American Journal of Archaeology

The crypt of the church of Santi Sergio e Bacco on Piazza Madonna dei Monti in Rome preserves the partial remains of a Roman structure showing multiple building phases. Tuff piers approximately 5 m tall belong to the atrium of a republican atrium house, with the surrounding rooms reflected in the adjacent spaces of the modern basement. During the Imperial period, this atrium was closed off, and a bath complex was added in adjacent rooms. The rooms preserve marble revetment, figural painted plaster of various styles, and floors of opus sectile. As a residential structure with a long occupation history, the house clarifies our impression of the lower Subura and its development as a neighborhood. When considered with other examples of atrium houses nearby, a standard lot size and house form for elite residential development can be suggested for the Subura and the southern Viminal slopes during the Republican period. Later renovations to the structure provide material evidence that a socially mixed population continued to occupy the valley of the Subura, and they demonstrate the persistent importance of the Argiletum as the primary thoroughfare of the area from the Imperial period through late antiquity.

Reviewed Works

Ayia Irini: The Western Sector, by Elizabeth Schofield, and edited with contributions by Jack L. Davis and Carol Hershenson (Keos 10). Pp. xx + 224, b&w pls. 84. Philipp von Zabern, Mainz 2011. €86. ISBN 978-3-8053-4333-6 (cloth).

Κύθηρα: Το μινωικό ιερό κορυφής στον Άγιο Γεώργιο στο Βουνό. Vol. 1, Τα προανασκαφικά και η ανασκαφή, by Yannis Sakellarakis (Βιβλιοθήκη της εν Αθήναις Αρχαιολογικής Εταιρείας 271). Pp. xii + 345, figs. 347, plans 15. Archaeological Society at Athens, Athens 2011. ISBN 978-960-8145-84-9 (paper).

Κύθηρα: Το μινωικό ιερό κορυφής στον Άγιο Γεώργιο στο Βουνό. Vol. 2, Τα ευρήματα, by Efi Sapouna-Sakellaraki, Yannis Sakellarakis, Giorgos Varoufakis, and Aimilia Banou, and edited by Yannis Sakellarakis (Βιβλιοθήκη της εν Αθήναις Αρχαιολογικής Εταιρείας 276). Pp. 507, figs. 367, b&w pls. 60. Archaeological Society at Athens, Athens 2012. ISBN 978-960-8145-84-9; 978-960-8145-92-4 (paper).

House X at Kommos: A Minoan Mansion near the Sea. Pt. 1, Architecture, Stratigraphy, and Selected Finds, edited by Maria C. Shaw and Joseph W. Shaw (Prehistory Monographs 35). Pp. xxvi + 150, figs. 56, b&w pls. 72, color pls. 12, tables 86. INSTAP Academic Press, Philadelphia 2012. $80. ISBN 978-1-93153-464-2 (cloth).

The Dams and Water Management Systems of Minoan Pseira, by Philip P. Betancourt. Pp. xviii + 91, figs. 39. INSTAP Academic Press, Philadelphia 2012. $20. ISBN 978-1-931534-66-6 (paper).

The Hagia Photia Cemetery. Vol. 2, The Pottery, by Costis Davaras and Philip P. Betancourt (Prehistory Monographs 34). Pp. xix + 164, figs. 39, pls. 70. INSTAP Academic Press, Philadelphia 2012. $80. ISBN 978-1-931534-63-5 (cloth).

Corpus of Cypriot Artefacts of the Early Bronze Age. Pt. 4, by James R. Stewart, and edited by Jennifer M. Webb and David Frankel (SIMA 3[4]). Pp. xxxiv + 240, figs. 383, b&w pls. 26, tables 26. Paul Åströms Förlag, Uppsala 2012. €90. ISBN 978-91-7081-245-3 (cloth).

Between 2008 and 2011, the joint American-Armenian project for the Archaeology and Geography of Ancient Transcaucasian Societies (Project ArAGATS) conducted archaeological excavations at the Iron Age settlement of Tsaghkahovit in central-western Armenia. This work built on research begun in 2005 to closely examine the materiality of social and political life in a rural settlement of the Achaemenid Persian empire (ca. 550–330 B.C.E.). Intensive investigations at Tsaghkahovit have revealed the remains of a community clearly enmeshed in select sociopolitical institutions of the empire yet one also committed to reproducing and revising the contours of everyday life on the Armenian highlands on its own terms. The site thus invites consideration of the quotidian material and spatial practices of imperial subjects who both sustained and attenuated the viability of Achaemenid sovereignty in the Armenian satrapy. This article reports on recent excavations and offers preliminary interpretations of the findings.

There has recently been interest in understanding the meaning of Roman metropolitan sarcophagi, particularly those decorated with mythological subject matter. Most of the previous studies have focused on sarcophagi produced in Rome and Athens. This article aims to address a specific lacuna in the scholarship by focusing on the meaning of a group of sarcophagi from Aphrodisias in Caria. These sarcophagi are decorated in relief with a columnar facade, an arcaded entablature, and human figures standing in the intercolumniations. Drawing evidence from funerary inscriptions and archaeological context, the first part of the article establishes the chronology of these sarcophagi and the social classes that commissioned them. The second part explains and contextualizes the architectural form and the “types” of human figures represented on the sarcophagus chests. The final part takes into consideration the iconography and offers explanations for the unique relief decoration by situating the sarcophagi within the social context of Asia Minor in general and of the city of Aphrodisias in particular.

Controversy over the identification of the figures on the Belvedere altar has long hindered consensus about the meaning of this important Augustan monument. Attention has focused on the chariot-riding figure previously identified as Julius Caesar, Augustus, Romulus-Quirinus, Aeneas, or even Agrippa. I argue that references in Ovid’s Fasti and the Consolatio ad Liviam, as well as the dedicatory inscription of the altar, suggest this figure depicts Nero Claudius Drusus at his funeral in 9 B.C.E., which was observed by Livia and Gaius and Lucius Caesar. The Belvedere altar advertises Augustus’ dynastic ambitions during the early years of his pontificate, revealing the importance of the Claudii Nerones in Augustus’ plans to secure his family’s place as the preeminent military guardians of Rome. By implicitly associating Drusus’ triumphant career with the promise of empire evoked by the appearance of Vesta and the ancient Trojan “pledges of empire” within the domus Augusta, the Belvedere altar represents an early articulation of the divine claims of Augustus’ household to monopolize Rome’s military responsibilities. The assimilation of divine and human households on the Belvedere altar also parallels the increasing identification of young Augustan princes as living pledges of empire and as new Dioscuri.

This article investigates the changes in foodways and cooking practices—especially in regard to the ceramic cooking assemblages—among the Celtic-speaking peoples of ancient Mediterranean France following the Roman conquest at the end of the second century B.C.E. I specifically examine the region of modern Languedoc-Roussillon using the ceramic data from the indigenous oppida of Lattara (modern Lattes), Castels à Nages, and Ambrussum, covering a period from the beginning of the third century B.C.E. through the first century C.E. I suggest that prior to the Roman conquest, during Iron Age II, there were few differences in cooking practices among the different blocks of houses at these sites. Although food was used for practices of social and political differentiation, these differences were probably manifested and articulated generally through differences in the quantity, rather than the quality, of the food. After the Roman conquest, however, particularly at the urban centers in the region, a new “high” cuisine emerged, one characterized by differences in taste and the quality of food among different social groups. These transformations were in turn likely related to important sociopolitical changes occurring in the region as local society became increasingly integrated with larger Roman colonial society.

This article proposes a speculative solution to a problem recently discovered in the Parthenon building-account inscriptions. As restored, the accounts (IG 1³ 449, lines 389–94) specify the purchase and sale of a large lot of ivory quite late in the building’s construction. Where was this ivory used? Since the ivory cannot readily be connected to Pheidias’ chryselephantine image of Athena, this material can be associated with the decoration of the Parthenon’s enormous cedar doors. In addition to a range of epigraphical and structural evidence supporting this hypothesis, the literary and archaeological data suggest a long tradition of adorning doors with gold and ivory in Greek sacred architecture. The Parthenon was a fundamental part of this tradition. Indeed, by creating a gold and ivory frame to complement and emphasize Pheidias’ gleaming statue, the Parthenon’s designers played on ancient expectations regarding divine images and enhanced the epiphanic effect of Pheidias’ masterpiece and the Parthenon as a whole.

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.

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.

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.