Previous articleNext article FreeBook ReviewEtruscan Literacy in Its Social Context Edited by Ruth D. Whitehouse (Accordia Specialist Studies on Italy 18). London: Accordia Research Institute 2020. Pp. x + 200. £40. ISBN 978-1-873415-375 (paper).Katherine McDonaldKatherine McDonaldDepartment of Classics and Ancient History, Durham University Search for more articles by this author PDFPDF PLUSFull Text Add to favoritesDownload CitationTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints Share onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditEmailQR Code SectionsMoreThis collection of papers arises from a conference held at the University of London, 22–23 September 2010. Whitehouse’s introduction notes the “rich and varied response” to the theme, and there certainly is a diversity of perspectives on display across the 13 chapters, which range from detailed analyses to short initial considerations of new data sets and ongoing projects (see the table of contents, available for download on the publisher’s website). They are linked by a clear emphasis on the materiality of writing, joining a rich field of recent work such as Hella Eckardt’s book on writing equipment (Writing and Power in the Roman World, Cambridge University Press 2017), Kristina Milnor’s work on graffiti (Graffiti and the Literary Landscape in Roman Pompeii, Oxford University Press 2014), and numerous others.Epigraphic analysis is, naturally, important to many of the papers in the volume, while some chapters also engage extensively with linguistic (Maras; Belfiore and Medori) and art historical methods (Bonfante; Harari). Gran-Aymerich and Hadas-Lebel take a statistical approach to the findspots of inscribed Etruscan ceramics in their short paper. There is a particular cluster of work on ceramics in this volume (Gran-Aymerich and Hadas-Lebel; Belfiore and Medori; Maras; Paleothodoros; Biella; Bonfante), but more unusual writing surfaces such as gems (Ambrosini) and perishable materials (Becker) are also addressed.Some contributions take a broad perspective on the overall theme, such as Di Fazio’s chapter, which takes on long-standing debates about the extent of literacy, coming down in favor of Cornell’s higher estimate (cf. S. Stoddart and J. Whitley, “The Social Context of Literacy in Archaic Greece and Etruria,” Antiquity 62, 1988, 761–72; T. Cornell “The Tyranny of the Evidence: A Discussion of the Possible Uses of Literacy in Etruria and Latium in the Archaic Age,” in M. Beard et al., Literacy in the Roman World, Journal of Roman Archaeology Supp. 3, 1991, 7–33). Whitehouse takes a likewise comprehensive approach in her chapter on personal names from across the Etruscan area.Other chapters discuss particular sites, such as Poggio Civitate (Tuck and Wallace), the tombs of Punta della Vipera and Caere (Gran-Aymerich and Hadas-Lebel), and the Pyrgi sanctuary (Gran-Aymerich and Hadas-Lebel; Harari). But most of the chapters discuss single categories of inscription, such as potters’ signatures (Belfiore and Medori), inscriptions by dedicators (Maras), inscriptions on painted pots (Paleothodorus), inscriptions that appear not to match their accompanying image (Bonfante), and inscriptions on gems (Ambrosini). This review has space for more in-depth discussion of just a few of these chapters.Belfiore and Medori’s contribution on artists’ signatures provides a key intervention in the study of this kind of inscription. This is an area of study where a misleading belief in Greek exceptionalism is widespread: the authors provide a welcome counterpoint to the oft-repeated idea that only in Greece were works of art signed. As they note, although signatures appear less often among Etruscan works than among Greek, they are numerous enough to merit study in their own right. The names of the craftsmen signing their work typically indicate free status (praenomen and gentilicium), are accompanied by a verb of making (muluvanice, zinace, or synonym), and are concentrated between the late seventh and early sixth centuries BCE, when Etruscan and Faliscan artwork was particularly highly valued. The authors take a cautious approach to what counts as a “signature,” considering the method of writing (scratched before or after firing, or painted) and position on the vessel. There is a careful analysis of the verb forms in comparison with Greek and Italic usage. The links made between signatures, the economics of long-distance trade in the Etruscan area, and practices of elite gift-giving are convincing. It is a shame that, after detailed analysis, the authors do not draw these threads together into an overall conclusion.This chapter can be considered along with Paleothodoros’ contribution on painted inscriptions on ceramics, including both signatures and tags on scenes. He takes a highly contextualized approach to these inscriptions, examining them on their objects and within the context of the image where they appear. Again, there are comparisons to Attic and other contemporary practices, placing these painted inscriptions in their wider Mediterranean context.Two papers on very short inscriptions also stand out for their contribution. Both papers derive from the work of ongoing projects, and, as both sets of authors say, they consist of only a preliminary sketch of methods and results. The statistical approach to short inscriptions, mainly on ceramics, by Gran-Aymerich and Hadas-Lebel takes a new perspective on a plentiful but underutilized source of material. Bagnasco Gianni and de Grummond’s chapter on nonletter signs and inscriptions consisting of single letters, commonly found in places such as the foot of a ceramic vessel, reflects a growing interest in this kind of nonverbal written material. They call these inscriptions sigla, and, as they note, these signs are rarely even documented sufficiently let alone studied systematically. By providing names and descriptions for the most common sigla (117–18), they have provided a key point of reference for future research in this area across the epigraphic languages of Italy. Further publications from both projects will be very welcome.Maras’ chapter deals with evidence of an oral poetic tradition in the surviving Etruscan material. Perhaps its most interesting element is the possibility of a verse inscription with a named female author (129–31). He argues that this should not surprise us, given the apparently high social level of Etruscan women reported in other sources and the roughly contemporary career of Sappho. There is much to consider here, and these longer inscriptions certainly go beyond the usual formulaic nature of Etruscan writing whether or not we believe any of them to be provably written by female poets. But the existence of an Etruscan verse tradition should certainly be taken into consideration more widely when considering the writing of the Orientalizing period.Becker’s chapter on Etruscan archives brings together diverse sources to answer a quite unusual set of questions about evidence that does not survive. In perhaps the most original paper in the volume, she argues convincingly that the Etruscan elite home was “an important social and political locus that provided a venue for the storage of archives” (159). Part of Becker’s argument involves projecting back from Late Republican and Early Imperial sources, such as the Elogia Tarquiniensia, which imply the existence of long-standing familial record keeping, genealogical inscriptions in tombs from Tarquinia and Orvieto, and comparisons with better-documented Roman practices. Overall, this contribution fits with the wider interest in first-millennium elite families and their political organization (see, e.g., N. Terrenato, The Early Roman Expansion into Italy: Elite Negotiation and Family Agendas, Cambridge University Press 2019).Something that comes across throughout the volume is the interconnectedness of the world of Etruscan writing. Nothing can be taken in isolation—Greek, Roman, and Italic connections and comparisons must always be taken into account. The interaction between Etruscan and Greek craftsmen is felt particularly profoundly. Etruscan inscriptions appear alongside Greek ones; artists name themselves in both Etruscan and Greek (e.g., Praxias aka Arnthe, as mentioned by Bonfante, 145); Greek names appear in Etruscan inscriptions; Etruscan craftsmen wrote Greek inscriptions on gems made by Greek artisans (Ambrosini, 106). In one notable case, the inscription metru menace on an Attic pot seems to indicate an Athenian (named Metron) working in Athens who signed his work intended for export in Etruscan (83–84 for Paleothodoros’ careful analysis of the debate here). Bilingualism and connectivity are constant themes.The time that has passed between the original conference and its publication (because of the sad death of co-organizer John Wilkins) means that this volume joins a rich field of work on Etruscan and Italian literacy, rather than necessarily pushing the discipline forward. Some of the very short chapters, in particular, are preliminary sketches of new projects rather than fully developed arguments, and in places the reader would benefit from firmer conclusions. Chapters such as Becker’s stand out in the volume for their detail and state of completion. It seems that the editor’s view is that there is still a great deal more to be done under current frameworks rather than rushing to embrace new ones: her answer to the question “where do we go now?” is, “more of the same” (5).The whole volume is well edited, with plentiful images and diagrams. A few of the images are lower quality than might be desirable, particularly some of the maps, but they nonetheless add value to the discussion. This is a useful collection for anyone working on Etruscan or ancient Italian writing in the first millennium BCE and signposts a number of ongoing projects of interest in the field.Notes[email protected] Previous articleNext article DetailsFiguresReferencesCited by American Journal of Archaeology Volume 127, Number 1January 2023 The journal of the Archaeological Institute of America Views: 163Total views on this site Article DOIhttps://doi.org/10.1086/723515HistoryPublished online November 06, 2022 Copyright © 2023 by the Archaeological Institute of AmericaPDF download Crossref reports no articles citing this article.