Review

Reviewed Work(s):
Le système palatial en Orient, en Grèce et à Rome. Actes du colloque de Strasbourg 19-
22 juin 1985
by E. Lévy
Review by: John Bennet
Source: American Journal of Archaeology , Jul., 1989, Vol. 93, No. 3 (Jul., 1989), pp.
468-470
Published by: Archaeological Institute of America

Stable URL: http://www.jstor.com/stable/505605

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 support@jstor.org.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

Archaeological Institute of America is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and

extend access to American Journal of Archaeology

This content downloaded from

62.1.171.122 on Wed, 22 Jul 2020 09:58:45 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
468 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGY [AJA 93

tration of an Athenian theme of harmony social and economicwith organization

the sea, associated
as with these
important to the Athenians as thestructures. theme of Athenian
In short, the term "palace"au-
has a double reference
tochthony illustrated in scenes of the (architectural
birth and of cultural) and, in addition, covers a very
Erichthonios.
A. Bresson, noticing structural similarities wide range of in myths
specific of col-
manifestations.
ony foundation, explains the killing of the
Given a widespread
father use figure in the present col-
of the term,
these myths as a solution to the problems lection of 22 of succession
papers and
delivered at a colloquium in Strasbourg
separation of the colony from the parent in 1985 city.
is particularly welcome, since it seems to offer a
In the concluding section on imperial chance offigures,
clarifying what P.exactly
Briant is implied by the term,
uses epigraphical evidence to argue that the spreadfeatures
and-importantly-what of Persian
are shared by all systems
divinities westward to Asia Minor does not conflict with the to which the term "palace" is applied. The expressed aim of
literary evidence for Persian toleration of indigenous cults in the collection (p. 3) is to define the basic functions of the
conquered territory, but was the result of the dispersal of political systems associated with the palaces and to establish
Persian communities to new areas of the Empire. Three of how form-defined by archaeology, and particularly by
the concluding articles deal with the creation of Roman im- study of architecture-relates to these political functions.
perial ideology. R. Etienne traces the shift in Roman con- The term "systeme palatial" is preferred to "systeme monar-
cepts of imperial aeternitas from the first through the fourth chique" to permit consideration both of private aspects of the
centuries. E. Smadja argues from the formulae of dedications system (the king and his family) and public aspects (the pal-
in N. Africa in the second and third centuries that the concept ace as center of power). The papers focus cross-culturally on
of victory and its relation to the emperor underwent impor- the palace as a political system not only in the Near East and
tant changes. She explains the high concentration of dedica- the Bronze Age Aegean, but also in the Hellenistic and Ro-
tions to Victoria in North Africa by the military aggression man worlds.
necessary to keep local populations in check, especially in The contributions are arranged within the volume by
Mauretania. M.-C. L'Huillier, drawing on work of Barthes area, and chronologically within each area: five deal with
and Marin, analyzes Latin panegyrics from Gaul to examine the Near East, nine with the Minoan-Mycenaean world
the fluid relationship between rhetoric (parole) and political (including one on the Homeric world), three with the Hel-
power in the third and fourth centuries. She concentrates on lenistic, and five with the Roman world. It is interesting to
five panegyrics in honor of Constantine to show how the de- note that more papers are concerned with the palace systems
velopment of imperial theology accommodated the legitimi- of Bronze Age Crete and mainland Greece than with any
zation of Christianity. other area or time period, a reflection of the recent resur-
The collection as a whole illustrates a variety of tradi- gence of serious scholarly interest in understanding the
tional and innovative approaches to the material, presenting functions of these building complexes (see, for example, the
structural analysis of literary texts, semiotic analysis of icon- recently published proceedings of the 1984 Swedish Sym-
ography and cultural systems, theoretical models drawn posium in Athens: Higg and Marinatos eds., The Function
from other disciplines, as well as straightforward empirical of the Minoan Palaces [Stockholm 1987]).
discussions of archaeological and epigraphical evidence. It is impossible-and beyond this reviewer's compe-
SUSAN GUETTEL COLE tence-to deal with each contribution in detail. Neverthe-
DEPARTMENT OF HISTORY less, the papers can be summarized and some general points
brought out along the way. In the Near Eastern section, the
UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT CHICAGO

CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 6o68o contributions range in time from the fourth millennium
B.C. to the Achaemenid period. In the first contribution, J.
LE SYSTEME PALATIAL EN ORIENT, EN Margueron
GRiCE ET examines
A the evidence for the origins of the pa-
latial system
ROME. ACTES DU COLLOQUE DE STRASBOURG 19-22 in Mesopotamia. He suggests that a distinctive
architectural form emerges relatively suddenly in the Jem-
JUIN 1985, edited by E. Levy. (Universite des Sci-
det Nasr period (Uruk III), but wisely warns that the ap-
ences Humaines de Strasbourg, Travauxpearance
du Centre
of this architectural form does not necessarily sig-
de Recherche sur le Proche-Orient et la Grace An- nify the appearance of the institution of the palace at the
tiques 9.) Pp. 502, figs. 72. E.J. Brill, Leiden 1987. same time. Instead, he prefers to see buildings in earlier pe-
riods as "centers of power," with functions somewhat anal-
The word "palace" comes to us via Old French from theogous to those of the later palaces. J.-M. Durand next pro-
Latin "Palatium," which originally referred to one of thevides a 70-page analysis of the different sectors of the palace
hills of Rome, but later-as we are reminded by two of theat Mari employing the texts found within each of these units
contributors to this volume-came to denote more specifi-to reconstruct their functions within the overall palace com-
cally the residences of the Roman emperors constructed plex. This detailed analysis of texts in their archaeological
there. The word has shifted from a specific topographicalcontext reminds us of the value of an integrative approach
reference to a specific cultural meaning, which in turn has (cf. that performed using the less rich Aegean textual data
become generalized in modern usage to "any large or splen- by the contributors to Pylos Comes Alive [New York 1984]).
did residence." Archaeologists have applied the term "pal-Third, D. Charpin considers the role of the palace in 18th-
ace" not only to the specific Roman architectural forms to17th century B.C. Babylonia. Stressing the importance of
which it referred in antiquity, but also to the large centers ofattempting to counteract the predominance of textual data
power which arose in the ancient Near East and in therelating solely to large central organizations, he argues for
Bronze Age Aegean, and, more generally still, to the types of
the existence of a non-palatial sector in the economy con-

This content downloaded from

62.1.171.122 on Wed, 22 Jul 2020 09:58:45 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 1989] BOOK REVIEWS 469

sisting mainly theof wealthy

destruction of Pylos was certainly a resultnobl
of military
adds a second contribution exam
action which the palace was attempting to avert by various
the palace in Syria. Comparing
means. More generally, he concludes that palatial control ofth
aces with those both
military of was
organization and personnel Mesopo
total within its ter-
finds the Syrianritory. P. type to
Carlier provides a useful be
summary of the dist
Linear B
Eastern section evidence
closes for cults and sanctuaries
with in the Mycenaean
a cont world
the palaces of the
which should be Achaemenid
read in conjunction with S. Hiller's article
and Persepolis in Higg and how
and Marinatos eds., Sanctuaries
they and Cults in the
refl
ography, the Aegean Bronze Age (Stockholm 1981).
importance ofHe includes
the two ap- k
The nine Aegean contributions
pendices: a list of those Pylos documents relating to sanc-
early palaces ontuaries, Crete
and a list of sanctuariesto
within thethePylian kingdom."H
fenterre opens the
In the course of thissection with
review, he makes some important gen-
raised at the eral points about handling dataon
conference on Aegeanthesanctuaries. f
aces mentioned above. He treats these functions under six Concerning archaeological data, he maintains that (contrary
headings: Monumentality, Entertainment, Cult, Adminis-to the view of some scholars) there were separate cult build-
tration, Centralized Economy, and Education. In his opin-ings (e.g., the Idol Room at Mycenae; the Keos temple), that
ion, the currently fashionable problems ("problimes a lathe fact that there were no large cult buildings does not nec-
mode"-measured in terms of their frequency of occurrence essarily mean that large cult organizations did not exist, and
at the symposium) are the religious role of the palaces, thethat the reconstruction of ceremonies, sanctuary organiza-
existence and character of palatial workshops, and the exact tion, and the social and economic role of sanctuaries solely
nature of palatial commerce. 0. Pelon begins the substan- on the basis of archaeological data is difficult. He sees the
tive papers in this section with an examination-based on Linear B data as an important source of evidence, while he
work at Mallia-of the origins of the Minoan palaces, quite reminds us that the documents must be used with care, since
rightly stressing the importance of understanding the formsthey are accounting texts and have a distinct central bias. J.
of the first palaces which are often obscured by later re- Chadwick provides a brief survey of the economic evidence
mains. He concludes that the EM III/MM IA period seesoffered by the Linear B tablets, focusing on the problems of
an architectural transition from the EM II pre-palatial vil-rations and land tenure texts. In the opening paragraph, he
lages to the fully-fledged palaces of MM IB, suggesting, asthanks John Killen, and readers should also turn to Killen's
Margueron has already done for Mesopotamia, that chang-own article (in Duhoux and Morpurgo Davies eds., Linear
es were already underway before the palatial form appears. B: A 1984 Survey [Louvain 1985]) for a more complete sum-
With K. Kilian's paper, the scene shifts to mainland Greece, mary. Finally, E. Levy discusses the palace system in the
and the origins of palatial structures there. Kilian traces theHomeric corpus, examining the contexts in which the terms
double-palace (or double megaron) form backward from its'vaf and pao-LXEt (and their verbal derivatives) occur. As
attestations in LH IIIB to the LH II period (e.g., in the one might have expected, the uses of the two words are not
Menelaion). This form, he argues, is probably based on a
MH architectural tradition. In this context, he singles outwas perfectly complementary,
perceived but inthey
as the "king" (often the do tend
divine to show
sphere, for that va,4
the palace at Pylos in its earlier phases (LH II-IIIA) as a example) as opposed to pao-rLXE4t, meaning a "king." In
distinct exception, embodying-according to Kilian's inge-tune with much recent scholarship on the relevance of Ho-
nious and well-illustrated reconstructions-Minoan fea- mer, Levy sees in this textual situation evidence for the tran-
tures, most notably a central court. H. Lauter deals withsition
a from a social system based on personal subordination
possible reconstruction, on the basis of three architectural
(the palace system) to a system based on function within so-
fragments, of a monumental gateway at Mycenae on the ciety (the 7oW? s).
ramp leading up to the megaron. From this reconstruction, S. Le Bohec, apropos of remarks made by Tarn in 1913
he proposes that the area of the "palace" may have been about the Antigonids, opens the Hellenistic-Roman section
more extensive than simply the megaron complex itself. with a detailed examination of the make-up of the court of
J.-P. Olivier returns us to Crete, but in the area of tex-
the Antigonid kings. W. Peremans follows with an inter-
tual, rather than architectural, evidence. He offers a stim-
esting reconsideration of how (and exactly when) the Lagid
ulating comparison of the types of documents preserved indynasty in Egypt integrated itself with the local ruling elites
Linear A and Linear B and their findspots. He suggests that
in order to form an effective "bicephalic monarchy." Lauter
the Linear A documents, with their generally smaller en- (again) returns us to architecture and a formal analysis of
tries, may reflect smaller-scale organizations ("estates")
the areas surrounding the residences of Hellenistic kings, for
than those of the Linear B documents ("palaces"), whichwhich he uses the Roman term "regia." P. Marzolff appends
would fit with what this reviewer sees as a more centralized
a brief note to Lauter's contribution pointing out some pecu-
administration in the Linear B period on Crete (cf. AJA 91 liarities of the "regia" at Demetrias.
[1987] 295). Olivier does, however, sound a note of caution With Y. Perrin's contribution, we move into the Roman
concerning the findspots of Linear A documents: there are world. A common thread running through all the Roman
very few from strictly palatial contexts and our best-attested
contributions is that of the ideology behind the palaces con-
archive is from Agia Triada, a site whose exact status within
structed by the Roman rulers. Perrin considers the ideology
the Minoan palace system remains unclear. L. Godart re- behind Nero's Domus Aurea, and includes a useful discus-
views the Linear B evidence for palatial control of weapons
sion of early imperial terminology: the domus, the palatium,
and military personnel. He reiterates the popular view that
and the aula. The employment of the term domus (originally

This content downloaded from

62.1.171.122 on Wed, 22 Jul 2020 09:58:45 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 470 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGY [AJA 93

amined in detail become

just a "home") by the emperors is significant of enormously difficult to define. The
their desire
present
to play down their superior role, as collection certainly
opposed to the makes
termclear just
pa-how difficult it
latium used by others to describe would
the be buildings on the
to formulate any unifying Pa-Nevertheless,
definition.
the papers
latine, and the borrowed, and usually make a stimulating
pejorative, term contribution
aula. and have the
Leading on from this analysis, H. great
Pavisbenefitd'Escurac examines
of providing both a broad range of approaches
and a considerable
the role and importance of the emperor's chronological
personal depth.
establish-
ment (the familia Caesaris). M. Corbier studies the part JOHN BENNET
played by the emperor in managing DEPARTMENT
Rome'sOF fiscal
CLASSICS
and grain
reserves, viewing this as a large-scale redistributive oper-
VAN HISE HALL

ation, and stressing the fine propaganda line walked be-

UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN-MADISON

MADISON,
tween largesse and meanness. E. Frezouls WISCONSIN the
considers 53706 Ju-
lio-Claudian buildings on the Palatine, and associates the
apparently late appearance of whatTHE he
HISTORY AND CULTURE
regards as OF ANCIENT WESTERN
a fully-
fledged palace at Rome not only with the
ASIA ANDpreferences of Knapp.
EGYPT, by A. Bernard the Pp. xvi +
Julio-Claudians to play down their status, but also with the
284, maps 11, numerous figs. and pls. The Dorsey
Republican tradition of alternating residence between town
and country. N. Duval concludes the Press, Chicago 1988.
volume with a look at
the palatial system in late antiquity. He sees a codification of
Knapp's volume offers an up-to-date, judicious survey of
the palatial system, but a codification which is not directly
the history, and to a lesser extent, the culture, of Western
reflected in a standardization of architectural form.
Asia and Egypt from earliest human remains through the
Despite the professed aim, the effect of these 22 contri-
Persian Empire. There are also brief sections on the Mino-
butions focusing on three major areas of the Old World is to
ans and Mycenaeans (though not Cyprus) and the Hittites
stress the specifics of each case, rather than to generalize (though little on other Anatolian civilizations of the time
about features of the palace system, thus reinforcing differ-
range covered). Any teacher of a college level course in the
ences rather than broad similarities. One wonders if per- ancient Near East will admire the author's achievement, for
haps the only unifying theme is provided by the editor's im-
he has covered a vast amount of material in one compact
plication (p. 3) that the palatial system had a single point of volume and presented it in a clear, logical manner. Indeed,
origin in third-millennium Mesopotamia from which it this is the best survey of its kind in English. While "general
spread and was modified. This reviewer feels that more readers" may still prefer the sometimes more lively and
could have been done to integrate the different areas and more closely focused paperbacks in their bookstores that
approaches into a unified context, for example by providing deal with the Egyptians, the Sumerians, the Hittites, and so
an opening or a concluding overview. forth, Knapp's History and Culture has a lot to offer the
A number of important general points are, however, serious reader who wants an overview of ancient Near East-
raised. The detection of a palatial system's origin is a prob- ern history before Alexander.
lematic one. What we are in fact trying to do is to squeeze a There is much here that is not found in other historical
broad range of social and economic changes into a narrow surveys of its type, for example, a section on Ebla and Old
architectural pigeonhole. One can define archaeologically Syrian culture, and remarks on Mesopotamian music.
when a particular architectural type emerges, but, as Mar- There is more and better informed discussion of social and
gueron suggests, it is likely that some sort of institutional economic history than is commonly found in such a work,
change may already have taken place. The possible parallels and which is ignored even in much larger works such as the
between the relatively sudden architectural changes which Cambridge Ancient History. Some attempt, not always very
take place in the Near East in the Jemdet Nasr period and successful, is made to discuss literature and, to a lesser ex-
on Crete in MM IB are interesting. In both cases, consid- tent, art and architecture. There is a greater stress on tech-
erable societal changes may well have predated the changes nology than is found in comparable surveys.
in architectural form. Even when considering fully-fledged As one would expect with such an ambitious endeavor,
palatial societies, it is useful to throw the evidential net (es-
there are errors and defects that revised editions will, one
pecially for archaeology, but also for textual evidence) a lit-
hopes, serve to expunge. Some are minor: "Sargonid" for
tle wider than simply examining the forms of central build- "Sargonic" (p. 93), "Akkadian" for "Assyrian" (p. 138), "live
ings, and to look at changes at a regional scale. Indeed such a
language" for "living language" (p. 82), incorrect translation
macroview might well help clarify some important differ- of the name of the Babylonian treatise "When the exorcist"
ences between societies whose central buildings might be (p. 275), a 30-year reign for Naram-Sin (p. 85), a reference
termed "palaces," but which might function rather differ- to the mythical palace school at Mari (p. 146). There are a
ently from one another. A related point is that in a situation
certain number of needless repetitions (for example, the
where our textual data are extensive-like that of Helle- twice-told death of Ur-Nammu, pp. 93-94); there are incon-
nistic Greece or Imperial Rome-there is a tendency to rel- sistencies (for example, "Shellush-Dagan" on the map, p. 64,
egate the archaeological data to a subordinate status. The but Sellush-Dagan in the text, p. 92-better abandon both
relative abundance of textual versus archaeological data in for Puzrish-Dagan), Dungi once for Shulgi (p. 99), Nannar
each area very much determines the different approaches for Nanna (pp. 80, 99), karum not indicated as being in the
embodied in this volume.
glossary (p. 142). There are odd and barely recognizable
"Palaces," like other generalizing terms in archaeology spellings, such as Shubartu (p. 85) and Khalku (p. 22), for
and anthropology, such as "states" or "chiefdoms," when ex- Calah/Kalhu. There are fairly serious errors too: the Gilga-

This content downloaded from

62.1.171.122 on Wed, 22 Jul 2020 09:58:45 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms