BMCR 2009.05.07: Shipley on Hallager, Proceedings of the Danish Institute at Athens, volume 5

Erik Hallager, Jesper Tae Jensen (ed.), Proceedings of the Danish
Institute at Athens, volume 5.  Athens:  Danish Institute at Athens,
2007.  Pp. 212.  ISBN 978-87-7288-725-8.  EUR 40.95; $39.95 (pb).

Reviewed by D.G.J. Shipley, Leicester ([email protected])
Word count:  3231 words
-------------------------------
To read a print-formatted version of this review, see
http://bmcr.brynmawr.edu/2009/2009-05-07.html
To comment on this review, see
http://www.bmcreview.org/2009/05/20090507.html
-------------------------------

The fifth volume of Proceedings of the Danish Institute at Athens
contains papers on a wide range of subjects. Their titles and page
numbers are listed at the end of this review, after some methodological
musings about periodicals.[[1]]

No one who has been aware of the output of over the years by
Andreadaki-Vlasaki and Hallager will have any doubt as to the quality
of their scholarship. In the first paper of the volume, dealing with
clay tablets from Khania, they observe (17) that one of their Linear A
tablets (which they suspect is as early as LM I A) may be the oldest
inscription found there, and that at least two signs were previously
unattested.

Christophilopoulou's paper on late Geometric and early archaic houses
and households at on Andros (at Zagora) and Siphnos is inspired by,
among other things, Schiffer's splendid dictum that 'archaeological
contexts are not systemic contexts' -- that is, excavated deposits are
not necessarily snapshots of the use of space and the artefacts found
in it at any one moment in the past. While I found it hard to match her
first description of a Zagora house to the related plan (25 and fig.
1), and while it is hard to build much on the very imperfect Siphnian
data, she makes a good theoretical case for the flexible and multiple
use of domestic space, especially in one-roomed structures.

The next four papers present interim fieldwork reports. Dietz and
others offer the first report on the Kalydon project (up to 2004). Its
somewhat narrative opening is offset by splendid plans of surface
remains, sherd densities, and geophysical surveys. A brief account of
work on the rectangular theatre, again excellently illustrated, is
followed by discussion of a fine Hellenistic house with a 'cult room'
containing sculptures and architectural terracottas. Several groups of
lamps are presented, commendably, as coherent assemblages. A short note
on Roman houses on the acropolis, where work was still in progress,
concludes the paper. Preliminary reports are politically necessary even
if the interim conclusions are often revised later, but the importance
of the data offered here speaks for itself.

Next come three papers on the Zea harbour project at Piraeus. The first
is a a summative report, by Love/n and others, on several seasons' work
up to 2006. Again the quality of the discoveries is outstanding, as may
be instanced by excellent photographs of the underwater remains of
shipsheds (mostly from above the water yet very clear).[[2]] The
complexity of the architecture, evidenced by underwater structures and
open-air rock-cut foundations, chimes in well with current work
elsewhere on Greek shipsheds that highlights the colossal investment
some cities made in naval constructions. At Zea, at nearby Mikrolimano
(Mounichia harbour), and on the Mounichia acropolis the Danish team has
added substantially to our knowledge of the Piraeus fortifications
(some 2 km long). Three specific towers are the subject of Nielsen's
detailed chronological and architectural study that follows -- again
superbly illustrated. Schaldemose's report on the roof-tiles and
hypothetical roof architecture of the shipsheds is essentially work in
progress.[[3]] Though much of her short paper is concerned with
technicalities, she notes that this was one of the largest roofed
structures anywhere in classical Greece (94).

The last three papers take us away from archaeological fieldwork.
Jeppesen begins his long paper on the Parthenon frieze by raising
doubts about the reconstruction in Berger's 1996 edited volume, on the
basis of iconography and layout. The folded cloth, he argues, cannot be
Athena's peplos since it is smaller than the sources imply (109). On
the basis of attributes, the Athena is not Athena Polias (112-13). The
ten tribal heroes are not present on the east frieze (103-8); some of
the figures in question are the phylobasileis in charge of phratries,
others are Attic heroes. The drama of the whole frieze involves Aigeus
and his son Theseus, here acknowledged as a pan-Ionian figurehead
(115). Brief discussions follow of literary sources, of the figures on
the east frieze (123-35), and of the processions on the other three
sides (135-42). Detailed reconstruction of the action (142-60) leads to
the conclusion that the frieze depicts 'the time when Theseus had come
to Athens and had been recognized by Aigeus as his legitimate son and
heir', and that the procession is the Anarrhysis, day 2 of the
Apatouria. An appendix (162-9) gives further figure-by-figure analysis
of the figures on the east frieze in support of these conclusions; here
Jeppesen proposes (166) that the seated deities are 'those to whom
sacrifices were brought at the altar of the Twelve Gods', proving that
the drama is not set on the Acropolis. This level of detail is probably
justified in such a contested field, but the complexity of exposition
could have been mitigated, particularly for those who (like me) are not
specialists in classical art, by giving more signposts. Whatever
response the conclusions may provoke, there is no doubting their
importance as a contribution to debate. Their publication here (and
online at the DIA website
(http://www.diathens.com/Beretning%202004-6.pdf ) ) confirms that what
might be called a minor journal -- on this point see below -- can
contain first-class work.

Corso's paper has less grandiose aims, but does deal with 'the most
copied statue in Antiquity' (175), the Knidian Aphrodite of Praxiteles.
Exploring the Athenian Konon's links to Knidos -- specifically the
founding by him of a sanctuary of Aphrodite Euploia -- and evidence of
links between his son Timotheos (the famous general) and the workshop
of Praxiteles, Corso suggests that it was precisely because of the
Timotheos-Konon connection that the Knidians commissioned the statue
from Praxiteles. Events are contextualized within the career of
Maussollos, and the innovative naked representation of the goddess is
linked to Praxiteles' closeness to Plato and the latter's theory of
absolute qualities. Exhaustively documented, this second adventurous
art-historical paper will maintain the reputation of the journal,
whether or not experts on art history find it persuasive.

The final paper, Bek's theoretical discussion of landscape perception
(first aired at a 1998 conference), reminds us that the DIA is not just
a classical but a cultural institute. Starting from observations about
the absence from European languages before the 16th century of words
corresponding to 'landscape' in its general sense, she moves to a
priori theorization about human vision. The Renaissance brought a new
emphasis on horizontality, as opposed to 'the vertical field of vision'
with which the brain presents itself (201). Euclid's 'cone of vision',
emphasizing the object closest to the beholder but not conceiving it as
having depth, was exploited by Vitruvius with respect to
wall-paintings, though his topiagraphia (sic)[[4]] is concerned more
with the arrangement of value-laden motifs than with integrated
landscape depiction. It was not before the Hellenistic period that 'a
more pictorial totality' of sanctuary complexes was designed (209),
perhaps reflecting a distrust in the ultimate solidity of objects. In
appreciating what we call natural landscapes, then, the Greeks will
have fixed on 'the solid forms of capes and islands, cliffs and rocks
that made up the fix-points for the sailor', not on 'landscape as a
totality to be perceived visually, or conceived of as an aesthetic
category' (211). This is a potentially important exploratory paper,
whose implications deserve to be examined by both art historians and
archaeologists.[[5]]

The production of the volume is generally good, though in the review
copy pp. 89-94 are somewhat insecurely 'tipped in' (perhaps a
commendable measure to replace faulty originals). The page size is
generous, as wide as A4 but shorter. The text is set in Caslon,
adequately large (12 point?) but without 'real' italics (the letters
merely lean over -- look at the lower-case 'a's; this was not the case
in volumes 1-4) and with an inelegant change into another font for
Greek (which, whenever it appears, has a fair smattering of errors).
The two-column layout makes for easy reading. Plentiful monochrome
illustrations, integrated into the text, show well on the clay-coated
paper. The order of the papers has clearly been carefully thought out.
One final, rather obvious, point should be made: though it is a Danish
journal, it is in English (idiomatic, clear English, with only a few
exceptions in two papers).

Certain general questions face the reviewer of what appears, at first
sight, to be a volume of a journal. PDIA has in fact appeared somewhat
irregularly (1995, 1998, 2000, 2004, 2007 -- despite the statements, in
the prefaces to volumes 1-3, that biennial publication is planned) and
has no titular year (though here, for the first time, the year of
publication appears on the title page), no abstracts, and no visible
ISSN. Is it a journal or is it another kind of work, such as one in a
series of occasional volumes of studies? It is shelved as a periodical
in the library of the Institute of Classical Studies in London. It
shares various features with many journals: soft cover (with a single
colour illustration filling both front and back cover), no index
(though some journals have them), no necessary connection between the
subjects covered. Even the fact that one paper (Jeppesen's) is
available for free download from the Danish Institute at Athens
(www.diathens.com)  distinguishes this from a multi-authored or edited
volume. The ISSN website (www.issn.org)  defines a serial as 'A
publication . . . issued in successive parts, usually having numerical
or chronological designations and intended to be continued with no
predetermined end. . . Serials include periodicals . . .' One is left
to infer that a periodical (or journal) appears, or is intended to
appear, at stated intervals, perhaps regular intervals but not
necessarily so. On this point it is worth noting that if PDIA 3 had
appeared in 2001 the series would in fact be exactly triennial. On this
basis it clearly qualifies as a serial and a periodical (journal).
While it does not yet feature in Ulrich's Periodicals Directory
(www.ulrichsweb.com) , this may be a coincidence, since similar
journals of foreign institutes in Athens do appear.

PDIA is thus one of a plethora of journals from individual European
research entities. Some appear on line as well as on paper, with or
without a 'moving wall'. The American School of Classical Studies at
Athens (http://www.ascsa.edu.gr/)  (located in Europe, but of course
with a base elsewhere) has put on line most of its publications more
than a few years old. The British School at Athens
(http://www.bsa.ac.uk)  is reported to be about to do the same with its
Annual. Swathes of publications from other foreign institutes in
Greece, and from national institutes and academies elsewhere, are now
available for download; an outstanding example is the
government-supported portal Hrcak (http://hrcak.srce.hr/) , which gives
instant access to 185 Croatian journals. At the time of writing,
however, the website of the Danish Institute at Athens
(http://www.diathens.com/)  offers us only the tables of contents of
PDIA (without page numbers), plus the single paper already mentioned.

For many research institutions, a house journal is a badge of honour, a
laudable ambition, even a way to a seat at the top table; yet some
choose not to undertake the labour and expense, perhaps aware that
others have started a journal but failed to sustain a regular
publication schedule. Foreign institutes in Greece are of course
required to publish their field research, and at present hard-copy
publication seems to be the default option -- and perhaps a legal
requirement. If that it were not so, would it not make sense for a
small institute to save the expense of printing and distribution and
confine itself to on-line publication? Might it not also be better for
authors' careers to place their work in more widely circulated, more
'prestigious' venues? We can answer both questions in the negative very
readily if we only recall the diplomatic value of exchanges of
publications between cultural bodies, and between foreign institutes
and the authorities of their host countries. The impact of such
face-to-face courtesies cannot be overstated, as anyone knows who has
worked in the Mediterranean.

How, then, does PDIA rate against internationally prominent journals?
In the last few years European and especially British academics have
been alarmed (perhaps unduly so) by the on-going development of the
European Research Index for the Humanities
(
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
e
s
f
.
o
r
g
/
research-areas/humanities/research-infrastructures-including-erih.html)
. A research project initiated and funded by the non-governmental
European Science Foundation (www.esf.org) , it is conceived as a
counterweight to databases such as ISI Web of Knowledge which, it is
generally agreed, understate the range and impact of European research.
At present ERIH has only reached the stage of listing journals
(including non-European ones in which European research appears) -- and
it has received a bad press, chiefly owing to the initial sorting of
journals into three categories, A, B, and C, equating roughly to
international, national, and local. However one reads such a
classification, it looks very much like a qualitative hierarchy.

In response to criticism, in the last couple of years the ERIH team
(whose principal members are distinguished academics) has issued
'health warnings' to the effect that the categories are measures of a
journal's reach and purpose, not its quality, and that the draft lists
should not be used to judge the quality of works or authors (though
anecdotal evidence suggests that these warnings are sometimes ignored).
Conversations with members suggest that they plan to abandon the ABC
categorization once the initial phase is completed, though they argue
that some form of classification (beyond a simple 'kitemark' or
filtering out of journals) will always be needed since ERIH is partly
intended to be a research administration tool, not just a research aid.
However, they stress that the only valid comparisons ERIH will support
(as even a basic knowledge of statistics and a moment's reflection will
make obvious) are those framed in the aggregate -- such as comparing
the impact of research by country or discipline but not by department
or, a fortiori, by individual scholar.

Some way down the road, it is to be hoped that ERIH will play a
valuable role as a portal for European humanities journals and a source
of reliable data about them. Clear facts such as size of print run,
number of online hits, nationalities represented among authors,
editorial policy, names of databases in which a journals is indexed,
and so on -- the same kind of data as Ulrich's offers -- would allow
journals to be compared in various ways (including ways not yet
imagined) for a range of legitimate purposes. Peer emulation might even
lead to a general levelling up of journal editing and presentation.

There is a stronger view (which I do not share) that 'metrics' alone
are adequate for grading research. Recently the Times Higher Education
(formerly The Times Higher Education Supplement) reported that a team
from the Australian National University researching the last two UK
Research Assessment Exercises (which were based primarily on peer
review by carefully selected panels of academics) had concluded that
'peer review is not the most appropriate model for research assessment'
and that 'a "metrics-based model" will eliminate indirect biases'.[[6]]
If followed through, this might involve the assignment of 'impact
factors' to journals, as happens in the sciences.

As things stand, anything that smacks of the simple grading of
humanities journals arouses vehement resistance in the UK. But some
kind of formalistic comparison between journals, or articles, seems
unavoidable in the near future. Since Western governments are moving
towards metrics-led assessment, it would be better for them to be using
criteria that subject practitioners have played some part in devising,
rather than anything one can imagine civil servants inventing on their
own. So simply boycotting ERIH (for example, by declining to volunteer
circulation data or the national affiliations of editorial board
members) may be counter-productive. And the ERIH project members have
repeatedly urged those who would prefer ERIH to take a different shape
to volunteer suggestions to the team.

PDIA, at any rate, is a splendid example of why any simple attempt to
grade journals hierarchically would have adverse effects, would be
impossible to implement in most cases, and, in the end, would be of
little use. With a presumably modest paper circulation and virtually no
online presence, PDIA probably has limited 'reach'. Furthermore, a
journal without an ISSN fails one of the basic tests for inclusion in
ERIH. One might be tempted to infer that papers in such a journal must
be of lower quality. Yet PDIA does appear in the draft ERIH list for
Classics (though oddly not in the Archaeology list); and there we
discover that it does, in fact, have an ISSN (1108-149X -- visible
nowhere, as far as I can tell, in volumes 1-5 but confirmed by web
searches). Furthermore, the quality of the 40 papers in the five
volumes is generally very high. As for impact, I would be fascinated to
see, for example, reliable citation data (which may not exist) for
classic papers such as Houby-Nielsen's two studies of grave goods,[[7]]
or for the many important preliminary excavation reports.

So on these measures PDIA does begin to look like a high-class journal,
and offers clear evidence that one cannot grade a journal on the basis
of formal criteria as a way of grading papers within its covers.
Nothing can be assumed a priori about the relative quality of papers in
journals of different standing, or even of different papers in the same
journal. Papers must be evaluated on their merits. Recently I was
invited (and declined) to comment on internal promotion procedures at a
(non-UK) university which had explicitly asked me for a list of the
most prestigious journals in my subject -- presumably to help sort the
wheat from the chaff among candidates. The assumption was, no doubt,
that such a benchmark would allow them to establish the lower quality
of other journals -- and thus of the authors in them. Academics, be
warned!

That said, editors can do their contributors a big favour by ensuring
that an ISSN is clearly displayed and that their journal is brought to
the attention of major databases such as Ulrich's. On-line
availability, too, whether or not free at the point of use, is almost a
sine qua non today. PDIA is, without doubt, a journal with first-class
content, but there is a risk that its papers may have less impact than
they deserve -- even though scholars outside classical archaeology
would gain much from them.

CONTENTS

Maria Andreadaki-Vlasaki and Erik Hallager, 'New and unpublished Linear
A and Linear B inscriptions from Khania'. Pp. 7-22.

Anastasia Christophilopoulou, 'Domestic space in the Geometric
Cyclades: a study of spatial arrangements, function and household
activities in Zagora on Andros and Kastro on Siphnos'. Pp. 23-33.

Soren Dietz, Lazaros Kolonas, Ioannis Moschos, and Maria
Stavropoulou-Gatsi, 'Archaeological field work in ancient Kalydon
2001-2004: first preliminary report'. Pp. 35-60.

Bjorn Love/n, George Steinhauer, Dimitris Kourloumelis, and Mads Moller
Nielsen, 'The Zea harbour project: the first six years'. Pp. 61-74.

Mads Moeller Nielsen, 'Three pieces of the Piraean puzzle: towers M-T1,
P-T1 and P-T2'. Pp. 75-88.

Mette K. Schaldemose, 'The Zea shipsheds: new remarks on a tile deposit
and other related finds'. Pp. 89-100.

Kristian Jeppesen, 'A fresh approach to the problems of the Parthenon
frieze'. Pp. 101-72.

Antonio Corso, 'The cult and political background of the Knidian
Aphrodite'. Pp. 173-97.

Lise Bek, 'Sight, object, space: the notion of landscape in antiquity
as a functional or an aesthetic category'. Pp. 199-212.


------------------
Notes:


1.   The reviewer is grateful to the editors of BMCR for very full
comments on an earlier draft. Naturally they are not responsible for
the views expressed here, or for any errors that may remain.

2.   If I am not mistaken, the enlarged colour photograph on the jacket
was taken just before or after fig. 5 on p. 65, which shows the same
colonnade, since what appears to be a cigarette end has floated a few
metres along while maintaining its orientation. Whatever the object is,
it reminds us that these are photographs taken from above the water,
and gives the eye a useful indication of how close the remains are to
the surface.

3.   At 97 she refers to the autumn 2006 campaign as in the future,
though the results of a 2006 campaign are reported by Love/n and others
(61, 67, etc.); and earlier (93 n. 20) S. cites existing correspondence
dated September 2006. One sees here some of the disadvantages of
delayed publication.

4.   This term is not in Vitruvius's text, though he uses topium twice
at 7. 5. 2. See B.'s modification of her own view at 204 n. 10.

5.   Readers may find it interesting to juxtapose Bek's paper with
Y.-F. Tuan, Space and Place: The Perspective of Experience
(London/Minneapolis, 1977). On the question of ancient notions of
perspective, many years ago I heard Ernst Gombrich on the BBC World
Service reccalling how he had said to a colleague who had maintained
that the ancients didn't see space as we do because they didn't know
that light travels in straight lines, 'Do you mean to tell me that a
Roman couldn't hide behind a column when he wanted to?'

6.   Zoe+ Corbyn, 'A person on the panel is a clear pointer of
departmental success', THE 1888 (19 Mar. 2009), pp. 6-7.

7.   S. Houby-Nielsen, S. 1996. "Burial language" in the archaic and
classical Kerameikos', PDIA 1 (1996), 131-91; ead., 'Revival of archaic
funerary practices in the hellenistic and Roman Kerameikos', PDIA 2
(1998), 127-45.