Kilmer, 'Methods in the Mediterranean: Historical and Archaeological Views on Text and Archaeology', Bryn Mawr Classical Review 9511
URL = http://hegel.lib.ncsu.edu/stacks/serials/bmcr/bmcr-9511-kilmer-methods
@@@@95.11.16, Small, ed., Methods in the Mediterranean
David B. Small (ed.), Methods in the Mediterranean: Historical
and Archaeological Views on Text and Archaeology. Leiden:
E.J. Brill, 1994. Pp. 292. ISBN 90-04-09581-0.
Reviewed by Martin Kilmer, Classical Studies
-- University of Ottawa
mfkilmer@acadvm1.uottawa.ca
Like most collections, this one presents some challenges to
the reader, and more to the reviewer. There is a significant
range of expertises in the authors; a considerable range of
approachabilities; a wide range of readabilities. None of the
essays is 'bad' from my standpoint; several could have been
improved substantially by rigorous copy-editing.
To dispense first with the least important quibble: Brill
would do well to engage copy-editors whose skills in English are
greater than those exhibited here. The computer spell-checker is
no substitute for the human eye, particularly when that is
properly connected to a vigilant mind. My favourite misprint is
the title offered for a book, David Whitehead's Demes of
Africa (p. 111 n. 40), particularly since on the same page
the town Oinoe 'certainly almost enjoyed full deme status'--was
it the enjoyment that was only 'almost'? Another editorial
irritant is the use of the current buzz-suffix 'ality', which
rarely adds anything to the functionality of the root word which
more appropriately fills the task assigned to it, as this
sentence demonstrates. There are only a few cases in which a
misprint really challenges the reader to guess the sense of a
passage. But misprints are so common (averaging about 1.8 per
page--decimals always make statistics look more convincing) that
in many places my mind found it easier to 'correct' the text of a
difficult passage than to wrestle with the words as given and
work out the author's intended meaning. Did the authors not have
the chance to see their texts in final form before that became
irrevocable? If this is the case, it is unfortunate.
At several points along the line I was tempted to wonder
whether there had been a contest among the authors to see who
could use the longest and/or the most obscure words. The
combination of vocabulary heavily laced with technical terms,
with the poor proof-reading already noted, makes for more
challenge than I have time for. There is much of value here. I
do not regret that I undertook to review the book. I am quite
certain, however, that had I not undertaken the review, I would
quickly have abandoned some of these essays.
The book begins with a 22-page Introduction, in which there
are general remarks, a statement of purpose for the volume, and
short commented summaries of the articles. Part I, 'Setting an
Historian-Archaeologist Dialogue' has two articles: Stephen
Dyson's 'Is there a text in this site?' and Charles W. Hedrick
Jr.'s 'Thucydides and the beginnings of archaeology'. Dyson's is
the heavier read of the two--the in-joke of its title gives some
warning of that (see p. 26 n. 4)--but is lightened by humour.
Dyson is familiar with theoretical writing in both archaeological
and literary worlds; and his text is largely devoted to an
attempt to define and explain the kinds of 'text' that an
archaeological investigation can elicit. p. 27: 'The primary
task of the archaeologist is that of establishing meaning in
material culture, in itself a kind of reading.' p. 43 Dyson
laments the failure of most archaeological site directors to
complete the grand synthesis which is meant to be the crowning
publication of a site. Although his solution is not fully
articulated, he appears to recommend quick publication, including
the courage to speculate openly in print.
Hedrick contrasts Herodotos' and Thucydides' uses of material
evidence, giving Thucydides the palm for his nearness to
20th-century archaeological approaches. Hedrick's fondness for
tight definitions occasionally leads him into problems. p. 71
'The appearance of an excellent tool is regarded as irrelevant;
or better, as entirely dictated by the efficiency of the tool's
function, and hence as meaningless.' This notion, derived from
Aristotle, appears here as though it were a human absolute,
rather than something governed by each specific society. We
might mention Akhilles' shield, or Aeneas', or Roland's sword
Durandal--or Lt. Worf's personal weapons, the Klingon ritual
arsenal. Specifically, Thucydides is praised for his focus on
artefacts as means of gaining or maintaining power (for example
Athens' fleet); and the mediation of power becomes for Hedrick a
primary purpose of Thucydides' history.
Part II 'Specific Mediterranean Features' begins with J.
Ober's 'Greek HOROI Artifactual texts and the contingency
of meaning.' Its first segment translates the text of one such
horos-stone, 'I am the HOROS of the Agora'
HORES[[1]] EIMI TES AGORAS--a more specific and complex text than
the usual one-word inscription HOROS--and clarifies its meaning.
This text is true only so long as the boundary of the Agora
remains where the stone was placed, and only so long as the stone
remains in its position--unless stone and boundary are moved
together. Object and text are context-dependent. The stone, by
'speaking', becomes the watcher. The existence of a boundary
implies certain actions (or refrainings from action) for persons
encountering the stone. [Wisely, Ober does not address the case
of the unlettered person encountering such a verbose stone!]
Thus, the message, apparently simple and straightforward, carries
implications far beyond its obvious declared meaning. And the
stone marked simply HOROS, because of its simplicity, can be used
and re-used in private, state, or religious contexts--each
context requiring a different set of responses from the 'reader'.
This leads to a wider discussion both of the uses of horoi
in the Greek world, and of literary occurrences of the word.
There is much here of interest to archaeologist, historian,
epigrapher, and student of ancient literacy--and much that brings
the rather opaque abstract terms of literary theory into very
concrete sense. I was particularly grateful for Ober's generous
offering of definitions, e.g. p. 93. Simply telling me that some
theorists would call a horos a 'performative constative'
would not tell me very much. Here, the term is accompanied by a
lucid explanation 'that which is grammatically a statement of
fact (a truth claim with a referentially clear subject) is also
an action. That is to say, the statement does something, it
performs a significant and obviously recognizable social
function.' With this explanation, I have learned something
significant about the language of contemporary speech act theory,
and have been prepared for further excursions into Ober's views.
R. Bruce Hitchner contributes 'Historical text and
archaeological context in Roman North Africa: the Albertini
tablets and the Kasserine survey'. Modern knowledge of the
history of Roman North Africa has been developed primarily from
literary and epigraphical evidence, with some contributions from
the buildings and monuments of significant towns. Rural North
Africa, lacking such durable and visible monuments, has suffered
both neglect and misinterpretation until recently. Hitchner's
case-study demonstrates effectively how a well-conducted surface
survey can supplement (and sometimes correct) information derived
from inscriptional evidence. Here, since the area covered by the
surface survey is not the same as the territory covered by the
inscription, it is essential that Hitchner establish the validity
of the parallels he proposes. The combination of epigraphical
evidence with the finds of the surface survey contributes much
more to our knowledge of the economy of the region in question
than either can provide on its own.
David Small's contribution, 'Monuments, Laws, and Analysis:
combining archaeology and text in ancient Athens', highlights
differences between standing-monument cemeteries (e.g. the
Kerameikos at Athens) and cemeteries which do not use conspicuous
above-ground markers. Each type can contain burials with
significant richness; but the standing monuments remain visible
(and thus influence family social standing) much longer than do
burials whose wealth is completely concealed at the time of
burial. The study of cemeteries in 19th-20th c. U.S.
demonstrates some of the differences between the two types of
cemeteries. Small uses this study as a basis for re-examining
the cemeteries of Athens and, with them, some interesting aspects
of status demonstration in Classical Greece. It is particularly
unfortunate that this article suffers worst of all from the
perils of uneven editing. For example, at p. 170, I have not
succeeded in decoding the apparent sentence "The charge that
subventing these civic affairs [liturgies] was an unfair burden
on the elites is a popular elite response to such expenditure,
which should not be taken as a universal sympathy in Athens'.
Or, p. 171, '...I side with [names] who argue strongly for the
benefits of analyzing both the archaeological and textual record
as independent evidence that can make itself amenable to middle
range theorizing'. Replacing "itself" with "themselves" and
making "record" plural makes the sentence conform more closely to
syntactic norms. Definition of "middle range theorizing" would
go some way towards making it understandable. The final
paragraph (p. 173) before the Conclusion is clearly meant to be
central to the author's argument. As printed, unfortunately, I
find it incomprehensible.
Part III 'Cross-cultural Views' starts with Peter Kosso's
'Epistemic Independence between textual and material evidence'.
I found this the most difficult read of the volume; but I found
also that Kosso's uses of technical terms often clarify
them--even in the absence of formal definition--and thus
dissipate some of the opacities of the preceeding essays. Spotty
editing again gets in the way of comprehension: p. 185 'There are
similar examples within archeology where two evidential claims
are based on separate, though of the same type of artifacts of
separate but similar sites'. Revising the latter part of the
sentence to 'based on separate artifacts of the same type found
on separate but similar sites' yields sense; but there is no
guarantee that it is the sense the author intended.
The final two articles are Brian Hesse's 'Husbandry, Dietary
Taboos and the Bones of the ancient Near East: Zooarchaeology in
the post-processual world' and Paula Wapnish's 'Towards
establishing a conceptual basis for animal categories in
archaeology'. Both of these writers are hard scientists (when
did archaeology get easy?). However--perhaps because Hesse and
Wapnish knew that they were writing for a readership of
humanists--both papers are models of lucidity. Though there is
ample use of technical terms, contextual clues are offered in
abundance; and where context alone cannot be expected to assure
comprehension, both authors are generous with definitions.
I agreed to review this book for two conscious reasons: 1) its
title made it sound like a book I ought to have read; and b) I
shall be teaching a course next term intended to prepare students
to go on archaeological digs, and felt it advisable to read
enough on theory to be able to recommend books on archaeological
theory. I shall certainly include this book on the bibliography
for that course, though it will not be on the list of required
readings--at least, not the book entire. Too much of it is
written in language which many undergraduates are likely to find
daunting and frustrating. It will be clear from what I have
written, which essays I am most likely to recommend to my
students.
My general recommendation: get your library to buy the book if
it can afford to; get it on interlibrary loan if it can't. We do
need bridges between archaeologists of all stripes and the
practitioners of other specialties in the study of ancient
societies. It ought not to surprise anyone that this book does
not supply all the bridges we might wish to have. It is
certainly better to have some bridges than it is to have none.
NOTE
[[1]] Ober gives a note on this unusual form for the word.