctuated by stylized tripods fill-

Fig. 5. Frieze from Samos, ca. third century B.C. with “triglyphs” that take the form of stylized tripods. (Neg. DAI Athens, no. Samos 852)

62 For discussions of approaches to abstraction and framing in this period, see Hurwit 1977; Benson 1982. 2002] TRIPODS, TRIGLYPHS, AND THE ORIGIN OF THE DORIC FRIEZE 361

Fig. 6. Cat. no. 6. Geometric cup with frieze of tripods alternating with groups of vertical stripes. (Athens, National Museum, 3632 [874]. Neg. by the author)

Fig. 7. Cat. no. 71. Apollo in the Delphic shrine flanked by two tripods, one on the omphalos; the other on top of a pedestal or column. Attic red figure volute krater. (Ferrara, Museo Civico Archeologico, inv. no. 44894; museum neg.) 362 MARK WILSON JONES [AJA 106 ampus. As the projected elevation of this frieze shows (fig. 12), this time the proportions directly recall the Doric frieze. The same may be said of a terracotta slab from the island of Kythnos, now in the Louvre, which may be dated to the middle of the sixth century, or perhaps earlier (fig. 13).65 Its upper register depicts a single horseman as the contents of a “metope” framed by tripods. Its proportions are longer than the norm for architectural metopes, while those of the tripods are taller than the norm for triglyphs, but the differences are not so great as to undermine the obvious analogy. It is true that only one of the tripods and one of the riders is complete, but the adjacent incomplete but potentially identical elements hint at a repetitive frieze, as does the linear character of the moldings

Fig. 8. Cat. no. 70. Two bulls are prepared for a sacrifice to celebrate the dedication of the pair of tripods shown in the background. Attic red figure amphora. (British Museum, inv. no. E 284 [1816.1–28.1]; museum neg.) ing the whole height of the frieze. The possibility of cross-fertilization with architecture is raised by not just the formal analogy with the Doric frieze, but also the common ground between workshops producing pithoi and architectural decoration.63 Although the rather slack interval between the tripods in this example contrasts with the tight rhythm of the Doric frieze, the next examples display a notable convergence in this respect. A curious cylindrical vessel from Thasos dating probably to the first quarter of the sixth century shows stiff and robust tripods (fig. 12).64 These were created by the conceit of adding pillar-legs in between the wider Fig. 9. Cat. no. 31. Black figure dinos with the middle register showing a horse race, with riders framed by a referee at the legs—so here at the same time is a tripod-like ob- start and a column at the finish, between which alternate ject and a ring of three tripods framing figurative men with multiple tripod and cauldron prizes. (Paris, Louvre, representations: a sphinx, a triton, and a hippoc- inv. no. E 875; museum photo by M. and P. Chuzeville)

63 Simantoni-Bournia 1990. 65 Cat. no. 32. Mollard-Besques, however, proposed the sec- 64 For comparable artifacts, see Carlié 2000, 106 (no. 4), 137 ond half of the century. (no. 7A). 2002] TRIPODS, TRIGLYPHS, AND THE ORIGIN OF THE DORIC FRIEZE 363 top and bottom. Just conceivably it may have belonged to a scheme of wall decoration given that the slab in question is flat. Even if it was a votive there is still a latent architectural analogy, for flat votive plaques were commonly fixed to the walls of the temples where they were dedicated. The content of the metopal motifs on these artifacts bears distinct parallels with architectural schemes. The stylized mythological creatures on the Thasos kothon recall those of panels from Thermon, Olympia, and Kalydon, panels that probably functioned in a similar manner to metopes—whether or not they were in reality accompanied by triglyphs or proto-triglyphs.66 There is also a familial resemblance with early stone metopes, including ones that are datable to around the third decade of the sixth century from Temple “Y” at Selinunte.67 One shows a sphinx, as does the Thasos kothon; another shows Europa riding the bull, that is, a rider in profile not unlike the riders of the frieze from Kythnos. The coming of the sixth century marks a decline in modular friezes in Greek art, as artists shifted toward freer compositions and progressively more realistic treatments of both inanimate and animate forms. In keeping with this general trend, multiple tripods in the same register begin to act less as scene dividers and more as integral parts of the Fig. 10. Cat. no. 17. Proto-Corinthian pitcher (oinochoe), scenes themselves. The beginning of the shift in detail of one of three tripods that alternate with decorative this direction can be seen in an early black figure motifs. (Kerameikos inv. no. 1267. Neg. by the author) vase fragment from the Athenian Acropolis, which shows two tripods alternating with two piles of bowls height of the register, signaling the fact that they and a freestanding column (fig. 14). It is possible have become objects in space, like the runners. With that there was originally a longer sequence of tri- time artists make increasing use of receding planes pods and bowls, but more likely it gave way to a foot, to render spatial relationships, so that it becomes horse, or chariot race, in the manner of several lat- common for tripods to be shown in the background er vases showing tripod prizes awaiting the victor.68 of activity taking place nearer to the observer, as in In the middle register of a dinos now in the Louvre the case of the race shown on the lost krater former- (fig. 9) tripods alternate with standing men, but ly from Berlin depicting the funeral games of Pe- now in a looser distribution, for the tripods appear lias.71 Alternatively, pairs or groups of tripods came both singly and in a group of three.69 In a slightly to be used not only to terminate race scenes, but later vase from Munich, datable to around the mid- also to fill up awkward spaces, as in a set of five of dle of the sixth century, a single tripod and a group assorted heights that sit under the handle of a vase of three tripods mark the beginning and end of a fragment from Taranto.72 scene featuring a group of running warriors.70 Sig- In sum, representations of multiple tripods in nificantly, the tripods no longer occupy the full painted or relief friezes pass from abstract and reg-

66 Despite much speculation about their likely existence, Fuchs 1993, 397–423. For a reconstruction of Temple Y, see triglyphs have not in fact been recovered from the temple of Mertens 1996, 31–3. Apollo at Thermon or the Heraion at Olympia, nor indeed the 68 Cat nos. 26, 27, 29, 35, 36, 37. temple of Poseidon at Isthmia. For the pinakes at Thermon, 69 Cat. no. 31. For comparanda, see Maul-Manderlartz 1990. see Payne 1925–1926; Bookidis 1967, 166–76; for the bronze 70 Cat. no. 35. griffin panel from the Heraion, see Philipp 1994, 494–5; for 71 Cat. no. 36. the pinakes at Kalydon, see Dyggve 1948, 149–64, 236–9; 72 Cat. no. 33. Single tripods were also used to decorate the Bookidis 1967, 162–5. handles themselves, e.g., cat. no. 63. 67 Kähler 1949; Tusa 1969; Giuliani 1979, 37–66; Rizza 1996; 364 MARK WILSON JONES [AJA 106

Fig. 11. Cat. no. 23. Fragments of frieze running around the body of a pithos from Prinias, Crete, now in the National Museum, Heraklion. (AJA 5 [1901] pl. 14)

Fig. 12. Cat. no. 28. Terracotta tripod kothon from Thasos, with stylized tripods alternating with representations of fabulous beasts. (Athens, National Museum, inv. no. 17874; ht. 28 cm. Line drawing by the author; photo, museum neg.) 2002] TRIPODS, TRIGLYPHS, AND THE ORIGIN OF THE DORIC FRIEZE 365 ular patterns in the eighth century to a looser treatment in the sixth century, as interest grew in spatial and figural representation. In the seventh century tripods begin to be used in ways that are arguably analogous to the “triglyphs” of linear friezes, and from the second half of this century to the early part of the sixth century—the period in which the monumental Doric vocabulary first appears—tripod and metope friezes are characterized by robust, structural tripods punctuating decorative fields or “metopes” that included mythological beasts and human riders. Fig. 14. Cat. no. 30. Scene alluding to competition in the context of funeral games; tripods alternate with piles of cauldrons and a columnar turning post. Fragment of black figure krater. (Athens National Museum, Acropolis Collection inv. no. 654b. Neg. by the author)

between the tripod legs and its cauldron; the central leg is brought up to the top of the rim.73 The two side legs are rendered thinner, by virtue of being seen from an oblique angle, while the cauldron masks their tops, just as would be the case when viewing a real tripod. In the Louvre dinos a similar distinction is achieved by the use of inscribed lines (fig. 9). And although all the legs are shown similar in width, the turning outward of the lion paws distinguishes the lateral legs from the central one. A mixture of these devices was used for the vases just mentioned from Munich and Berlin, and many other sixth-century tripod 74 Fig. 13. Cat. no. 32. Terracotta placque from the island of representations. A greater sense of volume and Kythnos; riders and tripods alternate in the upper register. realism came with supplementary details, includ- (Paris, Louvre, inv. no. MNB 579; museum neg. by M. and P. ing short-hand allusions to fixings, relief decora- Chuzeville) tion, and variations in the angle at which the ring handles meet the rim of the cauldron (figs. 7, 8, the representation of individual tripods 15, 16k).75 On occasions Classical, Hellenistic, and A complementary development affected the Roman artists employed perspectival recession of ways individual tripods were rendered. The late the secondary bracing rings (figs. 7, 17),76 or even seventh century was a time particularly sympathet- an entire tripod, as a way of enhancing the three- ic to experiments with abstraction, but thereafter, dimensional effect.77 as in Greek art in general, abstraction and simpli- Returning to review the characteristics of physi- fication give way to an increasing desire for real- cal bronze tripods, it is clear that their shape could ism. In keeping with this trend, first come flat, vary extensively. Cauldrons could be deep or shal- two-dimensional representations of tripods, then low; legs could be squat or slender, straight or ta- ones that create the illusion of three dimensions, pering, with lion-paw feet or not. Also variable was as is already apparent in the preceding images. the relationship between the size of the legs and The tripods on the Acropolis fragment (fig. 14) that of the cauldron. There are capacious cauldrons mark a period of transition. No longer are they supported on spindly legs (fig. 3), and compact simple silhouettes; different colors differentiate cauldrons supported on fat legs bunched relative-

73 Cat. no. 30; cf. cat. no. 40. 76 Cat. nos. 71, 85; cf. cat. nos. 73, 88, 89, 94. 74 Cat. nos. 35, 36. 77 Cat. nos. 74, 82, 86, 98. 75 Cat. nos. 71, 70, 99, 39; cf. cat. nos. 73, 77, 80. 366 MARK WILSON JONES [AJA 106 Second, this symmetry is not maintained in the vertical sense. In representations of tripods, as with triglyphs, the three vertical elements are joined together at the top but not at the bottom, where they rest either on a line or band equivalent to the ground or a platform (in the case of tripods) or on the architrave (in the case of triglyphs). Third, tripod legs are sometimes shown with a bowed silhouette (fig. 16b)79 or tapered toward the ground (fig. 16m, o),80 but the majority are straight and vertical (as in the case of triglyphs). There are also a minority of representations with straight legs inclined inward toward the cauldron (fig. 16f, g, k, m),81 and indeed a few sets of early triglyphs display a comparable inward inclination, with the overall shape of the blocks being in effect trapezoidal rather than rectangular. Examples include what are probably the earliest known triglyphs, those from the Temple of Hera(?) at Monrepos on Corfu (fig. 18), and ones from Foce del Sele in Campania dating to around the middle of the sixth century.82 In addition, the sides of the Monrepos triglyphs are slightly bowed, rather like the tripod representation just mentioned (fig. 16b). Fourth, in representations of tripods lion-paw feet become progressively more common over time, reflecting the same trend in their physical counter- Fig. 15. Cat. no. 99. Herakles attempts to steal the Delphic parts as well as a greater desire for realism (figs. 4, tripod from Apollo (whose arm holds one of the ring 8, 15, 16m, o, p, 17, 19). But most tripod represen- handles); note the equality in width between the middle tations up to the early sixth century show the legs and the side legs of the tripod. Marble relief, detail. (Piraeus Archaeological Museum, inv. no. 2118. Neg. by the author) terminating abruptly without any form of foot or molding (figs. 6, 10, 12, 14, 16a, c, f, g, h, l, n, 20), ly close together. Representations of tripods vary just as is the case for triglyphs.83 even more since the physical range in shape is ex- Fifth, realistic tripod representations call for a aggerated by the effect of artistic interpretation, different treatment of the central leg (which is style, and technique (fig. 16). What is significant viewed frontally) and the lateral ones (which are for the present argument is that the gamut of possi- viewed obliquely). As discussed earlier, this solu- bilities includes many that recall aspects of triglyph tion appears from the early sixth century onward design. The primary components of tripod repre- (fig. 14), becoming the norm in the Classical and sentations in the seventh and sixth centuries that Hellenistic periods. It is not uncommon, however, invite specific comparisons with triglyphs are iso- for the legs to be rendered equal in width. This is lated below. especially true of relatively early representations First, tripod representations almost invariably (figs. 6, 10, 16a, c, e, g, h, j, o, 21),84 but is also seen show one leg on the central axis, with the other two in late ones, such as a Roman marble “copy” of a disposed symmetrically on either side.78 classical relief now in the Archaeological Museum

78 Occasionally tripods were shown with two legs, the third cani Montuoro et al. 1954. The proposed disposition of the being omitted because it lay in a recessive plane further from accompanying metopes is disputed, see most recently Junker the viewer, see cat. nos. 8, 57. 1993; Conti 1994. For references and comment, see Barletta 79 Cat. no. 3. Cf. cat. nos. 16, 21, 27. 1990, 63. 80 Cat. nos. 45, 59; cf. cat. nos. 31, 72, 79, 91. 83 Cf. cat. nos. 5, 18. 81 Cat. nos. 14, 12, 39, 45. Cf. cat. no. 44. 84 Cf. cat. nos. 1, 4, 9, 19. 82 For Monrepos, see supra n. 22. For Foce del Sele, see Zan- 2002] TRIPODS, TRIGLYPHS, AND THE ORIGIN OF THE DORIC FRIEZE 367

Fig. 16. Selection of tripod silhouettes dating from the mid eighth century to the late sixth century B.C., in roughly chronological order from top to bottom and left to right: a, cat. no. 2, fragment of krater; b, cat. no. 3, fragment of krater; c, cat. no. 7, fragment of cup; d, cat. no. 10, fragment of pyxis; e, cat. no. 11, fragment of amphora; f, cat. no. 14, votive terracotta plaque; g, cat. no. 12, fragment of amphora; h, cat. no. 22, fragment of pithos; i, cat. no. 27, votive bronze sheet; j, cat. no. 41, black figure tripod pyxis; k, cat. no. 39, black figure cup; l, cat. no. 42, black figure kantharos; m, cat. no. 45, black figure pinax fragment; n, cat. no. 46, Panathenaic amphora; o, cat. no. 59, black figure skyphos; p, cat. no. 51, black figure fragment. (Drawing by the author) at Piraeus depicting the struggle for the tripod in reality.85 This is especially evident in architectur- between Apollo and Herakles (fig. 15). Despite the al contexts, as in the friezes from the Monument of lack of realism, artists presumably judged the ef- Lysicrates (fig. 4). The struggle for the tripod be- fect of an equal spacing to be preferable in formal tween Apollo and Hercules shown on the Siphnian terms. In addition, in some examples the legs are treasury pediment displays not only all these fea- spaced significantly closer than would be the case tures, but chamfered legs too (figs. 21–22),86 just

85 E.g., cat. nos. 2, 6, 96, 99. 86 Cat. no. 56. For the building, see Daux and Hansen 1987. 368 MARK WILSON JONES [AJA 106 like the verticals of triglyphs. That this should occur in a stone relief—the typical medium for triglyphs—is a telling coincidence. Sixth, in most tripod representations the cauldron had a curved underside, while a minority artistic convention showed the top of the cauldron bowed too in sympathy (fig. 16b, d).87 The cauldron, however, can be suppressed to a more or less straight capping piece. This is particularly noticeable in miniature work, as in the case of coins,88 and representations of representations, as when shield devices are depicted on vases (fig. 16n, p).89 Simpli- fied cauldrons of this kind were fairly common in eighth-, seventh-, and sixth-century representations, and occasionally occur later.90 It is therefore possible to liken the flat capping piece of the typical triglyph to an abbreviated or heavily stylized cauldron. Seventh, another feature of lifelike tripod representations is the depiction of the lateral legs par- Fig. 17. Cat. no. 85. Triton (far left) presents Theseus to tially concealed by the cauldron (figs. 7, 8, 14, 15, 91 Amphitrite and Poseidon (reclining, with trident) in the 17). But once again it was not uncommon to flat- depths of the sea. Note the tripod on a column with a ten reality, by showing the legs all in one plane. volute capital at low level to the left of Poseidon, while The cauldron might occupy the same plane as ei- above his head “floats” a tripod on the upper part of a Doric ther the two outer legs (fig. 23) or all three (fig. column (there is also another truncated Doric column 92 supporting a tripod on the other side of vase). Red figure 20), and even on occasions be placed behind all calyx krater. (Bologna, Museo Civico Archeologico, inv. no. three legs, despite the fact that this contradicted 303; museum neg. no. M 279 [2062]) reality (fig. 16n).93 In this process the cauldron,

Fig. 18. Elevation and details of a stone triglyph from the temple (of Hera?) at Monrepos, Corfu, 620–610 B.C. Note the flare outward toward the bottom. (Schief et al. 1939–1940, Abb. 59)

87 Cat. nos. 3, 10. For further examples, see cat. no. 8; Sa- shield devices, see Sakowski 1997, 335–47. kowski 1997, PF-1, PF-2, PF-7, PF-16, PF-20, SP-2, SP-3. 90 Cat. nos. 4, 7, 11, 18, 21, 41, 45, 76. 88 Cat. nos. 79, 80. For tripods on coins, see Anson 1911, I, 91 Cat. nos. 71, 70, 30, 99, 85; cf. cat. nos. 31, 36, 64, 81. pl. 17–25; Kraay 1976, pls. 33, 35, 36; Stazio 1987, 151–72, esp. 92 Cat. nos. 76, 19; cf. cat. nos. 5, 8, 18, 45, 57, 49, 93, 96. 156–60. 93 Cat. no. 46; cf. cat. nos. 60, 93. 89 Cat. nos. 46, 51; cf. cat. nos. 47, 49. For a list of tripod 2002] TRIPODS, TRIGLYPHS, AND THE ORIGIN OF THE DORIC FRIEZE 369

Fig. 19. Cat. no. 43. A victorious rider followed by an assistant bearing off the tripod prize. Black figure amphora. (British Museum, inv. no. B 144 [1849.11–22.1]; museum neg.) prominent as it may be in actual tripods, is played Eighth, in tripod images the curved flares at the down. Looking at a bronze sheet votive from the top of the legs can be pronounced, to the extent of Heraion on Samos (fig. 16i) and a black-figure sky- meeting up and forming a positive arch, either at phos in the National Museum at Naples (fig. 16o), the top of the cauldron (fig. 16n)95 or underneath the silhouette of the whole strikes the eye—that is it (fig. 16i, l, m, o).96 This last arrangement goes to say, a silhouette that is noticeably triglyph-like. against the logic of two-dimensional projection, In both cases the cauldron has been reduced to an since in real tripods the top of the legs aligns with incised line.94 the top of the cauldron. Once again, artists must

Fig. 20. Cat. no. 19. Tripod flanked by horses, detail of the main register of a dinos from Siris. (Adamesteanu 1980, pl. 2.1)

94 Cat. nos. 25, 59. 96 Cat. nos. 25, 42, 45, 59. Cf. cat. nos. 13, 76. 95 Cat. nos. 46. 370 MARK WILSON JONES [AJA 106

Fig. 21. The struggle for the tripod represented on the pediment of the Syphnian treasury at Delphi (ca. 520), showing Herakles, right, Athena and Apollo’s forearm on the left. (Delphi, Archaeological Museum, neg. École Française d’Athènes, no. 22.370) have been attracted by the formal qualities of this triglyphs with pronounced arches is broadly com- arrangement, and possibly by a feeling that in this parable with tripod representations like those il- way the cauldron did not appear to fall between the lustrated in figure 16. legs. It was both better supported visually and an It is next possible to identify details shared by uninterrupted whole. The effect is once again rem- triglyphs and actual bronze tripods, and in particu- iniscent of early triglyphs. Furthermore, it seems lar their legs. In cross-section these take up a vari- highly significant that each of the various types of ety of shapes, which experts have broken down into arches that can be found on archaic triglyphs, semi- a series of types and sought to distinguish chrono- circular (fig. 24),97 pointed,98 and ogive (fig. 18),99 logically, primarily based on style.101 The great ma- all find correspondences in such tripod represen- jority of profiles presented to the viewer a flat or tations.100 Perhaps because it would have been rel- nearly flat front face. This is true of both the solid- atively difficult to depict at small scales, the ogive cast polygonal types (which tend to be relatively form is the least common and the least obvious. early) and the technically more advanced hollow- Figure 19 shows a clear example, however: a tripod cast ones, principally “U,” “Π,” and related shapes with a leg terminating at the top with reverse curves, open at the back, and with the front often enriched each side being equivalent to one half of an ogive by decoration.102 Solid-cast cross-sections are often arch. On occasions too the overall proportions are roughly hexagonal, which is significant in that cham- not dissimilar, so that the visual effect of some early fered or beveled faces run away either side of the

97 For other triglyphs with semicircular arches, see Mertens 100 For representations of tripod legs ending in semicircular 1993, Taf. 47.1, 72.3, 72.6, 73,1, 73.6, 74.7, 75.2. arcs, see cat. nos. 25, 42, 45, 59; for ones ending in pointed 98 Triglyphs with pointed arches belong to the Artemision arcs: cat. nos. 38, 46, 60. at Corfu and the Monopteros at Delphi; for other examples, 101 For appreciation of the problems of dating, see Rolley see Mertens 1993, Taf. 74.2, 74.6, 74.8, 85.4. 1975, 1986, 60; Hurwit 1985, 281–5; Strøm 1995, 49–50. 99 Another set of triglyphs with ogive arches is known from 102 For drawings of the main profiles at Delphi, Olympia, and Tegea, see Mertens 1993, 159, Taf. 75.5. While the recesses other sites, see Benton 1934–1935, fig. 7; Rolley 1977, pls. 1– of the triglyphs of Temple C at Selinunte take up a pointed 6; Maass 1977, Abb. 1. For an overview of the main categories, form, an ogive shape is nonetheless present in the outline of see Strøm 1995, 40–50. the borders. 2002] TRIPODS, TRIGLYPHS, AND THE ORIGIN OF THE DORIC FRIEZE 371 front, as in the case of triglyph uprights. To judge by the largest collections of Geometric and Archaic tripods, those in the excavators’ storerooms at Olym- pia and Delphi (fig. 25), the hexagonal form was the most popular option for solid-cast tripods.103 Solid-cast tripods with chamfered legs were outmod- ed by the end of the eighth century, so the choice of this particular form by the sculptor of the Siph- nian treasury pediment (530–520 B.C.) suggests that it conveyed a venerable or heroic character. Perhaps this type of profile was applied to triglyphs in part for similar reasons, in part out of appreciation of the consequent play of light and shadow. The beveled faces just mentioned are often slightly concave, just as they are in different sets of early triglyphs from Metapontum (fig. 24).104 What is more, the front face of tripod legs sometimes have a central rib, and this too is a feature of more than one set of triglyphs from Metapontum, as well as a set from Sybaris.105 These central ribs typically terminate in a small cross-rib where the arches of the uprights begin, and precisely this detail may be found on several bronze tripod legs where they flare out at the top (e.g., fig. 26).106 In short, wherever early triglyphs present quirks that eventually were expunged from the Doric canon, these arguably respond to the detailing of bronze tripods. Fig. 22. Detail of group shown in fig. 21. (Neg. by the Taken together, I contend that these various cor- author) respondences bear witness to a connection between triglyphs and tripods. dimensional objects made of stone, terracotta, or of composite construction, which are either them- processes of transformation selves tripods or related types of vessels, namely This claim provokes the following question: If a exaleiptra or tripod-kothons. Bronze tripods un- connection was indeed intended, why was it not doubtedly provided the direct or indirect source made more obvious? What explains the absence on of inspiration for kothons,107 so it is significant that triglyphs of other features associated with tripods they too can lack the selfsame details that triglyphs apart from those covered so far? In answering these lack. points, it is vital to grasp the nature of artistic trans- Perhaps the most striking difference between formation that characterized the representation of triglyphs and bronze tripods or their representa- objects in early Greek art. The transformations in- tions is that the ring handles are absent on the troduced into the representation of tripods in two former and almost invariably present on the latter. dimensions have been discussed already, but their This omission can be imputed to a recognition of extent tended to be more pronounced when three the structural feebleness of handles made of terra- dimensions came into play, especially where a cotta or stone. Terracotta tripods, whether tripod- change of materials was involved. For our present stands or kothons, hardly ever have handles stand- purposes the most relevant clues come from three- ing upright;108 in rare examples they are folded

103 This I estimate on the basis of personal inspection; I am 1977, Pls. 29–34; Maass 1977, Abb. 1, 4; Touloupa 1991, figs. grateful to the respective Greek, German, and French author- 13, 16, 17), including running wave patterns that appear on ities for permission to handle this material. the capping piece of the triglyphs from the temple at Akrai. 104 For another photograph, see Barletta 1990, fig. 16; for For this building, see Orsi 1933; Bernabò Brea 1986. other examples, see Mertens 1993, Taf. 72.7, 74.7, 85.4; Bar- 107 Kilinski 1990, 56. letta 1990, 63. 108 A notable exception, a terracotta tripod-cauldron from a 105 Mertens 1993, Abb. 79. Protogeometric grave at Kerameikos, Athens, is both an early 106 Vertical center ribs also appear on representations of tri- and a particularly literal copy of the bronze form, see Kübler pods, see cat. nos. 34, 61, 41, 65, 66, 71, 90, 93. Some tripod 1959, 95, Taf. 63; Hurwit 1985, fig. 100. legs are decorated by geometric patterns in light relief (Rolley 372 MARK WILSON JONES [AJA 106

Fig. 23. Cat. no. 76. The murder of Polyxena by Neoptolemos and his accomplices, with mourners, left, and tripod, right. Marble sarcophagus, from Gümüs¸çay, Turkey. (Sevinç 1996, fig. 9) down onto the top of the vessel (fig. 27),109 but usu- simple fillets not unlike the fillets capping Doric ally they have no handles at all (figs. 12, 28, 29). architraves. Such transformations can be so radical These would have been prone to breakage, and for as to make the connection with bronze tripods rath- the same reason handles do not appear on stone er oblique, a case in point being the kothon from tripods, including examples that probably date to Thasos (fig. 12). Perhaps it was for this reason that the seventh century.110 This omission therefore tes- explicit tripod representations were created from tifies to an appreciation of the practicalities of us- the device of the additional central pillars. ing specific materials, a consideration that affected the process of transforming the bronze models from which these classes of object descended.111 Even where practicality was not directly pertinent, as in the case of the tripod-triglyph relief frieze from Samos (fig. 5), handles may have been judged an- tithetical to the sense of structural allusion that suited its architectural function. Other characteristics of seventh- and sixth-century tripod-kothons are also of interest. Their proportions are dramatically different with respect to bronze tripods; kothons usually have broad legs, often to the extent that little or no light can be seen between them. Kothons typically have a strongly geometrical composition that declares a certain empathy with triglyph design. Their tops are typically flat, discounting any lid,112 sometimes rounded (fig. 27), and sometimes chamfered, as in the case of examples of contrasting overall shape: one now in Dresden (fig. 29),113 one now in Athens (fig. 28),114 and the one from Thasos already mentioned (fig. 12). In some examples the legs terminate in Fig. 24. Triglyph from the so-called Tavole Palatine, Metapontum, third quarter of the sixth century; note the lion-paw feet as do bronze models, but this is only rib on the front face of the glyph, the concave profile of true of relatively late examples in both classes of the sides of the glyph and the slight gap between the glyphs. object. The great majority of kothon legs end in (Mertens 1993, Taf. 73.2)

109 Athens, NM 12037; Kilinski 1990, pl. 10.1–2; cf. Scheibler 112 For ones with their original lids, see Kilinski 1990, pls. 1964. 9.1, 31.3. 110 Touloupa 1991; for small-scale stone tripods, see Pharak- 113 Dresden Kunstsammlungen, inv. no. ZV 2775. Knoll las 1970. 1999, no. 17, 52–3, gives the date as the first quarter of the 111 Catling 1964, 213–7; Kilinski 1990, 56; Langdon 1993, sixth century. 163–4; Pharaklas 1970, 176–8. 114 Athens NM 12685; Kilinski 1990, 17.2. 2002] TRIPODS, TRIGLYPHS, AND THE ORIGIN OF THE DORIC FRIEZE 373 The other major difference between triglyphs and tripods is the absence in the former of gaps between the legs. There are, in fact, small gaps or recesses between the legs of some triglyphs from Magna Graecia, including those from Metapontum illustrated in figure 24.115 In effect, then, the profile of such triglyphs is similar in terms of morphology to the tripod shown in relief on the Siphnian treasury (fig. 22). The proportions may be fairly different (the chamfers of the latter are far from meeting one another), but this is arguably less significant that the morphological similarity. In both cases the reduction or absence of gaps responds to the adaptation of the three-dimensional bronze model into two-dimensional versions made of stone. Consider, too, the transformations involved in the fabrication of freestanding stone tripods. The use of this material called for relatively robust legs and stocky proportions, as can be seen in a variety of stone tripods, whether ones from the eastern Med- iterranean dating to the Bronze Age, the Geo- metric period,116 the Hellenistic period (fig. 30), as well as examples of imperial Roman manufacture and related pieces of furniture like candela- bra. Most instructive of all in the present context are a set of monumental tripods from the Athenian Acropolis, which may be dated to the seventh century.117 Not only are these made of poros, but their Fig. 25. Bronze tripod legs of the Geometric period from construction featured timber inserts and bronze Olympia. Note that the legs, roughly hexagonal in section, sheathing, precisely the sort of amalgam that, with present three faces toward the front and that these can be concave in profile, as in the one on the left. (Olympia, the addition of terracotta and mud-brick, charac- Archaeological Museum; neg. DAI Athens, no. 72/3725) terized the construction of contemporary temples. It is significant that solidity, both in structural and and the occasional concavity of the same; the con- visual terms, was obtained by the filling in of the gaps necting arches; the occasional ribs on the front of between the legs. What is more, the infill is created by the legs; and the occasional stop-bars where the broad chamfers between the frontal faces, as was arches spring. Meanwhile, the presence on trig- done in the Hellenistic example illustrated in fig- lyphs of a strong capping band, together with the ure 30. So if indeed an architect of the seventh absence of ring handles and the almost complete century had aimed to incorporate tripod-like fea- lack of gaps between the legs, may be attributed to tures into the entablature, the chamfered recesses transformations that seventh-century designers of the triglyph could plausibly have been created judged necessary for architectural reliefs in stone, in the process. It might also be imagined that once terracotta, or bronze sheet. the legs started to expand or fuse, the underside of Should such affinities between tripods and trig- the cauldron would start to diminish in its visual lyphs be admitted, this leads on to the question of impact, as is apparent in tripod kothons (figs. 27, explanation. Were architects and masons inspired 28), or even disappear, as it almost seems to do on primarily by the aesthetic effect of prestigious some tripod representations (figs. 16, 23). bronzework, or did they appropriate form with de- To sum up, a series of direct parallels between liberate symbolic intent? To answer this question, tripods and early triglyphs have been identified: the meaning of tripod imagery and its potential the three legs; the horizontal, but not vertical, sym- relevance for temple building are explored in the metry; the capping piece; the chamfers of the legs, next section.

115 For further examples, see Mertens 1993, Taf. 73.1, 73.3, 117 Stevens 1951; Touloupa 1991. Comparable examples of 73.6, 74.4 Hellenistic date surmounted the scaenae frons of the theater 116 See Pharaklas 1970. at Delos. 374 MARK WILSON JONES [AJA 106

Fig. 26. Fragments of the upper parts of a pair of tripod legs from Olympia. Note the presence of ribs, and their termination in a horizontal bar where the flare begins at the top of the leg. (Olympia, Archaeological Museum; neg. DAI Athens, no. 72/3751) the function and meaning of tripods erences120 and artistic representations.121 The ex- Not forgetting similar objects as far afield as Brit- planation for this mutation is elusive, but it may ain and China, in the eastern Mediterranean tri- reflect an association with collective sacrificial meals, pods date back to the third millennium B.C., be- festivities, and games; iron spits (obeliskoi) were pop- coming widespread before the collapse of the Myce- ular as dedicatory and funeral offerings for similar naean world in the 12th century. Their root func- motives. The other reason probably had to do with tion was as mortars or cooking receptacles; unlike the elevated value of bronze; large tripods were one ones with a single central pillar or four legs, three- of the main non-military consumers of the metal, legged vessels find a stable purchase on uneven and as such inherently precious objects.122 The ear- surfaces. Homer cites tripod-cauldrons for heating ly Greeks valued objects in terms of oxen, and some- bathwater for Achilles, Hektor, and Odysseus,118 and times iron spits, cauldrons, or tripods,123 although for washing Patroclos’s corpse.119 this is not to say that objects as big as the latter Already in the Bronze Age a proportion of tri- changed hands in the manner of coin.124 Yet in pre- pods began to transcend utilitarian roles, coming monetary Greece tripods were certainly foremost to be produced for ceremonial or ritual functions, among prestigious gifts that the aristocracy ex- and fabricated out of expensive materials, chiefly changed to register contracts of friendship, obliga- bronze. By the Geometric period evidence of tri- tion, and alliance.125 Homer records tripods in such pods in a practical context is relatively scarce, not circumstances, while his and later references to tri- only in archaeological traces but also in textual ref- pods “untouched by fire” seem to confirm their rit-

118 Iliad, 22.443 (Hektor); 23.40 (Achilles); Odyssey, 8.434– 122 Apart from the literature cited above in n. 49, see Rolley 7, 10.359–361 (Odysseus). Another passage, Iliad, 23.702, cites 1986, 61. “a tripod to stand upon the fire” offered as a prize for wrestling 123 For the debate on the origin of this practice, see Parisi (between Aias and Idomeneus), which could imply either heat- 1988, 253–65. ing water or cooking. For selected references to tripods in lit- 124 Kraay 1976, 314–5. erary sources, see Sakowski 1997, 21–7. 125 Finley 1977, esp. 64–6. Essays on this theme are collect- 119 Iliad, 18.344–8. ed in the volume Gifts to the Gods (Boreas 15); three contribu- 120 See, e.g., Antiphanes, frag. 114.1; 249.2; 36.1; Orphica tions are especially relevant: Burkert 1987; Hägg 1987; Lang- Lithica, 724. don 1987. See also Seaford 1994, esp. 195–6; Burkert 1996b, 121 Cat. nos. 57, 69. The so-called Northampton Amphora ch. 6, “The Reciprocity of Giving”; Sakowski 1997, 22–4. For shows a Dionysian scene with satyrs, one of whom draws wine the broader anthropological context, see Mauss 1990; Gode- out of a bowl supported on a braced tripod stand, see Simon lier 1996. 1976, color pl. 17; Marangou et al. 1995, no. 17, 114–9. 2002] TRIPODS, TRIGLYPHS, AND THE ORIGIN OF THE DORIC FRIEZE 375 ual significance, even if the phrase could have sig- nified “(as yet) unused” or “new”.126 On several occasions Homer tells of tripods offered as prizes for the winners of athletic, equestri- an, or martial competition, in which the donor and the contestants include major protagonists in the Trojan wars (Achilles, Aias, Idomeneus, Odys- seus).127 A popular motif in late Geometric and early Archaic art was a tripod flanked by two horses or riders (fig. 20),128 another was a tripod accompanied by a single horse or rider.129 Besides evoking a princely lifestyle by association, such images allude to the contesting and/or the winning of horse races.130 Boxers or wrestlers competing for possession of a tripod is another staple of Greek art at this time (fig. 27),131 while the popular struggle for the tripod between Apollo and Hercules took the same theme to a divine plane (figs. 15, 21).132 As already noted, tripod prizes are frequently shown at the fin- Fig. 27. Painted terracotta tripod kothon showing two ish or in the background of foot, horse, or chariot wrestlers on one of the supports, and with ring handles 133 folded down on top of the vessel; second quarter of the races (fig. 9). sixth century B.C. (National Museum, Athens, inv. no. For the same reason tripods are associated with 12037; museum neg.) the events following such a victory. Victors and/or their stewards are shown carrying off tripod prizes (fig. 19),134 or these are shown flanked by winged personifications of victory (nikai).135 Another type of image depicts ritual preparatory to the consecration of tripods when their victors offered them up as gifts to the gods in sanctuaries, usually, but not always, those where the relevant contests were held (fig. 8).136 There is abundant complementary archaeological evidence at Olympia, Delphi, and other sites where games were celebrated, and tripods won and subsequently dedicated. As Susan Langdon wrote, at sites like Olympia “bronze tripods bridge the two worlds of Homeric poetry and archaeological reality.”137 Indeed, so many tripods have been found at Olympia that there cannot have been enough victors to go around, especially since the prizes for some events were crowns of laurel and other things apart from tripods. Many of them possibly were ded- Fig. 28. Painted terracotta tripod kothon showing facing icated by individuals and political entities con- sphinxes decorating one of the supports; second quarter of cerned to vaunt status and piety before an “interna- the sixth century B.C. (National Museum, Athens, inv. no. tional” audience.138 12685; museum neg.)

126 Iliad, 9.122; Pausanius, 4,32.1.4. discussion, see Scheibler 1988; Wilson Jones 2001a. 127 Iliad, 9.407; 11.700; 23.259–264; 23.485; 23.513; 23.702– 135 Cat. nos. 94, 95; cf. cat. no. 16. 718. Cf. Laser 1987; Sakowski 1997, 22, 43–5, 82–106. 136 Cat. no. 70; cf. cat. nos. 73, 77, 81. A scene showing cel- 128 Cat. no. 19; cf. cat. nos. 9, 13, 20, 24. ebrants advancing up the steps to an altar, one of them lead- 129 Cat. nos. 15, 41; cf. cat. nos. 32, 84. ing an animal victim, another carrying a tripod (cat. no. 62), 130 Rombos 1988; Maul-Manderlartz 1990. may depict an earlier stage in the preparations for its dedica- 131 Cat. nos. 5, 18, 21, 34, 38, 42, 54, 60, 61. tion. On the various types of prizes for Greek contests, and 132 Cat. nos. 59, 99; cf. 68, 92, 96, 97. For discussion, see von the practice of offering them as votives, see Rouse 1902. Bothmer 1977; Schefold 1992, 153–8; Sakowski 1997, 26, 113– 137 Langdon 1987, 109. 63. 138 Morgan 1990, 43–7. For parallel conclusions, see de Po- 133 Supra ns. 68, 69. lignac 1994, esp. 11–2; 1996, esp. 63–5, in relation to the Ar- 134 Cat. no. 43; cf. cat. nos. 39, 40, 50, 55, 58. For further give Heraion. 376 MARK WILSON JONES [AJA 106 Dodona, and this similarly helps account for the quantities of them found at this remote but venerable sanctuary.143 As noted earlier, tripods made of metal, ever a limited resource, were valuable. Metal tripods thus were frequently the vehicle that civic and military leaders chose for absorbing the “gods’ 10%,” the tithe due to them following a victory in war, or when some other prayer was answered that resulted in a surplus.144 Dedications of this sort were typically made by poleis and other collective bodies, or by kings and tyrants. Following victory at the battle of Himera in 480 B.C., the Sicilian tyrants Hiero and Gelon commissioned gold tripods to be set up at Delphi.145 It was in the form of an extraordinary tripod offering again at Delphi—a gold one supported by three gilded bronze serpents twisted into a tall column—that the Greeks elected to show their gratitude to the gods after they defeated the Per- sians at Plataea.146 Fig. 29. Painted terracotta tripod kothon from Boeotia; first While bronze tripods were associated primarily quarter of the sixth century B.C. (Dresden, Staatliche with aristocracy, prestige, and wealth, at the other Kunstsammlungen, inv. no. ZV 2775; museum photo) end of the economic scale may be found two-dimensional cutouts made from bronze sheets, like Tripods were also offered as prizes for musical, the example from Samos mentioned earlier (fig. choregic, poetry, and theatrical competitions,139 16i), and humble terracotta votive plaques with and Hesiod makes proud mention of the time painted tripods, such as the one from Eleusis illus- when he won a tripod at Chalcis and then dedicat- trated in figure 16f.147 Since the tripod spanned ed it at the sanctuary of the Muses at Helicon.140 In the whole spectrum of dedications, and particular- Athens monumental tripod dedications eventually the top end, with good reason it has been called ly became so numerous that they overflowed the the Greeks’ dedication “par excellence,”148 or “the confines of sacred precincts, creating the “Street ultimate (dedicatory) gift.”149 of Tripods” (Odos Tripodon today); the choregic On account in part of the frequency with which Monument of Lysicrates (fig. 4) is only the most they were dedicated in religious contexts, and in imposing survivor of what must have been a spec- part of Homer’s mention of them in descriptions of tacular accumulation.141 Mount Olympus, tripods became identified with The tripod was one of Apollo’s principal sym- the divine sphere and the homes of the gods. Vase bols, especially of his Delphic manifestation (fig. painters employed tripods to indicate sacred space 7), and it was on a tripod that Pythia and later The- in views of sanctuaries, often, but not always, those mis sat when uttering oracular pronouncements.142 sacred to Apollo.150 Interestingly enough, tripods Tripods also played a role in the oracle of Zeus at on columns sometimes appear in this role, or alter-

139 Textual references to this function are copious, see, e.g., dotos, 5.59–60; Pausanius, 3,18.7–8; cf. Rouse 1902, 145–8; Aristides, Rhet. Aelius, 331.28; Plato, Phil. Gorgias 472.6; Plutar- Snodgrass 1989–1990. chus Biogr., Aristides, 1.3–6; id., Biogr., De gloria Atheniensum, 145 Athenaeus, Deip. 6, 232,a–b; Diodorus Siculus 11.26.7; 6.11; id., Biogr., Nicias, 3.3.3. Cf. Rouse 1902, 156–8; Pickard- Bacchylides, Pythian 3, 17–22. The relationship between liter- Cambridge 1968, 77–8. ary references and the physical traces near the Temple of Apollo 140 Hesiod, Works and Days, I.657; cf. Pausanius 9.31.3.1. are debated, see Amandry 1987; Morris 1992, 40–1; Krumeich 141 Chorémi-Spetsiéri and Kazamiakis 1994; Schnurr 1995, 1991. esp. 146–8; Amandry 1997; Wilson 2000, 198–235. 146 Herodotos, 9.80–1; Pausanius, 10.13.9; Thucydides, 142 Cat. no. 71; cf. cat. nos. 52, 53, 65, 66, 79, 90, 91, 93. For 1.132.2. For alternative reconstructions for this and related further images of tripods in relation to Apollo, see LIMC s.v. monuments, see Ridgway 1977; Laroche 1989; Jacquemin and Apollon; Sakowski 1997, 299–317. For Themis on the Delphic Laroche 1990. tripod, see cat. no. 72. 147 Eleusis: cat. no. 14; Samos: cat. 25. 143 Carapanos 1878; Dakaris 1971; Gartziou-Tatti 1990; Voko- 148 Maass 1981, 19. topoulou 1995. 149 Morris 1997, 37. 144 Literary sources attesting to this practice include Hero- 150 Cat. nos. 52, 53, 64, 66, 67, 91. 2002] TRIPODS, TRIGLYPHS, AND THE ORIGIN OF THE DORIC FRIEZE 377 natively in the background of scenes with multiple divinities, a symbol of their home on Olympus or at the bottom of the sea (fig. 17).151 temples and tripods Greek temples had a variety of functions apart from that of being the conceptual house of a divinity, and the physical home of his or her cult statue. Their location and very purpose often answered to a venerated natural feature; they could be places for enacting ritual, for meeting or dining, or the seats of oracles and treasuries; they could be dedicated as thanksgiving, as atonement, or as the commemoration of a special event or a miracle.152 Let us put to one side existing interpretations of the triglyph in terms of construction or influence, and suppose for a moment that patrons and architects in the seventh century were concerned to find a fitting iconography for adorning temples. It is clear that the associations of tripod imagery accord with many aspects of temple function and meaning. As noted, tripods were identified with the ce- lestial homes of the gods; temples, of course, were homes for the gods on earth. Tripods could be mementos of victory and equivalent to the god’s share of war booty; temples likewise could be just as much the fruit of war. There would have been an Fig. 30. Stone tripod from the proskenion of the theater at obvious logic in adopting tripod imagery for tem- Delos (third century). Note how the gaps between the legs ples of Apollo, since it was one of his symbols. And of the tripod have been filled in. (Neg. by the author) since tripods were connected with oracles, it could make a fitting embellishment for buildings shel- gently that, above and in conjunction with the vari- tering oracles. A further potential justification for ous functions mentioned previously, all temples tripod imagery would be on the outside of any struc- were dedications to the gods. Typically they were ture that protected votives (which in so many sanc- the most visible and expensive offerings made by tuaries included valuable bronze tripods). As sanc- city-states, tyrants seeking to be identified with the tuaries burgeoned, special safe buildings—treasur- same, and miscellaneous political or religious in- ies—were introduced to fulfill this purpose, one stitutions.155 As the Greeks’ votive “par excellence,” that was earlier served by temples.153 In his exhaus- the tripod presented itself as an ideal candidate tive study of Greek Iron Age architecture, Alexander for delivering such a message had it ever been in- Mazarakis Ainan explains the very emergence of tended, and a high level frieze is of course a para- autonomous temples in sanctuaries in part as a re- digmatic locus for communicative display in classi- sponse to the need “to house (the most precious) cal architecture. votive offerings . . . in order to protect from being But while it may be instructive to contemplate the stolen, worn, or destroyed by natural causes.”154 A specific motivations that could have given rise to a tripod frieze on early temples could have adver- tripod frieze, it is surely vain to privilege any one sce- tised their treasury function, since tripods were typ- nario at the expense of others on account of the very ically among the most valuable votives. But temple- multivalency of tripod iconography.156 The tripod treasuries were not just containers for votives—they carried such a universal and diffuse sacred charge were themselves votives. Walter Burkert argues co- that it potentially suited virtually any Greek temple.

151 Cat. nos. 75, 78, 82, 83, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 100. 154 Mazarakis Ainan 1997, 383. 152 Coldstream 1985; Mazarakis Ainan 1988; Burkert 1988, 155 Burkert 1988, esp. 43–4; 1996a, esp. 24–5. Note also for 1996a; Fehr 1996; Hollinshead 1999. parallel conclusions regarding treasuries, Rups 1986, 255. 153 Rups 1986; Behrens-du Maire 1993; Svenson-Evers 1997, 156 For an appreciation of the multiple overlapping conno- esp. 133, 148. tations of the tripod, see Durand 1987, n. 8. 378 MARK WILSON JONES [AJA 106 The iconographical parallels outlined above do In presenting this hypothesis I do not champion not individually demonstrate a triglyph-tripod con- symbolic interpretations of the orders as a question nection; they only potentially explain a connection of principle; the proposed derivation of the triglyph established by the visual evidence presented in this lends no justification for symbolic readings for the article. The ramifications, however, are certainly rest of the Doric order. Nor do I offer this as the only intriguing. The possibility that the Doric frieze ini- possible reading of the triglyph. The available evi- tially conveyed an intelligible and appropriate dence, with its extensive lacunae, warns against be- message helps answer two of the greatest puzzles ing overly dogmatic. Instead, it is important to con- surrounding the origin and early development of sider how this new interpretation can intersect with the Doric order: its sudden appearance in a “ready preceding ones. Perhaps—despite the objections developed” form, and its remarkably rapid diffu- noted earlier—triglyphs do echo beam-ends as Vit- sion. Since it could well have been the fruit of a ruvius suggested; the new hypothesis can be over- spontaneous invention, a tripod frieze would con- laid on the traditional one, explaining why beam- flict less than does the petrification doctrine with ends took the specific triglyph form. Likewise the the evidence contradicting an evolutionary devel- tripod connection does not contradict the possibili- opment. It also sits better with another scenario ty that the Doric frieze was inspired by the genre of evoked by Vitruvius’s statement that Doros, the “triglyph and metope” friezes so common in Geo- mythical progenitor of the Dorians, “chanced” to metric art; once again, such a hypothesis is only elab- use what was later called the Doric order at Hera’s orated and enriched. Furthermore, the tripod con- temple in her sanctuary near Argos, and then in nection negates neither the possibility of a second- other temples in Achaea.157 The tripod imagery ary Mycenaean influence for the conception of the resolves the arbitrariness Vitruvius describes here, frieze, nor a primary one for elements such as the giving us the reason firstly for the choice of the Doric capital. Egyptian influence, too, remains plau- Doric frieze over alternative solutions, and second- sible in terms of the overall ambitions and propor- ly its adoption by later temple builders. The fact tions of the stone Doric temple. that the triglyph derived from a real model helps This article aims not to provide answers, but rather explain why its form did not fluctuate more than it to raise questions. Is the tripod-triglyph connection did. (Tetraglyphs and pentaglyphs do exist in Ma- a secondary and partly fortuitous phenomenon, the gna Graecia, but are very rare.158) Moreover, the as- result of grafting artistic conventions borrowed from sociations of tripods as prizes seems almost prophet- tripods onto proto-triglyphs that had acquired a tri- ic of the competitive character of temple building, partite form for other reasons? Or is its symbolic form as each sanctuary or polis sought to outdo each oth- the raison d’être for the very existence of the Doric er in displaying the most effective showpieces. frieze? Is it possible that an early temple had proto- Moreover, the possibility that the form and shape of triglyphs that resembled tripods more closely than triglyphs referred back to an original model could do the triglyphs that happen to survive, a resemblance explain why Greek architects resisted modifying that ceded to later improvements in the aesthetic them to overcome the vexatious corner problem. and tectonic aspects of design? What are the implica- The conceptual and symbolic importance that the tions of all this for our understanding of the forma- tripod connection conferred on the triglyph might tive stages of Greek architecture and sacred space? even explain why its width was adopted as the basic The evaluation of these questions, and the extent module for designing Doric temples in the Classi- to which the tripod-triglyph connection can supplant cal period.159 The symbolic origins of the triglyph, or cohabit with other explanations for the Doric frieze, however, appear to have been quickly forgotten (or hangs on a detailed review of related aspects of sev- ignored); the pentaglyphs from Locri point to a enth-century architecture on the one hand, and the loss of meaning by the middle of the sixth century, spatial disposition of tripods in sanctuaries on the while Vitruvius’s testimony shows that the whole is- other. These are tasks to be confronted elsewhere,160 sue had become a mystery probably by the fourth but here I conclude just with some brief observations century and certainly by the second. that bear on the ideas broached in this article.

157 Vitr. 4.1.3. 159 Wilson Jones 2001b. 158 For terracotta tetraglyphs from Crotone, see Mertens 160 Such questions are discussed in more depth in my forth- 1993, Abb. 74; for limestone pentaglyphs from Locri, see Cos- coming book on the origins of the orders, scheduled for pub- tamagna and Sabbione 1990, 230. lication by Yale University Press in 2003. 2002] TRIPODS, TRIGLYPHS, AND THE ORIGIN OF THE DORIC FRIEZE 379 In the middle of the seventh century temple three, four, five, and—if myths are to be believed— architecture was only beginning to make its mark, in groups of 100.163 in the form of substantial, symmetrical structures It is against such a background that the specific built partly of stone, notably those at Argos, correspondences highlighted here among trig- Corinth, Delphi, Isthmia, and Tegea.161 All these lyphs, tripods, and temples begin to make sense. temples rise in sanctuaries; indeed, as Georges The communicative potential of classical architec- Roux has remarked, “l’architecture grecque est ture is typically concentrated in the device of a frieze, née dans les sanctuaires et pour les sanctuaires.”162 and it seems that in this the Doric temple is no Before the arrival of a temple, the chief constitu- exception. The iconography of the triglyph pro- ents of sacred space were typically a boundary claimed perhaps the very nature of the Greek tem- marking it off from its profane surroundings, a ple, a precious and enduring gift to the gods im- natural feature (spring, stream, rock, cave, or tree), bued with the spirit of competition, excellence, vic- an altar, and votives. By the eighth or seventh cen- tory, and veneration. This new interpretation may tury, tripods were the most imposing and costly not rule out other readings, but it does offer a bet- class of votive in many sanctuaries (large stone stat- ter key to some of the more baffling aspects associ- uary appeared not much before the end of the ated with the creation of the Doric frieze and its seventh century, around the time of the stone tem- rapid attainment of canonic status. ples themselves), which suggests that they could have offered lessons to architects and patrons look- department of architecture ing for ways to instill temples with monumental and civil engineering and symbolic presence. It should be remembered university of bath that tripods were often set up on high and/or ac- bath ba2 7ay cording to a clear compositional order: in rows united kingdom and rings, as well as in matching pairs or groups of [email protected]

Appendix: Catalogue of Tripod Representations Cited Cat Fig. Medium Sakowski Other Context and Character of Guide No. No. Identificationa /shapeb 1997 Referencesc Tripod Representation Date

1 – Paris, Musée Rodin gKRA PR-1 CVA 2, pl. 9.4; RMB, pl. 59b Prothesis with ca. 40 T. alternat- 750 ing with stripes

2 16a Paris, Louvre A 547 gKRA PR-2 CVA 11, pl. 14.8; RMB, pl. Prothesis with 2 T. or more (frag.) 59a

3 16b London, private gKRA? GE-1 BTN 104, 7, fig. 11b; Laser 2 T. and Diplyon shields; T. has coll. 1987, T80 bowed legs and cauldron

4 – Athens, NM 18130 gAMP FR-4 BTN 105, 9, pl. 25.1; Laser Frieze of 8 T. 730 ex. Empedocles coll. 1987, fig. 31a

5 – Olympia, B 1730 brRel KR-2 OlForsch 3, pls. 62–63; Rolley Combatants grasp T. Tripod leg 1986, fig. 31

6 6 Athens, NM 874 gCUP FR-1 CVA 2, pl. 10.11; Borell 1978, Frieze of 8T. alternating with 720 (3632) pl. 14; BTN 103, 5; RMB 352 stripes

7 16c Athens, NM 18140 gKAN FR-2 BTN 105,10, pl. 26.3 Frieze of 6 T. alternating with stripes

8 – Fortetsa gPIT lid GÖ-1 BTN 107, 19; AA 1933, figs. T. with bird and man; T. has 2 710 20–21; Simon 1980, fig. 14 legs, bowed cauldron

161 Bergquist 1967; Tomlinson 1976. For a review of the 162 Roux 1984, 153. subsequent bibliography for these and other sites, see Østby 163 Pausanius 4.12.7–10. 1993. 380 MARK WILSON JONES [AJA 106 Catalogue of Tripod Representations Cited (Continued)

Cat Fig. Medium Sakowski Other Context and Character of Guide No. No. Identificationa /shapeb 1997 Referencesc Tripod Representation Date

9 – Athens, NM 18135 gAMP PF-10 BTN 103, 2, pl. 25.2; AA.VV. T. between 2 horses (Empedocles coll.) 1989a, no. 195

10 16d Athens, NM (from gPYX GE-2 BTN, pl. 26.2; Laurent 1901, T. has bowed cauldron Argive Heraion) (frag.) fig. 4

11 16e Athens, Acrop. 286 gAMP? TI-1 G&L 1, pl. 10; BTN, fig. 13b; T. with birds 700 (frag.) RMB, pl. 59e

12 16g Athens (from gAMP PF-24 BTN 107, 23, fig. 13a; RMB T. with bird; T. has inclined legs Eretria) (frag.) 268

13 – Berlin, StaatlMus gAMP PF-9 BTN 106, 14; RMB 327; T. between 2 horses 31005 Coldstream 1968, pl. 14c

14 16f Eleusis, AM votive – OZ-2 ASAtene 1983, fig. 16 Single T. on its own; 1 per plaque plaques

15 – Munich fibula – PF-22 JdI 1916, fig. 3; BTN, no. 21 T. with horse and birds; T. has 680 long tapered legs

16 – Xomburgo, Tenos gPIT GÖ-2 Morris 1992, figs. 13–14 T. with kneeling winged figure; T. has bowed legs

17 10 Athens, Kerameikos cOIN PF-25 Kübler 1959, pls. 57–58; Frieze of 3 T. alternating with 1267 Benson 1989, pl. 13.2 decorative motifs

18 – Brauron, AM 1305 – – BCH 1962, 679, fig. 14; Combatants with T.; T. has stocky 670 seal Boardman 1970, fig. 162 legs

19 20 Policoro, NM gDIN PF-17 Adamesteanu 1980, pl. 2.1 T. between 2 horses; T. has no handles

20 – Paris, Louvre CA gOIN – RMB, pl. 60a T. between 2 horses; T. has thin 650 2999 legs, flat cauldron

21 – Oxford, Ashm. brMld SP-7 BTN, no. 5; JHS 1896, figs. Combatants with T. Goldsmith’s mold 1–5

22 16h Xoburgo, Tenos gPIT? FR-7 JHS 1954, 164; BCH 1954, 2 T., probably part of frieze 630 (frag.) 145

23 11 Heraklion, AM 7652 PIT PF-58 ASAtene 1914, figs. 36–39; T. alternating with chariots and ex Prinias, Temple A M-Man, RA8, pl. 24 riders

24 – Philadelphia, cALA PF-51 Payne 1931, pl. 20; BTN no. T. between 2 horses 620 University M. 552 8; M-Man, K5, pl. 5

25 16i Samos brRel – Kyrieleis 1988, fig. 4 Plaque in shape of T. pronounced arches

26 – Syracuse AM; from cARY PF-26 Friis Johansen 1923, pl. T. terminating chariot race the Athenaion 34.1; BTN, no. 3; LIMC Achilleus 494

27 – Athens, Politis coll. cAMP PF-32 Amyx 1988, 42; ArchDelt Pair of T., with riders ΣΠ89 Suppl. 40, fig. 86, pl. 14

28 12 Athens, NM 17874 KOT TI-3 Haspels 1946; Carlié 2000, Frieze of 3 T. alternating with tripod-kothon from 105–6, fig. 5 mythological beasts Thasos 2002] TRIPODS, TRIGLYPHS, AND THE ORIGIN OF THE DORIC FRIEZE 381 Catalogue of Tripod Representations Cited (Continued)

Cat Fig. Medium Sakowski Other Context and Character of Guide No. No. Identificationa /shapeb 1997 Referencesc Tripod Representation Date

29 – Geneva, MoA, MF bfAMP SP-37 CVA 2, pl. 43 Runners, elders, and T.; 580 156 trio of T. under handles

30 14 Athens, NM bfKRA? – G&L, 654 b–c; AJA 1995, 627 Pair or more T. alternating with (frag.) piles of bowls

31 9 Paris, Louvre E 875 bfDIN PF-45 CVA 4, pl. 18.2; M-Man, A20, Elders and riders alternating with 570 pls. 13, 15 T. (singles and trios)

32 13 Paris, Louvre MNB teRel PF-59 Mollard-Besques 1954, pl. 20; Tripod with horse and rider part 579 placque M-Man, pl. 25 of frieze? (Kythnos)

33 – Taranto (now lost) bfKRA PF-46 Homann-Wedeking 1938, Five horses race toward five T. (frag.) fig. 7; GVJPGM 4, 53, fig. 8 under handle

34 – London, BM B 124 bfDIN SP-38 CVA 8 pl. 99.5; LIMC Peliou Combatants compete 560 1888.2–8.102 (frag.) Athla 12 for T. (single and pair)

35 – Munich, AntSlg bfAMP – Gerhard 1840–1858, pl. Running warriors and elders 1471 257.3; CVA 7, pls. 346–347 framed by T. (single and trio)

36 – Berlin, StaatlMus F cKVO PF-27 FRGV, pl. 121; AJA 1981, pl. 19.1; Trio of T. terminating chariot 1655 (lost) Amyx 1983, 38–41, fig. 3.2b race; one of them under handle

37 – Florence, AM 4209 bfKVO PF-28 FRGV, pls. 3–5; Simon 1976, Chariot race, with 2 T. alternat- (“François vase”) pl. 53; ABFV, 46; Shapiro ing with bowls 1994, fig. 19

38 – Olympia, B 972 brRel SP-11 OlForsch 2, xlii, pl. 66; Laser Boxers compete for T. shieldband 1987, fig. 11f

39 16k Heidelberg, Univ. bfCUP SP-44 ABV, 51.1; CVA 4, pl. 152.1; T. held aloft by bearer; T. has S.1 DevABF pl. 17.4 squat tapering legs

40 – Athens, Kerameikos bfLTR SP-47 JdI 1946–1947, pls. 18–19; Frieze of tripod bearers on two 550 1682 Wilson Jones 2001b, fig. 5 tiers

41 16j Athens, NM 289 bfPYX PF-54 Laurent 1901, fig. 7 T. with rider and bird; T. has Tripod pyxis straight cauldron

42 16l Athens, NM 1119 bfKAN SP-18 Laurent 1901, figs. 5–6 Combatants with T.; T. has arches (two sides similar) between the legs

43 19 London, BM B bfAMP PF-57 CVA 1, III He pl. 6.2.b; M- Steward bearing T.; flare of T. 1441849.11–22.1 Man, PS3, pl. 32 like half ogive

44 – Gela, Commune cLEK TL-1 MonAnt 1906, 54–5, fig. 27 Artisans fabricating T. with long 540 (Borgo, grave no. 71) inclined legs

45 16m Berlin, StaatlMus F bf pinax SP-70 AntDenk 2, pls. 23, 19a; Amyx T. at feet of warrior; T. has 797 (frag.) 1944, 185 deep and straight cauldron

46 16n London, BM B 145 bfPAN p. 346 ABV, 139.1; no. 196; CVA, III Athena between columns; T. He pl. 5.1a shield device

47 – Munich, AntSlg bfAMP – LIMC Kyknos I 47; Schiebler Warriors in combat; T. shield 1379 (J 81) 1988, Taf. 90.1 device

48 – Paris, Bib. Nat. 243 bfPAN p. 346 AA.VV. 1989b, fig. 155a, no. Athena between columns; T. 189; M-Man, KA1, pl. 41 shield device 382 MARK WILSON JONES [AJA 106 Catalogue of Tripod Representations Cited (Continued)

Cat Fig. Medium Sakowski Other Context and Character of Guide No. No. Identificationa /shapeb 1997 Referencesc Tripod Representation Date

49 – Rome, Villa Giulia bfPAN p. 346 MNEVG, fig. 141, no. 193; Athena between columns; T. 74957 Wilson Jones 2001b, fig. 4.1. shield device

50 – Munich, AntSlg bfAMP SP-54 ABFV, fig. 139; Schiebler Herakles bears off massive 1378 1988, Taf. 89.4 T. watched by gods

51 16p Athens, NM bfDIN – BCH Suppl. 4 (1977), fig. 3; Warriors in combat; T. shield Akropolis Coll. 607 (frag.) LIMC Ge 4 device

52 – London, BM B 49 bfAMP AP-195 Gerhard 1840–1858, pl. 241; 2 T. flanking Apollo in shrine 530 1856.5–12.10 CVA 3, pl. 35.2 with Aeolic columns

53 – Munich, AntSlg, bfAMP AP-196 CVA 1, pl. 28; Gerhard 1840– Pair of T. flanking palm tree 1395 1858, pl. 257.1 sacred to Apollo

54 – Berlin, StaatlMus bfAMP – LIMC Atalante 71; ABV 509 Boxers (Atalante and Peleus) 1837 between 2 massive T.

55 – Copenhagen, NM bfAMP SP-50 CVA 3, pl. 101.2; Amyx 1944, T. bearer laden with massive T. 109 pl. 27e; Scheibler 1988, Taf. 89.1

56 21 Delphi, pediment stRel AP-10 Daux and Hansen 1987; Struggle for the T. of Siphnian treasury Knell 1990, fig. 52

57 – Rome, Villa Giulia, bfHYD – ASAtene 1946, 47 ff.; AA.VV. Preparation of sacrificial feast; 80983 “Ricci hydria” 1989a, fig. 74 T. shown with 2 legs,

58 – Rome, Villa Giulia bfAMP SP-52 Amyx 1944, pls. 27 ff; T. bearers, two on one face one 520 8340 [by Exekias] Schiebler 1988, pl. 88.2–3 on the other

59 16o Naples, Santangelo bfSKY AP-28 Rumpf 1927, pls. 171–174; Struggle for the T.; T. has 120 Schefold 1992, fig. 154 semicircular arches

60 – Olympia, B 983 brRel AP-26 OlForsch 2, xviii, pl. 47; Laser Combatants with T. shieldband 1987, fig. 11; LIMC Herakles 134

61 – Tessin, private rfHYD – LIMC Peliou Athla 18 Wrestlers competing by side of T. 510 collection with large handles

62 – Athens, NM 12531 bfCUP – AntK 1985, pl. 19 Preparation for sacrifice; man carrying T. up to an altar

63 – Vatican, 362 (526.1) bfAMP SP-23 Albizzati 1924, no. 362, pl. 48 T. as decoration of handle

64 – Paris, Louvre G 152 rfCUP GÖ-8 FRGV, pl. 25; ARFV1, fig. Murder of Priam; massive T. in 245.2; LIMC Priamos 124 background

65 – Vatican, MGE 16568 rfHYD AP194 Beazley 1930, pls. 25–26; Apollo seated on winged T. [by Berlin painter] Wilson Jones 2001b, fig. 4.4c

66 – Perugia, NM 1170 rfCUP AP-199 Harrison and McColl 1894, Achilles and Troilos by altar 490 (89) [by Onesimos] pl. 17; Gerhard 1840–1858, of Apollo; massive T. behind pl. 224; ARFV1, fig. 232

67 – Rome, Villa Giulia ex rfCUP – GVJPGM 5, 49–60; LIMC Rape of Kassandra; pair of large T. Getty [by Onesimos] Kasssandra I 104 in background

68 – Tarquinia, RC 6843 rfAMP – FRGV, pl. 91; Schefold 1992, Struggle for T. [by Phintias] fig. 192 2002] TRIPODS, TRIGLYPHS, AND THE ORIGIN OF THE DORIC FRIEZE 383 Catalogue of Tripod Representations Cited (Continued)

Cat Fig. Medium Sakowski Other Context and Character of Guide No. No. Identificationa /shapeb 1997 Referencesc Tripod Representation Date

69 – London, BM E 163 rfHYD – LIMC Iason 62; ARFV, fig. Medea cooks ram in T.; T. has 200 bulky cauldron

70 8 London, BM E 284 rfAMP – FRO, 17–8; LIMC Phylai 1 Women prepare 2 bulls for 450 1846.1–28.1 sacrifice

71 7 Ferrara, AM 44894 rfKVO – LIMC Apollon 303; ARFV2, Apollo at Delphi shrine, flanked (T.57) from Spina fig. 171 by 2 T. and omphalos

72 – Berlin, StaatlMus rfCUP – FRGV, pl. 140: Gerhard 1849, Themis seated on Delphic T. 440 538 [Themisschale] pl. 328; LIMC Aigeus 1

73 – Munich, AntSlg rfSTA – FRGV, pl. 19; LIMC Nike 337; Consecration of T.; Nikai prepare 2412 Wilson Jones 2001b, fig. 4.4d bull for sacrifice

74 – Arezzo, AM 1413 rfKCO – AA.VV. 1987, 129 Chariot team in front of T. on Doric column

75 – Agrigento, AM rfKBL – BAD, 30321; FRO, pl. 16; van Sacrifice to Apollo in front of T. 4688 Straten 1995, fig. 30 on Doric column

76 23 Gümüs¸çay, Turkey mbRel – Sevinç 1996, fig. 9 Neoptolemos kills Polyxena; sarcophagus arches of T. merge with cauldron

77 – Bologna, AM 286 – – Pellegrini 1900, 46 Consecration of T. to Dionysos; Nikai prepare bull for sacrifice

78 – Leiden, private coll. rfPLA – BAD, 4615; LIMC Asklepios Presentation of Asklepios in front 1; ARFV2, fig. 305 of T. on Ionic column

79 – Croton, silver stater – – Kraay 1976, pl. 36, 629; Apollo shoots at Python between 420 Carpenter 1991, fig. 104 legs of massive T.

80 – Kos, silver stater – – AA.VV. 1989a, no. 207 Victorious discus thrower and T. prize

81 – Athens, NM 16260 rfPEL – A&D, fig. 24; LIMC Nike 338 Consecration of T.; Nikai prepare bull for sacrifice

82 – London, BM rfKBL – BAD, 217477; FRO, pl. 11; Herakles, Athena, and Peirithoos 410 1978.4.11.1 (E 498) LIMC Peirithoos 94 before T. on Doric column

83 – San Antonio, MoA rfKCA – Shapiro 1995, 188–9 Sacrifice to Apollo, in front of 85.102.2 pair of T. on columns

84 – Athens, NM 1733 mbRel – AA.VV. 1989a, 205 Rider advances toward T. [base by Bryaxis] repeated on all four sides

85 17 Bologna, m 279 rfKCA – Robertson 1992, pl. 52; Amphitrite and Poseidon with [Pellegrini 303] Shapiro 1994, fig. 86 Theseus; Tripods on columns

86 – Naples, NM 81673 rfKVO – FRGV, pl. 141; Green and Actors in company of Dionysos; (Heydemann 3240) Handley 1995, no. 5 T. on column

87 – Athens, NM 12254 rfKBL – BAD, 260094; JdI 1917, 50, fig. Bacchanalia with Dionysos; satyr 21; LIMC Apollon 768d in front of T. on Ionic column

88 – Athens, NM 12253 rfKBL – BAD, 7954; LIMC Apollon Apollo and Dionysos recline in 769 front of T. on foliate column

89 – St. Petersburg, 33 rfKVO – FRO, 15.1; Durand 1987, fig. 44; Herakles and attendants prepare 400 Wilson Jones 2001b, fig. 4.4e for sacrifice; T. on column 384 MARK WILSON JONES [AJA 106 Catalogue of Tripod Representations Cited (Continued)

Cat Fig. Medium Sakowski Other Context and Character of Guide No. No. Identificationa /shapeb 1997 Referencesc Tripod Representation Date

90 – Athens, NM 1389 mbRel – LIMC Apollon 657 Apollo seated on T.; T. leg has central rib

91 – Amsterdam, 2579 rfKCA – FRGV, pl. 174; Trendall 1989, Temple of Apollo at Delphi, fig. 52 with cult statue and giant T.

92 – Naples, MN KRA – Pugliese Carratelli 1990, fig. Struggle for the T., satirical 110; Heydemann 1872 scene, woman looks from window

93 – Miletus mbRel – LIMC Apollon 66 Apollo seated on omphalos, with bow, palm, and T.

94 – Athens, NM 13900 rfKCA – A&D, fig. 29; LIMC Nike 116 Nikai decorating T.

95 – Athens, Agora rfOIN – FRO, 96 Nikai at T. 23896

96 – Athens, NM 84 brRel – Carapanos 1878, pl. 16.1; Struggle for the T. 5th c.? corselet flap LIMC Herakles 2956 1st c.?

97 – Rome, Palatine Mus. teRel – Strazzulla 1990, fig. 1 Struggle for the T.; T. has several 30 bracing rings

98 – Oplontis, room 15 fresco – Erhardt 1991, fig. 7 Architectural fantasy centered east wall on a T. on pedestal

99 15 Pireaus, AM 2118 mbRel – Fuchs 1959, 187, no. 4, pl. Struggle for the T. 2nd c. [copy of Greek work] 28b; LIMC Apollon 1030 A.D.

100 – Dresden, Staat. mbRel – Cain 1985, pl. 21.3; LIMC Dionysos and priestess at T. on Kunsts. 27 [copy of Apollon 39n pillar Greek work] a Museum abbreviations: AM, Archaeological Museum (generic); AntSlg, AntikenSammlungen; Ashm, Ashmolean Museum, Oxford; BM, British Museum, London; MFA, Museum of Fine Arts (generic); MGE, Museo Gregoriano Etrusco (Vatican); MoA, Museum of Art (generic); NM, National Museum (generic); StaatlMus, Staatliche Museen. b Vases: g, Geometric period; c, Corinthian; bf, black-figure; rf, red-figure; ALA, Alabastron; AMP, Amphora; ARY, Aryballos; CUP, Cup or Kylix; DIN, Dinos; HYD, Hydria; KAN, Kantharos; KBL, Bell krater; KCA, Calyx krater; KCO, Column krater; KRA, Krater; KOT, Tripod kothon; KVO, Volute krater; LEK, Lekythos; LTR, Loutrophoros; OIN, Oinochoe; PAN, Panathenaic amphora; PEL, Pelike; PIT, Pithos; PYX, Pyxis; SKY, Skyphos; STA, Stamnos (e.g., gAMP stands for a Geometric amphora, cARY for a Corinthian aryballos, and bfLEK a black-figure lekythos). Other types: brMld, Bronze mold; brRel, Bronze relief; mbRel, Marble relief; stRel, Stone relief; teRel, Terracotta relief. c A&D, Amandry & Ducat 1973; BAD, Beazley Archive Database; ABFV, Boardman 1974; ARV2, Beazley 1963; ARFV1, Boardman 1975; ARFV2, Boardman 1989; BTN, Benton 1934–1935; CVA, Corpus Vasorum Antiquorum; FRGV, Furtwängler and Reichhold 1904– 1932; FRO, Froning 1971; G&L, Graefe and Langlotz 1925–1932; LIMC, Lexicon Iconographicum Mythologiae Classicae; M-Man, Maul-Manderlartz 1990; RMB, Rombos 1988. 2002] TRIPODS, TRIGLYPHS, AND THE ORIGIN OF THE DORIC FRIEZE 385 Works Cited Betancourt, P. 1977. The Aeolic Style in Architecture: A Sur- vey of Its Development in Palestine, the Halicarnassos Pen- AA.VV. 1987. Il museo archeologico nazionale G.C.Mecenate insula, and Greece. Princeton: Princeton University in Arezzo. Florence: Casa di Risparmio di Firenze. Press. ———. 1989a. Mind and Body: Athletic Contests in Ancient Beyer, I. 1972. “Der Triglyphenfries von Thermos C. Ein Greece. National Archaeological Museum, 15th May 1989– Konstruktionsvorschlag.” AA:197–226. 15th January 1990. Edited by O. Tzachou-Alexandri; ———. 1976. Die Tempel von Dreros und Prinias A und die translated by J. Binder et al. Athens: The Museum. Chronologie der kretischen Kunst des 8.und 7. Jhs. v. Chr. 2 ———. 1989b. A City of Images: Iconography and Society in vols. Freiburg: R. Oberkirch. Ancient Greece. 2nd ed. Princeton: Princeton Universi- Billot, M.-F. 1997. “Recherches archéologiques récentes ty Press. à l’Héraion d’Argos avec une annexe: Propositions Adamsteanu, D. 1980. “Una tomba arcaica di Siris.” In pour une restitution du temple archaïque.” In Héra: Forschungen und Funde: Festschrift Bernhard Neutsch, ed- Images, espaces, cultes, con., Lille, 1993, edited by J. de ited by F. Krinzinger et al., 31–6. Innsbruck: Verlag La Genière, 11–82. Collection du Centre Jean Bérard des Institutes für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität 15. Naples: Centre Jean Bérard. Innsbruck. Boardman, J. 1970. Greek Gems and Finger Rings: Early Bronze Albizzati, C. 1924. Vasi antiche dipinti del Vaticano. Vati- Age to Late Classical. London: Thames and Hudson. can: A. Wildt. ———. 1974. Athenian Black Figure Vases. London: Thames Amandry, P. 1952. “Observations sur les monuments de and Hudson. l’Heraion d’Argos.” Hesperia 21:222–74. ———. 1975. Attic Red Figure Vases. The Archaic Period: A ———. 1987. “Trépieds de Delphes et du Péloponnèse.” Handbook. London: Thames and Hudson. BCH 111:79–131. ———. 1989. Attic Red Figure Vases. The Classical Period: A ———. 1997. “Monuments chorégiques d’Athènes.” BCH Handbook. London: Thames and Hudson. 121: 445–87. ———. 1998. Early Greek Vase Painting, 11th–6th Centuries Amandry, P., and J. Ducat 1973. “Trépieds Déliens.” BCH BC: A Handbook. London: Thames and Hudson. Suppl. 1:17–64. Bookidis, N. 1967. “A Study of the Use and Geographi- Amyx, D.A. 1944. “An Amphora with a Price Inscription cal Distribution of Architectural Sculpture in the in the Hearst Collection of Sam Simeon.” CPCA 1:179– Archaic Period.” Ph.D. diss., Bryn Mawr College. 205. Borell, B. 1978. Attisch geometrische Schalen: Eine spätgeome- ———. 1983. “Archaic Vase-Painting vis-à-vis ‘Free’ Paint- trische Keramikgattung und ihre Beziehungen zum Orient. ing at Corinth.” In Ancient Greek Art and Iconography, Keramikforschungen 2. Mainz: von Zabern. edited by W.G. Moon, 37–52. Madison: University of Bötticher, K. 1874. Die Tektonik der Hellenen. 2nd ed. 3 Wisconsin Press. vols (1st ed. 1844–1852). Potsdam: Verlag von Ernst & ———. 1988.Corinthian Vase-Painting of the Archaic Period. Korn. 3 vols. Berkeley: University of California Press. Bowen, M.L. 1950. “Some Observations on the Origin Anson, L. 1911. Numismatica Graeca. Vol. 1, Industry: Vas- of Triglyphs.” BSA 45:113–25. es, Recipients, Tripods. London: L. Anson. Broneer, O. 1971. Temple of Poseidon: Isthmia I. Prince- Antonaccio, C.M. 1995. The Archaeology of Ancestors: Tomb ton: American School of Classical Studies at Athens. Cult and Hero Cult in Early Greece. London: Rowman Buchholz, H.-G. 1963. “Steinerne Dreifussschale des and Littlefield. ägäischen Kulturkreises und ihre Beziehungen zum Barletta, B.A. 1990. “An ‘Ionian Sea’ Style in Archaic Osten.” JdI 78:1–77. Doric Architecture.” AJA 94:45–72. Burkert, W. 1966. “Greek Tragedy and Sacrificial Ritu- ———. 2001. The Origins of the Greek Architectural Orders. al.” GRBS 7:87-121. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ———. 1983. Homo Necans: The Anthropology of Ancient Bauer, H. 1977. “Lysikratesdenkmal, Baubestand und Greek Sacrificial Ritual and Myth. Translation of Ger- Rekonstruktion.” AM 92:117–227. man edition, Homo Necans: Interpretationen altgriechis- Beazley, J.D. 1930. Der Berliner Maler. Berlin: H. Keller. cher Opferriten und Mythen. Berkeley: University of Cal- ———. 1963. Attic Red-Figure Vase-Painters. 2nd ed. Ox- ifornia Press, 1972. ford: Clarendon Press. ———. 1985. Greek Religion: Archaic and Classical. Trans- Behrens-du Maire, A. 1993. “Zur Bedeutung griechis- lation of German edition, Griechische Religion: der ar- cher Schathäuser.” In Die griechische Polis Architektur chaischen und klassischen Epoche. Oxford: Basil Black- und Politik, edited by W. Hoepfner and G. Zimmer, well, 1977. 76–81. Tübingen: E. Wasmuth. ———. 1987. “Offerings in Perspective: Surrender, Dis- Benson, J.L. 1982. “Picture, Ornament and Periodicity tribution, Exchange.” In Gifts to the Gods. Boreas 15, in Attic Geometric Vase Painting.” ArtBull 64:535–49. con., Uppsala, 1985, edited by T. Linders and G. Nor- ———. 1989. Earlier Corinthian Workshops: A Study of Corin- dquist, 43–50. Uppsala: Academia Upsaliensis. thian Geometric and Protocorinthian Stylistic Groups. Am- ———. 1988. “The Meaning and Function of the Tem- sterdam: Allard Pierson Museum. ple in Classical Greece.” In Temple in Society, edited by Benton, S. 1934–1935. “The Evolution of the Tripod- M.V. Fox. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns. Lebes.” BSA 35:74–130. ———. 1996a “Greek Temple-Builders: Who, Where and Bergquist, B. 1967. The Archaic Greek Temenos: A Study of Why?” In The Role of Religion in the Early Greek Polis, Structure and Function. Lund: C.W.K. Gleerup. Proceedings of the Third International Seminar on Ancient Bernabò Brea, L. 1986. Il tempio di Afrodite di Akrai. Cah- Greek Cult, con., Athens, 1992, edited by R. Hägg, 21– iers du Centre Jean Bérard 10. Naples: Centre Jean 9. Stockholm-Athens: Svenska Institutet i Athen; Jon- Bérard. sered: Distributor Paul Åströms. 386 MARK WILSON JONES [AJA 106

———. 1996b. Creation of the Sacred. Cambridge: Har- Di Vita, A. 1998. “I Fenici a Creta. Kommos, i «troni di vard University Press. Astarte» a Phalasarna e la rotta «delle isole».” ASAtene Cain, H.-U. 1985. Römische Marmorkandelaber. Mainz: von 70–71:175–203. Zabern. Dörpfeld, W. 1935. Alt-Olympia. Untersuchungen und Aus- Carapanos, C. 1878. Dodone et ses ruines. 2 vols. Paris: grabungen zur Geschichte des ältesten Heiligtums von Olym- Hachette. pia und der älteren griechischen Kunst. 2 vols. Berlin: E.S. Carlié, A. 2000. “Les vases à reliefs thasiens de l’époque Mittler & Sohn. archaïque.” BCH 124:99–160. Drerup, H. 1969. Griechische Baukunst in geometrischer Zeit. Carpenter, T.H. 1991. Art and Myth in Ancient Greece. ArchHom 2. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. London: Thames and Hudson. Durand, J.-L. 1987. “La boeuf à la ficelle.” In Images et Catling, H.W. 1964. Cypriot Bronzework in the Mycenaean société en Grèce ancienne: L’iconographie comme méthode World. Oxford: Clarendon Press. d’analyse, 227–41. Cahiers d’archéologie romande 36. ———. 1984. “Workshop and Heirloom: Prehistoric Lausanne: Institut d’archeologie et d’histoire anci- Bronze Stands in the East Mediterranean.” RDAC:69– enne, Université de Lausanne. 91. Durm, J. 1910. Die Baukunst der Griechen. 2nd ed. Leipzig: Caylus, A.-C.-P., Comte de. 1756. “De l’architecture an- Alfred Kröner. cienne.” Historie de l’Académie Royale des Inscriptions et Dyggve, E. 1948. Das Laphrion: Der Tempelbezirk von Kaly- Belles-Lettres 23:286–319. don. Copenhagen: E. Munksgaard. Chorémi-Spetsiéri, A., and K.N. Kazamiakis. 1994. “The Ehrhardt, W. 1991. “Bild und Ausblick in Wandbemalun- Street of the Tripods and the Choregic Monuments gen Zweiten Stils.” AKunst 34:28–65. of Ancient Athens.” In The Archaeology of Athens and Fehr, B. 1996. “The Greek Temple in the Early Archaic Attica under the Democracy: Proceedings of an Internation- Period: Meaning, Use and Social Context.” Hephaistos al Conference Celebrating 2500 Years Since the Birth of De- 14:165–191. mocracy in Greece, con., Athens, 1992, edited by W.D.E. Felten, F. 1984. Griechische tektonische Friese archaischer und Coulson et al., 31–44. Oxford: Oxbow. klassischer Zeit. Schriften aus dem Athenaion der klas- Coldstream, J.N. 1968. Greek Geometric Pottery: A Survey of sischen Archäologie Salzburg 4. Waldsassen: Stiftland Ten Local Styles and Their Chronology. London: Meth- Verlag. uen & Co. Ferri, S. 1968. “I tempietti di Medma e l’origine del ———. 1976. “Hero-cults in the Age of Homer.” JHS triglifo.” RendPontAcc 8/3: 402–13. 96:8–17. Finley, M.I. 1977. The World of Odysseus. 2nd ed. London: ———. 1977. Geometric Greece. New York: E. Benn. Chatto & Windus. ———. 1985. “Greek Temples: Why and Where?” In Greek Forster, K.W. 1996. “L’ordine dorico come diapeson Religion and Society, edited by P.E. Easterling and J.V. dell’architettura moderna.” In I Greci: Storia, cultura, Muir, 67–97. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. arte, società, I. Noi e i Greci, edited by Salvatore Settis, Conti, M.C. 1994. Il più antico fregio dallo Heraion del Sele. 665–706. Turin: Einaudi. Florence: Le Lettere. Fraisse, P., and J.-C. Moretti. 1998. “Le bâtiment de scène Cook, R.M. 1951. “A Note on the Origin of the Trig- du théâtre de Delos.” RA:151–63. lyph.” BSA 46:50–2. Friis Johansen, K. 1923. Les vases sicyoniens: Étude ———. 1970. “The Archetypal Doric Temple.” BSA archéologique. Paris: E. Champion. 65:17–19. Froning, H. 1971. Dithyrambos und Vasenmalerei in Athen. Costamagna, L., and C. Sabbione 1990. Una città in Ma- Würzburg: Triltsch. gna Grecia: Locri Epizefiri. Reggio Calabria: Laruffa. Fuchs, W. 1959. Der Vorbilder der neuattischen Reliefs. JdI Coulton, J.J. 1988. Ancient Greek Architects at Work: Prob- Suppl. 20. Berlin: W. De Gruyter. lems of Structure and Design. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxbow. ———. 1993. Die Skulptur der Griechen. 4th ed. Munich: Dakaris, S.I. 1971. Archaeological Guide to Dodona. Ioanni- Hirmer. na: Cultural Society. Fuchs, W., and J. Floren. 1987. Die griechische Plastik. Vol.1, ———. 1988. “Ta triglypha sto doriko nao.” In Acts of the Die geometrische und archaische Plastik. Munich: C.H. 12th International Congress of Classical Archaeology (Prak- Beck. tika tou XII Diethnous Synedriou Klasikes Archaiologias), Furtwängler, A. 1890. Die Bronzen und die übrigen kleineren con., Athens, 1983: 4, 41–8. Funde. Olympia IV. Berlin: Deutsches Archäologisches Daremberg, C.V., and E. Saglio. 1877. Dictionnaire des Institut - Asher. antiquités grecques et romaines. Vol 1. Paris: Hachette. Furtwängler, A., and K. Reichold. 1904–1932. Griechische Daux, G., and E. Hansen. 1987. Le trésor de Siphnos. Fouil- Vasenmalerei. Munich: F. Bruckmann. les de Delphes. Vol. 2, Topographie et architecture. Paris: de Gartziou-Tatti, A. 1990. “L’oracle de Dodone. Mythe et Boccard. rituel.” Kernos 3:175–84. De Angelis D’Ossat, G. 1941–1942. “L’origine del triglifo.” Gebhard, E., and F.P. Hemans. 1992. “University of Chi- RendPontAcc 18:117–33. cago Excavations at Isthmia, 1989:I.” Hesperia 61:1–77. Demangel, R. 1931. “Fenestrarum Imagines.” BCH Gerhard, E. 1840–1858. Auserlesene griechische Vasenbilder. 55:117–163. Hauptsächlich etruskischen Fundorts. 4 vols. (1, 1840; 2, ———. 1937. “Triglyphes bas.” BCH 61:421–38. 1843; 3, 1847; 4, 1858). Berlin: G. Reimer. ———. 1946. “Fenestrarum Imagines, bis.” BCH 70:132– Ginouvès, R. 1989. “Colonne et péristasis.” In Architec- 47. ture et poésie dans le monde grec: Hommage à Georges Roux, ———. 1949. “Retour offensif des théories vitruviennes edited by M.-T. Le Dinahet and M. Yon, 13–17. Lyon: sur la frise dorique.” BCH 73:476–82. Maison de l’Orient. Ditlefsen, F. 1985. “Gedanken zum Ursprung des Giuliani, L. 1979. Die archaischen Metopen von Selinunt. dorischen Frieses.” ActaAArtHist 5:1-24. Mainz: von Zabern. 2002] TRIPODS, TRIGLYPHS, AND THE ORIGIN OF THE DORIC FRIEZE 387

Godelier, M. 1996. L’enigme du don. Paris: Fayard. itals from Cyprus.” AAA 4:101–7. Graefe, B., and E. Langlotz. 1925–1932. Die antiken Vasen Kilinski, K. 1990. Boeotian Black Figure Vase Painting of the von der Akropolis zu Athen. 2 vols. Berlin: W. de Gruyter. Archaic Period. Mainz: von Zabern. Green, R., and E. Handley. 1995. Images of the Greek The- Klein, N. 1998. “Evidence for West Greek Influence on atre. Austin: University of Texas Press. Mainland Greek Roof Construction and the Creation Guadet, J. 1909. Éléments et théorie de l’architecture. 3rd ed. of the Truss in the Archaic Period.” Hesperia 67:335– 4 vols. Paris: Librarie de la construction moderne. 374. Gullini, G. 1974. Sull’origine del fregio dorico: Memorie Knell, H. 1990. Mythos und Polis: Bildprogramme griechis- dell’Accademia delle Scienze di Torino. Classe di scienze cher Bauskulptur. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buch- morali, storiche e filologiche 31. Torino: Academia della gesellschaft. scienze. Knoll, K. 1999. Alltag und Mythos: Griechische Gefässe der ———. 1980. “Il tempio E1 e l’architettura protoarca- Skulpturensammlung. Staatliche Kunstsammlungen Dres- ica di Selinunte.” In Insediamenti coloniali greci in Sicilia den. Dresden: UniMedia. nell’VIII e VII secolo a. C. CronCatania 17:52–61. Cata- Korres, M. 2002. “Athenian Classical Architecture.” In nia: Istituto di archeologia. Athens: From the Classical Period to the Present Day (5th ———. 1985. “L’architettura.” In Sikanie: Storia e civiltà Century B.C.–A.D. 2000). Athens: Kotinos. della Sicilia greca, edited by G. Pugliese Carratelli, 415– Kraay, C.M. 1976. Archaic and Classical Greek Coins. Lon- 91. Milan: Electa. don: Methuen. Hägg, R. 1987. “Gifts to the Heroes in Geometric and Krumeich, R. 1991. “Zu den goldenen Dreifüßen der Archaic Greece.” In Gifts to the Gods. Boreas 15, con., Deinomeniden in Delphi.” JdI 106:37–62. Uppsala, 1985, edited by T. Linders and G. Nordquist, Kübler, K. 1959. Der Nekropole des späten 8. bis frühen 6. 93–9. Uppsala: Academia Upsaliensis. Jahrhunderts. Kerameikos 6. Berlin: W. De Gruyter. Harrison, J.E., and D.S. McColl. 1894. Greek Vase Paint- Kuhn, G. 1993. “Bau B und Tempel C in Thermos.” AM ing. London: T.F. Unwin. 108:29–47. Haspels, C.H.É. 1946. “Trépieds archaïques de Thasos.” Kyrieleis, H. 1988. “Offerings of ‘the Common Man’ in BCH 70:233–7. the Heraion at Samos.” In Early Greek Cult Practice: Hellmann, M.-C. 1992. Recherches sur le vocabulaire de Proceedings of the 5th Int. Symposium at the Swedish Insti- l’architecture grecque, d’après les inscriptions de Délos. BÉFAR tute in Athens, con., Athens, 1986, edited by R. Hägg, 278. Athens: École Française d’Athèns. N. Marinatos, and G. Nordquist. 215–21. Stockholm: Hersey, G.L. 1988. The Lost Meaning of Classical Architec- Svenska Institutet i Athen (distribution Paul Åströms, ture: Speculations on Ornament from Vitruvius to Venturi. Göteborg). Cambridge: MIT Press. ———. 1996. Samos X: Der grosse Kuros von Samos. Bonn: Heydemann, H. 1872. Die Vasensammlungen des Museo Habelt. Nazionale zu Neapel. Berlin: G. Reimer. Langdon, S. 1987. “Gift Exchange in the Geometric Sanc- Hodge, A.T. 1960. The Woodwork of Greek Roofs. Cam- tuaries.” In Gifts to the Gods. Boreas 15, con., Uppsala, bridge: Cambridge University Press. 1985, edited by T. Linders and G. Nordquist, 107–13. Hoffelner, K. 1999. Das Apollon- Heligtum: Tempel, Altare, Uppsala: Academia Upsaliensis – Almquist & Wiksell Temenosmauer, Thearion. Alt-Ägina I, 3. Mainz: von Zab- International. ern. ———, ed. 1993. From Pasture to Polis: Art in the Age of Hölb, G. 1984. “Ägyptischer Einfluß in der griechischen Homer. Columbia: University of Missouri Press. Architektur.” ÖJh 55:1–18. Laroche, D. 1989. “Nouvelles observations sur l’offrande Holland, L.B. 1917. “The Origin of the Doric Entabla- de Platées.” BCH 113:183–98. ture.” AJA 21:117–58. Laurent, M. 1901. “Sur un vase de style Geometrique.” Hollinshead, M.B. 1999. “‘Adyton,’ ‘Opisthodomos,’ and BCH 25:143–55. the Inner Room of the Greek Temple.” Hesperia Laser, S. 1987. Sport und Spiel. Archaeologia Homerica 68:189–218. 3, Kapitel T. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Holmes, A.M. 1995. “Regional Variations of Early Ar- Laum, B. 1912. “Die Entwicklung das griechischen Me- chaic Greek Doric Temples in the Peloponnese.” Ph.D. topenbilder.” Neue Jahrbücher für das klassische Altertum, diss., Kings College, London. Geschichte, deutsche Literatur und Pädagogik 29:612–44. Homann-Wedeking, E. 1938. Archaische Vasenormantik: In Lawrence, A.W. 1983. Greek Architecture. 4th ed. With addi- Attika, Lakonien und Ostgriechenland. Berlin: Deutsches tions by Richard A. Tomlinson. New York: Penguin. archäologisches Institut. Maass, M. 1977. “Kretische Votivdreifüße.” AM 92:33–59. Howe, T.N. 1985. “The Invention of the Doric Order.” ———. 1978. Die geometrischen Dreifüsse von Olympia. Ol- Ph.D. diss., Harvard University. Forsch 10. Hurwit, J. 1977. “Image and Frame in Greek Art.” AJA ———. 1981. “Die geometrischen Dreifüsse von Olym- 81:1–30. pia.” AntK 24:6–20. ———. 1985. The Art and Culture of Early Greece, 1100– Mallwitz, A. 1981. “Osservazioni sull’architettura nella 480 BC. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. Grecia dei secoli VIII e VII a.C.” ASAtene 59:81–96. Jacquemin, A., and D. Laroche. 1990. “Une offrande Marangou, L.I., et al. 1995. Ancient Greek Art from the Col- monumentale à Delphes: Le trépied des Crotoniates.” lection of Stavros S. Niarchos. Athens: Museum of Cycla- BCH 114:299–323. dic Art. Junker, K. 1993. Der ältere Tempel im Heraion am Sele. Co- Markman, S.D. 1951. “Building Models and the Archi- logne: Böhlau. tecture of the Geometric Period.” In Studies Presented Kähler, H. 1949. Das griechische Metopenbild. Munich: to David M. Robinson, edited by G.E. Mylonas, 259–71. Münchner. St. Louis: Washington University Press. Karageorghis, V. 1971. “Notes on Some Mycenaean Cap- Matthäus, H. 1985. Metallgefäße und Gefäßuntersätze der 388 MARK WILSON JONES [AJA 106

Bronzezeit: Der geometrischen und archaischen Periode auf Approaches, edited by N. Marinatos and R. Hägg, 192– Cypren. Prähistorische Bronzefunde Abteilung II.8. Munich: 227. London: Routledge. C.H. Beck. ———. 1997. “Corinto e l’architettura dorica dell’Oc- Maul-Manderlartz, E. 1990. Griechische Reiterdarstellungen cidente.” Corinto e l’Occidente. CSMG 34, con., Taran- in agonistischem Zusammenhang. EurHss 32. Frankfurt: to, 1994, 211–27. Taranto: Istituto per la Storia e P. Lang. l’Archeologia della Magna Grecia. Mauss, M. 1990. The Gift: The Form and Reason for Ex- ———. 2000. “Delphi and Archaic Doric Architecture change in Archaic Societies. Translated by W.D. Halls (1st in the Peloponnese.” Delphes. Cent ans après la Grande French ed. 1950). New York: W.W. Norton and Co. Fouille. Essai de Bilan, con., Athens, 1992, edited by A. Mazarakis Ainan, A. 1988. “Early Greek Temples: Their Jacquemin, BCH Suppl. 36:259–62. Origin and Function.” Early Greek Cult Practice. Proceed- ———. 2001. “Der Ursprung der griechischen Tempel- ings of the 5th Int. Symposium at the Swedish Institute in architektur und ihre Beziehungen mit Aegypten.” In Athens, con., Athens, 1986, edited by R. Hägg, N. Archaische griechische Tempel und Altägypten, edited by Marinatos, and G. Nordquist, 105–19. Stockholm: M. Bietak, 17–33. Vienna: Verlag der Österreichis- Svenska Institutet i Athen (distribution Paul Åströms, chen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Göteborg). Papapostolou, J.A. 1995. “ΑΝΑΣΚΑΦΗ ΘΕΡΜ Υ.” ———. 1997. From Rulers’ Dwellings to Temples: Architec- Praktika 150:87–107. ture, Religion and Society in Early Iron Age Greece (1100– Parisi, N.F. 1988. “Sacrificio e misura del valore nella 700 B.C.). SIMA 121. Jonsered: Paul Åströms. Grecia antica.” In Sacrificio e società nel mondo antico, Mertens, D. 1989. “Note introduttiva per l’architettura.” edited by C. Grottanelli and N. F. Parisi, 253–65. Rome: Magna Grecia, Epiro e Macedonia. CSMG 24, con., Taran- Laterza. to, 1984: 431–45. Taranto: Istituto per la Storia e Payne, H.G. 1925–1926. “On the Thermon Metopes.” l’Archeologia della Magna Grecia. BSA 27:124–32. ———. 1991. “Bemerkungen zu Westgriechischen Mon- ———. 1931. Necrocorinthia: A Study of Corinthian Art in umentaltären.” In L’éspace sacrificiel dans les civilizations the Archaic Period. Oxford: Clarendon. méditerranéennes de l’antiquité, con., Lyon, 1988, edited Pellegrini, G. 1900. Catalogo dei vasi antichi dipinti delle by R. Étienne and M.-T. Le Dinahet, 187–91. Paris: de collezione palgi ed universitaria. Bologna: Museo civico Boccard. di Bologna. ———. 1993. Der alte Heratempel in Paestum und die ar- Pensabene, P. 1993. Elementi architettonici di Alessandria e chaische Baukunst im Unteritalien. Mainz: von Zabern. di altri siti egiziani. Rome: L’ERMA di Bretschneider. ———. 1996. “Die Entstehung des Steintempels in Siz- Peschken, G. 1988. “The Original Significance of the ilien.” In Säule und Gebälk, Zu struktur und Wandlung- Model for the Doric Pteron and Triglyph.” Canon. sprozeß griechisch-römischer Architektur, DiskAB 6, edited The Princeton Journal for Thematic Studies in Architecture by E.-L. Schwandner, 25–38. Mainz: Deutsches 3:11–33. Archäologisches Institut - Wasmuth. ———. 1990. Demokratie und Tempel: Die Bedeutung der Miles, M.M. 1998. The City Eleusinion. Agora 31. Princeton: dorischen Architektur. Berlin. The American School of Classical Studies at Athens. Pfaff, C.A. 1990. “Three-Peaked Antefixes from the Ar- Mollard-Besques, S. 1954. Musée National du Louvre. Cat- give Heraion.” In Proceedings of the First International alogue raisonné des figurines et reliefs en terre-cuites. Paris: Conference on Archaic Greek Architectural Terracottas, Ath- Éditions des Musées Nationaux. ens 1988, edited by N. Winter, 149–56. Hesperia 59. Morgan, C. 1990. Athletes and Oracles: The Transformation Princeton: American School of Classical Studies at of Olympia and Delphi in the Eighth Century B.C. Cam- Athens. bridge: Cambridge University Press. Pharaklas, N. 1970. “The Stone Tripods from Plataea.” Morris, I. 1988. “Tomb Cult and the ‘Greek Renaissance’: BSA 65:175–8. The Past in the Present in the 8th Century B.C.” An- Philipp, H. 1994. “ΑΛΚΕ Ι Τ Ι Ι - Eherne tiquity 62:750–61. Wände.” AA:489–98. ———. 1997. “The Art of Citizenship.” In New Light on a Pickard-Cambridge, A. 1968. The Dramatic Festivals of Dark Age: Exploring the Culture of Geometric Greece, con. Athens. 2nd ed. London: Oxford University Press. Columbia, Missouri, 1993, edited by S. Langdon, 9– de Polignac, F. 1994. “Mediation, Competition, and Sov- 43. Columbia: University of Missouri Press. ereignity: The Evolution of Rural Sanctuaries in Geo- Morris, S.P. 1992. Daidalos and the Origins of Greek Art. metric Greece.” In Placing the Gods: Sanctuaries and Princeton: Princeton University Press. Sacred Space in Ancient Greece, edited by S.E. Alcock Onians, J.B. 1988. Bearers of Meaning: The Classical Orders and R. Osborne, 3–18. Oxford: Clarendon. in Antiquity, the Middle Ages, and the Renaissance. Princ- ———. 1996. “Offrandes, mémoire et compétition ritu- eton: Princeton University Press. alisée dans les sanctuaires grecs à l’époque ———. 1999. Classical Art and the Cultures of Greece and géometrique.” In Religion and Power in the Ancient Greek Rome. New Haven and London: Yale University Press. World. Boreas 24, con., Uppsala, 1993, edited by P. Orsi, P. 1919. “Gli scavi intorno a l’Athenaion di Sira- Hellström and B. Alroth, 59–66. Uppsala: Academia cusa negli anni 1912–1917.” MonAnt 25:353–762. Upsaliensis. ———. 1933. Templum Apollonis Alaei ad Crimisa Promon- Pugliese Carratelli, G., ed. 1990. Magna Grecia: Arte e ar- torium. Rome: Società Magna Grecia. tiginato. Milan: Electa. Ortolani, G. 1997. “Tradizione e trasgressione nell’ordine Ratté, C. 1993. “Lydian Contributions to Archaic East dorico in età ellenistica e romana.” Palladio. Rivista di Greek Architecture.” In Les grands ateliers d’architecture Storia dell’Architettura e Restauro 19:19–38. dans le monde égéen du VI e siècle av. J.-C., con., Istanbul, Østby, E. 1993. “Twenty-five Years of Research on Greek 1991, edited by J. des Courtils and J.-C. Moretti, 1–12. Sanctuaries: A Bibliography.” In Greek Sanctuaries: New Varia Anatolica 3. Istanbul: Institut français d’études 2002] TRIPODS, TRIGLYPHS, AND THE ORIGIN OF THE DORIC FRIEZE 389

anatoliens d’Istanbul. Art, translation of Götter und Heldensagen der Griechen Rhodes, R.F. 1987. “Early Corinthian Architecture and in der spätarchaischen Kunst. Translated by A. Griffiths. the Origins of the Doric Order.” AJA 91:477–80. Munich: Hirmer, 1978. Cambridge: Cambridge Uni- Richard, H. 1970. Vom Ursprung des dorischen Tempels. versity Press. Bonn: Habelt. Scheibler, I. 1964. “Exaleiptra.” JdI 79:72–108. Ridgway, B.S. 1977. “The Plataian Tripod and the Ser- ———. 1988. “Dreifussträger.” In Kanon: Festschrift Ernst pentine Column.” AJA 81:374–9. Berger, edited by M. Schmidt, 310–6. AntK Suppl. 15. Riemann, H. 1956. s.v. Tripodes, RE Suppl. VIII. col. Basel: Vereinigung der Freunde antiker Kunst. 861–88. Schleif, H., K.A. Rhomaios, and G. Klaffenbach. 1939– Riis, P.J. 1998. Vulcentia Vetustiora: A Study of Archaic Vul- 1940. Der Artemistempel. Architektur, Dachterrakotten, In- can Bronzes. Historisk-filosofiske Skrifter 19. Copenhagen: schriften. Korkyra. Archaische Bauten und Bildwerke 1, Royal Danish Academy of Sciences and Letters. edited by G. Rodenwaldt. Berlin: Deutsches Archäol- Rizza, G. 1996. “La scultura siceliota nel’età arcaica.” In ogisches Institut and G. Mann. I Greci in Occidente, edited by G. Pugliese Carratelli, Schnurr, C. 1995. “Zur Topographie der Theatersträtten 399–412. Milan: Bompiani. und der Tripodenstrasse in Athen.” ZPE 105:139–53. Robertson, M. 1992. “Europa and Others: Nostalgia in Schweitzer, B. 1971. Greek Geometric Art. London: Phaid- Late Fifth Century Athenian Vase-Painting.” In Koti- on. nos: Festschrift für Erika Simon, edited by H. Froning, Scully, V. 1969. The Earth, the Temple and the Gods: Greek 237–40. Mainz: von Zabern. Sacred Architecture. New Haven: Yale University Press. Rolley, C. 1975. “Bronzes et bronziers des âges obscurs Seaford, R. 1994. Reciprocity and Ritual: Homer and Trag- (XIIe-VIIIe siècle av. J.-C.).” RA:155–60. edy in the Developing City-State. Oxford: Clarendon. ———. 1977. Les trépieds à cuve clouée. FdD 5.3. Paris: de Sevinç, N. 1996. “A New Sarcophagus of Polyxena from Boccard. the Salvage Excavations at Gümüs¸çay. Studia Troica ———. 1986. Greek Bronzes. London: Sotheby’s. 6:251–64. ———. 1994. La sculpture grecque. Vol. 1, Des origines au Shapiro, H.A. 1993. Personifications in Greek Art: The Rep- milieu du V e siècle. Paris: Picard. resentation of Abstract Concepts 600–400 B.C. Zurich: Rombos, T. 1988. The Iconography of Attic Late Geometric II Akanthus. Pottery. SIMA-PB 68. Jonsered: Paul Åströms. ———. 1994. Myth into Art. Poet and Painter in Classical Rouse, W.H.D. 1902. Greek Votive Offerings: An Essay in the Greece. London: Routledge. History of Greek Religion. Cambridge: Cambridge Uni- ———, ed. 1995. Greek Vases in the San Antonio Museum of versity Press. Art. San Antonio: San Antonio Museum of Art. Roux, G. 1953. “Autel à triglyphes bas trouvé sur l’Agora Sharon, I. 1987. “Phoenician and Greek Ashlar Con- d’Argos.” BCH 77:117–23. struction Techniques at Tel Dor, Israel.” BASOR ———. 1984. “Trésors, temples, tholos.” In Temples et 267:21–42. sanctuaires: Séminaire de recherche 1981–1983, edited by Shiloh, Y. 1979. The Proto-Aeolic Capital: Israelite Ashlar G. Roux, 153–71. Lyon: GIS-Maison de l’Orient. Masonry. Qedem 11. Jerusalem: Hebrew University of ———. 1992. “La Tholos de Sicyone à Delphes et les Jerusalem origines de l’entablement dorique.” In Delphes: Cen- Simantoni-Bournia, E. 1990. “Chian Relief Pottery and tenaire de la “Grande Fouille” réalisée par l’École Française Its Relationship to Chian and East Greek Architec- d’Athèns (1892-1903), con., Strassbourg, 1991, edited tural Terracottas.” In Proceedings of the First Internation- by J.-F. Bommelaer, 151–66. Leiden: E.J. Brill. al Conference on Archaic Greek Architectural Terracottas, Rumpf, A. 1927. Chalkidische Vasen. Berlin: W. de Gruyter. Athens, 1988, edited by N. Winter, 193–200. Hesperia Rumscheid, F. 1994. Untersuchungen zur kleinasiatischen Bauo- Suppl. 59. Princeton: American School of Classical rnamentik des Hellenismus. 2 vols. Mainz: von Zabern. Studies at Athens. Rupp, D.W. 1975. “Greek Altars of the Northeastern Simon, E. 1976. Der griechische Vasen. Munich: Hirmer. Peloponnese c. 750–725 B.C. to c. 300–275 B.C.” Ph.D. ———. 1980. Die Götter der Griechen. Munich: Hirmer. diss., Bryn Mawr College. Skrabei, C. 1990. “Fenster in griechischen Tempeln.” In Rups, M. 1986. “Thesauros: A Study of the Treasury Licht und Architektur, edited by W.-D. Heilmeyer and Building as Found in Greek Sanctuaries.” Ph.D. diss., W. Hoepfner, 35–42. Tübingen: Ernst Wasmuth. John Hopkins University. Snodgrass, A.M. 1989–1990. “The Economics of Dedi- Rykwert, J. 1996. The Dancing Column: On Order in Archi- cation at Greek Sanctuaries.” Scienze dell’antichità 3– tecture. Cambridge: Massachusetts Institute of Tech- 4:287–94. nology Press. Stamper, J. 1998–1999. “The Temple of Capitoline Jupi- Sakowski, A. 1997. Darstellungen von Dreifusskesseln in der ter in Rome: A New Reconstruction.” Hephaistos 16– griechischen Kunst bis zum Beginn der klassischen Zeit. 17:107–38. EurHss 67. Frankfurt: P. Lang. Stazio, A. 1987. “Monetazione delle «poleis» greche e Schattner, T.G. 1990. Griechische Hausmodelle, Untersuchun- monetazione degli «ethne» indigeni.” In Magna Gre- gen zur frühgriechischen Architektur. AM, Suppl. 15. Ber- cia. Lo sviluppo politico, sociale e economico, edited by G. lin: Gebr. Mann. Pugliese Carratelli, 151–72. Milan: Electa. ———. 1997. “Las maquetas arquitectónicas de la Gre- Stevens, G.P. 1951. “The Poros Tripods of the Acropolis cia Antigua y su relación con la arquitectura de la of Athens.” In Studies Presented to David M. Robinson, época.” In Las Casas del Alma. Maquetas arquitectónicas edited by G.E. Mylonas, 331–4. St. Louis: Washington de la Antigüedad, Barcelona, 90–4. Barcelona: Centre University Press. de Cultura Contemporània de Barcelona - Institut Strazzula, M.J. 1990. Il principato di Apollo: Mito e propa- d’Edicions. ganda nelle lastre «Campana» dal tempio di Apollo Palat- Schefold, K. 1992. Gods and Heroes in Late Archaic Greek ino. Rome: L’ERMA di Bretschneider. 390 M. WILSON JONES, TRIPODS, TRIGLYPHS, AND THE ORIGIN OF THE DORIC FRIEZE

Strøm, I. 1988. “The Early Sanctuary of the Argive Washburn, O.M. 1918. “Iphigenia Taurica 113 as a Doc- Heraion and Its External Relations (8th–6th Cent. ument in the History of Architecture.” AJA 22: 434–7. B.C.). The Monumental Architecture.” ActaArch ———. 1919. “The Origin of the Triglyph Frieze.” AJA 59:173–203. 23:33–49. ———. 1995. “The Early Sanctuary of the Argive Heraion Webb, P.A. 1996. Hellenistic Architectural Sculpture: Figural and Its External Relations (8th.–Early 6th. Cent. BC.). Motifs in Western Anatolia and the Aegean Islands. Mad- The Greek Geometric Bronzes.” Proceedings of the Dan- ison: University of Wisconsin Press. ish Insitute at Athens 1:37–127. Weber, M. 1971. “Die geometrischen Dreifußkessel: Stucchi, S. 1974. “Questioni relative al tempio A di Prin- Fragen zur Chronologie der Gattungen und deren ias ed il formarsi degli ordini dorico e ionico.” In Anti- Herstellungszentren.” AM 86:13–30. chità cretesi, Studi in onore di D. Levi. Cronache de archaeolo- Weickenmeier, N. 1985. “Theorienbildung zur Genese gia 12, 2:89–119. Catania: Istituto di archeologia. des Triglyphon, Versuch einer Betsandsaufnahme.” Svenson-Evers, H. 1997. “ΙΕΡ Σ ΙΚ Σ, Zum Ursprung Ph.D. diss., Darmstadt. des griechischen Tempels.” In Kult und Kultbauten auf Wesenberg, B. 1971. Kapitelle und Basen: Beobachtungen der Akropolis, con., Berlin, 1995, edited by W. Hoe- zur Entstehung der griechischen Säulenform. BJb 32. pfner. Berlin: Archäologisches Seminar der Freien ———. 1986. “Vitruvs Vorstellung von der Entstehung Universität Berlin : Kommissionsvertrieb Wasmuth. des dorischen Triglyphenfrieses.” Studien zur klassis- Tölle-Kastenbein, R. 1974. Samos XIV. Das kastro Tigani. chen Archäologie. F. Hiller zu seinem 60. Geburtstag, 143– Die Bauten und Funde griechischer, römischer und byzanti- 57. Saarbrücken: Saarbrücker Druckerei und Verlag nischer Zeit. Bonn: Habelt. (distribution Erasmus). Tomlinson, R.A. 1976. Greek Sanctuaries. London: Elek. ———. 1996. “Die Entstehung der griechischen Säulen- Touloupa, E. 1991. “Early Bronze Sheets with Figured und Gebälkformen in der literarischen Überliefer- Scenes from the Acropolis.” New Perspectives in Early ung der Antike.” In Säule und Gebälk, Zu struktur und Greek Art., con., Washington, 1988, edited by D. Wandlungsprozeß griechisch-römischer Architektur, DiskAB Buitron-Oliver, 241–71. Studies in the History of Art 6, edited by E.-L Schwandner, 1–15. Mainz: Deutsches 32. Hanover and London: National Gallery of Art Archäologisches Institut - Wasmuth. and University Press of New England. Wilson, P. 2000. The Athenian Institution of the Khoregia: Trendall, A.D. 1989. Red Figure Vases of South Italy and The Chorus, the City, and the State. Cambridge: Cam- Sicily. London: Thames and Hudson. bridge University Press. Turfa, J.M., and A.G. Steinmayer 1996. “The Compara- Wilson Jones, M. 2001a. “Doric Measure and Architec- tive Structure of Greek and Etruscan Monumental tural Design 2: A Modular Reading of the Classical Buildings.” PBSR 64:1–39. Temple.” AJA 105:675–713. Tusa, V. 1969. “Due nuove metope archaiche da Seli- ———. 2001b. “Doric Figuration.” In Body and Building: nunte.” ArchCl 21:153–71. Essays on the Changing Relation of Body and Architecture, van Straten, F.T. 1995. Hierà Kalá: Images of Animal Sacri- edited by R. Tavernor and G. Dodds, 65–76. Cam- fice in Archaic and Classical Greece. Leiden: Brill. bridge: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press. Viollet-le-Duc, E.E. 1990. The Architectural Theory of Viol- Willemsen, F. 1957. Dreifusskessel von Olympia: Alte und let-le-Duc: Readings and Commentary, edited by M.F. neue Funde. OlForsch 3. Hearn, selected translations from Entretiens sur ———. 1961. “Ein früharchaisches Dreifussbein.” Ol- l’Architecture (Paris 1863). Cambridge: Massachusetts Bericht 7:138–80. Institute of Technology Press. Wood, J. 1741. The Origin of Building: Or, the Plagiarism of Vokotopoulou, J. 1995. “Dodone et les villes de la Grande- the Heathens Detected. Reprinted 1968. Farnborough, Grèce et de la Sicile.” In La Magna Grecia e i grandi Hants, and Gregg. santuari della Madrepatria. CSMG 31, con., Taranto, Wujewski, T. 1995. Symbolika architecktury greckiej = Uniw- 1991, 63–90. Taranto: Istituto per la Storia e ersytet im. Adama Mickiewicza W Poznaniu, Seria Historia l’Archeologia della Magna Grecia. Sztuki 24. Poznan: Adam Mickiewicza University Press. von Bothmer, D. 1977. “The Struggle for the Tripod.” Yavis, C.G. 1949. Greek Altars: Origins and Typology. St. Louis: Festschrift für Frank Brommer, edited by U. Höckmann Saint Louis University Press. and A. Krug, 51–63. Mainz: von Zabern. Zancani Montuoro, P. 1940. “La Struttura del Fregio von Gerkan, A. 1948–1949. “Die Herkunft des dorischen Dorico.” Palladio. 4:49–64. Gebälks.” JdI 63:1–13. Zancani Montuoro, P., U. Zanotti-Bianco, and F. Krauss. Waldstein, C. 1902–1905. The Argive Heraeum. 2 vols. Bos- 1954. Heraion alla Foce del Sele, II, Il primo Thesauros: ton: Houghton, Mifflin and Company. L’architettura. Rome: Libreria dello Stato. Tomb Cult on the Halikarnassos Peninsula ANNE MARIE CARSTENS

Abstract of the ancient city.4 Thus, from 1990 to 1993, a Late Investigated here is the ancient settlement at the Roman domus was excavated in the western part of village of Geris¸ on the northwestern coast of the Halikarnassos, while Hellenistic remains have also Halikarnassos peninsula. Both a fortification and a monu- provided important evidence of the position of the mental tomb probably dating back to the fourth century 5 B.C. are known at this site. The tomb is described as a ancient town. In recent years, the study of ceramic princely tomb subject to ancestor or tomb cult, and is materials and the possible local production of pot- related both to the Maussolleion and other Karian cham- tery in Hellenistic and Roman times has been em- ber tombs. It is suggested that ancestor cult played an phasized.6 The late Classical period remains cru- important role in the power structures of Archaic and cial, however, and the ancient city wall, which has Classical Karia and that these traditions constituted part of the ideological foundation of the Maussolleion. Fur- been a focus of research of the Halikarnassos Project thermore, traditional views of the effects and conse- since 1998, probably represents the most extensive quences of the Maussollan synoikism for the settlement building activity of the Maussollan era.7 structures are challenged by a closer analysis of the ar- Only occasionally the archaeology of the hinter- chaeological remains at Geris¸.* lands of the Halikarnassos peninsula has been in- For more than 35 years Danish archaeologists cluded in the Danish research.8 Since 1996, smaller- have been exploring ancient Halikarnassos. In scale surveys on the peninsula west of Bodrum focus- 1966, Professor K. Jeppesen of the University of ing on the sepulchral architecture have formed part Aarhus initiated the Danish excavations at the Maus- of the fieldwork, serving as a basis for further settle- solleion.1 More than a century earlier, in the 1850s, ment studies on the Halikarnassos peninsula.9 the main goal for C.T. Newton’s expeditions was The archaeology of the Halikarnassos peninsu- the search for good quality sculptures for the Brit- la has always been closely connected with ancient ish Museum. The aim of the Danish excavations, literary sources that described the indigenous however, was to acquire knowledge of the architec- people of Karia and the synoikism initiated by ture of the Maussolleion in order to make its recon- Maussollos in the 370s B.C. Early in his reign, Maus- struction possible.2 The study of the architecture sollos transferred the capital of Karia from inland and planning of late Classical Halikarnassos con- Mylasa to coastal Halikarnassos, and in order to tinues to be the main objective of the Danish Ha- increase the size of the city six nearby towns were likarnassos Project.3 incorporated into the new Halikarnassos (fig. 1).10 Since 1989, work in Bodrum has been carried Both Pliny and Strabo describe this synoikism. Pliny out in collaboration with the Bodrum Museum of mentions it only briefly, although he does name Underwater Archaeology, and the area of study has the towns involved, while Strabo includes a dis- been widened to include other periods and aspects cussion of the people of Karia—the Karians and/

* The work at Geris¸ was carried out between 13 August and Stephen Bristow for having revised my English. 7 September 1997. I am grateful to Bodrum Museum, to the 1 Jeppesen 1976, 1992, 1998, 2000. forthcoming and enthusiastic assistance of the Director Dr. 2 Newton 1863; Jenkins 1992, 168–95. Og˘ uz Alpözen, the kind help of Dr. Aykut and Dr. Ainur Özet, 3 Pedersen 1983, 1988a, 1988b, 1989, 1991, 1994a, 1994b. and Mr. Ali Uçarer. This work greatly benefited from his en- 4 Since 1989, the Danish Halikarnassos Project is directed thusiastic attitude and guidance in the countryside. This re- by P. Pedersen, associate professor at the University of South- search carried out by the Danish Halikarnassos Project was done ern Denmark. so in collaboration with Bodrum Museum and with the kind 5 Poulsen 1994, 122–4; 1995; Isager 1995, 1999. permission of the Turkish Directorate of Antiquities. The Danish 6 Pedersen 1999, 329–30. Research Council of the Humanities financed the work as part 7 The city wall investigations are a collaboration between of a Ph.D. scholarship. The Fiedler Foundation financially sup- Bodrum Museum of Underwater. Archaeology, archaeologists ported the participation of the architect, Troels Munk-Olsen, from the Ege University at Izmir, and the Danish Halikarnas- to whom I owe my special thanks. Furthermore, the anony- sos Project, sponsored by Ericsson Türkiye and Türkcell. mous peer reviewers and Editor-in-Chief Bruce Hitchner have 8 Højlund and Pedersen 1979; Pedersen 1997. all helped me in focusing the present article, and I am thank- 9 Carstens 1999a, 1999b, 1999c, (forthcoming). ful for their suggestions and sound critique. I am grateful to 10 Hornblower 1982, 78–9.

391 American Journal of Archaeology 106 (2002) 391–409 392 ANNE MARIE CARSTENS [AJA 106

Fig. 1. Map of the Halikarnassos peninsula or Lelegians.11 He reflects on the Lelegians as be- sula were set out: to identify the settlements listed ing another, older name for the Karians, and he by Pliny and Strabo, and to define the Lelegian mentions various older sources describing the na- culture in the archaeological remains.14 ture and origin of the Karians and where they may have settled. He explains that in Karia certain tombs the ancient settlement at geris¸ and fortresses are called Lelegian and that there Thirty years later, in 1886, W.R. Paton excavated were eight Lelegian towns in the region of Halikar- a series of tombs at Assarlk, and the finds, belong- nassos, six of which were amalgamated to form Hal- ing mainly to the Protogeometric period, were trans- ikarnassos. ferred to the British Museum.15 At the end of his In the autumn of 1857, while awaiting the arrival campaign, in February 1887, he visited other an- of his scientific team in Bodrum, C.T. Newton un- cient sites in the vicinity. A coastal site above the dertook an exploration in the hinterlands of Bo- harbor village of Yalkavak in the northwestern part drum.12 He examined some tombs built on the hills of the peninsula attracted his attention (fig. 2). On of Assarlk in the southern part of the peninsula, a ridge with three summits near the village of Geris¸, and he identified the settlement as ancient Syange- Paton noticed the remains of a fortification and a la, one of the Lelegian towns mentioned by Stra- monumental tomb.16 bo.13 Newton found the tombs peculiar and ascribed them to the indigenous population, the Lelegians. Tumuli Tombs Thus the two main objectives for any future archae- The ancient site at Geris¸ is situated on a ridge ological investigation of the Halikarnassos penin- running southeast to northwest that nearly reaches

11 Pliny, NH 5.107; Strabo, Geography 7.7.2, 13.1.58–9, and characterizes the site as “the cradle, and down to the 14.2.27; see also Carstens and Flensted-Jensen (forthcoming). time of Mausolus, the home of the Leleges” (Paton 1887, 12 Newton 1863, 573–601. 66). Forsdyke 1925, 211–5; Marshall 1911, 100–1; Walters 13 Newton 1863, 583–8. 1899, 115–8. 14 E.g., Paton and Myres 1896; Maiuri 1922; Bean and Cook 16 A plan and a section of the chamber tomb were published 1955; Radt 1970; Varinliog˘ lu 1992. later that year as an appendix to the Assarlk publication. Pa- 15 Paton 1887. The article opens with a long quotation ton 1887, 78–82, fig. 27–9. from Newton’s report of his expedition to Assarlk in 1857 2002] TOMB CULT ON THE HALIKARNASSOS PENINSULA 393

Fig. 2. The three hilltops at Geris¸ towering above the Yalkavak Bay the coastline, at which point the slope is rather steep dome that forms the covering.18 The walls are formed (fig. 3). The modern village is built against the south- of unworked boulders, and the apex of the dome is ernmost hilltop.17 An old pathway runs along the covered by a very large flat stone, over 1 × 2 m. southwestern slope of the ridge. A large, level plain, The tumuli tombs are invisible in the landscape cultivated with figs and grapes, is located between and there may be more tombs of similar construc- the two northwestern summits. Approximately 40 m tion in the area.19 It is impossible to date them, but before the plain, several tumuli tombs arranged in the roofing technique seems identical with that two terraces were built into the slope, the first ap- found by Newton in some of the tombs at Assarlk.20 proximately 10 m above the pathway. The lower row Another parallel may be the Protogeometric tomb consists of three tombs, built up against each other. at Dirmil/Gökçebel, which is circular in plan and At least three more tombs are found on the next covered by a dome or pyramid vault completely hid- terrace a few meters eastward. These are still cov- den in a hillside.21 ered by soil and only visible through small holes either dug by pilferers or caused by erosion. The tombs The Fortifications are basically identical with a rectangular ground plan The summit in the middle can be reached from disappearing into the rounding of the corbelled the central plain. Terrace walls of large unworked

17 At the foot of this hill a terrace wall built in head-sized hill facing west. These tombs resemble in their construction unworked stones provides a level terrace ca. 5 m wide on the the chambers in the Assarlk tumuli, the sides converging to northeastern side. The remains of a small podium, 4 × 2 m, are the top, so as to support the covering stones. There are prob- preserved on this terrace. Varinliog˘lu (1996, 161–3) suggests ably other tombs here, but the brushwood which covers the that a monumental chamber tomb may occupy the summit, but hill is quite impenetrable.” clearly the rock-crop here could never have allowed such a 20 The tombs investigated by Newton in 1857 are not iden- construction; more likely it served as a quarry for the Geris¸ tical with the tombs that Paton excavated in 1887, yet they settlement. must belong to the same general type, a built rectangular tomb 18 The tomb on the right has collapsed and is overgrown, covered by a corbelled vault (either two- or four-sided, forming but appears to be of the same dimensions as the one on the a barrel or a pyramid vault) and hidden below a tumulus. Some left: width 2.6 m; length 2.2 m; height 1.3 m (from present of the tombs investigated by Newton were constructed in iso- floor level). However, the best-preserved tomb in the middle domic ashlar masonry, whereas Paton’s tombs were built in rub- is quite large: 3.1 m wide; 5.55 m long; 2 m high. blework. Newton 1863, 580–6; Paton 1887, 67–8; Paton and 19 Paton (1887, 79) supplied the following description: “On Myres 1896, 243–5. the west side of the same hill are two tombs, the entrances of 21 Bass 1963, 353–61; Boysal 1967, 43–5. which lead out of a semicircular wall built into the face of the 394 ANNE MARIE CARSTENS [AJA 106 The walls around the summit represent two phases of construction: the walls themselves predate the tower built onto them. Parallels for the second phase, including the tower on the plateau, can be found in much Hekatomnid building, where rusticated hammer-dressed facades and marginally drafted corners are frequently employed.25 The double corner bond is used in the towers of the Halikar- nassos city wall and can be seen in the fortification towers of Herakleia on Latmos, Latmos, Alabanda, tower 6 at Kaunos, and in St. Paul’s Prison in Ephe- sos.26 The city wall of Halikarnassos was most likely

Fig. 3. Geris¸, sketch of the area investigated boulders in polygonal masonry can be followed in at least two levels along the whole northeastern slope (fig. 4). Presumably these originally formed the lower city wall. Silting and soil erosion within and uphill of the walls has covered the inner face and left the walls with the appearance of monumental terrace walls.22 Similar polygonal masonry filled with smaller rubble was used at several points in the city walls of Halikarnassos and Myndos, present-day Gümüs¸lük, both of which have traditionally been attributed to the Hekatomnid period of the fourth century B.C.23 An ashlar wall built against the summit is visible from the northwest (fig. 5). This wall flanks the hilltop on the northwestern and southwestern sides, and there is a tower on the southwestern corner of the wall-framed hill (figs. 6–7). At the summit the ground is level and forms a plateau with a square tower in the southern corner, built in isodomic, bonded masonry (fig. 8). The corners of the tower are marginally drafted and the blocks are rusticated. At the corners a system of double headers forms Fig. 4. One of the polygonal “terrace” walls, which may have a strengthened corner bond.24 formed a lower city wall of the ancient settlement at Geris¸

22 A similar finding was made in Melie where test trenches fication: “The fortress was evidently originally Karian, but has confirmed the identification. Kleiner 1967, 102–3. See also received important Hellenic additions, perhaps from the fam- Bean and Cook 1955, 119, fig. 6. ily who built the great tomb.” 23 Pedersen 1994b, 221, 223. McNicoll 1997, pls. 2–5. Re- 25 Marginally drafted corners appear in the terrace walls of cently Karlsson (1994) has suggested a Hellenistic date for Priene and the terrace walls of the Mars sanctuary in Halikar- much of the fortification complexes of Karia. The walls at Melie nassos. Pedersen (1991, 93–115) gives a survey of terrace walls were constructed in the eighth or seventh century B.C. Klein- of the fourth century B.C. The towers of the Halikarnassos city er 1967, 124–7. wall also have marginally drafted corners. Pedersen 1994b, 222. 24 Paton and Myres (1896, 206) briefly described the forti- 26 Observed during the Danish Halikarnassos Project’s in- 2002] TOMB CULT ON THE HALIKARNASSOS PENINSULA 395

Fig. 5. The fortified summit viewed from northwest constructed during the reign of Maussollos, and The burial chamber is rectangular with a barrel the fortification of Latmos also probably dates to vault ceiling (fig. 10). This vault consists of four the first half of the fourth century B.C.27 The fortifi- corbelled courses and a fifth placed as a row of cen- cation of Herakleia on Latmos may be Early Helle- tral cover stones (fig. 11). The curve of the barrel nistic, around 300 B.C., while the Ephesos tower, vault is here disjointed by a right angle, and the part of the Lysimachian wall, dates to the third cen- cover stones are completely flat without any concav- tury B.C. Thus, stylistic, technical, and historical data ity. Although the curve of the vault appears homo- suggest that the later phase of the fortification of geneous and rounded, the two lower courses of the Geris¸ belongs to the fourth century B.C.28 vault are cut as straight diagonals. The corners of the chamber do not correspond precisely with the The Chamber Tomb corner bond of the masonry. Both the masonry and The chamber tomb crowns the coastal summit the shaping of the chamber, however, are carefully (fig. 9). The tomb consists of a dromos, a stomion, made and precisely drafted. The floor of the cham- and a burial chamber, built in the local gray-green- ber consists of large rectangular blocks.29 ish andesite in carefully drafted ashlar masonry with The stomion is placed at the exact middle of the corresponding courses. southern wall at a right angle. A large circular pivot

vestigations of the city wall of Halikarnassos in 1998–2000 by 29 One of the middle blocks was lifted up by thieves and was P. Pedersen and the author. Herakleia on Latmos and Latmos: found in this position when Paton visited and described the Krischen 1922, 23; Peschlow-Bindokat 1989, 71. Alabanda, tomb (Paton 1887, 81). At a later date the northern wall inside Kaunos, and Ephesos: McNicoll 1997, 39, pls. 18–19, 198, pl. the chamber was damaged by a dynamite explosion, which 93; Seiterle 1965, 8–11, fig. 6. Indeed it may be found in other resulted in a sizeable hole in the wall at floor level. More re- Karian fortification works. cently another such hole in the southeastern corner of the 27 Pedersen 1994b, 223; Peschlow-Bindokat 1989, 75. chamber also was created by an explosion. Sometime between 28 Karlsson (1994, 142, passim) has argued that an analysis June 1996 and August 1997 the outer doorframe was almost of the historical context is indeed the most important tool for completely destroyed, and several blocks of the dromos walls the dating of city walls. have been pushed down into the dromos. 396 ANNE MARIE CARSTENS [AJA 106 belling is clearly marked. Originally a tumulus, the inner part consisting of boulders, covered the tomb.32 On top of this a layer of clayey soil was probably applied as a seal and the earthen tumulus surface was kept in place by a circular krepis wall, which can be followed all around the tomb (fig. 13). At the best-preserved sections, up to three courses of smaller blocks with a curved facade and a dexter- ous cutting are visible. At a distance of 28 m from the krepis and con- centric with the krepis wall, an impressive wall surrounds the hill (fig. 14). This wall is built of enormous blocks (up to approximately 1 × 2.5 m) with convex surfaces and a heavily rusticated irregular ashlar masonry. It surrounds the tomb on three sides, but the northwestern and northern slopes of the hill are far too steep to have borne such a wall (fig. 15). An entrance was found

Fig. 6. The fortification wall, flanking the hill hole is cut into the outer of the two lintel blocks, but there is no corresponding pivot hole in the floor.30 A single turning door may have opened inward.31 The dromos is placed in the axis of the chamber and stomion. The outer roofing block of the entrance continues out into the dromos and presumably the rest of the dromos was covered as well. The final extension has been found at the western wall, where a corner cutting in the pavement marks the end (fig. 12). The pavement of the dromos consists of large slabs almost as far as this corner, where it is replaced by a pavement made of smaller polygonal slabs. This pavement continues further downhill in the same direction as the dromos. There are no signs of a closing arrangement at the outer end of the dromos. The roof blocks are visible on the top of the tomb Fig. 7. The corner tower, which strengthened the fortification above the entrance, and the heavy range of the cor- wall at the southwestern corner

30 Approximately 0.15 m in diameter and only about 0.02 m 32 Through the holes blown in the chamber walls it is possi- deep. ble to view the construction, and it is striking that very little 31 Paton (1887, 81) noticed some fragments of marble from soil has slipped down and packed between the boulders. either the sarcophagus or the door. 2002] TOMB CULT ON THE HALIKARNASSOS PENINSULA 397

Fig. 8. The freestanding tower on the plateau on axis with the dromos (fig. 16). The blocks fac- too, silting and erosion may have changed its ap- ing this entrance are neatly cut, and a polygonal pearance. pavement was found in the opening. The huge This outer circular wall could be interpreted as the wall seems to have been built partly as a terrace true krepis wall of the tumulus. The inner, smaller wall, partly as a freestanding wall, but in this case wall would then be explained as an internal retain-

Fig. 9. View toward the tomb crowning the coastal hilltop 398 ANNE MARIE CARSTENS [AJA 106

Fig. 10. Plan and section of the chamber tomb. (Drawing by T. Munk-Olsen) ing wall keeping the fill of the tumulus in position.33 way leading to the dromos indicates that the tomb It is, however, difficult to imagine an only partly cir- could be visited between burials, and when enter- cumscribed krepis wall—what would have happened ing the upper part of the hill, delimited by the to the tumulus on the northwestern and northern huge wall, the visitor entered a sacred place. slope where the wall is lacking? And why is the wall The tomb was already practically empty when Pa- constructed as a two-faced wall and not a terrace wall? ton visited Geris¸.34 As the tomb chamber is undeco- I suggest that the outer wall was a clearly articu- rated and technical details such as cramps are lack- lated marker of the tomb, defining the area being, we are left without any obvious dating crite- longing to the interred, comparable to the temenos ria.35 However, the ashlar masonry with correspond- wall of a sanctuary. The entrance with a paved path- ing courses, including an orthostate course, indi-

33 Examples of such inner retaining walls have been fre- fine glaze” inside the tomb chamber. quently observed, e.g., the Salamis tumuli in Cyprus and the 35 It has been suggested that the corbelled barrel vault could Phrygian great tumuli at Gordion. Karageorghis 1967, 122; be used as a terminus ante quem for the construction, an argu- Young 1981, 85–6. ment which would place the construction of the tomb in a 34 Paton (1887, 81) found “a very small fragment of an Attic period before the vault constructed with a keystone had been vase, probably of the fifth century, with the design in red and introduced in Greek architecture. In my view this is a false 2002] TOMB CULT ON THE HALIKARNASSOS PENINSULA 399

Fig. 11. The western end wall of the tomb chamber. Note the angular set-off between the rounding of the lower part of the barrel vault and the topmost flat course. cates that the main inspiration is to be found in at Yokus¸bas¸i near Halikarnassos is typologically re- Greek monumental architecture.36 Paton found related to the Geris¸ tomb, yet the two monuments semblances with the vaulted tombs in Assarlk in are also distinct, not least in the decorative de- the roof construction of the Geris¸ tomb, and specu- tails. This tomb was found during construction lated that the tomb dated back to the fifth century work for a new highway between Bodrum and Mil- B.C. In particular he noted a typological relation as in 1975, and later it was rebuilt in the glacis of between the ashlar tombs found by Newton and the the Bodrum Museum.38 Geris¸ chamber tomb (fig. 17).37 The tomb consists of a dromos, an antechamber, a stomion, and the burial chamber (fig. 18). It is the chamber tomb at geris¸, a tomb built in ashlar masonry in bluish limestone, but from yokus¸bas¸i, and the maussolleion white marble blocks are also used randomly. In the A late fourth-century B.C., or Early Hellenistic, inner burial chamber a plain sarcophagus of lime- chamber tomb found below the ancient settlement stone with a gabled lid was placed on a base con-

conclusion. The invention of the keystone vaulting may not in Greek historiography. have pushed the corbelled vault out of use. Carstens 1999b. 37 Paton 1887, 81; Paton and Myres 1896, 246; see also Bean 36 It is generally agreed that from the fourth century B.C. and Cook 1957, pl. 20d. onward the local population in Karia was directly confronted 38 The ancient settlement of Yokus¸bas¸i: Bean and Cook with Greek architecture. (Hornblower 1982, 11: “This phenom- 1955, 131. The tomb is published in summary in Jeppesen 2000, enon, of a relative isolation in the Archaic and Classical peri- 169–74. We know very little of the surrounding topography of ods—migrated by intermarriage between the Greeks and Kar- this specific tomb, but other Classical and Hellenistic tombs ians, though hardly the still more depressed Lelegians—fol- were excavated by Newton in the eastern part of Bodrum, and lowed by a rapid Hellenization in the fourth century and later in 1989 a very rich cist tomb was found by the Bodrum Muse- is a peculiar one.”) However, public architecture of the Samian um. Newton 1863, 333–41; Özet 1994. In 1995 Maria Berg Ionic type existed in Halikarnassos by the early fifth century Briese, the Danish Halikarnassos Project, and Mehmet Özgenç, B.C., and nothing suggests that Karia was isolated from the Bodrum Museum, visited Yokus¸bas¸i. At the roadside, near the Greek or Aegean world until the late Classical period (Peders- exit for Çiftlik, they noticed the covering stone of what was en 1994a, 27–8). Archaic decorated pottery of the so-called immediately identified as a Hellenistic tomb. I went there in Fikellura-style was produced in Mylasa during the sixth centu- June 1996 in order to confirm these observations, but in the ry B.C. (Cook 1999, Carstens forthcoming), and fifth-century meantime the road had been extended and the tomb had been B.C. Halikarnassos fostered both Herodotos, who was of a mixed lost, without the knowledge of the Bodrum Museum. Karian-Greek family, and his uncle Panyassis, important figures 400 ANNE MARIE CARSTENS [AJA 106 tomb. Only four original blocks are built into the dromos; the rest are modern replacements. The masonry of the tomb consists of carefully drafted ashlar. In particular the corners between the stomion and the tomb chamber have an angular drafting, and many blocks of the bottom course have a blank margin. Generally the masonry is carefully smoothed, but the marginally drafted ashlars have a slightly rough, pecked central surface. Five well-preserved rings of electron as well as a gem ring decorated with an antelope were found in the Yokus¸bas¸i tomb. The ring is probably a work of the fourth century B.C.39 Originally, the Yokus¸bas¸i tomb was covered by a tumulus. The tomb consisted of a rectangular chamber covered by a corbelled barrel vault. The stomion was formed as a niche in the middle of one of the long walls of the chamber, and it was closed by a turning door. All these features are also found in the Geris¸ chamber tomb. The Yokus¸bas¸i tomb has additional refinements, however. Most striking is the careful finish of the limestone and marble masonry, while the andesite blocks of the Geris¸ tomb are roughly pecked. While the plan of the Geris¸ tomb consists of the three elements, dromos, stomion, and chamber, the Yokus¸bas¸i tomb is entered through the dromos, and the stomion and chamber are reached via an antechamber closed by a Fig. 12. The dromos greenstone block. Precisely those elements, which are only seen in the Yokus¸bas¸i tomb, are found in structed of limestone. The burial chamber is rectan- the Maussolleion tomb chamber.40 gular and the walls are preserved in a total height of The Maussolleion tomb chamber was approached six courses. In the present northwest corner one by a broad monumental staircase, which led to a land- block of the seventh course has been placed in posi- ing used for the placing of enormous sacrifices of raw tion and as it has a concave profile, it may be inter- meat.41 This sacrificial deposit was covered with a lay- preted as the beginning of a corbelled barrel vault er of stone protecting it from the earthen fill that later arranged at an angle to the entrance as at Geris¸. The closed the stepped dromos. At the eastern end of the floor is paved with large, almost quadrangular slabs landing a closing block in green andesite was found, of limestone joined by Π-shaped cramps. The same probably in situ, during the British excavations.42 It kind of cramp is visible in the topmost course and blocked the entrance to an antechamber, which again some of the cramps are preserved with the lead sur- led to the stomion closed by a double marble door, rounding. The stomion, placed at the center of the which led to the tomb chamber proper. The tomb southern wall, is rectangular. Double turning doors chamber was probably covered by a pyramid vault, of white marble closed the entrance. A rectangular which transferred the enormous weight of the upper antechamber is located in front of the doors and the building down into the foundations. stomion, and a second entrance is present at the Both the Maussolleion chamber and the Yokus¸bas¸i outer end of the antechamber. Replaced in position tomb were entered through an antechamber, closed is a huge closing slab of green volcanic stone. In the by a greenstone block. The stomion was closed by rebuilding, the dromos has been placed at a sharp double marble doors, in both tombs decorated with angle to the tomb, and it slopes steeply toward the fillings framed by riveted panels. In the Maussolleion,

39 Bodrum Museum no. 1.10.75. The gold ring is related to 40 Jeppesen 2000, 63–104. the Greco-Persian style as characterized by Boardman (1970, 41 Højlund et al. 1981. 303–27), notably the so-called mixed style group (Boardman 42 Newton 1863, 96–7. 1970, pl. 942). 2002] TOMB CULT ON THE HALIKARNASSOS PENINSULA 401

Fig. 13. The eastern krepis wall the Yokus¸bas¸i tomb, and the Geris¸ tomb, the stomion It is an intriguing notion that the Maussolleion was formed as a niche in the chamber, and all three tomb chamber was of a type already known in the tombs were presumably covered by corbelled roofs. Halikarnassos region, exemplified by the Geris¸

Fig. 14. The outer wall on the west side 402 ANNE MARIE CARSTENS [AJA 106

Fig. 15. The outer wall on the east side tomb.43 The tomb at Yokus¸bas¸i is so similar in style to the Maussolleion tomb chamber that I would consider it to be an imitation. This theory is supported by both the stylistic dating criteria—the use of Π- shaped cramps of a type well known in late Classi- cal Halikarnassos and the smoothed and delicate masonry—and the fact that the finds dated to the second half of the fourth century B.C. All three tombs were princely tombs, sepulchral monuments of the local dynasty in Geris¸ and Yokus¸bas¸i, while the Maussolleion was the supreme royal monument—a monument of indisputable power.

tomb cult and ancestor cult: staging an aristocratic tradition of power It is useful to consider cultic activities at both modest and monumental tombs as different levels Fig. 16. The opening in the outer wall of adoration or worship.44 Firstly, cultic activities may

43 Still, the dating of the Geris¸ tomb is insecure and mainly (3) cult of the dead, i.e., funerary customs. Protonotariou- based on a stylistic consideration of the main features: the plan Deilaki (1990, 69) also operates with separate rites during and is not as complicated as the Maussolleion, the finish not as neat, after the funeral. In general, especially tomb cult, but also yet, the material is also different and much rougher. Based on mortuary practices are better investigated in Bronze Age Ae- these stylistic criteria, the most logical and normal archaeolog- gean archaeology than in the historical periods. See, e.g., Hägg ical procedure would be to consider the chronological sequence and Nordquist 1990; Cavanagh and Mee 1998, 103–36. Stud- as: Geris¸, Maussolleion, Yokus¸bas¸i. ies in mortuary practices of the proto-historical and Archaic 44 Antonaccio (1995) has presented another division used periods are in particular concentrated on the Geometric buri- in her study of the formation of Greek hero cult: (1) tomb als on the Athenian Agora and the Archaic burials in the Ker- cult, i.e., reuse of prehistoric tombs in the Early Iron Age, (2) ameikos, see, e.g., Morris 1987, 1992; Whitley 1991; Houby- hero cult, which may not necessarily take place at a tomb, and Nielsen 1995, 1998. 2002] TOMB CULT ON THE HALIKARNASSOS PENINSULA 403 princely tombs had done in the Mediterranean region during the Archaic period in the seventh and sixth centuries B.C.45 It is doubtful whether the tomb was also regarded as a sacred monument, a place to worship the satrap, King Maussollos, as deified ruler, but clear references to sacral architecture and layout were incorporated throughout the construction.46 The monument had its sacred space, its temenos, on the terrace; it was entered through a propylon as in a sanctuary; and it was located in the midst of the town, next to the agora. Twice as grand as the terrace of the Mars temple, the Maus- solleion complex dominated the city.47 The monument itself was an imitation of a peripteral podium temple and was lavishly decorated with relief sculpture, architectural moldings, and a coffered ceiling. Even if it was not a temple, it was presented like one—and Maussollos was the god to worship. The massive and permanent setting evokes the idea that formalized cultic activities were indeed performed at the Maussolleion and that the monument was central in an ancestor or ruler cult. Un- fortunately, the only archaeological evidence of funerary or tomb cult is the extraordinary raw meat sacrifice, so monumental that it indicates ongoing, large-scale tomb cult activities. A passage by Aulus Gellius (Noctes Atticae 10.18) relates that Artemi- sia consecrated the Maussolleion to the deified Fig. 17. Corbelled vaulted chamber tomb from Assarl k. Here Maussollos and instituted an agon, a rhetoric com- the vault is almost gabled, and instead of a central row of closing blocks in the top of the vault, each side of the roof petition where talented men praised the deeds of 48 construction meets in the center. (Photo courtesy of Jan the late king. While Gellius is a much later source, Zahle) the phrase of the deified ruler, in combination with the direct reference to sacral architecture in the be performed at the funeral, for example, the pour- total layout and construction of the Maussolleion ing of a libation or sacrifice of a meal and the place- complex, constitutes the hypothesis that the Maus- ment of personal belongings inside the tomb. Sec- solleion was in effect a temple for the Hekatomnid ondly, tomb cult may be performed as visits and dynasty and the deified or godlike Maussollos. If sacrifices at the tomb some time after the funeral, the ruling dynasty buried its great entrepreneur for example, libations or other sacrifices on the inside such a powerful temple-like monument, who tomb altar and mourning. Thirdly, there is the prac- could then question that dynasty’s right to power? tice of hero or ancestor cult—difficult to separate The monumental tomb answered any doubts about from tomb cult other than as something more mon- its legitimacy in its reference to the past—this is umentalized. what we achieved before, and only great men are The Maussolleion in Halikarnassos was a royal buried in great monuments. tomb and a monument of power. It overtly displayed I suggest that the Maussolleion modeled itself the might and wealth of the Hekatomnids, as upon local tradition, not only in the architecture

45 Princely tombs in Iron Age France: Joffroy 1958, 1979; 46 Jeppesen (1994) discusses whether Maussollos was the Olivier 1997; Reinhard 1997. Italy: Winther 1997, 427–9. The subject of Greek founder cult. He suggests that Maussollos may great tumuli at Gordion: Young 1981. Salamis Royal Tombs: have inaugurated the combination of hero cult with deifica- Karageorghis 1967, 1973. Trachian and Scythian princely tombs: tion soon to become imitated by Alexander. Jeppesen 1994, Tsetskladze 1998. In this connection the definition of power 83. is as overt as the display in question: almighty and unquestion- 47 Pedersen 1991, 95–7. able economic and political power over the Halikarnassians and 48 Jeppesen 1986, 102–9. the entire Karia. 404 ANNE MARIE CARSTENS [AJA 106

Fig. 18. Plan and section of the Yokus¸bas¸i tomb. (Kristian Jeppesen) and plan of the burial chamber, but also in the below, and perhaps it was the tomb of the local dy- ideological concept of the deified ruler as dynas- nast in ancient Torba, of whom we know nothing, or tic ancestor.49 perhaps it belonged to the inland settlement at On the Halikarnassos peninsula another, much Gökçeler.52 Either way the tomb was separated from earlier, dynastic tomb towers above a natural harbor both settlement and cemetery as an isolated monu- and crowns a peak, the Gebe Kilise, in the land- ment, and it was meant to dominate the bay. Near scape on the northern shore above the village of the tomb a building complex was constructed per- Torba. The Gebe Kilise tomb is the high point of haps during the fifth or fourth century B.C.53 Its the so-called Lelegian tombs (fig. 19).50 Most likely, close proximity to the tomb, however, suggests that it is a work of the seventh century B.C., built in the it was a building associated with tomb cult per- most exquisite dry-stone, almost pseudo-isodomic, formed at the tumulus.54 ashlar masonry.51 A tall and slender pyramidal dome The topography of the Gebe Kilise tomb is re- forms the ceiling of the tomb chamber, totally invis- peated in the Geris¸ chamber tomb. In both cases, ible from the outside, where the top of the tomb however, only the setting of the tombs and the good appears as a huge rubble tumulus. The tumulus is workmanship presented in the buildings indicate kept in place by a profiled krepis placed on top of that they were princely tombs—and evoke only a the vertical courses of the lower part of the tomb. vague impression of the tombs as subjects of tomb The building is still visible from the coastal village cult or maybe ancestor cult.

49 The Persian hegemony was no less important in the way centuries from the Geometric period until the sixth century it inspired or even initiated the creation of the ruler cult in B.C. Radt 1970, 225. Hekatomnid Karia. The cultural relations between Karia and 52 Paton and Myres 1896, 212; Bean and Cook 1955, 123–8; the Persian hegemony are complex and yet have only been Radt 1970, 215–36. superficially investigated; see, e.g., Hornblower 1982, 137–82. 53 Radt 1970, 177, 195. 50 Radt 1970, 219–23. 54 Radt (1970, 195) put forward a close parallel for the build- 51 The Lelegian tumuli tombs were in use at least a couple of ing type in a domestic shrine at Vouni on Cyprus. 2002] TOMB CULT ON THE HALIKARNASSOS PENINSULA 405 tumulus was apparently constructed in the sixth century B.C., while a second building phase, detected by a join in the masonry of the krepis wall, was dated back to the fourth century B.C. Tomb cult was performed here from the sixth century B.C. until the fourth century A.D. It has been proposed that this is the tomb, or perhaps the cenotaph, of the herdsman Pixodaros, who first discovered the presence of marble north of the valley, opposite the tomb. Vitruvius tells that his “place” was visited each month and a sacrifice was offered.56 As at Gebe Kilise, another building was found nearby. The excavator, S. Kasper, suggested that the building was connected with the cult performed at the tomb: “entweder als Unterkünfte für Adoranten bzw. Pilger, die zum Heroengrab kamen, oder auch als Bauhütten für die Steinhauer und Steinmetzen, die den monumentalen Bau errichteten, oder aber nacheinander für beides gedient haben.”57 Although there is no direct evidence of any cultic activities at the tomb at Geris¸, the topographical setting of the tomb evokes the idea that cultic activities took place. The huge (temenos) wall surrounding the tomb hill and the access to the dromos indicated by the polygonal pavement at the entrance in the outer wall indicate that the tomb itself was accessible to worshippers and served as a sanctuary for an an- Fig. 19. The Gebe Kilise tomb, which towers above the cestor cult. This temenos wall is similar in style with harbor village Torba on the northern coast of the the krepis wall of the Belevi tumulus: they are both Halikarnassos peninsula constructed in gigantic ashlars (averaging more than 1.5 m in length and 0.6 m in height) with very rough Evidence of ancestor or hero cult is often this pecked facades. Such masonry is otherwise unknown indirect or diffuse. However, at Belevi, northeast of in Karia, and it is tempting to assume that the build- Ephesos, an evident example of a monumental ers of the tomb at Geris¸ knew the Belevi tumulus, tomb subject to a hero cult, the Belevi tumulus, was the famous heroön of Pixodaros.58 excavated during the early 1970s. It is situated on a Thus, I propose that the Geris¸ tomb was a dynas- hill on the southern side of the Kaystros river valley tic tomb subject to ancestor cult, probably built opposite the marble quarry that provided building sometime during the Classical period. It is, unfor- materials for the Artemision.55 A krepis wall con- tunately, impossible to date it with further accuracy, structed in ashlar masonry of huge blocks, approx- but stylistically it seems reasonable to place the Geris¸ imately 1.5 × 0.6 m, surrounds the tomb. This wall is tomb later than the chamber tomb at Assarlk de- some 65.4 m in diameter and the dromos has been picted in figure 17 (which is also undateable) and hidden in the wall. No access to the tomb chamber also later than the Belevi tumulus, but before the was possible. A system of clay pipes was established construction of the Maussolleion. That leaves us for the offering of libations into the tomb. The liba- with a date sometime during the fifth or very early tions took place on the top of the tumulus and the fourth century B.C. channels led the offerings down to the antecham- The settlement at Geris¸ was probably earlier, as ber, where they were collected in a cavity. The Belevi the tumuli and the lower city wall indicate, but the

55 Kasper 1975, 223–32; 1976–1977, 127–80. or finally completed in the fourth century B.C. (the second 56 Vitr. De arch. 10.11.11–2. building phase) and a wild hypothesis would be that the ma- 57 Kasper 1976–1977, 180. sons employed in the construction of the Geris¸ tomb also par- 58 The krepis wall of the Belevi tumulus was either repaired ticipated in the Belevi tumulus repair. 406 ANNE MARIE CARSTENS [AJA 106 fortification of the settlement was strengthened was unpopular, or to serve as garrison posts against during the fourth century B.C., possibly in connec- real or imagined threats from outside, or to in- tion with the construction of the city wall at Halikar- timidate the Greeks and Karians of the area—or nassos.59 These late Classical activities imply a con- perhaps just for show.”63 All four explanations flict with the traditionally accepted interpretation indicate that people must have been situated in of a change of settlement patterns on the peninsu- the area, both in order to man the towers, and to la during the reign of Maussollos. be either frightened by them or impressed by their magnificence. Geris¸ in the Light of Maussollan Synoikism Traditionally, synoikism has been understood Archaeological investigations in the Halikar- as both a political and a physical act, that is, it nassian area have often sought to verify ancient involved both a handover of political and admin- literary sources describing the synoikism of Maus- istrative power and a migration from the syn- sollos. A possible identification of those syn- oikized towns to Halikarnassos, resulting in the oikized settlements has formed the basis of ar- depopulation of the sites incorporated in the chaeological research conducted in the area process. Bean and Cook clearly saw this migration since C.T. Newton, at times blindfolding archae- as a permanent new settlement structure on the ologists to other interpretations when the writ- Halikarnassos peninsula, and considered any re- ten word is regarded as unequivocal. This is not population impossible in the period shortly after least the case of the surveys conducted by G.E. the reign of Maussollos (after the construction of Bean and R.M. Cook in the 1950s.60 Often they the major buildings including the city wall, which stressed that the latest sherd found on the pen- demanded the large-scale enforcement of build- insula at a site which they identified as one of the ing workers).64 synoikisized towns, belonged to the Pre-Maussol- The archaeological evidence calls into ques- lan period, that is, no later than the first half of tion this hasty conclusion and indicates that, while the fourth century B.C.61 But the tiles and sherds synoikism also should be understood as a physi- scattered around these settlements, and also at cal act which supplied the workers needed for Geris¸, may just as well belong to the Hellenistic the creation of a new metropolis, this was possi- period; for the majority of pottery finds the chro- bly a temporary situation. Not only are the dates nological frame is just as imprecise as it is for of pottery given by Bean and Cook questionable, architectonic remains. but the reinforcement of the fortifications at many Late Classical walls, such as those that strength- of the peninsula sites and the apparently contin- en the fortification of Geris¸, can be found at sev- uous use of tombs and cemeteries also suggest eral of the peninsula sites, including Gürice, As- that people soon moved back, and some never sarlk, Gökçebel, and Gökçeler, which are all con- even moved away.65 sidered as settlements incorporated in the syn- Southward along the coast from Geris¸, protect- oikism.62 Hornblower considered these additions: ed by a small promontory, there is an ancient stone “A number of other ‘Lelegian’ sites had their for- quarry, situated on the coast so that further trans- tifications strengthened in the fourth century, portation of the andesite stone could easily be ar- very probably by Mausolus. This may have been as ranged on rafts landing in the shallow water (fig. part of a policing operation because synoikism 20). There are remains of both polygonal and

59 Such additions are found at many settlements in the Chalar]; Telmessos = Kara Dag˘; Karyanda = Göl [Ghiöl]; Ter- Halikarnassos peninsula. They appear to form a widened de- mile = Dirmil/Gökçebel [Tremil]. Bean and Cook (1955, 143– fense system related to the Halikarnassos city wall. Carstens 65) made the following identifications: Myndos = Erenmezar- and Flensted-Jensen (forthcoming). lik, the archaic Lelegian town later moved to: Gümüs¸lük; Sy- 60 Bean and Cook 1955. angela = Alâzeytin, the archaic Lelegian town later moved to: 61 Bean and Cook 1955, 119. See, e.g., the remarks on As- Theangela = above Etrim village; Termera = Assarlk; Pedasa = sarlk (Bean and Cook 1955, 118); Gürice (Bean and Cook Gökçeler; Telmissus = Gürice; Madnasa = Kara Dag˘ ; Uranium = 1955, 121); Göl (Bean and Cook 1955, 122); Geris¸ (Bean and Burgaz, the site at Geris¸; Side = Göl. See also Varinliog˘ lu 1992. Cook 1955, 119–20. 63 Hornblower 1982, 308. 62 Newton (1863, 573–601) argued for an identification of 64 Bean and Cook 1955, 169. Assarlk as Syangela, of Chifoot Kalessy [Çifit Kales] as Term- 65 Rock-cut tombs probably belonging to the fourth century era, and of Gül [Göl] as Karyanda. Paton and Myres (1896, 192– B.C. are found at Turgutreis, at the Pamyalik point near Yalka- 210) made the following identifications: Termera = Assarlk; vak, and at Türkbükü. Carstens 1999a. Myndos = Gümüs¸lük [Giumushli]; Pedasa = Gökçeler [Ghiuk 2002] TOMB CULT ON THE HALIKARNASSOS PENINSULA 407 quarry than the time of the Maussollan building program, contemporaneous with synoikism.66 In general, a reconstruction of the settlement patterns of the peninsula is difficult to present with certainty as long as the dating of the archaeological remains is so tentative. The dynastic tomb, subject to ancestor cult, which dominates the fertile landscape of Geris¸ may belong to the fifth century B.C. At that time a local aristocracy was in charge of a prosperous settlement and its hinterlands, the green valleys and the natural harbor near the quarry. Sometime in the 370s B.C. Maus- sollos moved his capital to Halikarnassos and sites like Geris¸ had to provide a labor force for the ambitious building program, which was turning Ha- likarnassos into a modern, rich, and impressive city. Perhaps shortly after, in the 360s B.C., the fortifications were improved, and the quarry may already have functioned as a small industrial settlement, shipping andesite to Halikarnassos, while the rich and fertile valleys produced a surplus, which was sold in the city. It is possible that the local community continued to exist in a modest and discreet manner while the men worked in Halikarnassos, or maybe the town was abandoned. Both ideological (the deified ruler) and architectonic elements (the sacred precinct) show that the Hekatomnid dynasty created its public iden- Fig. 20. The andesite quarry below Geris¸ tity, first and foremost by the construction of the Maussolleion, in a local cast. The recognition of ashlar-like walls on the small coastal plateau just the Persian satrap Maussollos and his family by above the quarry, and the many fragments of pot- the local Karians, including the local dynasties, is tery and roof tiles show that quarry workers proba- a vital key in the decipherment of the flourishing bly inhabited this site. Traces in the bedrock indi- fourth-century B.C. Karia. I find it hard to believe cate an ancient road. that the local ruler at Geris¸ should have passed Again, it is impossible to date these structures on his status to Maussollos and Halikarnassos and with any particular accuracy. The visible remains accepted a physical synoikism. Further systematic (sherds, tiles, and walls) are similar to material investigations of the archaeological remains on found inside Halikarnassos from the Hellenistic the Halikarnassos peninsula are needed, howev- period, but this does not preclude it belonging to er, in order to determine the extent to which the the early fourth century B.C. as well. settlement structure was altered and local power With the synoikism and the creation of Halikar- structures tolerated. nassos as a capital with sanctuaries, new public buildings, a Maussolleion, and an impressive fortifica- department of archaeology tion, including new installations at a number of and ethnology peninsula forts, the demand for building material school of classical archaeology must have been great. The andesite quarry below university of copenhagen Geris¸ could supply good, homogenous, semi-hard vandkunsten 5, dk-1467 andesite, and was located on the coast. It is impossi- copenhagen ble to find a better historical explanation for this [email protected]

66 The same argument was rightly put forward by Bean and Cook (1955, 169) concerning the Koyunbaba quarry north of Gümüs¸lük. 408 ANNE MARIE CARSTENS [AJA 106 Works Cited ish Museum Press. Jeppesen, K. 1976. “Neue Ergebnisse zur Wiederherstel- Antonaccio, C.M. 1995. An Archaeology of Ancestors: Greek lung des Maussolleions von Halikarnassos.” IstMitt Tomb and Hero Cult. Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield. 26:47–99. Bass, G.F. 1963. “Mycenaean and Protogeometric Tombs ———. 1986. The Maussolleion at Halikarnassos. Vol. 2, in the Halicarnassus Peninsula.” AJA 67:353–61. The Written Sources. Reports of the Danish Archaeo- Bean, G.E., and J.M. Cook. 1955. “The Halicarnassus logical Expedition to Bodrum. Højbjerg: Jutland Peninsula.” BSA 50:85–171. Archaeological Society. Boardman, J. 1970. Greek Gems and Finger Rings: Early ———. 1992. “Tot Operum Opus, Ergebnisse der dänis- Bronze Age to Late Classical. London: Thames and Hud- chen Forschungen zum Maussolleion von Halikar- son. nass seit 1966.” JdI 107:59–102. Boysal, Y. 1967. “New Excavations in Caria.” Anadolu ———. 1994. “Founder Cult and Maussolleion.” In Hek- 11:31–56. atomnid Caria and the Ionian Renaissance, edited by J. Carstens, A.M. 1999a. “Death Matter: Funerary Archi- Isager, 73–84. Halicarnassian Studies I. Odense: tecture on the Halikarnassos Peninsula.” Ph.D. diss., Odense University Press. University of Copenhagen. ———. 1998. “Das Maussolleion von Halikarnass, Fors- ———. 1999b. “Sepulchral Architecture on the Halikar- chungsbericht 1997.” Proceedings of the Danish Institute nassos Peninsula.” In Proceedings of the XVth Internation- at Athens 2:161–231. al Congress of Classical Archaeology, edited by R.F. Docter ———. 2000. The Maussolleion at Halikarnassos. Vol. 4, and E.M. Moormann, 109–11. Allard Pierson Series The Quadrangle. Reports of the Danish Archaeologi- 12. Amsterdam: Allard Pierson Museum. cal Expedition to Bodrum. Højbjerg: Jutland Archae- ———. 1999c. “Fieldwork on the Halikarnassos-Penin- ological Society. sula 1997.” In Investigations in Halikarnassos 1997, edit- Joffroy, R. 1958. Les Sépultures a Char du premier Age du Fer ed by P. Pedersen, 330–3. XVI. Aras¸trma Sonuçlar en France. Paris: A. et J. Picard. Toplants 1998. Ankara: Kültür Bakanl˘g Milli ———. 1979. Vix et ses trésors. Paris: Tallandier. Kütüphane Basmevi. Karageorghis, V. 1967. Excavations in the Necropolis at Sala- ———. Forthcoming. “Karian Archaic Pottery—Inves- mis 1. Nicosia: Department of Antiquities. tigating Culture?” In Pots for the Living, Pots for the Dead, ———. 1973. Excavations in the Necropolis at Salamis 3. edited by A. Rathje, M. Nielsen, and B. Bundgaard Nicosia: Department of Antiquities. Rasmussen. Acta Hyberborea 9. Copenhagen: Muse- Karlsson, L. 1994. “Thoughts about Fortifications in um Tusculanum. Caria from Maussollos to Demetrios Poliorketes.” REA Carstens, A.M., and P. Flensted-Jensen. Forthcoming. 96:141–53. “Halikarnassos and the Lelegians.” In The Salmakis Kaspar, S. 1975. “Der Tumulus von Belevi.” AA:223–32. Inscription and Hellenistic Halikarnassos, edited by S. Is- ———. 1976–1977. “Der Tumulus von Belevi (Grabungs- ager and P. Pedersen. Halicarnassian Studies. Odense: bericht).” ÖJhBeibl 51:127–80. Odense University Press. Kleiner, G. 1967. Panionion und Melie. JdI-EH 23. Berlin: Cavanagh, W., and C. Mee. 1998. A Private Place: Death in De Gruyter. Prehistoric Greece. SIMA 125. Göteborg: Paul Åströms. Krischen, F. 1922. Die Befestigungen von Herakleia am Lat- Cook, R.M. 1999. “A List of Carian Orientalizing Pot- mos. (Milet 3:2). Berlin: De Gruyter. tery.” OJA 18:79–83. Maiuri, A. 1922. “Viaggio di esplorazione in Caria (Parte Forsdyke, E.J. 1925. Catalogue of the Greek and Etruscan I, IIe III).” ASAtene 4–5:345–488. Vases in the British Museum. Pt. 1, Prehistoric Aegean Pot- Marshall, F.H. 1911. Catalogue of the Jewellery, Greek, Etrus- tery. London: Trustees of the British Museum. can and Roman, in the Departments of Antiquities, British Hägg, R., and G.C. Nordquist, eds. 1990. Celebrations of Museum. London: Trustees of the British Museum. Death and Divinity in the Bronze Age Argolid. SkrAth 4°, McNicoll, A.W. 1997. Hellenistic Fortifications from the Ae- XL. Stockholm: Paul Åströms. gean to the Euphrates. Oxford: Clarendon. Hornblower, S. 1982. Mausolus. Oxford: Clarendon. Morris, I. 1987. Burial and Ancient Society. Cambridge: Højlund, F., K. Aaris-Sørensen, and K. Jeppesen. 1981. Cambridge University Press. The Maussolleion at Halikarnassos. Reports of the Danish ———. 1992. Death-Ritual and Social Structure in Classical Archaeological Expedition to Bodrum. Vol. 1, The Sacrifi- Antiquity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. cial Deposit. Højbjerg: Jutland Archaeological Society. Newton, C.T. 1863. A History of Discoveries at Halicarnas- Højlund, F., and P. Pedersen. 1979. “På sporet af sus, Cnidus and Branchidae. London: Day & Son. lelegerne” Sfinx 2:3–8. Olivier, L. 1997. “Le pôle aristocratique des environs de Houby-Nielsen, S. 1995. “‘Burial Language’ in Archaic Saxon-Sion (Meurthe-et-Moselle) à l’Âge du Fer: Faut- and Classical Kerameikos.” Proceedings of the Danish il revoir le concept de ‘Residence Princière?’” In Viz Institute at Athens 1:131–91. et les éphémères principautés celtiques. Les VI e–V e siècles avant ———. 1998. “Revival of Archaic Funerary Practices in J.-C. en Europe centre-occidentale. Acts du colloque de Châtil- the Hellenistic and Roman Kerameikos.” Proceedings lion-sur-Seine, edited by P. Brun, P. Chaume, and B. of the Danish Institute at Athens 2:127–46. Chaume, 93–105. Paris: Errance. Isager, S. 1995. “Pagans in Late Roman Halicarnassos 2: Özet, A. 1994. “The Tomb of a Noble Woman from the The Voice of the Inscriptions.” Proceedings of the Dan- Hekatomnid Period.” In Hekatomnid Caria and the Ion- ish Institute at Athens 1:209–19. ian Renaissance, edited by J. Isager, 88–96. Halicarnas- ———. 1999. “The Pride of Halikarnassos.” ZPE 123:1– sian Studies I. Odense: Odense University Press. 23. Paton, W.R. 1887. “Excavations in Caria.” JHS 8:64–82. Jenkins, I. 1992. Archaeologists and Aesthetes. London: Brit- Paton, W.R., and J.L. Myres. 1896. “Karian Sites and In- 2002] TOMB CULT ON THE HALIKARNASSOS PENINSULA 409 scription.” JHS 16:188–271. ing.” Proceedings of the Danish Institute at Athens 1:193– Pedersen, P. 1983. “Zwei ornamentierte Säulenhälse aus 208. Halikarnassos.” JdI 98:87–121. Protonotariou-Deilaki, E. 1990. “Burial Customs and ———. 1988a. “Town-Planning in Halicarnassus and Funerary Rites in the Prehistoric Argolid.” In Celebra- Rhodes.” In Archaeology in the Dodecanese, edited by S. tions of Death and Divinity in the Bronze Age Argolid, edit- Dietz and I. Papachristodoulou, 98–103. Copenhagen: ed by R. Hägg and G.C. Nordquist, 69–83. SkrAth 4°, The National Museum of Denmark. XL. Stockholm: Paul Åströms. ———. 1988b. “Two Ionic Buildings in Halicarnassus.” Radt, W. 1970. Siedlungen und Bauten auf der Halbinsel In V. Aras¸ tιrma Sonuçlar ιToplantιsι 1987, 359–63. An- von Halikarnassos unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der kara: Kültür Bakanlg˘ Milli Kütüphane Basmevi. archaischen Epoche. Tübingen: Ernst Wasmuth. ———. 1989. “Some General Trends in Architectural Reinhard, W. 1997. “Les sépultures aristocratiques de la Lay-Out of 4th C. Caria.” In Architecture and Society in Sarre au Hallstatt final et à la Tène ancienne.” In Viz Hecatomnid Caria: Proceedings of the Uppsala Symposion et les éphémères principautés celtiques. Les VI e–V e siècles avant 1987, edited by T. Linders and P. Hellström, 9–14. J.-C. en Europe centre-occidentale. Acts du colloque de Châtil- Uppsala: Uppsala University Press. lion-sur-Seine, edited by P. Brun, P. Chaume, and B. ———. 1991. The Maussolleion at Halikarnassos. Vol. 3, Chaume, 107–23. Paris: Errance. pt. 1 and 2, The Maussolleion Terrace and Accessory Struc- Seiterle, G. 1965. “Ephesos - Lysimachische Stadt-mau- tures. Reports of the Danish Archaeological Expedi- er.” ÖJh 47:8–11. tion to Bodrum. Højbjerg: Jutland Archaeological Tsetskladze, G. 1998. “Who Built the Scythian and Thra- Society. cian Royal and Elite Tombs?” OJA 17:55–92. ———. 1994a. “The Ionian Renaissance and Some As- Varinliog˘lu, E. 1992. “Lelegian Cities on the Halicarnas- pects of Its Origin within the Field of Architecture sian Peninsula in the Athenian Tribute Lists.” In Studi- and Planning.” In Hekatomnid Caria and the Ionian Re- en zum Antiken Kleinasien II, Asia Minor Studien 8, 17– naissance, edited by J. Isager, 11–35. Halicarnassian 22. Bonn: Dr. Rudolph Habelt. Studies I. Odense: Odense University Press. ———. 1996. “Bodrum Yarimadasi’nda ve Kerme ———. 1994b. “The Fortifications of Halikarnassos.” Körfezi’nin Kuzeyinde Yüzey Arastirmalari.” In XIV. REA 96:215–35. Aras¸ tιrma Sonuçlar ιToplantιsι 1996, 161–3. Ankara: ———. 1997. “Investigations and Research in Halikar- Kültür Bakanlg˘ Milli Kütüphane Basmevi. nassos 1995. In XIV. Aras¸tιrma Sonuçlar ιToplantιsι 1996, Walters, H.B. 1899. Catalogue of the Bronzes, Greek, Roman, 207–13. Ankara: Kültür Bakanlg˘ Milli Kütüphane and Etruscan, in the Department of Greek and Roman Basmevi. Antiquities, British Museum. London: Trustees of the ———. 1999. “Investigations in Halikarnassos 1997.” In British Museum. XVI. Aras¸ tιrma Sonuçlar ι Toplantιsι 1998, 325–44. An- Whitley, I. 1991. Style and Society in Dark Age Greece. Cam- kara: Kültür Bakanlg˘ Milli Kütüphane Basmevi. bridge: Cambridge University Press. Peschlow-Bindokat, A. 1989. “Die Umgestaltungen von Winther, H.C. 1997. “Princely Tombs of the Orientaliz- Latmos in der ersten Hälfte des 4. Jhs.v.Chr.” In Archi- ing Period in Etruria and Latium Verus.” In Urbaniza- tecture and Society in Hecatomnid Caria: Proceedings of the tion in the Mediterranean in the Ninth to Sixth Centuries Uppsala Symposion 1987, edited by T. Linders and P. B.C., edited by H. Damgaard Andersen, H.W. Hellström, 69–76. Uppsala: Uppsala University Press. Horsnæs, S. Houby-Nielsen, and A. Rathje, 423–46. Poulsen, B. 1994. “The New Excavations in Halikarnas- Acta Hyberborea 7. Copenhagen: Museum Tuscu- sos.” In Hekatomnid Caria and the Ionian Renaissance, lanum. edited by J. Isager, 115–33. Halicarnassian Studies I. Young, R.S. 1981. Three Great Early Tumuli. Vol. 1, The Odense: Odense University Press. Gordion Excavations: Final Reports. University Museum ———. 1995. “Pagans in Late Roman Halicarnassos 1: Monographs 43. Pennsylvania: University Museum. The Interpretation of a Recently Excavated Build-

Regionaries-Type Insulae 2: Architectural/Residential Units at Rome GLENN R. STOREY

Abstract ric of the city), however, remain largely unknown. The architectural/residential unit (ARU) concept pre- The key to reconstructing the character of residen- viously defined and elaborated for Ostia is here consid- tial life in the city requires that we combine various ered in light of the Roman evidence. I conclude that the threads of evidence: the information of Roman ur- ARU is the best candidate to be the archaeological corre- ban archaeology outside of Rome, especially the late of the term insula in the Regionaries. This conclu- Vesuvian cities and Ostia, the port of Rome; the sion is drawn in light of (1) the weight of evidence from review of the documentary sources that points to or is evidence of the Severan Marble Plan of the city, compatible with the concept of the ARU; (2) statistical executed at the beginning of the third century A.D.; analysis of the figures given in the Regionaries that es- and the rich written record of Roman life—literary tablishes that the catalogues probably report statistics and documentary, the latter including materials that may echo reasonably reliable statistics and are not such as epigraphic sources and the juristic sourc- made up fantasies; (3) the results of geographic information systems (GIS) analysis of the space utilization implies, as well as other surviving examples of items that cations of the Regionaries statistics in Region 12 of an- appear to be “quasi-administrative,” for example, cient Rome; and (4) consideration of the probable num- the Regionary Catalogues. These written sources ber of separate structures in ancient Rome compared introduce residential terminology that must be in- with more recent preindustrial urban centers. Finally, terpreted in light of the other categories of evi- the polysemic nature of residential terms in different languages may explain why there has been understand- dence, especially archaeological evidence. In my able controversy over the interpretation of the term in- previous synthesis of evidence on residential con- sula as it occurs in the Regionaries. Work for the future figurations, I presented the results of a recent study suggested by this analysis includes investigating whether of the division of urban space in the city of Ostia, ARUs were commonly defined in association with stair- based on the “architectural/residential unit” (here- cases to upper floors, and how the nature of the urban fabric of ancient Rome may have differed from that of after ARU), a separate, architecturally self-enclosed later Italian towns, which appear to show greater prepon- unit that, whatever its function, can be designated derance of residential configurations based on the row as a possible residential unit because an individual house.* (or household) could have lived in that particular unit.1 The results of the study suggest that the ARU What did the city of ancient Rome look like? Much was the nuclear building block of the urban fabric is known about the public architecture and config- of Roman city life, occupied by one household, how- uration of public space (accepting that there are ever defined.2 notable gaps in our knowledge even about those The study addresses the terminological problem features). The residential dimension of the build- of the Regionaries (the fourth-century “Curiosum” ings and their spatial distribution (which would and the “Notitia”)3—specifically, the meaning of the have constituted the majority of the structural fab- term insula.4 The Regionaries report the numbers

* I would like to thank Paul Harvey and Robert Palmer for who speaks of residential units as “geschlossene Räume.” That their assistance in providing the original impetus and continu- notion is also very close to the legal notion of “private proper- ing advice concerning this analysis. I would like to thank Craig ty” discussed below. Gibson and the two referees who provided useful insights and 2 Interest in the Roman family and how it is perceived has suggestions for both parts. Brian Lauthen counted the build- grown enormously in recent years. Saller (1994) and Rawson ings in the Tempesta map, and Gwendolyn Gruber and and Weaver (1997) are particularly relevant sources with copi- Katharine Dale provided valuable research assistance. All re- ous references. maining errors are my responsibility. As always, my wife, An- 3 Jordan 1970; Valentini and Zucchetti 1940; Nordh 1949; drea Lucia Piermarini Storey, provided constant support and Hermansen 1978; Reynolds 1996. encouragement. 4 Richter 1885; Cuq 1916; Wotschitsky 1962; Castagnoli 1976; 1 Storey 2001. The idea of enclosure to define units in Ostia Guilhembet 1996; Coarelli 1997a; Lo Cascio 1997; Purcell 1999. has recently received further support from Gering (2000, 104)

411 American Journal of Archaeology 106 (2002) 411–34 412 GLENN R. STOREY [AJA 106 of urban features in the city of Rome and thus might Second, the controversy regarding Roman resi- provide the basis for a detailed reconstruction of dential architectural terms may derive from the fact the layout of the ancient city, especially if the term that the constituent structures of street blocks in insula meant a freestanding building (alternative ancient Roman cities were generally different from A). It is not clear, however, that the area of the city of the typical configuration in later periods. In Medi- Rome could have accommodated the given num- eval and later times, row houses, which were found ber of buildings.5 The other interpretation (alter- in relatively small quantities in Roman period cit- native B) is to regard each insula in the Regionar- ies, came to dominate the Italian urban landscape. ies as some form of isolated unit (consequent upon But when the later row house configurations have the Latin meaning of the word, “island”), a closed been used to discuss the ancient Roman situation, off portion of a building or a suite of rooms such as this has tended to make the fabric of a street block an apartment—in essence, an ARU similar to those seem more clearly delineated structure by struc- defined for Ostia. The conclusions of the Ostia ture than may have been the case in ancient Roman study suggest that alternative B is the correct inter- times. Ancient Roman street blocks were likely a pretation of the term insula as used in the Region- tangled mass of large and small structures,9 often aries. This article aims to assess that conclusion in difficult to separate into distinct individual struc- light of the evidence from Rome. tures, compared to the more regular divisions There are problems with the Regionaries, but shown by the row houses of later periods. their possible utility for illuminating the character After reviewing the background to the Regionar- of the ancient city is so high that “no good historian ies and the history of the insula question in those wants to give up evidence like this.”6 Nor should documents, I present results of statistical analyses any good archaeologist, if the textual evidence can and geographic information systems (GIS) re- be shown to have some basis in physical reality. I search and use these to interpret both the mean- argue, against the recent position of Arce,7 that de- ing of “insula” and the probable number of build- spite the uncertainties of the textual data, the Re- ings in ancient Rome. gionaries do have some basis in reality. This article, in analyzing the Regionaries statis- background to the regionaries tics, also in part answers Guilhembet’s call (in his The Regionaries, or Regionary Catalogues, are cartographic analysis of the Regionaries) to exploit two documents from ancient Rome that provide lists the possibilities offered by study of the few statistics of landmarks and summary statistics about features available for ancient Rome, and it raises issues for in the city of Rome arranged according to their lo- future consideration.8 cation in the 14 regions of the city established by First, I suggest that the most prevalent urban Augustus. The exact date of the Regionary docu- division in Roman thought was the street block. ments is unknown, but the majority view is that they I maintain that later administrative language are fourth-century A.D. compilations. They may broke the street block into further divisions de- have been created during the latter days of the reign noting those subdivisions using the same term of Diocletian, just before A.D. 305, but more likely (insula) for both block and division, with the they were compiled during the reign of Constan- latter units perhaps defined by the presence of tine. One school of thought argues that the Curio- a staircase. sum is older; one holds that the Notitia is older.10

5 E.g., Homo 1951, 642–3; Lot 1945, 35. while confirming what had been suggested previously: that the 6 Harvey (1991), quote in original English manuscript, p. 7. distribution of structure types throughout the city was gener- 7 Arce 1999. See discussion below. ally heterogeneous (cf. Paoli 1963, 10–40). Reynolds (1996, 8 Guilhembet 1996, 18: “l’exploitation de Régionnaires est 232–50) carried out statistical analysis using density plots for loin d’être épuisee et . . . la réalisation d’outils cartographiques the items listed in the Regionaries. This work rises to the call synthétiques, au terme et au service de recherches to- of Guilhembet’s challenge, and Reynolds’s results are very much pographiques par ailleurs florissantes, ne doit pas être négligée. in consonance with those reported here. Il constituera, espérons-nous, une incitation à rouvrir un champ 9 As was the case with Region VI of Pompeii, see Grahame d’ investigation et à reprendre à frais nouveaux l’elaboration 1998, 162–71. et la cartographie de statistiques relatives à la Rome antique.” 10 The conclusions of Merrill (1906) do not differ substan- Guilhembet’s conclusions suggest that the Regionaries statis- tially from those of Chastagnol (1996) on the question of dat- tics indicate that the domus (mansions of the wealthy) tend ing. Reynolds (1996, 211) brackets the two documents between to concentrate in certain areas, especially away from the low- A.D. 334 and A.D. 357, and chooses the Curiosum as the older lying parts of the city that were sometimes flooded by the Tiber, of the two documents. 2002] REGIONARIES-TYPE INSULAE 2 413 Both then claim that the younger is derived from supposedly modeled after the Roman documents.15 the older. A third possibility exists that the two are These considerations suggest that the lists, in the parallel texts deriving independently from the form in which they have been transmitted, could same source.11 Whatever the case, their informa- have served as tourist guides to the city. The in- tion seems to have been both collected and com- formation given, however, is too sparse and unsys- piled during the fourth century. tematically arranged to serve that purpose. The The purpose of these lists is unknown. The in- Regionaries do not list items in the topographical formation may have originated in the office of the order that would aid a tourist starting out from Urban Prefect and was probably intended for ad- some point in the city; there are significant omis- ministrative purposes. By the time the Regionar- sions, and several prominent features are mis- ies came into use, the office of the Urban Prefect placed.16 had evolved into that of “vice emperor.”12 The Ur- According to Nordh, the Regionaries lists fit into ban Prefect may have kept a register of all the loca- the periegesis tradition (literally an “internal tions of inhabitants for policing suspects, control- guide”). Periegeses were Greco-Roman period lit- ling fires, and efficiently organizing individuals erary descriptions illustrative of topography, natu- for such administrative tasks as foodstuffs distri- ral phenomena, historical places, and works of art. butions. Thus, the Regionaries might ultimately Besides the Roman Regionaries and the Constan- have come from updates of the grain dole recipi- tinopolitan Notitia, the periegesis tradition also ent lists originating during the administration of produced a surviving Syriac notitia for both Rome Julius Caesar.13 In the fourth century A.D., grain and Alexandria.17 records were likely administered by the Prefect of The periegetic urban documents recognized the Grain Supply (annona), but that officer was a a basic residential dichotomy between private subordinate of the Urban Prefect. It is also possi- houses (domus) and something else, mostly insu- ble that the Regionaries served the purpose of tax lae, meaning chiefly, but not perhaps exclusive- enumeration, since Roman residences were first ly, multiple unit properties for rent. (Constanti- subjected to a vectigal (ground rent tax) at about nople’s Notitia is an exception because it records the same time as the purported origin date of the only domus.) The Alexandrine document distin- documents.14 guishes “courts” and “houses,” almost certainly Other such documents are known for other cit- indicating the same dichotomy. The numbers ies, notably Constantinople. The stated purpose given for those terms (6,000 courts and 24,000 of the Notitia Urbis Constantinopolitanae was to dis- houses) suggest a proportion for domus to mul- play the beauty and happiness of the city, and was tiple units of 1:4; the number of domus from

11 According to Hermansen (1978, 140–5), the language directs (or misdirects) you to the Insula of Felicles or the Col- used suggests a date in the second or third century A.D., a view onnade of the Bean-dealers?” Boethius (1936) rejected the shared by no one else. Hermansen himself admitted that the idea that the Regionaries information seemed to include only spellings suggested a later date in the fourth century. features near to each region’s boundaries, as had been sug- 12 Chastagnol 1960, 179–83, 459–63. gested by a number of scholars. Boethius also denied as un- 13 On the possible role of the praefectus urbi, see Valentini convincing Nordh’s idea that the Regionaries information (ex- and Zucchetti 1940, I, 67 and Chastagnol 1960, 368–9; grain pressed in the typical form that Romans defined addresses dole updates, Suetonius Caesar 41.2. See Robinson 1992, chs. known from the time of Cicero) was arranged in subregions 10, 12, and 13, with references on the provisions of peace- following some kind of organizational or administrative reform keeping issues regarding Rome and the role of the Urban Pre- of neighborhoods in the city by Diocletian. Seventy years lat- fect. Reynolds (1996, 212) affirms that “city statistics . . . would er, the precise origin of the Regionaries remains shrouded in seem naturally to fall under the purview of the prefect.” Chast- mystery. Reynolds’s recent argument, however, is very convinc- agnol (1997) recently summarized current views on the role ing (1996, 213–14): the Regionaries, as with the Severan of the Urban Prefect. Marble Plan of the city, were both intended to present a cat- 14 Chastagnol 1960, 369; Robinson 1992, 6. alogue of Rome’s magnificence using great quantities of de- 15 The standard work on the Constantinopolitan Notitia re- tailed information that clearly originated in administrative mains Seeck 1962. Comments on the Constantinople docu- records. They were a complementary pair, the Severan Plan ment can be found in Valentini and Zucchetti 1940, I, 65, 67. being the visual component to the verbal description found in 16 Hermansen (1978, 136) advocated the tourist guide view, the Regionaries. and again seems alone in maintaining it. R.E.A. Palmer (pers. 17 Nordh 1949, 60–1; other comments on periegesis: comm. 1990) argued against this interpretation: “Would you Boethius 1936; Valentini and Zucchetti 1940, I, 67; Batt- buy a guidebook to Rome that, while lacking any topographi- aglia 1986, XIII, 31; Syriac version of Rome: Nordh 1949, cal order, omits all the temples in the Largo Argentina but 42–6; Syriac notitia for Alexandria: Fraser 1951. 414 GLENN R. STOREY [AJA 106 Constantinople (4,388) also suggests that courts this large range of structural features that fit seam- are domus. The ratio for the Roman documents lessly into the fabric of a city block of continuous is 1:26, low in comparison.18 structures, many sharing party walls—in essence having the features of the ARUs delineated in The Meaning of Insula in the Regionaries the previous study (even if not used primarily for Despite their probable internal consistency residence)—Lo Cascio’s view so qualified is here (demonstrated below), the data of the Regionar- endorsed, and is tested in the GIS analysis pre- ies are problematic because no ancient source ex- sented later. Indeed, it is convenient at this point plicitly explains the peculiar usage of the term to add to Lo Cascio’s suggestion the comment of insula in the Regionaries. Furthermore, little is Boethius:24 “It is typical of the Roman system . . . known about the data collection procedures of that the workshops, the typical tabernae . . . for the office of the Urban Prefect (and its predeces- trade, handicraft and also proletarian living were sor institutions).19 Scholarly opinion about the spread all over the town. In addition, in Rome upper meaning of insula in the Regionaries has oscillat- stories were added, accessible by direct staircases. These ed since the 1800s.20 Around the turn of the 20th insulae . . . can be safely traced back to the third century, scholars such as Lanciani, Richter, and century B.C.” (emphasis mine). others agreed that the term in the Regionaries I suggest that perhaps the key to the defini- could not refer to buildings. Later, Calza, Lugli, tion of insulae in the Regionaries is precisely the and Carcopino reacted to that view, arguing that presence of this “direct staircase” (i.e., one that the single structure interpretation could in fact is no more than one doorway removed from a work. Now, Hermansen, Chastagnol, and others21 public place, or, in plan analysis, an access pat- have reverted to the previous view, while Lo Cas- tern of “level 1” or perhaps a few of “level 2”). cio has reasserted that the natural meaning of Staircases are marked ubiquitously on the frag- insula is “building.”22 He asserted, however, that ments of the Severan Marble Plan. The presence it need not mean only “apartment building.” The of interior staircases in tabernae and even the beauty of Lo Cascio’s suggestion is that insula internal staircases to the upper floor around the could mean a building, and I understand him to atrium of domus might have been considered mean any building, taking in a great variation in requisite to the delineation of separate units, size, from water distribution features (lacus) per- insulae.25 haps 10 m2 up to domus mansions anywhere from Although the interpretation of the meaning of 350 to 3000 m2.23 As long as his meaning includes insula as a separate building seemed obvious to

18 Alexandria terminology, Fraser 1951, 107, n. 7. The Ro- much discussed procedure focused on male Roman citizen man ratio was calculated from the data as set out in Homo 1951, household heads carried out quinquennially by the censor, but 541, 638–9. a house-to-house property and inhabitant count in which in- 19 Nicolet (1987, 1–25; 1991) has discussed some of the is- formation was provided by building owners, not individual sues of urban census and cadastral record keeping. His conclu- household heads. sions run against what he termed the “primitivist” assumption 20 Wotschitzky (1962, 375) concluded that the meaning of that the Roman administrative bureaucracy was underdeveloped the term to the Romans had undergone a similar circularity of and grew in ad hoc fashion under the principate (cf. Garnsey interpretation: “Was die insulae betrifft, schliesst sich somit doch and Saller 1987). Specifically, he maintained that Roman ur- einigermassen der Kreis.” ban recordkeeping tallied the population at the house-to- 21 Lanciani 1967; Richter 1885; Calza 1917; Lugli 1941/1942; house level. According to Nicolet, the level of detail is set out Carcopino 1940; Hermansen 1978; Chastagnol 1960. in the Tabula Heracleensis (29–30 and passim) and reflects the 22 Lo Cascio 1997, 58–63. As I argue throughout, an equally practice of detailed documentation from Julius Caesar to the natural interpretation of the word is “street block.” Severan Marble Plan and the Regionaries (Nicolet 1991, 156– 23 The range of the Type 4 domus, the largest in Pompeii 63). Reynolds (1996, 28–9, 42–5), with regard to the Severan and Herculaneum, in the scheme of Wallace-Hadrill 1994, 81, Marble Plan, provided useful commentary on the urban survey table 4–2. tradition, the mensores aedificiorum and their likely procedures, 24 Boethius 1951, 440. and how their work was transferred from parchment into the 25 Brown 1986. The original formulation of plan and access marble medium of the plan. It is equally likely that similar sur- analysis is by Hillier and Hanson 1984. The method is popular vey information was used to produce the Regionaries, so these with Roman archaeologists, used by, e.g., Laurence (1994) and considerations are probably as close as we will get to reconstruct- Grahame (1997) for Pompeii, and DeLaine (2000) for Ostia. ing the information-gathering procedures. Lo Cascio (1997) Price (2000) carried out a plan and access analysis of the Do- has added significantly to this picture, especially in a recent mus delle Colonne in Ostia, and Pedroni (1992) recently stud- major study of the recensus. This was a census-like procedure ied the staircase markings of the Severan Marble Plan. Future that was not individual-by-individual, as was the well known and research could focus on this staircase-ARU link. 2002] REGIONARIES-TYPE INSULAE 2 415 many scholars, there are also many who have sug- total number of insulae, understood as separate gested that the term is used in the Regionaries buildings, still appears to be too large, if not for the to describe an isolated unit, similar to the ARU.26 whole city, certainly region by region as reported, Hermansen, after examining the alternatives, thereby calling all the Regionaries’ statistics into summarized the concept of insula as a self-con- question.29 tained unit constructed on its own area and dis- The Coarelli-Guilhembet suggestion of “private tinct from neighboring units.27 property” (if widely interpreted and essentially a Moving beyond the strictly architectural associa- legal term) seems a fruitful proposal, and reflects tions of the term, Guilhembet endorsed Coarelli’s what scant trace of consensus can be gleaned in argument that the best definition of insula was some the literature on the question. In most other defi- form of “private property.”28 Lo Cascio maintained, nitions, insulae are considered to be entities that on the basis of the use of the term in certain juristic could be divided into cenacula (apartments), passages, that the term acted as a catch-all for every which could be further divided into domestic func- type of private structure, functioning something like tion rooms with names familiar from the private the following in the Regionaries: “[this Region] con- townhouse domus, although the common practice tains the following totals: [blank] total buildings (in- of indiscriminately applying terms from the do- sulae) to wit or viz.: [so many] mansions (domus), mus to other types of residential units is now un- [so many, etc.] warehouses (horrea), private baths der attack.30 (balnea), water distribution points (lacus), bakeries Three treatments of the term insula in the liter- (pistrina).” Although Lo Cascio’s suggestion is a most ature have extensively quoted the documentary ev- ingenious solution, the problem remains that the idence: those of Cuq, Wotschitsky, and Coarelli.31

26 Various suggested meanings of insula, other than that of many of the regions of the city. Other solutions (e.g., McKay separate structure, include: shop (Dureau de la Malle 1971); 1975), which suggest that the high insulae numbers in the hearth (Kahrstedt 1913); apartment (Cuq 1916); floor in a multi- Regionaries showed that Roman cities were full of domus that story house (Gerkan 1940); Richter 1885; multiple dwelling had been broken up into rental units, much like modern Ital- (Packer 1971); entrance door, or door opening—equal to ian pensioni, encounter the same problem. The term domus is modern Italian “vano” (Homo 1933); “foco,” “doorway” (Cas- used separately in the Regionaries and 1,790 of them distrib- tiglioni 1884); “cadastral unit” for taxation purposes (Lugli uted throughout the regions, must still be accounted for in 1941/1942); “apartment/etage” (Chastagnol 1960). See Mai- the space of the city. er 1954 for further commentary on these alternatives. 30 Several recent analyses stress that problem: Wallace-Ha- 27 Hermansen 1978, 130. Reynolds (1996, 144), by contrast, drill 1994; Allison 1994; Grahame 1997. The latter is a good returns to the interpretation of the term as a separate building summary (146): “The traditional practice of using the literary and not an apartment or any other kind of multiple unit. Pur- sources to identify certain social identities and practices and cell (1999, 151) simply states: “by the time of the [Regionary] then map them onto the physical remains, in order to ex- Catalogues insula no longer refers to a free-standing block of plain their form and function, is more problematic than is many dwelling-units, but to the individual units.” usually thought. Firstly, this practice of labeling is limited in 28 Guilhembet’s (1996) analysis of the distribution of insu- that it is not possible to describe all the spaces within the lae argues against the understanding of that feature as a sepa- house according to traditional Latin terminology. In addition, rate structure; cf. Coarelli 1997a. we have to assume that the conventional text-based nomen- 29 Lo Cascio (1997, 61–2) cites Digest 48.8.2.3 as the essen- clature, when applied to specific spaces, is a reliable guide both tial source. That passage speaks of an insula publica, which could to the social identities of the persons who habitually occu- only mean a building of some sort. Lo Cascio’s interpretation pied them and to practices routinely carried out in them. Fi- provides a solution to the insula numbers and space problems nally, this method does not allow us to resolve the spatial struc- for the Regionaries (n. 5). If the meaning of insula is a gener- ture of any house in such a way as to account adequately for ic term for building and includes public buildings, the 3,480 the actual pattern of relations present within it.” As neces- insulae (buildings) figure cited for Region 8, the Forum, does sary as these caveats may be, there is no need to go to the not seem as far-fetched than if the term meant only apartment other extreme and deny the terminology any useful func- buildings. It is true that his suggestion has the merit of reduction as a guide. Brown (1986) demonstrated that room termi- ing the total area needed to account for the number of struc- nology and floor drawings from surveys can be reconciled and tures for each region because some of the named functional that room function can be determined intuitively from sizes, structures are small. For example, Rome’s water distribution locations, and outside accessibility of rooms, especially with points (lacus) were probably similar to those found in Ostia the assistance of room content inventories. The Roman evi- (e.g., see Meiggs 1973, 93, pl. 13b). These features might well dence is less complete than the London material Brown used, have been called insulae based on the analogy of funerary but the potential comparability for analysis is demonstrated enclosures styled by the same term (CIL 6.8511, 6.10250). by use of the same models from Hillier and Hanson (1984), Because domus, horrea, balnea, and pistrina could all be sub- cf. n. 25. stantial structures, however, the basic problem still remains that 31 Cuq 1916; Wotschitsky 1962; Coarelli 1997a. too many structures are enumerated for the area available in 416 GLENN R. STOREY [AJA 106 The first and perhaps fullest treatment was that of A likely scenario to explain these trends in an- Cuq, who asserted that scholars have confounded cient usage is that first, the term insula referred to the meaning of domus (a privately owned house a street block (Vitr. De Arch. 1.6.8). Then, insula occupied by the proprietor) and insula (a rental came to be thought of as a building that looked like house) so that both indicated a structure. Cuq’s what we call a large apartment block such as the suggestion was that an insula was an ensemble of Insula of Felicles (Tertullian Adversus Valentini- rooms that made up a distinct apartment; they were anos 7:1–3; also listed in the Regionaries, both Cu- physically blocked off within a larger structure, form- riosum and Notitia in Region 9) or the Ara Coeli ing an isolated unit, an island.32 Insula still standing at the foot of the Capitoline Cuq supported his arguments with quotations Hill. A reasonably strong case can be made that al- from, and comments on, the grammarians and ju- most all documented occurrences of the term insu- ristic texts. He presented a convincing case that la in an architectural context translated as “apart- the term insula took on an administrative meaning ment house” or “separate building” in fact mean a distinct from the colloquial meaning of rental street block, not a specific structure. Insula thus house. This new meaning was essentially synony- referred to separate multiple properties distin- mous with the word cenaculum (apartment) in guishable in the continuous fabric of a street block.35 terms of a rented habitational property, but could Eventually, the idea of partitioning residences into also refer to other rental properties in self-enclosed divisions that would have been called partes and por- groups of rooms used for other purposes: storage, tiones came into use (e.g., Ulpian, Digest 17.2.52.10), marketing, baths, and even schools.33 and this was an official designation (perhaps based Both Wotschitsky and Coarelli, in their literature on the presence of a staircase) alongside the surviv- reviews, emphasized that the term insula did not ing meaning of an insula as multiple unit block. refer to one distinct type of architectural feature Thus there was a “small unit” correlate (official) at throughout the five centuries (first century B.C. to the same time as the larger building correlate fifth century A.D.) of its occurrence in documenta- “block” (everyday parlance) to the term. ry sources. Wotschitsky concluded that, originally, Resolution of these problems may lie in the need insula and taberna had been synonymous, with a to distinguish the character of city blocks in ancient later congruence of insula and domus, while Cas- Rome, as illustrated by the remains of Ostia, versus tiglioni reviewed the question subsequently and the way city blocks looked in later Medieval to concluded that the single residence as opposed to present Romano-Italian cities. As Boethius set out,36 single structure made the most sense.34 one of the most important types of residence in

32 See Cuq (1916, 281–3) for his discussion of the basic apartment buildings, with the former serving as crucial build- meaning of the word insula. ing blocks of the latter. 33 Cuq 1916, 320–8. This concept is very close to Lo Cas- 34 Wotschitsky 1962; Castagnoli 1976. DeLaine (2000, 175) cio’s (1997), with the difference that Lo Cascio describes these makes the important point that the domus/insulae dichotomy different features as separate structures, rather than (with is perhaps overemphasized by modern investigators and that Cuq) as separate units within a continuous structural fabric. I the ancient Romans may not have made as much of the differ- think these views are basically similar, and the use of the term ence: “While this is a differentiation which is found in both “unit”—thus my ARU—may be less confusing. A few scholars the ancient literary sources and the legal codes, it is a distinc- previous to Cuq had argued positions tending to support Cuq’s tion which was not universally held; Cicero, for example, uses view. Castiglioni (1884) quoted passages that showed the syn- domus and insula indiscriminately. This makes the widely held onymity of insula and taberna (also used as a synonym for apart- corollary to the domus/insula dichotomy—that domus there- ments). That is Dureau de la Malle’s (1971) position also, but, fore necessarily equals high status and insula low status—hard like Cuq, Castiglioni added the suggestion that the insulae, to justify.” My comments on “luxury apartment” in Part 1 (Sto- just as with the Italian fuochi (doorways), could be shops, stor- rey 2001, esp. 392, 397) should be modified in light of De- age rooms, public houses and inns, offices, bakeries, and work- Laine’s convincing analysis of the domus-like qualities of some shops, and that each foco could hold a master and his family, Ostian apartments as stages for social status display. slaves, and workers (Castiglioni 1884, 283–4). Wietershiem’s 35 For the Ara Coeli Insula, see Muñoz 1930, 30–1, 45–52, position was similar, adding another dimension (discussed in tav. XVI, XVII, XVIII; Packer 1968/1969. The phrase “Insula Kahrstedt 1913, 28). He argued that the insulae meant not of Felicles” meaning a street block (no doubt a massive one of single houses but sections of houses with interior walls clos- many different units in this case) is consistent with its use in ing off part of the house from the rest. There is no explicit the Tertullian passage and well-attested by the examples of literary evidence of this, but passages in the judicial texts might “insula of [proprietor’s name]” inscriptions from Pompeii (CIL be construed in this way, e.g., Ulpian Digest 17.2.52.10: “so- 4.138, 4429) and Rome (CIL 6.67, 29791, 33893)—almost all cius, qui . . . portiones insulae restituerit.” Reynolds (1996, certainly meaning “street block.” 144–65) documented the close association of tabernae and 36 Boethius 1934, 1951, 1960. 2002] REGIONARIES-TYPE INSULAE 2 417 ancient Roman cities that eventually came to domi- right, and census functions were all well served by a nate residential architecture after the Roman era property-by-property enumeration rather than a sim- was the row house. The row houses made up one con- ple structure count.40 tinuous, unbroken structural fabric in rectangular The laws of injury and compensation (as they or long and narrow street blocks, as can be seen in developed from the mid second to early third cen- Rome today, and developed into the dominant resi- tury A.D.) concerning objects thrown from the up- dential configuration in Medieval times, as is clear per floors of houses provide further support for from many of the maps reproduced in Frutaz.37 the argument of separate units as opposed to sepa- These row houses can be thought of as either separate structures.41 Roman law held accountable only rate structures (each like an insula) or as separate the person responsible for breaking the law, not units in the block fabric. As is clear from the remains the property owners or other inhabitants of the at Ostia, the fabric of most street blocks was broken building, unless the offender could not be identi- up into units in a fashion different from these row fied; in such a case, all individuals in the unit re- houses, although they are present in Ostia. The sponsible were liable. Considering that many units numbers of ancient units, in some cases, can be sim- likely faced a side away from the street, enumerat- ilar to the number of row house divisions seen later ing each isolated apartment unit as opposed to when the population density became exceptionally entire structures would make this law much more crowded and the row houses were smaller and more understandable. Penalties for abrogation of the law compactly packed into each street block. seem strict; no doubt, enforcement was very diffi- Coarelli noted that the assumption that insula cult. The desire to document the number of inhab- represented “una definizione univoca” was in er- itants and their domicile may have arisen from these ror because of the “polesemicità” of the term.38 Wots- types of legal concerns, and the results of that kind chitsky, Castagnoli, and Coarelli present the stron- of documentation may be echoed, even if only very gest case that the term insula during both the peri- faintly, in the Regionaries statistics. od of the original data collecting and the later com- Amid the details of this complex linguistic con- pilations in the surviving versions of the Regionar- troversy, the basic issue continues to be whether ies, in official administrative legal context, referred the term insula referred to either a separate struc- to an isolated unit of private property smaller than ture or a separate unit within a structure. I previ- either a street block or a separate building (which ously analyzed the relatively complete ruins of Os- had to have 2½ Roman feet space on all four sides tia and concluded that the latter interpretation is as required from the time of the Twelve Tables),39 the proper referent for the term. The following although the term could mean those features in Roman evidence appears to be compatible with this other (unofficial) contexts. interpretation. One implicit reason for that definition is that a registration of the rentable units possessed by prop- statistical analysis erty owners would have been of the greatest utility Statistical analysis is used here to assess wheth- to the administrative bodies responsible for order er the numbers given in the Regionaries42 mean in the city. A house-to-house registration, vicatim anything, given the checkered history of their gen- (neighborhood-by-neighborhood) per dominos eration, transmission, and survival. Moreover, Arce insularum (through the landlords of blocks) was recently argued that, because these catalogues are probably a common function of city administra- part of a literary tradition of city panegyric in a tion—perhaps instituted by Julius Caesar, probably context of fierce inter-city competition, it is possi- predating him, as thought by both Nicolet and Lo ble that the statistics contained in the Regionar- Cascio. Police and fire-control functions, voting ies were simply made up to make the city appear

37 Frutaz 1962. 41 Ulpian, Paul, and Gaius Digest 9.3.1–5; Cuq 1916, 283–300; 38 Coarelli 1997a, 97–8. 334–5; Homo 1951, 629–31. 39 Varro Lingua Latina 5.22; Paul, Festus, Flaccus De Significa- 42 The most crucial statistics in the Regionaries are: vici, 423 tu Verborum (Lindsay) 5.14–5. (Curiosum) 424 (Notitia); insulae, 46,602 (Curiosum and Noti- 40 Suetonius Caesar 41.3. On the utility of close tabs on rental tia); domus, 1,790 (Curiosum and Notitia); horrea, 290 (Curi- properties, see Cuq 1916, 328–34; Homo 1951, 597–637, and osum and Notitia); balnea, 856 (Curiosum and Notitia); lacus, more recently, Harvey 1991; Robinson 1992. On the role of 1,352 (Curiosum and Notitia); pistrina, 254 (Curiosum and Julius Caesar and possible precursors to him, see Nicolet 1987, Notitia); lupanariae (brothels), 46 (Curiosum) 45 (Notitia); 1991; Lo Cascio 1997. latrinae publicae (public latrines), 144 (Curiosum and Notitia). 418 GLENN R. STOREY [AJA 106 more magnificent.43 The former part of that argu- four sources: (1) the Roman Curiosum, with 14 ment can easily be conceded, without necessitat- cases, one for each of the 14 regions of the city, for ing acceptance of the latter part of it. The Region- each variable (the features listed in n. 42); (2) the aries could well be a privately produced, unoffi- Roman Notitia (again, 14 cases for each variable); cial document, but that does not mean that the (3) the Notitia of Constantinople (14 cases of each numbers given must therefore be false or incor- variable, for the 14 regions of that city); and (4) rect. The data still may have come from an official the Syriac version of the Alexandrine Notitia (with source. 5 cases for each variable). I ran regression analy- Arce suggests that because these periegetic ses both within documents and for the same fea- documents do not look like a clearly census/ca- ture across the documents in order to assess the dastral document, such as Berlin Papyrus 16365 degree of relatedness between the figures—one from Egypt, they cannot be administrative docu- index of internal consistency. ments.44 But information from an official admin- In regression analysis, a two-dimensional graph istrative source could have been reported in a is plotted with an independent variable on the x- private document. For example, the Severan Mar- axis and a dependent variable on the y-axis. An ble Plan of Rome was publicly displayed, and of- independent variable is one that is treated as if ficial statistics about numbers of houses may also its magnitude was not a function of some other have been reasonably easy to obtain from an ad- variable, whereas a dependent variable is treated ministrative entity such as the office of the Urban as if its magnitude depends on or is derived from Prefect. Finally, conceding all potential distor- another. The resulting scatter of points of the tions to the statistics given in the documents, is it plot is then statistically measured for goodness- not at least possible that the figures echo an offi- of-fit to a straight line. When the change in mag- cial source?45 nitude of one variable is matched in quantity ex- If the numbers were fabricated, what princi- actly by the change in the other variable, the asso- ples of falsification or exaggeration were used? ciation of data points conforms to a mathematical How would one know to make up plausible statis- function that keeps all data points for the inde- tics? Why are 254 bakeries, 856 bath establish- pendent and dependent variables on a straight ments, 1,790 domus, and 290 warehouses plausi- diagonal line. That case corresponds to ideal ble false quantities? Is the information more plau- perfect correlation and suggests very close asso- sible if the falsifier knows that numbers of apart- ciation between the variables that may be causal ments should be much greater than the number in nature, but is not necessarily so. In other words, of private houses and fakes the numbers accord- the behavior of the independent variable may ingly? If it can be shown that the statistics have cause the behavior of the dependent variable, but some consistency, the argument that they are fakes this cannot be asserted by the statistics alone. becomes unlikely.46 Correlation does not prove causality; other lines Statistical analysis of the figures in these docu- of evidence must be consulted to determine if ments is used here to check for internal consis- there is a causal connection. In any event, if the tency. I created a database of the numbers from slope of the line rises to the right, the correla-

43 Arce 1999, 16: “Las cifras que proporciona en relación a plausible to the context, i.e., be of the correct scale, if the los templos, a las casas, a los pórticos, podrían haber sido inven- interlocutor is to be believed. Numbers of a certain item could tadas, o no tener ninguna intencionalidad de precisión.” And be off by a few from the actual total, but those numbers might further, 18: “Estas cifras son, como los de la Notitia alejandrina, still, for all practical purposes, be correct. It might be so with arbitrarias y fantásticas.” And finally, 21: “las cifras forman parte the Regionaries figures. There is not much of a problem if the del panegírico global... convientemente exageradas.” number of bakeries was 277 instead of 254; the scale of the 44 Arce 1999, 20–1. number for each identified feature might be on the correct 45 Carettoni et al. 1960; Rodriguez-Almeida 1981. See now order of magnitude. As the statistical analysis below shows, the also the Stanford Forma Urbis Romae project (Levoy 2001, 28 proportions of numbers for different features appear to be March, http://graphics.stanford.firenze.it.papers.forma-urbis- correlated, so I suggest that the numbers reflect reality. Rey- campfire00/). Reynolds (1996) is the best summary of all pre- nolds (1996, 142–3) argues similarly against the suggestion that vious work on the Severan Marble Plan. His argument that the the Severan Marble Plan’s configurations were fabricated. They plan emanates from an official administrative survey and that display “comprehensible networks of connection and separa- the Regionaries probably have a similar administrative origin is tion that agree with our understanding of Roman interior ar- convincing. chitecture.” The information from the Regionaries is clearly 46 It is significant that the numbers to be made up must be analogous. 2002] REGIONARIES-TYPE INSULAE 2 419 Table 1. Regression Analyses Results of Rome Curiosum Statistics

Dependent Independent Variable(s) R-Squared Variable Statistic (%) Insulae Bakeries 0.1 Insulae Warehouses 4.4 Insulae Circumference 11.3 Insulae Neighborhoods 23.5 Insulae Neighborhoods and circumference 24.3 Insulae Water points 27.7 Insulae Domus 38.4 Insulae Neighborhoods and domus 45.7 Insulae Baths 45.8 Insulae Domus and warehouses 49.5 Insulae Bakeries and water points 50.5 Insulae Baths, bakeries, and water points 61.0 Insulae Domus, warehouses, and baths 69.7 Insulae Domus, warehouses, baths, and bakeries 83.0 Insulae Domus, warehouses, baths, bakeries, and water points 90.4 Insulae Neighborhoods, domus, warehouses, baths, bakeries, water points, circumference 93.5 tion is direct and increase is in the magnitude of statistic, which is the expected result in multi- both variables. If the slope rises to the left, there ple regression. Nevertheless, the R-squared sta- is an inverse correlation and increase in one vari- tistic was surprisingly high in most cases in ta- able is matched by proportional decrease in the ble 1, which indicates that the numbers of items other. of different functions “co-vary” in a closely relat- Regression analysis was run on a number of ed fashion. That is, for example, the same num- variable combinations: for example, one of the bers of bakeries and water distribution points simplest tests was regressing the number of in- will serve roughly the same number of residenc- sulae (the dependent variable) in the Curiosum es and businesses. onto the number of domus (the independent The most successful regression model for the variable).47 An R-squared statistic (a percentage Roman Curiosum was a regression of the num- expressing how much of the data conform to the ber of insulae (dependent variable) on seven mathematical function) of 38.4% resulted. Thus other (independent) variables (again, 14 num- the numbers of insulae in that document were bers for each variable, one for each region): vici about 40% “explained” by the number of domus. (neighborhoods), domus, horrea, balnea, pistri- Several variable combinations were tried, most- na, lacus, and pedes (the number of running ly variables deemed likely associated with the Roman feet of circumference for each region). number of dwellings, such as the number of This regression model showed that 93.5% of the horrea (warehouses), pistrina (bakeries), bal- variance in the insulae figures was explained by nea (private baths), and lacus (water distribu- those seven variables. It is very unlikely that such tion points). Some results of the regressions are a result would occur if the numbers were com- presented in table 1. In general, the larger the pletely falsified. The conclusion follows that the number of variables, the greater the R-squared figures for the categories in the Regionaries show

47 The 14 numbers, one for each region (for both insulae tive, was to decide which alternatives had the best manuscript and domus), were taken from Nordh 1949, using the lower justification. However, he stated that all corrections were arbi- alternative readings from the manuscripts simply as a matter of trary and did not significantly affect results (“Toute correction caution and for consistency. Guilhembet (1996, 11–12) dis- paraissant arbitraire . . . ces variations n’affectant pas le résultat cussed the problems with the insulae statistics as they have come cartographique final”). Reynolds (1996, 211) simply used the down to us in both the Curiosum and the Notitia. His solution, Curiosum figures on the grounds that the Curiosum is the old- different from my decision to use simply the lowest alterna- er document. 420 GLENN R. STOREY [AJA 106 some internal consistency and are therefore tained an even density gradient from core to pe- meaningful.48 riphery, thus maintaining a generally constant If the results of this mathematical procedure are degree of compactness. Unlike Western cities, not convincing, a more visually compelling model where typically the poor live in the center and the may demonstrate that the Regionaries figures ac- wealthy in the suburbs, in non-Western cities the curately reflect some statistics about the ancient city. situation is often reversed. A common model of urban population densities The degree of crowding in the center of either assumes a uniform density gradient, a reasonably pre- Western or non-Western cities is also a function dictable relation of declining population densities of the age, character, and size of typical occupa- with increasing distance from the central core of tion lots. Rome is simply assumed to have had the city, at least in studies of modern Western ur- the Western-style falling density. That view par- ban centers. This decline seems to occur as a nega- tially results from Beloch’s study of the demo- tive exponential function in a cone-like fashion, graphic profiles of Rome and Naples in the 1880s, and it seemed true from 1801 to the present in which did seem to show trends that follow the cities ranging from Los Angeles to Budapest.49 Western pattern.50 Most Western cities have falling central densi- Berry and Horton’s analysis indicated that one of ties, falling density gradients, and decreasing com- the few reliable relations between density and oth- pactness and crowding. In non-Western cultures, er urban characteristics is that smaller cities are however, this pattern does not seem to hold be- more compact than larger ones.51 Therefore, an- cause some non-Western cities experience in- cient Rome, being much smaller than virtually ev- creasing core densities, constant density gradients ery major modern city, would probably have had a from core to periphery, and increasing overcrowd- higher than modern average density.52 Further- ing coupled with similar compactness core to pe- more, we know that many of the richest and most riphery with little peripheral expansion. Calcut- powerful individuals resided at the city center, so ta, India, from 1881 to 1951, for example, in- Rome almost certainly resembled to a greater de- creased in its central population density and main- gree non-Western modern cities in this respect.

48 Coarelli (1997a, 95) was at pains, though without evidence tini and Zucchetti 1940), and give a total insulae sum (46,200) of this sort, to assert the internal reliability of the Regionaries different than that found by adding the individual insulae fig- statistics. Reynolds (1996, 232–50) does succeed in statistical- ures for each region (40,897 Curiosum [one region missing] ly demonstrating the internal reliability of the Regionaries or 44,300 Notitia). Nevertheless, these figures could derive statistics, thus vindicating both Coarelli and this current anal- from an official source. ysis. Any use of Roman statistics, however, must acknowledge 49 Originally called a “negative exponential ratio,” it was first Scheidel 1996, cf. Duncan-Jones 1994, 16–9. Scheidel argues discovered in 1892 but was largely forgotten until 1951 (Clark convincingly that virtually all such statistics are tainted by a heavy 1967, 339–52). Reynolds (1996, 247) clearly recognizes this cultural tendency toward the use of conventional figures. Rep- characteristic, which he uses to ground his density plots, but etition of figures is particularly suspect: e.g., Julius Caesar (Sue- he does not use the term “density gradient,” opting instead tonius Caesar 41.3) and Augustus (Res Gestae 15) both are at- for “bulls-eye central population density pattern.” tributed to have dealt with largesse recipients of 320,000; both 50 Beloch 1968; cf. Comune di Roma Ufficio di Statistica e Tiberius (Suetonius Gaius 37.3) and Antoninus Pius (Dio. Censimento 1960; Ministerio di Agricoltura, Industria e Com- 74.8.3) left 2.7 billion sesterces budgetary surpluses; the con- mercio, Direzione della Statistica, 1883. stant appearance of 400,000 looks suspiciously as if the mean- 51 Berry and Horton 1970, 276–305. That finding is largely ing is just “a lot.” The Regionaries are plagued by similar fea- corroborated by Fletcher (1981, 1995). tures. Regions 3 and 4 both have 2,757 insulae in both Curio- 52 In a study of 531 preindustrial and modern cities I demon- sum and Notitia; Regions 12 and 13 both have 2,487. Bearing strated (Storey 1997a, 1997b) that the mean area of 425 pre- that factor in mind and despite all their faults, the Regionaries industrial cities was only 6.63 km2 (the median area was only seem as close to official administrative record keeping from 1.6 km2). The mean area of 106 modern cities was 807 km2 ancient Rome as anything else we possess. Nicolet (1987, (median area 331 km2). Rome’s roughly 14 km2 made it large 1991), Virlouvet (1995, 1997), Lo Cascio (1997) and others in area for a preindustrial city, but tiny compared to a modern have demonstrated convincingly in the last two decades that city. Thus Rome was compact and dense. However, Ostia was Roman record keeping was as comprehensive and assiduous as barely 70 hectares, much smaller than Rome, with a consequent many a modern state. Though probably true, almost none of relevant difference in the degree of crowding between the our evidence comes from the actual administrative archives but capital and its seaport, as discussed in Part 1. The implication of is reported from second hand, non-administrative (and often these factors is that, perhaps counterintuitively, Rome was politically-motivated) sources. The Regionaries and the Seve- probably not as densely crowded a city as its own seaport, Ostia, ran Marble Plan are likely to be among our least removed sourc- although Rome no doubt possessed higher “spot densities”— es, but the Regionaries are at several removes; the breviarium small areas of very high population density (Storey 1992)— summaries, for example, are clearly later than the material scattered over its much larger territory than Ostia. compiled for each region (Guilhembet 1996, 11, citing Valen- 2002] REGIONARIES-TYPE INSULAE 2 421 impossible to say whether the Western pattern can or cannot be upheld as universally applicable.54 Figure 1 plots the density of the domus and insulae per hectare combined figures from the Region- aries for each region, on the grounds that the two statistics, whatever they mean, do indicate residential features. The domus/hectare and insulae/hectare ration statistics are also given individually. Re- gion 8 (Forum) and Region 10 (Palatine), the residential and administrative heart of the city, possessed the highest densities of domus and insulae. The fall-off in the statistics seems to indicate a density gradient resembling the Western pattern. This distribution demonstrates that the Regionaries statistics are meaningful reflections of the ancient residential reality (as already suggested by the regression analysis), because the city most likely had a standard falling density gradient, accurately represented by the Regionary numbers.

Fig. 1. Density gradient plot of Rome using the Regionaries a gis approach to the insula question statistics. The top Roman numeral is the region number. The first statistic immediately below the region number is Geographic information systems (GIS) modeling the number of domus and insulae per hectare for the entire provides one avenue of further research into the region. Below that, the left figure is the number of domus Roman insula/Ostian ARU connection. This mod- per hectare, the right figure is the number of insulae per eling can be accomplished by taking a region of an- hectare. The highest densities are 45+ domus and insulae cient Rome and “housing” it with appropriately sized per hectare; medium densities are of 20+; low densities are of 12+; peripheral densities are of less than 12. residential plots to see what kind of distribution is produced—one that suggests insula as a separate Some investigators, however, suggest that the structure or as an ARU. Archaeological data from Western pattern may be more pervasive than previ- Roman sites in Italy (especially Pompeii and Ostia, ously thought. Mills and Tan argued that the nega- supplemented by the less copious Roman evidence) tive exponential urban density function “comes off suggest a range of structure sizes, including houses remarkably well when confronted with data from and apartment buildings as well as other specialty- profoundly different countries.”53 These conclu- function structures, to assess the utilization of space sions refer to cities in developing countries except for the available area of any particular region of Rome. in Africa, Southeast Asia, and the former Commu- Assessment of area availability for residence has been nist bloc because there were no data available. Un- attempted previously by several scholars using plani- til those regions are included in the sample, it is metric readings from published maps.55

53 Mills and Tan 1980, 321. 12 (fig. 2), the area covered by the Baths of Caracalla, mea- 54 Some recent work on the issue of density gradients focus- sured via its outermost perimeter, is 100,400 m2. According to es on explaining individual case variations in terms of parame- Gerkan it was 137,000 m2; Lugli put the figure at 140,000 m2. ters such as housing demand or employment, e.g., Skaburskis DeLaine’s (1997) comprehensive study of the Baths of Cara- (1989); Crampton (1991). An important result of this recent calla gives many dimensions but does not include her measure work is the suggestion that the cone-like declining density equivalent to the outline measured by the computer in this model is oversimplified and needs refinement, generally in the analysis. However, her diagram (1997, 18, fig. 3) can roughly sense that cities are not monocentric with single high density be estimated to give an area of between 110,000 and 115,000 locales from which density begins its fall off. There are sub- m2, so it is likely that the lower figure, based on the more re- centers of high density, which complicate the model and cre- cent maps, is preferable. But that the errors may not be of ate an irregular density gradient. There is a need to envision overall significance is indicated by consideration of the mea- scattered locales of high density to acknowledge and account sures of the perimeter for Region 12. The AutoCAD measured for the complications to be expected in a real-life application size [perimeter] of Region 12 is 3,829.4 m. The Roman figure of the density gradient function. is 12,000 times 0.2957 [Roman foot metric equivalent] or 55 Chiefly Giuseppi Lugli and Armin Von Gerkan, both in 3,548.4 m. The exact size of each region is not known, but the the 1940s: Lugli in Calza et al. (1941); Gerkan (1940, 1943, figures are sufficiently close to confirm that the overall scale 1949). There are not inconsiderable discrepancies in their of analysis is correct. measurements. According to the AutoCAD version of Region 422 GLENN R. STOREY [AJA 106 mental Systems Research Institute [ESRI] interfac- ing with AutoDesk’s AutoCAD version 14) was carried out on Region 12, Piscina Publica. This region was chosen because of its comparative lack of extensive public architecture (the only major public feature in this region was the Baths of Caracalla, which is still standing today), although space for known features that stood in the region has been provided for. A great deal of space in the region was available for residential architecture. The map of Region 12 (fig. 2) shows the known or conjectural locations of all the items listed in the Regionar- ies, marked by number.56 The crucial statistics are 2,487 insulae and 113 domus in Region 12—ei- Fig. 2. AutoCAD map of Region 12 of Rome. Numbers refer ther 2,600 separate residential structures or 2,600 to items listed in the Regionary Catalogues, numerically in separate ARUs, plus a host of other public and spe- the order given. 1, Area Radicaria “Zone of Our Roots(?)” cialty structures and features. [public row of temples and dedications]; 2, Via Nova “New Street” [wide boulevard to the Baths of Caracalla]; 3, Fortuna GIS studies are used to answer five basic ques- 57 Mammosa “Fortune of the Large Breasts” [shrine or altar to tions about geographic information: (1) Location— that goddess]; 4, Isis Athenodoria “The Isis of Athenodorus” what exists at a particular place? (2) Conditions— [statue of Isis by Athenodorus of Rhodes]; 5, Aedes Bonae where are certain conditions satisfied? (3) Trends— deae subsaxanae “Temple of the Good Goddess beneath what has changed over time? (4) Patterns—what spa- Remus’ Rock” [chief shrine of this goddess in Rome]; 6, Clivus delfini “Street of the Dolphin” [street from the Via tial patterns exist? (5) Modeling—what if, or how do, Nova to the Porta Naevia]; 7, Thermae Antoninianae “Baths certain hypothetical conditions affect the situation? of Caracalla”; 8, Domus Septem Parthorum “The 7 Parthian The first step in the present analysis uses condi- Houses” [a shrine? or houses given to friends by Septimius tions tests and modeling. Not all of Region 12 was Severus]; 9, Campus Lanatarius “Field of the Wool Market”; available for residences, but most of the region is 10, Domus Cilonis “House of Cilo” [opulent private residence of Lucius Fabius Cilo, prefect of the city, A.D. 203/204, unknown, so it is possible to assume that most of under the church of Santa Balbina]; 11, Cohort. IIII vigilum the area could hypothetically be filled with resi- “Barrack of Cohort 4 of the Fire-Brigade”; 12, Domus dences.58 To account for space that could not be Cornificiae “House of Cornificia” [private residence of sister used, parcel polygons available for residential con- or daughter of Marcus Aurelius]; 13, Privata Hadriani figurations were constructed. Figure 3 shows the “Private Residence of Hadrian” [house of Hadrian before he became emperor]. (After Scagnetti and Grande 1979) basic polygon map of the Region, listing the locations of major features taking up space that could That procedure is a form of spatial analysis that not be used for ordinary habitation.59 I say “ordi- can be more rapidly and accurately carried out with nary” because some of these features were famous modern computer mapping tools. Analysis using domus of the elite, and although technically resi- ArcCAD 14 (a GIS tool developed by the Environ- dential, they did occupy space inefficiently in the

56 The locations of item numbers 1, 3, 4, and 8 from the to require rebuilding, and it became a place of favored elite Regionaries are purely conjectural, based on the assumption residence, although the impact of the building of the massive that the items are in fact listed in a locationally meaningful Baths of Caracalla on the neighborhood is unclear. Given this order, a notion we have already noted as unrealized in other history of occupation in the region, its heavily residential char- sections of the Regionaries (see n. 16). acter makes it ideal for the GIS analysis carried out here. 57 Environmental Science Research Institute 1990–1995. 59 In reality, the locations and dimensions of the features 58 The standard map by Scagnetti and Grande (1979), the listed are considerably conjectural. 1, Baths of Caracalla: there source for the map used in this analysis, certainly indicates a is no doubt about the location and approximate size of this struc- dearth of specialty function structure types in this region. Ri- ture; 2, Area Splenis: according to Richardson (1992, 37), this chardson (1992, 156) comments: “But we know very little about was a shrine to the divinity Splen, located near the boundary the topography of this region [12], especially of the Aventi- line between Regions 1 and 12, with some possible connection nus Minor.” Cicero (Qfr. 25.8) reports a major flood of the Tiber to the church of SS. Nereo ed Achille, across the modern street in October/November 54 B.C., which seriously damaged the from the Baths of Caracalla; 3, Area Radicaria: Richardson (1992, area of Region 12, especially its namesake, the Piscina Publica. 33) notes that the name is found on a fragment of the Severan The text is discussed by Harvey (1990, 349–50). Coarelli Marble Plan (Carretoni et al. 1960, pl. 15; Rodriguez-Almeida (1997b, 371–2) noted that the region underwent progressive 1981, pl. 1) and was a zone of temples just outside the Porta “gentrification” in the first three centuries A.D. resulting in Capena similar to the Largo Argentina, deriving its name pre- the region’s reputation as an elite housing neighborhood. sumably from radix and thus referring somehow to a “roots,” Probably the region was sufficiently damaged by the flood so as hence the possible alternative meaning “zone of our roots.” 2002] REGIONARIES-TYPE INSULAE 2 423

Fig. 3. AutoCAD template for ArcCAD GIS analysis of Region 12 of Rome. The empty area is within the outline of the Baths of Caracalla; a few other figures take “chunks” out of the residential polygons for the few known or conjectured physical features in the region from antiquity. 1, Baths of Caracalla; 2, Area Splenis; 3, Area Radicaria; 4 and 5, unidentified remains, probably residential; 6, Bona Dea Subsaxana and Templum Sancti Silvani Salutaris with Ara of Iuppiter Ilicius; 7, Domus Cilonis; 8, Domus Septem Parthorum; 9, Horti Servilliani; 10, Mausoleum; 11, Campus Lanatarius; 12, Horrea Quadratillae; 13, Cohort. IIII Vigilum; 14, Domus Cornificiae; 15, Privata Hadriani. sense that high density multiple residence struc- another way: could these polygons be approxima- tures could not therefore occupy those grounds. tions of the number of vici, the 265 or more de- The distribution of these polygons is suggestive in fined neighborhoods of the ancient city? There are

According to Steinby (1993–2000), the Lexicon Topographicum I have elected to follow both LTUR (3:84) and Scagnetti and Urbis Romae (hereafter LTUR) 1:119–20, the name derives from Grande (1979, with question mark) in locating this property radius, a stick used in grain measurement thus associating the about here; 10, Mausoleum: so located by Scagnetti and Grande area with customs checks; 4 and 5, unidentified remains, prob- (1979); 11, Campus Lanatarius: Richardson (1992, 65) places ably residential, featured in the map by Scagnetti and Grande this feature (somehow related to sheep butchering?) close to (1979), but also visible in Lanciani (1988), tavole XXXV and the Porta Capena on the south side of the Via Appia as a coun- XLI; 6, Bona Dea Subsaxana and Templum Sancti Silvani Salu- terpart to the Area Pannaria occupying the north side; I have taris with Ara Iuppiter Ilicius: the area dedicated to these fea- opted for the location further to the south suggested by LTUR tures is perhaps larger than that warranted by the existing re- 1:219 (“generalmente localizzo tra le Terme di Caracalla e S. mains, but LTUR 1, 149 suggests the proximity of all these Saba”) and Scagnetti and Grande (1979); 12, Horrea Quadra- shrines; 7, Domus Cilonis: the remains of this house have long tillae: Scagnetti and Grande (1979) locate this feature in its been known (Richardson 1992, 124); 8, Domus Septem Partho- mapped position; it is not discussed by LTUR or Richardson; 13, rum: the precise nature of this feature is unknown, especially Cohors IIII Vigilum: location of this excubitorium seems un- as to how many structures are involved (one, two, or seven) but controversial (LTUR 1:150 “generalmente localizzata nei pressi ample space has been left for this complex as well as possibly di S. Saba”); 14, Domus Cornificiae: location based on assoca- including the Domus of C. Sabucius Maior Caecilianus (LTUR tion with feature number 13 (Richardson 1992, 125); 15, Priva- 2:152–3, 173, 176); 9, Horti Servilliani: leaving space for this ta Hadriani: remains datable to Hadrianic times establish the feature is somewhat controversial because Richardson (1992, approximate location of this house occupied by Hadrian before 204) denies that its location can be even tentatively established; his accession (LTUR 4:164). 424 GLENN R. STOREY [AJA 106 26 polygons, and the number of vici for the region should be on the order of the size of residences. was 17.60 With only a small adjustment to the ar- The typical sizes of mansions and apartment hous- rangement and distribution of my model poly- es are derived from the archaeology of Pompeii and gons—by combining small contiguous polygons— Ostia, where the survival of general function struc- my model would easily match the vici figure. tures is much more complete than for Rome. The The residential polygons aimed to utilize the Roman evidence, although not providing as large a maximum space possible for residences, although number of available or reconstructible examples it is possible that the space discounted from avail- from archaeological traces, has also been taken into ability because of occupation by special features consideration. may be too much in one or two cases. Even the There is no agreement on the average size of slopes of the hill (the Aventinus Minor—“lesser Roman apartment houses. Packer arrived at an av- Aventine”) were assumed to have been available, erage size of 239 m2 for the 73 existing apartment although it is a common problem that some areas blocks in Ostia.61 Lugli,62 using the size of apart- of the hills of Rome were not suitable for struc- ment blocks in the 19th- and early 20th-century tures of any kind. The configuration proposed urban configurations of the cities of north and cen- here simply allows for the maximum utilization of tral Italy rather than the sparse archaeological data space for residences, no matter how small or how from Rome, argued that the typical apartment block precariously placed. size was about 216 m2. Von Gerkan offered the small- In order to test Lo Cascio’s interpretation of the est size in the literature, arguing that apartment term insula as a building of varied function, we need houses were about 156 m2.63 to identify the sizes of general structures common The data on domus from Pompeii and Hercu- to each region of the city. That will allow the use of laneum presented by Wallace-Hadrill64 suggest that a modeling statistic with which to construct config- 273 m2 is an average size for the mansion houses in urations to see whether they are more like build- those two communities. From the existing evidence ings or more like ARUs. Because residences are for Roman domus, the average size of domus plots the most numerous functional type of structure in is 2,716 m2.65 So we have three multiple residence the Regionary Catalogues, the modeling statistic building sizes of 156 m2, 216 m2, and 239 m2, plus

60 Jordan 1970, 2, 561. Consequently, the insula model statistics (156 m2 or 220 m2) 61 Packer 1971. do not take these specific cases into account directly. Howev- 62 Lugli 1941/1942. er, this large size, if an accurate reflection of typical residence 63 Gerkan 1940, 1943, 1949. The known structural remains sizes in ancient Rome is accounted for in the second model of in and around Rome are extensive, systematically document- 720 m2 for the large domus of Rome. ed starting with Lanciani’s (1988) Forma Urbis Romae, sup- 64 Wallace-Hadrill (1994, 81, table 4.2) defined four quar- plemented by a century of specialist reports appearing with tiles of domus sizes in Pompeii and Herculaneum. Just over half great frequency. A number of these structural traces could well of his sample of 232 (117) houses included examples smaller be insulae in the sense of freestanding apartment houses, which than 170 m2. could be compared to their counterparts in Ostia and the Ve- 65 As compiled in LTUR 2:391–426, figs. 7–67. Only 15 ex- suvian cities. The difficulty is that the majority of these kinds amples (excluding the large imperial domus complexes, which of remains are of problematic interpretation. One relevant ex- would skew the sample) from that collection of mapped do- ample is the remains reported from the Caput Africae on the mus remains from Rome provided usable data (in that scales Caelian hill (Pavolini 1988). Interesting remains covering sev- were provided). The average size is 2,716 m2. The smallest eral centuries have come to light. Two structural remains iden- Roman domus in this sample was 263 m2 and the largest was tified as insulae are mapped. For the Flavianic period, these 9,530 m2. The average size and range are much larger in the two insulae as mapped (Pavolini 1988, 101, fig. 4) are about Roman examples than the samples from Pompeii, Herculane- 407 m2 (insula nord) and 516 m2 (insula sud). The middle um, and Ostia. It seems that from this evidence the largest empire configuration looks even larger. The problem is that it domus in Rome were much larger than those found in other is not clear that these remains are obvious examples of free- Roman cities. It is also probably in part an accident of survival standing insulae apartment blocks. This case constitutes an that only the largest examples in the city were the ones whose excellent illustration of the uncertainty whether these are remains can still be traced today, and so are known and re- apartment buildings or street blocks with a variable mix of corded. Also, the areal measurements included all mapped ARUs. Another case is a structure along the Via S. Paolo all remains, no matter how isolated and separate from other re- Regola (Quilici 1990), of two stories in ancient times, expand- mains, so that the actual buildings might have been smaller ing to three or more in the Medieval period. A map of the than this procedure suggests. Reynolds (1996, 172) argued greatest extent of the remains identifiable for Constantinian from the evidence of the Severan Marble Plan that domus times (Quilici 1990, 402, fig. 177) covers an area possibly as sizes in Rome were probably smaller than their counterparts large as over 2,660 m2. The complex certainly included store- in the Vesuvian cities because of the excessive crowding in rooms, but it is not clear to what extent this complex too might Rome. The data presented here suggest otherwise, but the consist of a mix of ARUs in the structural fabric of a street block. issue is by no means settled. 2002] REGIONARIES-TYPE INSULAE 2 425 two domus averages, 273 m2 and 2,716 m2. The re- A.D. were larger than their Ostian counterparts of sulting average is 720 m2 for a residential plot. But the second century A.D. the result for Rome is so anomalous compared to Polygons were constructed for each model; that the others that, whether or not Roman domus were is, the Gerkan-statistic (156 m2) and the large-do- actually that much larger than their counterparts mus statistic (720 m2) were applied to the available elsewhere, it might be better to include a lower space of the defined residential parcels.67 The two estimate of domus size. The problem with the Ro- series of polygons were then overlaid and informa- man evidence is that, by its very nature, it probably tion was produced regarding their degree of over- points to the larger variety of domus (the mansions lap. The displaying and subsequent tabulation of of the top elite in the city) and that not many of the this procedure gives a distribution of all possible 1,790 domus reported in the Regionaries were typ- residential plots to be fit into the available space, ically of this size. Without the Roman evidence, the both those of the target statistic and all others average residential block is 220 m2.66 trimmed to fit every centimeter of space. It thus seemed advisable to run the GIS model Plots of the parcels and target statistics (figs. 4– using two statistics. Gerkan’s figure (156 m2) was 5) show the results visually. The statistical output used because it functions as a compromise figure (tables 2–3) from the plot (reporting item fit in the that could be typical for an apartment building, a polygons) complement the visual results. For the small domus, or a large shop and workshop size to run based on the Gerkan-statistic of 156 m2 the re- include buildings of specialty function included sults are as follows: 3,134 separate polygons (repre- by Lo Cascio’s definition. The figure is also small senting a residential space) were fit into the avail- enough to allow generous totals for the maximum able space in Region 12. This is much greater than number of residential parcels to occupy the avail- the 2,600 insulae and domus totals listed in the able space. It is also close enough to the 220 m2 Regionaries. The average size of these plots, how- residential block average so that any result from ever, was only 116 m2, and only 1,756 (56%) sepa- the 156 m2 statistic would be similar in scale to what rate residential plots of about the size of the target would result from analysis based on the 220 m2 fig- statistic, 156–158 m2, could fit into the modeling ure derived from the best excavated examples from space available for residences. Many of these were Pompeii and Ostia. A 720 m2 run block size was much smaller than 110 m2 (1,043 or 33.3%), repre- carried out in conformity with the Roman evidence, senting only portions of possible overlaid examples although this size is so large that it will not repre- fitting into the parcel polygons. A substantial per- sent many structures that are covered by Lo Cas- centage of modeled plots were less than 50 m2 (588 cio’s definition, but does conform to the evidence or 18.8%), a size that would barely be viable as a that Roman residential plots of the fourth century separate structure, even given the generous range

66 Purcell (1999, 150) rightly notes that the Roman domus en straight from the digital map). To carry out any spatial anal- of the fourth century A.D. were tending to become quite large. ysis task, the digital map must be subjected to a procedure called This factor considered alone suggests that the Regionaries in- the building of topology. Topology is the explicit definition of sulae were ARUs—a notion supported by the results of the large- spatial relationships according to mathematical procedures. Its domus 720 m2 statistic model discussed below. function is to provide a database list of spatial relationships by 67 ArcCAD follows normal GIS procedures, which have names defining them as lists of features such as areas within a border. that are words used in common discourse but have very special- Themes for neighborhoods (polygons of residential space) and ized meanings in GIS analysis. For example, the first step is test statistic themes (polygons of regular sizes representing theme definition. Themes are classes of the same map features house plots) were cleaned and built. In the spatial analysis, the that have associated data sets. The kind of feature that can data of two themes are manipulated to produce an output that make up a theme is an entity such as a neighborhood. In this represents an intersection between the spatial characteristics case, all the neighborhoods of Region 12 constitute a theme, of the two themes. The spatial analysis procedure applied was made up of enclosed polygons, based on the Scagnetti and polygon overlay through identity, a procedure which uses one Grande (1979) map. The associated data sets are built from theme as a template (in this case, residential polygons, defined the map itself, or from nonspatial sources, such as a census list according to the space made available by known topographical of the inhabitants of a neighborhood (which we do not have boundaries and streets in the source map of the region [Scag- in this case). Computer maps are based on arcs. Arcs have di- netti and Grande 1979]) and includes whole examples of the rections and left and right sides, connect at nodes, and sur- overlaid polygons, and adds (by trimming) any portions (no round an area to define polygons. The computer maps must be matter how small) of polygons from the overlaid polygons cleaned of errors of overlap or lack of connecting nodes for (house plots) that fall within the boundaries of the template the mathematical procedure to function properly. The data polygon (neighborhoods). The name of the procedure derives made from the map itself go into a database that is called a from its function to produce a result that represents what pro- coverage (in which all the locational and attribute data—the portion of the two layers of polygons occupies the identical space. spatial coordinates of the features built up from arcs—are tak- 426 GLENN R. STOREY [AJA 106

Fig. 4. ArcCAD GIS plot of the identity theme overlay of Gerkan-sized residential squares and the residential area polygons of Region 12. Each complete square equals a residential plot of 156 m2 with a small space of less than 0.5 m surrounding each unit. All incomplete squares are confined to the border region of each residential polygon. of structure sizes allowed by Lo Cascio’s suggestion. sess an internal logic that is easily seen as a central Table 2 gives a distribution of polygon sizes for this tendency for utilization of space in the modeled avail- test statistic. able space. That is, residential buildings of about The results for the run based on the large-domus 200 m2 may be easily viable and commonly produc- 720 m2 statistic were only 955 separate plots in the ible in conformity with the constraints of European available space with a mean size of 374.4 m2. That preindustrial architectural technology. Table 3 gives figure is a far cry from the 2,600 in the Regionaries. the distribution for this house plot size. In this case, 432 plots or 45.2% of examples were These GIS analyses proved to be a good way of ap- smaller than the mean plot size. Only 242 (25.3%) proximating the mix of residential plot sizes that of examples were in the range of the target statistic, would have characterized the residential neighbor- 718–720 m2. Interestingly, 384 (38.1%), consider- hoods of Rome. If figures 4 and 5 seem mechanical in ably greater than the range of the target statistic, fell displaying squares uniformly across the landscape, in the range of the Gerkan and Pompeii and Ostia they may nevertheless accurately represent the reality targets of 156 and 220 m2, suggesting that the resi- of deeply buried (as in far from regular streets) residential plot size in the 200 m2 range seems to a pos- dential configurations described vividly by Dupont.68

68 Dupont (1992, 143–5, “The City as Labyrinth”) describes was in a street where a fuller had hung his washing out to dry late Republican Rome, but her description could also refer to or if one had strayed into the backyard of his workshop. Over- Imperial Rome: “All the shops were in the main street, the rest night someone might close off what had been a public passage of the quarter forming a maze of alleys, covered passages, culs- and built a house on it. . . . With luck, one might stumble de-sac and steps in which any stranger would immediately get through the backyards of one quarter and come out safe and lost. Before long one might no longer be sure whether one sound on another shopping street” (quote, 145). 2002] REGIONARIES-TYPE INSULAE 2 427

Fig. 5. ArcCAD GIS plot of the identity theme overlay of large domus-sized residential squares and the residential area polygons of Region 12. Each complete square equals a residential plot of 720 m2 with a small space of less than 0.5 m surrounding each unit. All incomplete squares are confined to the border region of each residential polygon.

The modeling results are particularly useful in These results seem to support Lo Cascio’s poly- throwing light on the concept of the term insula functional separate structure suggestion; the vari- in the Regionaries, whether it was a separate struc- ety of plot sizes could be a reflection of the possible ture on the order of the size of a domus, a separate different function structures. However, one-fifth of structure possessing a wide range of sizes as sug- the plots are small, less than 50 m2. If we were to gested by Lo Cascio, or an ARU similar to those combine a number of the full-size plots (156–158 defined for Ostia in Part 1. The fact that only 1,756 m2) to form the larger structures that would be Gerkan-sized plots (156 m2)69 and only 242 domus- found in a Roman urban landscape, the total of sized plots (720 m2, including the high Roman separate structures would decrease dramatically, average domus size) could be fit into the available making the result less compatible with the num- space argues against the domus-sized separate bers given in the Regionaries. structure correlate for insula as used in the Re- Regarded as separate structures, the modeled gionaries. plots (using the Gerkan results) do not make

69 An earlier version of the analysis of Region 12 offered no great error has been introduced by setting aside space to here (Storey 1996) was based on residential space polygons account for known architectural features in Region 12. Whether that left no space for known features—only the Baths of Car- virtually all the space was available for residences, or whether a acalla space was eliminated from consideration. That analysis certain amount of space is arbitrarily set aside for known fea- gave a result of 1,886 plots of the 156–158 m2 size with an tures, the results do not support the idea that the Regionaries’ average of 134 m2. The frequency of plots smaller than the 2,600 residential plots treated as standard-sized Roman resi- average plot size was 598, or 31.7%. The similarity of results dential separate structures could have fit into the available area between the earlier run and that presented here suggests that of the region. 428 GLENN R. STOREY [AJA 106

Table 2. Distribution of Gerkan-Statistic Table 3. Distribution of Large Domus-Statistic GIS Overlay Polygons GIS Overlay Polygons Square Meter Range Frequency Square Meter Range Frequency 0 0 0 0 10 244 100 280 20 133 200 84 30 109 300 68 40 102 400 68 50 64 500 50 60 73 600 77 70 73 700 86 80 62 800 242 90 65 Total 955 100 64 110 54 120 59 130 71 Plan does not support it. The configurations seen 140 84 there resemble the archaeological configurations 150 121 in Ostia, at least to the extent that the many tiny 160 1,756 structures do not appear on the fragments of that Total 3,134 map of Rome.71 The numbers, moreover, seem to make most sense compared with the Roman urban fabric of sense as apartment-like entities. The Ostian ARUs the best comparable example, Ostia. Large num- as defined in my previous study expand the defi- bers of 10, 20, 30, and up to 130 m2 separate build- nition of insulae from solely apartments to multi- ings do not exist in the ruins of Ostia or Pompeii. functional enclosed units, easily understood as There are, however, numerous examples of en- parcels of legally private property. closed units within the structural fabric of the Of course, the unknown factor, and one ignored blocks of both those cities that are in the range of in the two-dimensional world of GIS maps (al- those sizes—the Ostian ARUs and all other apart- though three-dimensional analysis is possible), is ment-like units. the vertical dimension—the height of the build- The GIS results conform to previous results, ings. This question has been touched on in Part found with planimetric readings or other methods: 1.72 The problem is that we do not know the typical if understood as domus-sized separate buildings, height of buildings in ancient Rome. I stress “typ- then the number of insulae in the Regionaries ical” because there has been much focus on the could not fit in the available space of the Augustan tall buildings, such as the Ara Coeli Insula and regions. Such results might be possible, however, the Insula of Felicles (the heights of both struc- by admitting for ancient Rome a high proportion tures are unknown: only incomplete traces exist of very small structures not usually found in the of the former, and no trace remains of the latter), Vesuvian cities and Ostia—a scenario that is by no but no systematic (not anecdotal) analysis of the means impossible.70 The only caveat with that possi- estimated average heights of building in the an- bility is that the evidence of the Severan Marble cient city exists.73

70 In Part 1 of this article (Storey 2001, 396–9), I suggested Rome, even though some of Ostia’s buildings may have been that Ostia should have been more compact than Rome, accord- larger, more regular in plan, and more evenly spaced than ing to Fletcher’s criteria (1995). The resolution of this appar- Rome’s. ent contradiction is the reflection that Rome’s uneven topog- 71 In Part 1 (Storey 2001, 390, n. 9, and passim), I discuss raphy as opposed to Ostia’s flat terrain is likely to have required the issue of whether Ostia and Rome are close analogues. In the building of much more irregularly shaped structures than general the Severan Marble Plan does support the argument in Ostia, due to the necessity of dealing with hill slopes. The of the architectural similarity of the two communities. Reynolds, result this situation is likely to produce is a configuration char- while noting some specific differences between configurations acterized by smaller, more irregular structures than those seen in Ostia and Rome (1996, 144), generally supports the view generally in the urban archaeology of Pompeii, Herculaneum, that there are important similarities. and Ostia. On the other hand, we have evidence that some 72 Storey 2001, 395–6, ns. 22–30. Roman structural configurations were much larger than Ostia’s 73 Storey (in preparation) sets out and discusses these issues. (ns. 63, 65, 66). The greater area of Rome allowed for a great- Pedroni (1992) has, in any case, perhaps shown the way to- er range of structural sizes. Overall, Ostia as a whole was more ward an answer to the question of typical building height by compact and densely populated (in people and buildings) than arguing convincingly that distinctive staircase marks on the 2002] REGIONARIES-TYPE INSULAE 2 429

The results of the GIS analyses need to be con- in 1852 Berlin officially recorded 16,924 separate sidered in light of the upper floors that no doubt structures, broken down into 360 public buildings, existed in the ancient buildings. Upper floors are 9,349 private houses, 715 production loci, and only a factor, however, if one assumes the interpre- 6,860 shops and stalls.76 Wietersheim concluded tation of insula as something other than a sepa- that the number of inhabited buildings for both rate structure. Each insula, if treated as a separate cities would thus have been on the order of 12,000 building, represents only a two-dimensional space to 14,000. Roman building sizes known from ar- on the ground. If the upper floors are treated as chaeological examples are roughly comparable to separate entities to count, then it must be conced- their successors in the cities of preindustrial Eu- ed that the term insula denoted some kind of unit rope (we have noted the tendency toward build- within the fabric of a structure, not a separate struc- ings of about 200 m2). A general rule might be ture. This is precisely the distinction that Gerkan that cities of about 10 km2 (large by preindustrial considered when he suggested that the typical oc- standards77) contained 10,000 to 15,000 separate cupied area of an apartment house was 468 m2 but sizable structures, or 10–15 per hectare, in agree- covered only 156 m2 of ground space—three floors ment with the results of the analysis for Ostia in each with a footprint of 156 m2.74 In essence, Ger- Part 1 of this study. kan thought that the Regionary term insula was a The Berlin census figures,78 however, indicate type of ARU. Reasonably attractive and functional that the administrative entity of Berlin was only 1.27 single apartments can be found in the buildings “geographische Quadratmeilen” in extent (4.36 at Ostia, and no doubt, many ARUs were of this km2), considerably smaller than the area of ancient character and size. Adding complete versions for Rome. Such a small urban area is a problem for the all the Gerkan-statistic model polygons in the first attempt to fit 16,924 separate buildings on the or- GIS analysis (fig. 4) would easily produce the 2,600 der of 200 m2 each. In fact, it would require the residences implied by the Regionary statistics for squeezing in of 38 buildings per hectare. Such a Region 12. But they need not all have the same figure would seem, at first glance, comparable to ground level area. Combinations of smaller and the 44 insulae per hectare found in the Regionar- larger structures than those tested in the GIS anal- ies, leading us to conclude that the term insula in yses would produce the correct numbers. A count the Regionaries did signify separate structures. of all the units (in the sense of ARUs) that are Ancient Rome’s 14–18 km2 area (whether mea- found in the full range of building sizes produces sured as the extent within the Walls of Aurelian, or the correct range of statistics more parsimonious- the likely larger area of the Augustan Regions) is ly and in closer conformity with the archaeologi- three to four times greater than Berlin’s 4.36 km2. cal evidence of Ostia and the Vesuvian cities and Multiplying the 16,924 by three or four yields be- the Severan Marble Plan than any distribution sce- tween 50,000 and 70,000 structures. Furthermore, nario based solely on the insistence of separate each hectare of Berlin could have accommodated structures. 38 structures of 263 m2, and each hectare of Rome could have held 44 structures of 227 m2. But the cities and the number of buildings problem remains of realistically fitting the requi- If it is correct that the insulae in the Regionar- site number of Roman structures in the available ies were separate structures, the Regionaries sta- space, even though theoretically there is enough tistics report a count of between 45,000 and 50,000 room for them. Neither figure for Rome or Berlin separate structures in fourth-century A.D. Rome. takes account of other uses of space besides the Wietersheim discussed Rome’s population and residential structures. It is especially a problem that the relevance of the Regionaries to that question.75 the area for streets is left out of account. Assuming a rough comparability between ancient Given that the German term “Privat Wohnhaus” Rome and 19th-century Berlin, he reported that in the census means any separate residence (not

Severan Marble Plan indicate the number of floors in the build- legislation we know was passed about them (Strabo 5.3.7; Tac- ing. If the marks we have on the only 10% or so of the map itus Annals 15.43; Ps. Aurelius Victor Trajan 13.13). that exists (Carretoni et al. 1960, 10) are in fact representa- 74 Gerkan 1940, 157–64. tive of the whole, it is clear that the vast majority (80%) of 75 Wietersheim 1856, 1:262–3. buildings were of only one or two floors. Another 10.6% of 76 These figures can be found in Statistische Bureau zu Ber- the structures were three and four floors. The proportion of lin (1855, 4). very tall buildings in the city has been exaggerated, but would 77 See n. 52 and Storey 1992, 107, table 4.1. have been sufficiently numerous to have generated the anec- 78 Statistischen Bureau zu Berlin 1855. dotal information we possess about them, and even spark the 430 GLENN R. STOREY [AJA 106 necessarily a separate building79) and that work- for ancient Roman cities of the Italian heartland shops, shops, and stalls represent a high propor- such as Rome, Pompeii, Herculaneum, and Ostia. tion of registered entities, it is reasonable to con- In essence, this analysis supports previous scholars clude that the 1852 Berlin census counted ARUs who maintained that insulae in the Regionaries exactly in analogous fashion to the method of their must mean various units within buildings rather delineation in Ostia and Rome as argued in both than the buildings themselves. parts of this analysis. The idea of the insulae as separate structures This makes sense in light of census data for En- may originate partly from a tendency to identify the gland and Wales of 1851 (Census of England and configuration of ancient Roman cities as identical Wales 1852). It was noted at the time that the word with that of Italian cities of the later Medieval and “house” in England commonly denoted a separate more recent eras. The problem may be the over- structure, in contrast to practice on the continent whelming preponderance of row houses in post- in Germany, France, or Italy. The data for London Roman Italian urbanism, contrasted with their low- gave counts of houses as separate structures, and er frequency during Roman times. The manner in the number of houses per hectare was just over 10.80 which units were delineated in the ancient Roman A final piece of supporting evidence for Rome epoch is different from the block-after-block of row comes from counting the structures on a map of 17th- houses strung together more commonly found in century Rome. Antonio Tempesta’s 1673 map edit- later periods. However, the number of separate ed by Giovanni Giacomo De Rossi81 was examined units in the ancient context and the number of with a 10-power loupe magnifier. There were 8,420 later row houses per street block can be of a similar residential structures, 123 churches, 73 public struc- order of magnitude, especially in particularly dense- tures, and 42 palazzi, for a grand total of 8,658 build- ly populated contexts when the row houses became ings, or 6.25 buildings per hectare within the line of smaller and more tightly compacted. That is why the Aurelian Walls. This result, although lower than study of post-Roman cadastral unit distribution the posited 10–15 per hectare and the Ostia result, seems to produce numbers equivalent to those re- supports the suggestion here that the ancient city sulting from the process of internal block division contained between 10,000 and 15,000 structures. carried out in this analysis.82 That situation may be The total number of structures in ancient Rome was partly responsible for the common explanation of clearly greater than during the 17th century of Tem- the insula term as a separate structure. pesta’s map. The city was also clearly larger during Another reason for the separate structure view is the period of growth in the latter 19th century when the shifting meaning between contexts. The com- the size of the city came to resemble once again its mon understanding of the term in everyday par- greatest extent in antiquity. lance continues to be “apartment house” or some kind of “multiple residence unit.” The suggestion conclusions has been made here that most of the textual occur- The results of this research suggest several con- rences of the term that have been interpreted this clusions: first, the term insulae in the Regionaries way are more correctly interpreted as “street block” (a semi-official context with a specialized meaning) in the structural fabric of which a multiple number does not mean a “separate building” as understood of separate units were discernible.83 The common

79 Grimm and Grimm 1960, 1220–1, certainly is compatible of houses (separate buildings) and other institutional build- with the view that the term in the 19th century (an 1854 dic- ings was 10.4 per hectare. Thus, 1852 Berlin of enumerated tionary) was a general term for residence and did not necessar- units (probably the equivalent of ARUs) was comparable to ily mean a separate structure. Rome’s distribution of insulae in the Regionaries (also proba- 80 See the introductory commentary in the Census of En- bly ARUs), while 1851 London’s enumerated separate build- gland and Wales 1852, xxxiv–xlv. C.G. Carus, physician to the ings were comparable in number to buildings in Ostia. King of Saxony, published observations on the differences be- 81 Frutaz 1962, 3, map C160 1–12, pls. 365–76. tween English housing and that of the Continent (xxxv–xxx- 82 As reviewed esp. in Part 1 (Storey 2001, 397, n. 34). vi); census figures from 1835–1836 Paris are also cited, indicat- 83 According to the Oxford English Dictionary (hereafter OED, ing that most residences in the Continental census of the mid 22 August 2001), the word “block” is ambiguous in English al- 19th century enumerated people in residences that constitut- most exactly to the degree that it is in Latin. It can mean an ed only parts of separate structures, not separate structures them- isolated “street block” (a meaning more common in North selves. In the 1881 Census of Italy, urban records (e.g., Rome America than it is in the United Kingdom), or it can mean a and Naples) count population in “appartamenti” (apartments) simple separate structure, as in a “block of flats” (apartments— and “stanze occupata” (occupied apartments and rooms—Min- a usage mostly confined to the United Kingdom and areas of isterio di Agricoltura, Industria e Commercio, Direzione della the Commonwealth outside of North America). Statistica 1883). For the 1851 census of London, the number 2002] REGIONARIES-TYPE INSULAE 2 431 juxtaposition of domus and insulae thus functioned Calza claimed that a use of the word insula in as a term of equivalence—that is, both represent administrative language at variance with the every- residences constituted in “blocks” isolated by sur- day meaning of the word was very unlikely because rounding space in accordance with definitions go- administrative language is of maximum precision.86 ing all the way back to the Twelve Tables, although Aside from the manifest weakness of that argument, most tourists to Pompeii and Ostia know insula only there is a refusal to grant that administrative and as “street block.” (The test polygons in the GIS anal- vernacular registers of discourse can often be dis- ysis conformed to these criteria. The metric equiv- tinct. Calza’s insistence on the reality of administra- alent of about 2½ Roman feet separated the overlay tive precision should be contrasted with the more polygons.) pragmatic—almost humble—approach of the offi- The term insulae used in official contexts, at least cials carrying out the 19th-century censuses of En- by the fourth century, meant units within the struc- gland and Wales. tural fabric of street blocks. They were parcels of Noting the difficulties of what constituted a private property (Coarelli and Guilhembet), and “house” (especially in the differences in dialect the term functioned as a kind of catch-all term for a between England and Scotland), those census-tak- wide range of architectural units (Lo Cascio and ers admitted that “in certain exceptional cases, the Storey, here). It has also been here suggested that difficulty of defining ‘what constitutes a distinct the presence of a staircase, especially one close to house’ was considered insuperable . . . and in the public space, was an easy way for the unit to be iden- earlier Censuses it was left to ‘those who made the tified. The ubiquity of staircase markers on the frag- Return’ to decide.” They conclude, “The defini- ments of the Severan Marble Plan may support these tion of ‘house’ in the Census Abstracts was laid suggestions. down, it is perhaps scarcely necessary to say, only for The issue with the term insula in Latin is similar the guidance of the enumerators.”87 Here, the offi- to that of English usage of the term “house.” The cials take it for granted that the terms used by lay- Regionaries do not define the term insula. The persons and census officials can differ and cause introduction to the London census, on the other confusion; they take pains to clarify what they mean hand, explains what is meant by “house.” In the by a term. It is surely the case that the ancient Ro- recent Anglo-Saxon world, the term “house” usual- man officials faced the same challenges, and the ly denotes a separate structure. In other times, plac- confusion we have been bequeathed in the term es, and languages, however, the term was equiva- insula as it occurs in the Regionaries is an under- lent to “residence” and could denote only part of a standable one that has recurred down through the structure occupied by one family or tenant. So the ages of urban census enumeration. term “house” can mean apartment (part of a building) or a separate structure, exactly as the term in- departments of classics and anthropology sula could ambiguously mean both.84 university of iowa In the long history of the debate on the meaning of 114 macbride hall the term insula in the Regionaries, Guido Calza iowa city, iowa 52242-1322 strongly defended the idea that insulae must be sep- [email protected] arate buildings. In criticizing the arguments of Cuq, who was arguing for a concept of insula very close to that of the ARU argued here, Calza agreed that ad- Works Cited ministrative enumeration of individual apartments would have been very useful for census purposes but Allison, P. 1994. “Room Use in Pompeian Houses.” In claimed that city officials would only have been inter- Pompeii Revisited: The Life and Death of a Roman Town, edited by J.-P. Descœudres, 82–9. Sydney: Meditarch. ested in individual buildings and not the units in- Arce, J. 1999. “El inventario de Roma: Curiosum y Noti- cluded in the structure; therefore, no source proved tia.” In The Transformations of Urbs Roma in Late Antiq- administrative enumeration of apartment units.85 uity, edited by W.V. Harris, 15–22. JRA Suppl. 33. Ports-

84 “Even a source considered as reliable as Vitruvius was sub- units, and even lower: “every citizen’s bedroom and back clos- ject to this ambiguity. In one passage (6.7.3) certainly and et was on display here” (Reynolds 1996, 133), so this is clearly probably in another (6.7.4), Vitruvius uses domus in a context one source that enumerated apartment units. The Regionar- that unquestionably refers to a suite of rooms within a larger ies probably did too. house structure. The best translation for the usage in these 86 Calza 1917, 86. passages is probably “apartment.” 87 Census of England and Wales 1852, quotes from xxxvii 85 Calza 1917; Cuq 1916. Calza is not correct about this. The and xxxviii. Severan Marble Plan is detailed down to the level of apartment 432 GLENN R. STOREY [AJA 106

mouth: Journal of Roman Archaeology. la distribuzione territoriale dei risultati dei censimenti. Rome: Battaglia, S. 1986. Grande Dizzionario della Lingua Ital- Comune di Roma Ufficio di Statistica e Censimento. iana. Turin: Unione Tipografico-Editrice Torinese. Crampton, G.R. 1991. “Residential Density Patterns in Beloch, K.J. 1968. Reprint. Die Bevolkerung der Griechisch- London—Any Role Left for the Exponential Density Römischen Welt. New York: Arno. Original edition, Gradient?” Environment and Planning A 23:1007–24. Leipzig: Duncker & Humblot, 1886. Cuq, M.E. 1916. “Une statistique de locaux affectes a Berry, B.J.L., and F.E. Horton. 1970. Geographic Perspec- l’habitation dans la Rome imperiale.” MémAcInscr tives on Urban Systems. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall. 40:279–335. Boethius, A. 1934. “Remarks on the Development of DeLaine, J. 1997. The Baths of Caracalla: A Study in the Domestic Architecture in Rome.” AJA 38:158–70. Design, Construction, and Economics of Large-Scale Build- ———. 1936. Review of Prolegomena till den Romerska Re- ing Projects in Imperial Rome. JRA Suppl. 25. Portsmouth: gionskatalogen, by A. Nordh. Athenaeum 14:214–7. Journal of Roman Archaeology. ———. 1951. “Notes from Ostia.” In Studies Presented to ———. 2000. “High Status Insula Apartments in Early David Moore Robinson, edited by G.E. Mylonas, 440– Imperial Ostia—A Reading.” Meded:175–87. 50. St. Louis: Washington University. Duncan-Jones, R.P. 1994. Money and Government in the ———. 1960. The Golden House of Nero: Some Aspects of Roman Empire. New York: Cambridge University Press. Roman Architecture. Ann Arbor: University of Michi- Dupont, F. 1992. Daily Life in Ancient Rome. Translated by gan Press. C. Woodall. Cambridge, Mass.: Blackwell. Brown, F.E. 1986. “Continuity and Change in the Urban Dureau de la Malle, A.J.C.A. 1971. Reprint. Economie House: Developments in Domestic Space Organiza- Politique des Romains. New York: Lenox Hill. Original tion in Seventeenth-Century London.” Comparative edition, Paris: La Hachette, 1840. Studies in Society and History 28:558–90. Environmental Systems Research Institute. 1990–1995. Calza, G. 1917. “La Statistica Delle Abitazioni E Il Calco- Understanding GIS: The ARC/INFO Method. New York: lo Della Popolazione in Roma Imperiale.” RendLinc GeoInformation International and John Wiley & Sons. 26:60–87. Fletcher, R. 1981. “Settlement Archaeology: World-Wide Calza, G., I. Gismondi, and G. Lugli. 1941. “La Poplazi- Comparisons.” WorldArch 18:59–83. one di Roma Antica.” BullCom 69:142–65. ———. 1995. The Limits of Settlement Growth. New York: Carcopino, J. 1940. Daily Life in Ancient Rome: The People Cambridge University Press. and City at the Height of the Empire. Translated by E.O. Fraser, P.M. 1951. “A Syriac Notitia Urbis Alexandrinae.” Lorimer. New Haven: Yale University Press. JEA 37:103–7. Carettoni, G., A.M. Colini, L. Cozza, and G. Gatti. 1960. Frutaz, A.P. 1962. Le Piante di Roma. 3 vols. Rome: Istitu- La Pianta Marmorea di Roma Antica: Forma Urbis Ro- to di Studi Romani. mae. Rome: M. Danesi. Garnsey, P., and R. Saller. 1987. The Roman Empire: Econ- Castagnoli, F. 1976. “L’ Insula nei Cataloghi Regionari di omy, Society and Culture. Berkeley: University of Cali- Roma.” RivFil 104:45–52. fornia Press. Castiglioni, P. 1884. Monografia della Città di Roma. 2 vols. Gering, A. 2000. “‘Medianum-apartments:’ Konzept von Rome: Direzione Generale di Statistica. Wohnen in der insula im 2 Jh. n. Chr.” Meded 58:103– Census of England and Wales. 1852. Census of England 15. and Wales 1851: Tables of the Population and Houses. Von Gerkan, A. 1940. “Die Einwohnerzahl Roms in Der London: Eyre and Spotiswoode for H.M. Stationery Kaiserzeit.” MdI 55:149–95. Office. ———. 1943. “Weiteres zur Einwohnerzahl Roms in Der Chastagnol, A. 1960. La Prefecture Urbaine á Rome sous le Kaiserzeit.” MdI 58:213–43. Bas-Empire. Publications de la Faculté de Lettres et ———. 1949. “Grenzen und Grossen der vierzehn Re- Sciences Humaines d’Alger 34. Paris: Presses Univer- gionen Roms.” BJb 49:5–65. sitaires de France. Grahame, M. 1997. “Public and Private in the Roman ———. 1996. “Les Régionnaires de Rome.” In Les Lit- House: Investigating the Social Order of the Casa del tératures Techniques dans l’Antiquité Romaine: Statut, Fauno.” In Domestic Space in the Roman World: Pompeii Public et Destination, Tradition, edited by C. Nicolet, and Beyond, edited by R. Laurence and A. Wallace- 179–97. Etretiens sur L’Antiquité Classique, Tome Hadrill, 137–64. JRA Suppl. 22. Portsmouth: Journal XLII. Geneva: Vandœvres. of Roman Archaeology. ———. 1997. “Le Fonctionnement de la Préfecture ———. 1998. “Material Culture and Roman Identity: Urbaine.” In La Rome Impériale: Demographie et Logis- The Spatial Layout of Pompeian Houses and the Prob- tique: Actes de la table ronde (Rome, 25 Mars 1994), 111–9. lem of Ethnicity.” In Cultural Identity in the Roman CÉFR 230. Rome: École française de Rome. Empire, edited by R. Laurence and J. Berry, 156–78. Clark, C. 1967. Population Growth and Land Use. New York: Routledge: New York. Macmillan. Grimm, J., and W. Grimm. 1960. Reprint. Deutsches Wörter- Coarelli, F. 1997a. “La Consistenza della Città nel Peri- buch. Leizig: S. Hirzel. Original edition, Berlin: Lud- odo Imperiale: Pomerium, Vici, Insulae.” In La Rome wig Sütterlin, 1854. Impériale: Demographie et Logistique: Actes de la table ronde Guilhembet, J-P. 1996. “La Densité des Domus et des In- (Rome, 25 Mars 1994), 89–109. CÉFR 230. Rome: École sulae dan les XIV Régions de Rome selon les Région- française de Rome. naires: Représentations Cartographiques.” MÉFRA ———. 1997b. Roma. Guide Archeologiche Laterza 6. 108:7–26. Rev. ed. Giuseppe Laterza and Figli: Bari. Harvey, P.B., jr. 1990. “Cicero Epistulae Ad Quintum Comune di Roma Ufficio di Statistica e Censimento. Fratrem et Ad Brutum: Content and Comment.” Ath- 1960. Roma: Popolazione e territorio dal 1860 al 1960 con enaeum 78:319–50. 2002] REGIONARIES-TYPE INSULAE 2 433

———. 1991. “Calculo de la Poblacion de la Antigua Nordh, A. 1949. Libellus de Regionibus Urbis Romae. Acta Roma: Datos, Modelos y Metodos.” Semanas de Estu- Instituti Romani Regni Sueciae, Series 8, 3. Lund: dios Romanos 6:175–88. C.W.K. Gleerup. Hermansen, G. 1978. “The Population of Imperial Rome: Oxford English Dictionary. 2001, 22 August. Oxford English The Regionaries.” Historia 27:129–68. Dictionary. http://www.oed.com (22 August 2001). Hillier, B., and J. Hanson. 1984. The Social Logic of Space. Packer, J.E. 1968/1969. “La Casa di Via Giulio Romano.” New York: Cambridge University Press. BullCom 81:127–48. Homo, L. 1933. “Topographie et Demographie dans la ———. 1971. The Insulae of Imperial Ostia. MAAR 31. Rome Imperiale.” CRAI:293–308. Rome: American Academy. ———. 1951. Rome Imperiale et L’ Urbanisme dans L’ Antiq- Paoli, U.E. 1963. Rome: Its People, Life and Customs. Trans- uité. Paris: Éditions Albin Michel. lated by R.D. MacNaghten. New York: Longman. Jordan, H. 1970. Reprint. Topographie der Stadt Rom im Pavolini, C. 1988. “Indagini Archeologiche a Piazza Ce- Alterthum. Rome: L’ERMA di Bretschneider. Original limontana (1984–1987).” Archeologia Laziale 9:97–104. edition, Berlin: Weidmannsche Buchhandlung, 1871– Pedroni, L. 1992. “Per una lettura verticale della Forma 1907. Urbis Marmorea.” Ostraka 1:223–30. Kahrstedt, U. 1913. “The Population of Rome.” In Ro- Price, G.N. 2000. “Spatial Analysis of the Domus delle man Life and Manners under the Early Empire, edited by Colonne of Ostia Antica.” Honors thesis, University L. Friedländer, vol. 4, app. 5, 17–28. Translated by of Iowa. A.B. Gough. New York: E.P. Dutton. Purcell, N. 1999. “The Populace of Rome in Late Antiq- Lanciani, R. 1967. Reprint. The Ruins and Excavations of uity: Problems of Classification and Historical Descrip- Ancient Rome. New York: Bell Publishing. Original edition.” In The Transformations of Urbs Roma in Late Antiq- tion, London: Macmillan, 1897. uity, edited by W.V. Harris, 135–61. JRA Suppl. 33. ———. 1988. Reprint. Forma Urbis Romae. Rome: Edizio- Portsmouth: Journal of Roman Archaeology. ni Quasar. Original edition, Milan: U. Hoepli, 1893– Quilici, L. 1990. “Roma. Via di S. Paolo alla Regola Sca- 1907. vo e recupero di edifici antichi e medioevali.” NSc 40– Laurence, R. 1994. Roman Pompeii: Space and Society. New 1:175–416. York: Routledge. Rawson, B., and P. Weaver, eds. 1997. The Roman Family Levoy, M. 2001, 28 March. Digitizing the Forma Urbis Ro- in Italy: Status, Sentiment and Space. New York: Oxford mae. http://graphics.stanford.firenze.it/papers/for- University Press. ma-urbis-campfire00/ (28 March 2001). Reynolds, D.W. 1996. “Forma Urbis Romae: The Seve- Lo Cascio, E. 1997. “Le Procedure di Recensus alla Tar- ran Marble Plan and the Urban Form of Ancient da Repubblica al Tardo Antico e Il Calcolo Della Rome.” Ph.D. diss., University of Michigan. Popolazione di Roma.” In La Rome Impériale: Demogra- Richardson, L., jr. 1992. A New Topographical Dictionary of phie et Logistique: Actes de la table ronde (Rome, 25 Mars Ancient Rome. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University 1994), 3–76. CÉFR 230. Rome: École française de Rome. Press. Lot, F. 1945. “Capitales antiques, capitales modernes.” Richter, O. 1885. “Insula.” Hermes 20:91–100. Annales d’histoire sociale 8:29–38. Robinson, O.F. 1992. Ancient Rome: City Planning and Lugli, G. 1941/1942. “Il Valore Topografico e Giuridico Administration. New York: Routledge. dell’ ‘Insula’ in Roma Antica.” RendPontAcc 18:191– Rodriguez-Almeida, E. 1981. Forma Urbis Marmorea: Ag- 208. giornamento 1980. Rome: Quasar. McKay, A.G. 1975. Houses, Villas and Palaces in the Roman Saller, R.P. 1994. Patriarchy, Property and Death in the Ro- World. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. man Family. New York: Cambridge University Press. Maier, F.G. 1954. “Römische Bevolkerungsgeschichte und Scagnetti, F., and G. Grande. 1979. Pianta Topografica a Inschriftenstatistik.” Historia 2:318–51. colori di Roma Antica. Rome: ME di Maggiore Cristina. Meiggs, R. 1973. Roman Ostia. 2nd ed. New York: Oxford Scheidel, W. 1996. “Finances, Figures and Fiction.” CQ University Press. 46:222–38. Merrill, E.T. 1906. “The Date of the Notitia and Curio- Seeck, O. 1962. Reprint. Notitia Dignitatum: Notitia Urbis sum.” CP 1:133–44. Constantinopolitanae et Latercula Provinciarum. Frank- Mills, E.S., and J.P. Tan. 1980. “A Comparison of Urban fort: Minerva. Original edition, Berlin: Wiedmann, Population Density Functions in Developed and De- 1876. veloping Countries.” Urban Studies 17:313–21. Skaburskis, A. 1989. “Inversions in Urban Density Gradi- Ministerio di Agricoltura, Industria e Commercio, Direz- ents: A Brief Look at the Vancouver Metropolitan ione della Statistica. 1883. Censimento della Popolazione Area’s Density Profile.” Urban Studies 26:397–401. el Regno d’Italia al 31 Diciembre 1881. Vol. 1, pt. 1, Popo- Statistichen Bureau zu Berlin. 1855. Tabellen und amtli- lazione dei Comuni e dei Mandamenti. Rome: Tipografia che Nachrichten über den Preussischen Stadt für des Jahr Bodoniana. 1852. Berlin: A.W. Hayn. Muñoz, A. 1930. Campidoglio. Rome: A cura del governa- Steinby, E.M. 1993–2000. Lexicon Topographicum Urbis torato. Romae (LTU). 6 vols. Rome: Edizioni Quasar. Nicolet, C. 1987. “La Table d’Héraclée et les origines du Storey, G.R. 1992. “Preindustrial Urban Demography: cadastre Romain.” In L’Urbs: Espace urbain et histoire (I er The Ancient Roman Evidence.” Ph.D. diss., Pennsyl- siècle av. JC – III e siècle ap. JC), 1–25. CÉFR 98. Rome: vania State University. L’École française de Rome. ———. 1996. “Rome’s Urban Configuration in the Re- ———. 1991. Space, Geography, and Politics in the Early gionaries: An ArcCAD Application.” Poster Session Roman Empire. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan presented at the 1996 Annual Meetings of the Society Press. for American Archaeology, 10–13 April, New Orleans. 434 G.R. STOREY, REGIONARIES-TYPE INSULAE 2

———. 1997a. “Estimating the Population of Ancient et au début de l’Empire. Rome: L’École française de Roman Cities.” In Integrating Archaeological Demogra- Rome and Paris: De Boccard. phy: Multidisciplinary Approaches to Prehistoric Popula- ———. 1997. “Existait–Il Des Registres de Décès à Rome tions, edited by R.R. Paine, 101–30. Occasional Paper au Ier Siècle ap. J.–C.?” In La Rome impériale: Démogra- No. 24, Center for Archaeological Investigations, phie et logistique, Ecole française de Rome, 25 marzo 1994, Southern Illinois University at Carbondale. Carbon- 77–88. CÉFR 230. Rome: L’École française de Rome. dale: Southern Illinois University Press. Wallace-Hadrill, A. 1994. Houses and Society in Pompeii ———. 1997b. “The Population of Ancient Rome.” and Herculaneum. Princeton: Princeton University Antiquity 71:966–78. Press. ———. 2001. “Regionaries-Type Insulae 1: Architectur- Wietersheim, E. von. 1856. Geschichte der Völkerwanderung al/Residential Units at Ostia.” AJA 105:389–401. Leipzig: T.O. Wiegel. ———. In preparation. “The ‘Skyscrapers’ of Ancient Wotschitsky, A. 1962. “Insula- I. Terminologische Unter- Rome.” suchungen.” In Serta Philologica Aenipontana, edited Valentini, R., and G. Zucchetti. 1940. Codice Topografico by R. Muth, 363–75. Innsbruck: Sprachwissenschaftli- della Città di Roma. Rome: Tipografia del Senato. che Institut der Leopold-Franzens-Universität Inns- Virlouvet, C. 1995. Tessera frumentaria: Les procédures de la bruck. distribution du blé public à Rome à la fin de la République Archaeology in Jordan, 2001 Season STEPHEN H. SAVAGE, KURT ZAMORA, AND DONALD R. KELLER

The 2001 edition of the “Archaeology in Jordan” covers one degree of longitude and one-half de- newsletter presents short reports on recent excava- gree of latitude, and the files are approximately tions and archaeological projects in the Hashemite 45–60 megabytes in size. Images can be tiled, and Kingdom of Jordan (fig. 1). General projects and scripts, available from ESRI, can be used to clip out surveys are presented first, followed by excavation regions of interest from one or more tiles and saved reports organized geographically, from north to as smaller, georeferenced images. south. GIS coverages from the 1:1,000,000 scale Digital We would like to thank the Department of Antiq- Chart of the World can also be downloaded by click- uities of Jordan, its Director, Dr. Fawwaz al-Khray- ing on a second map.1 A variety of topographic, hy- sheh, and his staff for their continued efforts and drological, and settlement data are included in support on behalf of all those who are committed these coverages, and they can be displayed directly to understanding and preserving the cultural heron top of the satellite image tiles. itage of Jordan. Publication of this year’s “Archaeol- Wadi al-Kafrein Survey. Niveen Kamal and Mo- ogy in Jordan” newsletter was once again made pos- hammad Waheeb ([email protected]), sible in part by contributions from the Jordan Soci- DAJ, report: ety and the American Center of Oriental Research. Recent archaeological fieldwork, conducted by a team from the DAJ, uncovered a Byzantine church general projects and surveys at the northern edge of Wadi al-Kafrein. The church Online Satellite Imagery and Digital Data of is located 500 m southwest from Tell al-Kafrein and Jordan. Stephen H. Savage ([email protected]), ca. 5 km west of the Baptism site. The site measures Arizona State University, reports: 1000 m² and was being used as a cemetery. In order The National Imagery and Mapping Agency not to disturb the tombs, the project only included (NIMA) has made DOI 10 satellite images avail- salvage excavations and material documentation. able to the general public. DOI 10 is an unclassi- Historically, the site was visited by pilgrims as far fied seamless dataset of orthophotos made from back as the third century and much later by the rectified grayscale aerial images. The images are archaeologist Nelson Glueck. The site was not ex- delivered in GeoTiff format and are in decimal plored again, however, until the Cultural Resourc- degrees (World Geographic System [WGS] 1984). es Management Team from the DAJ undertook an They are positionally-correct images suitable for emergency survey of the Baptism area in 1998. The placing in terrain visualization and image back- purpose of this survey and limited excavation was grounds in GIS programs. Other data in decimal to protect the archaeological sites, many of which degrees (WGS 1984) can be overlaid in their cor- are endangered by natural, agricultural, and hu- rect position. A series of 39 image tiles that cover man activities. Jordan, Israel, and parts of their neighbors are avail- The church measures 20.15 (east–west) × 13.80 able at http://archaeology.asu.edu/Jordan/index. (north–south) m and appears to be rectangular in html. From the home page, press the “Satellite Pix” shape. Most of the outer walls are buried under the button on the left side of the screen. This section tombs. Although most of the sandstone ashlars were includes a full-scale sample of an image, the license robbed, the cement bed layers of the foundations agreement (which allows unrestricted distribu- remain. Walls found in the western part of the tion), and a map of the coverage area, which you church may have once formed rooms for religious can click on to download individual tiles. Each tile or secular use. Excavation also uncovered some pil-

1 Digital Chart of the World coverages for the Middle East variety of Web sites or for purchase from ESRI. The layers are are also available at this Web site along with the satellite imag- also in the WGS 1984 coordinate system, so they drop directly es. These digital maps cover the Earth from about 80° north to on top of the satellite images. Additional DCW data are avail- 80° south latitude. Originally developed by the National Imag- able at http://www.maproom.psu.edu/dcw/ (Penn State Uni- ing Mapping Agency for military purposes, they have been versity Libraries DCW Server). declassified and are now available free for downloading from a

435 American Journal of Archaeology 106 (2002) 435–58 436 STEPHEN H. SAVAGE ET AL. [AJA 106

Fig. 1. Sites and projects in Jordan in the 2001 season 2002] ARCHAEOLOGY IN JORDAN, 2001 SEASON 437

Fig. 2. Dolmen 76 at al-Murayghat lar foundations, probably used to support the roof, of the dolmen field at al-Murayghat (AM) begun which was washed away in antiquity. Also uncovered last year. Test units at Khirbet Qarn al-Qubish (KQ) was a beautiful mosaic floor, decorated with geo- were placed across the gateway and in the midden. metrical and floral designs. Unfortunately, part of We documented 24 additional dolmens at AM, the mosaic floor, including some of its inscription, bringing the total to 100. All the dolmens are locat- was destroyed by modern tomb construction. ed in direct view of the “shrine” on the central hill The church’s water system includes a roofed cis- at AM.2 The dolmens typically have a back, sides, tern and a water channel located near the eastern and top (fig. 2) and are built directly on bedrock. wall of the church. The rectangular-shaped cistern Many are still intact; few had soil inside. A small, measures 3.3 × 1.9 m and was fed by the water chan- basalt mortar fragment was found near Dolmen 92; nel. This channel was constructed of a reddish-col- however, the dolmen had collapsed, and the origi- ored limestone and collected water from Wadi al- nal association with the artifact was undetermined. Kafrein. The length of the channel could not be The date of the dolmens remains uncertain. While followed because banana groves surrounded the the preponderance of EB I sherds from the surface site. survey points to an EB I date, a Chalcolithic date Much of the recovered material dates to the Byz- cannot be ruled out because some sherds and lith- antine period; however, some pottery sherds date ics from the central site date to that period. AM is a back earlier to the Roman and Chalcolithic peri- unique Chalcolithic/Early Bronze Age ceremoni- ods. It is not surprising that these earlier periods al site. Because of its rarity and clear importance to are represented, given the church’s close proximi- the Chalcolithic/EB ceremonial system, AM is a site ty to Tell al-Kafrein. of special significance and should be preserved. The Moab Archaeological Resource Survey. Unfortunately, the continued operation of a large Stephen H. Savage ([email protected]), Arizona gravel quarry located immediately to the north en- State University, reports: dangers the site. The Moab Archaeological Resource Survey At KQ, unit 385/475 was placed over the south (MARS) was established to collect settlement, ar- end of the north gate tower and the gateway, on the chaeological, and environmental data from the northeast side of the site.3 This excavation revealed western part of the Madaba Plain in the highlands that (1) the gate towers are solid structures, found- of central Jordan. Fieldwork in 2001 concentrated ed on soil, not bedrock, and built and filled with on completing the mapping and documentation earth and rubble course-by-course; (2) the towers

2 Savage et al. 2001, 433, fig. 4. 3 Savage et al. 2001, 432, fig. 3. 438 STEPHEN H. SAVAGE ET AL. [AJA 106

Fig. 3. The original EB III entry pavement at Khirbet Qarn al-Qubish. (Sid Rempel) date to the EB III (ca. 2600–2200 B.C.), probably with a few grape seeds and some charred wheat. The early in the period; (3) a flagstone pavement was olive seeds indicate a fairly long occupation of the placed in the entrance between the two gate towers site and suggest a stable system of land tenure in KQ (fig. 3) and later repaired; (4) both entry phases society. Seeds from several midden and gateway loci date to the EB III, but after the towers; (5) no subse- have been submitted for radiocarbon dating. quent occupation of the area occurred, and the area Karak Resources Project. David R. Berge, John I. was covered with post-abandonment deposition by Lawlor, Grand Rapids Baptist Seminary, and John the Roman/Byzantine period; and (6) use of the M. Wade, Emmanuel School of Religion, report: site in the Roman/Byzantine period was confined The Karak Resources Project conducted a fourth to agricultural/pastoral pursuits. season of fieldwork in June and July 2001, includ- Unit 263/460 was placed on the western slope ing excavation at Khirbat al-Mudaybi, regional sur- inside a terrace wall.4 We collected over 4,000 vey, and geological and ethnographic studies. At sherds (217 diagnostics), 2,615 g of bone, 15 g of Mudaybi, excavation in fields A and B was expand- charcoal, 6,410 g of lithic material, and 42 g of seeds ed, but work in field C was discontinued. A new from the 2 m² unit. The ceramics show that the field, field D, was opened in the site’s northwest- upper strata of the midden formed during the EB ern quadrant. III. The lowest levels contained numerous EB I In field A, two new squares were opened, and sherds, including a fragment of a gray/black bur- excavation continued in square I3. The basic phas- nished juglet, found lying on bedrock at the base ing reported for the 1999 excavation, “Iron Age II of the midden. Several highly fired sherds with gray through the Late Islamic period,” was refined. In fabric were recovered from the lower levels; they I3, an Iron II surface was identified in a room cre- are similar to metallic ware, but are thicker. These ated by the site’s east–west perimeter wall, an abut- sherds have affinities with pottery types from fur- ting north–south wall, and an interior east–west ther north and west. Therefore, even though KQ wall (with a doorway), which ran parallel to the was a rather small agricultural settlement, it was perimeter wall and bonded into the aforemen- clearly part of a larger regional exchange system. tioned north–south wall. More information about Field examination of faunal remains and seeds the original Iron II construction and more recent points to a mixed economy of pastoralism and farm- Islamic occupation of Mudaybi was sought in a ing, supplemented by hunting and fishing. Ovica- newly opened adjacent square, square J3. Anoth- prids dominate the faunal assemblage, but bird and er new square, square H5, revealed Middle or Late fish bones are present. Seeds are mostly olive pits, Islamic architecture, which seems to relate to

4 Savage et al. 2001, 432, fig. 3. 2002] ARCHAEOLOGY IN JORDAN, 2001 SEASON 439 structures investigated during previous seasons covers the center of Mudaybi. This doorway was in square I5. blocked up in the Late Islamic period. In field B, the eastern gate complex (which prob- Three squares (E4, E5, and F5) were opened in ably dates to the eighth century B.C.E.) was investi- the new field, field D. Each square revealed Iron II gated further by opening three new squares and by architectural remains just below the modern sur- continuing work in four previously excavated squares. face, which included a scattering of Byzantine and The southern half of the four-chambered gate and Islamic sherds. Although other squares at Muday- portions of the two northern pier walls have been bi yielded some evidence of domestic activities, uncovered, along with lintels, volute capitals, and a field D is located well inside the Iron II perimeter flagstone pavement outside the gate threshold. With- walls, and its artifacts indicate that this was a domes- in the gate complex, excavation in five squares has tic area. Square E4’s main feature was a large room revealed a crude surface, on which burnt debris and with walls preserved over 1 m in height (fig. 5). rock tumble collapsed. Bedrock protrudes through The pottery assemblage found on a cobbled floor this surface, even in the gate passageway. The na- included bowls and jars, all from Iron Age II. This ture of this surface and a scarcity of artifacts strongly cobbled room of E4 and a smaller storeroom in suggest that the Iron II gate was hardly used, if ever square E5 shared a common wall. The storeroom completed. It appears that both of the gate’s north- contained one large storage jar and several smaller ern chambers were blocked up (fig. 4). In addition vessels, all crushed when the building’s wall col- to uncovering the typical four-chambered gate plan, lapsed. East of this E5 storeroom was a courtyard excavation revealed that a wall bonded to the south- that contained a tabun, 70 perforated clay balls/ western corner of the gate complex and extended loom weights, and numerous sherds and animal to the south at least 8 m, but its function is unclear. bones. Near the tabun, a well-preserved lamp with The removal of a balk between two previously exca- a concave base was found. Square F5, opened late vated squares exposed a doorway in the eastern wall in the season, revealed that the walls of the E5 build- of a large Byzantine-Islamic building complex that ing complex continued toward the east.

Fig. 4. The Iron Age II gate complex in field B of Khirbat al-Mudaybi, looking south, with projecting gate towers, upright jamb, and threshold on the left; southern gate chambers in the upper part of the photo; and the blocked northern gate chambers in the foreground, running parallel to meter stick. The Byzantine-Islamic building complex with blocked doorway is on the right. (Reuben G. Bullard, Jr.) 440 STEPHEN H. SAVAGE ET AL. [AJA 106

Fig. 5. Field D of Khirbat al-Mudaybi, looking south across square E4, with Iron II walls in foreground and background and cobbled floor where excavator is drawing a balk inside the room. (Reuben G. Bullard, Jr.)

Tafila-Busayra Archaeological Survey. Burton As a result of this season’s work, TBAS team mem- MacDonald ([email protected]), St. Francis Xavier bers completed 42 drawings at 36 sites (table 1). University, reports: Two drawings were done at 6 of these 36 sites (table During the 1999 and 2000 seasons of the Tafila- 2). In addition, team members took measurements Busayra Archaeological Survey (TBAS), team mem- at Site 141, Jurf ad-Darawish Castellum. It was not bers surveyed (“sherded”), described, and plotted possible to draw this site because of erosion and on maps 290 sites. Seventy-five of these were major silting. The intention is to publish the drawings in architectural sites. Also among the surveyed sites the final report on the project. were a number of “circular enclosures” that appear Da Janiya Hinterland Survey Project. John Ruck- to be seasonal camps. These 75-plus sites date, on er ([email protected]), University of Missouri, the basis of the sherds and lithics collected, from Columbia, reports: the Chalcolithic to the Late Islamic periods. The Roman fort at DaJaniya, located about 40 The goal for the 2001 season was to draw as many km north of Maan, just west of the Desert Highway, of the above mentioned major architectural sites was built ca. A.D. 300. It is the largest fortification and “circular enclosures” as possible, given several on the Roman limes between the two legionary forts limitations. Team members could not feasibly draw at Lejjun and Udruh. The fort at DaJaniya is an entire villages in the allotted time, so only one or anomaly, because, at just over 100 × 100 m, it covers two structures at village sites were drawn. Converse- over four times the extent of the typical castellum ly, at many of the architectural sites, it was not possi- in Jordan. Some prior test excavations were com- ble to find a structure of which a convincing draw- pleted within the fort itself, limited to establishing ing could be made. Moreover, sites where work was the date of construction, but no surveys of the sur- under way or had been completed were not consid- rounding area were conducted before this project. ered because this would be an infringement upon This survey was conducted with the support of an the rights of the individuals in charge of those sites. ACOR-CAORC fellowship. In deciding which sites to draw, TBAS team mem- This project was originally envisioned as a small, bers chose samples from the various topographical intensive archaeological survey around the fort. Re- zones and site types. alities of site type and density required a broader 2002] ARCHAEOLOGY IN JORDAN, 2001 SEASON 441

Table 1. Structures Drawn during the 2001 Season of the Tafila-Busayra Survey Site # Site Name Structure Drawn

051 Kh. az-Zanatayeh Rectilinear structure at village site 050 Kh. Umm Zaurureh Rectilinear structure/watchtower (?) at village site 062 Qasr Karayim binAli Rectilinear structure 071 Kh. al-Kula Structure built of large stones at village site 049 Kh. al-Fatat Rectilinear structures at village site 026 Qasr al-Qarqur Fort (?) 001 Kh. al-Harith Rectilinear structure at village site 005 Kh. Ayn al-Beida Rectilinear structure (church?) 006 Kh. Hananah Small, rectilinear structure 004 Kh. Fraydays Large, rectilinear structure at village site 157 Kh. Umm Sarab Rectilinear structure (church?) 036 Ramsis I Fort (?) 126 Kh. Nagad Watchtower (?) at village site 142 Kh. Harir Dwelling (?) and rock-cut tombs at village site 172 Unknown Rock-cut tombs, robbed 147 Kh. Masala Watchtower (?) and cistern at village site 164 Kh. at-Tawlaniyah Fort/watchtower 177 Kh. Mughamis Fortress 268 Unknown Watchtower/tomb 251 Rujm al-Haj Watchtower/tomb 117 Kh. Zubre Watchtower (?) at village site 009 Kh. Alaqeh Large, rectilinear structure at village site 130 Kh. Umm Sayir/ Watchtower and/or agricultural facility Kh. as-Slaybayat 192 Kh. at-Tuwanah Caravanserai (?) and dwelling at town site 182 Unknown Watchtower (?)/robbed tomb 183 Qasr al-Basha Complex of rectilinear structures at caravanserai 170 Abur Large, rectilinear structure at village site 190 Kh. al-Khunaysrah Agricultural facility at fort (?) 211 Unknown Circular enclosure 239 Unknown Water catchment facilities 233 Unknown Circular enclosure 232 Unknown Circular enclosure 282 Unknown Circular enclosure 260 Rujm al-Hamra Watchtower 169 Kh. as-Sayir Large, rectilinear structure at village site 012 Unknown Rectilinear Structure (church?) approach, however, including both vehicular and these was a section of the Via Nova Traiana, first pedestrian surveys, which proved successful. In the recorded by Thomsen in 1917. Somewhat surpris- course of five weeks of fieldwork, 43 sites were visit- ingly, no significant settlements around the fort ited and recorded, including watchtowers, roads, and self were found, and the fort was not directly con- agricultural sites contemporary with the fort, as well nected to, nor was it in a position to guard any of as Nabataean and lithic period sites. Other periods the ancient roadways in the area. Thomsen record- were represented, but precise dating awaits analy- ed a Roman road with milestones running from Jurf- sis of the pottery. ed-Darawish directly to the fort at DaJaniya in 1917; The watchtowers fell into two distinct types. The however, no trace of this road was found during this highest peaks (and several similar peaks north of survey. the survey area) were surmounted by very large, well- Almost all the larger sites in the survey area were made stone towers; they were the only sites where multiperiod sites, situated in locations that origi- Nabataean painted fine ware pottery was found. One nally had natural caves/cisterns. Most notable of these contained a rock-cut chamber in the peak among these were Khirbet Qannas and Hudeira, beneath the tower. The less substantial peaks in the which were large agricultural settlements west of survey area had smaller, less well-made structures; DaJaniya. Both sites also had large water catchment these sites did not have Nabataean fine ware pottery. systems (originally based around natural caves and Two separate ancient roads, running north– sinkholes) and large associated cemeteries. The south, were found within the survey area. One of ancient cemeteries in the survey area, almost with- 442 STEPHEN H. SAVAGE ET AL. [AJA 106

Table 2. Sites in the Tafila-Busayra Survey at which Two Drawings Were Made

Site # Site Name Structure(s) Drawn

005 Kh. Ayn al-Beida Possible church and lintel over west end of structure 049 Kh. al-Fatat One major structure and one associated with a cistern/cave 142 Kh. Harir One residential structure and one series of rock-cut tombs 147 Kh. Masala One watchtower and one cistern 192 Kh. at-Tuwanah One possible caravanserai and one residential building 239 Unknown Two water catchment facilities out exception, had been extensively and recently Phase 1 walls are constructed of cobbles and boul- robbed. ders stacked in single row courses on limestone These findings allow some limited field conclu- bedrock. The west wall of the north and middle sions. The fort at DaJaniya was probably placed at rooms is finely constructed with very large boulders. the very edge of the agricultural zone. The differ- Two doorways were located, one leading into the ence in watchtower type and the distribution of the south room and the other leading from the middle pottery suggests a difference in strategy of control to south room. Both doors were sealed with block- between the Nabataean and Roman/Byzantine pe- ing stones before the structure was abandoned and riods in this area. Further conclusions await more filled with rubble. Phase 1 walls currently stand detailed analysis of the pottery and lithic material. about 1.7 m high and may date to the late Middle Bronze Age. The exposed walls in the profile of excavations the robber pit and the cistern may also be phase 1. Tell Ya amun. Charles N. Hunton, II and Dolores L. Burke ([email protected]), University of Ar- kansas, report: Beginning with the 1999 season (mid June to early August) and continuing through 2000 and 2001, participants in the joint Arkansas-Yarmouk bioarchaeological field school conducted excavations at the site of Yaamun, Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan Department of Antiquities site no. 2320.019. The field school is a cooperative effort of the King Fahd Middle East Studies Program of the University of Arkansas and the Institute of Archae- ology and Anthropology of Yarmouk University. The site is located approximately 25 km south of Irbid and 3 km southwest of the village of Naayima; ceramic analysis indicates continuous occupation from the Early Bronze to Islamic periods. Work at the site is taking place in five major areas: the tell and Necropoli 1, 2, 3, and 4. This report deals with the tell and focuses on what is believed to be a Bronze Age settlement. The 1999 discovery of Bronze Age tombs in Necropolis 1 prompted a surface survey of the tell that confirmed the presence of extensive Bronze Age occupation. A robber pit located on the northeast corner of the tell exposed standing walls and a cistern. Two 5 × 5 m squares were opened here during the 2000 and 2001 excavation seasons. At least two architectural phases are evident from these Fig. 6. The three rooms, facing south, at Khirbet al-Mudaybi. two squares, which contain three partially excavat- The north room is in the foreground with the circular storage ed rooms, referred to as the north, south, and mid- pit; the middle room shows the sealed doorway into the dle rooms (fig. 6). south room. 2002] ARCHAEOLOGY IN JORDAN, 2001 SEASON 443

Fig. 7. Khirbet al-Mudaybi, view of the east wall showing the second phase wall cross cutting the fill in the middle room

Phase 2 architecture is defined primarily by the Jerash. Ina Kehrberg ([email protected]) east wall (fig. 7) of the north and middle, and pos- and John Manley, CBRL, report: sibly south, rooms. This is a double wall running In October of 2000, the authors examined the north–south that is constructed of parallel courses foundations of the west Gerasa city wall north of the of cobbles and boulders. A circular stone-lined stor- South Theatre.5 Interesting results from this project age pit in the north room may also belong to this led CBRL’s Jerash City Walls Project (JCWP) to ex- phase, which may date to the Late Bronze/Early amine the wall foundations at other points along Iron I period. Phase 2 walls are more massive but the enclosure wall. less meticulously built walls that stand about 60 cm The results of the September–October 2001 sea- high and are constructed above phase 1 rubble. son were richer than anticipated; the first find was The excavation of these three rooms has pro- not a foundation trench but a sealed hypogean duced 1,551 sherds consisting of 80.3% Late tomb discovered under the foundation of the city Bronze, 15.0% Middle Bronze, and 4.7% other pe- wall. The entrance to this single chamber shaft tomb riods. The excavated area is on a lower apron of the was closed by irregular blocks, which hid the single tell and is clearly affected by slope wash; therefore, burial, perhaps of a young female. The ceramics secure dating must await attributions for the scarab (fig. 8), gold leaf pectoral, and other objects in the and cylinder seal recovered. In addition to those chamber, and the ceramic sherds in the dromos objects, the excavation has produced a number of fill, indicate a date in the Late Hellenistic period glass, carnelian, shell, and stone beads and shell of the late second or early first century B.C. This pendants; flints and iron fragments; numerous date is confirmed by one Hellenistic coin found at stone objects including a mortar with pestle inden- the feet of the deceased. The singularity of the pot- tation, limestone and basalt bowls, and grinding tery camels (fig. 9) and bull models seems beyond stones; and Late Bronze lamp pieces. Excavated Hellenistic Gerasa or Antioch on the Chrysorhoas objects match sequences recorded from the tombs as it was known then. After initial inquiries and first on the site. scanning of publications, no parallels to these ves-

5 Savage et al. 2001, 446–8. 444 STEPHEN H. SAVAGE ET AL. [AJA 106 done for the “tomb trench” west of the North Gate between towers 46 and 47 and two further soundings closer to the North Gate. All three trenches revealed that the foundations of the city wall depend- ed on the topography of the terrain. Trench/wall 100 was founded on the rock-cut upper strata of the tomb; several deposits of soil sealed the tomb structure and provided secure dating material. Trench/ wall 200 showed a trench cut into the “Jerash soil” in order to place three courses of foundation blocks founded on natural sloping bedrock. Trench/wall 300 was founded on 8 courses of foundation wall, which was also cut into Jerash soil. The soil depth is a result of the deep wadi bed in the latter area; we placed the trench there in order to investigate the stratigraphy for the foundations when bedrock was Fig. 8. Ceramic evidence from Jerash Tomb JCWP01.100/ not available. The cuts of the foundation trenches 109 for 200 and 300 were clearly visible. The good quantity and variety of pottery and the sels seem apparent in Jordan for this or later peri- coins from 100, 200, and 300 provide a clear date ods. Inquiries further afield may prove more fruit- not later than early in the second century A.D., with ful, perhaps in contemporary Gulf countries such deposits into which the foundation trenches were as Bahrain. There are suggestions of possible Ptole- cut clearly dating earlier in the first centuries B.C. maic Egyptian influences, not only because of su- and A.D. The general terrain, where examined, perficially shared political climates, but also with shows remarkable homogeneity, well sealed below regard to contemporary funerary rituals. the modern, disturbed surface. The main aim of the project, however, was to ex- The results have been particularly interesting amine the stratification of the city wall, which was since they confirm the findings of the city wall

Fig. 9. Camel vessel from Jerash Tomb JCWP01.100/109 2002] ARCHAEOLOGY IN JORDAN, 2001 SEASON 445

Fig. 10. The fourth church, or chapel, at Wadi al-Kharrar trench north of the South Theatre (see above). The Beneath the chapel is an intact stone foundation foundation trench for the city wall in that location platform, constructed of well-cut sandstone ashlars. was also cut into a dense layer of first-century B.C. It appears that it was designed for structural support and A.D. deposits, which consisted of a kiln waste against possible flooding. Another solid stone plat- dump. Detailed studies of the first excavation form was found 3.5 m east of the chapel’s foundation (South Theatre trench) and this JCWP 2001 sea- platform. Both platforms still stand at a considerable son are in preparation, and they will be published height from the ground bed. Two layers of white plas- together. ter covered the walls of the foundation, probably to Wadi al-Kharrar. Mohammad Waheeb (m-waheeb prevent seepage. Several Greek inscriptions and @elmaghtas.com), DAJ, reports: crosses were incised on the plaster. Not reported last year was the discovery of a fourth Adjacent to the western side of the chapel and church located at the Baptism site in Wadi al-Khar- north of the second foundation, the team cleared rar. This fourth church, or more likely chapel, giv- three tombs that contained a boy, an adult man, en its small size, is located approximately 15 m east and an old man. The simple cyst tombs were at the of the third church and less than 200 m east of the same level of the chapel. Jordan River (fig. 10). Measuring 4 × 6 m, the chap- Excavations also revealed a walled staircase that el is built of well-cut sandstone ashlars that were links the chapel and second foundation platform possibly brought from the Wadi Hesban area dur- to the three churches built on top of each other. ing the Byzantine period. Most of the chapel’s south The staircase was paved with black marble, and the side is gone, probably damaged by erosion caused width of each of the 22 steps that were found was by flooding of the Jordan River and the John the 2.5 m. The north wall of the staircase remains in Baptist Spring. The apse and north side, however, situ; however, the south wall was destroyed and are well preserved. mostly washed away. Several crosses and Greek let- The chapel’s floor and walls were plastered. A ters were found on the north wall. Corinthian marble capital was used in the pavement Tall Hisban. Øystein S. LaBianca (labianca@ of the apse area. No mosaic floor remains or signif- andrews.edu), Andrews University, and Bethany J. icant artifacts were found during excavation; how- Walker, Oklahoma State University, report: ever, some pottery sherds, marble fragments, and The Madaba Plains Project conducted field re- bones were recovered. The pottery sherds date to search at Tall Hisban during May and June of 2001. the Byzantine and Early Islamic periods. The site, which is located in the Transjordanian 446 STEPHEN H. SAVAGE ET AL. [AJA 106 highlands northeast of the Dead Sea, presents re- munities. To facilitate what is relatively new re- searchers with a unique opportunity to examine search into the Ottoman and modern periods in the intersection of urban officialdom with rural Jordan, the Madaba Plains Project devised six suc- communities. The main goal of the 2001 field sea- cessive cultural periods into which we are subdi- son was to shed light on these interactions from the viding these centuries: the post-Mamluk (1500– Islamic conquest to the present. 1520); Early Ottoman (1520–1600); Aceramic Trib- The political role of Hisban during the Umayyad al (1600–1850); Pioneer (1850–1920); Mandate and Abbasid periods was illustrated clearly for the (1920–1940); and Hashemite (1940–present). first time this season. Excavations of the 1970s, while The post-Mamluk period is characterized by providing some evidence of early Islamic occupa- whole-scale withdrawal from Transjordan by a Mam- tion in the form of tabuns and pottery, left the im- luk Sultan beset with economic and political prob- pression that these periods were ones of abatement lems in Cairo. With the withdrawal of the Egyptian in the settlement history of the site. In 2001, exca- garrisons, villagers had no defense against maraud- vations uncovered two rooms in field N, in the north- ing tribesmen and gradually abandoned their west corner of the tell. This is the first Umayyad- homes for a seminomadic lifestyle. Hisban’s tell was period architecture identified at Hisban. The also abandoned at this point. When the Ottomans rooms, built against the Hellenistic fortification wall took Transjordan from the Mamluk state in 1516, and close to the northern sally gate, attest to contin- their immediate concern was to regarrison strate- ued occupation of the tell well after the Islamic gic points and rebuild a tax-collecting apparatus. conquests. After an earthquake in the mid seventh There is some evidence on Hisban’s tell for squat- century A.D., which was responsible for the collapse ter occupation of the Mamluk ruins in this period. of the stone barrel vaults, the structure was reoccu- By the end of the 16th century, Istanbul had tired pied and used into the Abbasid period. Fine Umayy- of its defensive responsibilities in Transjordan and ad wares and imported Abbasid “splash” wares were withdrew its forces and economic support, leaving found, indicating that Hisban was connected polit- administration (such as it existed) in local hands. ically and economically to Damascus and Baghdad. Once again, villagers abandoned their homes and During the 2001 season, as well as the 1998 sea- began to live in caves. While there is no evidence of son, most of what is believed to be the residence of reoccupation of the tell in this period, caves around the Belqa governor during the Mamluk period was the tell were occupied on a seasonal basis. The tell excavated. The residence proper consists of a series was used, however, as a seasonal burial ground by of rooms around a paved, open courtyard flanked by the Adwan. The Adwan cemetery of the 19th cen- a private bathhouse and protected by a reinforced, tury was uncovered in the remains of the vaulted rectangular tower. On the south side of this com- Mamluk storeroom in the 1998 and 2001 seasons. plex is a large, barrel-vaulted storeroom full of sugar The Pioneer period was one of renewed settle- jars, glazed wares with military-style inscriptions, and ment and market-oriented agriculture. Architec- javelin points. There is evidence of earthquake col- tural and ethnohistorical investigations of the forti- lapse and fire for the mid 14th-century destruction fied farmhouse (qasr) located in the present-day that preserved the contents of the store. The store- village of Hisban have shed light on the history of room and bathhouse provided the best evidence for the village for this era. Leen Fakhoury, a professor the ways in which Hisban was a center for official in the Department of Architecture of the Universi- exploitation of the rural hinterland. A large quantity of Jordan, and four of her students assisted with ty of imported glazed wares, in addition to locally architectural studies of this qasr. made handmade jars and bowls, attests to this rural As in previous seasons, work has continued on center’s connection to larger markets. The bath- restoring ruins from the Islamic and earlier centu- house, not attested at any citadel anywhere else in ries. In efforts to protect and present Hisban to the the Mamluk state, may have been used by the gover- local public and to foreign visitors, our team has nor to entertain local tribal leaders, much in the style collaborated with the Ministry of Tourism and An- of the Transjordanian Umayyad qusur. In this sense, tiquities, the newly appointed governor of Hisban, official and local politics intersected at Hisban. the village mayor, the Hisban schools, and the fam- While the Umayyad, Abbasid, and Mamluk peri- ilies of the local workmen. ods at Hisban provide material evidence of official Wadi ath-Thamad. P.M. Michèle Daviau (mdavia interest in the provinces, the Ottoman period [email protected]), Wilfrid Laurier University, reports: (1516–1918) stands out for the ways in which with- The fifth season of excavation at Khirbat al-Mu- drawal of the central government affects rural com- dayna was conducted from 1 July to 8 August 2001. 2002] ARCHAEOLOGY IN JORDAN, 2001 SEASON 447 At Khirbat al-Mudayna, work begun during the first arches in both buildings, the flagstone floor in four seasons (1996–1999) continued in the area B800, and finely wrought doorjambs and threshold of the North Gate (B100, directed by R. Chadwick) attest to the luxuriousness of this structure. The and in Temple 149 (directed by M. Steiner). Ad- western and northern perimeter walls, W8016 and ditional exposure of the Nabataean Building W8017, are as substantial as the walls surrounding (B800, directed by L. Foley) was concentrated in B800. Last season’s excavation of one complete room the rooms along the north outer wall. Salvage ex- (R811) revealed a simple 3 m² room with a beaten cavation of Shrine Site WT #13, directed by L. Fo- earth surface, which one entered through a 1.05 m ley, was carried out from 2–12 July as part of the long 2-stepped threshold. The simple doorjamb Regional Survey. The survey team, directed by Prof. suggests that it supported a small door. The finds C.M. Foley, continued the documentation of sites in this room do not indicate its exact purpose. Ba- found in previous seasons and located a Yarmuki- salt grinders, which appear to have been ceiling an village (7,500 B.P.) on the north bank of Wadi collapse, attest to a domestic function on the sec- ath-Thamad. ond story. Clearing more rooms to floor surface in 2001 revealed three additional rooms along the The Nabataean–Early Roman Settlement north wall of the complex and two ovens in the cen- Building 700 is an open reservoir that was used tral courtyard. during the first century and later remodeled and used as a domestic or storage building. Two tasks The Iron Age Town remained unfinished at the start of the season: ex- The Iron Age town at Khirbat al-Mudayna crowns amination of the construction of the plaster floor a steep hill overlooking the wadi. Previous excava- and the final clearance of debris that covered mate- tion revealed a casemate wall that surrounded the rial from the final use phase. Examination of the site and was pierced by a six-chambered gate. A floor was undertaken between two of the central courtyard and a late Iron II temple, with limestone piers, which supported double arches that roofed altars, lay inside the town, immediately south of the the building in its final phase. The fill between gate. Evidence in the gate rooms and in the central piers 8 and 9 was removed in order to check the road of the gate suggests it was stormed and burned stratigraphic relationship of the floor (L13:23) and in the seventh century B.C. the piers. It was clear that both the piers and the fill Work to the south of the temple in 2001 revealed between them had been put in position on the plas- a building (B200) divided into three parallel rooms tered floor. Under the floor itself, there were sever- by two rows of pillars. Stone basins were found be- al layers of cobble-sized stone, packed with brown tween each pair of pillars (fig. 11). Both the pillars clay. Against the south wall, there was a row of wall and the basins were covered with several coats of stones that protruded in header and stretcher fash- plaster, suggesting industrial activity. Excavation in ion from the face of the wall, marking the position the central room uncovered fallen, burned roof of layer two of support stones for the plaster floor. beams; another shaft altar used to burn incense that With the removal of a balk that ran up to the north was inscribed on one side with a stylized lotus; loom wall of the reservoir, an oven was uncovered, along weights; and an ivory spindle. with early Roman pottery smashed in place beside Excavations continued outside the north en- it. The oven was built over the layer of plaster that trance of the gate. On the east side, a bench and served as a repair to the original plastered floor. small plaza were uncovered in front of the eastern The oven itself consisted of a ceramic liner, packed tower. A stone niche with two standing stones was with clay on the exterior. With the completion of found perpendicular to the bench. Evidence for these probes, work in Building 700 was finished. an earlier stratum was uncovered below the level of Buildings 800 and 802, located to the north of the plastered forecourt to the north of the main the reservoir, date to the same period. Four seasons entrance. A series of round, stone storage silos of excavation have unearthed a complex structure formed a tight cluster that was supported on the known as the Nabataean house-villa. Framed by steeply sloping bedrock by earthen fills packed with perimeter walls, the southern complex consists of fieldstones. The silos were ca. 4 m in diameter and two major buildings, Building 800 in the east and 2.5 m deep. Building 802 in the west. These two buildings are At the opposite end of the site from the gate, a surrounded by a perimeter wall and contain more trench was dug across the inner and outer case- than eight well-built rooms with arched roofs that mate walls and down the slope to a ditch that encir- support a second floor over B800. The integrated cles the walled town. The trench contained evi- 448 STEPHEN H. SAVAGE ET AL. [AJA 106

Fig. 11. Stone basins in Building 200, Khirbet al-Mudayna dence for the construction of the fortification sys- antenna. Data were collected on a 50 cm grid for tem in the form of a glacis of crushed limestone maximum illumination of subsurface features, with and plaster. At the base of the glacis, a dry moat was reliable readings to the depth of 3.5 m. The result- cut out of the bedrock at a place where the bedrock ing data were displayed on a monitor in the form of drops naturally. Further probes in the 2002 season vertical profiles in which major architectural fea- will investigate the glacis on the north side, where tures were immediately identified. The spatial re- the slope has a different formation because of the lationship of these features was further illuminat- position of the gate. ed with the production of horizontal amplitude slic- Petra. The Petra Garden Feasibility Study. Leigh- es of the terrace’s subsurface. The GPR results re- Ann Bedal ([email protected]), reports: vealed that the earthen terrace is mostly unbuilt In July 2001, a feasibility study was carried out in upon, but with a series of stone structures laid out an area of Petra’s city center that was identified as a along its central north–south axis and another ma- garden and pool complex during a 1998 survey and jor stone structure along the eastern border. In ad- excavation.6 The goal of the two-week feasibility dition, a number of smaller, less defined features study was to identify the major components and lay- in various locations and depths across the site were out of the garden terrace, located north of the mon- detected. umental swimming pool, and to determine the Three features stood out as of primary interest to degree of its preservation using ground-penetrat- the goals and scope of the feasibility study for fur- ing radar (GPR) in combination with auger tests ther investigation through excavation. Two of these (for stratigraphy and soil morphology) and strate- appeared in the GPR as solid stone structures— gic excavation (fig. 12). one located at the center of the terrace, the second During the first three days, GPR survey was car- 12 m to the south, just north of the pool’s monu- ried out over approximately three-quarters of the mental east–west wall. Excavations in trenches 2 earthen terrace (65 × 53 m) using a subsurface in- (center) and 5 (south) revealed the lower courses terface radar (SIR)-2000 system with a 400 MHz of two stone platforms, each packed with rubble

6 Bedal 1999, 2000. 2002] ARCHAEOLOGY IN JORDAN, 2001 SEASON 449

Fig. 12. Plan of the Petra Garden and Pool Complex at the end of the 2001 season. (F. Ishaqat and L. Bedal) and faced with sandstone ashlars. The central plat- rectangle (8.5 × 11 m) buried just below the sur- form is roughly square, measuring 3.67 × 3.85 m, face. Trenches 6 and 8 exposed sections of founda- with a small limestone basin with a drainage hole tion walls in the southeast and northwest corners of resting against its southern face (fig. 13). Stone this feature, referred to here as the “North Build- conduits emerging from a water diversion tank (cas- ing.” Although its function or date could not be tellum) in the pool’s east–west wall lead to the south- determined from this limited exposure, the build- ern platform, suggesting its function as a hydraulic ing’s alignment and central orientation with the installation, perhaps a basin or fountain. site’s other major architectural elements suggest The third area of investigation revealed by the that it was an important garden feature. GPR was a broken rectangular outline of stone, ori- In addition to providing a map of the stone struc- ented along the terrace’s central axis a few meters tures on the terrace, the GPR survey indicated open south of the northern retaining wall. In order to areas where we might search for remnants of the disqualify any chance that the perceived wall lines garden soils. Vertical profiles showed laminated were linear anomalies, a 25 cm grid was laid out at a surfaces to the east of the North Building. Using 45o angle to the site’s major axis for a detailed GPR soil cores and excavations, three surfaces were de- study. The resulting data clearly showed a stone tected that have characteristics consistent with cul- 450 STEPHEN H. SAVAGE ET AL. [AJA 106 excavation of the lower area (Building 2). In order to achieve the first objective, a north–south trench was excavated in the center of Building 1. Although this trench revealed further information about the activities of the post-Byzantine occupants of the area, it did not clarify the use of the building in the Byz- antine era. The trench and associated work revealed a number of secondary north–south walls across the building. Those walls may indicate that the structure was divided into small areas during the Byzan- tine era. Such construction leads the excavators to speculate that it may have had some communal func- Fig. 13. Central platform (trench 2), the Petra Garden and tion, perhaps as housing for persons from the reli- Pool Complex, looking northwest. The small basin indicates gious sector, that is, it may have been part of a mon- a hydraulic function. astery or hostel. The relationship between Build- ings 1 and 2 is still not clear. The only entrance into tivated soils—mottling and a high content of char- Building 2 appears to be down a staircase from coal bits and pottery sherds. The uppermost soil Building 1 or from a passageway that may run be- represents present-day agricultural use by the lo- tween the two buildings. In the latter case, the two cal Bedouin. The lower two soil strata are each like- buildings had separate functions. In the former, ly candidates for the garden surface of the Classi- they are one unit. It is hoped that a few small probes cal period. Characterization analyses will aid in es- in the future will clarify this. tablishing the morphology of soil units. Future ex- Excavation continued in Building 2 and is now cavations will involve horizontal exposure of each almost complete. Three architectural units were of these strata in the hopes of identifying subtle previously defined for this building: the Blue Chap- features, such as tree pits and earthen irrigation el to the east; the central unit with a hallway open- channels, that cannot be easily detected in vertical ing into a room to the south and the staircase to the soundings. north; and the large rectangular room to the west. Underlying the lowermost cultivated stratum in This rectangular room contains four short columns trench 6 was an oval stone-lined pit (1.5 m long). (reused from the Temple of the Winged Lions) Pottery sherds found within the pit are consistent that, together with eight pilasters on the walls, sup- with a first-century B.C.E. date. The pit is oriented ported the ceiling. An elaborate drainage system perpendicular to a bold oblique stone line that is suggests that the central part of the room was open. visible in the GPR data, located 10 m to the north The project architect believes that both the west- and below the level of the North Building (1.2–2.4 ern room and the central block had second stories. m below the surface). It is likely that these deeper Evidence for a second story was in fact found in the features are associated with houses dated to the central block in the form of large sandstone slabs third–first centuries B.C.E. that were buried by the that would have formed the ceiling for the staircase construction of the garden terrace.7 The discovery area, the hall, and the south room. Excavation of of features belonging to the site’s pre-garden phase the hall revealed that it had a vaulted ceiling con- offers promise for future clarification of the chro- structed of stones recut from Nabataean capitals nological development of Petra’s city center. and other architectural materials. Petra. North Ridge Project. Patricia M. Bikai and Excavation in the chapel was completed. The Megan Perry, ACOR ([email protected]), report: north apse was found to be centered on a niche Excavations on the North Ridge at Petra were accessed by three steps. The center of the niche conducted from 25 March through 3 May 2001. contained a reliquary, emptied in antiquity. Excava- Work concentrated on the Blue Chapel Complex tion near the pulpit yielded more fragments of its that lies between the Ridge Church and the Petra blue marble surround. Two radiocarbon dates each Church (fig. 14). provide a date of A.D. 511 (one ± 30, the other ± The two objectives this season were to determine 50) for the construction of the chapel. All excava- the function of Building 1, and to complete the tion areas continued to yield remains of the post-

7 Parr 1970. 2002] ARCHAEOLOGY IN JORDAN, 2001 SEASON 451

Fig. 14. The Blue Chapel Complex, Petra North Ridge Project, showing Buildings 1 and 2

Byzantine occupants of the site. Their major archae- 15) from June to August 2001. This season helped ologically visible activities appear to have been scav- clarify the architecture of the precinct. Earlier ex- enging and looting of the many tombs that occur in cavations in the West Propylaeum had uncovered the bedrock of the North Ridge. In Building 1, they elephant-headed capitals from the Lower Temenos, had systematically lifted the stone paving of that and this season, the first completely preserved ele- building to reach bedrock. A large cache of glass phant-headed capital was found. Continuing exca- found in the south room of Building 2 may indi- vations in the West Propylaeum also revealed dou- cate that the occupants also collected raw materi- ble limestone betyls found in a niche (fig. 16). als, as likewise discovered at the Petra Church. These sacred aniconic representations of Nabatae- These occupants probably ceased their activities in an deities are approximately 50 cm high, 21 cm much of the complex after the earthquake that wide, and 9 cm thick. A test trench confirmed that brought down the colonnade in the chapel. Based the earliest wall of the Propylaeum was the terrace on a radiocarbon date of bone found immediately wall separating the precinct from the Colonnaded under a collapsed chapel column (1290 B.P. = A.D. Street. 711 ± 30), the earthquake of A.D. 749/50 is likely Excavations below the west triple colonnade of the one that caused the most damage. After that the Lower Temenos were also undertaken in the event, occupation seems to have continued, partic- cryptoporticus to a depth of 6 m, where limestone ularly in the hallway, the west room, and probably flooring was found in an excellent state of preser- Building 1, perhaps even into the Mamluk period. vation. In the Upper Temenos, a chapel with fres- Petra. The Great Temple. Martha Sharp coed walls, hexagonal pavement, and an empty cult Joukowsky (Martha_ [email protected]), Brown niche was revealed as part of the installation of the University, reports: south perimeter wall. Excavations in the Upper The Brown University team conducted its ninth Temenos east also uncovered a subterranean cis- season of excavation at the Petra Great Temple (fig. tern measuring 8.5 × 7.8 m. It was partially excavat- 452 STEPHEN H. SAVAGE ET AL. [AJA 106

Fig. 15. The Petra Great Temple, 2001, aerial view looking west. (A.A.W. Joukowsky) ed by a test trench to its original depth of 5.88 m and part of his left forearm. Another sculpture con- from its roof; it would have once held 390 m² of sists of a marble base from a small statue with a boot- water. Above this cistern was a bedrock chamber ed foot trimmed with a panther head. In the stucco with a chiseled out bedrock basin and an oven. catalogue were 11 fragments with graffiti or with Considerable amounts of Nabataean ceramics were gold overlay. These items were added to our data- found associated with these features. bases, and various marble artifacts and architectur- The partially collapsed east perimeter wall arch al elements were sampled for testing to determine was removed, and excavations continued below it. their origins. A small room with high arched niches and the later Excavations also continued at the Small Temple, installation of an oven and trough were found. Ad- where approximately 430 marble fragments in- ditionally, a substantial cache of Nabataean utilitar- scribed in Greek and Latin were recovered. The ian wares was found associated with the oven. dimensions of this edifice were also redefined. The only large project remaining in the Great Tentative conclusions suggest that this edifice Temple, which has now been completely excavat- might have served as a Roman imperial cult build- ed, was to clear the south corridor of collapsed de- ing. bris. Removal of this debris revealed the exquisite Petra. The Obodas Chapel. Laïla Nehmé stucco embellishments of the entire corridor wall. ([email protected]), Centre National Most surprising here was the recovery of two mas- de la Recherche Scientifique, reports: sive sculpted stucco lions, which must have been The first season of excavation at the Obodas Chap- positioned opposite each other above the central el took place between 24 April and 20 May 2001. doorway leading into the corridor. The team consisted of Laïla Nehmé (director), Besides the artifacts mentioned above, we recov- Steve Glisoni (archaeologist), and Mehdi Abdelaziz ered 26 coins, 10 catalogued lamps, 42 more ele- (epigraphist). First discovered in 1862 by Jacques phant head components, 14 bone pins, 1 bone spat- Ehni, the Obodas Chapel is a rock-cut sanctuary ula, and a small limestone sculpture of a youthful located in the Nmayr area of Petra, ca. 1.7 km south- male (15.84 cm in height) with his torso, right leg, east of Qasr al-Bint.8

8 Brünnow and von Domaszewski 1904–1909, no. 290. 2002] ARCHAEOLOGY IN JORDAN, 2001 SEASON 453 The chapel is a wide open chamber, 6 m wide × long as it is wide, a proportion attested nowhere 12.5 m deep, with finely dressed walls. A large sec- else in Petra. tion of rock above the chapel’s opening is dressed, The head of a statue, carved in sandstone, was presumably to form the back wall of an upper room, discovered face down in front of the back bench the front and side walls of which are built in mason- (fig. 18). Its lower part is unfortunately damaged. A ry. The ceiling at the front of the room is 0.75 m bust, discovered in front of the chapel, may belong higher than the ceiling at the back, and a four-line to the same statue, but there is a gap between the Nabataean inscription, CIS 2.354, is carved on the two parts. The dimensions of both the head and vertical area between the two ceilings. This inscrip- the bust are compatible with those of the niche, tion is a dedication of a statue of Obodas and is and it is possible that this is part of the Obodas dated to the 29th year of Aretas IV (A.D. 20) There statue mentioned in the inscription. From his curly are also several groups of three holes, arranged in hair he appears to have been portrayed as a young triangles, that form a row in the upper part of the god. Until now this deity has been known only from back wall. They were probably used to attach deco- epigraphic and literary sources, and this would be rative elements (made of stucco?) and are well at- the first time a representation of him has been tested elsewhere in Petra. A niche, ca. 0.9 × 1.85 m, found. The statue most probably stood in the niche, is located 0.9 m above the floor in the center of the where the members of the symposium of Obodas who back wall. met in the triclinium could worship it. Two soundings were made inside the chapel The sounding at the front of the chamber found proper, one directly below the niche and one in mainly destruction layers containing fragments of the front part of the chamber (fig. 17). They re- sandstone slabs, probably from the floor of the up- vealed that this was not an ordinary chapel but a per room, some column drums, and a small capital. triclinium, a room with three benches carved out of Also this season, a long wall, part of which was the rock walls, one on each side and one at the visible prior to excavation, was completely cleared. back. The length of the side benches, 11.45 m, It was a diversion wall built to protect the religious makes it one of the largest of the 40 triclinia known installations from water runoff. The construction so far in Petra. The back bench, however, is only 6 m technique is very rough, and it was probably built in long, which means the triclinium is almost twice as a hurry.

Fig. 16. The betyls in situ at the Great Temple. (A.A.W. Joukowsky) 454 STEPHEN H. SAVAGE ET AL. [AJA 106

Fig. 17. Plan of the southern part of the Obodas Chapel terrace. (L. Nehmé)

We also discovered a small room ca. 40 m to the graffiti have been checked, and the inscriptions northwest of the chapel. Although it is in bad shape will be published together with the results of the and part of the ceiling has collapsed, enough re- excavation after the 2002 season. mains for it to be identified as a biclinium, a room It is now necessary to reconsider the working hy- with two benches, comparable to the 15 known pothesis, according to which the ca. 30 rock-cut roofed biclinia in Petra. A 2.5 × 3.40 m rectangular chambers in Petra containing at least one cultic structure built in masonry, located 40 m north of element such as a betyl or an altar, have been inter- the chapel, was also cleared. This structure was not preted as “chapels.” Based on data collected this founded on bedrock but on sand, and its function season, at least a certain number of them are in fact remains obscure. triclinia. In addition, all visible monuments on the ter- During the forthcoming season, the front part of race in front of the Obodas Chapel were planned the chapel will be cleared in order to confirm and photographed, and some of them will be ex- whether or not there was an upper story and to de- plored during the next season. These include two termine the function of the space and structures in niches,9 another “chapel,”10 a room almost com- front of the triclinium (courtyard, portico?). We will pletely filled with sand,11 a cistern,12 and two ablu- also attempt to reach the ancient ground level in tion basins.13 The readings of the 133 Nabataean the passage leading to the terrace, and will try to

9 Brünnow and von Domaszewski 1904–1909, no. 289. 12 Dalman 1908, no. 297. 10 Brünnow and von Domaszewski 1904–1909, no. 291. 13 Dalman 1908, no. 298. 11 Dalman 1908, no. 296. 2002] ARCHAEOLOGY IN JORDAN, 2001 SEASON 455

Fig. 18. Head of the statue of the god Obodas. (L. Nehmé) find more evidence of a possible gateway or arch in Aaron. The project’s survey team did not partici- the middle of this passage. We hope that sound- pate in the 2001 season, but continued its research ings in room no. 291 will reveal whether or not it is program in Helsinki. a triclinium. This information is crucial to under- Excavation work was conducted in two trenches, standing how Nabataean religious space worked one of which (trench O) is located at the highest and whether an-Nmayr is better compared to Al- point on the site. This trench is also adjacent to the Madras or to a sanctuary such as Qattâr ad-Dayr. In- monumental structure filled up with stones, which creased amounts of pottery should refine the dat- was excavated in 2000. Trench O yielded well-pre- ing of the Obodas Chapel. The pottery discovered served remains of a room with three arches (fig. in both soundings in 2001 dates mainly to the first 19). The room features several phases of occupa- and beginning of the second century A.D. tion, from the Nabataean through the Late Byzan- Jabal Harûn. Jaakko Frösén ([email protected] tine periods, including two major destruction epi- .fi) and Zbigniew T. Fiema (Zbigniew.Fiema sodes. The main architectural parts were recon- @helsinki.fi), University of Helsinki, report: structed after each destruction, including two lev- The Jabal Harûn Project (FJHP), sponsored by els of a plastered floor. It is now apparent that while the University of Helsinki and the Academy of Fin- the room in trench O and the adjacent structure land, carried out its fourth fieldwork season in Sep- originated in the Nabataean period, the intention- tember 2001. The 15-member team included ar- al filling up of the latter must have occurred dur- chaeologists, cartographers, conservators, and stu- ing the later phases of occupation at the site, and dents. The excavation site is a large, ruined archi- not during the Nabataean period, as previously as- tectural complex located on a plateau below the sumed. summit of Jabal Harûn (Mountain of Aaron) near Excavation of the other trench (P) yielded the Petra in southern Jordan. According to Jewish, remains of a room with two arches, which was prob- Christian, and Islamic traditions, the mountain is ably occupied during the Byzantine and Early Is- the burial place of Aaron, Moses’ brother. The 2001 lamic periods. Initially, the central part of the room excavations concentrated on the western area of was occupied by a round, low platform built of flat the site, which is considered to have been a Byzan- stones, of which one quarter was exposed (fig. 20). tine monastic/pilgrimage center dedicated to St. Most probably, the platform functioned as a base 456 STEPHEN H. SAVAGE ET AL. [AJA 106

Fig. 19. The large, multiphased room excavated in trench O at Jabal Harûn, as viewed from the north. (Jan Vihonen) for a basalt-made, rotating grain mill, the upper part produced at the site. Apparently, the St. Aaron of which was found nearby. At the beginning of the monastery had its own food production and pro- latest phase of occupation, a large, stone piled struc- cessing base, as is expected in the case of a coenobi- ture was built against the southern face of the north- um-type monastery ern wall and on top of the round platform. The Wadi Araba Earthquake Project. Tina M. Niemi function of this installation is unknown; it might ([email protected]), University of Missouri-Kansas have been a supportive buttress or a platform for City, reports: some special purpose. The 2001 season of the Wadi Araba Earthquake Directly south of the room, a narrow space was Project was conducted at Qasr Tilah and Aqaba excavated that yielded the well-stratified remains during May. The main goal of this season was to of an extensive midden. It contained large quanti- define and date archaeological structures that have ties of fish scales and bones (primarily Scaridae, or been offset by earthquake motion along the fault in parrot fish), often in the matrix of very ashy soil and order to constrain the location and magnitude of associated with the sherds of cooking pots. The known historical earthquakes. Our investigations midden was probably used in the later phases of concentrated on two archaeological sites, Qasr Ti- occupation in the adjacent room. The overwhelm- lah and Islamic Ayla in Jordan, that appear to be ing predominance of fish scales and bones in the traversed by an active strand of the Dead Sea trans- midden is expected in the monastic/pilgrimage form fault. Three different methodologies were context, but a detailed analysis of this material may utilized: (1) archaeological excavation, (2) magne- detect specific patterns and variations in the di- tometer and ground-penetrating radar surveys, and etary practices at the site. Meanwhile, the prelimi- (3) geologic subsurface probes. The research team nary examination of the material indicates that it included four senior staff representing three uni- relates to the food preparation activities, and not to versities in the United States (Dr. Lee Slater from the actual consumption, which must have taken University of Missouri-Kansas City, Dr. Bruce Harri- place somewhere else at the site. The discovery of son from New Mexico Institute of Mining and Tech- the rotating grain mill indicates that the flour was nology, and Dr. Janet Brashler from Grand Valley 2002] ARCHAEOLOGY IN JORDAN, 2001 SEASON 457 State University) and Dr. Mohammad Atallah from cracks located in the wall and floor of the aqueduct Yarmouk University in Jordan. Dr. Tina Niemi di- as well as subsidence and slope in a direction op- rected the project. The National Geographic Soci- posite to the original water flow. A portion of the ety provided funding for the field research. wall was broken away and moved toward the interi- Three exploratory archaeological trenches were or of the aqueduct. The floor at the southernmost excavated at Qasr Tilah in the area to the west and excavated portion of the aqueduct was lower than slightly south of the birkeh designated area A. the juncture of this section with the east–west ori- Trenches were located in hopes of sectioning de- ented section indicating subsidence on the upper posits affected by past earthquakes that contained end of the aqueduct. Additional evidence for re- archaeological features and deposits. Area A.1, sit- building or maintenance of the aqueduct that may uated to the south side of the birkeh, produced or may not be related to past earthquakes is evident evidence of the exact location of the main, strike- in two different layers of plaster, as well as the rocks slip fault and a secondary zone of fracturing. Both that cap the aqueduct. There was insufficient time faults are primarily within natural geologic strata. to trace the aqueduct to the fault to determine the With the exception of a series of large stones that amount of lateral offset. This is one key issue that may have been related to a terrace or water control will be addressed in a future field season. mechanism, there was relatively little cultural ma- Area A.3 was excavated to determine if the east– terial present in the strata. west aqueduct continued to the birkeh and was Area A.2 was located due west of the birkeh at a perhaps related to an earlier construction. After point where surface evidence of an aqueduct chan- surface debris consisting of vandal’s rubble and nel disappeared. Area A.2 revealed that the aque- tumble from the outer wall of the birkeh was re- duct running directly west from the birkeh appears moved, a series of rectangular stones were identi- to take a southeast turn and proceed toward the fied as cover stones of a burial. The burial was placed wadi. It is clear that the southeast-oriented aque- in an east–west orientation in a cist tomb with stone- duct was affected by at least one and possibly sever- slab walls making up the western half of the tomb al earthquakes. Evidence for this includes several and top. The burial contained a perfectly articulat-

Fig. 20. The round platform (left) and the rotary grain mill (center) in trench P at Jabal Harûn. (Jan Vihonen) 458 S.H. SAVAGE ET AL., ARCHAEOLOGY IN JORDAN, 2001 SEASON ed skeleton, which suggested that the majority of shaking and liquefaction (such as tilting and slump- the burial has not been disturbed by any earthquake ing and subsequent repair). However, in order to events. Only the footstones appear to be dislodged. verify the hypothesis that the walls of Islamic Ayla Blocks from the birkeh wall clearly cover the cist are offset because of primary earthquake fault rup- tomb. The apparent lack of major disturbance with- ture (as proposed by Professor Donald Whitcomb in the tomb is potentially significant given the posi- of the Oriental Institute at the University of Chica- tion of the birkeh, and the fact that a part of the go), we conducted GPR and Total Station topo- birkeh wall immediately east of the burial failed at graphic surveys, and excavation along the north- some time perhaps after the earthquake and after ern city wall. The archaeological excavation and the burial was in the ground. The spatial and tem- geophysical surveys were both inconclusive as to poral relationships between the burial, aqueduct, whether the ancient site of Islamic Ayla is traversed and birkeh are provocative and warrant additional by an active fault. The high level of cultural noise, research. which can obscure geological signatures, compli- A subsurface geologic probe excavated north of cates the use of geophysical methods in this urban the seventh-century A.D. birkeh exposed a 3 m wide environment. We successfully delimited the active zone of upward branching fault splays. The strati- fault farther to the northeast within the modern graphic record revealed evidence for at least two city of Aqaba using GPR. It is plausible that the and as many as five earthquakes in the section. The fault projects through Ayla. Additional work is need- most recent earthquake clearly cuts through sedi- ed in order to find direct physical evidence of the mentary layers full of mortar, charcoal, building fault or a fault offset at Ayla. blocks, and other tumble debris from the collapse of the birkeh. These data indicate that there is at american center of oriental research least one earthquake that postdates the collapse of p.o. box 2470 the birkeh wall. It also indicates that the 2–2.5 m amman 11181, jordan offset of the northwestern birkeh corner occurred [email protected] in at least two earthquakes. Several earthquakes are known from historical records to have occurred in the vicinity of the south- Works Cited ern Dead Sea, Kerak, and Wadi Araba. These include the earthquakes of A.D. 31, 363, 659/60, 1068, 1212, 1293, and 1456–1459. At this time, we Bedal, L.-A. 1999. “A Paradeisos in Petra: New Light on do not have enough age control to assign any of the the ‘Lower Market’.” ADAJ 43:227–39. ———. 2000. “The Petra Pool-Complex: A Hellenistic known historical earthquakes to this section of the Paradeisos in the Nabataean Capital (Results from the fault. Radiocarbon samples from key stratigraphic Petra ‘Lower Market’ Survey and Excavation, 1998).” horizons were collected and should enable us to Ph.D. diss., University of Pennsylvania. date the individual seismic events identified in the Brünnow, R.E., and A. von Domaszewski. 1904–1909. Die trenches. Further excavation and trenching at the Provincia Arabia: Auf Grund zweier in den Jahren 1897 und 1898 unternommenen Reisen und der Berichte früher- Qasr Tilah site is needed to fully document the er Reisender. 3 vols. Strassburg: K.J. Trubner. earthquake history along this section of the Wadi Dalman, G. 1908. Petra und seine Felsheiligtümer. Leipzig: Araba fault. J.C. Hinrichs. In Aqaba, ongoing archaeological excavations of Parr, P. 1970. “A Sequence of Pottery from Petra.” In the Early Islamic walled city of Ayla by Department Near Eastern Archaeology in the Twentieth Century: Essays in Honor of Nelson Glueck, edited by J.A. Sanders, 348– of Antiquities representative Ms. Salson Fakri con- 81. Garden City, NY: Doubleday. tinue to uncover collapsed walls. It is clear that the Savage, S.H., K.A. Zamora, and D.R. Keller. 2001. “Ar- city wall has sustained earthquake damage from chaeology in Jordan.” AJA 105:427–61. REVIEW ARTICLES Synthesizing the Paleolithic

JOHN J. SHEA

The Palaeolithic Societies of Europe, by Clive The first work to be considered is Clive Gamble’s The Gamble. (Cambridge World Archaeology.) Pp. xxi Palaeolithic Societies of Europe. This book is a successor to Gamble’s impressive synthesis The Palaeolithic Settlement + 505, figs. 124, tables 108. Cambridge University of Europe.1 Whereas Settlement placed the Paleolithic record Press, New York 1999. $85 (cloth); $37.95 (pa- in its ecogeographic context, emphasizing intraregional per). ISBN 0-521-61105-0 (cloth); 0-521-61872-1 variability in settlement history, the new volume, Socie- (paper). ties, has a more ambitious goal, that of modeling changes in hominid social behavior through the Pleistocene. As The Middle Palaeolithic Occupation of Eu- Gamble notes in his introductory chapter, Paleolithic ar- rope, edited by Wil Roebroeks and Clive Gamble. Pp. chaeologists have tended to avoid the problem of recon- 240, b&w ills. 46, tables 17, maps 8. University of structing social behavior. Gamble asserts that social networks were the principal adaptive structure for Pleistocene Leiden, Leiden 1999. $65. ISBN 90-73368-12-X humans. Structural properties of these networks can be (cloth). deduced from the location and structure of well-preserved Hunters of the Golden Age: The Mid-Upper archaeological sites, spatial patterning of raw material transfers, and the complexity of artifact production se- Palaeolithic of Eurasia 30,000–20,000 bp, quences (chaines opératoires). edited by Wil Roebroeks, Margherita Mussi, Jiri Evidence from the earliest phase of human settle- Svoboda, and Kelly Fennema. Pp. 410, figs. 93, tables ment, 500,000–300,000 years ago (the Lower Paleolith- 62. University of Leiden, Leiden 2000. $75. ISBN ic), suggests relatively small, temporary social networks. Archaeological sites from this time range, such as No- 90-73368-15-4 (cloth). tarchiricho, Hoxne, and Isernia La Pineta, are palimp- For many archaeologists the term “Paleolithic” evokes sests of numerous short-term occupations. Stone tools long lists of stone tool types leavened only by the ex- consist of locally available raw materials, and many ap- plosion of cave art during the peak of the Last Glacia- pear to have been made on the spot for immediate use. tion. This is a shame, because the Paleolithic period Patterns of stylistic variation in Lower Paleolithic arti- encompasses momentous events in human evolution. It fact designs largely reflect accommodations to local lithic begins more than 2.5 million years ago with a diverse raw material variation. Gamble interprets such sites as array of early hominid species and culminates with the “encounters” between hominids and resources. Those global dominion of modern humans. The Pleistocene rare sites with internal spatial structure, such as Bilz- Epoch (1.7 million to 12,500 years ago), during which ingsleben, are seen as informal “gatherings,” places the bulk of the Paleolithic drama played out, was a peri- where local resources, such as food, shade, and water, od of wide and frequent climate changes. Ice Age hu- brought hominids into proximity with one another and mans lived in a “lost world” that we only know indirectly, at which grooming and other social interactions oc- through archaeology. curred. Gamble asserts that Lower Paleolithic human Europe’s peninsular shape and its proximity to the social networks did not extend beyond copresence at Arctic Circle during Pleistocene glacial periods proba- these temporary aggregations. This model of Lower Pa- bly made this continent a peripheral zone of human leolithic social behavior is strikingly similar to that doc- habitation compared to Africa and South Asia. Never- umented among chimpanzees.2 theless, the historical priority of Paleolithic research in The period 300,000–60,000 (or Middle Paleolithic) Europe has created a richer archaeological record on witnessed the emergence of the Neandertals, uniquely this continent than in any other region. For much of European hominids who were physiologically adapted the 20th century, the structure of the European Pale- to cold conditions. The Neandertals’ archaeological olithic was the model for the Paleolithic in the rest of record suggests an intensification of social networks. the world. As research in other regions has begun to This intensification is reflected in “taskscapes,” sites catch up to Europe, the truly unique features of the where humans gathered and performed a variety of ac- European Paleolithic record are becoming ever more tivities at the same time. Examples of such sites include apparent. Three new books, reviewed here, present a Maastricht-Belevedere, Lazaret Cave, and Biache-St. provocative synthesis and fresh perspectives on the Pa- Vaast. Neandertal taskscapes were provisioned from a leolithic of Europe. wide range of lithic raw material sources, suggesting

1 Gamble 1986. 2 Goodall 1986. 459 American Journal of Archaeology 106 (2002) 459–62 460 JOHN J. SHEA [AJA 106 they formed near intersections of habitual pathways nology (fully 18,000 years before the earliest pottery across the landscape. Selectivity in lithic raw material appears in Europe) provides clear evidence for this rec- choice and in the choice of prime-age animal prey both ognizably modern pattern of human behavior in the reflect increased effort and attention to activities with Upper Paleolithic. social implications. The strongest evidence for the ex- If there is a weakness in these later chapters, it is a tension of social networks lies in regional patterns in failure to grapple with increasing evidence for demo- Levallois core reduction strategies. These patterns sug- graphic discontinuity across the Middle-Upper Paleolith- gest the presence of technological “traditions,” pre- ic transition.4 Although the rehabilitation of Neander- sumably ones transmitted among individuals at aggre- tals’ image during the latter half of the 20th century gation sites. What is, for us, striking by its absence from has made them increasingly acceptable as human ances- such sites is evidence for permanence of occupation tors, evidence for demographic continuity between Ne- and evidence for the use of exosomatic symbols to facil- andertal and Upper Paleolithic modern human (Cro- itate interactions among socially distant individuals. Magnon) populations is weak. There are few areas where Correlations between primate brain size and social group prolonged geographic overlap between Neandertals and size suggest that Neandertal social groups should have Cro-Magnons can be demonstrated, and much less evi- been as large as those of modern humans (typically dence for cultural contact. Many of the skeletal mor- about 150 individuals).3 Gamble’s explanation for this phologies claimed as evidence for interbreeding are is to postulate “quasi-effective” social networks, net- open to widely divergent interpretations. Most serious- works whose complexity is constrained by social prox- ly, however, analyses of fossil DNA indicate a wide and imity, or the probability of future encounters within geologically ancient divergence.5 Neandertals’ and mod- local and regional networks. ern humans’ last common ancestor apparently lived This model of Neandertal social networks is by itself more than 500,000 years ago, long before the origin of somewhat unconvincing. For Neandertal social networks the Neandertals, much less the Middle-Upper Paleolith- to persist in a quasi-effective state for more than a hun- ic transition. Throughout Europe and Western Asia, dred thousand years, there would have had to have been wherever dating and fossil evidence are sufficient, Ne- powerful directional selective forces suppressing improve- andertal and early modern human occupations have a ments in their effectiveness. Modern humans colonized “vicarious” distribution. That is, they do not overlap, but many harsh environments by using extensive alliance rather alternate with each other through time. Such a networks reinforced through exosomatic symbol systems. distribution is more congruent with rival species com- If there was so great an adaptive and evolutionary wind- peting for the same ecological niche than it is with a fall to be reaped by extending those networks to larger mosaic of human populations with sustained levels of regional populations, why did the Neandertals not devel- gene flow between them. If we accept the argument op such strategies themselves? Gamble does not adequately that Neandertals were not modern human ancestors, explain this conundrum. then we must also consider that Neandertal social adap- An extension of social networks through time and space tations may reflect physiological and ecological factors appears in the archaeological record of the period that differ from those factors influencing early modern 60,000–21,000 B.P. (broadly encompassing the later human behavior. Models of European Paleolithic social phases of the Middle Paleolithic, various Transitional evolution may have to seek the origin of Upper Pale- complexes, and the early Upper Paleolithic). Archaeo- olithic society not so much in Europe among the later logical sites feature evidence for prolonged occupation Neandertals, but rather in Southern Asia and Africa and internal functional differentiation (houses, stor- among early modern human adaptations.6 age pits, knapping areas). Carved bone, antler, ivory, The other two volumes reviewed here, Roebroeks and stone artifacts whose functions were either wholly and Gamble’s The Middle Palaeolithic Occupation of Eu- or partly symbolic proliferate. Indeed, detailed analyses rope and Roebroeks et al.’s Hunters of the Golden Age are of both lithic and osseous industries reveal patterns of the second and third volumes resulting from European interregional variation, much like those observed for Science Foundation workshops on Paleolithic occupa- the Middle Paleolithic, but with a more fine-grained tion of Europe.7 pattern of variation in time and space. Gamble inter- The Middle Palaeolithic Occupation of Europe is a re- prets these changes as social networks being “released gion-by-region survey of the period roughly 200,000– from proximity,” that is, humans using exosomatic sym- 30,000 B.P. The major thematic issues raised in this bols. The extension of these networks is shown in the book include the nature of the Middle Paleolithic in increasing distances over which raw materials were trans- Europe, the relationship between habitat and settle- ported by early Upper Paleolithic humans. Dolni ment patterns, and the complexity of Neandertal adap- Vestoniče, a site with elaborate dwelling and storage tations. The distinctiveness of the Middle Paleolithic structures, a rich lithic and bone tool industry, complex in Europe has long been a point of archaeological de- mortuary features, and evidence for ceramic pyrotech- bate. In Southwest Asia and Africa, there is a marked

3 Aiello and Dunbar 1993. 6 McBrearty and Brooks 2000. 4 Bar-Yosef and Pilbeam 2000; Tattersall and Schwartz 2000. 7 Roebroeks and Van Kolfschoten 1995. 5 Höss 2000. 2002] SYNTHESIZING THE PALEOLITHIC 461 technological break around 250,000–200,000 B.P., at reindeer, and bison, would have migrated seasonally across which time large bifacially flaked handaxes and allied the steppe. Predictable game movements encourage both core tools decline in frequency. These core tools are territoriality and cooperative alliance networks among replaced in lithic assemblages by flake products of pre- hunter-gatherers.10 It is likely that these ecological cir- pared core techniques (Levallois flakes and, less com- cumstances encouraged the formation of “megasites,” monly, prismatic blades). Cold woodlands and steppes large sites with freestanding architecture, storage facili- seem to have been the favored biotopes for Neandertal ties, and complex mortuary ritual. The florescence of art habitation, though the limits of their adaptive abilities during this period (Clottes) has also been linked hypo- remain unclear owing to sea level rise, erosion, and thetically to concerns about “social geography,” about other geological factors. smaller groups’ membership in larger regional alliance Understanding the Middle Paleolithic way of life has networks.11 long been complicated by the weaknesses of analogical Evidence for such alliance networks is seen among comparisons. Studies explicitly equating Middle Paleo- the increasing regional diversification of stone and bone lithic tools or assemblages with those of recent humans tool industries. Early Upper Paleolithic Aurignacian and have not moved archaeologists closer to the strategic later Upper Paleolithic Magdalenian and Epigravettian ecological factors underlying the Middle Paleolithic ar- complexes exhibit remarkable continuities across vast ex- chaeological records. Several of the contributions to panses of the European continent. In contrast, the Mid- Middle Palaeolithic, however, appear to be moving in a Upper Paleolithic presents a complex mosaic of regional- productive direction. Kolen’s paper, in particular, rely distinct assemblage groups. The relatively brief dura- fines our models of Middle Paleolithic sites, suggesting tion and pronounced regional variation of Mid-Upper they are palimpsests, repeatedly visited sites from which Paleolithic Gravettian and Pavlovian assemblages is, for resources (personnel and equipment) were brought to this reviewer at least, the first time that the European bear on the surrounding landscape. In a sense, these record preserves evidence for social networks analogous sites were more like modern day hardware stores than to the archaeological cultures of the Postglacial period. the basecamps of hunter-gatherers. Several studies The long-standing notion that Paleolithic cultures point toward Neandertals’ selectivity in resource use, were, in some metaphoric sense, impoverished relative in focusing on prime-age large mammal prey and in to their more recent counterparts is effectively refuted preferentially transporting better quality lithic materi- by the catalogue of complex stone and bone tools, ce- als (e.g., Gaudzinski and Feblot-Augustins). Further ramics, and textiles, whose presence is affirmed by clay evidence is presented for Neandertal ecological “inten- impressions. Nor, as Soffer’s and Mussi’s contributions to sification” in artificial structures at numerous sites (e.g., this volume make clear, is such technological complexity Kolen, Mussi). an artifact cobbled together from sites scattered widely For a book whose title encompasses all of Europe, geo- across the landscape. Rather, all these technological graphic coverage retains a traditional bias toward the achievements appear together as part of a single, unified western part of that continent and toward lower eleva- adaptive complex. Similarities in artistic representation tions. Recent research has vastly expanded our knowl- (most clearly among the so-called Venus figurines), found edge of Middle Paleolithic adaptations in the Crimean at sites on the shores of the Mediterranean to central Peninsula8 and the Caucasus Range,9 but these areas are Siberia suggest technical knowledge underlying Mid- not represented in this volume. Their absence is regret- Upper Paleolithic cultural variability may have been shared table because they reveal Neandertals’ strategies for cop- broadly across an enormous span of geography. ing with the altitudinal frontier of their habitat. The The effectiveness of these technologies and social East European Middle Paleolithic is also increasingly seen networks in buffering Upper Paleolithic humans from as crucial in understanding the modern human dispersal environmental stresses can be seen most clearly in their into Europe. physical remains (Churchill et al.). Mid-Upper Paleolith- Roebroeks et al.’s Hunters of the Golden Age focuses spe- ic humans retained the long limbs of their tropical ances- cifically on the Mid-Upper Paleolithic, ca. 30,000–20,000 tors even though they were living in cold climates. Evi- B.P. This period encompasses that later phase of the Würm dence for frequent bouts of starvation, common among Interpleniglacial and the early phase of the Last Glacial Neandertals and even among many post-Paleolithic pop- Maximum. The sense in which this period can be consid- ulations, is relatively rare. ered a “Golden Age” is in the ecogeographic breadth of To appreciate the achievements of European society human adaptation, technological sophistication, and hu- between 20,000–30,000 years ago, one must understand man health. The ecological underpinning of the Mid- that they took place during a period of marked climatic Upper Paleolithic is the Mammoth Steppe. As described instability and, eventually, deterioration. Variation in latin Guthrie’s contribution, this biotope stretched from er Pleistocene climate in Europe appears to reflect a com- Western Europe, across Siberia, to the plains of North plex interplay of orbital, atmospheric, and oceanic fac- America and featured a rich plant and animal community. tors. The marine oxygen isotope and Greenland ice core Many of the larger herbivores, such as horse, mammoth, evidence for these climatic fluctuations suggest they were

8 Marks and Chabai 1998. 10 Kelly 1995. 9 Hoffecker 1999. 11 Conkey 1984. 462 J.J. SHEA, SYNTHESIZING THE PALEOLITHIC more frequent and of considerably greater magnitude from countries whose scientists formerly worked apart than those of the last 10,000 years. The resumption of from each other in separate research traditions. The such secular variation in the near future (a certainty, benefits of this trend can only accrue. given the prominent role of orbital forcing) will be a formidable challenge to civilization. That our ancestors successfully faced such circumstances and survived pro- anthropology department vides hope for the future of humanity. state university of new york at stony brook As a group, these three books are all essential reading stony brook, new york 11794-4364 for Paleolithic archaeologists, especially those who work [email protected] in Europe and the Near East. Yet there are important differences among them. The Palaeolithic Societies of Eu- rope presents a cohesive and provocative approach to Pleis- Works Cited tocene human social organization, a battery of testable hypotheses, and fresh insights into the behavior of Paleo- Aiello, L., and R. Dunbar. 1993. “Neocortex Size, Group lithic Europeans. This being said, Societies is difficult to Size and the Evolution of Language.” CurrAnthr 34:184– use as a stand-alone textbook. I have twice used Societies 93. as a principal text in an upper level course in European Bar-Yosef, O., and D. Pilbeam, eds. 2000. The Geography of Paleolithic archaeology at a large American research uni- Neandertals and Modern Humans in Europe and the Greater versity. Each time, there was a chorus of complaints about Mediterranean. Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Eth- the difficult prose in the first three chapters. The later nology Bulletin 8. Cambridge, Mass.: Peabody Museum chapters, dealing as they do with more tangible issues, of Archaeology and Ethnology. posed fewer difficulties. As luck would have it, Middle Conkey, M.W. 1984. “To Find Ourselves: Art and Social Ge- Palaeolithic Occupation of Europe became available during ography of Prehistoric Hunter-Gatherers.” In Past and the second course offering. It was very helpful in pre- Present in Hunter-Gatherer Studies, edited by C. Schrire, senting clear and focused overviews, particularly for re- 253–76. New York: Academic Press. gions where the bulk of the primary literature is not Gamble, C. 1986. The Palaeolithic Settlement of Europe. New available in English. Hunters of the Golden Age will work York: Cambridge University Press. well in a similar role. Goodall, J. 1986. The Chimpanzees of Gombe: Patterns of Behav- If there are trends to be discerned among these works, ior. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. the first is that the days of Paleolithic archaeologists Hoffecker, J.E. 1999. “Neanderthals and Modern Humans ignoring hominid social behavior are fast drawing to a in Eastern Europe.” Evolutionary Anthropology 7:129–41. close. The emphasis of Societies on social networks as Höss, M. 2000. “Neanderthal Population Genetics.” Nature principal adaptive instruments, in particular, makes it 404:453–4. relatively easy to relate issues in Paleolithic research to Kelly, R.L. 1995. The Foraging Spectrum: Diversity in Hunter- the larger anthropological debates about social organi- Gatherer Lifeways. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Insti- zation. I predict that one of Societies’ lasting effects will tution Press. be an improved dialogue between Paleolithic archaeol- Marks, A.E., and V.P. Chabai, eds. 1998. The Middle Paleolith- ogists and our colleagues in social anthropology and pri- ic of Western Crimea. Vol. 1. Études et Récherches au Uni- matology, many of whom are grappling with the same versité de Liége 84. Liège: Université de Liège. issues, albeit in very different contexts. Where all of McBrearty, S., and A.S. Brooks. 2000. “The Revolution the works reviewed here could go further is in greater That Wasn’t: A New Interpretation of the Origin of integration of behavioral evidence from the physical Modern Human Behavior.” Journal of Human Evolution anthropological record as well. This is somewhat more 39:453–563. successfully done in Hunters of the Golden Age than in Roebroeks, W., and T. Van Kolfschoten, eds. 1995. The Ear- The Middle Palaeolithic Occupation of Europe and Palae- liest Occupation of Europe. Leiden: University of Leiden. olithic Societies of Europe. A second discernable trend Tattersall, I., and J.H. Schwartz. 2000. Extinct Humans. Boul- among these books is increasing integration of evidence der: Westview. Glass Is Hot

E. MARIANNE STERN

Recent years have seen an outburst of exhibitions de- many objects are unknown, and since the authors are voted solely to ancient glass with handsomely illustrated often not glass specialists, their technical attributions catalogues.1 The Association Internationale pour and classifications may mislead nonspecialists. l’Histoire du Verre (AIHV, founded in 1959) recently Nine volumes are planned with the same format: ves- held its 15th international congress.2 The Italian com- sels and objects are arranged alphabetically by shape; the mittee of the AIHV sponsors the publication of glass col- end of each volume includes a standardized glossary with lections in Italy.3 Similarly, the Association Française pour an English translation (illustrated with numerous draw- l’Archéologie du Verre (AFAV, founded in 1986) organiz- ings in CCAVV 5).11 Each volume begins with a short his- es international conferences and supports numerous pub- tory of the collection and a general introduction to the lications.4 In 2001 the Greek Institute of Materials Sci- shapes. Each object is documented by a black and white ences NCSR Demokritos organized an international con- photograph; unusual objects and tomb groups are often ference in Rhodes, “Vitrum-Hyalos-Glass.”5 presented in color. Volumes 5 and 612 also include profile Leading topics include regional studies, furnace and drawings of complex objects. glassworking technologies, the identification of glass pro- Bibliographical references focus on parallels from north duction sites and glass composition, and the role of trade Italy, an important region in early glassblowing. Already in ancient glass technology and consumption. While re- the volumes have yielded unexpected insights. The ma- search still focuses on western Europe, scholars are now terial in museums near the Adriatic coast at Adria13 and at devoting attention to the eastern Mediterranean, and Jap- Murano (which safeguards much of the glass excavated anese museums have discovered the attraction of ancient on the Croatian coast opposite)14 seems more varied than glass.6 Classical and Hellenistic Greece is rapidly evolving in other collections. All six volumes contain a large as a major player in the history of glass: in addition to amount of early imperial blown glass (first to mid second volumes by Nenna and Triandaphyllides,7 a volume on the centuries C.E.) and document the near disappearance of late Classical and early Hellenistic colorless glass from Mace- later luxury glass. donia is nearing completion.8 As G.D. Weinberg predict- The urban cemeteries at Padova15 yielded common ed, “Greece did indeed have a place in the development glass unguentaria and cinerary urns, but graves in the of this craft. A rich field for study awaits investigation.”9 rich farmland surrounding the city produced more varied The growing interest of young scholars is also evident. finds. A tomb at Vigorovea dated to the second half of Four recent publications are based on Ph.D. dissertations.10 the first century C.E. had an exceptionally fine assort- Glass studies no longer concern only chronological ty- ment of glass (color pl. XXIV), including a blue cantharus pologies, but now also address ancient technology, econ- with handles made from twisted rods (no. 292) and the omy, trade, daily life, and cultural exchange. Today, glass earliest documented mold-blown double head-shaped is a truly hot topic. bottle (no. 234). A late Roman bowl excavated in Con- This review article summarizes the current state of an- cordia16 was cut with a superb scene of Daniel in the cient glass studies published since 1998 in four categories lion’s den in the most prestigious workshop of late antiq- of foreign-language books: catalogues raisonnés, exhibi- uity.17 The collections in and around Rovigo preserve sev- tion catalogues, excavation reports, and special topics. eral unguentaria with coin stamps on the underside (nos. 76, 127, 128). catalogues raisonnés The collections in Verona18 include high quality mold- Corpus delle Collezioni Archeologici del Vetro nel Veneto blown vessels (nos. 321, 322, 384, 393, 513) and finely (CCAVV), Volumes 3–6 ribbed Rippenschale bowls, three of which are of com- The Giunta Regionale di Veneto, under auspices of mon, natural bluish green glass but lack the added thread the Italian Committee of the AIHV, aims to publish all decoration (nos. 400–2). The collections also include ancient glass in the Veneto. Findspots and contexts of several late Roman, gold-glass vessels (medallions, nos.

1 E.g., Foy and Nenna 2001; Klein 1999; Massabò 2000; 9 Weinberg 1992, 9. Roffia 2000; Commune di Milano 1998. 10 Amrein 2001; Dussart 1998; Harter 1999; Nenna 1999. 2 Annales du 15e congrès de l’Association Internationale pour 11 Facchini 1999, 203–26. l’Histoire du Verre, New York-Corning 2001 (in press). 12 Toniolo 2000. 3 Facchini 1999; Larese and Zerbinati 1998; Toniolo 2000; 13 Bonomi 1996. Zampieri 1998. 14 Ravagnan 1994. 4 Foy and Nenna 2001; Nenna 2000; Sennequier 1998. 15 CCAVV 3, Zampieri 1998. 5 Papers in press. 16 CCAVV 4, Larese and Zerbinati 1998, no. 146. 6 Miho Museum 2001. 17 See also Rottloff 2000. 7 Nenna 1999; Triandaphyllides 2000. 18 CCAVV 5, Facchini 1999. 8 D. Ignatiadou (in prep.)

463 American Journal of Archaeology 106 (2002) 463–71 464 E. MARIANNE STERN [AJA 106

454–63) as well as three polychrome vessels (nos. 1, and expanded, but all the examples I have seen (in 387, 415) previously thought to be Langobard, but in Trier) are almost certainly tooled. my opinion fakes.19 The National Museum in Este20 con- The second half of the first and early second century tains a series of glasses from first-century C.E. crema- saw a range of beaker and cup shapes, including an im- tion burials, most of which contained glass cinerary urns ported appliqué signed by Amarantus probably from Bur- with omega handles. gundy. Mold-blown square bottles were frequent grave The CCAVV series as a whole is exemplary for provid- gifts, which, when reused, could function as cinerary urns. ing all the basic information needed for future research Similarly reused were square jars, cylindrical and polygo- into the role of glass in the region. nal bottles, and several types of bulbous jars. Cinerary urns made specifically for burials were also common. From Harter 1999 the early second century on, most of the glass used in This monograph is a monument to the author’s in- Mainz originated in the Rhineland. dustry. Her stated purpose is to furnish the first com- Colorless (decolorized) glass was common in the sec- plete list of all Roman glass vessels from Mainz. The ond and third centuries. A characteristic shape, the cy- catalogue includes 1,364 glass vessels and fragments lindrical cup with a heat-rounded rim and applied base currently housed in the Landesmuseum, Mainz; 161 coil dates to the second half of the second and first half vessels lost during World War II (e.g., an openwork cage of the third century; it comes predominately from habi- cup from Hohen-Sülzen); and 16 vessels currently in tation areas as do most glasses of this period. Other finds the Römisch-Germanisches Zentralmuseum, Mainz. The include mold-blown, natural bluish green bottles shaped introduction provides a concise history of the collec- like a grape bunch and a fragment of yellow and green tion, a review of the imperial history of Mainz (ancient mosaic glass. Several sarcophagi thought to date from Moguntiacum), and glossaries defining technical terms the third century (burial assemblages nos. 42–45) con- and manufacturing techniques. tained bulbous glass jugs with a distinctive type of pinched As is customary with European publications, the cata- chain handle suggesting local manufacture. logue is organized according to the 124 vessel shapes. Vessels with applied snake-thread decoration, well The glasses date from the first half of the first century known from graves at Cologne, are surprisingly rare in to the early fifth century. The commentary and individ- Mainz and come only from late second- to third-century ual entries form separate chapters; a third chapter con- habitation sites. By contrast, glass appears to be less com- textualizes the vessels (burial assemblages from Mainz, mon at habitation sites between the late third and mid nos. 1–66, and other findspots in Rheinhessen, nos. fourth centuries. Nevertheless, much glass tableware is 67–83); and a fourth chapter provides a chronological preserved because it was customary to bury the deceased overview, followed by a summary, concordances, and an with a drinking service; the vessels are usually natural extensive bibliography. green. Spherical flasks with a funnel mouth rising direct- Evidence for glassblowing in Mainz is limited to the ly from the body are so abundant that they seem to be third and fourth centuries and is largely indirect (jugs characteristic of late Roman Mainz. with chain-link handles and spherical bottles; see be- Some of the shapes originating in the late third cen- low). Remains of crucibles and waste identify a third-century were still in vogue in the second half of the fourth tury glasswork shop in Mainz, still unpublished, but there and early fifth centuries, but were then tinted olive is no indication that it produced vessels (343, n. 7). green. A few fragments of luxury wares were found in The earliest vessels, most probably imported from Ita- the center of the modern city: one with cut decoration ly, are associated with the Roman military presence in (no. 1351), another a tiny late Roman fragment that Mainz, beginning ca. 13 B.C.E. In the first half of the preserves the lower part of a human figure cut out of gold first century C.E. unguentaria are the commonest glass foil encased between two layers of clear glass (no. 1357: grave gifts, but the variety of shapes increases in the Zwischengoldglas). The majority of the glasses dated to Claudian period. Several mid first-century graves are rich the late fourth–early fifth centuries comes from ceme- in glass. Vessels frequently constitute a drinking set: a teries a short distance from the city. A grave associated shallow ribbed or omphalos bowl, a cup or cantharus, an with the last phase of Roman occupation, in the first half amphoriscus, and a jug. In addition to these early blown of the fifth century, produced one of the earliest footed, vessels, the Landesmuseum includes 27 polychrome, 25 bell-shaped beakers. monochrome, and 102 natural, bluish green, wheelmade Among the unusual vessel shapes I note a rare poly- ribbed bowls much as found at other western European chrome omphalos bowl (no. 175), two candlestick un- sites. The colored examples were probably imported, but guentaria with stamps on the bottom: PATRIMONI (no. the bluish green bowls, common in the Flavian period 098) and PATRIUS (burial no. 33, pl. 80), a conical bea- and early second century, probably were made also north ker with gilt decoration and inscription VITAM TIBI QUIA of the Alps, like the several blown shapes decorated with SCIS QUID SIT BONUM (no. 381), a translucent dichro- sharp, thin ribs. The technique used in producing these ic beaker inscribed SIMPLICI ZESES (no. 382), a mold- ribs is notoriously difficult to identify. The author sug- blown, double head-shaped, footed bottle (no. 1182), a gests (47) that they were blown into a dip mold (Vorform) flask within a flask (burial no. 58, pl. 93), and several

19 Stern 2001, 336, n. 352. 20 CCAVV 6, Toniolo 2000. 2002] GLASS IS HOT 465 vessels with cut decoration and inscibed [FE]LIX VIVAS, a wealthy tomb at Antran belonging to the very first years PVER MISCET VE[, CVRRE PVER M (nos. 939, 043, 974), of the first century C.E., when trade with the Mediterra- and two bowls of the Wint-Hill Group, engraved with nean was just beginning. The other contemporary wealthy figural scenes of a boar hunt (nos. 213, 040). tombs in the region exhibit a range of metal vessels, but The excellent drawings were inked by the author her- no glass vessels, and tombs of only slightly later date pro- self. Especially commendable is her method of indicat- duced only ordinary glass unguentaria. The nearby mili- ing the material of the objects (following the guidelines tary camp at Aulnay, occupied briefly under Augustus and of the Römisch-Germanisches Zentralmuseum, Mainz). Tiberius, suggests the army may have played a role in A novelty is the author’s creation of her own color chart, spreading the taste for glass; the glass vessels excavated at necessary because the book has few color photos.21 Writ- the camp, as yet unpublished, are significant. ten by a newcomer to ancient glass studies, the catalogue The vessel shapes excavated in Poitiers and vicinity of Roman glass vessels from Mainz is an impressive opus. are similar to those used elsewhere in northwest Europe, but certain shapes occur more frequently than others, Simon-Hiernard 2000 for example, 29 ribbed bowls, a leading form of the first Dominique Simon-Hiernard describes 474 pieces of century C.E., 18 twisted rods, 19 square jars, 9 cinerary Roman glass in the Museum Sainte-Croix at Poitiers, most urns with handles (first–second centuries), 13 square and unearthed in the Poitou in the 19th century. With an 10 cylindrical bottles (first–third centuries), 32 cylindri- eye to detail, the author places the glass objects in their cal bowls (a leading form in the second–third centuries), cultural context, writing, as it were, the history of Roman 7 mold-blown, grape bunch flasks (second–third centu- glass from the point of view of what reached and eventu- ries), and 15 spherical bottles (third–fourth centuries). ally was produced in a region far removed from the cen- Some glassware was imported, including all first centu- ter of the empire. After the introduction come 20 pages ry vessels. The ribbed bowls (nos. 156–185), a striped of color illustrations (not referenced in the catalogue reticella or lacework bowl (no. 186), a carinated bowl (no. entries). The catalogue proper is divided into four parts: 194), and a polychrome threaded unguentarium (no. 288) storage vessels, tableware, toiletries, and varia. Each en- probably came from north Italy. The twisted rods, howev- try or group of entries is preceded by a short discussion of er, are thought to have been made in workshops near the the context and type, and a list of comparisons. Form border with Gallia Cisalpina (modern Switzerland). Trade tables, a bibliography, an index of placenames and find- relations between the Poitou and northern Gaul (Nor- spots, and a concise glossary complete this volume. mandy, Picardy) commenced in the Flavian period, and Significantly, the collection is almost entirely made solidified in the second century; they supplied the popu- up of regional finds: 35% from funerary contexts, and lation with rectangular bottles and mold-blown barrel- 65% (mostly fragments) from habitation sites. The fu- shaped bottles. From the Rhineland came mostly table- nerary role of glass was threefold. Cinerary urns were ware: vessels with blue dots (nos. 102, 211), an engraved often reused domestic vessels like the fragmentary ones plate (no. 191), engraved hemispherical bowls (nos. 216– found in local habitation sites. As part of funerary rites 218), snake-thread vessels (nos. 227, 228, 230), mold- in so-called bustum burials, glass fragments belonging to blown double head-shaped vessels (nos. 325, 326), and one vessel might be placed outside a sarcophagus and grape bunch flasks (nos. 329, 330). inside near different parts of the body. In the second There is also evidence for local glass production, for century, the ritual breaking of sacrificial grave gifts was example, cinerary urns with X-shaped handles (nos. 54– widely practiced in Gaul. As containers for scented oils 56) and jugs with trefoil mouths (nos. 39–46). Other ves- dispensed in the tomb, glass unguentaria appear in cre- sels with a limited distribution are medium-sized bulbous mations and in inhumations from the beginning of the jars with very thick lower bodies (nos. 1–4), cylindrical first century C.E. In the course of the third century this beakers (nos. 237, 238), as well as three square jars (nos. practice becomes obsolete in the Poitou and elsewhere 23–25) and a square bottle carrying the same base mold- in northwest Europe, gradually replaced by gifts of ta- ing with the letters CNAIO (or CVAIO) in the four cor- bleware. By the fourth century, unguentaria are no long- ners. No physical remains of a glass workshop have been er found in tombs. Glass fragments are relatively rare in excavated in the Poitou, but from nearby Sanxay come domestic contexts because of the practice of collecting several crucibles coated on the inside with a layer of blu- old glass for recycling. Among the 800 fragments of ish green glass (nos. 432–460), and at Saintes, farther glass excavated from domestic contexts the most com- south, are the remains of two glassblowing workshops ac- mon shape is the ribbed bowl. tive already in the second half of the first century. Although the pre-Roman population was familiar with While profile drawings of the glass should have been glass jewelry, it is rare in Poitiers. The catalogue includes in outline, and the drawings of grave contexts would have fragments of just one Celtic bracelet, while two beads been more useful if they had indicated the material of mentioned in the archives cannot be located. The Roman the objects (see above, Harter 1999), the numerous maps conquest introduced the inhabitants to the delights of are helpful to those not familiar with the area. This mu- vessel glass. Three delicate, blown vessels of translucent, seum catalogue is exemplary for shedding light on the deep blue glass (nos. 194, 200, 288) were excavated from Roman glass industry in one particular region.

21 The exhibition catalogue (Klein 1999) illustrates many of the objects in color. 466 E. MARIANNE STERN [AJA 106

Arveiller and Nenna 2000 finds from each grave. Two private collections of Roman The first catalogue of the Louvre’s glass holdings glass are appended: the Personeni collection29 and the comes from two well known glass scholars: Véronique Marangoni Maffei collection. The last chapter focuses Arveiller and Marie-Dominique Nenna. Dedicated to the on the “Roman” glass created between ca. 1950 and 1990 core-formed and mold-formed vessels made between the by the Venetian glass artist Archimede Seguso.30 seventh century B.C.E. and the first century C.E., the Louvre catalogue is the latest in a series of important Klein 1999 studies of glass predating the invention of blowing.22 A This volume contains a collection of essays for another second volume, on the blown glass in the Louvre, is exhibiton. Following a general introduction by M.J. Klein currently in preparation. With the exception of the Syro- (1–20) and an essay on Roman wall painting by H. Lavar- Palestinian glasses in the former de Clercq collection,23 gne (21–4), F. Naumann Steckner discusses Roman de- the glass holdings of the Louvre have remained largely pictions of glass vessels in wall painting (25–33). G. Har- unpublished. The present catalogue of 277 vessels inter focuses on the use of glass vessels in the Roman kitch- cludes 173 core-formed vessels, 21 mold-formed poly- en (34–40), while E. Welker is concerned with the ves- chrome vessels, 74 mold-formed monochrome vessels, sels’ handles (50–6). A two-handled cylindrical bottle and 9 other vessels. The numerous recorded findpots from Hohen-Sülzen engraved with Dionysiac scenes is indicate the collection’s wide geographical area and are the subject of three contributions by K. Broschat, M.J. useful for recognizing regional styles. Several vessels Klein and D. Zobel-Klein, and G. Harter (57–77). Two recently have been associated with Hellenistic work- contributions are devoted to Roman storage bottles: A. shops in Rhodes and Macedonia (e.g., gilt and painted Rottloff discusses square bottles (41–9) and A.-B. Foll- lidded bowls, nos. 197–200). mann-Schulz reports on the exciting remains of glass A short introduction provides the current state of re- furnaces in the Hambacher Forst, which produced mold- search on early glass. The chapter on core-formed vessels blown, barrel-shaped bottles with base marks mentioning discusses individual shapes; the chapters on mold-formed ECVA (106–12). S. Fünfschilling (78–90) and D. Zobel- vessels are subdivided by chronology. Admirable for their Klein (91–105) discuss late Roman flasks and jugs. Hunt- thorough documentation and careful annotation, these ing scenes engraved on glasses of the Wint-Hill Group discussions include much of the data assembled in Nen- and late Roman glasses with colored dots and thread ap- na’s 1999 volume on the glass from Delos. plication are the subjects of R. Gogräfe (113–28) and M.J. Klein (129–42) respectively. The last contribution, Miho Museum 2001 by H. Ricke, presents late 19th-century historicizing cop- The catalogue of the Miho Museum documents 200 ies of Roman glass vessels created in the firm of Ludwig glass vessels and objects collected by the Shumei Family Felmer in Mainz (143–54). Foundation. The book is divided into two chapters, of Massabò 2000 which the first documents early ancient, Roman, and early Originally planned to coincide with the 14th AIHV Islamic glasses ranging from the mid second millennium congress in Venice and Milan in the fall of 1998, the B.C.E. to the 10th century C.E. Each piece is illustrated exhibition “Magiche trasparenze” actually opened a year in color. I note several rare or unique objects: an opaque later. It featured about 100 glass vessels illustrating the grayish blue, three-dimensional head of a pharaoh (no. full range of Roman shapes current between the first 15)24 a horizontally ribbed “Achaemenid” animal-head and third centuries in Liguria, the majority from well- cup (no. 59)25 and a grayish blue lagynos (no. 64).26 The documented excavations at Albenga (ancient Albin- second chapter is devoted to glass in ancient China from gaunum). A special attraction of the exhibition is the the fifth century B.C.E. to the first century C.E. In addi- juxtaposition of glass objects with contemporary objects tion to beads and other small objects it includes an un- of metal and pottery in similar shapes. An unusual vessel usual inlaid, cylindrical blue glass beaker (no. 189).27 is a curious cylindrical shallow dish of natural greenish glass with a sturdy glass rod (handle?) rising vertically exhibition catalogues from the center of the bowl (no. 77). The exhibition’s Comune di Milano 1998 highlight is a magnificent plate of strongly colored blue This volume accompanies the 1993 exhibition in Mi- glass, engraved with two Erotes in the center (no. 136; lan in connection with the 14th congress of the AIHV.28 145–56). Found in a tomb assigned to the late first or Following an introductory essay on the history of glass in early second century, the plate is a very early example of Lombardy by C. Maccabruni, the catalogue documents a Roman figural cutting. wealth of glasses from Roman graves in Milan and vicini- The scholarly essays contain much information not ty. Especially useful are the illustrations documenting all usually found in an exhibition catalogue. Three intro-

22 E.g., Grose 1989; Stern and Schlick-Nolte 1994. 27 First published in Metropolitan Museum of Art 1996, 23 de Ridder 1909. 134–5, no. 67. 24 Miho Museum 2001, 211–3 (S. Goldstein). 28 See AnnAIHV 1998. 25 Miho Museum 2001, 213–6 (A. von Saldern); first 29 See also Roffia 2000. published in Metropolitan Museum of Art 1996, 60–1, no. 25. 30 See also Massabò 2000. 26 Miho Museum 2001, 216–7 (S. Goldstein). 2002] GLASS IS HOT 467 duce the history and archaeology of the city (G. Menella an archaeological school active in Greece. Most of the and B. Massabò, 19–34), the role of Liguria with relation finds date to the late Hellenistic period (late second and to other parts of the world (L. Taborelli, 35–44), and early first centuries B.C.E.). Part I is devoted to the glass Roman glassblowing techniques and production (M. Ster- vessels, part II to the glass objects. Part III places the nini, 45–54). The catalogue itself has four sections, each finds in a broad technological, typological, historical, and accompanied by an essay: F. Paolucci focuses on table- commercial context. wares (55–62), and G. De Tommaso discusses unguent Nenna is the first to systematically cull epigraphical and scent bottles (115–22), jewelry (137–40), and gam- and papyrological sources for ancient Greek glass termi- ing pieces (142). C. Maccabruni provides an overview of nology (7–20);33 she kindly allowed me to read her dis- glass in Liguria. A major part of the catalogue is devoted sertation, which enabled me to develop different inter- to the contexts of the glass finds (177–232) with draw- pretations of some terms.34 ings of the contexts (pls. 1–29), of comparanda (pls. 30– Part I, subdivided into five chapters, is by far the larg- 36), and of all the glass objects exhibited (pls. 37–43). est. Twenty fragments of core-formed vessels date to the The last chapter, by F. Seguso, focuses on the “Roman” late Archaic and Classical periods; the rest is late Helle- glass blown by Archimede Suguso (as does the last chap- nistic (mid second to end of first century B.C.E.). The ter of Comune di Milano 1998, above). An extensive vessels come from habitation sites and from votive depos- bibliography completes this lavishly illustrated volume. its in the sanctuaries. Similarities in the distribution maps of Hellenistic core-formed bottles (pl. 39) and contem- Roffia 2000 porary monochrome mold-formed vessels (pl. 41) sug- This volume highlights the Personeni collection, a pri- gest that workshops on the Syro-Palestinian coast pro- vate collection recently donated to the Civiche Raccolte duced both types of vessels. Archeologiche di Milano.31 It consists almost entirely of Mold-formed, polychrome luxury ware (reticella, mo- glass objects acquired on the antiquities market in Tur- saic, and striped) made its first appearance toward the key during the 1960s. Most of the vessels are late Roman end of the third century B.C.E. Most of the Delian mate- blown shapes typical of the eastern Mediterranean. In rial, over 700 mold-formed, monochrome vessels, comes addition to the 112 glass objects in the Personeni collec- from houses erected in the late second century and de- tion, the author discusses six shallow bowls excavated at stroyed or abandoned in 88 or 69 B.C.E., thus confirming Capernaum, in Israel and sent to Milan for preservation. the date provided by the Antikythera shipwreck. The These belong to a group of 14 glass vessels dating to the significance of the finds from Delos lies both in their late first–early second centuries that were found in one quantity (Delos has produced more fragments from this room of a Roman building.32 period than all other sites combined) and in their variety; they thus provide new evidence for the distribution Foy and Nenna 2001 of these mold-formed, monochrome vessels that circulat- Conceived by two well known scholars, Danièle Foy ed predominantly in the eastern Mediterranean. The and M.-D. Nenna, the exhibition “Tout feu, tout sable” most common shape is the grooved bowl. Many fragments was accompanied by an international colloquium on glass are opaque (55 pale blue, 3 red); the rest is in the usual trade and commerce from the sixth century B.C.E. to the translucent colors. In addition to the ubiquitous conical eighth century C.E. (papers in press). The exhibit was and hemispherical grooved bowls, there were 55 fluted ambitious; over 350 objects document and illustrate the bowls, of which 23 are decorated with petal motifs. Frag- role of glass in southeast France. Furnaces, crucibles, tools, ments of plates, pyxides, and skyphoi are also present. and waste from glassworking have been excavated (21– As a result of the island’s weak economy after the events 98), and chunks of raw glass and glass vessels have been of 88 and 69 B.C.E. the typical mold-formed wares of rescued from shipwrecks (99–120). Most of the glass ves- the first century B.C.E. are much less common. The sels come from tombs, mostly dating from the first and Delian material provides persuasive evidence that broad, early second centuries. In some cases it is possible to shallow eastern Mediterranean bowls with “short close- recognize regional shapes. set ribs concentrated around the middle of the body”35 The authors have also sifted through the storerooms circulated on the island in the second quarter of the of numerous museums in Languedoc, Provence, Corsica, first century B.C.E. and the Rhone valley. The result is a wealth of unpub- Blown vessel glass is not well represented: only 120 lished material presented in three chapters: the tech- fragments have been found. They date predominantly nology of ancient glass, trade and commerce, and the from the first two centuries C.E. and the early Christian glass vessels from southeast France. period (fourth–fifth centuries C.E.). Among the finds is a square bottle base marked “Euporianos” in Greek. excavation reports Part II is devoted to glass objects. The discovery of Nenna 1999 prefabricated manufacturing elements such as polychrome Délos 37 is the first volume devoted entirely to glass mosaic canes, of defects, and of wasters at three sites on artifacts in any series of excavation reports published by the island indicate the presence of small-scale local glass

31 Roffia 1993. 34 Stern 1999. 32 First published by Loffreda 1984. 35 Assigned to the first half of the first century C.E. by Grose 33 See also Trowbridge 1930. (1989, 246). 468 E. MARIANNE STERN [AJA 106 industries actively producing beads and small ornaments sold at four locations that also sold pottery vessels. The in the late Hellenistic period. Eye beads inlaid with slices glass bead workshops probably doubled as points of retail. of overlay canes (bicolored mosaic canes) recall those Delos is the only site outside Athens where epigraphical produced in a bead workshop in Rhodes in the late third evidence confirms donations of glass vessels in temples. to early second century B.C.E.,36 but most of the other There are no inventory lists and temple deposits dating types coincide with the island’s main period of prosperity to the late second and early first centuries B.C.E., so that in the late second and early first centuries: striped beads, it remains unknown whether glass donations increased bicolored beads, and variously shaped monochrome beads. when glass became more common in daily life. Most of the imported objects are pendants. Two small The first of two appendices lists the findspots of glass tooled heads and a large number of phallus pendants objects in Delos, the second provides the results of 17 were made on a mandril. Other pendants in the round chemical analyses executed by E. Mirtsou and M. Kessis- have a seam around the edge: they were cast in a two-part soglou in the laboratory of the Archaeological Museum mold. They depict various deities (Harpocrates, Hecate, at Thessaloniki. The drawings of vessels are excellent, Cybele, Baubo) as well as theater masks, a grape bunch, but the photographs lack contrast and the objects have and the head of an African. Pendants of this type are been cut out individually. The absence of drawings of the found all over the eastern Mediterranean. The Delian beads makes it difficult to understand their shape and finds provide the first evidence for dating them in the manufacturing techniques. Several items that, from their late second to early first century B.C.E. description, seem to be significant for the history of glass Glass knucklebones (astragaloi), likewise made in two- have not been illustrated (e.g., a large glass platter with part molds, have a longer production period, beginning traces of a bronze mount, and two balance scales [152]). in the mid third century B.C.E. Habitation sites on De- In spite of these editorial imperfections Délos 37 is a mile- los produced 46 examples; tombs on Rheneia produced stone in the research of ancient glass and provides the others. Most are made of translucent colored glass, two basic material for future research on Classical and Helle- are colorless, and a few are opaque (six yellow, four blue, nistic glass production. and two green). Over 700 glass “buttons” of various shapes, colors, and sizes were found (ringstones, gam- Amrein 2001 ing pieces, decoration for furniture, clothing, and met- The glass workshop uncovered in 1989–1990 during al and pottery vessels). rescue excavations in Avenches, Switzerland produced Part III addresses production, trade, and customers. In four, small, circular furnaces productive between the general, the presence of a glass workshop may be indicat- years 40 and 70 C.E. and over 15,000 fragments of glass ed by the presence of raw ingredients such as sand, na- (raw glass, manufacturing waste, and fragmentary ves- tron, and shells, or raw glass in ingots or chunks; a firing sels). There are no indications for the production of furnace or an annealing furnace (for slow cooling); cru- raw glass, which was apparently made elsewhere and cibles coated with an actual layer of glass (not just a vitri- imported, as was customary throughout antiquity. All the fied surface); tools such as molds and tongs; prefabricat- glass shows identical shades of transparent bluish green, ed elements such as monochrome and polychrome canes, green, blue, amber yellow, and purplish pink. Based on tubes, and glass disks; and defects, production waste, and the manufacturing waste, the author has reconstructed cullet for recycling. The evidence on Delos consists of the outer diameters of early iron blow pipes (11–15 mm) chunks of raw glass, production waste, and prefabricated and has identified tool marks resulting from jacks and elements for use in bead making. There is no evidence the solid iron rod (the precursor of a pontil) for apply- for the production of glass vessels. ing handles and threads, but not yet for reattaching The evidence for glassworking elsewhere in the Clas- the vessel to heat finish its mouth. The workshop pro- sical and Hellenistic periods is based on literary sources, duced free blown and mold-blown wares in common ear- as well as the testimony from papyri and inscriptions (as- ly Roman shapes and small bottles coated on the interi- sembled here for the first time) and from archaeological or with a thin layer of lead. excavations. The archaeological evidence is usually from The drawings and color photographs help the reader small workshops producing beads and ornaments for a visualize the processes described. An up-to-date annotat- local clientele. The Syro-Palestinian and Egyptian worked list of excavated Roman glassblowing furnaces, a discus- shops that produced luxury ware for export have not yet sion of the chemical elements found in Roman glass, and been identified. Cargoes rescued from several shipwrecks tables presenting analyses of fragments from Avenches dated to the Hellenistic period provide evidence for trade complete this exemplary volume. in raw glass as well as in finished vessels, but how this material circulated is difficult to interpret. special topics Glass vessels are relatively rare until the end of the Dussart 1998 second century. The Delos finds indicate that this situa- Le verre en Jordanie et en Syrie du sud focuses on the tion changed drastically in the late second century B.C.E. ancient glass of the region considered by many to have when every house on Delos had glass vessels. Imports played a crucial role in the history of glassworking. The from the eastern Mediterranean and from Egypt were book presents a typological study of fragments found

36 Triandaphyllides 2000; Weinberg 1969. 2002] GLASS IS HOT 469 during recent excavations, supplemented by complete lenistic luxury wares, were made by coiling a glass thread vessels from museums at Bosra in Syria and at Amman and directly around an upside down mold placed on a slowly Kerak in Jordan. The material spans the late Hellenistic rotating potter’s wheel. Since then she has regularly star- period (second–first centuries B.C.E.) to the end of the tled the scholarly establishment by demonstrating that Ummayad dynasty in 750 C.E. other types of vessels were likewise made on a potter’s Dussart’s open alphanumeric typology is based on mor- wheel: ribbed bowls, cameo-glass vessels, cage cups. Now phological features. She distinguishes two basic catego- Lierke’s collected observations are gathered in one lav- ries: (A) mold-formed vessels, and (B) blown vessels. Cat- ishly illustrated book. Some scholars consider many of egory A, the bowl, is subdivided by decoration. Category her proposals highly controversial, while others, includ- B is huge: 15 shapes defined by function (bowls, cups, ing myself, find her arguments convincing. Lierke also bottles), further subdivided by profile and rim finish. El- writes extremely well; her book on ancient glass pottery egant charts illustrate the typological system. The bulk is as fascinating as any story of suspense. of the volume (49–184) is taken up by a catalogue of items arranged typologically. Triandaphyllides 2000 The material is too diverse and spans too broad a chro- Hot-formed glass vessels of the late Classical and early nological range for the typology to be meaningful. The Hellenistic periods are the subject of the first volume of volume, however, is handsomely edited, has a useful sum- Triandaphyllides’ ambitious project to publish all the ev- mary (ch. 1) of the archaeological data, and is lavishly idence for glassmaking and glassworking from ancient illustrated with the author’s own charts, plans, maps, and Rhodes. An English summary is included (191–201). Chap- profile drawings. ter 1 focuses on the archaeological evidence in Rhodes for primary glass production (the making of raw glass Sennequier et al. 1998 from its basic ingredients) and secondary production (the The political and economic significance of circus games making of objects). No furnaces have been found, but he in ancient Rome is well known. A family of mold-blown cites “deposits of quartz sand, calcium materials, glass frits glass cups known collectively as Sports Cups (“verres à and raw glass” in a complex of rock-cut tanks and cisterns scènes de spectacles,” or “Zirkusbecher”) provides impor- as evidence for primary glassmaking in the fourth to ear- tant information on Roman spectator sports in the first ly third centuries B.C.E. If so, the common opinion that century C.E., a period when iconographical evidence is all raw glass was made in the Syro-Palestinian littoral and much less abundant than in the third and fourth centu- Egypt may require reevaluation. ries. The cups show four types of scenes in relief: chariot A secondary workshop in Rhodes produced beads in races (circenses), gladiator fights (munera), hunts (vena- the late third and early second century B.C.E.; it will be tiones), and athletes. the subject of a second volume.39 There is some evidence The cups are attested predominantly in the western that the glassworkers colored the raw glass themselves. provinces, but the iconography points to games offered Five pottery disks are thought to be unique evidence for in the city of Rome and many cups are inscribed with the hot-forming of vessels on a potter’s wheel.40 Similar the names of sports heroes known from literary and disks, however, have been excavated at several bead-mak- epigraphic sources. In the 1980s Ludwig Berger initiat- ing sites, including a fourth- to early third-century glass ed the publication of a corpus of Sports Cups with a workshop at Kerkouane, Tunisia.41 survey of 73 fragments in Switzerland.37 The second Chapters 2–5 discuss various aspects of the relation- volume, by G. Sennequier, documents 100 fragments ship between so-called Achaemenid glass vessels and found in France. A.-B. Follmann-Schulz is preparing an Rhodian glassworking traditions; the second part of the inventory of the finds from Germany and the Benelux book includes two catalogues. The first catalogue (Cor- countries. Ten types (A–J) have been identified, many pus 1, nos. 1–23) presents luxury hot-formed transpar- of which occur in several variations, here named ent glass vessels, mostly plates and bowls (also an alabas- “molds.”38 Each “mold” is described in detail, and the tron and a small footed, salt-cellar-like bowl) from early findspots of fragments in France and Switzerland are fourth- to early third-century cemeteries. Each vessel is listed. Essays discuss games in first-century Rome, and illustrated in color and accompanied by drawings both of the distribution, contexts, dates, and colors of the ves- profiles and of the decorations. Several shallow bowls sels found in France. A catalogue of individual finds carry a crudely cut floral decoration, probably a local imi- follows, many published here for the first time. tation of Achaemenid vessels. The second catalogue (Cor- pus 2, nos. 1–75) presents the hot-formed transparent Lierke 1999 luxury vessels in Achaemenid tradition excavated out- Ten years ago Rosemarie Lierke first proposed that side the island of Rhodes. Among the more unusual some ancient glass vessels were hot-formed on a potter’s shapes are two glass bowls from Macedonia, each with wheel: spiral reticella bowls, one of the polychrome Hel- three feet shaped like shells (nos. 52, 53), and a glass

37 Rütti et al. 1988. 39 In the meantime, see Weinberg 1969, 143–51. 38 I prefer the term “series” (Stern 1995, 30) since more 40 See also Lierke 1999. than one physical mold could produce objects with identical 41 Nenna 1999, 67. scenes. 470 E. MARIANNE STERN [AJA 106 psykter excavated at Akrai Trichonitis on the Greek main- The Roman glass workshops of western Europe are land (no. 75). A map and two folding tables illustrating commoner and much better documented than those of the two corpora accompany this complete survey; the the eastern Mediterranean. A workshop recently exca- bibliography is completely up-to-date. vated at Cesson-Sévigné near Rennes, France produced glass in the late third or early fourth century in three Nenna 2000 circular furnaces. The remains included clay cones cov- AFAV’s 12th annual conference in 1997 focused on ered with remains of glass and clay curved elements sim- ancient and Medieval glass workshops, production and ilar to those excavated at the first-century glass work- trade, and the connections between primary workshops shops at Avenches42 and at Saintes in southwest France. producing raw glass and secondary workshops producing Associated with the furnaces were several enigmatic struc- objects. Chemical analyses and their interpretations play tures with hardened, dark red floors containing drippings an important role because the homogeneity in the com- of molten glass similar to first-century remains excavated position of glass throughout the Roman empire can be near Bonn (D. Pouille and F. Labaune, 125–46). explained in various ways: the transportation of raw in- D. Foy (147–70) traces the evolution of glass produc- gredients, such as sand and natron, the transportation of tion from Roman urban workshops in southern Gaul, chunks of raw glass, or recycling. Carefully arranged and which relied on imported raw glass, to the Middle Ages edited, these studies are essential for the inner workings when glasshouses controlled the entire production cycle of ancient glass production. from the mixing of raw ingredients to the manufacturing The replication of an 18th Dynasty glass furnace re- of artifacts. The archaeological identification of early cently excavated at Tell el-Amarna suggests that the Medieval glasshouses (ninth to 11th centuries) remains Egyptians could have made glass from locally available problematic. materials and that large-scale production, which may be linked to extensive trade networks, may have existed at this time (C.M. Jackson and P.T. Nicholson, 11–21). Ras after 1 october 2002: Shamra (Ugarit) and its harbor Minet el-Beida produced willibrorduslaan 87 a large number of Late Bronze Age glass artifacts and 1216 pa hilversum glass ingots suggesting a secondary workshop (V. Ma- netherlands toian, 23–47). [email protected] The discovery of 17 tank furnaces at Bet Eliezer in Israel sheds new light on the mass production of raw glass in the late Byzantine–early Islamic period. One Works Cited secondary workshop in the center of Bet She’an (ancient Scythopolis) is well preserved and doubled as a Amrein, H. 2001. L’Atelier de verriers d’Avenches: L’artisanat point of retail (Y. Gorin-Rosen, 49–63). The glassmak- du verre au milieu du 1er siècle après J.-C. Cahiers ers at Bet Eliezer produced a soda-lime-silica glass made d’Archéologie Romande 87. Lausanne: Aventicum XI. with natron and charged their furnaces in batches. The AnnAIHV 1998. Annales du 14e congrès de l’Association Inter- composition of the glass is matched by eighth-century nationale pour l’histoire du Verre, Venezia-Milano 1998 glass vessels from Ramla. The glasses from Israel differ [2000]. Lochem. in their composition not only from those of Egypt, but Arveiller-Dulong, V., and M.-D. Nenna. 2000. Les verres an- also from much Roman glass of western Europe (I.C. tiques. Vol. 1, Contenants à parfum en verre moulé sur noyau Freestone et al. 65–83). No remains of furnaces have et vaisselle moulée, VIIe siècle avant J.-C.–1er siècle après J.-C. been excavated in southern Syria and Jordan, but there Paris: Musée du Louvre, Département des antiquités are some indications that secondary workshops at Bosra, grecques, étrusques et romaines. Suweida, and Jerash may have produced glass artifacts Bonomi, S. 1996. Vetri antichi del Museo Archeologico Nazion- from imported raw glass (O. Dussart, 91–6). An analysis ale di Adria. Corpus delle Collezioni Archeologici del Vetro of first-century C.E. glass artifacts excavated at Qumran, nel Veneto 2. Venezia: Giunta regionale del Veneto; Israel compares Roman glass from western Europe (A. Comitato nazionale italiano dell’AIHV. Aerts et al., 113–21). Comune di Milano, Museo archeologico. 1998. Vetro e vetri Surveys in Lower Egypt have brought to light four sites Preziose iridescenze. Milan: Electa. of primary glass production, two in the Wadi Natrun and de Ridder, A. 1909. Collection de Clercq Catalogue. Vol. 6, Les two on the shore of Lake Mariut. Chemical analyses show terres cuites et les verres. Paris: Ernest Leroux. clear differences from Roman glass, supporting the hy- Dussart, O. 1998. Le verre en Jordanie et en Syrie du sud. Biblio- pothesis that most of the raw glass in western Roman thèque Archéologique et Historique 102. Beyrouth: In- Europe came from the Syro-Palestinian coast (contra Free- stitut Français d’Archéologie du Proche-Orient. stone et al. 65–83). The evidence for secondary glass Facchini, G.M. 1999. Vetri antichi del Museo archeologico al workshops in Graeco-Roman Egypt is based on archaeo- Teatro Romano di Verona e di altre collezioni veronesi. Corpus logical remains, ancient literature, and papyrological delle Collezioni Archeologici del Vetro nel Veneto 5. sources (M.-D. Nenna et al. 97–112). Venezia: Giunta regionale del Veneto; Comitato nazion-

42 Amrein 2001. 2002] GLASS IS HOT 471

ale italiano dell’AIHV. Rottloff, A. 2000. “Spätantike Repräsentationskunst in Süd- Foy, D., and M.-D. Nenna, eds. 2001. Tout feu tout sable: Mille deutschland: Einige Überlegungen zu den Glasschliff- ans de verre antique dans le Midi de la France. Aix-en- schalen von Augsburg Obernburg und Pfaffenhofen.” Provence: Musée d’Histoire de Marseille. Augsburger Beiträge zur Archäologie 3:123–60. Grose, D. 1989. Early Ancient Glass. The Toledo Museum of Art. Rütti, B., L. Berger, S. Fünfschilling, W.B. Stern, and N. New York: Hudson Hills Press and the Toledo Museum of Spichtig. 1988. “Die Zirkusbecher der Schweiz.” Jahres- Art. bericht 1987 der Gesellschaft Pro Vindonissa: 27–104. Harter, G. 1999. Römische Gläser des Landesmuseums Mainz. Sennequier, G., et al. 1998. Les verres romains à scènes de Wiesbaden: Reichert. spectacles trouvés en France. Rouen: Association Française Klein, M.J., ed. 1999. Römische Glaskunst und Wandmalerei. pour l’Archéologie du Verre. Sonderbände der AntW. Mainz: Philipp von Zabern. Simon-Hiernard, D. 2000. Verres d’époque romaine: Collection Larese, A., and E. Zerbinati. 1998. Vetri antichi di raccolte des musées de Poitiers. Poitiers: Musées de la Ville de Poit- concordiesi e polesane. Corpus delle Collezioni Archeologi- iers et de la Société des antiquaires de l’Ouest. ci del Vetro nel Veneto 4. Venezia: Giunta regionale del Stern, E.M. 1995. Roman Mold-Blown Glass: The First through Veneto; Comitato nazionale italiano dell’AIHV. Sixth Centuries. Rome: L’ERMA di Bretschneider and the Lierke, R. 1999. Antike Glastöpferei: Ein vergessenes Kapitel der Toledo Museum of Art. Glasgeschichte. Sonderbände der AntW. Mainz: Philipp von ———. 1999. “Ancient Glass in Athenian Temple Treasures.” Zabern. JGS 41:19–50. Loffreda, S. 1984. “Vasi in vetro e in argilla trovati a Caf- ———. 2001. Roman, Byzantine, and Early Medieval Glass, 10 ernao nel 1984.” Liber Annuus 34:385–408. BCE–700 CE: Ernesto Wolf Collection. New York: Ostfildern. Massabò, B., ed. 2000. Magiche trasparenze: I vetri dell’ antica Stern, E.M., and B. Schlick-Nolte. 1994. Early Glass of the Albingaunum. Milan: Mazzotta. Ancient World, 1600 B.C.–A.D. 50: Ernesto Wolf Collection. Miho Museum. 2001. Ancient Glass (in Japanese). Shiga: Ostfildern: Hatje Cantz. Miho Museum. Toniolo, A. 2000. Vetri antichi del Museo Archeologico Nazion- Metropolitan Museum of Art. 1996. Ancient Art from the ale di Este. Corpus delle Collezioni Archeologici del Vetro Shumei Family Collection. New York: Metropolitan Museum nel Veneto 6. Venezia: Giunta regionale del Veneto; of Art. Comitato nazionale italiano dell’AIHV. Nenna, M.-D. 1999. Les verres. Délos 37. Paris: De Boccard. Triandaphyllides, P. 2000. Ρδιακ υαλυργ α 1. Athens: Min- ———, ed. 2000. La Route du verre: Ateliers primaires et secon- istry of the Aegean. daires du second millénaire av. J.-C. au Moyen Age. Lyon: Trowbridge, M.L. 1930. Philological Studies in Ancient Glass. Maison de l’Orient Méditerranéen-Jean Pouilloux. Carbondale: University of Illinois Press. Ravagnan, G.L. 1994. Vetri antichi del Museo Vetrario di Mura- Weinberg, G.D. 1969. “Glass Manufacture in Hellenistic no. Corpus delle Collezioni Archeologici del Vetro nel Rhodes.” ArchDelt 24:143–51. Veneto 1. Venezia: Giunta regionale del Veneto; Comita- ———. 1992. Glass Vessels in Ancient Greece: Their History to nazionale italiano dell’AIHV. Illustrated from the Collection of the National Archaeological Roffia, E. 1993. I vetri antichi delle Civiche Raccolte Archeolog- Museum, Athens. Athens: Ministry of Culture, Archaeo- iche di Milano. Milan: Civiche Raccolte Archeologiche di logical Receipts Fund. Milano. Zampieri, G. 1998. Vetri antichi del Museo Civico Archeologico ———. 2000. Vetri antichi dall’ oriente: La collezione Personeni di Padova. Corpus delle Collezioni Archeologici del Vetro e i piatti da Cafarnao. Sandrio: Palazzo Sertoli, Galleria nel Veneto 3. Venezia: Giunta regionale del Veneto; Credito Valtellinese. Comitato nazionale italiano dell’AIHV. BOOK REVIEWS

The Science and Archaeology of Materials: An tive technology is outlined, as through the observed im- Investigation of Inorganic Materials, by provement of kilns and the construction of furnaces. In the final part of each of these chapters an extensive sec- Julian Henderson. Pp. 352, figs. 58, ills. 109. tion is devoted to the presentation of typical case studies. Routledge, London 2000. $32.95 (paper); $100 In the pages dedicated to glass the analysis is broadly (cloth). ISBN 0-415-19934-4 (paper); 0-415- extended. It ranges in time from “the origins of glass and 19933-6 (cloth). its early production in the Mediterranean and Mesopot- amia” (52–9) to the “seventeenth-century glass produc- Julian Henderson is one of the leading experts in the tion in Europe” (90–8), with a special section on “early study of scientific instrumental analysis applied to archae- Medieval glass in Europe: the continuation of a Roman ological materials. His research focuses on glass and ma- tradition?” (67–76). Examination of glass manufacture terials production from Iron Age Britain and Europe to subsequently moves to the Euphrates, “the rise of the Early Medieval Europe and Islamic Syria. He is the Direc- Abbasids and glass production in early Islamic Syria” (76– tor of the Raqqa (Syria) Ancient Industry Project and 90). Evidence is presented for the glass industry under Editor of the Journal of Archaeological Science. the Abbasids caliphate from about 750 A.D., when the His book (also see J. Henderson, ed., Scientific Analysis center of power shifted to Baghdad. in Archaeology [Oxford 1989]) is not merely devoted to a For the broad field of ceramics production, the Greek, broad investigation of the main inorganic materials of ar- Roman, and Mediterranean production is disregarded in chaeological interest and the related extractive and pro- favor of less common case studies—classical details have to duction technologies. It also offers an up-to-date descrip- be found elsewhere: for example, M. Pollard and C. Heron tion of materials exploitation and manufacturing in both (Archaeological Chemistry [Cambridge 1996] 134–44) and prehistoric and historic periods, placed in a corresponding Z. Goffer (Archaeological Chemistry [Wiley 1980] 124–31). cultural and technological framework. The aim of the book What Henderson does discuss is noteworthy. His sections is to establish fertile connections between scientific and on “the changing modes of Iron Age pottery production archaeological research and recognize a common integrat- in Britain” (142–54) and the “production and distribution ed context for these often separated worlds within which of early Medieval pottery in Britain” (154–64) provide found artifacts can be properly and fruitfully analyzed. unusual contributions to the specific study of ceramics pro- As clearly stated in the book’s last pages (ch. 7, “Archae- duction in Britain. And the sections “manufacture of cela- ological Science and the Way Forward,” 324–6), the intent dons” (164–81) and “Iznik: Ottoman court ceramics and of the author is to contribute to what appears to be the “last the development of ‘fritware’” (181–200) analyze the less major development and challenge for archaeological sci- commonly discussed Asian and Near Eastern production. ence,” a “holistic approach” representing the most power- Henderson’s bent for unconventional choices in his ful result of “the interaction of otherwise discrete disci- case studies is confirmed in the part devoted to metals. pline.” This is expected to lead to the further refinement These are well presented in his useful “scientific study of of the mutual interplay between science and archaeology copper and bronze in Europe” (248–61), which is flanked and to a “significant enrichment of archaeological study.” by the even more interesting “early copper production After the Introduction (ch. 1), a preliminary chapter in Wadi Feinan, Jordan” (241–5) and “early copper and (2, “Techniques of Scientific Analysis”) is devoted to the copper alloy production in Thailand” (262–70). “Techno- description of the main experimental techniques for logical innovation and the case of iron” (270–3) intro- chemical and structural investigation of archaeological duces “the production of iron in Iron Age Britain” (273– inorganic materials. This section focuses in particular on 81). The final paragraph of “the chemical characteriza- spectroscopic analytical methods: X-ray diffraction, neu- tion of precious metals” (282–5) lacks a satisfactory dis- tron activation and isotopic analysis, electron probe mi- cussion of coins, considering the technical properties of croanalysis, scanning electron microscopy, and particle minting, and the possibility to extract direct information induced X-ray emission. on economics and trade routes. Subsequent chapters treat four materials almost ex- The chapter on stone, central to the book’s objective, haustively: glass (ch. 3, 24–108), ceramics (ch. 4, 109– includes a study of “obsidian research” (305–15). Obsidian 207), metals (ch. 5, 208–96) and stone (ch. 6, 297–317). emerges as a paradigmatic material; it forms during volca- These chapters have identical structures: at the begin- nic eruptions as a naturally occurring glass and has been ning, a summary of the chemical and physical identifica- used to obtain sharp-edged tools for over 30,000 years. Its tion of the material, followed by a description of how it is chemical homogeneity, ensuing from a naturally rapid so- possible to obtain, select, and refine the raw substance. lidification, permits clear recognition of patterns of sourc- Where appropriate, a key is offered to the chemical strates and trade. Even an estimate can be made for the eco- egies and physical rationale permitting a produced artifact nomic value obsidian could have had before the Copper to be transformed, in particular through heat treatment, Age in northern Italy (310–14). Competitive trading is to optimize its technological properties. Additionally, se- estimated for the materials originating from the Italian lected examples of the recognized main raw sources of islands of Palmarola, Lipari, and Sardinia, based on the the past are discussed and the development of the produc- different mechanical properties as well as on the propor- 472 BOOK REVIEWS 473 tion of the numbers of lithic objects at a site respective to Archaeological Parenchyma, by Jon G. Hather. Pp. its distance from source ores. Further case studies for stone, xi + 100, figs. 215. Archetype Publications, London “answering archaeological questions through the scientif- 2000. £29.50, $45. ISBN 1-873132-42-5 (paper). ic analysis of flint” (301–5) and “stone axe studies” (317– 9) are presented within the same interpretative frame. Paleoethnobotany traditionally describes analyses of “The origin and transportation of the bluestones of Stone- seeds and fruits, wood, and pollen. Occasionally, howev- henge” (315–7) includes a summary of past scientific stud- er, the application of innovative technologies and meth- ies on Stonehenge from 1878. odologies gives new life to the field, supplementing and This is an ambitious book even within the poor land- enhancing standard practices and enabling specialists to scape of texts devoted to archaeometry. Its importance identify plants in a different way. For more than a de- relies partly in the encyclopedic collection of references cade, Jon Hather has worked to fill a huge gap in paleo- for the study of ancient artifacts in inorganic materials, ethnobotany—the identification of charred remains of especially for studies before the 19th century, and partly vegetative storage organs such as roots and tubers. Until in the wealth of unconventional but appropriate case very recently, virtually all such remains had been consid- studies. These demonstrate how a range of different tech- ered unidentifiable, in spite of the fact that they are nical approaches can be integrated with archaeology. For fairly common on archaeological sites. In Archaeological new and original applications of investigation techniques Parenchyma, Hather introduces an innovative new ap- in genetics and biochemistry see M. Jones, The Molecule proach to paleoethnobotany, one that he has been de- Hunt (London 2001). veloping for nearly a decade. His earlier work, An Archae- Henderson provides plentiful suggestions for more deep- ological Guide to Root and Tuber Identification. Vol. 1, Eu- ly integrated studies within appropriate cultural, chrono- rope and South West Asia (Oxford 1993) consisted of a logical, and geographical frameworks, sure to please both laboratory guide for the identification of vegetative stor- material scientists and archaeologists well specialized in age parenchyma, and presented nearly 600 photographs, archaeometry. But thanks to his didactic goals and wide comparing sections of fresh parenchyma with that which perspective the book will also be appreciated by scholars had been charred under controlled laboratory conditions. without a specific background in solid state physics. He included detailed descriptions of the anatomy and Such a multiplicity of goals, however, leads to some morphology of the fresh tissue, and the manner in which unevenness. For example, the introduction on the ana- the tissue had been affected by the charring process. lytical techniques of materials investigation and the open- Archaeological Parenchyma is a natural companion to this ing paragraphs focused on the physical aspects of the volume and should be used alongside it, for he applies a materials behavior contain only the essentials, but these standard paleoethnobotanical technique—microscopic are not entirely suitable for a clear comprehension of analysis of charred plant remains—to plant material that the interrelated mechanical, structural, and chemical until now had been virtually ignored in paleoethnobota- properties of glass, ceramics, metals, and stone. Other ny. His method has far reaching implications for Old World sources have to be consulted, like U. Leute’s Archaeome- and New World archaeology alike, and can be applied try: An Introduction to Physical Methods in Archaeology and even to very small fragments of roots and tubers. the History of Art (Weinheim 1987) and M. Tite’s Methods Hather makes it very clear that Archaeological Parenchy- of Physical Examination in Archaeology (London 1972). ma is not intended for the novice. Instead, it is aimed at The topics treated in this book obviously reflect the the archaeobotanist with some knowledge of plant anat- author’s interests and experiences; thus glass and ceram- omy (4). He refers the reader who wishes a more exten- ics are more extensively treated than metals and stone. sive background in plant anatomy to five sources: A.D. Especially missed are discussions of marble in chapter 6, Bell, Plant Form: An Illustrated Guide to Flowering Plant and also of pigments, inorganic materials with important Morphology (Oxford 1991); K. Esau, Plant Anatomy (New archaeological significance. York 1965); A. Fahn, Plant Anatomy, 4th ed. (London Nevertheless, The Science and Archaeology of Materials, 1995); J.D. Mauseth, Plant Anatomy (California 1988); a book oscillating between materials science and archae- and P. Rudall, Anatomy of Flowering Plants, 2nd ed. (Cam- ology, provides an important contribution in the con- bridge 1992). In addition, a six-page glossary located at struction of a solid, traceable database that will help in the end of Hather’s text provides brief but useful iden- further steps toward new archaeological perspectives. The tifications of anatomical terms, from abaxial to xylem. selected case studies are remarkable accomplishments, Archaeological Parenchyma is divided into eight chap- good field examples for future discussions. ters. The first three chapters present background information on the anatomy and morphology of vegetative tissue, and constitute a valuable review of terminology Enzo Ferrara and the relationships among the various types of plant materials department tissue. In chapter 1, Hather presents the main purpose istituto elettrotecnico nazionale of the book, which is to provide for archaeologists a de- “galileo ferraris” scription of the morphological and anatomical character- strada delle cacce, 91 istics that can be used in the identification of charred 10135 torino vegetative storage parenchyma (2). This chapter includes italy a review of the anatomy of vegetative soft tissue, includ- [email protected] ing the three main tissue types in vegetative storage 474 BOOK REVIEWS [AJA 106 organs—parenchyma, sclerenchyma, and the vascular tis- than to text. The photographs provide clarity for the sues, xylem and phloem—along with a description of the sometimes-subtle distinguishing features of anatomy and structure and function of each. Chapter 2, devoted main- morphology. Still, there are places in the text that would ly to the gross morphology of plants, includes a conve- benefit from more photographs—for example, a diag- nient historical overview describing how botanists of the nostic feature from two different angles, or the mor- 19th and 20th centuries coined and used various anatom- phology of certain features in a wider variety of taxa. ical terms. The overview is particularly useful, since lack Hather’s techniques will undoubtedly open new doors of standardization in terminology has lead to inconsis- in archaeology, and are certain to result in a better un- tency in usage and duplication of meaning, a problem derstanding of how people in ancient cultures used plants still affecting botanists to this day. Surface morphology, and interacted with their environments. But his book including detachment scars, buds, prickles, and spines, is remains just an introduction, and more work is needed in described in chapter 3. this area. The fact that nearly a third of the photographs The lengthiest chapter, chapter 4, focuses on the na- of charred archaeological parenchyma are labeled “uni- ture of parenchymous tissue, its position relative to vas- dentified” demonstrates this plainly. The study of archae- cular tissue, and the manner in which parenchyma is pre- ological parenchyma is very promising, however, and this served archaeologically. Excellent light and scanning elec- reviewer hopes to see a second volume that would fur- tion micrographs complement the text, illustrating trans- ther elucidate the characteristics of parenchyma. A sec- verse and tangential longitudinal sections of parenchy- tion devoted to practical advice, describing the access ma cells of various sizes and shapes, intercellular spaces, one requires to laboratory facilities and to herbaria, the and cell inclusions such as starch grains and crystals. equipment one requires, the timetable and costs involved, Hather compares fresh with charred archaeological pa- all drawn from Hather’s personal experiences, would add renchyma, and describes the effects of the charring pro- an interesting dimension, perhaps serving as a conclu- cess on morphology. sion. While we wait for volume two, however, there is In several places Hather comments on the limitations little doubt that Archaeological Parenchyma will become of using parenchyma cells alone for plant identification, an invaluable resource for archaeobotanists and graduate emphasizing that taxonomic identification generally de- students in the classroom as well as in the field and labo- pends not only on the characteristics of parenchyma, but ratory, and deserves to find its way onto the shelves of also on the characteristics of vascular tissues (47, 73). For university libraries. this reason, he devotes two chapters to vascular tissue. Kimberly Flint-Hamilton Chapters 5 and 6 describe the structure and organization of vascular tissues in stems (ch. 5) and roots (ch. 6). department of sociology and anthropology Chapter 7 is devoted to the anatomy of sclerenchyma—a stetson university mechanical tissue that typically functions as support, pro- deland, florida 32720-3757 tective, or defensive tissue. [email protected] Arguably the most valuable chapter of the text for the archaeobotanist is chapter 8, which focuses on practical methods for handling and identifying parenchyma. Here Geoarchaeology: Exploration, Environments, Hather reviews the taphonomic processes that result in Resources, edited by A.M. Pollard. (Geological the formation of an archaeological assemblage. In this Society Special Publication 165.) Pp. 180. Geo- context, he discusses sampling and recovery methods, logical Society, London 1999. £65, $92.30. ISBN the locations in which archaeological parenchyma is most likely to be preserved, and the benefits of dry sieving 1-86239-053-3 (cloth). versus water flotation. Hather also presents the basics of This book compiles a number of diverse studies ar- sample preparation both for light and for scanning elec- ranged in three parts, titled “Exploration” (geophysical tron microscopy (SEM). He even provides sample data prospecting), “Environments,” and “Resources” as indi- sheets for use in analyzing archaeological material as well cated by the subtitle of the book. The volume is not as in making a reference collection. He refers through- aimed at students or the uninitiated in the subdiscipline out the text to the importance of the reference collec- of geoarchaeology. It contains some highly technical and tion, emphasizing that, as in every branch of paleoeth- problem-specific research reports that require a back- nobotany, correct taxonomic identifications depend on ground in basic geology, mineralogy, geophysics, and the quality of the collection and the variety of specimens geochemistry. contained therein. The advice he gives for making a ref- The book begins with a well-rounded introduction by erence collection is useful, clearly reflecting years of Pollard giving a brief history of geoarchaeology and then experience. While generally not as thorough as one finds a short description of the papers included within the in D. Pearsall’s Palaeoethnobotany: A Handbook of Proce- volume under the three main topical headings. Within dures, 2nd ed. (San Diego 2000), Hather’s focus on root this introduction Pollard makes a clear statement about and tuber preparation and preservation, a topic which the philosophy behind the volume when he cites has been virtually ignored, makes it extremely valuable. Donahue (1986) in his first editorial for the journal Geoar- Replete with photomicrographs and diagrams, the chaeology, “an interface involves two-way interaction, so photography is one of the strengths of this book. More that research making use of archaeologic data to expand than 200 images provide an outstanding supplement, geologic interpretation and understanding is just as valu- some chapters having more pages devoted to photographs able as the reverse.” Whereas many studies in geoarchae- 2002] BOOK REVIEWS 475 ology concentrate on problems defined by archaeology, Donegal and Falmouth in Great Britain, and La Rochelle, this work focuses primarily on geological research prob- France. Millard’s chapter investigates the chemical pro- lems within historical and archaeological contexts. cesses involved in the manufacturing of alum in the 17th The three papers within “Exploration” test methods for and 18th centuries in North Yorkshire. He used both geophysical prospecting and remote sensing in new types magnetic susceptibility to detect the burning of shale of archaeological contexts. Vernon et al. use fluxgate gra- and energy dispersive X-ray fluorescence to characterize diometry and magnetic susceptibility to test the different the elements of the waste deposits compared with fresh kinds of information obtainable from Medieval lead and shale. Millard concluded that magnetic susceptibility was iron smelting sites in Britain. They demonstrate techniques a more useful technique for identifying alum manufac- for distinguishing readings from furnace locations that turing processes. Budd et al. experiment with zinc iso- differ from those obtained from slag deposits. They also tope fractionation in brass melting in an attempt to iden- explore new ways to distinguish between iron and lead tify ancient and historical brass-making techniques. Their smelting sites by their distinctive magnetic susceptibility results were inconclusive but suggest that higher resolu- signatures. Murdie et al. address the problem of vertical tion measurements might be more successful. Thomas resolution in remote sensing at archaeological sites. They and Young’s second paper in this volume is again con- explore the use of Euler deconvolution methods on mag- cerned with the sourcing of ore used in iron smelting, netic gradiometry data to determine the depth of a Ro- but this time they investigate the problem of sourcing mano-British villa. They found this to be a quick and easy the original ore from slag deposits. They propose a graph- technique of mapping subsurface feature depths with reli- ing solution to the problem using concentrations of rare able results. The final paper in this section, by Cuss and earth elements. The authors model the relationships Styles, is also concerned with depth and remote sensing. between the ore, the composition of furnace linings, It reports on a successful attempt to map a series of rock- and contaminations from charcoal. This technique was cut tunnels built in the early 19th century under a portion used successfully on a Roman ironworking site in south- of the town of Liverpool. In this case study the research- ern Britain, but should be widely applicable in other iron- ers used a high resolution microgravity technique and dem- working contexts as well. In the final chapter, Zaykov et onstrated the value of remote sensing even under a densely al. explore the use and trade of stone materials and met- built urban setting. als in Bronze and Iron Age sites in the southern Urals. Within “Environment,” Latham et al. report on a tapho- They examine the possible quarry sites for the stones, nomic study at the Australopithecine cave site of Maka- review information suggesting the location of prehistor- pansgat in South Africa. Here they address the problem ic copper mines, and present results of geochemical anal- of correlation between the strata in the cave and the yses on the composition of copper and bronze artifacts, environments of deposition. They present a convincing as well as the minerals formed by their corrosion. argument for sediment deposition in ephemeral pools Most of the chapters in this book report on the results rather than as a result of an underground water table, of highly specialized geological studies. The majority are and identify areas of the cave with intact stratigraphy located in Britain, and most are concerned with mining that are likely locales for paleomagnetic sampling. The and mineral extraction. The book is very useful for those chapter by Tipping et al. is a nice study of the extent professional geoarchaeologists and archaeologists who are that pollen grains can be mixed throughout a podsol soil interested in selecting appropriate techniques for geo- profile. It is a useful study to those scholars interested in physical prospecting around archaeological sites, sourc- the integrity of paleobotanical samples in a soil profile, ing of mineral resources, and examining the by-products showing how much mixing of pollen can occur in organic of artifact corrosion. horizons. However, the authors do not make an attempt Arlene M. Rosen to link their study with archaeological questions. Thorndy- craft et al. test alluvial sediments for chemical traces left institute of archaeology by intervals of tin mining activity in Dartmoor. Using this university college london technique they were able to show how episodes of min- london, wc1h 0py ing in the catchment area coincide with historical records united kingdom of mining activity. [email protected] Most of the chapters in this book fall within the category of “Resources.” In the first contribution, Young and Thomas used mineralogical analysis and trace-element Environmental Disaster and the Archaeology geochemistry to source iron ores from a shipwreck off of Human Response, edited by Garth Bawden and the coast of southwest Britain. They neatly tie their results to historical records suggesting that the unlikely Richard Martin Reycraft. (Maxwell Museum of An- locale for the ship, seemingly transporting ores to an thropology Anthropological Papers 7.) Pp. x + ore-producing region, had a plausible explanation in the 228, figs. 30, tables 7, map 1. Maxwell Museum of light of historical factors. Lazareth and Mercier deal with Anthropology, Albuquerque 2001. $34.95. ISBN a similar problem of the historical implications of sourcing geological resources. They identify historical con- 0-912535-14-8 (paper). nections evident from the sources of granite ballasts re- This is a well-produced and highly readable collection used in Medieval building construction. This approach of essays that comes at a time when the archaeology of allows them to reconstruct trade routes by sea between human response to natural disasters (for want of a better 476 BOOK REVIEWS [AJA 106 term) is a controversial subject. It sits nicely among re- level of social organization within the different commu- cent research on natural catastrophes in the Bronze Age nities affected were the most important features in all in the Old World (Peiser et al., Natural Disasters [Oxford cases that predicated the social responses. 1998]), the work of Brian Fagan on the impact of El Michael Moseley’s final chapter attempts to pull the Niño (Floods, Famines, and Emperors [London 2000]) and various strands of the book together and, more impor- Mike Baillie’s highly individual discussion of the earth’s tantly, to draw out the important contribution that ar- encounters with comets (Exodus to Arthur [London chaeological studies of human response to disaster might 1999]). It also has resonance with some of my own re- have for our own responses to similar situations in the search on human response to climate change in the up- future. This I think is a crucial point. Archaeology is well lands of northern Britain in later prehistory (R. Young suited to point up the possible array of responses to cer- and T. Simmonds, “Marginality,” Landscape History 17 tain types of incident in societies at different levels of [1995] 5–16 and “Debating Marginality,” in J. Bruck and cultural, social, and political organization. At this level M. Goodman, eds., Making Places [London 1999], and R. we could, and probably should, find convergence with Young, “Continuity and Change,” in J. Harding and R. current work on risk, natural hazards, and people’s re- Johnson, eds., Northern Pasts [Oxford 2000] 71–80). sponses (see, e.g., Blaikie et al., At Risk [London 1994]). The book under review deals with a range of natural Moseley suggests that this has not been the case because disasters in a variety of different locales, over a variety of archaeologists have been put off such an approach by periods. All of the authors have addressed four major allegations of determinism in the past. themes in the course of their contributions, namely “the If so, this is a cop-out. As Moseley says, archaeologists character of the precipitating phenomena,” “the quality should offer insights into how the impact of disasters can of the environmental events as they directly affect hu- be mitigated—not in the almost formulaic way the edi- man societies,” “the structure of the affected society,” tors wanted to achieve but in ways that vary according to and “the form of social response to environmental stress.” context, as archaeology can demonstrate. As the old Rus- This seems to me to be an admirable research agenda. I sian proverb has it, “Dwell on the past and you’ll lose an fail to see, however, how this will facilitate the editors’ eye—forget the past and you’ll lose both eyes.” chief hopes of identifying “some general pattern in the Robert Young response to catastrophe.” It strikes me that response will be linked to the variables of “organizational complexity, school of archaeology and ancient history geographic context, range of subsistence resources, cul- university of leicester tural configuration and the intensity and range of envi- leicester le1 7rh ronmental disruption,” which they list as being phenom- united kingdom ena that they hope to better understand through the [email protected] case studies. What each case study highlights is that these phenomena are variable and highly dependent on context. Reading the Body: Representations and Re- As a result, when we explore the impact of famine on people and their response to it in 19th-century India, we mains in the Archaeological Record, edited surely cannot compare it with the response to El Niño of by Alison E. Rautman. Pp. 283, figs. 41, tables 13, human groups on the coast of Peru in the 15th century maps 2. University of Pennsylvania Press, Phila- A.D. Simply put, we are not comparing like with like here, delphia 2000. $22.50 (paper); $49.95 (cloth). and this is my one complaint against the book. But the book does contribute a series of high quality, well-re- ISBN 0-8122-1709-8 (paper). searched case studies, important in their own right, and Since the early 1980s, when the subject first appeared nearly all have an individual contribution to make to the in print in the United States, there has been a virtual debate surrounding the theme of the volume. flood of publications dealing with some aspect of gender While the paper by Runnels on the contribution of configurations as documented in the archaeological regional surveys to our understanding of soil erosion in record. Given that the embedded nature of gender in all prehistoric Greece was, I feel, a massive glimpse of the aspects of past culture systems was virtually ignored be- obvious, I was particularly impressed with the work of fore this watershed was reached, the current spate of Kathleen Morrison on drought and famine during the studies is a positive development. Not quite so positive is period of the Britsh Raj in southern India. For me this the fact that, in spite of the greatly expanded number of was one of the strongest contributions in the volume. publications now available on this topic, an archaeology Her exemplary piece linked the differing social respons- of gender still eludes us. The continued “ghettoization” es and perceptions of both colonized and colonizer to of gender as a subject somehow separate from conven- circumstances and natural effects and to their political tional archaeological analysis continues in the form of manipulation; she presents a serious contribution to fam- themed publications, many, as in this case, the product of ine studies within a post-colonial framework of debate. conferences also dedicated specifically to the subject of By the same token, chapters 8 to 13 all hung together gender in archaeological analysis. I have been involved as an interesting exposition on the Americas. Again in organizing and publishing such conferences myself, though, what struck me with great force was the variabil- and am not pointing the finger here—I support the pro- ity of human response to natural disaster. The scale and duction of a solid body of scholarly work dedicated to duration of the disruptive episodes themselves and the acknowledging gender as a variable in archaeological in- 2002] BOOK REVIEWS 477 terpretation. Nevertheless, an effort to normalize gen- Age Aegean. While the stylistic discussion of these imag- der analysis in archaeology has to be the next step, and it es is interesting, more information on the distribution, is from this perspective that I commend Alison Rautman, context, function, and audience of these seals and seal the editor of Reading the Body, for not flagging the vol- impressions would have made this a stronger paper. M. ume by the use of the term gender in the title. I hope Lee’s chapter on representations of gender in Minoan that at some point in the not too distant future edited dress made some interesting points, but it would have volumes such as this one that are dedicated to the ar- benefited from references to classic gender studies. E. chaeology of gender will no longer be necessary. Brumfiel’s work, for example, would have supported Lee’s This volume represents a selection of papers from the conclusions regarding the requirement that women pro- Fourth Gender and Archaeology Conference held at Mich- duce and supply textiles to the Minoan palace centers. igan State University in October of 1996. The confer- Illustrations would have been helpful in T. Niven’s arti- ence theme was “Diverse Approaches to the Study of cle, which looks at how facial expressions and gestures in Gender in Antiquity,” and one of the stated goals was to Greek art can be used to inform gender ideology. bridge the divide between classical and anthropological A. Kehoe’s contribution to the volume, a discussion of archaeological research through the lens of gender anal- representations of Mississippian women weavers in the ysis. The book is divided into two main sections, one larger context of women’s textile work and its symbolic dealing with mortuary approaches to gender (five chap- significance, is articulate and poetic. It should serve as an ters), the other, much longer section (nine chapters) impetus to others working in the Americas who may be focusing on representations of gender in various media able to make similar connections. M. Beck’s chapter on and cross-cultural contexts. There are also two introduc- female figurines in the European Upper Paleolithic is, tory chapters, by Alison Rautman and Lauren Talalay, and like Kehoe’s contribution, as much a sociohistorical cri- by Lynn Meskell. tique as a study of the material in question. B. Shaffer, K. The chapters on the mortuary correlates of gender vary Gardner, and J. Powell explore prehistoric and ethno- widely in their approaches. S. Hollimon’s discussion of sex, graphic Pueblo gender roles through the analysis of Mim- health, and gender roles among the Arikara of the north- bres pottery motifs. They acknowledge the virtual impos- ern Plains is based on anthropological evidence from os- sibility of interpreting gender roles in Mimbres society teological remains, and ethnographic and historical ac- in the absence of “self-documented, explicit depictions” counts of gender configurations among indigenous groups. (149). K. Hays-Gilpin’s study on sex and gender in an- The running head for this chapter is misleading, since cient southwestern visual arts covers some of the same Hollimon does not focus on Arikara women’s labor, but ground, but includes a wider range of media and a broad- examines a range of paleopathological indicators for diet, er geographic area. warfare, and stress-related trauma resulting from repeti- S. Pollock and R. Bernbeck’s discussion of gender ide- tive movement and demographic patterns. J. Peterson’s ologies in ancient Mesopotamia is one of the more theo- chapter addresses the “agent-centered perspective on the retically sophisticated contributions to the volume, which transition to domestic economies” (39) from a gender makes it much easier to evaluate their conclusions. They perspective by analyzing the muscoskeletal stress markers combine a rigorous, processually-oriented statistical study (MSM) on human bone from the southern Levant during with a more postprocessual, cognitive interpretive ap- the Early Bronze Age as domesticated species become proach, and as a result produce a useful synthesis. more important and work patterns change. This is a nicely Overall, this is a valuable addition to the growing cor- crafted study supported by solid data. M. Becker examines pus of archaeological gender studies, as well as a contri- dental prosthetics and how they can offer a window into bution to the anthropological subfield that views the body the lives of women in southern Etruria, including trade as an arena for gender performance on many levels. patterns, marriage alliances, and how the body itself can Bettina Arnold be used to map gender and status in ways that are archaeologically and osteologically recoverable. B. Crass’s contri- department of anthropology bution on Inuit burial traditions is a complex and in some university of wisconsin-milwaukee ways confounding study—gender differences in this soci- milwaukee, wisconsin 53201 ety seem loosely marked, and task differentiation is fluid. [email protected] At the same time, gender ideology as represented in ethnographic studies is highly codified. S. Savage’s chapter presents a statistical analysis of mortuary data relevant to Feasts: Archaeological and Ethnographic the status of women in predynastic Egypt. The emphases Perspectives on Food, Politics and Power, on an early, formative period and on a large demographic sample contribute to our understanding of Egyptian gen- edited by Michael Dietler and Brian Hayden. Pp. xii der configurations, which have not traditionally been the + 432, figs. 68, tables 18. Smithsonian Institution subject of systematic study. His chapter nicely complements Press, Washington, D.C. 2001. $29.95 (paper); that by A. Macy Roth in the second part of the volume on $55 (cloth). ISBN 1-56098-840-1 (paper); 1- ancient Egyptian beliefs about conception and fertility as represented in various media. 56098-861-4 (cloth). Representations of the human form are treated in part As Western society’s focus has moved from production, 2, including S. German’s stylistic analysis of female and often expressed in environmental archaeological circles male images on seals and sealings in the Late Bronze as “subsistence,” to consumption, it is perhaps significant 478 BOOK REVIEWS [AJA 106 that this book concentrates on one of the ultimate ex- are often greatest, to ceremonial events linked with sea- pressions of consumption, the feast. It is edited by two sonal cycles (Kelly, ch. 12, Brown), to celebrations of key thinkers on the importance of feasting in archaeo- victory in warfare (Schmandt-Besserat, ch. 14). Wiessner logical contexts, and brings together, in one book, a syn- (ch. 4) attempts to separate sacred from secular, but of- thetic consideration of the importance of feasting be- ten the sacred and the secular are intertwined (Brown, havior, a series of ethnographic case studies, together Schmandt-Besserat). Dietler emphasizes the experien- with some archaeological applications. The bulk of this tial nature of feasting, which usually involves “singing, book is more ethnographic than archaeological, but where dancing, inebriation, [and] oratorical displays” (Dietler, the “archaeological” in the title holds best is in the po- p. 4). Developing from this, Brown and Schmandt-Besser- tential it offers archaeologists to understand social rela- at, in their case studies, find the terms fiesta and festival tions in the past. more appropriate, or even, as in the case of the contem- The anthropology and sociology of food is not a new porary North American feast, “party” (Wilson and Rathje, subject, of course, as indicated in the oft-cited “good to ch. 15). Interestingly, there is less conspicuous generos- think” quote from Lévi-Strauss in the title of the intro- ity exhibited at the modern North American examples ductory chapter. Dietler and Hayden consider that feasts discussed by Wilson and Rathje, a behavior they link with are undertheorized, however, which, in part, explains industrialization and urbanization. the emphasis on ethnographic case studies and the fact The ethnographic case studies demonstrate that meat, that a number of the contributors—as well as the edi- intoxicating substances, and quantity of food are key tors—offer definitions. Most definitions start by attempt- components of feasts. Thus, it is not surprising that the ing to clarify where everyday meals end and feasts begin, main archaeological case studies use animal bones (Junk- but we are clearly discussing continuums here rather than er and Kelly in their Philippine and Mississippian case strictly delineated events. This is exemplified in the range studies) and serving and preparation vessels as their main of case studies presented in this volume, each of which forms of material evidence (Brown in a Mayan example, highlights particular aspects and occasions marked by as well as Kelly). Brown and Knight (ch. 11, for Woodland these “unusual” meals. In their theorizing, Hayden em- period mounds in the southeastern United States) also phasizes the ecological aspect, with the stronger ten- demonstrate how spatial differentiation may be informa- dency to categorize (ch. 2), whereas Dietler emphasizes tive. The archaeological case studies serve to emphasize the political and contingent, strongly influenced by Bour- the importance of integrating different lines of evidence: dieu’s ideas of power through practice (ch. 3). Thus, hearths, pots, structures, animal and plant species, exot- where Hayden considers the ability to organize and dis- ic raw materials, imported pottery, more and bigger ves- tribute a feast akin to biological success, Dietler gives sels, to name a few. Hayden offers a useful summary of higher priority to feasts as symbolic representations and the many kinds of potential evidence for feasting (table a form of ritual activity (see ch. 1). 2.1). The archaeological case studies presented in Feasts Most of the chapters, in both the ethnographic and are strengthened by good ethnographic and ethnohis- archaeological sections, apply an overt social evolution- toric data available for the same regions. On a slightly ary terminology, arguably more in line with the analytical different tack and in a somewhat different region from approach of Hayden than Dietler. They are united, how- the rest, Schmandt-Besserat considers what can be un- ever, in viewing feasting behavior as a practice of major derstood from Near Eastern art and economic texts. The importance and as a mechanism for the development of similarity between the representation of an African Luo socioeconomic inequality. In this way, Feasts is an elegant feast (Dietler, fig. 3.3) with elders drinking from large extension of ideas associated with gift exchange, nota- communal pots through long straws and the seal impres- bly reciprocal obligation (Dietler, 73–5). Gifts motivate sions from Ur (fig. 14.5) is striking. Although not an and reward, as well as allowing for the continual confir- archaeological case study, Wiessner digs deep into Enga mation and/or renegotiation of social relations. Thus historical traditions to trace the types and development feasting behavior is linked with mobilizing labor (Dietler of feasting in Papua New Guinea, showing how different and Herbich, ch. 9), investing surpluses (Hayden, ch. 2), values are associated with material goods through time. social solidarity (Clarke, ch. 5) or equilibrium (DeBoer, Similarly, Kirch (ch. 6) analyzes ethnohistoric, ethno- ch. 8), the creation of social prestige and political power graphic, and archaeological sources to depict very differ- (Perodie, ch. 7), and the reinforcement of political pow- ent forms of feasting in “classic” Polynesian chiefdoms. er (Dietler’s “patron-role feasts,” ch. 3). These are not The case studies in Feasts come from Africa, Southeast mutually exclusive categories, and both Clarke and Brown Asia, Polynesia, and the Americas, with one from the Near (ch. 13), for example, note solidarity and self-aggran- East. The geographic emphasis reflects the fact that this dizement as explanations in their case studies. Dietler book derives from a Society for American Archaeology (ch. 3), under the heading of “commensal politics,” sep- (SAA) symposium and that all the contributors are based arates empowering feasts, patron-role feasts, and diacrit- in North America. Europe is omitted, as the editors note. ical feasts (where style and taste become important). Dietler has previously published extensively on feasting There is some concern with distinguishing the occa- in relation to European prehistory, however. The omission sions that feasts may indicate. Feasting behavior occurs of a European example is disappointing to this reviewer as at a range of different times and to acknowledge a num- it may mean that Feasts is less likely to be “consumed” and ber of events, from rites of passage such as the approach referred to by colleagues in Europe than it should be. of marriageability in women (DeBoer, ch. 8), to marriage In Feasts Dietler and Hayden have made a great strength and death (e.g., Clarke, Perodie) where plays for power of their different approaches and have brought together 2002] BOOK REVIEWS 479 a stimulating group of papers, providing much to chal- Musikarchäologie) might at first seem paradoxical. After lenge and trigger further discussion. As well as the fur- all, if archaeology is concerned with the study of objects, ther exploration of feasting in specific archaeological while music is, of all the arts, the most transitory and case studies, some potential future lines of enquiry re- least material, how can there be such a thing as an ar- ferred to by the editors involve the relationships between chaeology of music? In attempting to explain this appar- feasting and gender and feasting and warfare. It is clear ent paradox, Ellen Hickmann writes in her introduction that Feasts owes much to the well-established literature to the first volume that music archaeology is “concerned on gift-giving; the relationship between giving food, with learning what music and music-making meant to immediately consumed, and gifts of longer duration could early music cultures by directing our attention first to be developed further. To conclude, the editors have or- the musical artifacts themselves. . . . Thus, the approach chestrated a successful feast, which deserves to be recip- towards the material remains is always our first step.” So it rocated in due course, and it is likely that the editors seems that music archaeology is not so much an archaeol- expect interest on their investment. ogy of music itself (as Hickmann acknowledges: “Yet melodies and rhythms are lost forever [except] in rare Carol Palmer cases”) as it is the application of archaeological method school of archaeology and ancient history to specific cultural and anthropological objects of music university of leicester and music-making. leicester, le1 7rh We also learn from Hickmann’s introduction that mu- united kingdom sic archaeology is essentially interdisciplinary, “achieved [email protected] optimally in cooperation with musicologists, organologists and archaeologists, using the methods of both [sic] fields.” Of course, a number of individual scholars, begin- Studien zur Musikarchäologie. Vol. 1, ning especially in the 18th century, independently pursued the study of very ancient musical cultures, but it was Saiteninstrumente im archäologischen not until the 20th century that scholars began to serious- Kontext: Vorträge des 8. Symposiums der ly consider the advantages of joining together to form Study Group on Music Archaeology (ICTM), an official Study Group on Music Archaeology (SGMA). Limassol, 26.–30. August 1996 und andere The first steps were taken at the remarkable meeting of the International Musicological Society in Berkeley in Beiträge / Stringed Instruments in Archaeo- 1977, which included a roundtable on “Music and Ar- logical Context: Papers from the 8th Sym- chaeology.” A few years later, the study group was formal- posium of the Study Group on Music Archae- ly recognized in 1983 by the International Council for ology (ICTM), Limassol, 26–30 August, 1996 Traditional Music (in 1997, the SGMA became an inde- and Other Contributions, edited by Ellen pendent entity). In subsequent years, a series of conferences and published proceedings emerged, full refer- Hickmann and Ricardo Eichmann. (Deutsches ences to which appear in the bibliography following Hick- archäologisches Institut, Orient-Abteilung: Ori- mann’s introduction (although she certainly does not ent-Archäologie 6.) Pp. x +145, ills. 166, tables 7. claim credit in her introduction, I might add here that Marie Leidorf, Rahden 2000. DM 95. ISSN 1434- the organization and success of these conferences owes much to her vision and energy). Now, as is attested by 162X; ISBN 3-89646-636-4 (cloth). the two volumes under review, the field of music archae- Studien zur Musikarchäologie. Vol. 2, ology is well established and flourishing (for further general information on the field and as preparation for those Musikarchäologie früher Metallzeiten: readers not familiar with the field, I recommend Hick- Vorträge des 1. Symposiums der Interna- mann’s article “Archaeomusicology” in S. Sadie, ed., New tional Study Group on Music Archaeology Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians 1 [London 2001] im Kloster Michaelstein, 18.–24. Mai 1998 / 848–54). Music Archaeology of Early Metal Ages: The first volume, Stringed Instruments in Archaeological Context, contains the papers presented at the eighth sym- Papers from the 1st Symposium of the Inter- posium of the SGMA held in Limassol (Cyprus) in August national Study Group on Music Archaeol- 1996, as well as a few papers from other conferences; the ogy at Monastery Michaelstein 18–24 May, second volume, Music Archaeology of Early Metal Ages, in- 1998, edited by Ellen Hickmann, Ingo Laufs, and cludes the papers from the first symposium of the newly independent International SGMA held at Kloster Michael- Ricardo Eichmann. (Deutsches archäologisches stein (Blankenburg, Germany) in May 1998. The second Institut, Orient-Abteilung: Orient-Archäologie volume is dedicated to the memory of Hans Hickmann 7.) Pp. xiv + 404, ills. 239, tables 16, CD-ROM. (1908–1968), a specialist in Egyptian music and, togeth- Marie Leidorf, Rahden 2000. DM 149.80. ISSN er with his teacher Curt Sachs, one of the foremost ar- chaeomusicological pioneers. In addition to the archaeo- 1434-162X; ISBN 3-89646-637-2 (cloth). logical articles, volume 2 accordingly includes two trib- The notion of an “archaeology of music” (or “music utes to Hans Hickmann, both of which present not only archaeology,” as equivalent to the German term an overview of the scholar’s work, as is usual in pieces of 480 BOOK REVIEWS [AJA 106 this sort, but also charming personal anecdotes that cap- on the Celtic carnyx: the articles describe the archaeo- ture his warm, witty, and humane personality. logical assembling of the fragments and the ways in which In a short review, there is no way to provide a critical the missing fragments could be conjectured (Hunter), examination of some 58 separate articles employing a the construction of the first replica (Creed), the various wide range of methodologies applied to subjects as di- ways in which the replica could be played by an experi- verse as, for example, the acoustics of the carnyx (a lip- enced modern brass-player (Kenny), and the acoustics of vibrated aerophone common among the Celts) and the the instrument (Campbell and MacGillivray). development of ancient Mesopotamian terminology for While most of the articles deal with archaeological music and musical instruments. Instead, I shall try to pro- objects, a few are primarily philological (Delattre on the vide some sense of the presentation of the articles, the fourth book of Philodemus’s treatise on music, a partic- ways in which the various methodologies are employed, ularly problematic treatise because it survives only in a the groupings and interrelationships of the articles, and severely damaged papyrus, the subject of a new recon- the types of conclusions drawn by the authors. struction by Delattre; and Vassilieva on musical termi- The first volume is much more narrowly focused, con- nology in Pahlavi writings) or try to relate the testimo- centrating entirely on stringed instruments. One group ny of literary texts to musical objects. A particularly good of articles (by Braun, Brentjes, and Lawergren) concen- example of this latter approach is A.D. Kilmer’s “Conti- trates on the shape, construction, and significance of nuity and Change in the Ancient Mesopotamian Termi- angular or bow-shaped harps; a second (by Malinowski, nology for Music and Musical Instruments,” which at- Meshkeris, Rashid, Seidel, and Vassilieva) considers a more tempts to clarify Sumero-Akkadian terms for particular generalized family of stringed instruments, including stringed instruments, as well as considering the names those plucked with the fingertips and those played with of the strings themselves and the role of the octave in some sort of plectrum or bow; a third is largely concerned theories of tuning. with general representations of musical instruments and Some of the articles apply iconographic evidence to music-making in rock art (by Dubey-Pathak, Meshkeris, organological problems with significant new conclusions. and Rudolph); a fourth treats specific technical problems In particular, Psaroudakes’ “The Arm-Crossbar Junction such as the stringing and fretting of Egyptian lutes (Eich- of the Classical Hellenic Kithara” provides a challenging mann) and an analysis of the famous cuneiform tuning refutation of the most important modern reconstructions tablet, CBS 10996 (Smith and Kilmer). One article deals by Roberts, Paquette, Maas/Snyder, Bélis, and Lawergren. essentially with wind instruments, although passing men- On the other hand, Byrne’s “Understanding the Aulos” tion is made of the lute and the harp (Kloner and Braun’s ignores a great deal of the scholarship pertaining to the “Hellenistic Painted Tombs at Marisa”); and one or two aulos, especially where the reed is concerned, and offers are primarily conceptual (Brentjes’s “Musikant, Schamane a number of poorly informed observations about musical oder Befehlshaber?” and Otte’s “Regards sur la musique notation in general, its relationship to the “tuning of paléolithique”). lyres by rotations around the yoke” and to a certain type In general, the articles in volume 1 are brief, no doubt of aulos, and the new theory (it is hardly correct to say reflecting their original role as papers read at a confer- that “it has been concluded”) that its conventional pitch ence. All of them provide fairly detailed descriptions of is too high. the objects under examination, and the descriptions are Most of the characteristics noted in the first volume supported by very generous illustrations in the form of apply to the second as well: the articles are brief, pro- photographs, tracings, tables and graphs, and occasional vide fairly detailed descriptions, and are once again sup- musical notation. Each article concludes with a useful ported by generous illustrations. Each article concludes bibliography, and several also include helpful summaries with a bibliography (some more useful than others), of the material. Most of the articles are in English (11); and some include summaries of the material. The lan- three are in German; and one is in French. The prose, guage and style of the articles is less even in this vol- with a few exceptions, is primarily descriptive, clear, and ume, but this is doubtless because of the fact that the suitably restrained. papers were originally prepared, according to the fore- The second volume is arranged in eight sections cor- word, in 16 different languages, and were then appar- responding to the seven regions (or “fields,” the last two ently translated into German or English, the two lan- of which are designated VIIa and VIIb) established for guages used in the second volume (translators’ names the symposium: the Far East-Southeast Asia, Central Asia- appear in only a few cases, however). According to the Caucasus, the Near East-Anatolia, Latin America-Africa editors, “the English and German texts provided by non- (this group seems rather contrived), Egypt-Aegean, Greek native writers required serious revision, and often need- Antiquity-Rome, Bronze Age-Hallstatt-Celts, and Regional ed to be completely re-written.” The editors also ob- Developments in Europe. The section devoted to each serve that “lack of acquaintance with recent literature of these areas begins with an introductory paper, intend- and research theory . . . existed for many of our col- ed to summarize the evolution of the technology of met- leagues who had been long cut off from the scientific alworking and its correlation with musical life. In some community and who were thus not up to date.” It is cases (Africa and the Far East), a correlation can be con- difficult to know what to make of this observation, un- firmed, while in others (Central Asia, Egypt, and Greece less it is intended as an explanation for the fact that and Rome), the correlation is vague. The best example there is a certain unevenness throughout the volumes, of the kind of interdisciplinary cooperation that Hick- there are some minor typographic and technical errors, mann envisioned is surely demonstrated by the articles and some of the articles are more scholarly than others. 2002] BOOK REVIEWS 481

Nevertheless, with a very few exceptions, the articles and the presentation of sites. New papers address the are like those in the first volume, useful and clear. role of cultural tourism in the creation of heritage at- The second volume also includes a CD-ROM with the tractions and the importance of visitor research in mu- entire contents of both volumes in individual PDF files, seum display. What stands out in this revised edition is linked to two separate PDF files of the table of contents the new focus on audience and reception in museum for each volume (inexplicably, the table of contents for and heritage studies. volume 6 is MUSIKA~2.PDF, while that for volume 7 is As McManus notes in her introduction, the issue of MUSIKA~1.PDF). In addition, the CD-ROM includes an how archaeologists communicate the results of their work INFO.TXT file that very briefly explains the contents of to the public is not just a straightforward matter, where the CD-ROM, according to which the CD-ROM is also the professionals filter their findings down to the “wider supposed to contain a version of Acrobat Reader for both public.” Rather, the practice of presenting the past raises Windows and MacOS. Unfortunately, the CD-ROM seems all sorts of questions and issues concerning the nature of to have been created in ISO-9660 (rather than a hybrid) archaeological enquiry itself. Thus it is important to re- format and as neither version of the files in the ACRO- flect on how our representations serve to structure knowl- BA~2 directory contains a resource fork, Mac users will edge of the past and influence our academic interpreta- need to acquire a copy of Acrobat Reader elsewhere in tions. For too long the topic of representation has been order to make use of the CD. With Acrobat Reader prop- marginalized from intellectual debate and relegated to erly installed, it is possible to open either of the table of the area of heritage or public archaeology, which schol- contents files, and clicking on the title of the article or ars naively assume has little to contribute to mainstream the page number will cause the appropriate article to discourse. open. The individual PDF files of each article display, of Among the new contributions are Richard’s paper on course, the articles and accompanying tables and illustra- cultural tourism and the shift toward more proactive forms tions exactly as they appear in the printed volumes. With of cultural consumption. He argues that it is fundamen- the CD, the reader can easily search the individual arti- tal for museums to become more aware of the needs of cles, and to some extent, this takes the place of an in- their visitors in order to compete in the market. This dex, since none is included in either volume. Neverthe- demands new approaches, such as being more creative in less, since there is not a single PDF file for each volume, the development of narratives that appeal to the visitor. it is neither possible to display or to search the entire Furthermore, he notes the need to make room for visi- volume on the CD; rather, each article must be displayed tors to develop their own interpretations. Similarly, Mac- or searched individually. donald’s chapter on how university museums can adapt to At the end of her introduction, E. Hickmann remarks, the changing needs of visitors emphasizes the need for “It is perhaps in this latter subject—the relationship be- more audience research so as to make collections more tween technological sophistication (or lack thereof), accessible. The research on visitors carried out in her social structure, and the development of music—that fu- study reveals the potential of these front-end evalua- ture music-archaeological research should direct itself, tions for the creation of new displays. for it is a discussion that is far from being concluded.” Other papers in the volume worth mentioning are This is an assessment with which I think no scholar of Pardo’s paper on strategies for creating a visitor-friend- music would disagree, but there can also be no question ly site. Although his 12 “guiding principles” are a little that these two volumes have contributed much to the repetitive, there is much of value here; we learn how discussion. All of us who seek to understand ancient and important it is to assess not only the intellectual but the early musical cultures—whether musicologist or archae- personal impact on the visitor in order to improve the ologist, professional or amateur—will certainly want to quality of their experience. Specht and MacLulich’s have both of these volumes at hand. chapter remains an excellent discussion on the importance of collaboration with communities whose heri- Thomas J. Mathiesen tage is being presented in museums. As they point out, center for the history of music theory the collaborative process must underlie all aspects of and literature the display design process to produce positive results; school of music the concepts at the heart of the exhibition and the indiana university messages that are given derive then from true dialogue bloomington, indiana 47405 rather than ad hoc, tokenistic consultation. Finally, San- [email protected] son’s contribution is a sound review of reenactment and the role it plays in the presentation of sites. Despite the proliferation of reenactment societies there has Archaeological Displays and the Public, 2nd been very little discussion about their contribution to ed., edited by Paulette M. McManus. Pp. xvii + 168, the understanding of the past, and the complex nature pls. 26, figs. 13, tables 4. Archetype, London 2000. of their role as interpreters. Archaeological Displays and the Public is a useful text for $37.50. ISBN 1-873132-67-0 (paper). teaching museum studies and archaeological and anthro- This new edition of Archaeological Displays and the pological courses. Not only does it convey some of the Public reflects the rapidly growing interest in the repre- recent thinking on the subject of representing the past, sentation of the past. The book is useful in the sense it also provides useful guidance in the form of strategies that it conveys new areas of concern in museum display for improving our presentation methods. My main criti- 482 BOOK REVIEWS [AJA 106 cism is that one of the best chapters from the original metry with remote sensing. One can detect the authors’ edition (Cotton and Wood’s chapters on displaying pre- growing excitement (or is it the reader’s?) as they discuss history) was left out of this new version. the new sensors. They begin with the “digitizing of gray,” as in black and white aerial negatives: where the human Stephanie Moser eye can distinguish about 10 tones between black and department of archaeology white, the computer is able to identify more than 200. university of southampton Thus shapes that previously went undetected are now ap- s017 1bj parent in homogenous shades of gray, and more recently united kingdom of color also. And because the most advanced imaging [email protected] scanners are in satellites, their reach is now global. With multispectral scanners, a spectral signature can be assigned to any substance or condition of interest; Manuale di aerofotografia archeologica: then a computer sorts out the information sought and Metodologia, tecniche e applicazioni, by Fabio makes it available as an image. Further remote sensing Piccarreta and Giuseppe Ceraudo. Pp. 218, figs. 94, methods discussed include thermography (infrared), with pls. 211. Edipuglia, Bari 2000. Lit 48,000, €24.79. the ability to detect, from satellite altitudes of 1000 m, temperature differences of a tenth of a degree, useful in ISBN 88-7228-268-3 (cloth). revealing subsurface ruins; ground-penetrating radar This manual of aerial photography for archaeology is (which uses electromagnetic emission and its return from intended by its authors both as a text for those who teach the target to create an image) is now most helpful to the subject and to introduce field archaeologists to the archaeologists where the popular radar sled is dragged benefits especially of photogrammetry (the use of stereo across the ground. Satellite applications for archaeology photography to measure the relative position and eleva- are few at present, but as sensors are refined (in Landsat, tion of objects for producing topographic maps and plans). Spot, etc.), resolution in available cartography may reach Both authors are active in photogrammetry and hold an acceptable level of 1:100,000 or 1:500,000. The au- teaching and research positions in the department of thors look forward to vastly improved resolutions when Cultural Heritage at the University of Lecce. With the such sensors are flown less expensively, and more com- exception of a few photographs made elsewhere, the monly, down at mapping plane level. many fine aerial illustrations are all of Italian sites: thus Chapters 3 and 4 review, with some repetition, the while the book should be most useful to specialists in history of photography, of aerial photography, and then ancient Italy, the many photogrammetric techniques and the developments in photogrammetric plotting, up methods discussed would have universal application. through machines with complex systems of levers, to the A short introduction (ch. 1) warns that rapid urbaniza- latest fully digitized electronic equipment. tion with its pillage and destruction of the archaeological Chapter 5 presents a comprehensive method for ana- landscape is in a race against the improvement and more lyzing photographs, recording first impressions, and re- widespread use of technologies that could identify, evalu- solving questions. The eye must be alert to subtle “mark- ate, and thus protect archaeological sites. Conceding that ings,” patterns seen in vegetation, melting snow or frost, the political will is lacking to invest in the best and most ground humidity, or soil composition, indicating what lies expensive techniques, the authors recommend a mid- underground. Shadow markings, when the slanting sun range of cost and thus of precision in photogrammetry as is near the horizon, can reveal the slightest undulations the only practical course. Chapter 2 is a systematic review in ground level, bringing to light in a farmer’s plowed of the methods used and benefits gained from producing field a Medieval village or a Roman villa. Subsoil founda- and examining aerial images. Since much photo interpre- tions or buried roads make the soil above dryer, showing tation consists of looking at images composed of only the sparser, lighter vegetation, while covered-over ditches or faintest variations in tone and color, it is important not to pits are damper, growing more dense, darker vegetation. read into them preconceptions either conscious or uncon- In chapter 6 the authors present examples from their scious. Thus one should go back and forth regularly, in a own completed projects in photogrammetry. Photographs, kind of dialectic, between studying the photograph and both aerial and at ground level, and many in color, com- walking the field, to gain and verify information. However bine with elegantly finished, often color-coded, plans, useful the study of single photographs may be, given the maps, and relief models, to present and reconstruct 10 obvious benefit of a high vantage point, stereo viewing is ancient sites. Chapter 7 gives the many Italian sources of best. It returns depth and volume to objects, shows eleva- aerial photographs, in libraries, archives, agencies, and tions and depressions in the landscape, and allows identi- institutes. With characteristic thoroughness, the authors fication, especially with “exaggerated stereo,”of archaeo- include 13 pages of laws, by royal decree in 1929, that logical anomalies that exist only in very low relief. Mole- apply to the control and distribution of aerial photographs. hills become mountains. Stereo plotting adds contour lines, The concluding bibliography is impressive, furnishing 12 producing topographic maps. Traditionally, the simplest pages of conveniently organized sources in books and way to produce a specialized map or plan had been to cover articles. an aerial photograph with a sheet of plastic material and This work invites comparison with D.N. Riley’s Air Pho- trace the elements characterizing the landscape, but the tography and Archaeology (Philadelphia 1987). Riley, writ- invention of the computer, and the substitution of digital ing as a pilot and aerial photographer with 40 years expe- scanning for photography, has now coupled photogram- rience flying in Europe and the Middle East, covers much 2002] BOOK REVIEWS 483 the same ground, perhaps in less detail. He is especially the collapse of the palaces: few examples from LH IIIC good in his chapter “How Sites Show,” illustrated with 23 burials are “workshop fresh” (e.g., no. 211 = CMS V 616). pages of well-chosen photographs, mostly his own. Writ- All but a handful of MP seals are lentoids, though pro- ing 15 years ago, he too saw the future potential for files vary astonishingly, as photographs, mostly unpub- archaeological remote sensing. Piccaretta and Ceraudo lished, from the CMS-Archive reveal (figs. 1–4). Wear bring that future closer. may account for some variations, since steatite abrades readily, but not all. Interesting regional patterns also J. Wilson Myers emerge: most MP seals in the heartland are abraded, some- 1281 cleveland hill road times to the point where motifs are obliterated and string- tamworth, new hampshire 03886 holes worn through (e.g., pls. 2.1, 3.1). By contrast at Medeon and Ayios Dimitrios (Olympos) many were workshop fresh when deposited in graves (16; e.g., pl. 1.1–3). Die spätmykenischen Siegel aus weichem Stein: Quadrupeds, stylized to a greater or lesser degree, dec- Untersuchungen zur spätbronzezeitlichen orate about 50% of MP seals (n. 115). Helpful charts summarize principal poses; ambitious compositions are rare Glyptik auf dem griechischen Festland und (figs. 5–6). Since MP seals are carved with knives and in der Ägäis, by Aurelia Dickers. (Internationale burins, and many are abraded, defining style and identify- Archäologie 33.) Pp. 258, ills. 26, pls. 51, maps ing workshops are bound to be difficult. Hints come from 10. Marie Leidorf, Rahden 2001. DM 129.80. individual features (e.g., hoofs and heads), filling ornaments (fig. 7) and the like. For MP quadrupeds Dickers ISSN 0939-561X; ISBN 3-89646-305-5 (cloth). cautiously identifies two broad groupings, one for the Ar- This welcome volume provides an exhaustive account golid, Corinthia, and Attica, and another for Phocis, Mag- of late Mycenaean seals made of steatite, fluorite, and nesia, and eastern Thessaly (65–71; map 6). MP seals with pressed glass—a fascinating but poorly understood aspect ornamental motifs (e.g., trefoils, spirals, circles) are also of Aegean glyptic. Unlike Crete, where roughly 25% of thoroughly discussed (47–64, map 7). neopalatial seals were made of soft local stones, only hard Contemporary seals of pressed glass and fluorite pro- stones and precious metals were employed in Early Myce- vide interesting comparisons, again usefully illustrated naean workshops. Clearly the genesis and spread of soft by charts and distribution maps (77–94, figs. 17–25, maps stone seals during LH IIIA-B/C has social ramifications, 8–10). These types are not well represented in the heart- as does the decline and apparent cessation of hard stone land and none was used for sealing purposes. For that output toward the end of LH IIIA2. J.G. Younger, who matter, no typical MP seals impressed sealings either originally defined the so-called Mainland Popular (MP) (39, fig. 12). Instead, heirlooms of hard stone or metal Group of steatite seals, saw them largely as the posses- were used for sealing in LH IIIB. Does this mean that sions of the “humble” (Kadmos 26 [1987] 65–71). New MP seals were indeed the possessions of the humble? In discoveries, especially outside the Mycenaean heartland, the heartland, perhaps, though ownership of MP seals now make a systematic study all the more germane. was clearly not universal. Peripheral areas present a more Dickers’s book is based on her 1992 doctoral disserta- complex picture, for many pieces occur in well-endowed tion, largely undertaken at the Marburg headquarters of graves, suggesting that here elites used them to negoti- the Corpus der minoischen und mykenischen Siegel ate status at the local level by emulating perceived norms (CMS). This valuable center houses impressions of most of behavior in the heartland. For the phenomenon of Aegean seals and sealings, an extensive photographic sub-elite and substitute-elite products, E.S. Sherratt now archive and annotated copies of CMS volumes, which provides a stimulating discussion (in J.P. Crielaard et al. amplify or correct published data for individual pieces. eds., The Complex Past of Pottery [Amsterdam 1999] 163– All this Dickers has put to immensely good use and, in 211, esp. 185–7). the future, her catalogue must be used in tandem with But further progress on social issues remains a long- the CMS volumes. The catalogue comprises 490 MP seals term aspiration rather than a goal within our grasp. Re- of steatite, though the study encompasses a further 54 use of tombs presents a major obstacle, poor standards of examples from the Elateia cemetery in Phocis published publication another. The brutal fact is that 82% of late in CMS V Suppl. 2 (1996), 96 fluorite seals, and 81 of seals come from unpublished tombs, known only through pressed glass. The catalogue is arranged by ephoria (ar- preliminary reports (n. 753). Even so, valuable insights chaeological district) within Greece, followed by unprov- do emerge from Dickers’s study. Whether it will be widely enanced seals. About 80% have a known findspot, though read is another matter: the German is difficult (there is not necessarily a closely dated context. an English summary) and despite all the maps, charts, A long chapter on MP seals of steatite forms the heart and copious illustrations (over 750 images) the book is of this study (6–76). In it Dickers surveys context, chro- not as easy to use as one might like. There is no list of nology, material, shape, condition, technique, decora- illustrations, index, or bibliography, though her abbrevi- tion, workshops, and use. About 50% of MP seals come ations stretch to 15 pages, using “surname, short-title” from graves, 10% from settlements, 9% from sanctuaries format. Some citations suggest unfamiliarity with the lit- (7, 121–4). Dickers provides detailed information on dat- erature (e.g., Anderson Immerwahr, Agora; Clausen ing (mostly in ns. 38–48), though it is unclear if the Wilkcie [sic], Tholos Tomb), as do errors (e.g., in n. 521: genesis of the MP Group should be placed in LH IIIA1 or gold-plated box NM 808–811 is from Shaft Grave V, not IIIA2. It is also hard to tell if production continued after Chamber Tomb 91), misspellings (e.g., E.L. Benett; Krzysz- 484 BOOK REVIEWS [AJA 106 kowska in three versions, none correct; W.-D. Niemey- several times and mentions S. Japp’s study that was still in er), and omissions (W.A. McDonald and N.C. Wilkie, Ex- preparation at the time when his work was published. cavations at Nichoria in Southwest Greece 2 [Minneapolis Japp, however, does not mention Lichtenberger and 1992]). But turning a doctoral dissertation into a book is seems not to use Roller or Kokkinos—her thesis was sub- a mammoth job and too often nowadays editorial input is mitted in 1996, the manuscript was updated in the spring minimal. These minor blemishes do not detract from the of 1999, and published in 2000. overall achievement: Dickers should be thanked for pro- Whereas most other approaches to such a topic use a viding us with an important tool for future research. functional subdivision of the buildings (e.g., secular vs. religious and private vs. public), as does Japp, Lichten- Olga H. Krzyszkowska berger follows, as far as the archaeological and historical university of london evidence allows, a chronological progression of the build- institute of classical studies ings discussed in part 2: the first complex to be dealt with senate house, malet street is the fortress Alexandreion, ca. 37 B.C. according to london wc1e 7hu Josephus, while the last one is a poorly documented mon- united kingdom ument related to the tomb of King David set up around [email protected] 10 (also see the helpful table in Burrell and Netzer 1999, 708, fig. 2). Lichtenberger’s analyses of the different buildings reveals a detailed knowledge of the published reports Die Baupolitik Herodes des Grossen, by Achim that allows a concise picture to be drawn of Herod as a Lichtenberger. (Abhandlungen des Deutschen builder. The king adapted hellenistic and oriental fea- Palästina-Vereins 26.) Pp. 280, figs. 59. tures in his palaces, not only demonstrating wealth and Harrassowitz, Wiesbaden 1999. DM 98. ISBN 3- luxury, such as the huge peristyle courtyards, but also featuring his “control” of nature that had to be “domi- 447-04147-1 (paper). nated” and integrated in his buildings, an aspect that Herod the Great’s kingship lasted from 40 to 4 B.C. later was prominently used by Nero in his domus aurea During these 37 years he developed an almost obsessive or by Hadrian in his villa at Tivoli. A second aspect is a building activity, resulting in a number of private, public, strong orientation toward Roman, and especially Au- religious, military, and secular constructions. Single mon- gustan, building activities, thus emphasizing his loyalty: uments or specific groups of monuments, such as palaces, the secret access from his palace in Jerusalem to the among the buildings ascribed to Herod the Great have temple (cf. the underground access from Augustus’s been the object of numerous studies during the past. house on the Palatine to the temple of Apollo), the Recently several books, in addition to the one under direct connection between the temple for Augustus and review, have been published, focusing on the same gen- the palace of Herod at Samaria-Sebaste, even the name eral subject, the building program and the building poli- of Samaria-Sebaste (Sebastos, Greek for Augustus), his cy of Herod: D.W. Roller, The Building Program of Herod naming of the palace in Jerusalem after Marc Antony the Great (Berkeley and Los Angeles 1998; reviews by B. (built probably before 31 B.C.), and his naming of sev- Burrell and E. Netzer, JRA 12 [1999] 705–15; K. Fittschen, eral minor constructions after princes and princesses of Gnomon 73 [2001] 180–3), S. Japp, Die Baupolitik Herodes’ Augustus’s family. Similarly, he used pumice imported des Grossen (Rahden 2000); and K. Fittschen and G. Foer- from Pozzuoli for the construction of the harbor at Cae- ster, eds., Judaea and the Graeco-Roman World in the Time of sarea Maritima, perhaps built by Italian engineers. Fi- Herod (Göttingen 1996)—also see the review article, “Out- nally, in contrast to his Roman leanings, Herod paid Heroding Herod” by B. Burrell, AJA 106 (2002) 107–10. respect toward traditional Jewish architecture with his Lichtenberger’s book is the result of his M.A. thesis, gigantic project, the new temple in Jerusalem. not many of which see the light of publication in the While the buildings analyzed by Lichtenberger are form of a monograph. The book is subdivided in four Herodian beyond doubt, especially since they are referred main parts. The first part consists of the introduction, to by Josephus, our main source for Herodian building explaining the goals and the methods of the work as well activities, the ascription of individual architectural ele- as briefly outlining the historical background and the ments to Herod as builder is not always convincing. For state of research. The second part consists of a detailed example, heart-shaped columns in the angles of peri- discussion of 15 different buildings within Judaea, some styles are not a defining criterion for a Herodian style. more projects that are discussed in less detail, and an Heart-shaped columns in the angles of peristyles can al- account of Herod’s building activities outside Judaea. It ready be found in the palace of Demetrias, Thessaly, dat- clearly forms the main part of the book, both in terms of ed around 200 B.C. (F. Marzolff, “Der Palast von Demetri- size and the density of information. The third part sum- as,” in W. Hoepfner and G. Brands, eds., Basileia [Mainz marizes the chronological phases of Herod’s construc- 1996] 148–63, esp. 158–60), and occur again in the “Palaz- tions and gives a comparative analysis of Flavius Josephus’s zo delle colonne” in Ptolemais in the Cyrenaica (G. Pesce, description of the king’s building activities. Part 4 pre- Il “Palazzo delle colonne” [Rome 1950] pls. 1 and 11). It is sents a short synthesis. generally believed that this element was taken over from Submitted in 1998 and published in 1999, the book is Asia Minor and was especially successful in Ptolemaic ar- up-to-date; Lichtenberger cites the works of Roller 1998 chitecture (H. Lauter, Die Architektur des Hellenismus and N. Kokkinos, The Herodian Dynasty (Sheffield 1998) [Darmstadt 1986] 255), which would be the source for its 2002] BOOK REVIEWS 485 appearance in Judaea. It is, therefore, not surprising that remedy the situation by focusing on small-scale metal it is attested on other monuments, surely not related to sculpture uncovered in the earlier excavations—free- Herod, such as the so-called complex of Absalom and standing and relief, in bronze and in gilt silver—grant- Josaphat, the monolith of Zacharias, and the “pillar”of ing the objects a thorough study augmented by fine Absalom, all funeral monuments at Jerusalem (see S. color photography. Bonato, “Aspects de l’hellénisation de la Judée,” KölnJb The organization of the book is straightforward, with a 32 [1999] 7–31). chapter devoted to each of the primary objects: statu- Lichtenberger’s analyses would be useful in determin- ettes of Athena, Eros, an eagle, a centaur, a sphinx, a ing how influential Rome was in the architecture of both siren, and a griffin; a bronze disk with deer protome; a client and nonclient kingdoms, a subject that Lichten- disk with lion protome; a decorative frieze from a shield; berger only occasionally takes up. His detailed account of and a parade axe. Two additional chapters discuss other the building program of Herod the Great, a Roman client metal and terracotta fragments. Almost everything in the king par excellence, would be a promising start for com- volume was discovered in the so-called Square House, a paring his works with those of other kings strongly de- building which at some point in its history began to serve pendent on the goodwill of the Roman imperial family as a repository for discarded, albeit precious, objects. (The and governors (see D.M. Jacobson, “Three Roman Client ivory rhyta and some strongly hellenizing marble female Kings: Herod of Judaea, Archelaus of Cappadocia and Juba figures were also found here, although they are not a of Mauretania,” PEQ 133 [2001] 22–38; for contempo- focus of this text.) The metal objects all date from the rary Numidian architecture, see F. Rakob, “Numidische Late Hellenistic period, and thus provide insight into Königsarchitektur,” in H.G. Horn and Ch.B. Rüger, eds., the tastes of the early Parthian court. Die Numider [Bonn and Cologne 1979] 119–71, and M. Particularly commendable is Invernizzi’s careful attempt Coltelloni-Trannoy, Le royaume de Maurétanie [Paris 1997]). to present a balanced picture of the wide range of artistic Similarly, it would be tempting to search for similarities influences in Central Asia, to be neither fully Helleno- and differences between the building activities of Herod centric nor fully Iranocentric in his approach. In this he and those of his immediate neighbors, not so dependent captures the essence of the Arsacids; one need only think on Rome, in order to gauge the real impact of Rome’s of Mithradates I (reigned 171–138 B.C.), who used the political influence on local architecture. The best oppor- Greek language on his coinage but a title, “great king,” tunity for such a parallel study is offered by the Nabatae- reminiscent of Achaemenid Persia. While Invernizzi hy- an kingdom, independent until A.D. 106 (see S.G. pothesizes a resident workshop of Greek artists in Old Schmid, “The Nabataeans,” in B. MacDonald, R. Adams, Nisa responsible for most of the objects (other scholars and P. Bienkowski, eds., The Archaeology of Jordan [Shef- have considered them imports), in his painstaking stylis- field 2001] 367–426). tic and iconographical analyses he makes comparisons to However, these opportunities for further research do both Mediterranean and Central Asian works of art, track- not detract from the solid groundwork of Lichtenberg- ing the reception of Greek motifs among Eastern cul- er’s study, which remains satisfying and inspiring. tures. Fortunately numerous photographs and line drawings allow readers to make their own comparisons, al- Stephan G. Schmid though in many cases they are directed to hard-to-find swiss school of archaeology in greece Russian publications instead. skaramanga 4b In the most noteworthy parts of the volume, Invernizzi gr-104 33 athens highlights the specifically Central Asian context of the greece works; thus he includes a discussion of Athena in Asia [email protected] and at Nisa, and of Eros in the Arsacid court. Special mention should be made of the bronze disk with deer Sculture di metallo da Nisa: Cultura greca e protome, which Invernizzi relates to the nomadic art of the steppes, the ultimate origin of the Arsacid dynasty. cultura iranica in Partia, by Antonio Invernizzi. The reader therefore emerges not only with a concen- (Acta Iranica, Troisième Série 21.) Pp. 236, b&w trated knowledge of the Nisan objects, but a broader view ills. 70, b&w pls. 22, color pls. 8, map 1. Peeters, of Central Asian art and culture. Leuven 1999. BEF 4200, €105. ISBN 90-429-0733- The archaeology of Central Asia has gained increased emphasis in recent decades, as the field of Hellenistic 9 (cloth). studies itself continues to grow. Current world events will Old Nisa (anciently Mithradatkert) in modern Turk- likely draw further attention to this area and its cultural menistan was first substantially excavated by the Soviets heritage. Invernizzi’s scholarship, and the work of his from the 1930s to 1950s and has been more recently team in Turkmenistan, stand as models for future explo- revisited, from 1990 onward, by a joint Italo-Turkmena ration and study. expedition. The site has been long recognized as a Sheramy D. Bundrick stronghold of the Arsacid rulers during the formation of the Parthian empire. Some of Old Nisa’s artistic finds, department of art most notably a group of carved ivory rhyta, have been university of south florida, st. petersburg the subject of intense interest, but others have received 140 seventh avenue south, davis hall 258 more fleeting attention. In this volume, Antonio Inv- st. petersburg, florida 33716 ernizzi, director of the Old Nisa excavations, seeks to [email protected] 486 BOOK REVIEWS [AJA 106 The Hellenistic Temple of the Oxus in Bactria bothroi (pits) and favissae (deep trenches) for storing (South Tajikistan). Vol. 1, Excavations, Archi- offerings. Two short corridors at angles border the central hall opening to longer ones behind it that are paral- tecture, Religious Life (in Russian), by B.A. lel to each other. At some point, the corridors were used Litvinsky and I.R. Pichikian. Pp. 504, figs. 77. as treasuries, and pits were dug into their floors, as with Vostochnaya Literatura, Moscow 2000. 95 rubles. the ayvan, for placing ashes. The ¯atashg¯ahs and the de- ISBN 5-02-018114-5 (cloth). positories of sacred ash have led Litvinsky and Pichikian to conclude that the entire complex was a fire temple, The Oxus temple stands as one of the most important the first known such example in the pre-Sasanian period monuments of the Hellenistic Far East. The book makes (206–8). Unlike others, however, with only one ¯atashg¯ah, a major contribution to the study of Bactria by changing the Oxus temple has two, one in each of its wings. our conceptions of its architecture, art, and religion with- The temple’s location at the river Oxus symbolically in the backdrop of the Achaemenid and Hellenistic peri- represents the birth of its waters and was personified in od, as well as its influence in the post-Hellenistic epoch. the form of the water god “Oxus” (a Greek translitera- The volume is composed of three sections. In part 1 (chs. tion of the Iranian Vaxš), as well as ancillary deities. Yet 1–3), the site is treated archaeologically with a detailed materials gleaned from the excavations at the temple discussion of its architecture, stratigraphy, and its associ- have uncovered a society in which the inhabitants prac- ations with the Oxus Treasure and the city of Aï Kha- ticed a local brand of a Bactrian religion that had adopt- noum in northern Afghanistan. Part 2 (chs. 4–6) traces ed Near Eastern, especially Achaemenid, and Hellenic the origin and tradition of what the authors identify as artistic and architectural traditions. In this respect, the Iranian and eastern Hellenistic fire temples, while part 3 art of the temple, like temples found in the city of Aï (ch. 7) reconstructs the religious life practiced at the Khanoum, provides much insight into the nature of mon- temple. Two appendices complement the book: P.P. Ker- umental and applied art in Hellenistic Bactria. The estab- zum and A.P. Kerzum present a regional study of the lishment of Macedonian political power stimulated Hel- site’s geomorphology and paleoecology (375–92), and lenistic art and culture in Bactria after 329 B.C. as did the the late E.V. Zeimal provides an inventory of coins found foundation of new Hellenistic poleis and fortresses that each year at Takhti-Sangin (393–404). A list of the tables architecturally were influenced by local and eastern tra- (469–73), a summary (488–97), and the contents are in ditions. Bactria’s incorporation into the Seleucid realm, English. The second volume will be devoted to Bactrian followed by its independence as a Graeco-Bactrian king- weaponry within a Greek and Near Eastern context. dom in the mid third century B.C., allowed contacts with The ancient Bactrian city of Takhti-Sangin in southern the Mediterranean world to be maintained and occasion- Tadjikistan is situated at the confluence of the rivers Vaxš ally intensified by waves of Greek colonists. and Pyandž, where they form the Oxus (Amu Darya) prop- The temple’s construction and building techniques er. The city is located on the third terrace of the Vaxš, embody traditions dating from the Bactrian Bronze Age, covering an expanse of 2 km × 250–300 m. Between 1976 which were fused with those from the Near East and en- and 1991, Litvinsky and Pichikian conducted excavations riched by Hellenistic architecture. The Oxus temple em- on the city’s rectangular citadel where the temple was bodies the classical form of the Bactrian fire temple where- discovered. Graeco-Bactrian and early Kushan coins found by its compositional and architectural principles played a at the site indicate that the temple flourished in the Hel- decisive role in the evolution of fire temple architecture lenistic period, although it dates from the end of the fourth not only in Bactria, but also elsewhere in Central Asia, or the beginning of the third century B.C. to the end of including Parthia, Choresmia, and Sogdiana. the second or beginning of the third century A.D. Its Throughout the Achaemenid and Hellenistic periods, treasury contained more than 8,000 coins and votive ob- literary sources linked Bactria with Zoroastrianism. The jects (ivory, bronze, clay, and alabaster) with few of them most famous of the finds from this temple is a small votive in gold or silver. Unfortunately, much of the inventory has altar with a stone pedestal topped by a standing bronze yet to be published. The authors conjecture that the trea- statue of Silenus-Marsyas, playing an aulos. The votive con- sury had been transferred from an earlier, though still tains a Greek inscription on its pedestal: “Atros¯ok¯es dedi- undetected, Achaemenid temple (373). cated his votive present to Oxus” (305). The name of the The temple’s plan is symmetrical, measuring 51 × 51 donor is Bactrian. In addition, there are other Hellenistic m. A propylaeum opens onto an enclosed temenos (court- altars and sculptures with Greek inscriptions. The authors yard), containing a stone pedestal (perhaps for the stat- propose that the materials from the temple indicate coex- ue of a deity), Hellenistic column bases, and fire altars. istence between various water and fire cults alongside lo- At the far end of the temenos is a rectangular triple cella cal and Hellenistic altars (327–8). Although no temple that is divided into three equally squared sections. The has ever been found that exactly parallels the Oxus tem- central portion and main entrance to the temple is an ple, there are temples with similar elements found in Bac- eight columned ayvan (portico), which is flanked on ei- tria and Sogdiana dating from the beginning of the sec- ther side by two sections, each of which consists of corri- ond millennium B.C. As to the temple’s deity(s), the au- dors, an altar room, and two other rooms. The authors thors assign one atashg¯ ah¯ for the worship of Oxus = Vaxš, have identified both altar rooms as atashg¯ ahs¯ composed while that of the other remains uncertain, although they of a central sacrificial altar and four smaller ones in the cautiously propose that it may have been dedicated to corners containing ash and charcoal (97–113). The ay- Arədv¯ S¯ur¯a An¯ahit¯a (354–5). van led to a four columned central hall with a stepped A comparison of this temple with other Iranian fire plinth, reserved for a cult statue, in whose floors were temples at Susa, Persepolis, and K¯uhi-Khwag˘a has enabled 2002] BOOK REVIEWS 487 the authors to date them to the fifth and fourth centu- ius, Berlin 1925]). In 1938 and again in 1955 and 1957 ries B.C. (215–6, 224, 238). In this regard, the plan of Carl Weickert conducted excavations, and these new re- the Oxus temple resembles a Near Eastern style, yet its sults were included in the reconstruction of the older columns and altars bear Greek and Achaemenid influ- Athena Temple that Alfred Mallwitz and Wolfgang Schier- ence, while stone altars in front of the temple are of a ing presented in 1968 (“Der alte Athenatempel von Mi- purely Hellenistic type resembling those used in Helle- let,” IstMitt 18 [1968] 87–160). In 1975 Mallwitz also nistic cults. Like other Hellenistic temples at Aï Kha- published a reconstruction of the later temple (“Gestalt noum, and in southern Bactria and Seleucid Mesopota- und Geschichte des jüngeren Athenatempels von Mi- mia, the Oxus temple contains a compositional pattern let,” IstMitt 25 [1975] 67–90). that originated in Bronze Age Syria and Mesopotamia. Not until now have all the results from the several Since the temple yielded so few objects of gold or excavations, including the old excavation diaries, been silver, the authors propose that the temple’s priests, analyzed and a complete outline of the history of the perhaps fearing a nomadic invasion, buried a large quan- sanctuary and the temple been possible. This is the task tity of gold and silver on the banks of the river Vaxš that Winfried Held has tackled in the present mono- between Takhti-Sangin and Takhti-Kobad. Between 1875 graph, based on his 1994 dissertation. Following a brief and 1885, the river eroded its banks, unveiling this an- history of research (3–4), he presents the excavations cient treasure to local people. Subsequently, the major- results chronologically, as if everything had been cleared ity of the objects were deposited in the British Muse- at one time (5–33). The complicated excavations are um, where, known as the “Oxus Treasure,” they remain described clearly and meticulously. Larger section draw- today. Thus the authors identify the Oxus temple as the ings, especially of the earliest remains, are missing (e.g., origin of the Oxus Treasure. They also conjecture that a large section both north–south and east–west of the throughout the temple’s existence, the priests may well state plan, fig. 5), and the sections that are included have enjoyed significant economic, political, and mili- often are not marked precisely on the plan drawings. In tary authority (33–6). the complex presentation of the evidence of both the The temple’s remains present a number of social and earlier and the later temple and their topographical rela- historical implications about the nature of Hellenism in tionship, it would have been useful to include a recon- Central Asia. The interaction between the social and struction drawing, like fig. 43, where all phases are sum- economic spheres of Greeks and Bactrians led to the marized, as a supplement to the impressive yet confusing synthesis of a multidimensional cultural and historical state plan, fig. 17. phenomenon that is commonly termed “Graeco-Bactri- The first part of the publication, the excavation re- an.” While this brand of hellenization was uneven de- sults, is substantial and demands intense reading. It forms pending upon place and circumstance in which Helle- the solid foundation of the second and main part, the nism spread, the Oxus temple at Takhti-Sangin reveals reconstruction and interpretation of these excavations that this process was isomorphic and the qualitative in- (35–94). Indeed, this publication combines the strength ternal transformation of the Greek and Bactrian ele- of the great German tradition of meticulous registration ments was essentially a hybrid admixture (369). Herein and specialized architectural studies with a well-argued lies the significance of the analysis by Litvinsky and reconstruction of the sanctuary, both architecturally (35– Pichikian of the Oxus temple, for it elucidates the de- 94) and historically (179–84). gree to which Hellenism affected the development of Originally the sanctuary consisted of a little shrine (“Kult- Central Asian civilization. mal”), possibly the shelter of a cult statue and at least some of its votive offerings. This shrine was established in Jeffrey D. Lerner the first half of the eighth century B.C., but the earliest department of history temple building was not constructed until the first quarter wake forest university of the sixth century. This date is supported by the stratig- winston-salem, north carolina 27109 raphy and finds, but Held also includes a well-considered [email protected] historical argument, suggesting that the older temple was erected in gratitude for Miletos’s independence from the Lydian king, achieved by the tyrant Thrasyboulos. Held also includes a study of early Ionic architecture and the Milesische Forschungen. Vol. 2, Das Heiligtum relations between the Cycladic islands and the Ionian cit- der Athena in Milet, by Winfried Held (with an ies, complete with ample references to a wide range of appendix by Ays¸ e Çorbacι Gültekin). Pp. x + 194, detailed studies. Included also is a consideration of the figs. 81, pls. 40. Philipp von Zabern, Mainz 2000. older temple’s function as a treasury, when the primary € cult image probably still rested in the Kultmal. 50.11. ISBN 3-8053-2594-0 (cloth). The finds are treated in an excellent and useful cata- The history of excavation at the Athena sanctuary at logue (95–177); little has survived, however, both be- Miletos is long and complicated. Since 1903 it has recur- cause of the Persian destruction of the city in 494 B.C. rently been a focus point of the German excavations and also because of the turbulent history of research, there. The first excavations took place from 1903 to 1908, interrupted by two World Wars and the Greek-Turkish but were not published until 1925, when Armin von Ger- conflict of 1919–1922. Nonetheless, the finds indicate kan presented a survey of the sanctuary and suggested a that cult activities declined remarkably in the second reconstruction of the later temple (Kalabaktepe, Athen- half of the sixth century B.C. Held connects this with atempel und Umgebung [Verlag von Schoetz und Parrhys- the extraordinary building activities at Didyma, which to 488 BOOK REVIEWS [AJA 106 a large extend must have included heavy funding from Corpus Vasorum Antiquorum. Deutschland 73: the city of Miletos. The hypothesis is that all the resourc- Göttingen, Archäologisches Instituts der es were spent on the sanctuary of Apollo and his new and Universität 2: Korinthische und etruskische impressive dipteros, and that Apollo took over as the main deity of Miletos. Keramik, by Martin Bentz and Christiane Dehl-von The Persians sacked Miletos in 494 B.C. and the Athe- Kaenel. Pp. 83, figs. 19, pls. 48, Beilage 7. C.H. Beck, na sanctuary was desecrated, but after the Ionians re- Munich 2001. DM 158. ISBN 3-406-474-500 (cloth). gained Miletos in 479 B.C., the construction of a new Athena temple and terrace complex began. As part of a The present volume is the second in the CVA series new city plan, a large terrace was laid out and a unique from the University collection in Göttingen. It consists Ionic temple built. Focus once more was on the old Ath- of two parts, the first of which describes and studies 84 ena sanctuary inside the city of Miletos, while the Apollo Corinthian vases ranging from the Late Geometric (one sanctuary at Didyma was only sporadically repaired—at example) to the LC II period, including fragments of the Didyma the organization of the cult was shattered, the Penteskouphia Pinakes. The second part deals with 80 priests were Persian captives, and the oracle was silent. Etruscan vases including impasto, bucchero, Etrusco- The archaeological remains of this later Athena temple Corinthian, and black- and red-figure. are sparse: only the foundations were found during the Most of the vases in the Göttingen collection were early excavations, and three decorated architectonic mem- acquired in the 19th century and have subsequently been bers were attributed to it. Held presents a new reconstruc- known to scholars through occasional publications like tion of the later temple: pseudo-dipteral (six by nine) with Georg Hubo’s Originalwerke in der archäologischen Abtei- in-antis porches (fig. 49). Although this layout implies that lung des archäologisch-numismatischen Institutes der Georg- the cella walls were adjusted to the peripteros in a Doric Augusts-Universität (Göttingen 1887). Some of the vases manner, it well suits the extant foundations (in contrast to and all the Corinthian pinakes (although this is not men- both Mallwitz’s and von Gerkan’s reconstructions). Both tioned in the catalogue text of pl. 20, 3–4; 20, 5–6) are proportion and the introduction of Doric elements find long term loans from Berlin (the present Antikensam- good parallels in later fourth-century Karian architecture, mlung) and have been inventoried in Adolf Furtwän- notably at Labraunda. The position of the now dismantled gler’s old catalogue, Beschreibung der Vasensammlung im “Kultmal” is located in Held’s hypothetical reconstruction Antiquarium (Berlin 1885). But a substantive publication in the southwestern corner of the inner dipteros. of the collection was needed and the present fascicle Similar insecure ascriptions pertain to the three archi- lives up to the expectations of a modern catalogue with tectural members: a fragmentary Ionic capital, and an full descriptions, excellent illustrations, and profile draw- Ionic cyma and ovolo. Held examines the three frag- ings making the collection readily accessible and at the ments, gives possible reconstructions, original dimensions, same time creating a profound basis for comparable stud- and stylistic dates. He concludes that the capital may ies. It is evident from this volume that Dehl-von Kaenel have belonged to the later temple, but the Ionic cyma and Bentz are both experienced CVA authors. Reviewing and the ovolo would probably be too small for it. Again this fascicle has been a pleasure as well as educational, closing arguments contain an historical outline that con- especially since there are no serious flaws. What I have to cludes this well-argued publication. say in the following is therefore mainly about subjects After Held finished his manuscript in May 1998, finds that are open to discussion. excavated from a well in 1995–1996 southwest of the Athe- The volume is well-structured with no superfluous de- na sanctuary were published by W.-D. Niemeier (“Die Zier- tails, although a short introduction containing necessary de Ioniens,” AA [1999] 373–413) and B.F. Weber (“Die information might have strengthened the accessibility, Bauteile des Athenatempels in Milet,” AA [1999] 415–38). perhaps inserted either in the beginning or under each The well contained Late Archaic pottery and a fragment of heading. As an example, the authors’ viewpoint on Corin- an Ionic cyma, probably part of the same molding as the thian chronology may be mentioned, where a reference long known corner-piece first published by von Gerkan in would have sufficed to Dehl-von Kaenel’s own very clear 1925 (1, 8, 68). Both Weber and Niemeier argue for a Late comment on the topic in CVA Deutschland 53, Berlin 6 Archaic date for the later temple to which they assume that (15–18). The volume is equipped with a list of abbrevia- the cyma belonged prior to the Persian destruction of 494 tions, but not a bibliography—it is of course a matter of B.C. Neither scholar, however, presents a formal analysis for choice whether all important titles should be listed. In assigning the Archaic cyma to the later temple, and there is this case some of the references mentioned several times thus no reason for diverging from a Classical date for it. in the text are not included, and perhaps they should Even so, regardless of the cyma fragment, it is to his credit have been for the convenience of the reader. that Held’s historical analyses remain unaffected. The fascicle provides the user with studies especially in the field of Corinthian and Etrusco-Corinthian arybal- Anne Marie Carstens loi and alabastra, bucchero oinochoai of various types, department of archaeology and ethnology and Etruscan black-figured amphoras. The Etrusco-Corin- school of classical archaeology thian alabastron (Hu 539, pl. 35, 10–11) is called an Ital- university of copenhagen ic shape by the authors. To me it resembles Near Eastern vandkunsten 5 or East Greek jugs with its “bulge” on its neck and broad dk-1467 copenhagen k bottom, just like the tall alabastron (F 1196, pl. 35, 4–5), denmark for which the authors have suggested a Near Eastern [email protected] origin. 2002] BOOK REVIEWS 489 The Göttingen Collection also comprises some inter- From Pergamon to Sperlonga: Sculpture and esting figural scenes. Particularly welcome are the publi- Context, edited by Nancy T. de Grummond and cations of the following: a Corinthian flat-bottomed ary- Brunilde S. Ridgway. (Hellenistic Culture and So- ballos (Hu538e, pl. 5, 4–7) that depicts a scene including padded dancers, a rider, and an unusual “bull” scratching ciety.) Pp. 315, figs. 125. University of California itself on the back with its teeth. On the “bull” there is an Press, Berkeley 2000. $70. ISBN 0-520-22327-6 inscription reading “Larinos.” Animal depictions uncom- (cloth). mon to the ordinary Corinthian repertory can also be seen on an aryballos (Hu 539c, pl. 2, 13–16) depicting a In his 1902 essay published on the occasion of the lion-bird, and on a kotyle (Hu 537, pl. 18, 1–3) decorated first exposition of the newly reconstructed Pergamene with a frieze of swans walking in line. Finally, a bucchero Altar in Berlin, Guillaume Apollinaire expressed his awe aryballos (Acc. inv. III 24, pl. 29, 3–8) carries the well- by pronouncing it “a poem in stone” and by making the known scene of two antithetically placed lions each car- unfair statement that “just by contemplating the cutters rying a human leg in the mouth. of Pergamon some men may yet become sculptors in Ger- The material has been put firmly within the current many . . . because the Germans have absolutely no idea field of research with relevant older and newer literature about what sculpture is.” Ever since its discovery, this cited under each entry. Comparative material has been breathtaking monument has exercised an enormous in- treated thoroughly, but I would like to add Copenhagen, fluence on our perception of Hellenistic history and art, National Museum inv. Chr. VIII 885 (CVA Denmark 2, pl. appealing in our modern era to a very different audience 90, 2) to the comparanda for the so-called bird-cup (F than the one originally intended. Our sources do not 995, pl. 17, 2. 4. 6) since it seems a closer parallel. enlighten us on the dates of its construction and dedica- Observations on vase painters and groups include both tion, its purpose, honoree, or its impact on artistic devel- discussions on already existing attributions as well as new opments. Its sculpture has not been published in its en- ones. Those interested in the full Corinthian style will ben- tirety, and its reconstruction is fiercely debated. Yet the efit from the present study that attributes new vases to Pergamene Altar has cast a shadow over ancient sculp- various vase painters such as the Kalauria Painter, the Otter- ture and iconography and has seriously influenced the lo Painter, and the Pegasus Painter. I am not entirely cer- way we look at art (Ridgway, Hellenistic Sculpture 2:19– tain about the attribution of fragment Hu 539e (pl. 11, 3) 102). Over the last hundred years an enormous bibliog- to the Transitional Painter of Vatican 73; the face of the raphy on Pergamene “baroque” and its presumed influ- panther is different from his usual style and the preserva- ence was generated, and many theories have been pro- tion of the fragment prevents a comparison with other posed, some of which were based on unsound arguments motifs. References to major works on vase painting are cit- composed of hypothetical premises and consequently ed, including the indispensable work of Dehl-von Kaenel, shaky conclusions. As a result, our perception of ancient Die archaische Keramik aus dem Malophoros-Heiligtum in Seli- art was seriously distorted by the addition of speculation, nunt (Berlin 1995); however, a reference to the study of even fantasy, onto the existing factual framework. J.L. Benson, Die Geschichte der korinthischen Vasen (Basel 1953) The articles of the volume under review here are the is curiously absent, despite his fundamental role as a pio- result of collaboration among leading Hellenistic histori- neer in this field. ans and archaeologists. They deal with two important Of the Etruscan pottery four black-figured vases (Hu 749a- Hellenistic and Roman sculptures that scholars often link Hu 749d, pl. 40, 2–4; 41, 1–3; 42, 1–4, 5–6), hitherto unpub- closely together: the Gigantomachy and Telephos friez- lished, should be mentioned. The authors attribute them to es from the Pergamene Altar and the Odysseus groups an unnamed painter that has some similarities with the fol- from Sperlonga. The result is a spectacular and much- lowers of the Micali Painter. The fragments of about five needed dialogue that reviews and updates the scholar- other black-figured vases (Hu 749e, Hu 749i, pl. 43, 1; 43, 5) ship; deals with issues of iconography, authorship, and are also interesting. The authors identify them as works of date; mercifully separates fact from fiction; and proposes the Jerusalem Painter and include in the text of pl. 43, 1 a innovative approaches in the study of Hellenistic and valuable list of recent attributions to this painter. The exam- Roman artistic developments. ples from the volume given here are important because sys- Gruen’s essay defines the historical setting by offer- tematic studies in late Etruscan black-figure are limited, and ing an overview of how the Attalids of Pergamon became the present work has advanced research in this area. masters in cultivating an international image, by con- The overall impression of this CVA volume is that of a structing their self-conceptualization in order to legiti- thorough and up-to-date work, and scholars interested in mize themselves as the Greek dynasty par excellence. In these fields should not hesitate making it a future source this context the establishment of a new state mythology of reference. and the sponsoring of building projects fit perfectly into Attalid foreign policy, which generally aimed at consoli- Hanne Thomasen dating and expanding the kingdom. Of particular inter- department of classical and est is Gruen’s discussion of the Trojan legend as a point near eastern antiquities of convergence between the Romans and the Attalids the national museum of denmark following the conclusion of their fateful relationship that frederiksholms kanal 12 ended as a one-way dependency of Pergamon on Rome 1220 copenhagen k in the second century. He next observes that some of denmark the newly-constructed mythological interconnections, [email protected] linking the Roman legendary forefather Aeneas to the 490 BOOK REVIEWS [AJA 106 sons of the Attalid fictitious patriarch Telephos, can be enance, and date of the groups. Ridgway rightly prefers found in Lykophron’s unpalatable poem entitled “Alex- to associate them with an Italian, rather than Greek, andra.” In an article that appeared simultanously with tradition and to caution against dating them on the basis Gruen’s, this reviewer argued that the “Alexandra” is ac- of style, since scholars tend to omit the transformations tually a product of Attalid dynastic propaganda directed of aesthetic expression from their discussions. at Flamininus and is probably dated between 196–194 Moreno and Andreae, who have worked extensively B.C. (Hermes 128 [2000] 32–53). on the Sperlonga finds, have both associated them with Stewart’s article on the Great Altar constitutes a par- Hellenistic originals: the former considers them Rhodi- ticularly valuable account of the facts about that much- an and dates them to 226–166 B.C., while the latter has discussed monument. He cautiously reviews the various pronounced them to be the source of inspiration for the theories that have been proposed regarding its date, pur- Pergamon Altar! Since many scholars have considered pose, and reconstruction. His conclusions are negative: the Pergamene monument to be a Rhodian work, Pollitt the results of studies in quest of a date for the Altar’s next examines the merit of this theory. A careful analysis context pottery are sadly inconclusive (see Rotroff, AJA of the term “school” and of the literary, epigraphical, and 105 [2001] 129–30). Studies of its architectural remains archaeological evidence on the artistic production of are also problematic, for they have incidentally led two Hellenistic Rhodes leads to the only possible conclusion: scholars to propose two different restorations. The puz- no valid argument can be made in support of the exist- zling apsidal building encased in its foundations remains ence of a Rhodian sculptural school, since all premises an enigma. Any reconstruction of its pitifully fragmen- proposed are false, “a kind of visionary scenario [creat- tary dedicatory inscription must remain an exercise in ed] out of hints and hypothesis” (105). speculation. Scholars are still debating on whether this In her study Weis tries to make sense of the limited was an altar or a heroön. If an altar, was it dedicated to evidence that has been made available to scholars study- Zeus, Athena, both of them, or all the gods? Was the ing the Sperlonga sculptures. She points out that a num- monument conceived and built by Eumenes II or Attalos ber of problems hinder their reconstruction and inter- II after 188 B.C., and was it ever completed? Of particular pretation: the four heroic groups are fragmentary, large- importance is Stewart’s sensible reconstruction of the ly restored by Andreae and Conticello on the basis of sacrificial altar’s cornice as a display of enemy spoils rath- comparison with representations in the minor arts; their er than a base of yet another copy of the infamous “Less- findspot is sadly unknown; and scholars have limited their er Attalid Dedication.” discussion of the grotto’s sculptural program on the basis Sturgeon’s essay focuses on luxury architecture as a re- of the four known groups. Weis next suggests that Fausti- flection of political and religious power in Anatolia from nus Felix’s epigram on the sculptures that was carved on the fourth century B.C. to the Roman period. She places the grotto’s walls in late antiquity possibly hints at a Ver- the Pergamene Altar in the context of elaborate architec- gilian characterization of the mythological scenes. Final- tural types that served multiple functions, while their overly, Weis favors a date in the middle of the Julio-Claudian whelming amounts of sculptural decoration conveyed var- period for the sculptures based on their carving style. ied meanings and expressed political power. The follow- Green next offers a response to the preceding papers ing monuments are presented in some detail: the Nereid that builds on their largely negative results. From his Monument from Xanthos; the mausolea of Halikarnassos fascinating essay this reviewer singles out one important and Belevi; the tombs at Gjölbaschi-Trysa and Lykian point that he makes: the lack of evidence unfortunately Limyra; the altars of Athena at Priene, Artemis Leuko- tempts scholars to succumb to a notorious academic falla- phryene at Magnesia, and Pergamon; and the Roman the- cy, believing that all surviving evidence is interrelated aters of Aphrodisias, Corinth, and Hierapolis. Sturgeon’s and cohesive rather than representative of random piec- iconographical analysis of the Pergamene Altar leads her es of a puzzle that we will probably never be able to put to identify Zeus as the honoree and to conclude that sculp- together in its entirety. ture played a defining role in conveying the monument’s The last three essays move away from the monuments rich dynastic and propagandistic overtones. under study. Marszal’s essay is a thought-provoking, espe- Ridgway moves from Pergamon to the grotto at Sper- cially timely summary on the representation of Gauls in longa that has been associated with the emperor Tiberi- antiquity. Rather than attribute every surviving sculpture us and has yielded large amounts of fragmentary sculp- to a presumed Attalid “School of Pergamon” and agonize ture, much of which is still unpublished and under pains- about distributing “Roman copies of Hellenistic originals” taking study. The grotto itself and its adjacent complex on three Pergamene bases, he adopts a more sensible of rooms and corridors also remain unpublished, which approach. He reviews the literary, epigraphical, and ar- renders the interpretation of the finds all the more dif- chaeological evidence and tries to make sense of various ficult. Ridgway next reviews the facts and various pro- figures of barbarians that were represented through the posed interpretations. Scholarly interest has mostly fo- Roman period. He rightly observes that Attalid propa- cused on four sculptural groupings in varying states of ganda often misrepresented the Gauls, who also served preservation: Odysseus blinding Polyphemos, Skylla rav- as loyal mercenaries, while the Pergamenes did not spon- aging sailors, Odysseus and Diomedes carrying off the sor as many victory monuments featuring defeated Gauls Palladion, and a copy of the Pasquino group. To compli- as scholars believe. Of particular value is his plausible cate matters, a stone tablet from the grotto preserves the reconstruction of the “Long Base” from Pergamon (fig. signatures of the three Rhodian sculptors that Pliny men- 76). It should be stressed that the Attalids were not the tions as the makers of a Laokoön. This discovery has nat- only ones to score victories over the Gauls or set up victo- urally triggered endless discussions on the origins, prov- ry monuments. Scholars have lately focused on the sculp- 2002] BOOK REVIEWS 491 tural commemoration of Gallic victories by other powers, Untersuchungen zu hellenistischen Kult- including Ptolemaic Egypt, and Barbantani recently made bildern, by Dimitris Damaskos. Pp. xiv + 363, b&w a case for the association of two fragmentary elegiac po- ills. 16. Franz Steiner, Stuttgart 1999. DM 124, SF ems preserved on papyri, with Ptolemaic battles. Signifi- cantly, the second poem (SH 958) uses the same associa- 905. ISBN 3-515-07413-9 (paper). tion of the Galatians and the Persians at Marathon (490 Cult statues existed everywhere in the Hellenistic B.C.) that was used as a theme in Attalos I’s propaganda Greek world but few originals survive, even in part; those (Barbantani, Phàtis Nikephoros: Frammenti di elegia encomi- that do give a tantalizing glimpse into what must have astica nell’età delle guerre galatiche [Milan 2001]). been a visually rich experience for the ancient worship- Steingräber explores the issue of Pergamene influ- per, particularly one who traveled. We know the names of ences on contemporary Etruscan art by examining the many Hellenistic sculptors—both bright lights, such as iconography and style of a number of Etruscan monu- Damophon, Eukleides, Phyromachos, and Telesinos, and ments and artifacts. Of particular interest to this scholar lesser luminaries, including Menandros, Kanachos, and are representations of the myths of Telephos and of Kallon—sculptors who were known in antiquity, though Odysseus, as well as Galatomachies that he believes were only a handful of works directly attributable to them can in vogue in the second century B.C. The study of Attalid be identified now. influence on the Romans and their mythographical tra- Damaskos tackles this tough material in his disserta- dition deserves to be further pursued, and important stud- tion, completed in 1996/1997 at Freien Universität Ber- ies have appeared by Hardie (Vergil’s Aeneid [Oxford lin and presented here in a revision finished in 1998. His 1986]) and Kuttner (HSCP 97 [1995] 157–78). Stein- introduction sets out his definitions of “cult statue” (an gräber has amassed an impressive amount of material and γαλµα placed on a specially created base and connect- makes important observations about problems related to ed with cultic activity [1]) and the goals and limitations Etruscan art. This reviewer is not convinced, however, of this study. The author distinguishes between statues that he proves his case, since he often argues in favor of of divinities and those of deified rulers, and arranges his iconographic similarities between Etruscan and Per- study accordingly, beginning with the former, which are gamene works based on sculptures that have been attrib- presented geographically and occupy about two-thirds of uted to the “Lesser Attalid Group.” This attribution is the text, then turning to the latter, described chrono- tentative at best, and based on recently resurfaced ar- logically. One break in this plan is a chapter inserted chaeological evidence, Stewart’s forthcoming work on between the cult images of deities on the mainland and Attalos I’s dedication on the Athenian Akropolis (Little those on the islands; this special chapter is devoted to Barbarians: The Tale of Ten Statues) plausibly argues for the cult images of Damophon (also arranged geographi- reconstructing a very different monument. cally) followed by an excursus on Damophon’s work on De Grummond’s response to the two last papers wraps the islands of Leuke and Kythnos. The body of the text up the book. Of particular value is her dialogue with Stein- is followed by an appendix concerning the social status gräber, especially her plausible contextualization of repre- of individual Hellenistic sculptors and a brief conclusion. sentations of the Skylla myth in early Etruscan art. The A list of “Dubia,” a list of illustrations, an index of ancient same situation can be observed with regard to representa- sources (literary, epigraphical, numismatic), a general tions of Galatomachies and Gigantomachies which, evi- subject index, and 16 black and white illustrations con- dence suggests, developed iconographically in Hellenistic clude the book. Italy, independent of the East. In conclusion, De Grum- The author methodically documents the literary and mond prefers not to seek the basic unifying element at archaeological evidence for Hellenistic cult statues of Sperlonga in the work of one author, but rather associates divinities and of the Diadochoi and Antigonids, the Seleu- the sculptures with a specific topography centering around kids, the Attalids (who were worshipped at Pergamon long the west coast of Italy and Sicily. after the end of their dynasty), individual rulers, and late One cannot stress enough the importance of this rich- Hellenistic citizens (e.g., Diodoros Pasparos of the first ly illustrated and well-documented collection of essays century B.C.E. at Pergamon) throughout the Greek main- for our understanding of Hellenistic Pergamon and be- land, islands, and Asia Minor. True to dissertation format, yond. Its authors do not claim to have tackled the insur- the text meticulously details previous scholarship on this mountable problems associated with the monuments un- subject with amplification in the copious and lengthy der consideration, but they offer the hard facts and sug- notes. gest a most sensible approach to the study of exception- Damaskos often must rely heavily on excavation really difficult topics. It should remain the first book on ports and photographs, which he has carefully read, sort- Pergamon and Sperlonga to consult for many years to ed, and synthesized here. He deftly sifts through and come. assembles the evidence, a daunting task since much of the material evidence is fragmentary, often absent, or Elizabeth Kosmetatou poorly published; and many of the objects lie in store- departement klassieke studies rooms, have vanished since their excavation, or have not afdeling oude geschiedenis received—and in some unfortunate instances, will never katholieke universiteit leuven receive—full publication. For each example, the author blijde inkomststraat 21 describes the physical evidence for the cult statue itself b-3000 leuven (usually fragmentary and often no longer extant) and its belgium setting (description of remains, condition, dimensions, [email protected] materials, and findspot); examines related written evi- 492 BOOK REVIEWS [AJA 106 dence (inscriptions and literary); and explores various ically or thematically, with a catalogue following the text issues and problems. Damaskos offers detailed discussion might have been preferable to the descriptive, data-heavy of the identification, dating, and history of various sanc- catalogue format used here. With most Greek untranslat- tuaries, structures, and cult statues; the original place- ed, dense discussions of technical matters, a detailed ment of statues; patronage; reconstructions of cult stat- scholarly apparatus, and the necessity to consult a spe- ues based on coins; Roman statues and other comparan- cialized library for most illustrations, this is definitely a da; the relationship of Hellenistic cult statue types to text for specialists, few of whom will read it cover to cover Classical predecessors; and honorary titles awarded to rul- but instead will dip into it for information about a partic- ers. This compendium of information is not only useful ular image or place. In this sense, the text serves the for both major and minor sites but also enables us to see interests of documentation without providing the big clearly, with a sense of wonder mixed with sadness, how picture (although brief conclusions draw together some much there once was and how much is now absent. In of the themes presented in the text). many cases, we have only the cult statue base or a literary For all its usefulness, the book is poorly illustrated, description from which to draw any conclusions. Inter- lacking images of nearly all objects discussed; there may pretive summaries (201–56, 298–315) following both not be a lot surviving but it would be very helpful to see sections of documentation (cult statues of divinities, cult whatever does survive! Some illustrations are perplexing. statues of rulers), include brief treatments of Hellenistic We are treated to just the lower portion and the base of cult statue iconography, geographical distribution of var- a larger statue in figure 4; why not show the entirety? We ious deities, and terminology, and more extended and see the top and part of the back of a statue in figure 10, intriguing discussions of patronage. which is the focus of the text discussion, but the rest of Numerous tangential, often compelling, issues emerge it is not illustrated. One misses site plans marked with from this study that broaden our view of the Hellenistic cult statues, which would have helped the reader better sculpture industry and the status of sculptors, such as a understand and visualize the stupendous impact of nu- reconstruction of the careers and family relationships of merous, usually over-lifesize (occasionally colossal) cult Polykles and his sons Timokles and Timarchides, the in- statues displayed in relatively small temples (designed to clusion of statues of sculptors in the temple for which enhance the impact of the statues [208–9]) at individual they made cult statues, the possible heroön at Messene sites, such as Aigeira, Delos, or Pergamon. Maps would for the sculptor Damophon, and city decrees stating the have helped the reader trace the geographical layout of financial terms for the commission of cult statues from the text. The lack of a full bibliography is unfortunate, various sculptors (e.g., 14–17, 23–4, 217–9, 321–2). Else- and the subject index would have benefited from sub- where, we learn about developments in Hellenistic reli- headings; an entry such as “Altar” followed by a long gion, such as the worship of eastern gods (e.g., Atargatis, string of numbers with no further guidance is not partic- Hadad, Isis, Sarapis, and Anubis) and their iconographic ularly helpful. A few misstatements (e.g., 257, second syncretism with Greek deities, especially on Delos (97–9, paragraph: many Greek cities were not democracies in 237–8); the first statuary depiction (largely intact) of the Classical period) and misspellings can be distracting the personification Roma, which appears on Delos (93); to the reader. the intersection of Hellenistic religion and politics, in- We can be grateful, however, that Damaskos has cluding the worship of Hera Basileia at Pergamon and brought this disparate material together in one place for her exploitation by Pergamene rulers (137–49, 249); the us. The author enables us to get a taste of the sumptuous Attalid dynasty’s veneration and use of Herakles (232, array and variety of cult images in Hellenistic Greece and 249–50); and the history of various sanctuaries. provides a first resource for scholars investigating this Damaskos carefully tackles the sticky issues of the ori- subject. gin of, and relationship between, ruler cult and divine Judith M. Barringer worship in the Greek world, the distinction between ruler cult statues and votives or honorific statues, the shared departments of classics and history of art worship of ruler and god, and the motivation(s) for ruler yale university cult. Other art historical issues of note (and there are new haven, connecticut 06520 many to choose from) include the treatment of archaiz- [email protected] ing Hellenistic cult statues (125–7) and the methodological problems of using coins, especially Roman imperial coins, as evidence for Hellenistic cult statues (213–7). Appearance and Essence: Refinements of Clas- Particularly delightful is Damaskos’s inclusion of Pausani- sical Architecture: Curvature, edited by as’s account (7.26.2) of how the city of Hyperesia adopted the new name of Aigeira in the seventh century B.C.E. Lothar Haselberger. (University Museum Mono- because of the role its goats played in the city’s defense graph 107, Symposium Series 10.) Pp. xvi + 330, against the Sikyonians. Controversies and possible solu- ills. 76, figs. 268. University of Pennsylvania Mu- tions proposed by previous scholars are carefully described, seum of Archaeology and Anthropology, Phila- and in some cases, the author adopts a position. In every instance, Damaskos is cautious, always quick to acknowl- delphia 1999. $64. ISBN 0-924171-76-6 (cloth). edge the limits of what can be known or even hypothe- Appearance and Essence is the timely publication of the sized. second Williams Symposium on Classical Architecture at There is so much of value in this book that one won- the University of Pennsylvania (1993). The topic is visu- ders if a straight narrative, perhaps arranged chronolog- al refinement in ancient architecture, defined by Hasel- 2002] BOOK REVIEWS 493 berger as “intentional deviations from geometrical regu- corrupt), but his topic is stylobate curvature, achieved by larity, that left no line, no element of a structure truly adding (something) to the center of it. The problem is straight, or vertical, or what it appears to be.” Techniques the fact that we cannot tell if scamilli impares are archi- include stereobate or entablature curvature, inclination tectural features or a technique for executing curvature of columns, entasis and other aesthetic revisions, but the (his promised illustration is not preserved). Until the complexity of this field is exemplified by the fact that early 19th century, before modern scholars noticed cur- scholars do not even agree what techniques qualify as vature in ancient architecture, Vitruvius was taken to refinements. The authors adhere to Haselberger’s strict mean an architectural feature, most commonly under definition, providing both the evidence for curvature at columns, such as pedestals or articulations in the podium their sites and proof that it was intentional, including (C. Sgarbi and P. Gros in part IV). Since the discovery of how the optical revision affects a viewer’s impression of curvature in Greek architecture, scholars have taken scam- the site. The symposium also coincided with an exhibi- illi impares to mean a construction mechanism by which tion highlighting Manolis Korres’s recent work on the curvature can be achieved. Haselberger cites several ex- Athenian acropolis. amples of the former, while H. Bankel and F. Cooper Parts I–IV are the core of the symposium. Part I (Out- present examples of the latter. For Bankel, scamilli im- line and Outlook) is Haselberger’s introduction to the pares are small wooden disks of graduated height, set topic. The papers are grouped topically into three cate- into cuttings of stylobate blocks to indicate the curved gories. Part II, General Issues, addresses how modern top surface; for Cooper, they are the slightly peaked top mathematics may apply to architectural curvature (a prob- surfaces of individual ashlar blocks, so that each block of lematic issue, as J.J. Coulton and Hans Seybold demon- the course above rests on a flat surface. This disparity is strate), ways that curvature could be executed in situ, informative. Both techniques fit within Vitruvius’s vague and the optical illusions that refinements were intended wording; both do create curvature; and both were de- to correct. Part III, Monumental Evidence, comprises monstrably used in antiquity. eight papers detailing specific sites, plus M. Wilson Jones’s So regardless of what scamilli impares were, they were analysis of Roman entasis. Part IV, Early Modern Appro- certainly not the only technique used to create curva- priation, addresses Renaissance analyses of Vitruvius’s ture; we now know of many techniques, while Vitruvius notorious discussion of scamilli impares. only names the one. In other words, we know much more Discussion among the authors and audience provided about Greek architectural refinements than Vitruvius valuable insights, which are also incorporated in the pub- mentions. As a result, the debate over scamilli impares lication, including appropriate cross-references. The re- has now become a curiosity. Figuring out exactly what sult is a tight and coherent exegesis of the subject. Fur- Vitruvius meant would merely give a name to one of the thermore, some members of the audience subsequently numerous techniques we already know. Equally impor- wrote contributions, which make up part V. Part VI, First tant, as Haselberger demonstrates, ancient literary sources Consequences, consists of two papers written after the other than Vitruvius clearly attest a nonrigorous process, symposium, applying key issues to other sites. Part VII is where the nature and degree of architectural refinements an appendix discussing neo-Classical buildings that emu- were made according to the aesthetic expertise of the late Greco-Roman refinements. It is a splendid perfor- architect. There never was one set canon for architectur- mance by all involved and, for a scholar of ancient archi- al refinement, but rather architects had many available tecture, an exhilarating read. techniques, which they used, or not, as they saw fit at It would be excessive to evaluate this complex volume each site. systematically, especially the site reports in part III. These Another conundrum is the extent to which curvature are entirely convincing, but also tedious because they was meant to be seen by the viewer (as opposed to unno- consist largely of detailed measurements. They follow a ticed optical compensation). Several papers address this necessary formula, demonstrating the validity of their topic, most notably Korres in part II and D. Booth and M. research methods and then documenting the refinements Lewis in part V. Vitruvius says curvature serves to correct at their site. Fortunately, most readers will not need to optical illusion, naming no other purpose. While we can- read part III at all, but can use it as reference. not prove exactly what ancient architects intended, we This is because of the fact that Haselberger’s overview can address the issue from another angle, not cited by of the field in part I is superb, incorporating the sympo- any of the chapters, but suggested by the overall treat- sium papers throughout, including brief synopses. Every ment of perceptibility throughout this volume. Optical scholar and student in the field should be familiar with illusion depends largely on two components, the rela- this profound essay. The introduction is a paragon of tionships between adjacent objects and the position of clarity and completeness, demonstrating exactly where objects relative to the line of sight. As Korres demon- and how each individual paper fits into the overall topic. strates, the floor of a pediment appears to sag, both be- Duly supported by the papers of part II, Haselberger’s cause it is the base of a broad triangle and because it is essay prepares the reader to join the debate on architec- above the viewer’s line of sight. It does not follow, how- tural refinement. ever, that all long horizontal lines appear to sag, Vitru- Discussions on architectural refinement include nu- vius’s claim to the contrary notwithstanding. While a long merous controversial issues, two of which can serve as horizontal above eye level appears to sag, a long horizon- examples. Most famous is the question of what Vitruvius tal below eye level appears to rise—in both cases the line meant by scamilli impares (3.4.5 and 5.9.4: scamilli, “lit- appears to bow toward the viewer’s line of sight: the great- tle benches” or “stools”; impares, “unequal” or “odd [num- er the distance from the line of sight, the greater the bers]”). His wording is ambiguous (and the manuscripts bowing toward it. Thus, because a stereobate is close to 494 BOOK REVIEWS [AJA 106 the line of site, the apparent rise will be slight. More notably more severe than the Parthenon’s 1:700 (north problematically, people tend to see what they are look- stylobate). Thus, if one is inclined to think either that a ing for, whether or not it is actually there: that is, “I see long horizontal stereobate appears to sag (as Vitruvius the curve” does not necessarily mean that the line actu- does), or to think that the curvature of the Parthenon ally appears to curve, but may instead result from the fact stereobate was intended to be visible, then one should that the viewer expected the line to appear curved. Un- reflect on the library of Celsus: before Hueber’s paper no til the Parthenon was measured, revealing the curved one had noticed this substantial curvature. As Booth and stereobate, no one noticed that it did so, because no one Lewis indicate in their paper, the issue of perceptibility is looked for it: perception, even by careful scholars, is con- more complex and more problematic than we know, and ditioned by expectation. Curvature is detectable only in vastly more interesting. extreme circumstances, such as well-elevated broad tri- Appearance and Essence represents a profound im- angles like pediments, but otherwise only exists as a mat- provement in our understanding of ancient architec- ter of suggestion-enhanced perception on the part of ture. The debate concerning scamilli impares and the persons wanting to see it. perceptibility of architectural refinements are just two Korres demonstrates that much of the Parthenon’s ste- of the many juicy issues that course through this dense reobate curvature, its diagonal tilt, and curves in the west and elaborate publication. There are few publications terrace steps were tailored to a view from the Propylaia, in classical archaeology to compare with this one, not keeping the stereobate steps apparently parallel and vis- only for fine scholarly authority, but also for piquing ible above the terrace steps. This is not to say that a the reader’s intellect. curved stylobate was not intended from the start (some Larry F. Ball curvature was retained from the old Parthenon, the view of which would have been different), but it does demon- art and design strate that correction of optical illusion was not the only fine arts center b116 visual problem the architects were trying to address. university of wisconsin-stevens point After the Parthenon, stereobate curvature was quickly stevens point, wisconsin 54481 reduced until, in the Hellenistic period, it is virtually [email protected] undetectable (Haselberger’s experience at Didyma is particularly informative). In the Parthenon one detects curvature only in the stereobate. The nearly identical The Epigraphy of Death: Studies in the His- curvature of the entablature is virtually undetectable. tory and Society of Greece and Rome, edited Since an upward entablature curvature would compen- by G.J. Oliver. Pp. xiv + 225, figs. 37. Liverpool sate for the illusion of sagging above eye level, the curva- University Press, Liverpool 2000. £16.95. ISBN 0- ture there is not perceived. In contrast, the physical upward curvature of the stereobate would actually enhance 85323-915-0 (paper). the illusionistic upward curvature of a horizontal line below Much of Roman history is culled from inscriptions: so- eye level. In the Parthenon, therefore, the curvature of cial historians and archaeologists alike find a wealth of the stereobate is readily detected. raw material in words cut in stone. The very richness of The detectable curve of the Parthenon’s stereobate is the epigraphical record—hundreds of thousands of in- commonly interpreted as intentional, that is, the archi- scriptions survive—renders them unwieldy to manage and tects wanted the stereobate to appear curved in order to difficult to use responsibly. Even simple statistical analy- give the building a dynamic tension and organic, live feel- sis of their numbers can be tricky; scholars recognize ing. To the reviewer, that seems sophistic, largely intend- that, for a variety of reasons (or for no reason at all), ed to maintain that whatever we see in the Parthenon inscriptions can be more plentiful in some places and at must necessarily be perfect. That this is not true is demon- some times than at others, a phenomenon termed the strated by the fact that only the upward curvature of the epigraphic habit. Just as problematic is that the very stylobate was ever plainly visible, and this was systematical- boundaries that separate disciplines to enable scholars to ly eliminated in later buildings. Perceptible curvature was master material meaningfully often force epigraphers to precisely what later architects tried to correct; it cannot study inscriptions in isolation from their wider contexts have been what they intended. As Haselberger’s history (e.g., IG and CIL). of curvature demonstrates, the Parthenon was early in the The proceedings of a symposium held at the Universi- evolution of corrective curvature; apparently its stereo- ty of Liverpool in 1995, the volume presents seven es- bate was a mistake. Thereafter, Greek architects learned says. In the introduction, Graham Oliver sets out the that upward curvature in the stereobate exacerbated the main theme. Death is the focus of choice because we illusion rather than corrected it. tend to judge cultures by their monumentalization of F. Hueber’s paper on the library of Celsus at Ephesos the departed. In addition, funerary remains often pro- illustrates a new approach to optical correction. From the vide immediate insights into another culture’s belief sys- ground floor capitals on up, the colonnades show typical tem, not to mention its political structure. In the mod- upward curvature, acutely so for the ground floor and ern world, documentation of many kinds rounds out the then progressively flatter up to a horizontal top cornice. picture that funerary works suggest, so that one can re- Below eye level, however, the plinths of the lower colon- sist the temptation to take information offered by in- nade are shorter in the middle, by about 5.5 cm, so that scriptions at simple face value. When researching an- colonnade physically sags. The sag is substantial, ca. 1:500, cient societies, however, scholars must seek out larger 2002] BOOK REVIEWS 495 contexts to make sense of the engraved word. Thus, Ol- ies with high infant mortality rates allowed the death of iver argues, epigraphers must be like the art historian, to a child to pass unlamented, as parents kept a self-protec- accept an inscription as part of a larger monument with tive emotional distance from their young. Accepting that messages implicit in architectural and sculptural forms. sentiments engraved on tombstones are cultural construc- She must become topographer, mindful of the monu- tions, King nevertheless rejects the notion that they ment’s place within an evolving cemetery in a shifting therefore yield no evidence of individual emotion, in- cityscape; and as historian, she must explore economic stead probing the “language” of grief for word choice and social considerations: the economics of burial rites, and order. She notes that the child’s name frequently for instance, and their potential to create identity for precedes the dedicator’s, contrary to the rule in other social groups. circumstances, and that a deceased child’s age is often In the light of new publications of classical monu- specified down to hours; these facts, alongside choices of ments, the second essay, by Karen Stears, readdresses epithet, suggest emotional engagement with a child, an old problem: the disappearance of late Archaic Athe- however young, and grief at that child’s death. nian kouroi, korai and shaft-stelae ca. 480, and the sub- Valerie Hope’s essay constitutes a fascinating test case, sequent reemergence of Classical stelae in the 440s– exposing the rhetoric of commemoration by questioning 430s. Stears revisits a view that antisumptuary laws of ca. whether the tombstones of the Roman fort of Mainz 480, attributed to Kimon and preserved in Cicero’s de reflect the normative hierarchy of its closely structured legibus, curtailed an elite minority’s practice of reifying military environment. The dedicators are nearly all sol- their privileged position through funerary display. Ki- diers, and their monuments are mostly stelae. Deviations mon’s death in ca. 450, and the employment of non- from the norm, sometimes in epitaphs, more often in Attic sculptors on the Parthenon, who may have fallen sculptural decoration, lead Hope to conclude that sol- outside the letter of the law or simply disregarded it, led diers used tombstones to construct group identity: mount- to its gradual obsolescence. Her reading of Athenian ed auxiliaries, inferior in status to their legionary coun- politics of display is wide-ranging, suggesting insights terparts, conceded inferiority in their epitaphs but used into the shifting topography of the Kerameikos, dedica- sculptural representations of horses and grooms (emblems tion patterns on the Acropolis, and repercussions of of success) to elevate their status. While this conclusion Pericles’ citizenship laws. does not come as a surprise (Hope notes the parallel with Oliver responds to a study by Thomas Nielsen et al., freedperson monuments in Rome), the essay’s value lies who in 1989 challenged the prevalent notion that Athe- in the unusually strict control that the fort’s closed envi- nian tombstones constitute an index of wealth. Oliver ronment allows the author over her material. rightly problematizes the low burial costs that Nielsen In the final essay, Glenys Davies scrutinizes the ash et al. find in an inscription of 367/6. To their observa- urns of the Ince Blundel collection and their inscription that names inscribed on grand monuments in the tions for authenticity. Offering careful criteria for distin- Kerameikos do not match those of wealthy citizens guishing ancient from modern inscriptions, ranging from known from prosopographical studies, and that, in fact, spacing to letter forms and flourishes, and documenta- some of the wealthy were commemorated by humble tion in earlier publications of the collection, Davies con- markers, Oliver points out that the topographical concludes that several urns have modern inscriptions, added text (e.g., a monumental peribolos) may have helped to around the time of their purchase from dealers in Rome mark status. Moreover, even when sumptuary laws pro- in the 1780s–1790s. Moreover, several of the urns are hibited lavish display, location could continue to com- not ancient at all. The loud cautionary note that Davies municate status. Oliver’s arguments may be compelling, sounds is an important one: scholars unquestioningly rely but since his essay begins by asserting that scholars have upon the brief inscriptions in their studies of nomencla- not accepted Nielsen’s thesis, he comes off preaching ture and demographics, and they tend to privilege the to the converted. inscription as a text over context. Still, Davies leaves In the fourth chapter Torben Vestergaard investigates dangling an interesting question: in the 18th century, the high proportion of Milesians (compared with other what led modern dealers and collectors to fake inscrip- non-Athenians) recorded in private sepulchral inscriptions, and did they intend to deceive? tions in Athens between 100 B.C. and A.D. 200. He Given how much we do rely upon the “disembodied” rejects the possibility that they simply had a peculiarly texts of inscriptions to create a story of the past, this strong epigraphic habit (albeit without citing compara- volume’s mission is paramount. Yet as rich as the individ- ble evidence from Miletus) and prefers to consider the ual essays are in their own right, they do not always ad- wider archaeological and historical picture. The silting here to that mission. Although an excellent assessment up of the harbors of Miletus (documented in an appen- of Athenian patterns of commemoration, Stears’s essay dix by Alan Greaves), and competition from other ports, bears no relation to inscriptions. While others adhere such as Delos, lead him to envisage widespread emigra- more closely to the subject matter of the volume, some tion from a once-wealthy city. The mother city of Ion- of them veer sharply away from its goal. King’s essay, ian cities in western Asia Minor, closely tied to Miletus valuable for understanding family relationships in antiq- in dialect and religion, Athens became the natural choice uity, is less concerned with context than with a close of destination; the fame of her ephebeia added to her reading of just the texts of inscriptions commemorating attractiveness. infants. Although proceedings of conferences often in- Margaret King’s essay employs Roman tombstones for clude papers on unconnected subjects and of varying children to confront the premise that premodern societ- quality, this volume might have served better as a set of 496 BOOK REVIEWS [AJA 106 methodological models had the existing essays been short- but undiscriminating. If ever there were an argument for er and had the editor commissioned others on a wider electronic publication this overpublished collection is it! variety of contexts for the epigraphy of death. Types in chronological order include three “cocked hat” lamps, “Apulian” wheelmade, Hellenistic wheelmade Penelope J.E. Davies and moldmade, “Republican” moldmade, early imperial department of art and art history volute nozzled lamps (especially numerous with nearly university of texas at austin 200, all with decorated disks), a few lamps with molded austin, texas 78712 handles, a few semivolute lamps, 15 “Birdshead” lamps, [email protected] 136 lamps with rounded or U-shaped nozzles (mostly with decorated disks but of markedly lower quality than the Le lucerne fittili del museo archeologico di volute nozzled lamps), 225 “Factory” lamps which are typical of northern Italian shops in the later first–early third Verona, in 2 vols., by Annamaria Larese and Daniele centuries C.E. and are based on metal prototypes, lamps Sgreva. (Collezioni Musei Archeologici del with transverse handles, fat warty lamps of the third cen- Veneto.) Vol. 1: pp. 324, figs. 902. Vol. 2: pp. 222, tury, 26 North African lamps of the fourth–fifth centu- figs. 93, pls. 3, plan 1, tables 20, map 1. Giorgio ries, and a handful of early Christian lamps of Italian and perhaps local origin. The work concludes with four lamps Bretschneider, Rome 1999. Lit 800,000. ISBN 88- “di dubbia autenticita.” 7689-150-1 (paper). At times one would have welcomed further discussion Lamps from Chersonesos in the State Histori- of a piece: for example, no. 414 has a menorah on its disk, a representation not identified until the catalogue cal Museum Moscow, by Laurent Chrzanovski and of motifs. It is included in the same category as a fourth- Denis Zhuravlev. (Studia Archaeologica 54.) Pp. 304, century Egyptian lamp with no bibliography. The presen- figs. 119, map 1, plan 1. L’ERMA di Bretschneider, tation of the North African lamps and local imitations is Rome 1998. Lit 250,000. ISBN 88-8265-010-3 somewhat muddled with Hayes I and II mixed together in the catalogue, although the former seems to stop ca. (cloth). 400 C.E. just as the latter is starting. These two volumes have three things in common: they The largest group consists of the so-called Firmalampen both present museum collections of regional lamps, mostly factory lamps whose home seems to have been in north- recovered in old excavations or from old collections with ern Italy. Made in great quantities from the late first few details of exact provenance; they are published by century on, these lamps with their bold signatures in Bretschneider; and they are grossly overpriced (in spite relief letters on the base were both copied and exported of a local subsidy having been provided for the Verona widely, especially in the West. volume). Provincial collections of lamps in Italy are plen- Chersonesos was one of the great Dorian colonies in tiful, and the past two decades have seen publications of the Crimea on the north shore of the Black Sea in present a number of them. Most lamps have no exact provenance Ukraine; pre-Revolutionary excavations at the site pro- and come from local collections of varying origin (some duced the 112 lamps presented in this well researched made up in the 18th century; the Verona collection in- study by Chrzanovski and Zhuravlev. It is a useful addi- cludes pieces from Sicily); thus they are of limited use tion to the limited number of lamps published from the except as comparanda, but the flood continues. In the former Soviet Union although the material (now in Mos- absence of any detailed archaeological information, such cow) is of relatively minor importance and could easily as context, the authors often fall back on extensive pre- have been accommodated in a long article; while it is sentation of details, often of limited value; unfortunate- likely that most lamps came from the four cemeteries ly the Verona book is no exception. around Chersonesos no detailed provenance is given for That said, it is an attractively produced pair of volumes any but a handful from recent excavations, and some are that attempt to put the 687 lamps in some sort of lychno- from the Rumyantsevskiy museum, not from known exca- logical context. The collection includes a wide variety of vations. Of particular value, however, is the extensive examples from early “saucer lamps” to late Roman through relevant bibliography that includes much recent Russian early Christian moldmade lamps; somewhat inconveniently and Ukrainian work on lamps. the dates and comparanda are not given with the lamps The range of the collection runs from late Archaic open themselves but in the discussions at the start of each top lamps, several late Classical–early Hellenistic exam- group. The second volume provides an extensive body of ples, a single very late Hellenistic “Ephesos” lamp (one of supporting material—lists of motifs, signatures, and mak- the most northerly found), Roman volute lamps with vari- ers’ marks. It is well illustrated with clear half-size photo- ous scenes on the disk, a bird’s head lamp (rare in this graphs (often of both top and bottom and profile); the area), factory lamps, many simple U-shaped nozzle lamps absence of profile drawings is unfortunate. Nearly 50 pages with disk scenes (including third century C.E., Attic, or are devoted to an itemized list of 241 motifs and pub- imitation) to various late Roman–early Christian types and lished parallels (needlessly duplicated later by pages of one ninth–tenth-century Medieval “lustron”; the collec- indexed motifs) followed by 25 pages on makers’ marks tion includes many apparently local products as well as one and parallels; there are also 32 pages of tables of lamps, identified imitation of an early Christian North African motifs, and signatures from their different sources. The lamp made in Naples about 100 years ago. The work is bibliography (repeated in the second volume) is lengthy carefully researched and well illustrated with photographs 2002] BOOK REVIEWS 497

(scale 2:3), drawings of top and sometimes bottom, and As with any festschrift, the essays in this volume were profile drawings of each lamp; some readers might have submitted by Macnamara’s colleagues in appreciation of found Munsell or DIN color descriptions useful too. The her substantial contributions to the field of Classical ar- publisher might also have provided some more careful ed- chaeology. The 19 chapters are written in English by a iting of the English; infelicities abound. As one might group of international scholars, the majority of whom are expect there seem to be strong trading connections with from those countries where Macnamara did most of her Asia Minor and with the western Black Sea coast (one work: Great Britain and Italy. All of the papers focus on major omission from the extensive bibliography is K.D. ancient Italy and its material culture, with a strong em- Vitelli’s publication of the early seventh-century lamps from phasis on metal artifacts. the Yassi Ada wreck in G.F. Bass and F.H. van Doorninck, The book begins with an introductory section called Jr., Yassi Ada, [College Station, Tex. 1982]). “Ellen Macnamara: An Appreciation.” Readers of this jour- There are some interesting iconographic scenes on nal are undoubtedly familiar at least with Macnamara’s lamp disks: for example, a later first-century B.C.E volute important books on the Etruscans, Everyday Life of the lamp has an erotic symplegma set above a galley, an un- Etruscans (London 1973) and The Etruscans (Cambridge, usual scene that suggests Antony and Cleopatra’s famous Mass. 1991), the latter providing a useful introduction meeting at Tarsus. There are some unusual local lamps not only to the Etruscan civilization but also to the im- like no. 74 (open top and flat bottom—could it in fact be pressive collection in the British Museum. Some schol- a lampholder?) or nos. 75–81, “starburst” lamps with un- ars, however, may not be aware of the full nature and usual Greek relief inscriptions—ΡΥ on top and CΥ on scope of her work in both Italy and Scotland, and the two bottom—that are widely distributed in North Pontic re- brief essays in this section describe these achievements. gions. Nos. 93–105 are imported or local versions of early They are followed by a bibliography that reveals Mac- Christian North African lamps but mixed up together rath- namara’s impressive record of publishing at least one, er than divided into earlier and later (Hayes I and II). and usually several, articles, reviews, and books annually Related are nos. 106 and 107; their solid handles with from 1962 to the present. single groove seem to place them in the late fourth cen- The initial chapter (Sestieri) reviews the possible ap- tury rather than the fifth–sixth-century date suggested. plications of historical methodology in Italian archaeolo- Wheelmade lamps with small handles like nos. 87 and 88 gy. This theoretical paper represents an exception to the are also found in second–third-century C.E. contexts in largely technical and practical nature of the other chap- Asia Minor; no reason is given for the fourth-century ters and gives a useful introduction to the broad chrono- date suggested. The final group of cross-handled lamps logical issues that concern the field. The second chapter find close parallels among some of the Yassi Ada lamps (Leighton) provides a valuable discussion of the chro- referred to above, which date from ca. 630 C.E. and which nology of Iron Age Sicily and southern Italy, vividly illus- probably come from workshops on the west coast of the trating the complexity of the evidence and the difficul- Black Sea. The book should serve to whet our appetites ties involved in dating objects from this period and argu- for the publication of more recent excavations at this ing for lowering traditional chronologies on the basis of remarkable outpost of Hellenism. new diagnostic technologies. The remaining chapters are written in the style of Hector Williams archaeological reports, with detailed artifact drawings and department of classical, near eastern, technical analyses. Several of the papers concentrate on and religious studies early Italian metallurgy. The first two (Giardino, Pearce) buchanan building c260 discuss the origins of metalworking in prehistoric Italy, 1866 main mall including typologies as well as metallurgical analyses of university of british columbia excavated artifacts. The next chapter (Procelli) address- vancouver, british columbia v6t 1z1 es stone molds found in Sicily, dating from the Early canada Bronze Age to the Early Iron Age; an appendix (Mazzo- [email protected] leni) presents macroscopic observations of these molds and subsequent conclusions about their substance. The Etruscans are particularly renowned for their bronze Ancient Italy in Its Mediterranean Setting: work, and some of their most familiar artifact types provide Studies in Honour of Ellen Macnamara, ed- the focus of the next four chapters: fibulae, mirrors, and ited by David Ridgway, Francesca R. Serra Ridgway, model boats. The general discussion of fibulae (Toms) is particularly thorough and lucid; its useful information not Mark Pearce, Edward Herring, Ruth D. Whitehouse, only applies to Italian examples but also to the fibulae that and John B. Wilkins. Pp. 336, figs. 127, tables 5. are found abundantly in Greece and Anatolia. Engraved Accordia Research Institute, University of Lon- bronze mirrors are probably the best known products of don, London 2000. $64.80. ISBN 1-873415-21-4 Etruscan workshops, and the metallographic analysis by Swaddling et al. provides a fascinating new perspective on (paper). these artifacts, generally studied for their iconography. The raison d’être of this book is to honor Ellen Mac- Two chapters (Lo Schiavo, Roberts) discuss the miniature namara, a member of the British Museum’s Department bronze boats found on many Etruscan sites. of Greek and Roman Antiquities and best known for her Four chapters address the question originally implied publications on the Etruscans and on ancient metalwork. by the book’s title: how does the culture and landscape 498 BOOK REVIEWS [AJA 106 of ancient Italy fit into their Mediterranean context? In conclusion, this publication and the manifold re- Each of these is thoughtful, comprehensible, and inter- search it presents attest the vitality of this field among disciplinary. Snodgrass presents a great discussion of sea European scholars. It is to be hoped that it will stimulate a travel in the prehistoric era, comparing the Italian mari- similar interest and awareness on this side of the Atlantic. time landscape with that of Greece, Asia Minor, and the Lisa R. Brody Levant. Next, Ridgway synthesizes his previous and current research on Greek colonization in Italy, particularly portland state university and Pithekoussai. The following chapter by Naso is one of willamette university the most interesting and intelligible of the entire book. [email protected] Its expressed subject is “the relationships between ancient Italy and the Aegean seen from an Italic viewpoint” (193). Naso presents specific artifacts of Etruscan manu- Etruscan Civilization: A Cultural History, by facture found in the Aegean as evidence for cultural in- Sybille Haynes. Pp. xiv + 432, figs. 61, pls. 258, maps teraction from the Bronze Age through the Late Archaic 4. J. Paul Getty Museum, Los Angeles 2000. $55. period. Contacts between the Etruscans and the Near ISBN 0-89236-575-7 (cloth). East are the focus of the paper by Stary, with analysis of arms and armor forming the basis for several interesting Gli Etruschi: storia e civiltà, by Giovannangelo conclusions. Camporeale. Pp. xxxvii + 603, figs. 87, pls. 355. Two chapters focus on special aspects of Etruscan life UTET Libreria, Turin 2000 Lit 89,000, €45.96. and culture: the use of javelins in Etruscan warfare (Small), and nudity in Etruscan and Greek art (Bonfante). ISBN 88-7750-615-6 (cloth). Another looks at the class of artifact known as the cista a Of the major Mediterranean cultures, the Etruscans cordoni (Williams) and perhaps should have been placed have by far been the most elusive despite the numerous with the other chapters on metalwork. Finally, two pa- studies, recent discoveries, and considerable efforts to pers (Herring et al., Rathje) examine specific grave as- issue long unpublished excavations. A concomitant side semblages and their significance for understanding Etr- effect is the lack of an adequate college-level survey text uscan funerary rituals and beliefs. in English—that is, until now. Haynes’s oeuvre is a re- The volume is concluded by a section entitled “Brit- markable effort. Previous efforts are now out-of-date or ain and Italian Archaeology,” which consists of two pa- are unsatisfactory as textbooks: Emeline H. Richardson, pers. The first, “Etruria Britannica,” situates Macnamara Etruscans (Chicago 1964, reprinted 1976); Massimo Pal- among the distinguished group of British scholars who lottino, The Etruscans, rev. ed. (translated by J. Cremona, have studied ancient Italy since the 17th century edited by David Ridgway, [Bloomington 1975]); Otto J. (Haynes). This sort of essay is not a standard feature of Brendel, Etruscan Art, 2nd ed., with additional bibliogra- many festschrifts but is a positive addition. It might, phy by Francesca R. Serra Ridgway (New Haven 1995); however, have also mentioned those non-British schol- Larissa Bonfante, ed., Etruscan Life and Afterlife (Detroit ars who have contributed to our knowledge of ancient 1986); Nigel J. Spivey, Etruscan Art (New York 1997); and Italy and the Etruscans. Graeme Barker and Tom Rasmussen, The Etruscans (Ox- Finally, a short statement by Ellen Macnamara herself ford 1998). The recent catalogue of the Venice-Bologna describes the scholarship that she created in 1970 as a exhibition, The Etruscans, edited by Mario Torelli (Milan memorial to her mother, Ellaina Macnamara. Four pages 2000), provides welcome new material. list the scholarship’s recipients over the years, many of Most professors, in teaching a typical college survey, whom reciprocated by contributing to this festschrift. prefer a chronological construction, a style that offers a After Macnamara explains her termination of the schol- more accessible, and, for students, comprehensible, his- arship in 1990, she announces her intention to endow a torical context. Haynes more than meets these expecta- new fellowship in Etruscan archaeology, to begin after tions in her expansive, yet probing and current, presen- her death. tation. The result reflects her expert experience in clar- This is an attractive publication. The elegant drawings ifying this complex culture for the lay audience. Her and crisp black-and-white photographs are plentiful and choice and interpretation of the material extends be- conveniently interspersed throughout the text. Refer- yond the conventional. Within her five long, chronolog- ences are easy to track, with author and page numbers in ically arranged chapters (“The Villanovan, ca. 900–720 parentheses and complete bibliographies after each chap- B.C.,” “The Orientalizing Period, 720–575 B.C.,” “The ter. Because of their precise and technical structure, most Archaic Period, ca. 575–480 B.C.,” “The Fifth and Fourth of the contributions in this book are unlikely to be of Centuries,” and “The Hellenistic Period”) she draws upon much use or interest to laypersons or to undergraduates. a wealth of recent artistic, social, and anthropological Furthermore, since sites and time periods are rarely ex- discoveries and studies. For example, in her wide-rang- plained in sufficient detail for someone not already fa- ing examination of the Villanovan period, she includes miliar with them, the book certainly will find its most discussions of food production, diet and disease, wom- appreciative audience among readers who are already spe- en’s work and their status, cemeteries and ash urns, early cialists in early Italian archaeology. The price of the vol- social stratification, growth of population and migration, ume, too, will probably limit its purchase by individuals, exchange of goods, bronzeworking, contacts abroad, but it should be an important acquisition for any library bronze figurines of women, painted pottery, early reli- maintaining a strong archaeological collection. gious practice, the expansion to the North and into the 2002] BOOK REVIEWS 499

Apennines, and religious beliefs. This is a much-desired Etruria, funerary art from Chiusi, the temples at Orvieto affluence of information. And this is generally typical of and large scale sculpture, the Gallic incursion, Bologna’s the entire work. For the other chapters she develops funerary stelae, Tarquinia’s aristocratic tombs, Cerveteri’s incisive, lucid descriptions and gives excellent illustra- family tombs, and Etruscan painted pottery of the fourth tions of trade contacts, artistic production, wealth, popu- and third centuries. lation growth, urbanization, writing, and architecture In her chapter on the Hellenistic period, her treat- (domestic as well as public). ment of Etruria’s crisis-ridden yielding to Roman con- A shortcoming of the chronological approach is that quest interweaves evidence from the painted tombs of there is no clear division between one period and anoth- the Golini I and II, and of Hescanas at Orvieto to illus- er. As might be expected, the date when a settlement is trate the rising power of manumitted slaves over their abandoned does not necessarily coincide with the end of former aristocratic owners (a social upheaval also suffered a chronological period. There are, for example, many set- by Faliscan aristocracy). In her discussion of late Chiusine, tlements that continue to evolve during the Villanovan, sarcophagi lid portraits of the deceased, she incorporates Archaic, Classical, and Hellenistic periods. The chrono- the terracotta example of Seianti Hanunia Tlesnasa in logical method thus results in certain redundancy and an the British Museum, including her remarkable head, re- arbitrary placement of topic. She often skirts this prob- constructed as aged, based on the physical remains con- lem by focusing on the continuity of particular sites, cit- tained within. From the rich tombs of fourth-century ies, sanctuaries, and funerary practices throughout sever- Tuscania, she skillfully connects family names with the al periods. For the Archaic period, the centers discussed tomb finds and the tombs themselves. Here again she are predictable: for the center, Veii, Cerveteri, Tarquinia, turns her attention to the terracotta and bronze statues and the like; for the northern expansion, Marzabotto, of women, some spinning, and includes a treatment on Spina, Pisa, and the south, Campania and the Ager Picen- “couples, mothers, babies, and small children,” and life tinus; the emporia at Gravisca and Pyrgi; and the sanctuar- expectancy (355–63). For Volterra, she briefly mentions ies at Punto della Vipera and Castellina del Marangone. the pottery and coins, but focuses instead on the alabas- She interjects useful historical digressions where more is ter urns, many of which illustrate Greek myths, and dis- known, as for example, her discussions of the emporium cerns the hands of various artists. A good part of the of Gravisca and its conflicts in the Sardinian Sea, with remaining chapter is devoted to a discussion of funerary Veii, Rome, and Cerveteri (Pyrgi), and its Romanization sculpture and architecture interspersed with Etruscan (172–85); there are also “a glimpse of archaic Etruscan encounters with Rome and its conquest, predicted by the history” (185–7), “conflicts in the western Mediterranean” haruspices in Etruria’s 10th and final saeculum (385). (201–3),“continuity in the north” (264–6), “social ten- As in the case of many general works, we lament the sions” (266–7), and “developments in Rome” (267–8). lack of footnote references. Other cautions include the The treatment concerning the status of Etruscan wom- lack of a good discussion of pottery development and the en is welcome, though its placement at the end of the need for a more detailed treatment of the Etruscan pan- chapter on the Archaic period is somewhat surprising. theon (she omits this, she explains, for lack of space at One sympathizes with her quandry as to where to posi- the behest of the publishers—this is unfortunate be- tion this discussion since women feature prominently in cause American students generally lack a good under- each period. Here, she brilliantly summarizes the major standing of the iconography. Some major treatments of recent studies on Etruscan women. Etruscan women, she Etruscan religion may be found in Erika Simon, Die Götter concludes, “were regarded with affection and tenderness, der Römer (Munich1990), Roland Hampe and Erika Si- accorded the same honors in life and death as their con- mon, Griechische Sagen in der frühen etruskischen Kunst (Mainz sorts. They rode in carriages and moved about freely, 1964), Ingrid Krauskopf, Der thebanische Sagenkreis und participating in banquets with their husbands and being andere griechische Sagen in der etruskischen Kunst (Mainz seen in public as spectators of games, seated on wooden 1974), and Mauro Cristofani, ed., Dizionario della civiltà tribunes, or as performers in rituals and theatrical dis- etrusca (Florence 1985), but students without the neces- plays” (figs. 201, 202). She reiterates that nude women sary German or Italian will have to resort to Maja Sprenger are rarely depicted in other than an apotropaic function and Gilda Bartoloni, The Etruscans (translated by Robert (147, 234; fig. 128, the Cannicella Vei), “or as a victim of Erich Wolf [New York 1983]). violence or exposure.” She notes that the position of the The organization of the bibliography is unfortunate as matronymic in a secondary position behind that of the well. It is not easy to find references. Rather than accom- patronym on children’s tomb inscriptions clearly distin- panying each chapter or site with references, there is guishes the Etruscan woman from her Greek and Roman first a list of general works, and, second, references by sisters. She also turns a critical eye toward selected topics topic (language, art, architecture, sites and monuments, as “representations of wailing women,” “women and wine,” exhibition catalogues, acts of congresses, religion, wom- “women’s clothes,” and “female worshippers and priest- en, and the like). esses,” as well as female divinities. But such shortcomings are trivial in comparison with The chapter on the fifth and fourth centuries incor- the wealth of information and the numerous and excel- porates, along with the history, brief discussions of the lent illustrations, many in color. Haynes’s Etruscan Civili- primary sources, Etruscan religion, divinities and demons, zation is an exceptional survey that should find a wide haruspices and augury, magic and curses, female worship- audience and many years of college use. pers and priestesses (on the evidence of the bronze vo- While Haynes’s study is primarily art historical, Campo- tives), sarcophagi and funerary sculpture from southern reale’s Gli Etruschi takes the approach of archaeologists, 500 BOOK REVIEWS [AJA 106 linguists, and historians, emphasizing questions concern- and on a pair of silver scyphi from the treasure of the Casa ing the ancient sources, linguistics, and archaeological del Menandro do we find the familiar series of exploits context. His study is divided into two parts: the Etruscan shown in sequence. culture and the city. Part 1 is subdivided into 11 sections Yet some of the other representations are especially that treat history and historiography (antiquity through fine work, notably the large pictures of Hercules discov- the 20th century), the sites, landscape and urbanization, ering Telephus in Arcadia and Hercules ridiculed at the art, religion, political organization, public life, writing court of Omphale from the Casa di Marco Lucrezio, the and literature, and survivals of Etruscan culture. His dis- bronze of a young Hercules wrestling with a deer from cussion of the art is chronological, like Haynes’s, but his the Casa di Sallustio now in Palermo, and the marble of discussion of religion is more comprehensive. In part 2, the drunken Hercules urinating from the Casa dei Cervi. the city, he treats the major territories and regions such How is one to account for this penchant for showing him as Veii, Caere, Tarquinia, Vulci, the Padana in the north, at his most disreputable or pathetic? It is easy to see it as and the Campana in the south. comforting and reassuring: if this loutish hero could at- Each section is brief with references conveniently tain immortality, there is hope for the run of mankind. placed at the end for pursing topics in greater depth. It But it seems to go beyond that, a sort of reverse worship is, however, particularly annoying that the referenced in which devotion is attested by disrespect. articles lack titles; it is impossible to determine whether Two important points are demonstrated and empha- a particular article is relevant and worth pursuing without sized in the study under review: first, that there is a sig- an array of archaeological journals, festschrifts, and con- nificant difference in representations of Hercules be- gresses at hand. Most of the photographs are clear, but tween Herculaneum and Pompeii, and second, that he they are small, in black and white, and placed at the end was regarded in both especially as a tutelary divinity. At of the text so that one is forced to flip back and forth Pompeii depictions of Hercules do not regularly appear between the text and illustration. in public buildings. Except for an early Hellenistic set of Nonetheless, both Haynes and Camporeale work well antefixes from the area of the Foro Triangolare in which together, and make outstanding contributions to our a youthful Hercules alternates with a helmeted Minerva better understanding of Etruscan culture. and in representations of the Dei Consentes at compital shrines, we find him only in private houses and shops. Shirley J. Schwarz But in houses he is ubiquitous; there is almost no area p.o. box 15624 from which he is excluded, and he appears as a monopo- washington, d.c. 20003 dium telamon figure, as a lararial divinity, and as a marble [email protected] theatrical mask, as well as in mythological pictures and as a device on gems. In Herculaneum, however, where he is the eponymous Hercules Domesticus: Imagini di Ercole nelle hero, he is shown in the so-called Basilica both in a narrow frieze depicting the famous labors and at large scale case della regione vesuviana (I secolo a.c.– as an infant and as an adult. And in the headquarters of 79 d.c.), by Antonella Coralini. (Studi della the Augustales he appears in the two pictures on oppo- Soprintendenza Archeologica di Pompei 4.) Pp. site walls. Moreover, he even appears on the standard of 280, figs. 309, pls. 16. Electa, Naples 2001. ISBN a street fountain and by allusion in the hydra fountain in the middle of the Palestra Grande. In short, he is every- 88-4353-458-1 (paper). where, sometimes unobtrusively introduced, more often Everyone who works on Pompeii and the Vesuvian cit- casually, the patron divinity in a range of shapes. ies and is concerned with the tastes of the inhabitants in As a tutelary divinity and bringer of good fortune we the disparate but related areas of religion and decoration find him in both cities, in shops and at house entrances, must have been struck by the strange lack of representa- a counterpart or alternate to Mercury. He is usually at tion there of the canonical twelve labors of Hercules. To rest, or at least not in combat or menacing, a benign be sure, no temple of Hercules clearly identified as such presence that Coralini characterizes as Hercules Tutor and has yet been discovered, but pictures of him abound, and Invictus, whose representation was not only apotropaic representations of him in statuary and the decorative but also a bringer of the good life. This is the guise in arts are fairly numerous. which he appears most commonly in Pompeii, sometimes He was obviously a very popular divinity, and as a bring- seated and crowned with laurel, sometimes provided with er of good fortune and patron of the youth one might a scyphus, sometimes accompanied by an unidentified expect to find him revered and his accomplishments com- female figure, almost always with his club but never bran- memorated, as they are in the metopes of the temple of dishing it. Zeus at Olympia and on many Roman sarcophagi. But This study is divided approximately in half between dis- only the fetching of the golden apples of the Hesperides cussion of Hercules’ importance and cult in Campania and figures at all significantly in Pompeian art, and that in the various ways he is shown and an exhaustive catalogue the alternate version in which the hero himself visits the of his individual appearances arranged topographically, first garden. Instead, the popular subjects are Hercules en- for Pompeii (144 entries), then Herculaneum (14 en- slaved to Omphale of Lydia and dressed in woman’s garb, tries), and then other Vesuvian localities (13 entries). In Hercules’ drunken rape of Auge, and Hercules and the the first half there is discussion of the iconography and centaur Nessus. Only in the “Basilica” of Herculaneum pictorial compositions and their variations. The catalogue 2002] BOOK REVIEWS 501 entries are succinct but provide all the information neces- remains of the Roman empire. The major question is the sary for a clear understanding of the item and the iconog- direction(s) in which cultural, social, artistic, and archi- raphy, and there are abundant illustrations including an- tectural influences flowed, whether consistently from cillary material and comparanda, with numerous plans to Rome and Italy to the subject provinces, or back and permit a more precise location of a picture or object. Here, forth between the center and the outlying territories. although one must applaud the inclusion of color photo- This was not a view of Romanization that the Romans graphs of unfamiliar pictures, one must protest that the themselves would have recognized (see Tacitus’s succinct illustrations of sculpture and gems are poor and sometimes characterization of the process from a Roman’s perspec- so dark as to be virtually unrecognizable. tive, Agricola ch. 21: idque apud imperitos humanitas vo- The catalogue is followed by synoptic tables arranged cabatur, cum pars servitutis esset [and this among the according to the myths represented, a very full bibliogra- unsophisticated {natives} was called “culture” when it was phy, a general index, and a topographical index. Most of a part of their enslavement]). Nonetheless, it is an im- the entries, even those in which the identification of portant change in scholarly perception of how Romans the hero or the incident in which he is depicted is some- and their subjects interacted, and it has produced a quan- what doubtful, are admirable, and there is a judicious tity of fascinating visions and revisions of what had been discussion of the various interpretations that have been commonplace assumptions. The real problem arises with advanced. Too little attention, however, is given to the the paucity of the evidence for anything other than the enormous diversity of representations of Hercules in Roman viewpoint, and the search for independent evi- sculpture and gems, where there is little duplication of dence on this topic always raises the likelihood of gross types and the range from the deliberately bizarre (e.g., a generalization based on “fact” that is paltry at best. Since table support from Herculaneum, E.008) to the romantic both these volumes of conference papers employ the (e.g., P.028, P.079) is especially startling. The fondness term “Romanization” in their titles, it seems reasonable for the youthful Hercules, sometimes in contexts usually to expect such concerns to be at the heart of them. But considered late adventures, seems to call for further dis- that is only partially the case. cussion, and one would welcome expansion of what is Hoff and Rotroff’s volume opens with an essay on “The included on the cult of Hercules in Pompeii. The impor- Problem of Romanization” by S. Alcock (1–7), which neatly tant painting in an oecus of VII ix 47/65 of a procession, summarizes the conceptual problem, and surveys essen- in which he figures importantly but enigmatically togeth- tial recent treatments of it by M. Millett, G. Woolf, R. er with Venus Pompeiana and Isis, should be accorded Hingley, and Alcock herself, as well as a glance at earlier more space than it is given. If he was not officially a bibliography. Alcock asserts (3) that “Rather than tracing patron divinity of the city, he seems to have enjoyed a one-way flow of influence, or monitoring the selection special status as the protégé of those who were. of elements drawn from the dominant culture, a far wider range of potential transformations, evolved through a L. Richardson, jr complex dialogue between ruler and ruled, must be ac- department of classical studies cepted as fit subjects for study.” To her survey there must p.o. box 90103 now be added M.T. Boatwright’s thoughtful treatment of duke university Romanization and the evidence for it in her book Hadri- durham, north carolina 27708-0103 an and the Cities of the Roman Empire (Princeton 2000). [email protected] The rest of Hoff and Rotroff’s volume consists of papers, three each, on Roman Athens in (a) history and prosopography, (b) architecture and sculpture, (c) ce- The Romanization of Athens: Proceedings of ramics and coinage, and (d) literature and cult. There is an International Conference Held at Lin- frequent mention of Sulla’s sack of the city (87/6 B.C.): coln, Nebraska (April 1996), edited by Michael Hoff considers (33–51) the sack as a historical turning point in the redefinition of Athens as a “Roman” city; O. C. Hoff and Susan I. Rotroff. (Oxbow Monograph Palagia (81–95) identifies it as a significant moment in 94.) Pp. 208, figs. 49, tables 4. Oxford 1997. $40. the artistic realignment of the city; and Rotroff acknowl- ISBN 1-900188-51-1 (paper). edges (even if she more or less discounts) it (100) as crucial in the history of ceramic production in the later Romanization and the City: Creation, Trans- city. Three other articles in the volume deserve praise formations, and Failures. Proceedings of a for the focus and clarity of their presentation: H. Kienast Conference Held at the American Academy (53–65) reviews the evidence for and against assigning in Rome to Celebrate the 50th anniversary the enigmatic Tower of the Winds to the Roman period, and by his clear-eyed analysis opens the way for many of the Excavations at Cosa, 14–16 May, 1998, types of new investigation of that and similarly poorly edited by Elizabeth Fentress. ( JRA Suppl. 38.) Pp. documented monuments; J. Kroll (135–49) gives a thor- 231, b&w figs. 114, color figs. 5, table 1. Ports- ough survey of Athenian coinage and what it can reveal mouth, RI 2000. $89.50. ISSN 1063-1064; ISBN about the process and chronology of Romanization in the city; and K. Clinton (161–81) focuses on the proso- 1-887829-58-5 (cloth). pography and topography of Eleusis through which he Romanization has, of recent years, become a hot topic demonstrates convincingly that Eleusis “represents the among historians and archaeologists concerned with the continuation of a tradition, that of honoring benefac- 502 BOOK REVIEWS [AJA 106 tors, actual and potential. But honor expressed in the rounding, Romanization, and that is both a pity and a form of cult was not part of this tradition. It represents a disappointment, since readers will not find what they major departure.” (174). were expecting. Three essays do develop and advance These articles combine detailed and comprehensive the topic of Romanization in interesting ways and in dif- scholarship with a perception (to a greater or lesser de- ferent parts of the empire: G. Woolf discusses the evi- gree) of the complexities inherent in treating Roman- dence in early Roman Gaul, especially at Autun, for cross- ization. D. Geagan (19–31) takes a more radical view- influences between Romans and natives (115–32); S. point by insisting on employing the term “acculturation” Dyson provides an intriguing survey of the urbanization instead of “romanization”; his reasons are not compel- of Roman Sardinia, which implies the extent to which ling, and his historical survey of the Athenian elite is Romans were content to leave well enough alone in qui- simply too brief to convince. escent territories (189–96); and M. Downs brings togeth- Romanization and the City contains the majority of the er a quantity of recent excavations of Roman founda- papers delivered at a conference held at the American tions in southern Spain (197–210) and anticipates some Academy in Rome in honor of the 50th anniversary of of the conclusions drawn by Boatwright in her recent the excavations at Cosa. Surprisingly, perhaps, neither book. A concluding summary by Alcock (221–6) reiter- Romanization nor Cosa are truly the focus of these pa- ates points already made in her Introduction to The Ro- pers; rather, there is a broad diversity of material that, manization of Athens, and tacitly acknowledges the prob- inevitably, lessens the scholarly impact of the volume as a lems of breadth in the later volume; she acknowledges, whole, even while commanding broader attention. for instance, that no convincing conclusions can be drawn The volume opens with a survey of the excavations at about what she labels “myth-making and myth-breaking Cosa and the current state of research on the site by E. about cities and their role in the Roman world” (221), Fentress (9–24). While useful and elegantly written, this certainly not in the scatter-gun approach of this set of essay, which should constitute the heart of the volume, articles. reveals a tendency to mention problems but to sidestep a In short, both volumes deal with, or circle around, an detailed analysis of them: for instance, in a passing dis- important and timely scholarly concern and both contain cussion of the large atrium houses located on three sides fascinating individual contributions. While neither pre- of Cosa’s Forum she acknowledges their uniqueness in sents a comprehensive treatment of the many problems that position but without further comment (14–15). In a inherent in analyzing Romanization, both have much to surprisingly brief treatment, Fentress appears to accept offer on individual cities and monuments, and both dem- P. Carafa’s assertion without question that the comitium onstrate the importance and fascination of the subject. at Rome could not have taken the circular shape attested James C. Anderson, jr. archaeologically at Cosa and elsewhere in Italy, and so could not possibly have been the model for the building department of classics type (22–3); in fact, many of his points are disputable, the university of georgia and the entire subject is by no means closed. The only athens, georgia 30602-6203 other essay in the volume that deals with the remains of [email protected] Cosa is P. Gros’s exhaustive and fascinating analysis of the controversial odeum built within the basilica there (211–20), a study that must hereafter be considered de- Los pueblos de España y el Mediterráneo en la finitive for that complicated and puzzling building. P. Zanker follows Fentress’s essay with a broad treat- antigüedad: Estudios de arqueología, ment of “The City as Symbol” (25–41), which comple- historia y arte, by José María Blázquez. (Historia- ments W.L. MacDonald’s treatment in his Architecture of Serie Menor.) Pp. 727, figs. 19. Cátedra, Madrid the Roman Empire, vol. 2 (New Haven 1986). Here, too, 2000. ISBN 84-376-1806-1 (paper). there is much of interest, but some assumptions should have been reexamined; for instance, the inscription on This is the 12th collection of essays by José María the north gate at Saepinum can be dated well into the Blázquez to be published in less than 25 years, and he era of the pax Augusta, in fact to A.D. 4, but its walls need has also written many books on the history, archaeolo- not be contemporary. Those walls are executed in a no- gy, art, and economy of ancient Spain, which makes him ticeably irregular opus quasi-reticulatum, a masonry facing one of the most prolific Spanish scholars. This book not attested anywhere else in Italy at so late a date. Saepi- includes 34 articles, all but one published in the 1980s num’s walls may well predate gate and inscription by as and 1990s, and the common denominator is, according much as a generation. to the author, that they are concerned with “different Because the American Academy conference took place aspects of the archaeology and art of the peoples from soon after the discovery of the frescoed cityscape be- Spain and from the ancient Mediterranean” (9); still, it neath the Baths of Trajan on the Oppian hill, two articles is very difficult to find much coherence in this collec- are devoted to it. The second of these, by E. La Rocca, tion, except that the papers were all written by the (57–71) is fascinating (the first attempt at a comprehen- same person. sive treatment of the new-found artifact), even if it has The book is divided into five untitled parts. The nine little to do with the theme of the conference. There are essays in the first part deal with pre-Roman Iberia, and other intriguing articles throughout the volume, but only especially with the civilization of Tartessos, the influ- a few truly focus on the concept of, and the debate sur- ence of Phoenician colonization, and different aspects 2002] BOOK REVIEWS 503 of the material culture of Iberian people. In the second than in the compilation of information he gives. He is part, three papers focus on the urbanism of the city of such an exhaustive scholar that he is very often aware of Castulo, another on the urbanizing process in the Iberi- an almost forgotten passage of an ancient author, and his an peninsula, and a last one on the importation of ali- pieces are always full of material that waits to be ana- ments in Spain during the first millennium B.C. Two arti- lyzed. Most of the descriptions he gives are precise and cles in the third part deal with great men, namely Alex- detailed, and it is a pity that there are only 19 black and ander the Great and Nero, and a third one with social white figures in this book; since more than half of the and economical problems from the fifth and fourth cen- essays deal with catalogues and classifications of various turies B.C., as reflected in the writings of Diodorus Sicu- artifacts, especially mosaics, this is very unfortunate. lus. In the fourth part, there are four papers about the In Blázquez’s words, the target audience for this col- Roman republican camps from the Republic in the Span- lection of essays is composed of “his disciples, colleagues ish Meseta, the roads in Roman Spain, the gold mines and those interested” (9)—it is difficult to give a precise from northwest Spain in Roman times, and a famous arti- definition of this last category. This volume is certainly fact from Late Antiquity, the missorium of Theodosius. full of information, but it is probably only required read- The last part comprises 13 essays about mosaics from ing for those with a specific interest in one of the topics Spain, Africa, Cyprus, and the Near East: some of these discussed; it does not have much significance as a whole, essays focus on the mosaics from a specific region, while except for someone brave enough to plan a reading of all others deal with the representation of a theme in mosa- of Blázquez’s immense collection of writings. ics from different areas. Bertrand Goffaux These 34 papers actually belong to very different categories. Some are the result of the author’s special exper- département d’archéologie tise in one field of research, for instance in the case of et d’histoire de l’art Castulo, a city he has excavated and knows well, or con- université catholique de louvain cerning some mosaics he has studied in person. These are collège erasme, place blaise pascal certainly the most valuable, because they give access to a b-1348 louvain-la-neuve first-hand source of information, even if they are some- belgium times more rough sketches than fully published reports. [email protected] Other articles give a Forschungsbericht on very well known artifacts, like the “Dama de Elche” or the missorium of Theodosius, and they can be very useful, although they Arquitectura y poder en la prehistoria de are not profoundly original. But most essays reflect Blázqu- Mallorca, by Víctor M. Guerrero Ayuso. (El Tall del ez’s methodology and why he is able to be such a produc- Temps 31.) Pp. 159, figs. 13. El Tall Editorial, tive author. He possesses a vast knowledge of the different types of evidence concerning Roman Spain, most no- Mallorca 1999. ISBN 84-87685-82-X (paper). tably the literary sources or some aspects of material cul- Mediterranean islands have a lot to interest archae- ture. In most of these papers, he throws this erudition ologists, from the evidence for human colonization to through the filter of the subject he has chosen, without the social inequalities that were expressed in the third- much concern for the underlying questions of interpreta- millennium B.C. palaces of the Minoan states on Crete, tion. For instance, in the fifth essay of the first part, “La the Neolithic stone temples of Malta, and the turriform península Ibérica y Chipre antes de los Romanos (218 a.C.),” monuments of Sardinia, Corsica, and the Balearic islands he stresses some archaeological similarities in the pre-Ro- in the second and first millennia B.C. This means that man cultures of Iberia and Cyprus, but writes that this does there is the potential for both local, historical analysis not imply any fluid relationship between the two zones, as well as comparative studies among these island cul- although this might be the case. This is not very helpful, tures. Mallorca is the largest of the Balearic islands and and most of the articles are thus only catalogues with a few has a rich history of archaeological fieldwork. Only the comments, and not critical analyses. most myopic of tourists could fail to notice the settle- As a consequence of this bias and of his working meth- ments of stone towers that still litter the landscape. ods, there are sometimes factual errors or imprecisions, These monuments have a long history of architectural such as when he speaks of the reconstruction of the and typological study, but it is only in the last three amphitheater of Lisbon during Nero’s reign, although decades that their social and economic contexts have the inscription he quotes only refers to the construction become the subject of more systematic attention. What of the orchestra and proscaenium in the theater (343). His kinds of societies constructed these monuments? What interpretations are not always very subtle or up-to-date: do they tell us about social competition and warfare? for instance, he still sees the third century as a time of How far were social inequalities based in production? crisis and destruction caused, among others, by the bar- These are some of the questions that occupy Víctor baric invasions (281–2), whereas their impact has been Guerrero in this succinct and thoughtful book. His focus (rightly) minimized by J. Arce and A. Cepas Palanca. He is on the sites and monuments of the second and first also takes up Schulten’s vision of the Republican military millennia B.C. Wisely, he recognizes the limitations in camps (352–77), although much work has been devoted our knowledge of this period, namely the lack of defini- recently to a reappraisal of the data. tive publications of key sites and the poverty of systemat- In fact, the interest in Blázquez’s work often lies less ic research projects designed to collect basic evidence on in the interpretations he proposes (where there are any) production. Equally wisely, he accepts the need for qual- 504 BOOK REVIEWS [AJA 106 ity control on the radiocarbon dates for these two millen- really do need to focus more consistently on field projects nia, as for earlier periods of the island’s occupation. In designed to collect data on production, distribution, and this respect his chronology closely follows that proposed consumption, so that the extent and basis of social ine- by Castro et al. (“Dating and the Prehistory of the Balear- qualities can be traced through time and space. Inequal- ic Islands,” PPS 63 [1997] 55–86) and the synthesis of ities of age and gender may be expected in any society, Lull et al. (La Cova des Carritx y la Cova des Mussol [Bar- while the completely “egalitarian” society probably never celona 1999]). According to this chronology, Mallorca existed. received only occasional human visits before the late third Black and white photographs and figures of sites (no millennium B.C. followed by the colonization of the neigh- artifacts) are provided, but the small-scale format of the boring islands of Menorca and Ibiza by the mid second volume precludes a more extensive presentation of the millennium B.C. On Mallorca the archaeological record archaeological record; and a distribution map of the main of the period ca. 2500–1600 B.C. consists of open-air sites would have been helpful for the reader new to the settlements and burials in caves and artificial caves, with island. Nonetheless, the appeal of this book is that it the addition of megalithic tombs at the end of the peri- provides a good, informed and up-to-date introduction to od. From then until the 12th century B.C., settlements the monument building societies of Mallorca. As such it consisted of groups of naviform buildings, in some cases is also a contribution to the broader study of such societ- with evidence from recent excavations for productive and ies in the west Mediterranean and to the field of island storage activities. But Guerrero argues that from the end archaeology in general. of the 12th century more monumental architecture be- Bob Chapman gan to be constructed, with a burst of activity in the ninth century, when the stone towers known as talayots department of archaeology were erected all over the island. These towers were also faculty of letters and social sciences built on Menorca, where, together with ritual centers university of reading (taulas) and burial structures (navetas), they constitute po box 218 whiteknights an extraordinary density of monuments. Guerrero argues reading rg6 6aa that these talayots were initially constructed for ritual united kingdom uses, whether standing in isolation, or grouped together [email protected] in what he calls ceremonial centers, and only later were domestic structures added on to them. Guerrero’s social interpretation of this sequence from ΠΡΩΤΒΥ ΑΝΤΙΝΗ ΕΛΕΥΘΕΡΝΑ, ΤΜΕΑΣ I, 2, edited ca. 1600 B.C. makes use of essentially neo-evolutionary by Petros G. Themelis, with contributions by C. Vogt, categories. For the period before the towers and turriform structures, he proposes the existence of an egalitar- P. Gouin, E. Aloupi, V. Kilikoglou, P.M. Day, L. Joyner, ian society, with the economy centered on extended fam- Y.Z. Tzifopoulos, K. Sidiropoulos, and C.E. Bourbou. ilies and directed by village headmen. The absence of Pp. 319, figs. 92, tables 18. University of Crete, fortifications and arms suggests a lack of conflict. This Rethymnon 2000. Dr. 10,000. ISBN 960-85468-9- was succeeded by a tower-building society in which political leadership centers on big men and competing chiefs, 3 (paper). with a redistributive economy, the appropriation of sur- This volume contains reports on the Early Byzantine plus for exchange, and the pursuit of strategies (e.g., remains from the excavations sponsored by the Uni- external trade and fortified settlements) designed to versity of Crete at Eleutherna since 1985. The site, increase personal prestige. After the abandonment of located roughly 25 km southeast of Rethymnon, occu- the talayots at the end of the eighth century, Mallorcan pies a spectacular natural setting atop and alongside a society is transformed from one still based on kinship to steep outrunner of the Psiloritis massif. Eleutherna was one in which social classes were supported by tribute, a major ancient settlement particularly during the Geo- leading Guerrero to ponder the existence of a state-like metric-Archaic and Hellenistic periods, and it is per- society before the Roman conquest. haps best known for its extensive Iron Age-Archaic Guerrero’s greatest strength lies in his grasp of the cemetery and an intact Hellenistic bridge. But the lo- basic archaeological evidence coupled with his critical cal settlement also flourished during the Late Roman stance on its absolute chronology (although historical and Early Byzantine periods, when it was a hub for dates have been strangely calibrated as if they were 14C production and exchange and an episcopal see. The dates). He is also willing to propose a social interpreta- substantial remains from this phase of occupation, the tion for this material. But Guerrero’s social model is still subject of this volume, furnish important evidence for based on a comparatively small amount of high quality urban life during the transition from classical antiquity data, as he himself acknowledges. The renewed excava- to the middle ages, a once obscure chapter in Cretan tions at Son Fornés in the summer of 2002 will undoubt- history that has been gradually illuminated by discov- edly add further to these data, but the few systematic eries at, among others, Aghia Galini, Gortys, Knossos, collections of animal bones from across Mallorca for any Lyttos, and Pseira. On the great island as in mainland period of its occupation still impede study of basic subsis- Greece, the emerging picture is one of broad political tence. Applying terms like “egalitarian” or “chiefdom” to and economic changes with the diminution and dis- prehistoric Mallorcan societies may be useful in terms of persal, yet resilience and adaptability, of local institu- giving us a starting point in social reconstruction, but we tions and settlements. 2002] BOOK REVIEWS 505

The recent excavations at Eleutherna have proceeded “house” (!"κ!ς) of St. Michael (no. 1 = SEG 45.1267). under three directors in three areas: the eastern Sector Tzifopoulos follows Themelis in dating the erection of I (P. Themelis), the central Sector II (A. Kalpaxis), and the basilica to ca. 430–450, or shortly before Euphratas’s the western Sector III (N. Stampolidis). Preliminary re- attendance at the Synod of Chalcedon in 451 (Hierocles ports have appeared regularly in Κρητικ Εστ α and the 650.9; Mansi VI, col. 757), but he does not give the en- final publication in monograph form began in 1994 with tire argument. In any event, this church was surely among Sector II. This volume on Sector I, the second of two the earliest Christian basilicas on Crete. Tzifopoulos can- projected, covers the finds associated with the Christian not offer enough evidence to substantiate his provoca- basilica, a cemetery, and several buildings flanking a tive hypothesis that the dedication to the Christian arch- street. A too-brief introduction by Themelis (11–12) is angel and psychopomp was linked to the earlier worship followed by detailed catalogues and discussions in En- of Hermes or a mystery cult with chthonic associations in glish and Greek of pottery, inscriptions, coins, and hu- the area, but such a connection is plausible. man bones; the preceding volume will contain general The epitaphs (nos. 4–9) as usual give the name of treatments of the structural, depositional, and funerary the deceased and the year of death by indictional cycle. evidence and additional artifactual reports. Tzifopoulos does not address the curious fact that so The first contribution by C. Vogt, the longest and best in few epitaphs have been found in the church’s cemetery, the volume, addresses the pottery (39–199). A succinct which numbered over 40 graves. One possible explana- outline of the objectives and methodology of study intro- tion is that certain individuals, on account of social or duces the admirably comprehensive but lucid catalogue, fully economic status, simply did not receive tombstones; an- supplemented with drawn profiles. This chapter should be- other is that certain burials belonged to a later era when come a standard reference for the typological variation and epitaphic commemoration was not a universal funerary geographic distribution of Early Byzantine ceramics. Vogt concern. They were not all tidy, single interments, like classifies the pottery first according to fabric, distinguish- that of the presbyter Nikasios, which was marked by a ing imports from North Africa, Asia Minor, Syria, Palestine, cleanly incised epitaph (no. 4 = SEG 45.1270). The graves and Egypt and local products, and, second, according to had varied, sometimes informal, designs, and many con- morphology and function, including tablewares, wares for tained multiple corpses (293). Tzifopoulos also iterates food preparation (bowls, basins, baskets), cooking wares, the dubious theory of Themelis that a faint Christian wares for transportation and storage, and miscellaneous forms invocation on a lintel block within a house (no. 12 = SEG (lamps, candlesticks, beehives, stands). E. Aloupi, V. Kiliko- 45.1266) was scrawled by prayerful residents during the glou, P.M. Day, and L. Joyner (207–35) report on thin sec- Decian persecution. The adjacent rooms do contain a tion petrography, trace-element analysis, and SEM exami- destruction horizon of the middle third century, but the nation on samples of ancient imported vessels and modern graffito might as well have been written later, as Tzi- clays from nearby Margarites. These studies present the fopoulos concedes. scientific characterization of analytical groupings and shed The third contribution by K. Sidiropoulos discusses light on provenance and technology. the 49 bronze coins from Sector I (261–87). Just as at Vogt concludes (99–101) that at Eleutherna, as at Gortys, most of these coins were minted at Constanti- Gortys and elsewhere in Late Antique Greece, Phocaean nople under Heraclius (610–642) and Constans II (642– wares and African red-slips were the commonest import- 688) and none postdates the late seventh century. Sid- ed tablewares, but unlike certain centers, like Argos, most iropoulos identifies the caesura in monetary circulation amphoras at Eleutherna were manufactured on Crete, a with an economic and political collapse spurred by earth- reflection of the community’s dependence on regional quakes and the Arab invasions. Since coins of Constans agricultural production. The assemblage is also notewor- II have been found in association with destruction de- thy for its formal diversity, particularly in the range of bris in the church and nearby buildings, he concludes local vessels, such as the series of basins (figs. 24–27) that the settlement was abandoned during the reign of and globular cooking pots (figs. 30–37). Vogt places these Constans II or shortly thereafter (270). It should be local wares in the sixth–early seventh century, but one stressed, however, that the coins merely furnish a ter- must wonder whether the tradition persisted later. In- minus post quem, and that coins of the late seventh– deed, P. Gouin and Vogt observe (201–5) that ceramic eighth centuries are scarce across Greece, even in cen- production continued during the “dark age” in Cretan ters like Corinth, where urban life changed drastically villages but on a smaller scale, perhaps through the agen- but continued. Is it likewise possible that the communi- cy of itinerant potters. ty at Eleutherna survived the decline of coin-based ex- The second major contribution is a critical edition with change on the island in some form? We do know that commentary of the Early Byzantine inscriptions by Y.Z. Epiphanios, a bishop from Eleutherna, participated in Tzifopoulos (pp. 237–59). These 16 texts, many of which the Nicene Council in 787 (Fedalto 1988, 542). Thus, it Themelis already published in Κρητικ Εστ α, include seems perilous to rely on the latest coins in the basilica mosaic inscriptions from the basilica, inscribed fragments for the upper chronological limit of the entire settle- of the ambo’s parapet, and Christian graffiti and epitaphs ment, particularly in the case of remains that are not from the church’s vicinity. The paleographic, linguistic, stratigraphically continuous with these coin finds (11, onomastic, and formulaic analysis is thorough and the 243, 291, 303). emendations sensibly conservative. The last contribution, by C.E. Bourbou, addresses the The most important text, from the pavement of the paleopathology of the highly fragmentary bones of 151 narthex, records that the bishop Euphratas built the individuals buried in the cemetery (289–319). This report 506 BOOK REVIEWS concentrates on pathological diagnosis, but anthropolo- zation is also evident in the redundant summaries of nat- gists will miss much of the information needed to compare ural and historical conditions and, more alarmingly, in the osteological evidence from Eleutherna meaningfully the shifting meaning of “πρωτ!&υ(αντιν” in the vol- against other datasets, such as a concise outline of analyt- ume’s title (“end of the 4th to the 7th and 8th centu- ical criteria, consistent age estimates (cf. table 1), metric ries” [40, 96]; A.D. 400–961 [239]; A.D. 395–827/8 [263]; and discrete traits, and the calculated prevalence of each “παλαι!*ριστιανικ” [293]). condition in the sample. Bourbou’s study reveals a skeletal The second difficulty lies in historical interpretation. population not unlike many from the ancient Mediterra- The contributors envision broad economic and political nean in terms of illnesses and injuries, though dental pa- dissolution concomitant with the desertion of Eleutherna thology at Early Byzantine Eleutherna was unusually in- in the late seventh century as a direct result of earth- frequent by any premodern standard. Osteoarthritis in the quakes and (Arab) invaders, favorite culprits in the catas- vertebral and appendicular joints, injuries to the limbs, trophist school of the end of antiquity. To be sure, Vogt and periostitis related to soft tissue trauma speak to a daily persuasively explains the impact of these developments life under physical stress, while cribra orbitalia and enamel on the regional trade network (96–9). But local respons- hypolasia indicate metabolic disturbance resulting from es to foreign incursion and seismic disaster can be com- dietary deficits or juvenile sicknesses. But there is no rea- plex, and it should not be assumed that total abandon- son to conclude that these hardships were particular to a ment was the only option. The possibility should at least population that suffered earthquake and invasion (303– be considered that certain essential activities—ceramic 4). Moreover, Bourbou’s confident identification of cer- production, burial, even worship—might have continued tain unusual conditions (e.g., scurvy, short-limbed dwarf- in the vicinity after coined transactions had ceased, the ism) is difficult to evaluate because she does not describe basilica had fallen into disrepair, and some families had the manifestations sufficiently and she provides no pho- moved up to the citadel. tographs. The provisional identification (300, fig. 6) of As archaeologists and historians continue to ponder diffuse periosteal lesions on a sacrum as evidence for acti- these challenging questions of cultural change and at- nomycosis, a rare suppurative disease that was only first tempt to reconstruct the material components of life in noted in a prehistoric specimen from Ontario in 1990, the Byzantine “dark age,” they will be fortunate to have seems beyond reason. this abundant compilation of the evidence from Eleu- Apart from the overall high quality and utility of the therna as a starting point. separate reports, the volume as a whole has two short- Joseph L. Rife comings. First, since the first volume on Sector I has not yet appeared, the reader has no overview of stratigraphy department of classics and topography; the only map in this volume has no scale cornell university or key and does not locate Sector I within the site. There- 120 goldwin smith hall fore, it is impossible to integrate the various data or ap- ithaca, new york 14853-3201 praise them contextually. This sort of piecemeal organi- [email protected] BOOKS RECEIVED

Ardren, Traci, ed. Ancient Maya Women. (Gender and Ar- Classical Archaeology in the Field: Approaches. (Classical chaeology Series 3.) Pp. xiv + 293, figs. 61, tables 9, maps World Series.) Pp. ix + 138, figs. 12, line drawings 26, 2. AltaMira Press, Walnut Creek, Calif. 2002. $29.95. ISBN tables 7. Bristol Classical Press, London 2001. £8.99. ISBN 0-7591-0010-1 (paper). 1-85399-617-3 (paper). Arnold, Bettina, and Nancy L. Wickler, eds. Gender and Brehme, Sylvia, Melitta Bronner, Vassos Kara- the Archaeology of Death. (Gender and Archaeology Se- georghis, Gertrud Platz-Horster, and Bernhard ries.) Pp. xxi + 203, figs. 22, tables 21, maps 3. AltaMira Weisser. Ancient Cypriote Art in Berlin: Antikensammlung Press, Walnut Creek, Calif. 2001. $26.95. ISBN 0-7591- Museum für Vor und Frühgeschichte Munzkabinett. Pp. xii + 0137-X (paper). 232, b&w figs. 107, color figs. 80, map 1. A.G. Leventis Arnold, Philip P. Eating Landscape: Aztec and European Oc- Foundation and Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, Nicosia cupation of Tlalocan. (Mesoamerican Worlds: From the 2001. ISBN 9963-560-46-6 (paper). Olmecs to the Danzantes.) Pp. xvii + 287, figs. 20. Uni- Briant, Pierre, dir. Irrigation et drainage dans l’antiquité: versity of Colorado Press, Boulder 2001. $24.95. ISBN 0- Qanats et canalisatons souterrains en Iran, en Égypte et en 87081-643-8 (paper). Grèce, Séminaire tenu au College de France sous la Direction de Asad, Khaled, and Jean-Baptiste Yon, with Thibaud Pierre Briant. Pp. 190, figs. 68, table 1. Thotm Editions Fournet. Inscriptions de Palmyre: Promenades epigraphiques and the College de France, Paris 2001. €27, $26, FF 177. dans la ville antique de Palmyre. (Guides Archéologiques ISBN 2-914531-01-X (paper). 3.) Pp. 128, b&w figs. 56, color figs. 33, tables 2, maps 2. Burnett-Grossman, Janet. Greek Funerary Sculpture: Cata- Institut Français d’Archéologie du Proche-Orient, logue of the Collections at the Getty Villa. Pp. ix + 161, figs. Beyrouth 2001. €16. ISBN 2-912738-12-1 (paper). 125, map 1. J. Paul Getty Museum, Los Angeles 2001. Åström, Paul. A Century of International Cyprological Research. $55. ISBN 0-89236-612-5 (cloth). (Annual Lectures on the History and Archaeology of Camp, John M. The Archaeology of Athens. Pp. xii + 340, figs. Cyprus 12.) Pp. 46, pls. 8. The Bank of Cyprus Cultural 257, color figs. 19. Yale University Press, New Haven Foundation, Nicosia 2001. ISBN 9963-42-088-5 (paper). 2002. $39.95. ISBN 0-300-08197-9 (cloth). Baker, T. Lindsay, and Billy R. Harrison, with Byron Casson, Lionel. Everyday Life in Ancient Egypt. Pp. xi + 163, Price. Adobe Walls: The History and Archeology of the 1874 figs. 9, map 1. John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore Trading Post. Pp. xx + 413, figs. 108, tables 22, maps 2. 2001. $15.95. ISBN 0-8018-6601-4 (paper). Texas A&M University Press, College Station 2002. Ciarallo, Annamaria. Gardens of Pompeii. Pp. 73, color figs. $29.95. ISBN 1-58544-176-7 (paper). 139, tables 2. J. Paul Getty Museum, Los Angeles 2001. Barclay, Katherine. Scientific Analysis of Archeological Ce- $24.95. ISBN 0-89236-629-X (cloth). ramics: A Handbook of Resources. Pp. viii + 56, fig. 1, Coralini, AntonellA. Hercules Domesticus: Imagini di Ercole tables 3. Oxbow, Oxford 2001. $9.95. ISBN 1-84217- nelle case della regione vesuviana (I secolo a.C.–79 d.C.). 031-7 (paper). (Studi della Soprintendenza Archeologica di Pompei 4.) Barletta, Barbara A. The Origins of the Greek Architectural Pp. 280, figs. 309, pls. 16. Electa, Naples 2001. Orders. Pp. xi + 220, figs. 16, line drawings 75. Cambridge Cross, Toni M., and Gary Leiser. A Brief History of Ankara. University Press, Cambridge 2001. $70. ISBN 0-521-79245- Pp. 159, figs. 9, maps 2. Indian Ford Press, Vacaville, Calif. 2 (cloth). 2000. $15. ISBN 0-9655958-1-1 (paper). Baudry, Marie-Pierre. Les Fortifications des Plantagenets en Cunliffe, Barry. The Extraordinary Voyage of Pytheas the Greek. Poitou, 1154–1242. Broché, Paris 2001. FF 301.74, €46. Pp. ix + 178, figs. 7, table 1, maps 9. Walker and Com- ISBN 2-7355-0448-4 (paper). pany, New York 2002. $24. ISBN 0-8027-1393-9 (cloth). Bennett, Julian. Towns in Roman Britain. (Shire Archae- Curcic, Slobodan. Middle Byzantine Architecture on Cyprus: ology Series 13.) Pp. 80, figs. 22, pls. 16. Shire Publica- Provincial or Regional? (Annual Lectures on the History tions, Buckinghamshire 2001. £4.99. ISBN 0-7478-0473- and Archaeology of Cyprus 13.) Pp. 35, b&w pls. 19, color 7 (paper). pls. 17. The Bank of Cyprus Cultural Foundation, Nicosia Blackman, D.R., and A. Trevor Hodge. Frontinus’ Legacy: 2001. ISBN 9963-42-090-7 (paper). Essays on Frontinus’ de aquibus urbis Romae. Pp. xi + 170, D’Alessio, Maria Teresa. Materiali votivi dal Foro Triangolare figs. 6. University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor 2001. di Pompei. (Corpus Delle Stipi Votive in Italia 12; $39.95 (cloth); $19.95 (paper). ISBN 0-472-09793-8 Archaeologica 130.) Pp. 186, pls. 31. Giorgio (cloth); 0-472-06793-1 (paper). Bretschneider Editore, Rome 2001. €206.58. ISSN 0391- Boardman, John. Cyprus Between East and West. (Annual 9293; ISBN 88-7689-165-X (paper). Lectures on the History and Archaeology of Cyprus 16.) D’Ambrosio, Antonio. Women and Beauty in Pompeii. Pp. Pp. 38, pls. 10, map 1. The Bank of Cyprus Cultural Foun- 67, color figs. 103. J. Paul Getty Museum, Los Angeles dation, Nicosia 2001. ISBN 9963-42-94-X (paper). 2001. $24.95. ISBN 0-89236-631-1 (cloth). Bowersock, G.W. The International Role of Late Antique Cyprus. Darvill, Timothy, and Julian Thomas, eds. Neolithic En- (Annual Lectures on the History and Archaeology of closures in Atlantic Northwest Europe. (Neolithic Studies Cyprus 14.) Pp. 29, pl. 1. The Bank of Cyprus Cultural Group Seminar Papers 6.) Pp. xii + 203, figs. 62, tables 2, Foundation, Nicosia 2001. ISBN 9963-42-089-5 (paper). maps 6. Oxbow, Oxford 2001. $39.95. ISBN 1-84217-045- Bowkett, L., S. Hill, Diana Wardle, and K.A. Wardle. 7 (paper).

507 508 BOOKS RECEIVED [AJA 106

David, Nicholas, and Carol Kramer. Ethnoarchaeology in chitecture and Urbanism. Pp. xv + 383, figs. 131, maps 5. Action. (Cambridge World Archaeology.) Pp. xxvi + 476, Cambridge Univeristy Press, Cambridge 2001. £50. ISBN figs. 97, tables 33, map 1. Cambridge University Press, 0-521-78235-X (cloth). Cambridge 2001. $90. ISBN 0-521-66105-6 (cloth). Giardino, L., P. Arthur, and G.-P. Giongoli. Lecce. De Carolis, Ernesto. Gods and Heroes in Pompeii. Pp. 78, Frammenti di storia urbana: Tesori archeologici sotto la Banca color figs. 132. J. Paul Getty Museum, Los Angeles 2001. d’Italia. (La Mostra, Catalogi 5.) Pp. 106, b&w photos 78, $24.95. ISBN 0-89236-630-3 (cloth). color pls. 24, b&w figs. 10, maps 10. Edipuglia, Bari 2000. Dickers, Aurelia. Die spätmykenischen Siegel aus weichem Stein. Lit 50,000, €25.82. ISBN 88-7228293-4 (paper). Untersuchungen zur spätbronzezeitlichen Glyptik auf dem Gregory, David A., ed., with Jenny L. Adams, Michael W. griechischen Festland und in der Ägäis. (Internationale Diehl, Alan Ferg, David A. Gregory, James M. Heidke, Archäologie 33.) Pp. 258, ills. 26, pls. 51, maps 10. Marie Lorrie Lincoln-Babb, Penny Dufoe Minturn, M. Leidorf, Rahden 2001. DM 129.80. ISSN 0939-561X; ISBN Steven Shackley, R. Jane Sliva, Arthur W. Vokes, 3-89646-305-5 (cloth). Jennifer A. Waters, and Helga Wocherl. Excavations Domardzki, Mieczyslaw, ed. Pistiros et Thasos: Structures in the Santa Cruz River Floodplain: The Early Agricultural économiques dans la peninsule balkanique aux VIIe–IIe siècles Period Component at Los Pozos. (Anthropological Papers avant J.-C. Pp. 274, figs. 74, tables 3, maps 18. University 21, Center for Desert Archaeology.) Pp. xxiii + 375, figs. of Opole, Opole Poland 2000. ISBN 83-88796-07-0 155, tables 104, maps 2. The University of Arizona Press, (cloth). Tucson 2001. $24.95. ISBN 1-886398-33-X (paper). Draper, Jo. Post-Medieval Pottery, 1650–1800. (Shire Archae- Guizzi, Francesco. Hierapytna: Storia di una polis cretese ology Series 40.) Pp. 64, figs. 112. Shire, Buckinghamshire dalla fondazione alla conquista romana. (Atti dell’ 2001. £4.99. ISBN 0-85263-681-4 (paper). Accademia nazionale dei Lincei; Classe di Scienze Morali, Duchène, Herve, and Phillipe Fraisse, with Remi Storiche e Filologiche, Memorie Serie 9.13.3.) Pp. 444, Dalongeville and Paul Bernier. Le Paysage portuaire map 1. Finito Stampare nel Mese di Settembre, Rome de la Délos antique: Recherches sur les installations maritimes, 2001. ISSN 0391-8149; ISBN 88-218-0846-7 (paper). Commerciales et urbaines du littoral délien. (Délos 39.) Pp. Hamilakis, Yannis, Mark Pluciennik, and Sarah Tarlow, 191, figs. 39, line drawings 9, pls. 67, tables 3. École eds. Thinking through the Body: Archaeologies of Corporeal- Française d’Athènes, Athens 2001. FF 700. ISBN 2-86958- ity. Pp. xi + 262, figs. 30, tables 2. Kluwer Academic/ 162-9 (paper). Plenum, New York 2002. $80, £56, €92. ISBN 0-306- Eder, Birgitta. Die submykenschen und protogeometrischen 46648-1 (cloth). Gräber von Elis. (Βι&λι!θκη της εν Αθναις Hatsopoulos, M.B. L’Organisation de l’armée macedonienne Αρ*αι!λ!γικς Εταιρε ας 209.) Pp. xiv + 137, figs. 21, sous les Antigonides: Problèmes anciens et documents nouveaux. pls. 14, tables 5, maps 3. The Archaeological Society at (Meletemata 30.) Pp. 199, pls. 20. Centre de Recherche Athens, Athens 2001. ISSN 1105-7785; ISBN 960-8145- de L’Antiquité Grecque et Romaine, Fondation Nationale 15-5 (paper). de la Recherche Scientifique, Athens 2001. ISBN 960- Foix, Arturo Oliver. El Perengil (Vinaros, Castellon): Un 7905-07-5 (paper). peculiar edificio iberico. (Monografies de Prehistoria I Hedreen, Guy. Capturing Troy: The Narrative Functions of Arqueologia Castellonenques 6.) Pp. 213, figs. 35, color Landscape in Archaic and Early Classical Greek Art. Pp. vi + pls. 23, tables 3, maps 8. Servei d’ Investigacions 297, pls. 50. University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor Arquelogiques i Prehistoriques, Dipatacio de Castello, 2002. $57.50. ISBN 0-472-11163-9 (cloth). Castello 2001. ISBN 84-89944-24-5 (paper). Higham, Charles. The Civilization of Angkor. Pp. xv + 192, Förtsch, R. Kunstverwendung und Kunstlegitimation im pls. 28, maps 9. University of California Press, Berkeley archaischen und frühklassischen Sparta. Pp. ix + 270, pls. 2001. $27.50. ISBN 0-520-23442-1 (cloth). 94, Beilage 3. Phillip von Zabern, Mainz 2001. DM 150. Hornung, Erik (translated by David Lorton). The Secret ISBN 3-8053-2736-6 (cloth). Lore of Egypt: Its Impact on the West. Pp. viii + 229, figs. 36. Foster, J.L. Ancient Egyptian Literature: An Anthology. Pp. Cornell University Press, Ithaca 2001. $29.95. ISBN 0- 336. University of Texas Press, Austin 2001. $45 (cloth); 8014-3847-0 (cloth). $19.95 (paper). ISBN 0-292-72526-4 (cloth); 0-29272527- Hunter, Robert. Ceramics in America 2001. Pp. xiv + 292, 2 (paper). figs. 350. Chipstone Foundation, Milwaukee 2001. $55. Frischer, Bernard D., and Iain Gordon Brown, eds. ISBN 1-58465-133-4 (paper). Allan Ramsay and the Search for Horace’s Villa. Pp. xx + Isler, Martin. Sticks, Stones, and Shadows: Building the Egyp- 183, figs. 42, color pls. 12, maps 7. Ashgate, Aldershot tian Pyramids. Pp. xiv + 352, figs. 240, b&w photos 58, 2001. $104.95. ISBN 0-75460-004-1 (cloth). tables 10, maps 2. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman Gabucci, Ada, ed. (translated by Mary Becker). The Colos- 2001. $29.95. ISBN 0-8061-3342-2 (cloth). seum. Pp. 248, b&w figs. 127, color figs. 166. J. Paul Getty Kanawati, Naguib, ed. Tombs at Giza. Vol. 1, Kaiemankh Museum, Los Angeles 2001. $75. ISBN 0-89236-648-6 (G4561) and Seshemnefer I (G4940). (The Australian Cen- (cloth). tre for Egyptology, Reports 16.) Pp. 68, pls. 49. Aris and Ganzert, J. Im Allerheiligsten des Augustusforums: Fokus Phillips, Warminster 2001. $99. ISBN 0-85668-805-3 (pa- “oikoumenischer Akkulturation.” (Zaberns Bildbände zur per). Archäologie.) Pp. 120, figs. 67, b&w photos 44, color Karageorghis, Vassos, and Vladimir P. Vanchugov, eds. photos 88. Phillip von Zabern, Mainz 2000. DM 68.06, Greek and Cypriote Antiquities in the Archaeological Museum €34.80. ISBN 3-8053-2692-0 (cloth). of Odessa. Pp. 96, b&w photos 11, color photos 175, map Georgopoulou, Maria. Venice’s Mediterranean Colonies: Ar- 1. Anastasios G. Leventis Foundation, National Academy 2002] BOOKS RECEIVED 509

of Sciences in Theraine, and the Archaeological Mu- ix + 196, color figs. 52. University of Washington Press, seum of Odessa, Nicosia 2001. ISBN 9963-560-45-8 (pa- Seattle 2001. $40. ISBN 0-295-98163-6 (cloth). per). Michaelidou, Anna. Akrotiri Thera: The Study of the Upper Kelley, Joyce. An Archaeological Guide to Central and South- Storeys of the Buildings in the Settlement. (Βι&λι!θκη της ern Mexico. Pp. xvii + 386, figs. 217, color figs. 24, maps εν Αθναις Αρ*αι!λ!γικς Εταιρε ας 212.) Pp. 486, 31. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman 2001. $24.95. figs. 297, tables 30. The Archaeological Society at Ath- ISBN 0-8061-3349-X (paper). ens, Athens 2001. ISSN 1105-7785; ISBN 960-8145-18-X King, Thomas F., Randall S. Jacobson, Karen Ramey (paper). Burns, and Kenton Spading. Amelia Earhart’s Shoes: Is Michel, Simone, with Peter Zazoff and Hilde Zazoff, the Mystery Solved? Pp. viii + 376, figs. 73, maps 18. AltaMira eds. Die magischen Gemmen im Britischen Museum, in 2 vols. Press, Walnut Creek, Calif. 2001. $24.95. ISBN 0-7591- Vol. 1: pp. 428; vol. 2: pp. 136, color figs. 8, b&w pls. 96. 0130-2 (cloth). The British Museum Press, London 2001. £195. ISBN 0- Kitchen, K.A. Documentation for Ancient Arabia. Vol. 2, A 7141-2802 (cloth). Biographical Catalogue of Texts. (The World of Ancient Morgana, S., M. Piotti, and M. Prada, eds. Prose della Arabia Series.) Pp. xxii + 819, tables 67. Liverpool Uni- volgar lingua di Pietro Bembo. (Università degli Studi di versity Press, Liverpool 2000. £59.99. ISBN 0-85323-358- Milano, Facoltà di Lettere e Filosophia, Quaderni di 4 (cloth). ACME 46.) Pp. xiii + 727, figs. 30, table 1. Cisalpino, Knoepfler, Denis, and Marcel Peirart, eds., with Milan 2000. ISBN 88-323-4601 (paper). Thierry Chatelain, Dobrinka Chiekova, and Muscarella, Oscar White. The Lie Became Great: The Forg- Fabienne Marchand. Editer, Traduire, Commenter ery of Ancient Near Eastern Cultures. (Studies in Art and Pausanias: En l’an 2000. Actes du Colloque de Neuchâtel et Archaeology of Antiquity 1.) Pp. viii + 540, pls. 301. Styx, Fribourg 18–22 septembre 1998). (Université de Neuchâtel, Groningen 2000. $100. ISSN 1568-4229; ISBN 90-5693- Recueil de Travaux Publiés par la Faculté des Lettres et 041-9 (cloth). Sciences Humaines 49.) Pp. vi + 436, figs. 28, tables 3, Nelson, Sarah Milledge, and Myriam Rosen-Ayalon, maps 6. Université de Neuchâtel, Faculté des Lettres et eds. In Pursuit of Gender: Worldwide Archaeological Ap- Sciences Humaines, Geneva 2001. SF 60. ISSN 0077- proaches. Pp. x + 433, figs. 93, tables 29, maps 9. AltaMira 7633; ISBN 2-940237-03-4 (paper). Press, Walnut Creek, Calif. 2002. $34.95. ISBN 0-7591- Knoepfler, Denis. Décrets eretriens de proxenie et de citoyenneté. 0087-X (paper). (Eretria Fouilles et Recherches 11.) Pp. 490, figs. 100, Ofek, Haim. Second Nature: Economic Origins of Human Evo- maps 2. Payot, Lausane 2001. SF 169, FF 690. ISSN 0425- lution. Pp. 254, figs. 7, tables 6. Cambridge University 1768; ISBN 2-601-03270-7 (paper). Press, Cambridge 2001. $27.95. ISBN 0-521-62534-3 (pa- Kosso, Peter. Knowing the Past: Philosophical Issues of His- per). tory and Archaeology. Pp. 200, figs. 16, maps 4. Humanity Offut, Leslie S. Saltillo 1770–1810: Town and Region in the Books, Amherst NY 2001. $45. ISBN 1-57392-907-7 Mexican North. Pp. xi + 277, maps 2. University of Arizona (cloth). Press, Tucson 2001. $50. ISBN 0-8165-2164-6 (cloth). Layton, Robert, Peter G. Stone, and Julian Thomas, Padgett, J. Michael, ed. Roman Sculpture in the Art Mu- eds. Destruction and Conservation of Cultural Property. (One seum, Princeton University. Pp. xxiv + 426, figs. 394, color World Archaeology Series 41.) Pp. xv + 329, figs. 9, pls. pls. 12, tables 3, maps 3. The Art Museum, Princeton 10, tables 2. Routledge, New York 2001. $110. ISBN 0- University, Princeton 2001. $40. ISBN 0-943012-34-I (pa- 415-21695-8 (cloth). per). Lipschutz, Pierre, and Olivier Reverdin, eds. Homère Papamastorakes, Titos. ∆ικσµς τυ Τρ λυ των Ναν chez Calvin: Figures de l’hellénisme à Genève. Pp. 454, b&w της Παλαιλγεας Περιδυ στη αλκανικ ερσνησ και την figs. 71, color figs. 259. Librarie Droz, Geneva 2000. ISSN Κ πρ. (Βι&λι!θκη της εν Αθναις Αρ*αι!λ!γικς 1424-7720; ISBN 2-660-00475-4 (cloth). Εταιρε ας 213.) Pp. xii + 391, pls. 158. Archaeological Luce, J.-M., ed. Paysage et alimentation dans le monde grec. Society at Athens, Athens 2001. ISSN 1105-7785; ISBN (Pallas. Revue d’études antiques.) Pp. 236, pls. 17, figs. 2, 960-8145-19-8 (paper). charts 32, tables 10, maps 18. Presses Universitaires du Papasavvas, Giorgos. !λκινι υπσττες απ την Κ πρ και Mirail, Toulouse 2000. FF 130, €19.82. ISSN 0031-0387; την Κρτη. Pp. ix + 400, pls. 202. A.G. Leventis Founda- ISBN 2-85816-472-X (paper). tion, Lefkosia 2001. Cyp £20. ISBN 9963-560-47-4 (pa- Lüdorf, Gundula. Die Lekane. (Internationale Archäologie per). 61.) Pp. 238, figs. 21, pls. 195, Beilage 36. Marie Leidorf, Perrin, Yves. Rome, ville et capitale: Paysage urbain et histoire Rahden 2000. DM 149.80. ISSN 0939-0561X; ISBN 3- 2 e siècle av. J.-C.–2e siècle après J.-C. (Carre Histoire.) Pp. 89646-333-0 (cloth). 255, figs. 30. Hachette, Paris 2001. ISBN 2-01-145329-1 Man, John. Atlas of the Year 1000. Pp. 144, figs. 50, maps 60. (paper). Harvard University Press, Cambridge 2001. $19.95. ISBN Pfrommer, Michael. Greek Gold from Hellenistic Egypt. Pp. 0-674-0068-X (paper). xv + 74, figs. 41, color figs. 34. J. Paul Getty Museum, Los Maxfield, Valerie, and David Peacock. The Roman Impe- Angeles 2002. $17.50. ISBN 0-89236-633-8 (paper). rial Quarries: Survey and Excavation at Mons Porphryrites Rathke, Andreas. Griechische Kragsteintore: Typologie, 1994–1998. Vol. 1, Topography and Quarries. Pp. xi + 339, Konstruktion und Verbreitung vom 6.-2. Jahrhundert v. Chr. figs. 381, tables 15, maps 2. Egypt Exploration Society, (Internationale Archäologie 67.) Pp. 204, figs. 2, pls. 59, London 2001. £66. ISBN 0-85698-152-4 (cloth). tables 2, map 1. Marie Leidorf, Rahden 2001. DM 95. McGhee, Robert. The Arctic Voyages of Martin Frobisher. Pp. ISSN 0939-561X; ISBN 3-89646-339-X (cloth). 510 BOOKS RECEIVED [AJA 106

Richards, Julian, and Damien Robinson, eds. Digital Ar- 13, maps 7. Oxford University Press, Oxford 2000. $275. chives from Excavation and Fieldwork: A Guide to Good Prac- ISBN 0-19-951375-9 (vol. 1, text); 0-19-951376-7 (vol. 2, tice. (Arts and Humanities Data Service Guides to Good figures); 0-19-951374-0 (2 vol. set) (cloth). Practice.) Pp. vii + 68, tables 7. Oxbow, Oxford 2001. Siebert, Gerard. L’Ilôt des Bijoux, L’Ilôt des Bronzes, La $18. ISSN 1463-5194; ISBN 1-900188-73-2 (paper). Maison des Sceaux. Vol. 1, Topographie et architecture. (Délos Rizakis, A.D., ed. Ααϊκ Τπι. Vol. 2, ∆ µη και ∆υµαα 38.) Pp. 156, line drawings 28, pls. 106, tables 7. École !ρα. (Meletemata 29.) Pp. xiii + 221, figs. 202, tables 5, Française d’Athènes, Athens 2001. FF 700. ISBN 2-86958- maps 2. Centre de Recherche de L’Antiquité Grecque et 152-1 (paper). Romaine, Fondation Nationale de la Recherche Silverman, Helaine, and Donald A. Proulx. The Nasca. Scientifique, Athens 2000. ISBN 960-7905-06-7 (paper). (The Peoples of America.) Pp. xix + 339, figs. 42, maps 2. Rogers, Penelope Walton, Lisa Bender Jorgensen, and Blackwell, Malden, Mass. 2002. $29.95. ISBN 0-631-23224- Antoinette Rast-Eicher, eds. The Roman Textile Indus- 9 (paper). try and Its Influence: A Birthday Tribute to John Peter Wild. Stahl, Ann B. Making History in Banda: Anthropological Vi- Pp. xiii + 200, figs. 127, color pls. 7, tables 9, maps 2. sions of Africa’s Past. (New Studies in Archaeology.) Pp. Oxbow, Oxford 2001. $35. ISBN 1-84217-046-5 (cloth). xix + 270, figs. 30, pls. 11, tables 6. Cambridge University Roma, Giuseppe. Necropoli e insediamenti fortificati nella Press, Cambridge 2001. $70. ISBN 0-521-80182-6 (cloth). Calabria settentrionale. Vol. 1, Le necropoli altomedievali. Stilp, Florian. Mariage et Suovétaurilia: Étude sur le soi- Pp. 202, figs. 147, color figs. 25. Edipuglia, Bari 2001. Lit disant “Autel de Domitius Ahenobarbus”. (RdA Suppl. 26.) 60,000, €30.99. ISBN 88-7228-299-3 (paper). Pp. 134, pls. 77. Giorgio Bretschneider, Roma 2001. Rothman, Mitchell S., ed., with Guillermo Algaze, €180.76. ISSN 0392-0895; ISBN 88-7689-160-9 (paper). Terenze N. D’Altroy, Marcella Frangipane, Hans J. Stirling, L.M., D.J. Mattingly, and N. Ben Lazreg. Nissen, Holly Pittman, Susan Pollock, Glenn M. Leptiminus (Lamta) Report No. 2: The East Baths, Cemeter- Schwartz, Gil J. Stein, and Henry T. Wright. Uruk ies, Kilns, Venus Mosaic, Site Museum, and Other Studies. Mesopotamia and Its Neighbors: Cross-Cultural Interactions (JRA Suppl. 41.) Pp. 464, b&w ills. 470, color pls. 8. Jour- in the Era of State Formation. (School of American Re- nal of Roman Archaeology, Portsmouth, RI 2001. $129. search Advanced Seminar Series.) Pp. xxi + 556, figs. ISBN 1-877829-41-5 (cloth). 122, tables 17. School of American Research Press, Santa Suceveanu, Alexandru, with G. Poenaru Bordea and Fe 2001. $24.95. ISBN 1-930618-03-4 (paper). M.V. Angelescu. Fantanele: Contributii la studiul vietii rurale Russel, Terence M. The Napoleonic Survey of Egypt: The Monu- in Dobrogea romana. (Academia Romana Intstitutul de ments and Customs of Egypt, in 2 vols. Vol. 1: pp. xvi + 281, Arheologie “Vasuke Parvan.”) Pp. 241, figs. 45, tables 3, figs. 5, pls. 80; vol. 2: pp. ix + 323, pls. 119. Ashgate, map 1. Editura Academiei Romane, Bucharest 1998. Burlington, VT 2001. $165. ISBN 1-85928-248-2 (cloth). LireBul. 30,000. ISBN 973-27-0584-1 (paper). Sabetai, Victoria. Corpus Vasorum Antiquorum. Vol. 6, Greece; Swisher, Carl C. III, Garniss H. Curtis, and Roger pt. 1, Thebes (Union Académique Internationale.) Pp. Lewin. Java Man: How Two Geologists Changed Our Under- 189, figs. 104, pls. 43. Research Centre for Antiquity, standing of Human Evolution. Pp. 256, figs. 28, map 1. The Academy of Athens, Athens 2001. DM 98. ISSN University of Chicago Press, Chicago 2000. $16. ISBN 0- 1108-3670; ISBN 960-7099-93-1 (cloth). 226-78734-6 (paper). Salomies, Olli, ed. The Greek East in the Roman Context: Tappy, Ron E. The Archaeology of Israelite Samaria. Vol. 2, The Proceedings of a Colloquium Organised by the Finnish Insti- Eighth Century BCE. (Harvard Semitic Studies 50.) Pp. xxi tute at Athens, May 21 and 22, 1999. (Papers and Mono- + 668, figs. 85, tables 67. Eisenbrauns and The Harvard graphs of the Finnish Institute at Athens 7.) Pp. 217, Semitic Museum, Winona Lake, Ind. 2001. $89.95. ISBN figs. 2, pls. 9, maps 3. Helsinki and Athens 2001. €50. 1-57506-916-4 (cloth). ISSN 1237-2684; ISBN 951-98806-0-7 (paper). Themeles, Petros G. Ηρες και Ηρα στη Μεσσνη. Scheffer, Charlotte, ed. Ceramics in Context: Proceedings (Βι&λι!θκη της εν Αθναις Αρ*αι!λ!γικς of the Internordic Colloquium on Ancient Pottery Held at Εταιρε ας 210.) Pp. iv + 191, figs. 154. Archaeological Stockholm, 13–15 June 1997. (Stockholm Studies in Classi- Society at Athens, Athens 2001. ISSN 1105-7785; ISBN cal Archaeology 12.) Pp. 170, figs. 54, color figs. 3, tables 960-8145-16-3 (paper). 14, map 1. Acta Universitatis Stockholmiensis, Stockholm Traunecker, C. (translated by D. Lorton). The Gods of 2001. SEK 223. ISSN 0562-1062; ISBN 91-22-01913-8 Egypt. Pp. 192, figs. 15, photos 8. Cornell University Press, (paper). Ithaca 2001. $27.95. ISBN 0-80143834-9 (cloth). Schwartz, Jeffrey H., and Ian Tattersall. The Human Varone, Antonio. Eroticism in Pompeii. Pp. 115, b&w pls. 5, Fossil Record. Vol. 1, Terminology and Craniodental Mor- color pls. 92, line drawings 13. J. Paul Getty Museum, Los phology of Genus Homo (Europe). (The Human Fossil Record Angeles 2001. $24.95. ISBN 0-89236-628-1 (cloth). 1.) Pp. xi + 388, figs. 175, maps 9. Wiley-Liss, New York Vedder, U. Grabsteine mit Porträt in Augusta Emerita 2001. $125. ISBN 0-471-31927-9 (cloth). (Lusitania): Zur Rezeption stadtrömischer Sepulkralkunst in Sheldon, Craig T., ed. The Southern and Central Alabama einer Provinzhauptstadt, mit einem ausführlichen Anhang zu Expeditions of Clarence Bloomfield Moore. Pp. 320, figs. 307. den emeritenser Grabaltären. (Kölner Studien zur University of Alabama Press 2001. $39.95. ISBN 0-8173- Archäologie der römischen Provinzen 5.) Pp. 154, figs. 1019-3 (paper). 20, pls. 29, tables 3. Marie Leidorf, Rahden 2001. DM 95. Sherratt, Susan. Catalogue of Cycladic Antiquities in the ISSN 0945-2893; ISBN 3-89646-133-8 (cloth). Ashmolean Museum: The Captive Spirit, in 2 vols. Vol. 1: pp. Villeneuve, Estelle, and Pamela M. Watson, eds. La ix + 426; vol. 2: pp. 744, figs. 277, b&w pls. 642, color pls. Ceramique byzantine et proto-islamique en Syrie-Jordanie (IV e– 2002] BOOKS RECEIVED 511

VIIIe siècles apres J.-C. Actes du Colloque tenu a Amman les 3, Webb, Matilda. The Churches and Catacombs of Early Chris- 4 et 5 decembre 1994. (Bibliotheque Archéologique et tian Rome: A Comprehensive Guide. Pp. xxv + 324, figs. 93, Historique 159.) Pp. v + 336, figs. 151, tables 28, maps map 1. Sussex Academic Press, Brighton 2001. $45. ISBN 11. Institut Français d’Archéologie du Proche-Orient, 1-902210-58-1 (paper). Beirut 2001. ISBN 2-912738-10-5 (paper).

THE SOCIETY FOR THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGY

The Society for the American Journal of Archaeology was founded in the autumn of 1989 in order to expand the size and scope of the Archaeological Institute of America’s official journal, to make possible the publication within a year of their submission of all articles accepted by the editors, and to build AJA’s endowment to insure the future financial health of the journal. Contributions to the Society are welcome in any amount and are tax-deductible according to law. Members contribute $25, Supporters $50, and Donors $100. Contributors of $250 or more (Contributors, $250; Sponsors, $500) are listed on the inside back cover of the next four quarterly issues of AJA, and donors of $1000 or more (Friends, $1000; Patrons, $2500; Benefactors, $5000) receive in addition all the benefits of Friends of the Archaeological Institute of America. Individuals and institutions wishing to join the Society for the American Journal of Archaeology should send their checks, payable to Archaeological Institute of America and designated for the Society for the AJA, to American Journal of Archaeology, Archaeological Institute of America, located at Boston University, 656 Beacon Street, Boston, Massachusetts 02215-2006 (tel. 617-353-9364, fax 617-353-6550, email [email protected]).

Publication of the 2002 volume of the American Journal of Archaeology has been made possible in part by the generosity of an anonymous benefactor and the members of THE SOCIETY FOR THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGY

BENEFACTORS

Boston University University of Dayton Carnegie Corporation Fund

PATRONS Crawford H. Greenewalt, Jr. Jeannette U.S. Nolen

FRIENDS Milton and Sally Avery Joukowsky Family Arts Foundation Foundation

SPONSORS University of Cincinnati James H. Ottaway, Jr. Hurricane Electric Mo Pasha Robert W. and Joanna Seibert

CONTRIBUTORS Elie Abemayor and Ira Haupt, II Judy Shandling New York University Elizabeth Bartman and Princeton University Andrew P. Solomon Leonard V. Quigley Emmett L. Bennett, Jr. Rhode Island School of Eugene N. Borza and Design Museum of Art Kathleen A. Pavelko William H. Richman Bryn Mawr College Jacob Ringle, Jr. Center for Old World Jeremy B. Rutter Archaeology and Art, University of St. Thomas Brown University Jane Ayer Scott Joseph C. Carter, Jr. Valerie Smallwood Colgate University Smith College Lucinda Dickinson University of Southern Conger California Dartmouth College Toledo Museum of Art Harrison Eiteljorg, II Vassar College Frank J. Frost for Cornelius C. Vermeule, III University of California, Yale University Santa Barbara