Content

Anna Maria D’Onofrio, John K. Papadopoulos, Evelyn Lord Smithson (Edd.): The Early Iron Age. The Ceme-teries. With Contributions by Maria A. Liston, Deborah Ruscillo, Sara Strack, and Eirini Dimitriadou. in:

Gnomon, page 58 - 66

GNO, Volume 93 (2021), Issue 2, ISSN: 0017-1417, ISSN online: 0017-1417, https://doi.org/10.17104/0017-1417-2021-2-58

Browse Volumes and Issues: Gnomon

C.H.BECK, München
Bibliographic information
Th. Kruse: Kambitsis (Ed.), Des pittakia de Théadelphie 154 2913: Fragment einer Abrechnung über Geldzahlungen. Zwei Kolumnen mit tagesdatierten Einträgen über Geldzahlungen sowie der Einzahler; der Grund der Zahlungen bleibt unklar. Im Anschluß an die Edition der neuen Texte finden sich eine Reihe von Appendizes: Appendix Ia (S. 149–158): Revidierte Neuedition des zu 2905 gehörenden P.Col. V 1 verso 4 (s.o.). Appendix Ib (S. 159–165): Erstedition von P.Mich. inv. 364: Rekto und Verso. Fragment einer Abrechnung von Plerotai mit demselben Aufbau der Einträge wie in 2909 (s.o.). Appendix IIa (S. 167–177): Liste aller bisher bekannten Pittakiarchen sowie ggfs. Angaben darüber, ob diese auch als Syngeorgos in einem oder gar zwei anderen Pittakia bezeugt sind. Appendix IIb (S. 178–187: Liste von Syngeorgoi, die in mehr als einem Pittakionregister aus Theadelpheia bezeugt sind. Appendix IIc (S. 188–200): Liste der Mitglieder der 46 Pittakia des «langen Registers» (P.Col. V 1 verso 4 + P.Graux IV 31 + 2905 (s.o. zu 2905). Appendix III (S. 201–205): Liste der topographischen Bezeichnungen für die Lage einzelner Landparzellen in den Pittakion-Registern (viele dieser Toponyme sind hier erstmals bezeugt). Die üblichen Indizes (S. 207–232) beschließen den Band, der unsere Kenntnisse zu den Agrarverhältnissen des arsinoitischen Dorfes Theadelpheia in willkommener Weise bereichert, und es bleibt zu hoffen, daß auch die anderen noch unveröffentlichten Texte des Dossiers, zu dem die hier besprochenen Dokumente gehören, in naher Zukunft ediert werden mögen. Wien Thomas Kruse * John K. Papadopoulos, Evelyn Lord Smithson (Edd.): The Early Iron Age. The Cemeteries. With Contributions by Maria A. Liston, Deborah Ruscillo, Sara Strack, and Eirini Dimitriadou. Princeton, New Jersey: American School of Classical Studies at Athens 2017. LXXIII, 1037 S. zahlr. Abb. 8 Taf. 4°. (The Athenian Agora. Results of Excavations conducted by the American School of Classical Studies at Athens. 36.). This is an important volume long awaited by scholars of the Aegean Iron Age in which John K. Papadopoulos (hereinafter P.) presents the funeral evidence, from SM to the close of MG into the transition to the LG period, brought to light «since the early 1930s in the heart of what was to become the civic and commercial center of the Classical city of Athens» (1). The scholar inherited the project from Evelyn Lord Smithson (later L.S.) and identifies her as coauthor, specifying that «Evelyn’s untimely death in 1992 meant that we never actually had the opportunity to work on the Agora EIA material together. This is something that I greatly regret» (Preface, VII–XIII). The organization of the publication and the results of the analysis must be ascribed entirely to P., who produced the volume, with the other authors and collaborators, between 1992 and 2011, when the long editorial review began. In Ch. 1: ‘Introduction’ (1–34) P. reiterates his vision of the site of the future Agora as the ‘Original Kerameikos’ (Fig. 1.2) and a vast burial ground with burials dating back to MH or LH II and LH III, divided into «four well- GNOMON 2/93/2021 A. M. D’Onofrio: Papadopoulos/Smithson (Edd.), The Early Iron Age 155 defined burial grounds» (12) falling within arbitrary delimitations (14, Fig. 1.4).1 Particularly limiting appears to be the lack of phase plans which would have inevitably reduced the evenness of the funerary phenomenon in the various eras, especially if complemented by the evidence of pits and wells. He categorically rejects the hypothesis that the latter have to do with domestic occupation, as well as the possibility that the different tomb clusters correspond to as many inhabited nuclei, according to the model of multi-focal sites.2 P. imagines that originally the entire community of Athenians settled on the acropolis (despite the limited extension of the plateau and the scarcity of water)3 and in the southern districts of the city.4 His vision of early Athens therefore does not fit into the current mainstream of EIA archaeology, where production activities and settlement remains appear organically and structurally related in cases where stratigraphy has been better preserved.5 Of the 83 tombs gathered in this volume, some are satisfactorily published for the first time, others are re-edited. A not negligible number has an undeterminable chronology (Tombs 3, 4, 30–35) or one that dates to periods prior to the EIA: to MH (Tomb 60); to LH IIIC (Tombs 79 and 80); LH IIIC – SM (Tombs 81, 82); LH IIIC / EPG (Tomb 78); LH IIIC Late – SM (Tomb 61); SM (Tombs 1, 2, 26, 27, 36, 37 [SM in the Table 5.1a, but LH IIIC – EPG in the catalog, 293]). Finally, of the nine burials of the ‘Areiopagos plot’, P. did not include the 6 tombs excavated by Dörpfeld in 1897 on the north side of Apollodoros Street, but only the three adjacent tombs later excavated by American archaeologists (Tombs 18–20, 185–213).6 The burials and their notable mate- 1 The ways in which the burials organize themselves in the necropolises is not clarified. The categories of «full-fledged cemeteries» and «smaller burial places or plots» are mentioned in the ‘Appendix’ by E. Dimitriadou ‘The development of Early Athens from ca. 1125 B.C. to the end of the 8th century B.C.’ (985–989, Fig. A 1), with a brief outline of the distribution of the archaeological finds in central Athens. About the spatial organisation of the burials see A. Snodgrass, ‘Putting Death in Its Place: The Idea of the Cemetery’, in C. Renfrew [et. al.] (eds.), ‘Death Rituals, Social Order and the Archaeology of Immortality in the Ancient World’, Cambridge 2016, 187–199. 2 Cf. M. C. Monaco, review of Papadopoulos 2003a, ASAA, LXXXI/II, 2003, 687–696; M. F. Rönnberg, review of this volume, BMCR 2018.09.09. 3 Papadopoulos 2003a, 299f.: «... all the graves but one of those assembled by Gauss and Ruppenstein are burials of children or infants (at various times in the Bronze and EIA periods it was customary to bury children within a settlement)». He does not take into consideration the scattered model of the lower town from LH to SM as developed by Mountjoy 1995. 4 Papadopoulos 2003a (esp. 298–300). On the Ilissos side the intermingling of wells, remains of structures and tombs is recorded (D’Onofrio 2007–2008). 5 Cf. Mazarakis Ainian, ‘Tombes d’enfants à l’intérieur d’habitats au début de l’Age du Fer dans le Monde Grec’, in A.-M. Guimier-Sorbets, Y. Morizot (eds.), ‘L’enfant et la mort dans l’Antiquité I, Nouvelles recherches dans les nécropoles grecques: Le signalement des tombes d’enfants’, Paris 2010, 67–95, esp. 76. P. does not mention A. Esposito, G. M. Sanidas (eds.), ‘‹Quartiers› artisanaux en Grèce ancienne: Une perspective méditerranéenne’, Villeneuve d’Ascq 2012 (cf. the contributions of A. Esposito, A. Mazarakis Ainian, M.C. Monaco, J.-S. Gros). See also Mazarakis Ainian, ‘Κώμη et πόλις : reflexion sur la formation de la cité dans la Grèce ancienne’, CRAI, 1er trimestre 2017, 21–50, too recent to appear in the volume but to which I refer for the clarity of the arguments and the persistence of a critical line of importance that P. refuses to take into consideration. 6 P. 40 f.: Dörpfeld Graves AR I, AR II, AR III / IV, AR V, AR – disturbed cremation and AR robbed cremation (six tombs in all). In 1932, the Americans unearthed Tomb 19 = GNOMON 2/93/2021 A. M. D’Onofrio: Papadopoulos/Smithson (Edd.), The Early Iron Age 156 rials, already scattered between different Athenian and German museums and collections (37–39), were reassembled by L.S. in an exemplary way (L.S. 1974): here they are thus removed from the overall consideration of the necropolises. This choice negatively affects the interpretation of a fundamental context, seen as a ‘family plot’ by L.S., to whom P., strongly opposed to this interpretation which would support the connection of tombs and residential areas, attributes an afterthought.1 ‘Tombs’ (in quotation marks) and inserted as such in the catalog (as well as in the analytical tables of the tombs and their primary attributes) involve some contexts and materials that are not tombs proper.2 These comprise three groups of vases perhaps derived from burials (‘Tombs’ 5, 8, 78), «... a sacrificial deposit, or one associated with eating and drinking, perhaps even a perideipnon» (Funerary Deposit / ‘Tomb’ 16), as well as two stone platforms (= ‘Tombs’ 12, 76; cf. Ch. 5, 632–635) which would have been appropriate to contextualize in relation to the clusters, rather than generically to the conspicuous funeral evidence of the LBA and EIA.3 P. explains the criteria of ‘Periodization’ (18–34) and the fluidity between the various stylistic phases, as well as the difficulty of establishing the relationship between these and the length of the periods expressed in years are all emphasized.4 In the case of the presence of ceramics of different styles in the same grave set, P. favors the chronology indicated by the majority of the vases rather than that of the stylistically most recent specimen (25; e.g. Tombs 48, 51, 55). In Ch. 2: ‘Four Cemeteries: A Catalogue of Tombs and Their Contents’ by P. and L.S., with contributions by S. Strack (35–502) the tombs are renumbered in a single sequence starting from the oldest tomb for each necropolis. The graphic and photographic documentation of the excavation is provided; in the absence of plans, P. resorted to sketches in the excavation diaries, rendered now in ink if they were originally in pencil, taking care to recover every possi- [I 18: 2] and Tomb 20 [I 18: 3] «… located one just to the east of this trench [City Lot 634/8 with the German graves], the other just to the west, while that exposed in 1947 (Tomb 18 [I 18: 1] ) lay immediately to the south, under Apollodoros Street». 1 The reference to L.S.’s «unpublished notes» (42) remains generic, while he quotes Young [1939] extensively, according to whom the exposed tombs were not the only burials in this area and adds «It is hardly likely that burials were made along the streets in areas built up with houses. Our roads, then, must have lain at the approaches to the town proper, which probably stood to the west and the southwest of the Acropolis». 2 One wonders, for example, what is the meaning of the question mark by the ‘Number of Individuals’ in the case of ‘Tomb’ 12 and 16, which are deposits (578, Table 5.1a). 3 For similar structures in the Grotta necropolis in Naxos cf. N. Kourou, ‘Early Iron Age Mortuary Contexts in the Cyclades. Pots, Function and Symbolism’, in V. Vlachou (ed.), ‘Pots, workshops and early Iron Age society: function and role of ceramics in early Greece’, Bruxelles 2015, 83–105). P. tends to exclude a relationship with specific tombs and suggests a «funerary cult or even hero or ancestor worship because they are found in cemeteries belonging to particular social groups ... that begin in the BA and thus, by the EIA, were already ancient» (633). The Agora stone platforms actually turn out to be slightly more recent than the adjacent tombs: ‘Tomb’ 12 is EG I, and the neighboring tombs are Tomb 6 (LPG); Tomb 9 (LPG / EG). ‘Tomb’ 76 is LPG, and the neighboring tombs are Tombs 69 and 70 (both MPG) and Tomb 71 (EPG / MPG). 4 P. rejects Ruppenstein’s internal periodization of the SM phase (Kerameikos VIII; cf. Papadopoulos 2008b), postponing the solution to the future publication of the nonfunerary deposits of the Agora (22). GNOMON 2/93/2021 A. M. D’Onofrio: Papadopoulos/Smithson (Edd.), The Early Iron Age 157 ble detail (4). Each object found is reproduced with photos and drawings when describing the context / tomb of origin. ‘The Cemetery on the north slopes of the Areiopagos’ (35–253; Tombs 1–25; Fig. 2.4) is one of the largest and most important prehistoric cemeteries, where some of the richest Mycenaean chamber tombs, attributed to ‘princely’ persons, are located (‘Tomb of the Ivory Pyxides’, ‘Tomb of the Bronzes’), while the EIA finds include the ‘Rich Athenian Lady’ (Tomb 15), the ‘Booties grave’ (Tomb 11), and the ‘Warrior’s Grave’ (Tomb 13). There is no reference to the Geometric and Archaic settlement recognized on the north-western slopes, upstream of the ancient roadway mentioned above.1 P. brings together in a table the entire chronological sequence of the LH – SubG tombs, from which however the ‘Dörpfeld graves’ remain excluded (Table 2.1, 38). The prehistoric tombs of the ‘Hill of the Nymphs’ (Tombs V, LH IIIA; Tomb VI, LH IIIC) are inserted instead – although falling outside the Agora area illustrated in the plan. P. highlights the gap between the tombs of LH IIIA: 1–2 and the solitary Tomb VI of LH IIIC (outside the limits of the Agora), while Tomb 1 of the catalog, which is SM (45–49), reopens the sequence after c. 250 years (LH IIIA c. 1300 – SM c. 1050). There are five funerary deposits in this necropolis (‘Tombs’ 5, 8, 12, 16, 25); some contained animal remains (including cattle) connected with the funeral rituals. A contextual analysis relating to their period of use would have been useful. ‘Tombs to the East of the Areiopagos’ (254–272; Tombs 26–29; Fig. 2.4) are three SM–MPG tombs clustered together (Tombs 26, 27, 28) on the eastern side of the Panathenaic Way, at the base of the slopes of the Acropolis, along with Tomb 29, which is 80 m away and is difficult to interpret: an individual buried in a partially-dug well (268–272).2 P. considers these tombs as the Eastern extent of the cemetery on the north slopes (254; they are associated in the plan on p. 43, fig. 2.4, cf. fig. 1.3 on p. 13) or, alternatively, the burials could belong to another necropolis sampled on the edge of the ASCSA excavation (44). ‘The cemetery on the Kolonos Agoraios’ (273–397; Tombs 30–59; Fig. 2.179) is on the top of the hill overlooking the western side of the Agora and on its eastern slopes, including the area of the ‘Mudbrick Foundry’ and the Tholos cemetery; the «plethora of closely clustered graves» would represent only a part of the original «full-fledged cemetery» largely destroyed by more recent evidence3 (280; Table 2.2, 276f). Unlike the evidence of the Acropolis (where infant burials are considered proof of residential activity on the plateau), in the case of Kolonos Agoraios their incidence (Tombs 30, 33–37, 40–45, 47, 51, 54) is not interpreted as an indication of nearby destroyed homes, indeed it is not discussed at all. The catalog opens with Tombs 30–35, empty or with very little material, followed by tombs ascribed to the LH IIIC or SM horizons (Tombs 36, 39, 40; Tomb 37: LH IIIC – EPG [‘SM?’ In 1 Shear 1940 (Gamma-Gamma section, 270–273). Agora XXXI, 18, and note 19. Cf. D’Onofrio 2007–2008, nr. 8. 2 The individual, laid out in a contracted position on a stone slab, «had sustained severe cranial trauma (together with a technically broken back) during life, and as a result may have suffered from some of post-traumatic neurological impairment» (272). They were not able to identify with certainty some items (cup T29–1?). Larger studies than those already dedicated to Athenian evidence and a cross-cultural approach will probably be needed to trace the coordinates of the phenomenon. Cf. R. Bradley, ‘Ritual and Domestic Life in Prehistoric Europe’, London 2005 (‘Death and the Harvest’, 12f, Fig. 6: an example in Southern England, with further bibliography). 3 Mycenaean tombs to which a dagger and a cup recovered out of context would testify would have been destroyed in the eastern part of the hill by subsequent activities (273f). A large number of wells dug in the rocky bank are interpreted as disturbed EIA tombs, even though filled with Hellenistic and Roman materials. See the ‘Disturbed funerary material’ which concludes the catalog, whose interpretation remains uncertain (390ff). GNOMON 2/93/2021 A. M. D’Onofrio: Papadopoulos/Smithson (Edd.), The Early Iron Age 158 Table 51a]; Tomb 38: LH IIIC–SM) and which represent the first datable burials (275– 276). The PG tombs prevail, while Geometric burials are few. ‘The Cemetery along the south bank of the Eridanos’ (398–481; Tombs 60–78; Fig. 2.288) occupy the entire flat extension of the future square (fig. 2.288; see fig. 1.4 on p. 14); burials gathered in different and distant groupings datable from the Late or Final Neolithic (the oldest burial)1 to the LG / SubG–PA, beyond the chronological terms of the volume. ‘The Cemetery along the north bank of the Eridanos’ (481–502; Tombs 79–83; Figs. 2.370, 2.371) consists of only five tombs – two of the final Bronze Age (LH IIIC), two LHIIIC-SM and one EG (human remains in a partly-dug well which also contained animal bones).2 An EGII/MGI well there had been interpreted as indicating a nearby area of settlement.3 In Ch. 3: ‘Human Skeletal Remains’ by M. A. Liston (503–573) at least 95 individuals representing both sexes, and of all ages were studied. In Table 3.2, 506f, which brings together the overall evidence, the age is indicated only when a certain level of precision is possible, but not if the deceased’s age is only broadly known (e.g. infant, child, subadult, adult, etc.: see Tables 5.18–5.21, 657ff) and inevitably this severely limits its usefulness. For L., «The fact that no age or sex was excluded from burial shows that these were burial places of residential groups or families». However, this matter as set out by P. and developed by Liston cannot be properly assessed, as there is no sufficiently detailed breakdown of the tombs by phase and clusters therein.4 We find information about rites and taphonomy, demography, age at death, sex ratios («strongly skewed toward females», 519), health and disease, trauma among the five individuals exhibiting fractures in Tombs, 83 and 29 both from wells,5 non-pathological markers of activity patterns (worth noting is the evidence for female activity in the processing natural fibers using the teeth as tools, p. 525f). The uptake in the cremation rite in EG is confirmed (510). Note the proposal (expressed however with reservations) to recognize a male individual in Tomb 20, the «Smithson’s old Lady with a dog», based on Angel’s identification (538). 1 Grave I 9:2, 398ff Cf. Table 2.3 (406f). 2 Tomb 83, p. 498ff It is a PG / EG well with a skeleton in the upper fill, with childrens’ and other scattered bone both human and animal. A lower level of bone material still awaits analysis (501, Fig. 2.387). 3 Cf. Camp 1999, 266: «The earliest evidence for habitation north of the Eridanos was recovered in the form of an early well (K 1:5), cut through virgin fill and bedrock». 4 The formal burial theory, proposed at the time by I. Morris (1987), constitutes the critical aspect of Liston’s statement, in line with P.’ view of the funerary behavior. Yet P. is aware of the fact that «Although more than 70 child graves are known from Early Iron Age Athens, the bulk of them from the Submycenaean and Protogeometric periods, the series does extend into Early Geometric I with Tomb 14, but then breaks off. A smaller, but nevertheless substantial number of child graves are known from Late Geometric and the transition to Protoattic, and two Middle Geometric II graves from the Kerameikos (Graves G 27 and G 87) may be the earliest in this second series». This important clarification is confined to a note in the catalog (40, note 19). Cf. 657–660 (‘Infant and Child Graves’). 5 Tomb 29, 542f, is the adult male viewed as a «social outcast», as found in a well, and tomb 83 comprises another male adult equally marginalized and buried with a child and a neonatal infant in a well (558ff). GNOMON 2/93/2021 A. M. D’Onofrio: Papadopoulos/Smithson (Edd.), The Early Iron Age 159 In Ch. 4: ‘Faunal Remains’ by D. Ruscillo (561–573) the evidence that can be connected with the funerary feasting is presented in detail and refers to the ‘additional information’ represented by the iconographic evidence (570). Despite the limitations of the available sample (from 12 of the 83 tombs, 572),1 the review of the faunal remains allows an articulated and significant vision of the evidence, with some clarifications (564f, Table 4.2). The comment on the faunal remains (piglet, equid, mouse, 563) of Tomb 11, ‘Boots or Booties Grave’, which according to the catalog (80) did not return faunal remains appears contradictory. Tomb 14 is not now associated with piglet remains, as indicated in the excavation publication (119), but probably these were not kept (566).2 There is talk again of the Tomb 20 already mentioned above because among the preserved fauna remains both the dog and the piglet mentioned in the edition are missing3. The most common animals found are young pigs, sheep, and goats, and represent «domesticated animals easily acquired for meals and / or sacrifices. Bovids, however, seem to have been eaten and their bones discarded at the grave site, perhaps after the funeral feasting»; Tomb 20 and Tomb 15 (the ‘Rich Athenian Lady’) «present the most convincing evidence of funerary dining by mourners» (573). Several sorts of animal remains – those of burrowing animals and even marine shells – are considered intrusive, connected with the intense post-depositional activities that took place on the site. In Ch. 5: ‘Burial Customs and Funerary Rites’ by P. (577–689) the author analyzes tomb types, tomb contents, age and sex identification of the deceased, changes in rite: inhumation, cremation and their chronologies, organic offerings, and multiple vs. single burials. Two main Tables summarize the overall data available for the various necropolises: Table 5.1a ‘Analytical Table of all tombs, their primary attributes, and pottery contents’; Table 5.1b ‘Analytical Table of all tombs. Their primary attributes, and small finds (other than pottery)’. Furthermore, the chapter includes tables relating to the various types of graves, graphs with data relating to the funerary population (age and sex), orientation and chronological distribution. The stoppers of the urns are listed with all other materials in table 5.14 (647), while a separate treatment would have been helpful. P. underlines the recurrence of the «simple pit graves ... scattered among chamber tombs especially in the cemetery along the south bank of Eridanos, from as early as LH IIB» and he considers this feature a strong element of continuity between LB and EIA in Athens.4 As for the rare ritual of the Simple Cremations (Pyres), also observable at Kerameikos and in other Attic sites (609–617), P. offers a review of the occurrences, but again excludes the simple cremations AR II, AR I, AR III / IV excavated by Dörpfeld. L.S. observed that such burials follow one another for 2 or 3 generations (EG-MG I) and that they are «a sheer number in a single cluster». P. omits the ‘Dörpfeld graves’ also in ‘Table 5.7. Primary attributes of the simple cremations (pyres)’ (610). The observations and the comparisons are many and demonstrate the great competence of P. and his knowledge of the materials. The summary on the ‘organic offer- 1 «While there is good evidence that animals may have been buried / burnt with most of the graves, excavation of these burials in the earlier part of last century did not prioritize the study and storage of animal bones» (561). 2 Ruscillo, 566, observes that «It is entirely possible that the complete animal assemblage from the grave was not kept». Cf. 571. 3 See p. 204f; 567f; 571. In Tomb 20 «almost all the animal bones … are not charred and represent the most convincing evidence of funeral feasting at the grave» (562). 4 Inspired by Bohen 2017, as well as by authors such as Desborough, for which reference is made to the text of P. He draws attention to the 26 pit graves scattered among the chamber tombs in the necropolis of Perati (for which, see Snodgrass 2016). GNOMON 2/93/2021 A. M. D’Onofrio: Papadopoulos/Smithson (Edd.), The Early Iron Age 160 ings’ is effective, represented by a considerable number of species, especially in relation to the small size of the sample. Tomb 15 (the ‘Rich Athenian Lady’, buried with the fetus) with the remains of a lavish funeral feast involving at least 70 kg of meat, Tomb 13 (Blegen’s ‘Warrior grave’) with a burnt astragalos suggesting sacrifice are commented on fully. There remains the problem of Tomb 11 (‘Boots’ or ‘Booties Grave’), to which is attributed, in addition to the actually pertinent figs, «a burnt piglet ... likely sacrificed» (683f) which does not come from the quoted context (80, and refer to the above). Finally P. concludes with a very questionable consideration on the incompatibility of funerary and housing functions in the EIA: he argues that the unfolding of the cremation rituals connected with the necropolis areas would have been disturbing to any nearby settlements, and therefore that the Agora represents the «spectacular stage» – the arena of funeral performances – visible from the Acropolis, the actual residence of the living (631f). As for the ‘weapons-graves’, P. improperly attributes to Steinmann 2012 the introduction of a nonpositivist concept of the graves with weapons (that is, equipment of weapons = warrior) with which he agrees.1 Both those included in the volume (Tomb 10, Tomb 13 or the famous ‘Blegen Tomb’ and Tomb 17), as well as the grave AR II of the Dörpfeld plot, are cremations and come from the Cemetery on the north slope of the Areiopagos (‘Table with weapons in cremations’, 661f; cf. p. 653 for the repeated ‘censorship’ of the ‘Dörpfeld graves’), which includes «the oldest individual with a sword». But this concentration does not arouse any pause for reconsideration apropos the problem of the existence of clusters, which concept P. rejects. In Ch. 6: ‘Pottery’ the wheelmade and painted pottery is presented by P., the handmade ceramic receives a full treatment from Strack (689–897). A useful conspectus and a very accurate graphic arrangement of the splendid drawings by A. Houton (duplicated from the catalog of tombs in synoptic figures according to the shapes) allow one to easily follow the presentation of shapes and types. The chapter illustrates the Athenian ceramic production that emerges from the Agora burials with clarity and abundance of references. Ch. 7: ‘Small Finds Other than Pottery’ by P. (899–971) is devoid of illustrations: an overall view of the small finds is completely missing and it is necessary to continually return to the catalog of the individual tombs, where the objects are illustrated both as photographs and line-drawings. It would have been more appropriate to divide the documentation so as to allow different levels of study, with tables dedicated to the various types of materials, such as for example in Lefkandi III, pls. 127–135. Furthermore, the rare tools do not receive a satisfactory treatment. For the find T13–14, P. rejects Blegen’s reading without appeal: Blegen had suggested the possibility that it was a chisel, inspiring the current museum labelling where the deceased is presented as ‘A warrior and an artisan’. P. instead leans towards an arrowhead.2 First of all, it should be noted that the continuing progress of iron corrosion 1 However, «in the introduction [13] the author states that graves with weapons are virtually synonymous with graves of warriors» (cf. Kramer-Hajos’ review BMCR 2013.07.02). The post-processualist scholarship’s change of perspective was elaborated for the Athenian EIA evidence by D’Onofrio 2011, in line with the methodological observations of Whitley 2002, who considers the weapon burial ritual independent of the biographical dimension. 2 P. starts from the story of Herodotus (Hdt 5.9) and from attempts by critics to identify the type of weapon to which the historian refers with the term ‘sigynna’ to establish the GNOMON 2/93/2021 A. M. D’Onofrio: Papadopoulos/Smithson (Edd.), The Early Iron Age 161 makes the drawings published by Blegen in 1952 more useful than those made more than 50 years later, and P. usefully supplies both (115, Fig. 2.63; 117, Fig 2.64). Secondly, the object has a «bevelled to a chisel edge» end which is still appreciable (959) and is of an unusual length for an arrowhead (0.152 m.). The comparison proposed by P. with the group of Bolzenspitzen type B VI d and type B VI and others from Kalapodi appears problematic: the end that would strike the target is the bevelled one, the ergonomic profile of which does not match that of the typical arrowhead. The dimensions too exceed the norm; the comparison proposed with a representation of Heracles as archer on a Protoattic vase of Thebes adds nothing relevant to the identification (960, n. 452), since the proportions of real objects cannot be seriously compared with those depicted on vases. P. also omits to mention that Schmitt stresses how, when the tip is missing, one cannot differentiate arrowhead from a tool1 and further that all the Bolzenspitzen proposed as comparisons come from late Classical or Hellenistic layers, or are not datable. Starting from the questionable classification as an arrowhead for the item of T 13–14, other more fragmentary finds (such as T 13–18 from the same tomb) are also so identified, creating the effect of a considerable presence of this type of weapon in the tombs of the Agora, leading to the statement that «The paucity of well preserved iron arrowheads in good contexts of the Submycenaean, Protogeometric and Geometric periods is such that the possibility that T 13–14 and T 13–18 represent arrowheads has been generally overlooked».2 A fragment of an iron knife with serrated blade from Tomb 10 (T 10–5, 75, Fig. 2.29) deserves a more specific comment, as saw-blades are very rare and fall into the category of tools3 which – having removed the chisels – remain underrepresented overall.4 As for the ornaments, P. underlines their exclusive connection with female or children’s tombs and notes that «Not one man in the Agora went to the grave with a dress fastener or a finger ring» (677)5; but a solitary faïance bead is associated with Tomb 17, «the oldest individual in the Agora cemeteries» (678) honored with weaponry (cf. 180ff). P. however, does not seek comparisons for the association of weapons and ornaments: he limits himself to a reference to the Strömberg catalog of 1993, without delving into the most recent bibliography, which in fact shows evidence of considerable such linkage.6 function of the find as an arrowhead, accounting for the absence of comparable items by its poor state of conservation (959–962). Without providing an adequate comparative assessment within the vast class of known chisels that would justify its rejection, P. concludes «this seems an unlikely chisel» (959). 1 Schmitt 2007, 476 (in relation to group B: «…für einzelne Stücke nicht immer sicher zu klären ist, ob es sich tatsächlich um Pfeilspitzen oder um andere Gegenstände wie Stichel o. ä. Werkzeuge handelt.»); 489–490. 2 ‘Arrowhead-related fragments’, 962. P. cites the specimen of PG 28 (from the urn, thus potentially the cause of death) as the only EIA arrow from Athens, leaving out the one from tomb 147 (SM / EPG), of the «Stiel- oder Dornpfeilspitzen» type, also of iron and embedded in the humerus of the late adolescent (Ruppenstein and Lagia , cit., 35, 147.2; Beil. 17; comment on p. 204). Both of the specimens mentioned above are small in size. 3 Cf. D. Evely [et al.], ‘Lefkandi IV: The Bronze Age: The Late Helladic IIIC Settlement at Xeropolis’, Oxford 2006, 282–284 (Fig 5.9: 8 and 5.9: 9). 4 For iron fragments of uncertain function cf. 187 and 645 (noteworthy is T 18–22, perhaps either a tool or a weapon). 5 It is useful to remember that a minimum percentage of the sex of the deceased buried in the Agora cemeteries has been determined. 6 D’Onofrio 2011; D’Onofrio, ‘Working Tools, Toilet Implements and Personal Adornments in Weapon Burials at Early Iron Age Athens and Lefkandi’, SMEA, n. s. 3, 2017, 39–44. The association of weapons and ornaments is well attested in the necropolis of Lefkandi. It summons up the figure of the ‘beautified warrior’, a concept occurring in many cultures and discussed in the aforementioned bibliography. GNOMON 2/93/2021 A. M. D’Onofrio: Papadopoulos/Smithson (Edd.), The Early Iron Age 162 In the ‘Social and Historical Conclusions’ of Ch. 8: ‘Epilogue’ P. reiterates his vision of a settlement separate from the necropolises and insists on the continuity of material culture and funerary evidence in the Bronze-Iron Age transition. The Agora necropolises would have been reserved «for long-established, autochthonous Athenians» (687), unlike those of Kerameikos and the Salamis Arsenal. But this topic, of enormous interest and evident complexity, requires a study all of its own, opening with a discussion of the principles of ethnicity and the problems of its mirroring in the rituals of the Athenian necropolises. Therefore P.’s interpretative proposal can be accepted as a suggestion to be yet fully explored. In summary, the four necropolises that give the title to the volume appear as a theoretical creation of the author. This remark cannot diminish the appreciation of his extraordinary work, which offers ideas and material for discussion on many themes that it has not been possible to deal with in this review. In the introduction P. rightly points out that there existed more Athenian ceramics documented with drawings from the necropolises of Lefkandi than from Athens itself, not to mention imbalance in the excavation documentation. This latter failing has been corrected and the systematic nature of documentary research, the richness of the graphic and photographic documentation of the excavation and the materials, the great competence in handling the material classes, especially ceramic, represent a fundamental contribution to the knowledge of the Athenian EIA and for this we must all be truly grateful to P. He has produced a great reference work for all scholars of the EIA everywhere, and of early Athens in particular. Napoli Anna Maria D’Onofrio * Maria Pia Donato, Vincent Jolivet (Edd.): Eredità etrusca. Intorno al singolare caso della tomba monumentale di Grotte Scalina (Viterbo). Vetralla: Davide Ghaleb 2018. 161 S. zahlr. z.T. farb. Abb. 4°. (Archeologia Città Territorio.). Die hier vorzustellende neue Publikation umfaßt Beiträge von 14 italienischen und französischen Autoren, darunter Archäologen, Etruskologen, Historikern, Epigraphikern und Kunsthistorikern wie M.P. Donato, V. Jolivet, E. Lovergne, G. Amicucci, P. Catalano, L. Ambrosini, D. Briquel, L. Pesante, G. Curzi, C. Tedeschi, J. Lebregère, L. Cappuccini, E. De Minicis und D. Giosuè. Sie gliedert sich in Danksagungen, eine Einführung, einen ersten Hauptteil mit 5 Beiträgen zu ‘Grotte Scalina, una storia millenaria’ und einen zweiten Hauptteil mit 5 Beiträgen zu ‘Terre etrusche in età medievale e moderna’, eine Zusammenfassung, einen Index nominum und einen Index locorum. Positiv zu vermerken ist, daß alle ausschließlich in italienisch verfaßten Beiträge jeweils am Anfang eine kurze Zusammenfassung in französisch und englisch sowie am Ende jeweils eine eigene Bibliographie haben. Der Bildteil umfaßt Aquarelle, Zeichnungen, Photos und Pläne, wobei Fig. 40 den entscheidenden und innovativen Rekonstruktionsvorschlag der monumentalen Grabfassade von Grotte Scalina präsentiert. Im Mittelpunkt der Publikation steht das um 1900 nur unzureichend und z.T. (von L. Rossi Danielli) falsch dokumentierte, 1998 wiederentdeckte und GNOMON 2/93/2021

Chapter Preview

References

Abstract

As a critical journal for all classical studies, the GNOMON fosters the links between the distinct classical disciplines. It has thus an exceptional position among the classical review journals and allows familiarization with research and publications in neighbouring disciplines. The reviews address an international readership from all fields in classical studies. The GNOMON publishes reviews in German, English, French, Italian and Latin.

The GNOMON is published in eight issues a year.

Zusammenfassung

Der GNOMON pflegt als kritische Zeitschrift für die gesamte Altertumswissenschaft die Verbindung zwischen den verschiedenen Disziplinen der Altertumswissenschaft. Er nimmt dadurch eine Sonderstellung unter den Rezensionsorganen ein und bietet die Möglichkeit, sich über wichtige Forschungen und Publikationen auch in den Nachbarbereichen des eigenen Faches zu orientieren. Die Rezensionen im GNOMON wenden sich an ein internationales Publikum, das aus allen Teilgebieten der Altertumswissenschaft kommt. Die Publikationssprachen im GNOMON sind: Deutsch, Englisch, Französisch, Italienisch und Lateinisch.

Der GNOMON erscheint acht Mal im Jahr.