BOOK REVIEWS/COMPTES RENDUS 203 situate in the reader in real space as Newby deftly moves between different media and contexts. This wide-ranging work will be most useful to advanced-level classics students, post-graduates, and specialists.
City University of New York Sarah Madole
Le travail des peaux et du cuir dans le monde grec antique: Tentative d'une archÂeologie du disparu appliquÂee au cuir. By Benoit Dercy. Naples:
Centre Jean B´erard 45. 2015. Pp. vi, 266, ills.
Ancient Greek leatherwork has received little scholarly attention, in part perhaps because of the general absence of leather objects in archaeological finds. This has formed a very real handicap in understanding the development of leatherworking in antiquity, but Benoit Dercy here amply redresses that lack of information. In particular, the author deserves the gratitude of all non-classicists interested in ancient technology for making a huge collection of Greek and Latin texts available in both the original and in translation, and for his thorough discussion of contentious issues concerning these sources. For the first time it is possible for archaeologists such as myself to appreciate the true richness of the Greek legacy. As I cannot comment on linguistic aspects, my focus will be on the contribution this study makes to the history of leatherworking technology.
The sheer quantity and range of the literary sources gathered here is remarkable: from plays to figures of speech and papyri, covering the entire span of Greek antiquity from the sixth century b.c. to the sixth century a.d. and beyond. Four appendices tabulate the sources consulted, summarising the information and clarifying the frequency of usage.
The author has made a very real effort to ensure accessibility and ease of reference, with a clear and logical arrangement of the subject matter, an extensive bibliography, and ample means of cross-referencing.
Following an introduction to methodology and the practical aspects of leather tech- nology in general, Chapter One (17–58) examines the materials and procedures used to transform pelts into leather. The lengthy second chapter (59–156) covers every conceiv- able purpose for which leather might be used, from shields and shoes to dildos and the cord Athenian youths used to neaten up their foreskins. The list is long and sometimes amusing, beyond the wildest imaginings of the archaeologist confronted with surviving leatherwork from the Roman or medieval periods. The literature presents a lively picture of the demeanour of the shoemaker at work, using his hands and teeth as well as metal, bone, or wooden tools, something not easily conjured up by archaeological means alone and emphasising the importance of integrating all sources of information in technolog- ical studies. There is a large amount of practical information buried in allusions and even names, and it is very much to the author’s credit that he has explored such diverse references.
Chapter Three (159–186) explores issues concerning the workshops that produced leather, looking at their degree of specialisation, their organisation, whether their work- force was slave or free, and the nature of the interaction between the figures depicted on vases or reliefs. The author correctly points out that interpretations of these interactions are strongly coloured by current understanding of the Greek economy, and it is here particularly that his meticulous discussion of the sources makes a significant contribution to the debate. Although it may be questioned whether poets and writers always used
204 PHOENIX
terms and expressions in an exact, technical, sense, the texts offer unique insights into procedures and practices, for instance the role of sacrifice in the supply of skins and the presence of child labour. It is interesting to note the continuation of simpler, traditional skin treatments in the countryside, while in town larger scale professional tanneries were in operation. This is a useful reminder that technological change is a gradual process.
In the final chapter (187–200) the author examines tanners and leatherworkers through the prism of satirists and philosophers. Here, as well as in the analysis of fables and sim- iles that are quoted throughout the study (collected in Annex 4, 221–224), the author presents us with an insight into the attitudes of contemporaries to tanning and leather- working, industries that were regarded as both polluting as well as useful. Above all, he demonstrates that a sound grasp of the manufacturing processes (evidenced in the first section) is essential to the understanding of the implicit messages in even minor literature.
The source material is grouped according to the procedure under review, so that rele- vant quotations can be easily compared. However, the thematic presentation is sometimes misleading since differences in time and location can be obscured. Herodotus has much to say on leather and is quoted frequently throughout the study, despite the fact that most of these passages refer not to Greek craftsmanship but to the practices of barbarian tribes, and the accounts form part of the discourse between civilization and otherness—as the author observes elsewhere (77–79).
Somewhat surprisingly, there is little attempt to analyse developments in either tech- nology or organisation. The combination of comments from widely differing periods results in a curiously timeless narrative, especially in the first chapter where manufactur- ing processes are reviewed. The sources may be inadequate, but it is to be expected that fashions in shoes and sandals will change, that words will undergo shifts in meaning, and that the contacts with Asia and Italy will have left their mark. Above all, the practical consequences of the distinction between curing and vegetable tanning are hardly touched on. This may be regarded as a peculiarly archaeological problem, but the question cer- tainly influences the literary record.
Technically speaking, the simpler forms of skin processing are termed “curing,” while
“tanning” is reserved for complex procedures involving the use of vegetable tannins. It is evident from the descriptions of shields and armour in Homer that these were made of rawhide or cured leather. Vegetable tanning is a later development, with Theophrastus being the first to list agents used specifically for tanning in the fourth century b.c. The lack of lexical precision in classical texts suggests an imperfect understanding of the processes involved: indeed, some of the accusations of fraud levelled at leatherworkers in fifth- to fourth-century sources may well reflect the irregular results of experimentation at a time of transition. It is also noticeable that from the fourth century b.c. on references to cured skins tend to become humorous or derogatory, being associated with peasants and barbarians.
A similar question arises concerning the depictions of shoemakers (10–11, 54). The discussion of the three known vase paintings depicting shoemakers is especially valu- able, as they are frequently reproduced in popular publications without further comment.
Here, and in the treatment of the leatherworkers themselves in the literature, I would have appreciated some comparison to the portrayal of other craftsmen. Are depictions of shoemakers different in number, or in any way unusual? It is striking that the vase paintings all date to ca 520–460 b.c., and are therefore contemporary to the literary out-
BOOK REVIEWS/COMPTES RENDUS 205 put most frequently quoted by Dercy in this study. If this pattern is truly representative, it is surely significant that this is the period that witnessed the development of vegetable tanning. The transition to new methods may have been regarded as profoundly disturb- ing, particularly because it was very visible. Simple curing can be carried out piecemeal, but tanning implies an increase in scale, since it is a capital- and labour-intensive process with delayed returns. Might the fear of the social consequences of this concentration of resources in the hands of wealthy individuals have been a factor in the choice of craftsmen to lampoon in plays?
Thanks to the extent and variety of the sources consulted and the detailed discussion of the references, this volume represents a fundamental contribution to the study of ancient technology, making the information available to those without a linguistic background who are interested primarily in the craft of leatherworking. The author also demonstrates convincingly that a thorough understanding of the technology of production is essential for the correct interpretation of the written record. There are many other “invisible”
technologies that would benefit from a similarly multi-faceted approach.
University of Leiden Carol van Driel-Murray
Alexandre: ExÂegÁese des lieux communs. By Pierre Briant. Paris: ´Editions Gallimard (Collection Folio Histoire no 259). 2016. Pp. 660, 16 b/w illustrations, 10 color.
Pierre Briant'snew book displays erudition, keen judgment, and verve in analyzing an amazing diversity of sources and controversies from antiquity to the present concerning how to write the history of Alexander and the history that followed upon his expedition into Asia, and how to evaluate the cultural consequences he directly and—to an even greater extent—indirectly set in motion.
Briant details the “commonplaces,” the topoi that appear over and over again in schol- arly and popular works about Alexander. These commonplaces, broadly speaking, involve evaluating Alexander positively or negatively, and interpreting his expedition either as a
“civilizing mission” (an interpretation Briant traces back to Plutarch) bringing a superior
“Western” culture to a despotic and dysfunctional “East,” or (to overstate it only a little) as a relentless campaign of violence against “others” by a killer reveling in massacres. The overarching context is Briant’s insistence on the necessity for reorienting the history of Alexander from a Hellenocentric focus to one encompassing Achaemenid history.
Briant’s wondrous Table of Contents reveals a volume of complex breadth and depth displaying its author’s multi-layered, thematically intertwined approach.1 Interspersed with matter-of-fact titles are allusive phrases such as “Sous le masque de l’uchronie.”
“Uchronie,” a neologism on the model of “utopia” created by Charles Renouvier for the title of a 1876 novel, is here compared to the Anglophone concept of “counterfactual history,” the “What If?” question as applied to Alexander. Similarly intriguing is “La mort du ‘vampire’?,” which comes from Droysen’s assertion that Persian domination had sucked up the force of the economic life of the people of the empire “like a vampire” (281), an alleged failure that Alexander’s assumed monetization of the economy revitalized. In
1The table of contents is available at https://www.academia.edu/29557958/Alexandre. Ex%C3%
A9g%C3%A8se des lieux communs.
