You are here

The Fallen and Their Swords: A New Explanation for the Rise of the Shaft Graves

The Fallen and Their Swords: A New Explanation for the Rise of the Shaft Graves

The swords deposited in the Mycenae Grave Circles are some of the most visible symbols of the emergence of a new system of social relations in Middle Helladic (MH) III–Late Helladic (LH) I. Archaeological scholarship has tended to consider the MH III–LH I rise in deposition of these objects as an index allowing us to monitor cultural change; nevertheless, the extraordinary variety in the decoration of blades suggests that the patterns of their consumption represent more than just symbolic redundancy. It is argued here that the act of depositing swords in the Shaft Graves was a significant development in the network of growing power relations at Mycenae. The individual construction and depositional context of these weapons preserve a sophisticated relationship between people and objects that sheds light on the process through which social integration developed from the midst of a low-level Middle Helladic structure. This article offers an explanation for the intense escalation in the deposition of swords in the Shaft Graves, which is then contextualized within the wider historical, diacritical, and ideological processes taking place at the time.

The Fallen and Their Swords: A New Explanation for the Rise of the Shaft Graves

By Katherine Harrell

American Journal of Archaeology Vol. 118, No. 1 (January 2014), pp. 3–17

DOI: 10.3764/aja.118.1.0003

© 2014 Archaeological Institute of America

A Letter from the Editor-in-Chief

A Letter from the Editor-in-Chief

Download Article PDF (Open Access)

In preparation for writing my first letter as Editor-in-Chief, I read with great profit and considerable amusement the article by A.A. Donohue entitled “One Hundred Years of the American Journal of Archaeology: An Archival History,” published in the centennial issue of the AJA (89 [1985] 3–30). Much has changed since the Journal was first launched in 1885. Book reviewers are no longer paid (they apparently made at least $3.00 a page in the 1920s), and Renaissance art and American archaeology are no longer subjects covered in its pages. And while the AJA is now on a more sound financial footing than it was for much of its early history, there are still concerns about the dwindling number of subscribers and the need to increase the endowment. Of course, any challenges I might confront as Editor-in-Chief pale in comparison with those faced by the individuals who held this position during the two world wars or the stock-market crash of 1929, although there are some that are familiar: Mary Hamilton Swindler, the first female editor of the AJA (1932–1946), occasionally bemoaned that some contributors seemed unable to conform to the AJA format. I have also read through the editorial statements of my distinguished predecessors, a process that was both edifying and humbling. I want to respect this long and distinguished history of the AJA as I move the Journal forward, and I am honored to have been chosen as the new Editor-in-Chief.

My vision for the AJA is straightforward: to process and review manuscript submissions in a timely fashion, to publish as swiftly as possible the results of recent archaeological fieldwork, and to encourage the submission of thought-provoking interpretive articles. I welcome the more experimental ideas of younger scholars and hope to expand our international outreach; the latter has already been greatly facilitated by the online submission system. I will continue the Forum section initiated by the previous Editor-in-Chief and would welcome for this purpose articles on a specific topic or problem, including but not limited to issues of methodology or theoretical approaches in archaeology, current trends and future avenues of research, and controversies or current debates in the field. To foster intellectual and scholarly debate, I am reintroducing the Archaeological Notes section of the Journal. These short notes might respond in a formal way to topics discussed in the Forum or to interpretations put forth in articles; they may also announce new finds or new discoveries or take the form of a Letter to the Editor. In accordance with long-standing editorial policy, the AJA will continue to focus on “the art and archaeology of ancient Europe and the Mediterranean world, including the Near East and Egypt, from prehistoric to Late Antique times.” And as the official journal of the Archaeological Institute of America, the AJA will not publish any articles, forum pieces, notes, or reviews of books that discuss objects acquired after 30 December 1973 (for complete details, see AJA 109 [2005] 135–36).

I believe that the AJA remains one of the leading academic journals for Old World archaeology. The rigorous blind peer-review process and the meticulous care taken in copyediting and production by the staff in Boston ensure the journal’s place as a premier venue for scholarly publishing in archaeology. Indeed, it is clear from manuscript submissions that publishing in the AJA is an important and much-desired achievement for scholars approaching tenure both in North America and Europe. There are, however, several challenges that we currently face, including the decrease in the number of print subscriptions, the issue of open access to the publication of archaeological excavation and research funded through public monies, and the difficulties in finding colleagues to review manuscripts, particularly in an age of ever-increasing administrative duties. The need to endow the editorship, a cause my predecessor also championed, is a particularly important goal, which will help ensure the future of the Journal; in the current financial climate, many universities are unable or unwilling to provide the necessary support for faculty to take on this vital and time-consuming professional responsibility. I would also like to expand the size of the Journal, but this task will require additional resources, as the editorial staff is at the limit of the number of pages they can handle effectively and professionally. All four issues for 2014 are already filled; at the time of this writing, I am working on submissions for the first issue of 2015.

On a positive note, I am happy to announce that Derek Counts and Elisabetta Cova will stay on as Book Review Editors; I am grateful for their willingness to continue in this important role and for the generous support they receive from the University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee. A new Advisory Board has been appointed; I plan to rely heavily on their expertise and counsel to help define and shape the Journal, and I thank them for agreeing to serve.

I owe a tremendous debt of gratitude to my predecessor, Naomi J. Norman, who provided helpful advice and assistance during the transition and who graciously agreed to see through as editor the October 2013 issue while I learned the ropes of my new position. Under her editorship, the AJA moved to a wholly online system for manuscript submission and peer review, which has made the process much more streamlined and efficient and the status of submissions easier for the editorial staff to monitor; Naomi also initiated the posting of open access content on the AJA website. I am very grateful for all her hard work on behalf of the Journal, and I wish her all the best.

Nothing would get done without the devotion, hard work, and professional acumen of the production staff in Boston: Madeleine Donachie, Director of Publishing; Katrina Swartz, Editor; and Vanessa Lord, Electronic Content Editor. In the editorial office at Duke University, I am very ably assisted by Elizabeth Baltes, an advanced graduate student in Greek art and archaeology, and Tara Trahey, an undergraduate major in art history. For the new cover design that appears with this issue, I must thank my colleague Raquel Salvatella de Prada, Assistant Professor of the Practice of Visual and Media Arts, who kindly donated her time, talent, and expertise. Finally, I would like to acknowledge the generous support of the deans of Duke University’s Trinity College of Arts & Sciences, and of Hans van Miegroet, chair of the Department of Art, Art History & Visual Studies, which made it possible for me to take on this important professional responsibility.

A Letter from the Editor-in-Chief

By Sheila Dillon

American Journal of Archaeology Vol. 118, No. 1 (January 2014), pp. 1–2

DOI: 10.3764/aja.118.1.0001

© 2014 Archaeological Institute of America

Painters, Potters, and the Scale of the Attic Vase-Painting Industry

Painters, Potters, and the Scale of the Attic Vase-Painting Industry

Download Appendix PDF (Open Access)

This article investigates the population of the Attic vase-painting industry during the sixth and fifth centuries B.C.E. It reveals a pattern for more than 40 of the most prolific vase painters. Each painter has approximately the same “attribution rate,” the average number of known vases per year of activity. However, several less productive painters have markedly lower attribution rates. An ethnographically based model predicts two primary modes of activity: specialized painters who were hired by master potters, and painters who also regularly threw their own vases. The evidence for potting is assessed for more than 60 painters to determine which of the modes they resemble. Almost every painter with evidence for specialization also has a high attribution rate, whereas low productivity is typical of the painters who spent part of their time potting. In conclusion, the attribution rate is used to argue for some combinations of hands and to examine the production and population of the Attic vase-painting industry as a whole. Fewer than 75 painters and potters were active by the Early Classical acme of the vase-painting industry.

Painters, Potters, and the Scale of the Attic Vase-Painting Industry

By Philip Sapirstein

American Journal of Archaeology Vol. 117, No. 4 (October 2013), pp. 493–510

DOI: 10.3764/aja.117.4.0493

© 2013 Archaeological Institute of America

October 2013 (117.4)

Review Article

Some Comprehensive New Publications on Ancient Macedonia

Some Comprehensive New Publications on Ancient Macedonia

Reviewed Works

Das Palmettengrab in Lefkadia, by Katerina Rhomiopoulou and Barbara Schmidt-Dounas, with a chapter by Hariklia Brecoulaki (AM-BH 21). Pp. 166, figs. 18, b&w pls. 33, color pls. 19, maps 8. Philipp von Zabern, Darmstadt 2010. €59.90. ISBN 978-3-0053-4206-3 (cloth). 
 
Brill's Companion to Ancient Macedon: Studies in the Archaeology and History of Macedon, 650 BC–300 AD, edited by Robin J. Lane Fox. Pp. xiii + 642, figs. 73, map 1. Brill, Leiden and Boston 2011. $251. ISBN 978-90-04-20650-2 (cloth). 
 
A Companion to Ancient Macedonia, edited by Joseph Roisman and Ian Worthington (Blackwell Companions to the Ancient World). Pp. xxvi + 668, figs. 4, pls. 28, maps 10. Wiley-Blackwell, Chichester, England, and Malden, Mass. 2010. $199.95. ISBN 978-1-4051-7936-2 (cloth). 
 
Heracles to Alexander the Great: Treasures from the Royal Capital of Macedon, a Hellenic Kingdom in the Age of Democracy, edited by Angeliki Kottaridi. Pp. 271, figs. 268, maps 3. Ashmolean Museum of Art and Archeology, Oxford 2011. $45. ISBN 978-1-85444-254-3 (paper).
 
Au royaume dAlexandre le Grand: La Macédoine antique, edited by Sophie Descamps-Lequime, with Katerina Charatzopoulou. Pp. 728, figs. 620. Musée du Louvre, Paris 2011. $108. ISBN 978-2-35031-340-5 (cloth).

Some Comprehensive New Publications on Ancient Macedonia

By Beryl Barr-Sharrar

American Journal of Archaeology Vol. 117, No. 4 (October 2013), pp. 599–608

DOI: 10.3764/aja.117.4.0599

© 2013 Archaeological Institute of America

Minding the Gap

Minding the Gap

Mode and Model in the Flavian Female Portrait

Mode and Model in the Flavian Female Portrait

Portraits of the Flavian imperial women, Julia Titi and Domitia Longina, bear a new coiffure that sets them off from portraits of Julio-Claudian women. The coiffure, with its high brim of curls, or toupet, is identified with the last generation of Flavian women, although it outlasted them and continued to be represented in the early second century C.E. Furthermore, the toupet adorns many private portraits that have been dated to after 81 C.E. The scholarship assumes that private portraits derived from imperial models, but it is time to reconsider the established chronology and conventional attitudes about imperial influence and fashion, adornment, and privilege. It is challenging to identify portraits and to distinguish imperial portraits from private portraits. In particular, scholars have depended on biographies from ancient historians to differentiate imperial women’s features, although portraits tend toward homogeneity and established styles.

Mode and Model in the Flavian Female Portrait

By Eve D’Ambra

American Journal of Archaeology Vol. 117, No. 4 (October 2013), pp. 511–525

DOI: 10.3764/aja.117.4.0511

© 2013 Archaeological Institute of America

July 2013 (117.3)

Online Necrology

Evelyn Byrd Harrison, 1920–2012

Evelyn Byrd Harrison, 1920–2012

Evelyn Byrd Harrison was born 5 June 1920 in Charlottesville, Virginia, and graduated from John Marshall High School in Richmond. She was descended from two First Families of Virginia, lineages recognized as belonging among the first wave of English settlers to colonize Jamestown in the 17th century. The Byrds became a lasting and prominent political dynasty in Virginia, as did the Harrisons, who produced Virginia governors and two American presidents. As a southerner, Harrison was proud of her family heritage, which even boasted distant kinship to Pocahontas, but her life and her life’s work was spent in other places. She came north for her education, receiving her A.B. from Barnard College in 1941 and completing her M.A. at Columbia University in 1943. She then had a break in her studies. Like many of her peers, she was enlisted in the war effort, serving as a Research Analytic Specialist until 1945, where she worked on encryption and code breaking. Believing that as a classicist she had superior language skills, the army gave her a crash course in Japanese and then set her to translating intercepted Japanese messages for the War Department.

By 1946, she had resumed doctoral studies at Columbia, studying with William Bell Dinsmoor and Margarete Bieber, and in 1949 she joined the staff of the excavations of the Athenian Agora conducted by the American School of Classical Studies at Athens. Her dissertation on the portrait sculpture from the Agora came out of this work. It was revised and published in 1953, the year after she was awarded her Ph.D., under the title Portrait Sculpture.1 It inaugurated the Agora excavation series. In 1965, Harrison contributed Archaic and Archaistic Sculpture to the series. She wrote in its preface, “[t]he Agora sculpture helps us to understand the everyday background from which the great Athenian sculpture sprang and the working of the tradition which kept these inventions alive for the enjoyment of later ages.”2 Exploring this interplay was a hallmark of her scholarly output. Both books, which came early in her career, represented important contributions to the history of Greek sculpture and secured her place in the field. Her superb eye, her analytical intellect, and her gifts as a writer abound in these works.

Her teaching career began at the University of Cincinnati in 1951, where in addition to art history she taught first-year Greek and Latin. Between 1953 and 1955, she returned to research at the Agora excavations before joining the faculty of the Department of Art History and Archaeology of Columbia University, where she was named full professor in 1967. Following her time at Columbia, she spent four years at Princeton University; she was the first woman to become full professor in the Department of Art History and Archaeology. In 1974, she joined the faculty of the Institute of Fine Arts, New York University, as Edith Kitzmiller Professor of the History of Fine Arts. She became professor emerita in 1992 but continued teaching at the institute until 2006.

Throughout her long career, she spent almost every summer at the American School of Classical Studies at Athens, studying the material from the Agora and elsewhere. This meant that her unusually sharp eyes were continually honed. She possessed an uncommon visual command of Greek sculpture akin to a mental database that allowed her to readily call up images of everything she had ever seen. This visual acuity, along with her deep and broad knowledge of the ancient world, grounded her scholarly pursuits. Above all, her interest was in iconography, in uncovering and understanding the meaning of sculpture, monuments, and architecture, especially within the context of fifth-century Greece, although her publications ranged from the Daedalic period to the age of Constantine. She was a master of using details, often from fragments, to point to a deeper understanding of Greek history, culture, and society. The questions she posed were basic. For example, she wanted to know who was being represented, what story or myth was being told, why it was being told in a certain way at a certain time, and how that ultimately fit into the larger scheme of life during that period. In Athens, she taught generations of students in excavations and museums. No one was more inspiring in front of ancient sculpture.

Her research as an art historian always proceeded first from the object. She began by intensely looking at and examining what she was studying and from there proceeded into close analysis. She possessed a phenomenal capacity to analyze style. In particular, her contributions to style analyses of costume, including hair and dress, down to details such as how particular folds draped, played an important role in suggesting dates for sculpture and monuments and placing them into an overall fifth-century chronology, a period in which few securely dated pieces exist.

Equally important, she translated her research and hypotheses into books and articles that were admired for their well thought out, methodical arguments and their precise language. Her writing also evoked her empathetic connection to the ancient world and its inhabitants. For example, her description of a marble miniature of Julia Domna brings the sculpture to life: “Expressive eyes and mobile mouth convey the vivid personality of the Syrian-born empress, to whom the Athenians gave divine honors.”3 And the sculptural quality of Athena’s hair evokes much more when Harrison suggests “[w]e are tempted to recall that Athena’s birthday was in midsummer, when the strong north wind stirs up the Aegean in just such lively waves.”4

Her years at the Institute of Fine Arts were prolific. She published numerous articles, including an important three-part series “Alkamenes’ Sculptures for the Hephaisteion.”5 These years were also devoted to teaching as well as mentoring her Ph.D. students. She was very discriminating in the doctoral candidates she took on, choosing them not only for their talent but also for the potential she saw in them. Often, she could discern the direction of their interests before they did, and she was extremely skillful in assigning research topics that well suited them. As a mentor, she tended to teach by listening, guiding, and showing, rather than telling. For instance, she might suggest, then demonstrate how a particular fragment fit into a sculpture, something that could be difficult for those in training to see at first. And she was always generous with her time, making herself available to talk through questions and problems. In fact, an afternoon conversation with her could last an hour or much longer and range over the entire ancient world, from sculpture to politics to literature. She was famous for her erudition, which spanned the ancient world. If a point of interest arose that she was not familiar with, her own deep sense of curiosity would propel her to investigate it for herself.

Outwardly she possessed a courtly southern manner and always had a ready smile, but immediately underneath this gracious exterior was the force of her fierce intellect. She could be intimidating, yet she was also deeply admired, especially by her students. On a day-to-day basis they witnessed her commitment to teaching and to scholarship. As “Miss Harrison students” they experienced her loyalty in supporting them through their degrees and into the next phases of their careers. She was unfailingly helpful, not only as a teacher but in practical matters, too, such as steering them toward appropriate fellowship opportunities and advocating that they receive fair pay for their work, including student jobs.

As an éminence grise in the field of Greek sculpture, Harrison was among a small group of noted experts asked to give their professional opinions when the J. Paul Getty Museum was in the process of acquiring a controversial kouros. Was it right or not? Was it a fake? Ultimately, the conclusion would rely heavily on the trained eyes of this small cadre of experts. On seeing the kouros, Harrison’s immediate response was subdued and unequivocal. She simply indicated that she was sorry to hear the Getty was about to complete the purchase of the statue. Somewhat surprisingly, the story of her role in the Getty kouros controversy crossed into the realm of popular culture when it was featured in Gladwell’s book Blink: the Power of Thinking Without Thinking.6 It served as the lead-in case study setting up the book’s premise that first impressions are generally right because they are based on a surfeit of underlying experience and knowledge that merge into instant judgments that are usually intuitively sound. Harrison's immediate and assured response to the questionable Getty kouros beautifully demonstrated Gladwell’s hypothesis. At the same time, this story does not begin to do justice to the depth of her scholarship and accomplishments, which yielded her profound knowledge of ancient Greek sculpture. Her reaction to the Getty kouros was prefigured some 40 years earlier when she wrote of a particular image, “our plates appear distressingly different from those of a museum catalogue. One does not see by a glance at Plate 1 that the fragments shown there belong to a kouros better than the one in New York. One learns it by studying.”7

Her distinction, long recognized by her students and colleagues, was publicly marked by election to the American Philosophical Society, the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, and the Deutsches Archäologisches Institut, and by an honorary degree from the National and Kapodistrian University of Athens. She bore these honors, and others, lightly. After a long and distinguished career, she was awarded the Archaeological Institute of America’s Gold Medal for Distinguished Archaeological Achievement in 1992. She brought immense gifts to her profession as an art historian that combined with her commitment to scholarship to ensure she played a significant role in shaping the course of classical art history during the second half of the 20th century, one that deepened our understanding of individual works of art and broadened our awareness of their archaeological, cultural, and historical context. Evelyn Byrd Harrison died peacefully at home in New York on 3 November 2012.

Institute of Fine Arts, New York University
New York, New York 10075

Works Cited

Gladwell, M. 2005. Blink: The Power of Thinking Without Thinking. New York: Little, Brown and Co.

Harrison, E.B. 1953. Portrait Sculpture. Agora 1. Princeton: American School of Classical Studies at Athens.

Harrison, E.B. 1960. Ancient Portraits from the Athenian Agora. AgoraPicBk 5. Princeton: American School of Classical Studies at Athens.

Harrison, E.B. 1965. Archaic and Archaistic Sculpture. Agora 11. Princeton: American School of Classical Studies at Athens.

Harrison, E.B. 1967. “Athena and Athens in the East Pediment of the Parthenon.” AJA 71(1):27–58.

Harrison, E.B. 1977a. “Alkamenes’ Sculptures for the Hephaisteion: Part I, the Cult Statues.” AJA 81(2):137–78.

Harrison, E.B. 1977b. “Alkamenes’ Sculptures for the Hephaisteion: Part II, the Base.” AJA 81(3):265–87.

Harrison, E.B. 1977c. “Alkamenes’ Sculptures for the Hephaisteion: Part III, Iconography and Style.” AJA 81(4):411–26.

  • 1. Harrison 1953.
  • 2. Harrison 1965, vi.
  • 3. Harrison 1960, fig. 23 (caption).
  • 4. Harrison 1967, 39.
  • 5. Harrison 1977a, 1977b, 1977c.
  • 6. Gladwell 2005.
  • 7. Harrison 1965, v.

Necrology: Evelyn Byrd Harrison, 1920–2012

By James R. McCredie

American Journal of Archaeology Vol. 117, No. 3  (July 2013)

Published online at http://www.ajaonline.org/online-necrology/1605

DOI: 10.3764/ajaonline1173.McCredie

July 2013 (117.3)

Field Report

Pompeii Forum Project: Current Thinking on the Pompeii Forum

Pompeii Forum Project: Current Thinking on the Pompeii Forum

This article details the most recent activities of the Pompeii Forum Project. Recent field studies and completion of the analysis of context materials from excavations in 1997 and 2001 allow a detailed appraisal of the early history of the Pompeii Forum from the Samnite period onward. The results are radical. The old so-called Altstadt theory for the birth of Pompeii and especially the belief in a grand Hellenized Samnite-phase city move into the realm of creation myth, replaced by a new and archaeologically supported understanding of the evolution of the city in Late Republican and Augustan times. The new understanding of Pompeii’s early development harmonizes closely with recent discoveries, by numerous other archaeological teams, concerning the Archaic through the Samnite periods throughout the city and with recent studies of parallel urban development elsewhere in southern Italy in the first century B.C.E. A summary of the scholarly record since 1980 documents the initial radical transformation of our understanding of Pompeii’s overall urban development. The Samnite, Sullan, and Augustan phases of the forum are explicated as a chronological overview. In the near future we will publish a follow-up article that will present the trenches excavated in 2001, including Archer Martin and Raffaele de Palma’s analysis of the context materials from our excavations in 1997 and 2001, plus an initial discussion of how the entirely unexpected context materials have forced us to reconsider our understanding of the Augustan contribution to the Pompeii Forum. Ultimately, the Pompeii Forum Project will publish a comprehensive monograph on the forum, the buildings surrounding it, and associated urbanistic interpretation.

Pompeii Forum Project: Current Thinking on the Pompeii Forum

By Larry F. Ball and John J. Dobbins

American Journal of Archaeology Vol. 117, No. 3  (July 2013), pp. 461–492

DOI: 10.3764/aja.117.3.0461

© 2013 Archaeological Institute of America

Crafts, Specialists, and Markets in Mycenaean Greece

Crafts, Specialists, and Markets in Mycenaean Greece

The Word is Not Enough: A New Approach to Assessing Monumental Inscriptions. A Case Study from Roman Ephesos

The Word is Not Enough: A New Approach to Assessing Monumental Inscriptions. A Case Study from Roman Ephesos

This work defines a clear set of monumental criteria for examining an inscription’s monumental appearance, including the appearance of the text (e.g., its arrangement on the monument, the use of decorations, variations in letter size, and, in the case of bilingual inscriptions, the presentation of two different languages) and its relationship to the monumental context (in its architectural setting and the urban context). The criteria are applied in a case study at Ephesos that is divided into two sections. The first section considers a series of three monuments at the Tetragonos Agora that date between ca. 3 B.C.E. and 130 C.E. The second applies the criteria to a broader range of material in a series of projects from two different contexts. The methodology demonstrates how an assessment of epigraphic monumentality can provide complementary information to that provided by the standard format of published inscriptions and how this information is applicable to a broader range of scholars.

The Word is Not Enough: A New Approach to Assessing Monumental Inscriptions. A Case Study from Roman Ephesos

By Abigail S. Graham

American Journal of Archaeology Vol. 117, No. 3  (July 2013), pp. 383–412

DOI: 10.3764/aja.117.3.0383

© 2013 Archaeological Institute of America

Pages

Subscribe to American Journal of Archaeology RSS