Review

Author(s): R. L. N. Barber
Review by: R. L. N. Barber
Source: The Journal of Hellenic Studies, Vol. 105 (1985), pp. 223-225
Published by: The Society for the Promotion of Hellenic Studies
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/631597
Accessed: 04-06-2016 11:43 UTC
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms

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

Cambridge University Press, The Society for the Promotion of Hellenic Studies are
collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Journal of Hellenic Studies

This content downloaded from 193.170.112.180 on Sat, 04 Jun 2016 11:43:57 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

NOTICES OF BOOKS 223

to Hacilar Late Neolithic types. It seems most logical to
assume that these Ayio Gala vessels predate Emporio X,
and that the sequence on Chios as a whole runs parallel
to the Late Neolithic-Late Chalcolithic of W. Anatolia.

This seems infinitely preferable to the suggestion (74)

'that the sequences at Ayio Gala and Emporio reflect
entirely different cultural traditions', and that the two
sites were settled by people from different regions. The

vexed question of the relationship of Hacilar with

earliest Beycesultan remains to be solved, and it is
possible that some of the Chios material predates the
earliest levels at Beycesultan. The clear relationship of
the Chios ceramics to those of SW Anatolia once again
highlights the lack of known Neolithic (in Anatolian
terms) sites in coastal western Anatolia; the discovery
and excavation of such sites would greatly assist in the
chronological equation of the west Anatolian sequence
with those of the off-shore islands.

Despite the uncertainties regarding the cultural

affinities of the earliest periods on the island, these
volumes represent a major contribution to our knowledge of the prehistory of Chios and of the islands of the

east Aegean in general. It is, therefore, greatly to be

regretted that their cost (total I132.50) places them
well beyond the reach of all students, most faculty
members and many libraries. Surely the use of microfiche would have greatly reduced the cost and thus
made this valuable material much more widely access-

ible?

IAN A. TODD

Brandeis University

HULT (G.) Bronze Age ashlar masonry in the

Eastern Mediterranean: Cyprus, Ugarit, and

1200 B.C. is specifically the rectangular block with flat

external face and drafted margins (e.g. Figs 7-10). An

attempt to trace it back to the end of the Middle

Cypriot Period is confused since on the one hand blocks
from the relevant site, Nitovikla, are stated to be so close
to LC II-III blocks 'that we have to assume a continuity,
within Cyprus or outside' yet on the other hand they
'did not start a tradition' of building in this manner in
Cyprus (88). Karageorghis in any case has cast doubts on
the early date of the Nitovikla blocks (V. Karageorghis,

M. Demas, Pyla-Kokkinokremos 71, n. I1). If we must

infer external stimulus for this style then we should
most probably look to N. Syria. Its appearance before the
first destructions at the end of the Cypriot Bronze Age is
now assured.
Useful and timely as this general survey is therefore,

it is designed to answer one question and so many

integral issues are not dealt with. Sketches (Figs 23-103)
moreover are no substitute for accurate drawings. Thus
an opportunity has been missed to assess if standardized

measurements, such as we know existed from Old

Testament and Egyptian sources, recur in different
groups of this sophisticated branch of architecture. The

former source in its description of the building of

Solomon's Temple also indicates the existence of

itinerant masons, just as later foreign stone-cutters were

used by the Persians, but this and other possible

explanations are not considered in dealing with the
appearance of different styles. H. has rendered us a
valuable service in collecting together this information

and she is prudently aware that many other related

aspects may now be tackled profitably and more
conveniently when she states in the Preface that this
work should 'instigate further study'.
E. J. PELTENBURG

neighbouring regions. (Studies in Mediter-

ranean archaeology, 66.) G6teborg: Astr6m. 1983.

Pp. [vi]+ 132, 103 illus. (incl. plates, text figs.), 3
maps. Sw.kr.200.

University of Edinburgh

KEOS. Results of excavations conducted by the

University of Cincinnati under the auspices

of the American School of Classical Studies

The occurrence of ashlar masonry in Cyprus c. 1200

at Athens. 3. Ayia Irini: house A. By W.

B.C. at the time of the movements of the Sea Peoples and

Willson Cummer and E. Schofield. Mainz: von

several destructions on that island has encouraged a

number of scholars to associate it with the arrival of

Zabern. 1984. Pp. xix+ 172, [89] plates. DM 128.

newcomers. Prompted by the discovery of a lead and

slab-lined bath(?)-room at Hala Sultan Tekke, Hult

In spite of its volume number, this is the first of the

surveys the East Mediterranean evidence to assess the

validity of such an interpretation. She concludes that

Keos series to deal with an aspect of the Bronze Age

settlement (Keos i= Neolithic Kephala; Keos ii not yet

there was rather 'a gradual change towards an extensive

use of ashlar masonry during the latter part of LC II (c.

published) and, as such, is a landmark in the study of the

prehistoric Aegean and the Cycladic islands in particu-

1250-1200 B.C.), not a sudden revolution in building

methods in connection with a large scale immigration'
(go). With the exception of stepped stone bases, she

lar.

finds no Aegean traits whatsoever.

building and presumably the most important in the

economic life of the community' in the period immediately before the 15th-century B.c. earthquake--its

H.'s survey embraces the Middle and Late Bronze

Ages of the Aegean, Anatolia, the Levant, including
Cyprus, and Egypt. Some areas (Cyprus and N. Syria)
are dealt with more thoroughly than others, but this

unevenness does not seem critical to the argument even

if it undermines the comprehensiveness of the survey.
What does seem unfortunate is the adherence to the
current loose definition of the word 'ashlar' which, in
effect, is any dressed block other than columns or stelae.

Thus, quite disparate pieces of dressed masonry are

pressed into a single argument, whereas the new and
widespread feature to emerge in Cypriot masonry c.

As the subtitle indicates, Keos iii is devoted to an

analysis of House A, 'almost certainly the largest single

architecture, history and functions. A complete, if

sometimes generalised, listing of finds, within their

contexts, is also provided but detailed studies of

individual classes of objects are left for separate
publication, either in other volumes of the series or

elsewhere.

A foreword (by J. L. Caskey) and an introductory

chapter (I) set the scene with an outline history of the
project, comments on the position of House A within
the site as a whole and a note of the periodic divisions

This content downloaded from 193.170.112.180 on Sat, 04 Jun 2016 11:43:57 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

224 NOTICES OF BOOKS

(I-VIII) adopted for the sequence at Ayia Irini (the main

history of House A falls within periods VI-VIII= LC

I-Illearly, though there are both earlier and later
remains from the area of the House). As regards
nomenclature, it is somewhat disconcerting to find that

the complex labelled, with eminently good reason,

House A, probably contained 'two or three buildingunits separate and distinct from House A proper' (i.e.
the Western quarter).
Chs 2 and 3 are devoted to a detailed discussion of the

rooms of House A (3) and the alleys and drains

associated with it (2). Architecture is notoriously

book, is a listing of the finds by room and context,

preceded by explanatory material which includes an
important note on the groups into which the pottery is
classified and comment on the classification of some

terracotta items and the bone tools (only). The catalogue admirably fulfils its purpose of presenting the
information on which interpretation of the history,
character and function of the rooms depends. Amongst
the finds, pottery gets the fullest treatment, because it is

the most plentiful but, in all categories, only the

inventoried material is at all fully described.

In spite of the primarily factual and objective nature
of excavation reports, and the uncertainties that arise, in

difficult to describe and ch. 2 is, perhaps inevitably,

somewhat opaque. This defect might have been mitigated, to some extent, by incorporating the plans and

this case, from the fact that not all studies of the finds are

character of and sequence in each room is carefully and

presented as a 'preliminary discussion' but contains

sections within the text. But the evidence for the

fully presented and those who wish should have no

problem in reassessing the work. Here, as elsewhere in

the volume, I was greatly impressed by the undogmatic
presentation of alternative interpretations which strikes
just the right balance between too positive assertion and
undue hesitancy. It is also clear that both excavation and
study have been carried out with a degree of care and
attention to detail which has allowed a much fuller and
more confident reconstruction than would otherwise

have been possible.

There are three further chapters, all very short,
primarily concerned with the building itself. Ch. 4
reviews its history, from the MBA structures later
incorporated into the main LC I-II complex to the scant

traces of occupation in LC III. The gradual development of the building over this period is skilfully

demonstrated.

Ch. 5 is entitled 'Reconstruction of the Building'. I

found this slightly disappointing, if an attractive idea,

perhaps because much of the content was simply a

distillation of ch. 3. Again, illustrations within the text

would have helped create a more immediate image of

the original form of the House. The illustrations
themselves are excellent, especially the plans and
sections on Pls 24 and 25, which effectively bring out the

differences between the basement and ground floor

plans (because of the nature of the site, there were
basements only under the central part of the complex).
Also noteworthy is the sequence of plans on P1. 4, which
show the remains on the site of House A at the different

periods of its existence. Evidence for the uses of the

various rooms is discussed and several convincingly
identified-bathroom, kitchen, reception room, parlour, storage and weaving areas and, more problematically, a small domestic shrine.
'Architectural Interpretation' makes up ch. 6, where

design and constructional style are discussed and

influences assessed. Certain Minoan (and/or

Mycenaean) elements are seen, though they are not

dominant: 'A visiting ambassador from Knossos would
probably have deemed it provincial, but not inelegant:
those unaccustomed to luxury may well have thought it
imposing' (ch. 5, in reference to the eastern, public part

of the building). The conclusions that local tradition

was strong and, in spite of the Minoan influence, several

distinctive Minoan features (e.g. the pier-and-door

partition) were noticeably lacking, are important for the

general character of Cycladic life at this time.

yet complete, I was glad to see the modest 'Synopsis of

the Finds' which follows the catalogue, as ch. 8. It is
some extremely important observations and provides a
foretaste of what we may expect to learn from a total
analysis of the site.
In terms of the other archaeologically better known
areas of the Aegean, the Kea stratigraphy helps to clarify

the identity and confirm the sequence of the Cretan

periods LM IB-LM II-LM IIIA, and throws some light

on the rather obscure distinction between LH IIA and

LH IIB. In the process, we see how refined the Aegean

pottery sequence has become and what a sensitive tool it
can be, if rightly used. Refreshingly, the authors remain

aware of the pitfalls involved in placing too much

reliance on pottery analysis and of those human
accidents which our analyses can never reveal and to

which they are ultimately subject. Witness the explana-

tion of the appearance of the Ephyraean Goblet-normally considered a diagnostic feature of LH IIB-in the
earlier LH II phase on Kea: 'One need think in terms of
only one ship arriving at Ayia Irini, bearing Ephyraean
Goblets and other vases of LH IIB style along with the
latest news from the Peloponnesos'.
But, in spite of the interest of the Kea material for
Crete and the Greek Mainland, its Cycladic significance
is potentially the greatest and most fascinating. For Ayia

Irini itself, the isolation of a series of meaningful

stratigraphic subdivisions within the main periodic
structure gives a strong sense of historical change and
offers the possibility of constructing a detailed picture
not only of the history of the site itself, but also of its
role within the Cycladic community in the early LBA.
In the broader Cycladic context, the excavation of this

new and important site has led to the questioning of

axioms too long accepted and too readily, if inevitably,
based on the single southern Cycladic site of Phylakopi,
and the proposal of some alternative ideas. We learn, for
instance, that the Keian pottery of LC I is not identical
to that of other islands ('the differences seem quite as
striking as the similarities')--not surprising perhaps, but

vital to know and the starting point for further

comparisons. Then there is the question of the

dominance of Cycladic culture by Crete in LC

I-II--accepted as complete, since Furumark's analysis

of the material from Phylakopi in I950. The House A
pottery casts some doubt on F.'s conclusion, showing
that there were distinctive local initiatives in pottery
decoration, at least in LC II. But the question is rightly
posed, whether we have misunderstood the Phylakopi
material or whether there was a real difference between

Ch. 7, which comprises nearly two thirds of the

This content downloaded from 193.170.112.180 on Sat, 04 Jun 2016 11:43:57 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

NOTICES OF BOOKS 225

Phylakopi and Ayia Irini in this respect in LC I-II, as
there may very well have been.
The study of inter-Cycladic relationships has been
greatly facilitated and encouraged by Keos iii. It depends

partly on our ability to recognise the products of one

island when they are found on another. At Ayia Irini,
Melian imports have been recognised but nothing from
Thera-particularly interesting when the Kea material
suggests that the revival of local initiatives in pottery
decoration may not have occurred until LC II, by which
time the site of Akrotiri had been abandoned. Investiga-

tion of this question may have exciting results for

Cycladic history of the period.
What a gold mine the Keos series will be, and Keos iii

gives a fine start to the Bronze Age volumes-excel-

indication of the course of ancient civilization on the

island as a whole.
R. F. WILLETTS
Birmingham

Phlamoudhi Vounari: a sanctuary site in Cyprus.

By S. M. S. Al-Radi. (Studies in Mediterranean
archaeology, 65.) G6teborg: Astr6m. 1983. Pp.

[v] + 136, [69] illus. (incl. plates, text figs., maps,

plans). Sw.kr. 175.

Under the sponsorship of Columbia University,

interpretation of it by reference to traditional patterns of

Edith Porada and her colleagues undertook exploration

of the hilltop site of Phlamoudhi Vounari in northern
Cyprus. This publication is the doctoral dissertation of
Selma Al-Radi who, assisted by S. M. Paley and other
members of the team, carried out excavation over a

living, carefully and sympathetically observed. A fine

tribute, too, to the late J. L. Caskey, excavator of Ayia

follow-up study of the finds.

lently combining fact and opinion, refreshingly free of

redundant theorising (not a 'model' in sight), lucidly

placing before us the evidence, and encouraging

Irini.

R. L. N. BARBER

University of Edinburgh

period of four years, 1970-1973, as well as the

Porphirios Dikaios initially discovered Phlamoudhi
Vounari in 1945 and Hector Catling further identified

the site in his survey of 1952. Dikaios and Catling

suggested that the place might be a fortification of the

WATROUS (L. V.) Lasithi: a history of settlement on

a highland plain in Crete. (Hesperia, supp. 18.)
Princeton: American School of Classical Studies at

Athens. 1982. Pp. xiv+ 89, 20 plates, 13 text figs.,

15 maps. $15.00.

Middle Bronze Age even though both had also noted

Hellenistic remains on top of the hill. The Columbia
team soon found that the fortifications were actually
recent agricultural terracing. They found three principal

periods of occupation: Late Cypriot, Cypro-Archaic II,

and Cypro-Hellenistic, and recognized that the inhabitants of each period had made use of parts of the remains

of their predecessors. The excavators identified the site

This publication is the outcome of a project initiated

in 1973 with an intensive survey of Lasithi; and its

intention is to document and discuss the history of
ancient settlement on the Plain. The area was chosen

because it was both well defined geographically and

well known archaeologically; it could thus be inten-

as a sanctuary for three reasons: continuity of use, lack of

fortifications and water source, and typology of finds.

The publication can be divided into two parts: the

first concerned with describing the site and finds; the
second focusing on its relationship to other sanctuaries.
The location of the site geologically and geographically

sively surveyed with a thoroughness permitting examination of certain economic and historical aspects of its
ancient settlement. Interpretation of the archaeological
record draws upon environmental, historical and ethno-

is brief, clear and useful, the peculiarities of the local soil

graphic sources. Because of its high location in the

types proving to have significant archaeological relevance. Descriptions of the architectural remains, with
frequent references to clear plans, are efficiently and
concisely presented. Discussion of the finds is somewhat

Diktaian mountain range, the life of the villagers there

summary, especially for the pottery, but we are told that

follows a basic seasonal pattern which is assumed

(plausibly) to have changed little since antiquity.

As W. explains, the core of his study is the chapter in

which the archaeological evidence and settlement

patterns in Lasithi from the Neolithic to the Late

the pottery will be treated in detail elsewhere. Only the

pottery important for understanding the stratigraphy is
presented here. In general, discussion of the Bronze age
levels is more thorough than that for the Iron age levels.

Roman period are discussed. However, later periods are

The second part of the book presents a compendium

of Cypriot sanctuaries of the Bronze and Iron ages and
summarizes comparative evidence from the Near East

centuries is examined; and, drawing upon descriptions

discoveries made after 1980. The final chapter concludes

not ignored. The exploitation of the Plain by the

Venetians as a source of grain in the 15th and I6th

by early travellers and older present-day villagers, so are

the conditions before mechanization was introduced.

In the past, as W. (again plausibly) argues, most

archaeologists in Crete have concentrated their efforts

on the populous coastal centres. His study is designed
(with the aid of a useful catalogue of sites and of pottery,

maps and plates, and study of prior modern explo-

ration) to afford a different view. Since Crete is an island

of mountains, the civilized centres which grew up along

the coasts of the island had their roots in these

mountains, in upland areas such as Lasithi; and furthermore, the changing patterns of settlement serve as an

and the Aegean. The original thesis does not include

that Phlamoudhi Vounari, while exhibiting some

unusual features such as the well-built platform where

cult activity presumably took place, generally conforms
well to the type of rural open-air sanctuary popular in
the Bronze age and increasingly popular in the Iron age.
The book is thorough, well researched, and generally
clearly presented although suffering in places from a
less-than-crisp organization. Typing errors are common
and punctuation is often confusing. The terminology
could have been clarified by a brief explanation of the
excavation method. Readers will value the book for the
clear picture it gives of excavations at the site, and for

This content downloaded from 193.170.112.180 on Sat, 04 Jun 2016 11:43:57 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms