Maier, F. G.

RERO DOC Digital Library

NOTICE OF BOOKS 257would have benefited from M. M. Willcock's 'Thefuneral games for Patroclus', BICS xx (1973) 1-11. Ingeneral P. is not at his best in handling literary evidence;he ignores the possibility that Homer's stylised accountsof boxing and wrestling in //. 23 may in some ways notbe true to life, e.g. when Epeios after defeating Euryalosdecorously puts him back on his feet (//. 23.694-5) andin the decorous wearing of loincloths.P. has written an easily digested introduction toGreek boxing, wrestling and pankration, but the lack ofeither any central thesis (he might have gone into therole of ancient sport as an outlet for aggression) or fulldiscussion of interesting problems has strangled a bookthat could have packed a weightier punch.STEPHEN INSTONEInstitute of Classical Studies, LondonEISEMAN (C. Jones) and RIDGWAY (B. Sismondo) ThePorticello shipwreck: a Mediterranean mer-chant vessel of 415-385 B.C. (Nautical archae-ology series, 2.) College Station: Texas A&MUniversity Press, 1987. Pp. xii+126, numerousillus. (incl. plates, text figs, maps, plans). $89.50.This is a model publication in many ways. It isbeautifully produced and printed, with excellent plansand illustrations, and, above all, while not shirkingconjecture and conclusion, it sets out clearly and indetail the evidence upon which any conjecture andconclusion must be based. Unless further material turnsup, looted from the site before proper investigationcould take place, the present volume would seem toprovide what any serious student requires to make uphis or her own mind about the finds.There was too little left of the ship itself to addmaterially to our knowledge of classical merchantvessels. She seems to have been between 16 and 17metres long, and perhaps of about 30 tons burden (pp.13 & 108), carvel-built in the normal classical manner.The only unusual remains of the actual vessel were aunique cleat (p. 12, fig. 2-4, and p. 16), and a possibleanti-luffing toggle (cf. p. 16, figs. 2-10 & 2-11, and pp.16-17). There is no clear indication where she camefrom, or what her destination was, though the cargocarried suggests she was headed for a port or ports in thewestern Mediterranean (pp. 109-13).There are likely to be two principal areas ofcontroversy. First, the date of the wreck: E. (p. 33) datesit to 'around the year 400 B.C., with a margin of perhapsten or fifteen years on either side', on the basis of thelamps, bolsals and cup-skyphos associated with it. Herethe bolsals are crucial, and it is possible that E.'s date forthem is too low: closer parallels, perhaps, than the oneshe cites (p. 28), are those found in the Rheneiapurification pit, giving a terminus ante quern of winter426/5 (cf. Thucydides 3.104.1-2; C. Dugas, Les vasesattiques a figures rouges, Delos 21 [Paris 1952], pi. lii, nos.167 & 168; D. W. J. Gill, The international journal ofnautical archaeology and underwater exploration xvi/2[1987], 31-3). Moreover, a date in the early 420s mightbe better for the lamps, with their comparatively thinwalls and base, and, indeed, for the cup-skyphos (cf. p.29). An earlier date, finally, would mean that therewould be no problem about how the cargo of thePorticello ship came to contain lead from Laurion at atime when the mines there were possibly closed down(cf. pp. 59-60).The second area of controversy, of course, concernsthe bronzes. R., largely on the basis of the extremelyabundant facial hair and other features of the head,tentatively suggests that they come from a groupdepicting 'Chiron and the young Achilles, perhaps alsoin the presence of Peleus and other youthful charges'(p. 106). Here it might have been easier for the reader tofollow the argument if a sketch of the proposedreconstruction had been included, but the suggestion isan attractive one, though if it is correct, one might haveexpected some fragments, at least, of the centaur'sequine parts to have survived. It is also worth notingthat R. dates the bronzes earlier than E.'s date for thewreck, and then finds it a problem that 'their wateryburial might have occurred as much as twenty-fiveyears after their manufacture' (p. 103). However, if thewreck in fact dates to the 420s, this would be less of aproblem.It is still, however, something of a puzzle how agroup of bronze statuary came to be included in a cargoalongside jars of wine and salt-fish, lead ingots and ink(cf. pp. 37-62). R. could find no evidence of intentionaldismantling of the figures, except for signs that one ofthe feet (S7/8) might have been removed form a stonebase (cf. pp. 98-9), and this would suggest that thebronzes were not being transported as scrap metal,though they might have been in the process of beingmoved to a new location; if so, they might have beenacquired as loot. If they were new, and did all form partof one group, they would have been very valuable, andmust, presumably, not only have been commissioned,but have been destined for a wealthy buyer (cf. pp. n -(2), whether private or public. If so, it would seempossible that they formed the principal item of the ship'scargo, while the rest was merely carried to fill up space.The authors thus display a commendable cautionthroughout, and yet contrive to squeeze an immenseamount of information from such scant remains: it isthis kind of painstaking analysis which is slowlyenabling us to come to a better understanding of trade inthe classical world.J. F. LAZENBYUniversity of Newcastle upon TyneLEMBA LAKKOUS. Excavations at Lemba Lakkous,1976-1983. By E. J. Peltenburg and others.(Lemba archaeological project, 1: studies in Medi-terranean archaeology, 70:1.) Goteborg: Astrom,1985. Pp. xxv+ 332, [51] plates, 86 text figs, (somefolding). Price not stated.Since 1976, the excavations of the Lemba Archaeolo-gical Project at a group of sites situated around thevillages of Lemba and Kissonerga have considerablyincreased the material evidence for the prehistory ofsouthwestern Cyprus, and at the same time have greatlyenhanced our historical understanding of the lateNeolithic and Chalcolithic periods in the island. Thisvolume is meant to be the final report on the first siteexcavated, Lemba Lakkous. It is edited by the Directorof the Lemba Archaeological Project; besides thesections written by Peltenburg himself, there is aconsiderable number of specialised contributions byhttps:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.2307/632115Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. University of Basel Library, on 11 Jul 2017 at 10:37:38, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at2 5 8 NOTICE OF BOOKSscholars working at Lemba (D. Baird, A. Betts, S.Colledge, P. Croft, C. Elliott, T. Lawrence, D. Lunt, K.Nicklasson.J. Renault-Miskovsky,J. Ridout Sharpe, E.Slater, J. Steward, P. Xenophontos).Two short introductory chapters discuss the settingof the site and its chronology (c. 3500-2400 B.C.). Thebulk of the volume consists of a very detailed and highlytechnical description and analysis of the structures andburials recovered as well as of the related finds,including the remains of fauna and plants. The ceramicevidence and the artefacts are amply documented byboth drawings and photographs (the last ones, unfortu-nately, not always of the highest quality).The publication provides the reader with a wealth ofnew and pertinent information, although it is notalways very easy to use. This is due not only to the(unavoidable) separate treatment of the two excavatedareas, but sometimes also to the difficulty—admittedlymet with very often in similar reports—of connectingthe illustrations and descriptions of the same object.In general, this final report is comprehensive, but notcomplete. On the one hand, as the editor himself pointsout in the preface, a report of this type (encompassinge.g. ca. 3 million pottery sherds) must necessarily beselective. On the other hand, a definitive appreciation ofthe data recovered at Lemba and thus a full understand-ing of the site will only be possible in the context ofother contemporary sites and surveys—an analysispromised for volume 3 of the series. Yet despite suchminor criticism, the importance of the report on LembaLakkous should be stressed again: it not only providesnew material, but also opens up new vistas in theexploration of economy and society in ChalcolithicCyprus.F. G. MAIERUniversity of ZurichBARBER (R. L. N.) The Cyclades in the Bronze Age.London: Duckworth, 1987. Pp. xviii + 283, 168illus. (incl. plates, text figs, maps, plans). ^28.00.GETZ-PREZIOSI (P.) Sculptors of the Cyclades: indi-vidual and tradition in the third millenniumB.C. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press(in association with J. Paul Getty Trust), 1987. Pp.xxii + 254, [61] plates (11 col.), 52 text figs. $65.00.The archaeology of the Cyclades is, like theirtourism, in a boom period (though each has profitedfrom the other less than one might have hoped). Theextent and variety of the field-work carried out duringthe past quarter-century has begun to be matched by theflow of publications, ranging from definitive excava-tion reports and specialised monographs to collectionsof papers and (at last!) a synthesis of the whole. Most areaimed specifically at fellow-archaeologists, leaving thenon-specialist ill served. The two books under revieware thus especially welcome. Though Barber requires ofhis readers prior knowledge of the Aegean Bronze Age,informed undergraduates can benefit from it quite asmuch as scholars with some expertise. Getz-Preziosisuccessfully aims at a much wider readership than thepurely academic.Given the circumstance that the major settlementswhich have furnished the bulk of the stratigraphic andarchitectural evidence for the Cycladic Bronze Age arestill only partially published, it required courage toattempt a synthesis. B. is better equipped than most toundertake the task, though his perverse (his own word)refusal to consult others has led to some misconceptionswhich might have been avoided: assigning to LateCycladic HI the incorporation of the water-supply intothe fortifications at Ayia Irini, for example; or assertingthat the canonical marble female figurines stand (as,indeed, they are usually exhibited), while G.-P. arguesstrongly for a reclining position. Such lapses are rare,however, in a well-researched and up-to-date (to 1984)book which covers two millennia in an admirably clearand well-organised fashion.The decision not to seek help from others no doubtderived from the sense of isolation which Barberpatently feels. Affirming his own view that 'theobjectives of the archaeologist should be primarilyhistorical', he throws down the gauntlet to proponentsof modern archaeological theory and their attempts 'tofabricate for themselves an independent discipline froma hotch-potch of materials and methods which are moreconstructively employed within the individual fields ofstudy to which they more properly belong' (24).From the sidelines, one may sympathise with thespectacle of a traditionalist rounding on those at whosehands he has probably experienced the sort of contemp-tuous arrogance which is, unfortunately, the stock intrade of some. Certainly one must applaud his honestyin making his bias so plain. From the start, the readerknows exactly where he is (and some may stop readingright there). It is a great pity that similar sentimentscreep into the text at intervals, colouring what isotherwise a conscientiously balanced account. Dislike ofRenfrew's terminology has led B. to underestimate hiscontributions to Early Cycladic studies. The accusationthat another scholar 'projects the expectations of amodern mind onto an ancient situation' (118) comesdangerously close to the pot calling the kettle black.Some useful new terms are sacrificed in the studiedavoidance of alljargon. More seriously, B.'s exhortationnot to neglect the study of contemporary landscape andway of life pays scant tribute to such investigations onMelos, and entirely overlooks the recent (admittedlyunpublished) work on Kea.Much of this is clearly deliberate, perhaps intended toenrage. It is sad that the author has felt sufficientlyprovoked to include such lapses from scholarly impar-tiality in what is designed to be—and surely willbecome—a standard text and an indispensable work ofreference. Fortunately, they are relatively infrequent,and are more than counterbalanced by one of the book'sgreat strengths: difficult problems, particularly chrono-logical ones, are never shirked. Not that one is usuallyleft in any doubt of B.'s own position. Theories heabhors (Rutter's 'gap', for instance) are consigned to thefootnotes, while his own controversial bipartite divisionof Early Cycladic HI occupies the main text. But thereare no grounds for complaint, when the alternatives arefully and fairly presented. At his best, as in his discussionof the question of Minoan colonisation of the islands, orthat of the relationship of the eruption of Thera to otherevents in the Aegean, he presents as thorough, fair andsensible an account as any this reviewer has seen.Although much has been written about the EarlyCycladic period, and the splendours of Thera havehelped to focus attention on Late Cycladic I/II, nobodyhttps:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.2307/632115Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. University of Basel Library, on 11 Jul 2017 at 10:37:38, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at

Book Review: Excavations at Lemba Lakkous, 1976-1983: Lemba Lakkous. Excavations at Lemba Lakkous, 1976-1983. By Peltenburg E. J. and others. (Lemba archaeological project, 1: studies in Mediterranean archaeology, 70:1.) Göteborg: Åström, 1985. Pp. xxv + 332, [51] plates, 86 text figs, (some folding). Price not stated

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

RERO DOC Digital Library