Reset in Stone: Memory and Reuse in Ancient Athens by Sarah A. Rous

Abstract

BOOK REVIEWS/COMPTES RENDUS 363 a result, the state remained strong, and compromise played a much larger role in the eastern political economy. In the end, however, this is not a book in search of answers to big questions. It is a narrative of what happened in the political sphere, with just enough analysis to make it cohere. That is not a criticism, for there is value in such an exercise, but one wonders in this case about the target audience. It is evidently meant to be a general readership, and Kulikowski is both a reliable guide and an entertaining writer, but many will undoubtedly wilt in the face of the rapid pacing and the litany of names. Students will benefit from much here, including the series of highly legible maps (xii–xxx) and a good general index (355–382), but the book’s utility in a formal educational context is diminished by the lack of references to both primary and secondary materials as well as an editorial decision to limit the bibliography to book-length studies. The annotated suggestions for further reading (319–328), organized by century, are not an adequate substitute. Specialists will enjoy hearing Kulikowski’s perspective on the broad sweep of events, noting the scholarly controversies that bubble beneath the surface of his narrative and inevitably disagreeing with his stance from time to time, but this is still essentially cast as a popular book. It is possible that all audiences will find occasional cause for disappointment: the book may be too challenging for many readers who have little prior knowledge of the period, but also lacks the generic features that would invite engagement from students and scholars. However, anyone who is prepared for both its challenges and its limitations is likely to find it a profitable and engaging read. University of Toronto Kevin W. Wilkinson Reset in Stone: Memory and Reuse in Ancient Athens. By Sarah A. Rous. Madison, WI: The University of Wisconsin Press. 2019. Pp. xviii, 366. Scholars of ancient history and archaeology have long been familiar with and captivated by the presence of reuse in the material record, particularly in ancient Athens. The processes by which an object is transformed into another object have been described as spoliation, reuse, and recycling. In this book, Sarah Rous proposes a new label: upcycling. In Rous’s formulation, upcycling can be defined as “intentionally meaningful reuse,” or reuse wherein the “visibility of the trace”—a phrase Rous adapts from Pierre Nora’s “the materiality of the trace”—can be ascertained and analyzed (6). This focus on intentionality allows Rous to examine specific instances of reuse in ancient Athens with an eye towards social memory. The book consists of an introduction, four chapters, and an epilogue, followed by endnotes and a bibliography. The introduction lays out Rous’s argument, covers some general historiography of spolia studies and memory studies, and provides a series of six vignettes designed to illustrate the concept of upcycling. Although brief, these case studies are interesting and well chosen to highlight the flexibility of the term “upcycling” and its broad applicability across time and space. The first chapter, which focuses on instances of upcycling that involve accentuation of the reuse, is engaging and successful in demonstrating the usefulness of Rous’s concept. Rous begins with a familiar example of reuse that is not upcycling: the Themistoklean city wall built after the Persian destruction of Athens in 480/79 b.c.e. In Rous’s reading of the wall, the reuse was not intended to be visible or meaningful and there was no clear 364 PHOENIX motivation for it beyond rapidity and economics; in other words, the reuse of material in the Themistoklean wall did not foster a particular communal memory for the Athenians and therefore is not an example of upcycling. Rous then compares this with the North Akropolis wall, also rebuilt following the Persian destruction. In this instance, the careful selection and reconstruction of parts of the Old Parthenon and Old Athena Temple so that they would be visible and recognizable does show the intentionality behind the reuse, conveys meaning, and would have affected communal memory. Rous then juxtaposes this counterexample and...